Miscopy

Tag: Police State

  • Larken Rose on How Reality Has a Built-in Reward and Deterrent System

    Larken Rose on How Reality Has a Built-in Reward and Deterrent System

    In the video titled “Your Own Damn Fault“, Larken Rose argues that reality has a built-in reward and deterrent system that is effective if the consequences are immediate and obvious. However, many people are not aware of this because the consequences of their actions are not immediate enough for them to recognize that it is their own fault.

    He uses examples such as how Trump supporters cannot deny that Biden’s inflation was caused by Trump’s socialist policies, and how the high crime rates in disarmed areas are due to the victims’ lack of weapons. Rose concludes that people’s political and personal choices can have long-term consequences that they will have to face, and it is their own fault for reaching those consequences.

    Larken Rose then addresses the ongoing murder of civilians in other countries committed by the US military. He argues that these actions have led to a boiling point where some people feel justified in responding violently, even if it means harming innocents. He also criticizes the idea of supporting the troops and the military, arguing that their actions ultimately harm civilians and serve corporate interests.

    Larken Rose further touches upon the issue of police brutality in the US, arguing that the police are not always protecting innocent people, but rather are involved in road piracy and are more interested in justifying their actions than in stopping true criminals. He ultimately questions the idea of supporting the sheriffs and the police, arguing that their actions often harm innocent people and do not truly protect the innocent.

    According to Larken Rose, law enforcement is not synonymous with freedom or justice, but rather is used to control the population through violence and intimidation. He argues that drugs and other “vice” laws have only made society more dangerous and violent, as they create a black market where organized crime can thrive.

    He uses the example of alcohol prohibition to illustrate this point, noting that the Mafia took control of the alcohol trade and created widespread corruption and violence. Larken Rose suggests that ending the War on Drugs and legalizing drugs like marijuana would help to reduce violence and abolish organized crime.

    Larken Rose goes on to argue that government intrusion into various aspects of people’s lives, including poverty levels, homelessness, food waste, and housing regulations, are ultimately the result of the problem being created by the left. He suggests that the left relies on keeping people dependent on the government and believes that government hostility is necessary for the common good.

    He draws on personal anecdotes to illustrate how such policies have caused hardships for people, including homelessness and job losses. He believes that government violence is a major contributing factor to society’s problems, and that it is essential to recognize one’s limitations and avoid imposing them on others.

    Larken Rose then challenges the validity of conservative claims to a right to freedom. He further suggests that the remoteness of the consequence from the cause often leads to cheering for a solution without understanding its true nature and its impact on society.

    Larken Rose is critical of not just conservatives but also the political left, arguing that many of their economic regulations and support for government welfare harm people. He concludes that people need to understand the causes and effects of their actions, recognize the failings of their political beliefs, and take responsibility for their mistakes if they truly care about justice and society’s welfare. He challenges people to check whether their advocacy is causing more problems than solutions and to dare to take responsibility for their actions.

    At the end of his speech, Larken Rose emphasizes that individuals need to take responsibility for their own problems and stop blaming society or external factors for their issues. Whether someone is a conservative, liberal, or voter, they are personally responsible for their actions. The speaker raises the question of asking if individuals dare to take a step back and self-reflect, acknowledging their role in the problem and taking action to resolve it, or do they cling to their comfort zones and ignore the suffering of others. He uses examples of child hunger and homelessness as examples of human suffering that can be a result of inaction, emphasizing the urgency of addressing these issues.

  • Videos of Joe Biden Speaking About Crime Bill He Supported, and of Hunter Biden Smoking Crack

    Videos of Joe Biden Speaking About Crime Bill He Supported, and of Hunter Biden Smoking Crack

    This video shows a split image of former Vice President now President of the USA Joe Biden discussing a crime bill that he supported and helped pass while in Congress, and of his son Hunter Biden as he smokes crack.

    The bill was allegedly aimed at combating drug crime, and those caught with certain types of drugs, including crack crack cocaine, would be sentenced to mandatory five-year prison sentences with no probation. The judge had no choice in this matter, and the government could take everything the accused owned, including their car, house, and bank account.

    Biden argued that criminals who engaged in such behavior needed to be caged off from society, away from everyone else, including their families. Biden did not seem interested in why the criminals had committed the crime, instead justifying their imprisonment.

  • Breaking Down The Online Safety Bill Passed in the UK

    Breaking Down The Online Safety Bill Passed in the UK

    The Online Safety Bill is a new law in the UK that holds social media companies responsible for harmful content on their platforms. While some believe it will create a safer online environment, critics fear it gives too much power to regulators and tech companies to control online speech.

    The bill includes measures to protect children from accessing pornography and requires prompt removal of illegal content. However, the presenter – Count Dankula 2 : Electric Boogaloo – believes the true intention behind the bill is to manipulate public opinion rather than genuinely protect users or children. He expresses concerns about restrictions on internet freedom and the flow of information, as well as the lack of public input in the legislative process. The speaker also criticizes the potential threat to freedom of expression posed by tech companies deciding what content is legal.

    The Online Safety Bill

    While some argue that The Online Safety Bill will create a safer online environment, critics worry that it gives too much power to regulators and tech companies to control what can be said online. The bill also includes measures to prevent children from accessing pornography and requires platforms to remove illegal content promptly. However, the presenter believes that the true intention behind the bill is to control the flow of information and manipulate public opinion, rather than genuinely protect users or children.

    Count Dankula expresses concerns about the law being used to target political dissidents and the inclusion of new offenses such as cyber flashing and the sharing of deep fake pornography. However, he supports measures that make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech companies. The government claims that tech firms have already started changing their behavior in anticipation of the law, but Count Dankula suggests that this is mainly due to the threat of losing their license to operate in the UK. The bill’s journey to becoming law has been contentious, and there are concerns about big tech companies challenging certain parts of it. Count Dankula also questions the responsibility of parents in monitoring their children’s internet usage and emphasizes their own strict restrictions for their children.

    Count Dankula argues that the government’s intention behind controlling information is to influence how people vote and support their own interests. The speaker also criticizes the lack of public input in the legislative process and highlights the threat to freedom of expression posed by tech companies determining what content is legal. He further discusses how encrypted messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal may resist complying with the bill’s powers to examine messages for child abuse material, as it could undermine private communications. Overall, the speaker views the legislation as deeply flawed and suggests that the government deliberately designed it to exert more control over citizens’ speech and activities.

    Later in the video, Count Dankula discusses the role of the communications regulator, Ofcom, in enforcing the new rules. The bill aims to tackle illegal online harms, such as child exploitation, fraud, and terrorism. Failure to comply with the new regulations can result in hefty fines or even imprisonment for executives. The success of the bill is crucial not only for the safety of children and adults online but also for the UK’s reputation as a tech hub.

    However, Count Dankula expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of the legislation, noting that encryption and VPNs can easily bypass the restrictions. The speaker suggests that the real motive behind the law is to control the flow of information online for political reasons, which he views as a form of dishonesty.

    YouTube Video

  • Sarah Hardiman Discusses Dangers of Ireland’s New Hate Speech Law

    Sarah Hardiman Discusses Dangers of Ireland’s New Hate Speech Law

    The video discusses the potential dangers of Ireland’s new hate speech law, which goes beyond incitement to violence and extends to offense and perception of mistreatment, criminalizing possession or preparation of material that could incite hatred on protected characteristics with the intention of communicating it to the public.

    The speaker – Sarah Hardiman of Free Speech Ireland – fears that the law’s broad language and potential for abuse could restrict discussions on topics like sex characteristics and transgender people in bathrooms and have a chilling effect on free speech. The previous video featuring Sarah Hardiman discussing the same controversial law is HERE.

    00:00:00

    In this section, the speaker discusses the new hate speech law in Ireland and its potential impact on free speech. They note that while there are restrictions on free speech in Ireland and in the European Charter of Human Rights, the new legislation is going beyond incitement to violence and extending to offense and perception of mistreatment, such as spreading memes or sharing content such as Pepe the Frog. While protection from incitement to violence is important, the speaker argues that this new law is going too far and could potentially restrict free speech and expression.

    00:05:00

    In this section, the transcript discusses the Irish hate speech law and the potential danger to free speech. While the Irish Times article mentions the processing of material that could be considered hateful, other articles such as the Yahoo article only mention incitement of violence and the need to update old legislation. However, section 10 part 1A of the law criminalizes the preparation or possession of material that may incite hatred against a person or group on account of protected characteristics with the intention of communicating it to the public. This could include comments made about sex characteristics and transgender people in bathrooms, which is a legitimate concern that should still be allowed to be discussed without fear of prosecution. The law’s broad language and potential for abuse by well-funded interest groups is alarming and could have a chilling effect on speech.

    00:10:00

    In this section of the video, the speaker voices concerns about Ireland’s new hate speech law. Specifically, they discuss the potential for predators to use the law to access spaces like women’s bathrooms that have an unwritten rule for keeping children safe. They argue that these are important conversations that society should be able to have and defend, but with the new law’s potential restrictions on free speech, they fear that such discussions may be silenced.

    YouTube Video

  • American Commentator Gonzalo Lira Arrested by Ukrainian Nazis for Exposing Truth

    American Commentator Gonzalo Lira Arrested by Ukrainian Nazis for Exposing Truth

    The video focuses on the case of Gonzalo Lira, a US commentator who was jailed in Ukraine for speaking about uncomfortable facts, such as the presence of neo-fascists and neo-Nazis in the Kiev regime, and the shelling of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

    The evidence used against him is based on factual statements that have been admitted by UN agencies, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

    The video discusses the double standard of Western media and human rights organizations in remaining silent about Lira’s arrest and calls for pressure on them to speak out.

    The speaker highlights the importance of speaking up against injustice, regardless of political differences, as this could happen to anyone.

    00:00:00

    In this section, we learn about the case of Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen living in Ukraine who was arrested by the Ukrainian security service on allegations of producing pro-Russian propaganda. However, as it turns out, the evidence used against him is a video in which Lira expresses factual statements, such as the Kiev regime consisting of neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, and the shelling of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. These are facts that have been admitted by both the Western media and Western governments sponsoring Ukraine. Therefore, the accusations against Lira appear to be baseless, and it is suggested that his arrest is part of Ukraine’s crackdown on free speech and the suppression of any narrative that does not fit its agenda.

    00:05:00

    In this section, the transcript discusses the evidence of Ukraine’s shelling of its own population, resulting in thousands of deaths, which Gonzalo Lira was arrested for speaking about. The evidence comes from sources such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN itself. Despite this evidence being admitted by US government officials and Western media outlets, they have remained largely silent about Lira’s arrest. The transcript argues that if this were happening in Russia, the condemnation would be immediate. It calls for pressure on these “hypocrites” and exposes the double standard of Western media and human rights organizations.

    00:10:00

    In this section of the video, the speaker highlights that Gonzalo Lira, a US commentator, was jailed in Ukraine for speaking about the presence of Nazis and the shelling of civilians. The speaker argues that despite political differences, people should speak up against this injustice as it could happen to anyone. The video description gives a list of Twitter accounts that people can tag and put pressure on, such as Human Rights Watch, the US Embassy in Kiev, and the US State Department. The Western media is also criticized for its silence on this issue.

    YouTube Video

  • Declassified FBI Files – LAPD Was Involved in Murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls

    Declassified FBI Files – LAPD Was Involved in Murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls

    Declassified FBI files on the unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls reveal connections between the LAPD and the crimes. The investigation supported the findings of LAPD detective Russell Poole, who uncovered corrupt officers connected to the murders and accused the LAPD of a cover-up.

    The files suggest that US intelligence orchestrated the assassination of Tupac and that several people related to the LAPD were involved in covering up the plot. Furthermore, the files reveal connections between Tupac’s murder and the gang war in Compton. The same tactics were used in the Biggie murder, and FBI Agent Phil Carson wanted to make an arrest, but his superiors did not allow him to follow up with charging the officer. The LAPD’s involvement in the two cases was significant, with some believing that allegedly crooked cops could have been involved.

    00:00:00

    In this section, the declassified FBI files on the unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls were revealed, exposing connections between the LAPD and the crimes. The FBI investigation supported the findings of LAPD detective Russell Poole who uncovered corrupt officers connected to the murders and was removed from the case after accusing the LAPD of a cover-up. The FBI was investigating Tupac and Death Row Records in the 1990s and used an undercover agent, Kevin Hackey, who was formerly a Compton school district police officer to infiltrate the label, revealing that the FBI had Suge Knight and death row under surveillance and had tapped into their communications. Hackey also alleged that he introduced arms trafficking to the label as part of an ATF gun-walking operation.

    00:05:00

    In this section, it is revealed that Tupac’s rap group, Outlaws, had connections to gun walking operations carried out by the ATF, and one member’s weapon was tracked by the FBI and ATF and later used in Tupac’s murder. The FBI had surveillance footage of the drive-by shooting in which Tupac was killed, and Kevin Gaines, an LAPD Rampart cop who was found to be dating Suge Knight’s ex-wife Sharifa Knight, was at the scene. Three LAPD officers, including David Mack and Rafael Perez, were also connected to Death Row events and parties, with Russell Poole, an LAPD detective, asking why so many officers were working within Death Row records and being told to consider them covert agents. However, Kevin Hackie, an undercover ATF agent, was assigned elsewhere by the FBI on the night of the shooting, which interfered with the security’s radio system.

    00:10:00

    In this section, the declassified FBI files on Tupac Shakur’s case reveal that the assassination of the rapper was orchestrated by US intelligence. Several people related to the LAPD, including officer Richard McCauley and James Green, were involved in covering up the plot by transferring Tupac’s ashes from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and presenting a staged fight at the MGM Hotel to frame a rival gang member for the murder. The files also reveal connections between Tupac’s murder and the gang war in Compton, where a fellow Crip named Orlando Anderson was labeled as the shooter. Moreover, the files suggest that LAPD officers were involved in the murder of rapper Notorious B.I.G. six months later, as there were several officers allegedly present at the Vibe magazine party at the Peterson Automotive Museum where Biggie was murdered. The Civil Trial filed against the LAPD by Biggie’s family in 2005 alleged that corrupt Rampart cops may have played a role in the murder using police radios and other tactics to carry out the hit.

    00:15:00

    In this section, it is revealed that FBI Agent Phil Carson wanted to make an arrest for the murder of Biggie Smalls based on evidence found, including a rare type of ammunition and a car that matched the description of the shooter’s vehicle. However, his superiors did not allow him to follow up with charging the officer. The FBI documents revealed that the same tactics were used by the cops in a previous crime, which some believe may have been the Tupac murder or a bank robbery. It is claimed that Biggie was killed for no other reason than to advance the theory that the conspirators who tried to take out Suge Knight were putting forward. The LAPD’s involvement in the two cases was significant, with Russell Poole, a former LAPD detective, believing that allegedly crooked cops could have been involved.

    YouTube Video

  • Sarah Hardiman Discusses the New Hate Speech Law in Ireland

    Sarah Hardiman Discusses the New Hate Speech Law in Ireland

    Sarah Hardiman of Free Speech Ireland discusses the controversial new hate speech law in Ireland, which is recommend by the EU and could set a dangerous precedent for speech restrictions online.

    Hardiman notes that the law is overly broad and could potentially criminalize individuals for possessing material deemed hateful, even if they have no intention of sharing it. Despite opposition from her advocacy group and the public, the law is likely to pass due to a lack of political opposition, leading Hardiman to urge people to support their cause online and raise awareness about the potential implications of the law on free speech.

    00:00:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman from Free Speech Ireland discusses the controversial new hate speech law in Ireland, proposed by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee, but actually recommended by the EU. Hardiman explains that the reason for the EU’s strong interest in Ireland’s speech laws is due to the country’s importance in the bustling tech industry. With Dublin hosting the headquarters of big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook, the Irish legal system is becoming an important regulator for these companies. Hardiman warns that this hate speech legislation could set a dangerous precedent for restricting speech online, not just in Ireland or Europe, but globally. She also notes that the Irish people have not had a say in this legislation, and it is terrifying from that perspective.

    00:05:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman discusses the concept of free speech in Ireland and how it is qualified rather than absolute, with restrictions in place to protect public order and morality. She notes that the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act is fit for purpose and prevents individuals from calling for violence against certain groups. However, the new Hate Offences Bill of 2022 is changing the definitions of hate speech and safety, creating confusion around what is considered offensive and what poses a real threat. Hardiman notes that while protection from incitement to violence is necessary, the new legislation is also restricting humor and free expression online.

    00:10:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman discusses the specifics of Ireland’s new hate speech law. She explains that the Irish Times article on the law fails to mention the section that makes it possible to criminalize individuals for possessing material that is deemed hateful. Hardiman breaks down Section 10 of the law, which essentially states that anyone who prepares or possesses material likely to incite violence or hatred against a group with protected characteristics is guilty of an offense. She argues that this new law could lead to a dangerous suppression of free speech and legitimate discussions about sensitive topics. Hardiman cites an example in the UK where a woman was visited by police after having an online disagreement with a transgender male on Twitter, which highlights the conflation of physical violence with online interaction.

    00:15:00

    In this section of the video, the speakers discuss how the new hate speech law in Ireland, section two of the bill, necessitates good faith acting for individuals commenting on topics such as genocide, without room for concern if everyone is acting in good faith. However, there remains a worry on how the law or norms can be exploited to the gain of an individual or cause, rather than the people who operate in good faith. Furthermore, the law might not permit historical and academic discourse, restricting democratic and free speech, leading to the question of whether Ireland is still a democratic and free nation.

    00:20:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman discusses how the new hate speech law in Ireland is not about artwork or academia, but rather it is a way to get people to conform to a set of thoughts. The new legislation is about making people think twice about their thoughts and by default, controlling their speech, making them afraid to voice certain opinions. Sarah mentions a case where a woman was fined for posting a lyric on her social media account. The current politicians may promise not to exploit the law, but there is no guarantee the future ones won’t. The dangerous thing about this law is that it has already started to silence people in Ireland since the government tries to dismiss any criticism of the migrant crisis as racism.

    00:25:00

    In this section, the speaker highlights the unpopularity of the hate speech legislation in Ireland with 73% of people opposing the bill proposed. A national referendum on blasphemy laws was also defeated in 2018 with a 65% vote. Despite the public’s opposition to speech restrictions, members of Parliament are ignoring the citizens’ views and moving forward with the legislation. The speaker argues that the government is trying to use this legislation to instill fear and compliance in the people, which she describes as tyranny. The speaker also mentions the power of NGO groups in Ireland and how they can influence legislation.

    00:30:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman discusses the changing societal views in Ireland regarding online life and how it could affect public perception of the controversial new hate speech law currently being debated. She notes that older generations may see the law as an infringement on their freedoms, but younger people who have grown up online may view it as necessary protection. Hardiman also criticizes the journalist union in Ireland for their lack of vocal opposition to the new law, considering their past advocacy for free speech and the right to free expression. Despite opposition from her advocacy group, Hardiman believes the law will pass and become secure in the future.

    00:35:00

    In this section, the speaker discusses the failure of journalists to protect free speech and points out that journalism has shifted from challenging powerful institutions to promoting a particular narrative. The controversial new hate speech law recently passed in Ireland by a vote of 110 to 14, with only a few members on the Left voting against it. The speaker notes that it is a reflection of the broken system and the lack of viable opposition. The speaker also expresses concern that the new law may have been handed down from the EU, and there is a lack of viable alternatives in the political system.

    00:40:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman discusses how Ireland’s new hate speech law can potentially convict people for possessing hateful or offensive content even if they have no intention of sharing it. Hardiman compares this to the conviction of possessing child porn. She also expresses concern over the policing of such content, questioning whether simply scrolling through Twitter and viewing potentially hateful content warrants a conviction. Hardiman believes the law will likely pass the Senate due to a lack of political opposition, but there is still a window of opportunity for opposition before the president signs it into law. She urges people, particularly those who use social media within Europe, to be aware of the potential implications of this law.

    00:45:00

    In this section, Sarah Hardiman of Free Speech Ireland urges people to support their cause online by following them on social media and sharing their content. She explains that major social media outlets, including Google, are based in Dublin and are governed by the Irish system, so it is crucial to raise awareness about the controversial new hate speech law in Ireland. Hardiman also notes that while they are open to various options in the future, including legal avenues, challenging the law will take a lot of effort. In the meantime, they are a group of people who are hungry to do whatever they can to challenge it as successfully as possible.

    YouTube Video