Miscopy

Tag: Tyranny

  • Alarming Trends That May Have a Significant Impact on the Future of the USA

    Alarming Trends That May Have a Significant Impact on the Future of the USA

    The video discusses various alarming trends and potential consequences that may have a significant impact on the future of the USA. It touches upon economic warning signs, such as financial struggles and national debt, as well as the shifting priorities and habits of individuals and big businesses’ response to these changes.

    The video also emphasizes the role of natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas, in global conflicts and the potential game-changer of significant resources in Gaza. It further delves into the issues of job cuts, labor strikes, the rise of automation, and the challenges in navigating a changing job market.

    The video raises concerns about diminishing savings, rising cost of living, and the lack of financial safety nets, as well as the potential consequences of labor strikes and the increasing trend towards automation.

    Lastly, it discusses suspicions of internal orchestration behind corporate cyber attacks, questioning corporate ethics and transparency. Overall, the video serves as a warning to be aware of these developments and emphasizes the need for accountability and preparedness.

    Alarming Trends

    The video emphasizes the urgency and importance of a message they have, claiming that it involves the future of the country, our freedoms, and our way of life. They mention having come across information that took them months to understand and verify, which reveals developments unfolding under our noses that will change the nation.

    The speaker urges viewers to be ready to listen with an open mind and prepare to take action. They then discuss economic warning signs, highlighting concerning Google Trends related to financial struggles and national debt. This trend suggests that people are feeling the financial pinch, with wages not keeping up with inflation.

    The speaker questions what will hold up the economy if people can’t spend, emphasizing the need to pay attention to these signs. They also discuss Home Depot, explaining how the company has successfully adapted to consumers’ changing needs during tough economic times by focusing on smaller home projects. This demonstrates Home Depot’s ability to thrive by aligning its business strategy with current trends.

    The narrator then discusses the shifting priorities and habits of individuals, focusing on the practical rather than the luxurious, particularly in the context of Home Depot’s success. The narrator reflects on how big businesses respond to these shifts and what it says about society as a whole. The conversation then shifts to the topic of natural resources and their role in global conflicts, specifically focusing on the Middle East and the significance of oil and natural gas.

    The discovery of significant resources in Gaza is highlighted as a potential game-changer, with implications for global politics, economies, and security. It emphasizes how events halfway across the world can have a direct impact on the US and the stability of entire regions. Finally, the discussion explores the domino effect of job cuts, labor strikes, and the relentless march towards automation, addressing the economic strain from recent global events and the increased investment in robotics and AI.

    The video then discusses two major issues: the diminishing traditional labor and the rising cost of living. Labor strikes are on the rise as workers demand fair wages to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living. However, as companies face pressure to increase wages, they are more inclined to accelerate automation, leading to potential job losses. Government policies, such as tax incentives for automation, further incentivize companies to invest in technology rather than people. This creates a complex situation where finding a balance between innovation and employment becomes crucial.

    The video also raises concerns about cyber security attacks on major corporations, suggesting that there may be hidden motives behind these attacks that benefit select individuals within the corporations. Additionally, the video highlights the significant increase in the cost of living, such as insurance premiums and grocery prices, which is putting a strain on people’s budgets. Overall, these issues present a challenge in navigating a changing job market and sustaining a comfortable lifestyle.

    The video goes on to discuss the alarming trend of dwindling savings among Americans. Rising inflation and stagnant incomes have led to higher costs of living, forcing people to dip into their savings just to meet everyday expenses. The data shows a consistent monthly drop in savings, raising concerns about the lack of financial safety nets for families. This situation not only affects the ability to save for the future but also creates stress and financial insecurity.

    Additionally, the video highlights the increasing number of labor strikes as a response to these economic pressures. Workers from various sectors are demanding fair wages and better working conditions, as they struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living. The strikes are a fight for dignity and survival, showcasing the disparity between average workers and corporate giants. The video also mentions how a portion of the stimulus money intended to help individuals during the pandemic ended up benefiting corporations and banks, further contributing to inflated costs of living. Overall, both the decline in savings and the rise in labor strikes reflect the challenges Americans are facing in adapting to the new economic reality of increasing costs.

    As companies invest more in robotics and AI, the demand for human labor is expected to decrease, potentially rendering many traditional jobs obsolete. This shift is not just about cutting costs but also a strategic response to the changing economic landscape. The video raises concerns about the displaced workers and questions whether retraining and shifting to new sectors will be enough to cope with the scale of change. The push for a guaranteed income is also discussed, highlighting the potential impact on society and the psychological effects of not having work. It emphasizes the need to consider the long-term implications of the automation revolution and how our roles in the workforce will change.

    The speaker also raises concerns about the possibility of corporate cyber attacks being orchestrated internally as part of a new strategy. They highlight the suspicious timing of CEOs cashing out before an attack, as well as companies with shaky finances suddenly being targeted. The speaker also suggests that these attacks can impact stock prices, potentially allowing insiders to profit from well-timed sales or purchases. The implications of such actions extend beyond cybersecurity, touching on corporate ethics, transparency, and the trust placed in these companies by consumers, investors, and citizens. The speaker emphasizes the need for awareness, tough questions, and accountability in order to address these possibilities and address the deeper issues within the corporate world.

    YouTube Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq9phLCzxc

  • 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.

  • Katherine Watt on Militarization of Public Health and Use of Military for Implementing Globalist Agenda

    Katherine Watt on Militarization of Public Health and Use of Military for Implementing Globalist Agenda

    In this video, Katherine Watt discusses the militarization of public health and the use of the military as a front for implementing a global agenda by central bankers. She explains how the US Department of Defense and the World Health Organization (WHO) are using various tactics such as propaganda, censorship, fear tactics, and toxic vaccines to establish control over the world’s population. Watt traces the origins of this agenda back to 1969 and highlights the financial coercion mechanisms and legal loopholes involved. She also discusses the consolidation of power within global health organizations and the establishment of programs that erode individual rights and transfer control to these organizations. Watt concludes by stating that as more states reclaim their authority to protect their citizens, there will be a tipping point leading to criminal prosecutions against these globalists.

    Katherine Watt starts by discussing the concept of public health being militarized and how the military is being used as a public health front. She refers to it as a “kill box,” which is a military term for establishing a geographic area for a military attack. Katherine Watt explains that the goal of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the World Health Organization (WHO) is to set up the entire world as their target population, using various weapons such as propaganda, censorship, fear tactics, and toxic vaccines. She claims that this project has been going on for centuries, with globalist central bankers seeking complete control over human beings. She also mentions the financial coercion mechanisms involved, where compliance with public health measures is tied to access to financial services. On the legal side, she traces the origins of this agenda back to 1969.

    Katherine Watt then discusses the establishment of the chemical and biological warfare program by the U.S. Congress and the loopholes built into the law to justify it. She explains that these loopholes allowed research and weapons development for “protective or prophylactic or defensive” purposes. Watt argues that this characterization is false because all biologically active products are inherently toxic and aggressive. She also mentions the creation of the Public Health Emergencies program and the National Vaccine program, both of which were instrumental in setting up liability exemption for manufacturers and funneling vaccine injury cases into a separate compensation program.

    Watt points out that the World Health Organization (WHO), which she considers a military organization, played a crucial role in transferring sovereign government power from nation-states to the WHO and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). She highlights amendments to international health regulations in 2005 that aimed at strengthening surveillance, testing, detention, quarantine, and forced treatment during international outbreaks of communicable diseases. Despite the pretext of protecting international trade, Watt argues that the real intention was to establish legal systems that transferred power to global health organizations. She also mentions the establishment of the Emergency Use Authorization program and the transfer of CBRN weapon stockpile control.

    Katherine Watt continues by discussing the establishment of program management structures in the early 2000s, following the events of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. This was done through various statutes such as the 2000 Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which effectively put the country into a permanent state of war.

    Katherine Watt argues that these actions essentially created a de facto covert global martial law act by the US government, making everyone a presumptive combatant or enemy target. She also highlights the merging of various government agencies through acts like the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.

    Additionally, Katherine Watt mentions the Other Transactions Authority, which was revealed through Pfizer’s motion to dismiss a whistleblower case, stating that the COVID-19 vaccines were DOD prototypes and didn’t require valid clinical trials or FDA authorization. She argues that all of this has led to a massive funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use, eliminating informed consent and shielding the government and stakeholders from liability. She sees this as a joint project between the US Department of Defense, the Federal Reserve, the World Health Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, and the United Nations.

    At the end, Katherine Watt discusses the actions taken by globalists against states and provinces that pass laws protecting informed consent and consumer safety. She mentions a report released in October 2022 that criticizes state laws limiting public health protections, stating that the globalists are not in favor of such laws. Watt believes that as more states reclaim their authority and implement measures to protect their citizens, there will be a tipping point leading to criminal prosecutions. She emphasizes that the evidence against these globalists is strong and their attempts to defend themselves using national security only further reinforce the need for action against their crimes.

    Video

  • 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

  • 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

  • Dangers of the RESTRICT Act – Mini Documentary by Mike dams

    Dangers of the RESTRICT Act – Mini Documentary by Mike dams

    The RESTRICT Act is a potential new law that has bipartisan support and is backed by the Biden Administration to ban technology from countries deemed adversaries, including China. However, critics warn that it could be the final nail in the coffin of American freedom, as it could criminalize American-run websites, platforms, and blogs that merely disagree with the government regime on topics deemed to be in the National Security interest.

    The Act would give the government the power to seize control of all websites, services, and apps, creating a massive surveillance and censorship police state, and individuals could face up to 20 years in prison for engaging in any activities that contradict the regime in power. Mike Adams, author of the mini-documentary urges viewers to take action against the Act and warns that, like the Patriot Act, it could eventually be weaponized against the people, posing a threat to human freedom in Western civilization.

    00:00:00

    In this section, a potential new law called the RESTRICT Act is discussed, which would allow the US government to potentially ban technology from countries deemed as adversaries, including China. The bill has bipartisan support and is supported by the Biden Administration, but critics warn that it is an Orwellian nightmare that would criminalize American-run websites, platforms, and blogs that merely disagree with the government regime on any topic deemed to be in the National Security interest.

    The bill could allow for the removal of content deemed to pose an undue risk to the safety of US persons, including Christian content or any content that contradicts the regime in power, and individuals could face up to 20 years in prison for engaging in any of those activities.

    00:05:00

    In this section of the video, the RESTRICT Act is described as a way for the US government to exercise absolute tyranny over the American people. The Act would allow the government to seize assets and properties of those deemed in violation of the Act without any legal recourse or due process. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests would be prohibited, preventing the public from obtaining the list of restrict act targets.

    All websites, including e-commerce sites, could be confiscated, and total government control over cryptocurrency would be threatened. The Act would seize total control over the entire online economy, online speech, and online freedom.

    This would include all e-commerce, all online banking transactions, payment systems, cryptocurrency, and more, making it an attempt to exercise power over the American people.

    00:10:00

    In this section, the transcript excerpt discusses the potential ramifications of the RESTRICT Act, which seeks to give the government the power to seize control of all websites, services, and apps, effectively creating a massive surveillance and censorship police state over all Americans.

    The Act is said to be aimed at preventing election interference but would give the government broad powers to target and punish anyone who merely criticizes a Democratic candidate or even jokes about them. Individuals could face serious consequences, including having all their assets confiscated, and being silenced completely without due process. The transcript stresses the importance of defeating the RESTRICT Act to prevent the end of the Republic and human freedom in Western civilization.

    00:15:00

    In this section, Mike Adams urges viewers to take action against the Restrict Act, which is an initiative that he believes supports tyranny and poses a threat to the American people. He provides a list of Republican Senators who have shown support for this act, encouraging constituents in their states to register their opposition to it.

    Mike Adams warns against the idea that the act is intended solely for use against the Chinese government, suggesting that, like the Patriot Act, the act will eventually be weaponized against the people. Mike Adams calls the act a danger to freedom and a tool for silencing and imprisoning millions of Americans who oppose tyranny.

    YouTube Video