Category: Silence

Digital Gulag: The United Nations Blueprint to Control the Internet and Silence Dissent

Amy Mek
October 8, 2024
8 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/digital-gulag-united-nations-blueprint-control-internet-silence/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The UN’s Global Digital Compact, disguised as a plan for internet safety, is a blueprint for global surveillance, designed to control free speech and silence dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.

Two weeks ago, 193 countries at the United Nations quietly adopted The Pact for the Future, a document that is raising alarm bells among critics. Of particular concern is the Global Digital Compact (GDC), an appendix within the pact that introduces sweeping regulations for what many are calling “Internet 2.0.” Tech expert Tim Hinchcliffe warns that this is nothing short of “a path to a digital gulag.”

NEWS: The Pact for the Future has been adopted by member countries by consensus at UN Headquarters in New York.

The adoption will help pave the way for greater international cooperation for #OurCommonFuture. pic.twitter.com/JnennVi2Jb

— United Nations (@UN) September 22, 2024Hinchcliffe, writing for The Sociable—a site focused on the intersection of technology and society—expresses outrage at how little attention the mainstream media has given to the UN’s Summit of the Future, held just weeks ago. This lack of scrutiny reflects a larger trend of global elites pushing sweeping changes under the radar, knowing full well that public awareness would invite resistance. According to him, the world’s nations quietly agreed to bizarre measures that will severely restrict individual freedoms, all under the guise of The Pact for the Future.

The most chilling aspect of this pact, according to Hinchcliffe, is the Global Digital Compact. While Achim Steiner of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) describes it as a framework for “inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, and secure digital futures for all,” Hinchcliffe sees it as something far more sinister: “a roadmap to a digital gulag.” The concept of an all-encompassing digital infrastructure is eerily reminiscent of authoritarian regimes where surveillance and censorship become tools of absolute control. In this new system, every individual would be connected to the internet through a digital identity, and those who question the UN’s vision would be crushed for spreading so-called “hate speech” and “disinformation.” In Hinchcliffe’s view, free speech will no longer exist on UN-regulated Internet 2.0.

Anyone who carefully reads the document and listens to its architects will find that Hinchcliffe’s interpretation aligns more closely with the 16-page document than Steiner’s optimistic rhetoric. Section 34 of the pact states: “We will collaborate internationally to address the challenges of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech by mitigating the risks of information manipulation in ways that are consistent with international law.” But this vague language leaves open the critical question: who defines what constitutes “hate speech” and “disinformation”? And, most importantly, who gets to decide?

As history has shown, the answer became clear during the summit: the UN will decide. At a panel discussion in New York, titled The Future of Information Integrity and the SDGs, UN Under-Secretary for Global Communications Melissa Fleming—who in 2022 famously declared, “We own the science” in reference to climate change—indicated that the UN would crack down on anything counter to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Fleming’s declaration is a chilling reminder of the dangers of centralized control over information. Fleming explained that the UN shifted course after realizing its messaging was being questioned on major platforms. “We were attacked online. Every SDG has been tainted by disinformation or hate speech,” she said, justifying the need for the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity. She claims these principles are the blueprint for a “healthy information ecosystem.”

Fleming stressed that the UN “had no choice but to act.” She argued that today’s internet has become “so toxic” that it’s nearly impossible to communicate in an environment filled with people who oppose “the forces of good,” a group she places the UN within. This framing of dissent as “toxicity” is a dangerous precedent, one that echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes throughout history, where any criticism of the ruling powers is dismissed as harmful or even treasonous. “We must find new ways to cut through the disinformation and hate.”

Fleming’s stance is clear: if you don’t agree with the UN, you are participating in disinformation and hate speech — a common theme throughout the session. This narrative was reinforced by New America think tank CEO Ann-Marie Slaughter, who voiced her own concerns about the dangers of unregulated speech online. “

Anybody can say anything,” she said. “This kind of extreme speech, violent speech, outrageous speech […] When people say these things and they are not stopped […] There’s a sense of anything goes […] Anybody can say anything.” Slaughter’s remarks highlighted the broader fear that uncontrolled digital spaces could lead to widespread harm, further justifying the need for stringent controls on online discourse.

One of these methods is the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) to “cleanse” online information. In fact, AI has already been used by authoritarian regimes like China’s, where it helps to monitor and suppress dissenting voices. According to the GDC, information aligned with the SDGs will be classified as truth, while anything undermining the SDGs will be labeled disinformation.

History offers numerous cautionary tales of how centralized information control has been used to suppress dissent and reinforce authoritarian rule. In the Soviet Union, the state strictly controlled the press, ensuring that only pro-government propaganda was disseminated, while those who spoke out against the regime were censored, imprisoned, or executed. Similarly, North Korea’s government continues to enforce total control over all media, indoctrinating its citizens with state-approved narratives and severely punishing any attempt to access foreign information. Even in modern-day Russia, online dissent and independent media are routinely suppressed under the guise of protecting the nation from “misinformation.” These regimes show us that when governments control information, dissent is silenced, and individual freedoms are eroded.

The UN anticipates that AI will play a crucial role in achieving the SDGs. Section 53 of the pact reads: “We recognize the immense potential of artificial intelligence systems to accelerate progress across all SDGs.”

The compact also mandates that every individual on Earth—approximately 2.6 billion people currently without reliable internet access—be connected to the web as soon as possible. The so-called “digital divide” in developing nations must be closed rapidly. What this truly represents is a forced integration into a global digital system where no one can escape surveillance. Steiner envisions a world by 2030 where “every person on the planet has a secure digital identity,” including a young mother in a developing country. He claims that this will grant her access to banking, education, healthcare, and, for the first time, a sense of being “seen.”

Justin Haskins, co-author of Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s Terrifying Next Phase with popular podcaster Glenn Beck, asserts that the global elite are already on board. “Globalists are pushing for greater collaboration between big tech, media, corporations, governments, and even human rights organizations,” he says. “They justify all these restrictions on freedom in the name of a safer internet. But in reality, they are manipulating every aspect of society to control the web. This is not just regulation; this is the construction of a digital iron curtain.”

Hinchcliffe outlines the steps of the plan:

  • Step 1: Close the digital divide by getting everyone online, including the 2.6 billion currently offline.
  • Step 2: Build the digital infrastructure, complete with digital IDs, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and large-scale data sharing. Make people dependent on this system.
  • Step 3: Censor any narrative that challenges the Agenda 2030 goals. Involve governments, authorities, and the private sector to destroy any dissenting stories. This isn’t just censorship, it’s the creation of a system where disagreement with the state narrative will make it impossible to function in society.

In essence, the Global Digital Compact claims to make the internet safer, but its true aim appears to be constructing a global surveillance system that suppresses dissent and controls the narrative. History teaches us that such centralized control—whether through Stalin’s purges or China’s social credit system—inevitably leads to the erosion of freedoms. Today, with more sophisticated tools of surveillance, the outcome remains the same: disagreement is crushed, and free thought is suffocated under the guise of protecting society.

Whenever power is centralized, especially in the hands of a few unelected officials, individual freedoms are the first casualty. The Pact for the Future represents not just a digital shift but a global power grab that seeks to control how people think, speak, and interact with the world. While the UN may frame this as progress, the reality looks far more like a digital gulag than a utopia.

Hillary Clinton’s Decades-Long Fight to Silence Americans Reaches a Disturbing New High

Amy Mek
October 8, 2024
7 min read
SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/hillary-clintons-decades-long-fight-silence-americans-reaches/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes

Hillary Clinton’s relentless, decades-long fight to silence Americans has reached a new peak with her latest push to repeal Section 230, aiming to empower the government to control online speech, stifle dissent, and cement her power, continuing her long history of suppressing free expression both at home and globally.

Hillary Clinton has spent decades working—both subtly and overtly—to crush free speech in America when it serves her political ambitions. Her most recent comments are a prime example of just how far she’s willing to go. In a recent interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Clinton explicitly warned that if social media companies don’t moderate content more aggressively, “we lose total control.” This admission reveals not only her desire for increased control over information but also her broader agenda of suppressing opposing voices to consolidate her power.

Clinton’s demand for greater federal control over online platforms through the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act is at the heart of her latest push. This crucial law protects internet platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. By dismantling these protections, Clinton seeks to grant the government sweeping authority to impose strict content moderation, effectively allowing her and her political allies to decide what can be seen or said online. Repealing Section 230 would mark the beginning of an era where the federal government can silence dissent and suppress free speech on one of the last platforms for open dialogue—the Internet.

In effect, it turns platforms like X or Facebook from functioning as neutral carriers—much like telephone companies or postal services—into publishers, making them responsible for every piece of content posted by users. The original intent of Section 230 was to provide platforms with the necessary freedom from liability, shielding them in a way that upheld the values of the First Amendment. But repealing it could be seen as part of a broader effort by the Democratic Party to erode constitutional limits on government and free speech protections, effectively ending the First Amendment’s ability to safeguard citizens from government overreach.

A History of Crushing Opposition

Clinton’s history of attempting to muzzle free speech dates back to her earliest days in politics. One notable example is her involvement in the Citizens United case, where she opposed the rights of private citizens and organizations to make independent political expenditures. Clinton’s drive to limit political donations was framed as campaign finance reform, but it was widely perceived as an effort to curb conservative voices that were critical of her policies. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed greater political freedom in spending, but Clinton’s opposition to it was a clear indication that she favored limiting speech when it threatened her political career.

Her most insidious efforts, however, have come under the banner of “hate speech” laws and initiatives designed to curtail criticism of Islam. One of the clearest examples of this was her support for UNHRC Resolution 16/18, which sought to criminalize speech that could be perceived as “incitement to violence.” Cloaked under the guise of combating religious intolerance, this resolution was a dangerous step toward establishing global blasphemy laws, which would have severely restricted free speech. Clinton was one of the architects behind this resolution, holding meetings in Washington to discuss its implementation and laying the groundwork for policies that would silence critics of Islam worldwide.

This effort continued on the domestic front with her support for House Resolution 569 in 2015. Introduced just days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the resolution condemned what it called “hateful rhetoric” against Muslims. The timing was telling: Clinton and her allies were quick to push legislation that made it appear as though Muslims were the victims, rather than addressing the very real threat of radical Islamic terrorism. The resolution conveniently ignored that the vast majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews, not Muslims. Instead, it sought to criminalize criticism of Islam under the pretense of combating hate speech, all while turning a blind eye to the far more widespread attacks on Jewish Americans.

Section 230 and the New Front in Clinton’s War on Free Speech

Clinton’s latest attack on free speech comes in the form of her desire to repeal Section 230, which protects online platforms from being held liable for third-party content. By stripping away this protection, Clinton seeks to empower the federal government to impose “guardrails” on what can be said online. Under her proposed framework, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others would be forced to moderate content far more aggressively, ultimately silencing voices that don’t align with the mainstream narrative. This move would disproportionately affect conservatives and dissenters who already face de-platforming and censorship for challenging leftist policies on issues such as immigration, gender ideology, and public health.

Clinton’s comments to Smerconish, where she lamented the lack of national action to regulate social media, are just the latest in a series of alarming statements. She previously suggested that Americans accused of spreading so-called “propaganda” in support of former President Trump should face civil or even criminal charges. This echoes the same tactics Clinton used after her 2016 election loss, where she pushed the narrative that “Russian interference” and misinformation were responsible for her defeat, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns many Americans had with her candidacy.

Criminalizing Criticism and the Orwellian Istanbul Process

The broader implications of Clinton’s war on free speech become even clearer when examining her international efforts. Her backing of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, known as the “Istanbul Process,” sought to limit speech globally that could be deemed “discriminatory” or inciting violence against religion. What began as an effort to shield Islam from criticism morphed into a global campaign to censor anything considered offensive to religious groups—particularly Muslims. The Istanbul Process was an attempt to undermine the First Amendment by creating international pressure to criminalize speech that offended Islamic sensibilities.

The resolution is eerily similar to efforts Clinton supported domestically, such as House Resolution 569, which attempted to redefine what constitutes a hate crime. Instead of protecting all religious groups, Clinton and her allies focused narrowly on Muslims, using this framework to create an environment where any criticism of Islam could be labeled as hate speech, effectively silencing legitimate debate about the religion and its role in global terrorism.

It’s important to note a critical distinction here: laws such as UN Resolution 16/18 protect the religion itself from criticism, whereas laws protecting Jewish people or other groups focus on protecting individuals from discrimination, not shielding the religion from scrutiny. This is a fundamental difference, as the First Amendment was designed to ensure the freedom to criticize religious and political authorities remains unassailable. Clinton’s support for these international measures threatens to dismantle this core principle, enabling the criminalization of speech that questions or critiques religious ideologies, particularly Islam.

The Real Danger: Hillary’s Long-Term Vision of Control

Hillary Clinton’s drive to crush free speech is not about protecting people from harm—it’s about consolidating control. Her decades-long history of advocating for policies that silence dissent, whether through campaign finance reform, international resolutions, or content moderation, reveals a disturbing pattern. Clinton’s fear is not that harmful speech will spread, but that she will lose control over the narrative. Her comments about losing “total control” of social media reflect a mindset that views open dialogue and dissent as threats to her political power.

If Clinton’s vision were realized, Americans would face a future where dissenting voices are criminalized and online platforms are forced to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government. Social media, one of the few remaining outlets for free speech, would be transformed into a tightly controlled space where only government-approved opinions are allowed.

Conclusion: A Call to Defend Free Speech

The American people must recognize the dangerous path Hillary Clinton and others like her are pushing us down. Free speech is not just a right to be cherished—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny. As Clinton continues her long-standing campaign to silence dissent, Americans must remain vigilant and fight to protect their First Amendment rights. If we allow her vision of government-controlled speech to become reality, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak out at all.

Biden’s Border Invasion & Laken RIley’s Father Breaks Silence with Rep. Andy Biggs

Tonight IN FOCUS.. Murdered nursing student Laken Riley's father has broken his silence and issued a plea to lawmakers. Also Alex Newman joins to discuss why the U.S. must exit the UN. Plus another state fails to protect its citizens as it allows lawlessness to continue. We'll discuss the start of Passion Week and Jesus' Triumphal Entry with Pastor Billy Crone.

Hamas Nazis’ Atrocities Against Israeli Women Met With Deafening Silence

Will the International Criminal Court prosecute for war crimes - or blame the victims?

 by 

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/hamas-nazis-atrocities-against-israeli-women-met-with-deafening-silence/?mc_cid=f7cd9f9f9d;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Misogyny and cultural “norms” subjugating women are widespread in much of the Islamic world. These include female genital mutilation, forced marriages, persecuting women for not dressing according to strict Islamic standards, “honor killings,” and much more.

It’s no surprise then, but shocking and horrific nonetheless, that one “weapon” in Hamas’ inhuman massacre of over 1200 people in Israel on October 7, brutalizing thousands, and kidnapping more than 240, including young children and elderly women held hostage in Gaza, was the raping of Israeli women in the process.  Underscoring that these are not individual criminal acts but part of something widespread and deliberate, it’s been described as a sexual pogrom.

Adding insult to injury, groups and people that should be advocating for women’s rights and under any other circumstance would be calling out such criminal behavior, have turned a blind eye to the forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and confessions of Hamas terrorists as if the victims and sexual crimes didn’t matter just because they are Jews. The evidence is clear. Medical examiners have reported that some of the rapes were so violent that the women’s pelvises were crushed.

A growing chorus has condemned ignoring these crimes or even denying that they happened using the hashtag, “#Metoo_unless_UR_A_Jew.”

If the crimes happened to anyone else in the world, women’s groups, human rights organizations, the UN, and others would be decrying it. But the silence to these crimes that depict a depraved pattern of sexual violence used by the terrorists against their victims, is criminal in of itself.

If Hamas’ goal was to murder as many as possible, how did the terrorists allow themselves to stop for a gang rape? How is rape in any way part of any “resistance” that Hamas claims and the Islamic world celebrates?  How did those fighting for the “resistance” ever think this was acceptable? How could any one of the Islamic terrorists be aroused when inflicting such horrors, much less multiple gangs of them? The answer is simple. It was premeditated. It is inhuman evil Islam at its worst. It’s the marrying of worship of massacring Jews with the overall repression of women.  It’s a marriage made in hell.

This inhuman behavior does not stop at the borders of Gaza.  It is at the core of how the Iranian Islamic regime treats women, and which trickles down to other adherents of the “religion of peace.” This is documented widely, including in the book “A Love Journey With God” by my friend Marziyeh Amirizadeh. If not for public outcry after her arrest and death sentence for converting to Christianity in Iran, she’d likely have experienced much more of the suffering that many Iranian women who she knew in prison did, including the raping of virgins before they are executed as executing virgins goes against “Islamic values.”

The threat of raping Jewish women in support of Hamas’ inhuman behaviors also made it to the celebrated halls of Ivy League colleges. Last month, Patrick Dai, a junior at Cornell, was arrested on federal charges of posting threats to “kill or injure another using interstate communications.”

In public online posts, Dai threatened to “shoot up” a campus building targeting Jews, said he would “stab” or “slit the throat” of Jewish men, and rape or throw off a cliff Jewish women on campus.

Other than the threatening remarks being horrific enough, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone could allegedly advocate for the Palestinians in upstate New York by threatening to rape Jewish women. It’s obscene.

The raping of truth also comes from women who are charged with protecting women from sexual violence. The University of Alberta fired Samantha Pearson the head of the campus sexual assault center who signed an open letter denying Hamas terrorists raped women during the October 7 massacre. The letter censured Israel for repeating “the unverified accusation that Palestinians were guilty of sexual violence.”

“Naturally,” antisemites around the world, including women who would never question the allegations of rape by anyone else, are challenging the facts specifically because Israel is sharing these. Fortunately, non-Israelis have witnessed and reported on this reality. After witnessing the gruesome evidence of rape, filmed and broadcast by the terrorists themselves, journalist Jotam Confino wrote he saw, “Two dead women lying on the grass at a musical festival – both with no pants on. One has her panties taken half off. The other doesn’t appear to have any on at all.

He saw an “eyewitness describing how she saw a woman being raped by several Hamas terrorists, pulling her hair as they raped her and took turns. One of them cut her breasts off – the others played with them like a toy. The last terrorist to rape her shot her in the head and continued to rape her until he finished.”

Most of the most horrific documentation has not been widely released out of respect for the victims, and because this is part of ongoing investigations and likely additional criminal charges. But the terrorists’ confessions alone are abundant.

One terrorist was asked during his interrogation: “And why take the kids and babies?” He replied, “To rape them.” Another terrorist also confirmed that babies were abducted and raped.

These captured terrorists were not acting as “freelancers.” There’s documented evidence of Hamas commanders issuing specific orders to the terrorists who perpetrated the massacres not only to kill and kidnap as many Jews as possible but to rape and sexually mutilate Israeli women.

In any other circumstances, where women ranging from babies to the elderly had been the victim of such ferocious, repeated sexual attacks, the #MeToo masses would have swung into full action. Yet that’s not happening. UN Women which published numerous articles decrying the situation of women in Gaza, has ignored crimes against Israeli women. There has not been any recognition of Israeli women who were burned alive, beheaded, raped, had their breasts cut off, had their babies cut out of their stomachs, or been violently kidnapped.

The silence of those who purport to fight sexual violence on behalf of all women everywhere has been deafening. It’s especially problematic in light of November 25 being the United Nations-designated International Day for the Prevention of Violence against Women.

Rape and sexual assault as a tactic in the context of terrorism and war is a war crime. The Geneva Convention requires “women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape or any form of indecent assault.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that “rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, or any other form of sexual violence” is a crime against humanity.

In numerous previous wars, crimes against women were a cornerstone of international criminal indictments and prosecution of men responsible for orchestrating and participating in rape. Based on the silence of the world about these heinous Hamas crimes against women and girls, it is unimaginable that any special prosecutor will be enlisted to protect Israeli and Jewish women. The International Criminal Court has historically been so biased against Israel, as happens in many rape cases, it’s not impossible to see the ICC even blaming the victims. Maybe for dressing too provocatively.