Tucker Exposes the Growing Censorship Regime Using Charlie Kirk’s Death to Destroy Free Speech
In a Nutshell
Tucker argues that Charlie Kirk's assassination is being exploited by politicians from both parties to justify expanding censorship, primarily through Section 230 reform that would force tech platforms to suppress "hate speech" and "conspiracy theories." He contends this represents a bipartisan effort to shield powerful people from criticism, using the ADL and similar groups to define what constitutes unacceptable speech, while the real solution is transparency and answering questions rather than suppressing dissent. The core message is that free speech is being systematically dismantled through backdoor mechanisms, and this erosion threatens the fundamental right that distinguishes America from authoritarian regimes.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated two weeks ago today in an event that clearly is going to change American history. Changed a lot of people inside. There was a moment in the first week where you thought to yourself, this is going to have effects. A lot of them are going to be bad, but some of them are probably going to be good because Charlie's life was itself so good.
Charlie Kirk spent his life above all trying to live the Christian gospel and trying to live the principle of free speech which is to say he talked and he also listened. He was most famous for traveling from college campus to college campus and asking people who disagreed with him to confront him. Ask me anything he said and he sat there patiently as they did and they often attacked him. They almost always expressed views he found repugnant and almost always he took those views seriously and answered the questions put to him as crisply and honestly as he could.
That's what he spent his life doing and in fact he was assassinated while doing that. So if there's any lesson from Charlie Kirk's life, well the first lesson would probably be sincere Christians tend to be really decent people. Maybe we should have more of them. But the more secular temporal lesson is that free speech is a virtue. It is in fact the foundation of this country. Not only its laws but its culture and that we should protect it. And maybe if we seek to honor Charlie Kirk, we should emulate it. Maybe we should begin by asking our politicians to do what Charlie Kirk spent his life doing, which is to answer the question. Just calmly answer the question. We'll ask you anything and then you go ahead and answer it to the best of your ability.
Examples of questions politicians should answer include: who blew up the Nordstream pipeline? What happened to all the money we sent to Ukraine? Why haven't you released all the JFK files, etc., etc., etc., all the questions on your mind that slowly drive you crazy because no one will address them? Why don't we just ask them directly to our leaders and they get to answer? Nothing, nothing would honor Charlie Kirk's memory more than that. That is free speech in action.
But nothing like that happened. Instead, the only real conversation we've had about free speech has been about Jimmy Kimmel, who is hardly a champion of free speech. In fact, just the opposite. He's a nasty little censor, talentless, a person who has many times on camera over the years chuckled and applauded as other people, his political enemies, have been silenced. A guy who has so little influence in American society and so little audience. He was on his way out anyway, has the job only as a result of some kind of weird political affirmative action where people who agree with studio heads get to have late night jobs. He is hardly the person who should be taking up the cause of free speech or become a symbol of it because of course he's the symbol of censorship and has been for most of his career.
The other thing that we saw, maybe even more distressing than that, was politicians turn not only against free speech, but actively and openly announced efforts to censor the American population and use the memory of Charlie Kirk to do it as their justification. There are many examples we could pick. Here's a particularly raw one. This is from Congressman Moscowitz just in the House of Representatives. Eight days after Charlie Kirk died.
It's crazy what's going on on the social media platforms. There are so many conspiracy theories on what's going on with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him, right? There are conspiracy theories about your personal social life all day. It is totally rampant. Big names on the right, Candace Owens, right? talking about how the what's been released as far as the dialogue between the perpetrator and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI, manufactured by the administration. It is totally rampant, allowing foreign governments to just perpetrate these platforms, all of these bots all of the time to weaponize Americans. And so if we want to do something, then we should talk about section 230. We should talk about how we're going to make sure that we don't let foreign governments poison our children's mind. And so I will work with you on that, director. I'll work with you on 230 any day.
There is the congressman talking to the FBI director and there's a lot there and we'll unpack it, but the most telling line came right in the middle and he turns to the FBI director. He says, "They're criticizing your personal life. They're airing conspiracy theories about your personal life." Now, speaking for myself, I have literally no idea what the congressman was talking about. I haven't seen that. Doubtless it exists. There are conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories about everybody and everybody's personal life. If you're in public, people are theorizing about you on the internet. Kind of the nature of the internet and kind of the nature of having authority.
But you'll notice that the congressman thinks this will be a compelling argument for the FBI director. He basically just says, "They're criticizing you and me and they're not allowed to do that." He's not even pretending that the purpose of censoring speech and that's what he's saying. We need to censor the speech that the purpose of that would be protect any vulnerable group vulnerable groups. No, they're criticizing us. They can't do that. And then of course he goes on to blame unseen foreign actors. And by the way, that's something that I think most Americans would get behind, but that the congressman is not behind at all. If they want to take the influence of foreign nations out of our politics, most Americans would applaud. And that would start with not taking money from their lobbies. That would be a welcome change. But the idea that we need to censor what you say because the people who run everything don't want to be called out or have their personal lives misdescribed or the subject of conspiracy theories. Well, that's not really reform as much as it's just kind of classic oldfashioned tyranny, isn't it? Shut up. We have guns you don't. And we're going to make you. And how are we going to make you? That's the question.
So, you may remember that last week the attorney general came out right after Charlie Kirk's death and said there is a distinction between speech constitutionally protected famously in the first amendment and the bill of rights and something called hate speech a category that doesn't strictly speaking exist under the law but which a lot of people seems seem to believe exists and hate speech is never defined like most of the most powerful words that we use to punish people terrorism for example racism it's never actually defined. What is that exactly? We don't know. Other than it's speech the people in charge hate and therefore it should be banned.
And most people who understand the American story, who understand our government, who understand our culture, who care about continuing all of those things, reacted with outrage when the attorney general said that you can't pass a law that will strip from us our God-given right to say what we think is true. She addressed it in such a ham-handed way that it was obvious to everybody exactly what she was talking about, and they reacted. We did, too. But in real life, that will not happen. There will not be, I can say confidently, in my lifetime, a law in the Congress that says explicitly, any American who says something our leaders don't like. Anybody who traffs in a conspiracy theory about our personal lives will be shut down, fined, imprisoned. An open, transparent censorship law will not pass through the House of Representatives or the United Senate, United States Senate. Will not be signed by the president. Why? Because it's just too obvious.
So instead, because censorship is coming if these people can help it, instead they will invoke something called section 230. And you're going to hear a lot more about this without question. It's never again explained very well. And the reason it's not explained is because they don't want you to know exactly what they're doing. So let me just give you the cliffnotes version of what section 230 is.
Section 230 is a section 230 within the 1996 Communications Decency Act and it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the internet. It's the framework that Congress came up with at the dawn of the internet to put parameters around what this is to protect companies as they grew to set laws around this new technology. And one of the laws that they made, section 230, shields internet providers, platforms from lawsuits. It gives them legal liability from lawsuits on the basis of slander, obscenity, things that are on their platforms that they didn't create. In other words, it creates a distinction between a publisher like a newspaper, a magazine, a television network, and a platform. Google, Facebook, X. And the distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it. They cannot be held liable. These big companies cannot be held liable for slander, hate speech, anything really on their platforms. And as a result of this law, those platforms have come to dominate news and information globally.
In fact, when we talk about censorship, nobody's talking about censoring the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC News, because nobody cares. All meaningful information and all meaningful social movements are influenced by social media. So, if you want to get people whipped into a frenzy, if you want to change your government, for example, you're not going to take out an ad in the New York Times, of course not. You're going to get something going on the social media platforms. So, they are huge. They are completely dominant. Information flows almost exclusively on them. And all of this is possible because of section 230.
Now, there's been a pretty vigorous debate for the last 20 years over whether this is a good idea. And there are arguments against it. One of them is why would Google get a liability exemption when I don't have one? You run a business. You're just an American citizen. You can be sued at any time under our famously loose and destructive tort laws and you can go to business. You can be bankrupt. You can be destroyed. They can do to you what they did to Alex Jones, for example. The FBI can join up with some activist group and take your business away, wreck your life. So why should these big tech companies be exempt?
Now, that's a real argument. It's similar to the argument about the pharma companies. Why should vaccine makers get a shield from lawsuits? If I make playground equipment, I'm vulnerable. If I make the COVID vac, I'm not. That's a principled argument. But what's interesting about the 230 debate is that both parties had been on both sides of it at various times. The Republicans for years were mad at the big platforms because they were censoring conservatives, which they were. And so they often muttered about revoking 230 shield protection unless they opened their platforms to all points of view. In other words, they wanted to use section 230 to end censorship. There's no reason you should get a special carve out from the US government, from the Congress if you don't treat people equally, if there's not fairness and neutrality in the way you allow opinions to be broadcast on your platform. That seemed like a fairly reasonable position.
But things have changed. Now you're seeing Republicans invoke section 230, pick up the cudgel that they hold over these huge tech companies and say unless you censor, we will revoke section 230. And by the way, they are following in the footsteps of the leftward edge of the Democratic party in doing this. In 2020, Betto Oor of Texas ran one of his many doomed campaigns for office. This one, I think, for president. And he said, "Unless they get hate speech off the platforms, we're going to revoke section 230 and put these people out of business." By the way, the threat is enough. That was the hope. If we threaten them, then we don't have to do the censoring. We'll make Google, Facebook, Meta, and X do the censoring for us. That was the idea.
Then Joe Biden that same year, 2020, said, "Actually, yes, we should use this threat to force the big tech platforms to censor in ways that we like." And by the way, they did. They did throughout the Biden presidency, Facebook, Twi, then Twitter, Google, all censored opinions the Biden administration didn't like. And they did this ultimately because they feared having their legal protection revoked. That's why they did that. That's what got them to act. And Republicans, the sensible ones, looked at this and said, "This is completely wrong. It's totally immoral. It's illegal for the US government to be imposing censorship on its citizens. It's against the Constitution of the United States, and it's against, more important, natural law. These are not rights we were given by the Biden administration. These are rights we were born with, and when you take them away from us, you are the criminal." And they made that point.
All of a sudden, you are seeing Republicans take the position that Betto Aor and Joe Biden took just 5 years ago. Here, for example, and this will come as no surprise to you at all. You will not be shocked to hear this. Here is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina running for reelection making exactly the same case that Beta Ror made. Section 230 needs to be repealed. If you're mad at social media companies that radicalize our nation, you should be mad at a bill that will allow you to sue these people. They're immune from lawsuit. Oh, it should be repealed.
Now, it's not clear from that clip exactly why Lindsey Graham is calling for the repeal of section 230. Why is he threatening the tech platforms? And by the way, the pretext always changes. They'll tell you, "Well, we're against child sex trafficking, as if anyone is for it. We're against terrorism, a term once again they never define and don't have to. We're against drugs. We're against foreign influence. We're against bigotry. Whatever. They will always give you an excuse. And that excuse will make them sound like the virtuous party, like the good guys. We're here to save the vulnerable. But that's never the real reason."
Censorship always and everywhere is imposed with the intent and always has the effect of shielding the powerful. They're the ones who don't want to be exposed. Free speech, by contrast, and this is the reason it's in our Bill of Rights, is the one great power that the powerless have. Especially in a world where your vote may or may not matter. All you have is your voice. All you have is your opinion. And that's infuriating to Lindsey Graham's donors. And make no mistake, when he's calling for invoking section 230 and taking it away, threatening the big platforms, he's doing that on behalf of his donors who feel criticized by random accounts on the internet. And they hate it because the people in charge always hate to be called out.
Censorship has one goal, and that's to preserve secrecy. And secrecy has one purpose and that's to abet wrongdoing. So people who are doing nothing wrong are transparent. People who are committing evil hide and censorship allows them to hide. It's literally that simple. And those people are the most powerful people in the country. So who's encouraging this? The donors, whoever they are. But there are lots of lobby groups, all of them on the left, pushing the Republican Congress to get behind censorship initiatives, using the cover of the section 230 debate to get it done, to pressure the tech companies into making you shut up, into taking your opinions off the internet using algorithms designed to censor you without even a human being entering into the equation. No person will decide that your opinion is offensive and pull it off. The computer will decide that and it will be aided by the massive exponential growth in computing power that is at the very center of tech right now. AI that is the goal to make certain that opinions that are disruptive to the people in charge never see the light of day.
What's amazing and what's especially infuriating is that many in the Republican party, the party that controls all branches of government right now, are completely for this, strongly for it. Where did they get this idea? Is this a betrayal? Oh, it's a betrayal. How profound a betrayal? Listen to Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, a former Air Force general, describe who he's been talking to about censorship. And I appreciate Jonathan Gri what hit him and his ADL stance board. Uh I I know you you made us better with your feedback and and ideas and recommendations and it's been a trick to get to know you. We we want to be in a country that makes clear that anti-semitism or any kind of racism is repugnant, unacceptable, not allowed in my space and we just zero tolerance for it. So we need to hold these companies accountable and work with them to take it off the airwave.
It's hard to believe that's a real clip. We actually checked. Is that real? Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, a great and sensible state with tons of normal people, a former Air Force general. Is he really colluding with Jonathan Greenblat of the ADL to take away your right to say what you think? Oh, you bet. That's exactly what he's doing. And make no mistake, the ADL is not an anti-defamation organization. The ADL practices defamation and slander and bullying and not in service of protecting a marginalized group but in acrewing power and by forwarding its goals which are ideological. And if you don't believe that go's website and take a look at what the ADL considers hate speech.
Hate speech another one of those terms never quite defined but the ADL has actually taken the time to define it. What do they consider hate speech? Well, among other things, complaining about drag queen story hour is hate speech according to the ADL. Huh. Not being enthusiastic about the COVID vax. That's hate speech and it's dangerous. Noticing that the American population has changed completely in the past 30 years thanks to immigration. That's dangerous hate speech. You should be punished for that. For noticing it in your country that you were born in, no noticing. You can't notice that it looks completely different because of decisions that someone who never consulted you made without your knowledge. Shut up, says the ADL. You not only don't have the right to speak, we're going to scream at you and call you a Nazi and imply that you are the dangerous one. The people who opened up the borders to 50 million foreigners, but you're the dangerous one. Sure.
You know what else is hate speech, by the way? Reading the Gospels of Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. The gospel itself, Christianity itself, is hate speech. I know that because three nights ago, I recounted the Christian story in its essence over like five minutes and was immediately denounced by the ADL as someone who is dangerous and inspiring murder. But I'm not the only one. The ADL has actively attacked the Christian gospel for years, has gotten behind a definition of hate speech that includes the Christian story. That's not an exaggeration. That's not a fid conspiracy theory. That's a fact and you can look it up. So this is the guy that's the guy Jonathan Greenblat of the most aggressively left-wing democratic aligned but much more important than that lunatic antihuman anti-American group the ADL completely corrupt. He's consulting that guy to decide how much speech you should have because there are ugly opinions on the internet. Yeah, that's your Republican party. Was he denounced by his fellow Republicans in the House? Was he denounced by the Speaker of the House, Speaker Johnson? No, he wasn't. They barely even noticed because they had the same views. Not all of them, but an awful lot of them. It's unbelievable.
And it's counterproductive because once again, censorship is never enacted to help the powerless. It is always and everywhere an effort to shield the powerful. Always. And in fact has a counterproductive effect on the people it is supposedly designed to help. How would you feel about any person you're not allowed to criticize? Would that make you like the person more? No. It would make you resentful and suspicious and would give you the well-deserved opinion that this is not an egalitarian society in which we're all citizens. It's a hierarchal society in which the government has decided some people have more rights than others. So, if you find out you're not allowed to criticize someone else, maybe the first question you might ask is, "Well, then why are people allowed to criticize me?" And the answer is because some people have more power in our society or being used to pit different groups against each other or who knows what's going on. But none of it is consistent with the core promise of this country, which is we're all citizens under our government and we're all equal before our God who made us. It says that, but increasingly that's not the country we live in. We live in a country where some people have more rights than others. And that's exactly the kind of message you would send if you wanted to ferment a revolution against your government because it enrages people and it divides them from each other. Oh, we have to protect this group. What does everyone else think of that? They secretly don't like the group. You're not ending bigotry by enacting censorship. You're creating it, Dumbo. And this is specifically aimed at Congressman Bacon, who was somehow an Air Force general. He can't be dumb, but he's obviously not very thoughtful because this is very obvious. People don't like other people who get special treatment. Were you never a child? You never learn that. Who knows what the purpose here? It doesn't even matter. It is happening right before us. The people who are elected to protect us, who say they're our friends, are selling us out.
And you can theorize as to why. And by the way, all of that theorizing is itself unhealthy. Where do conspiracy theories come from? Where do you think they come from? They come from living in a country where the government will never explain anything and lies constantly. So the next time you see someone in power complain about malicious conspiracy theories, stop him in mid-sentence and say they exist because of you. If you would just tell the truth, if you would live like Charlie Kirk and answer the question politely, reasonably, fully, there wouldn't be a vacuum into which lunatics would rush. We would have a plausible answer to basic questions like, "What the hell is going on?" But because you haven't provided that, what do you think's going to happen? People are going to have some pretty far out explanations. And maybe some of them are true. By the way, we don't know. Your behavior is so suspicious because you can't answer any question straight any. And you're spending your time talking to Jonathan Greenblat, one of the darkest, most corrupt people in our society. Truly a divisive figure.
Speaking of divisive, how many Americans have made fellow Americans hate each other more consistently over the years than Jonathan Greenblad? Very, very few. Very few. And you're talking to him. So, if this sounds like a paranoid rant, like, "Oh, that could never happen." Well, you should know that it is happening right now in the state of California. The state of California like two weeks ago, 10 days ago, 8 days ago, something like that, has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature. It awaits a signature from Gavin Newsome that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsome signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he people will be fined if the sensors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, violence, intimidation, or coercion. What's intimidation or coercion? Right. Right. Or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that. And so, this the society becomes ever more hierarchical with a Brahman class and untouchables at the bottom. The opposite of the country all of
The transcript opens by contrasting the current environment with the country that people over 50 grew up in, which had an egalitarian spirit where some were rich, some were poor, some were smart, some were dumb, some had good jobs, others were unemployed, but all were considered equal under the law and equal in the eyes of God. This concept was the basis of a stable society, and laws like the one being discussed have made society wildly unstable and wobbly.
As of October 13th, a censorship law could become law in California. The law is presented as getting platforms to censor, which is compared to hiring a hitman to carry out a hit. The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to censor the opinions of Americans not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, applauds this legislation. In a clip shown, Greenblatt states that antivaxxer accounts have been amplified and spread across Facebook because Facebook profits from amplifying these voices which are literally killing people. He argues that freedom to express your opinion isn't the freedom to incite violence, and that there's nothing wrong with keeping all of us safe from violent white supremacists or hateful people.
The transcript characterizes Greenblatt as a faithful Praetorian guard for the people in charge, someone who has never challenged actual power. This is presented as showing who he really is and what hate speech looks like when anyone in charge can make you shut up when you criticize them or stand in the way of their aims.
The transcript moves to the UK as an example of how this can come to the United States. The UK has become a police state, with more than 12,000 people arrested in 2023 for speech violations. This number is compared to Russia under Vladimir Putin, where 3,319 people were arrested for speech violations in a country with twice the population of the UK.
A video clip shows a British veteran being arrested for posting something that caused someone anxiety based upon his social media post. The veteran questions why he is in cuffs for something someone else shared, and the response is that someone has been caused obviously anxiety based upon his social media post.
The transcript states that if a government is willing to arrest you for saying things that they don't like, if your government is arresting you for criticizing them one way or another, you need a new government. If there is any justification for revolution, it is that. A government that arrests people for criticizing them is not a legitimate government and has absolutely no right to do that.
Michael Shellenberger is introduced as one of the great reporters in the United States and someone who as a former liberal has thought about speech for more years and with more clarity than probably anyone known to the host. Shellenberger states that assassination is the ultimate form of censorship and that it comes from the same place as censorship efforts.
He notes that Charlie Kirk was on a blacklist according to the Twitter files, and there were huge attempts to keep him out of universities. He had already had many death threats, which is not a direct form of government censorship but represents societal demands that he be silenced.
Shellenberger describes two things happening: an organic demand from powerful people like politicians who want something taken down, and an inorganic demand for censorship labeled the censorship industrial complex or censorship industry. This is in place in the European Union, Britain, Brazil, and California would like to have that. All the Five Eyes countries are pursuing that strategy.
Their strategy is to encircle the United States and make tech platforms censor along the lines that they would like to achieve censorship through the back door. This has always been their strategy because they know that the First Amendment is a major obstacle since it requires radical levels of free speech that no country has ever come close to.
The transcript emphasizes that the First Amendment is based on the idea of natural rights granted by the creator, not given by the government. Speech comes before the government, and speech is how we constitute our government. In Europe and everywhere else, the government gradually let people say certain things, requiring petitioning the king.
The Americans who created the country said they don't want a country or government if they can't have full free speech with some very narrow exceptions. The exceptions now being argued are that the internet changed everything and it's too dangerous to allow this high level of free speech.
The Supreme Court has ruled not once but twice that Nazis can march through neighborhoods not only of Jewish Americans but of Holocaust survivors. The line that gets crossed between speech and actual violence is when speech becomes part of the action, such as saying go kill that person or go light that house on fire, or coordinating an assassination.
The transcript mentions Graham Linehan, a famous television comedy writer, who was arrested when he landed in Britain for having urged biological women to defend themselves from biological males that come into their bathrooms. This is presented as showing the serious threat.
The big threat is governments empowering a mostly secret group of so-called NGOs that would be financed by the government and telling social media companies what to take down. In some places, they are more subtle with it than in others.
The Trump administration has done some great things to defund that, which was all going to work through NSF, and Congress would have to bless it. The Trump administration has also held a strong line on both Europe and Brazil, demanding that free speech protections be there.
There has been some backsliding and behaviors over the last couple of weeks that were lamentable, including the attorney general's comments which she later went back on, and a dust up over the FCC chair and his comments around Jimmy Kimmel. In retrospect, it seems absurd that Democrats trying to create an elaborate censorship system were contrasted with some bad mouthing of Jimmy Kimmel.
The TikTok ban by Congress was ostensibly about foreign ownership of a critical service like social media, requiring at least 51% ownership by Americans. However, members of Congress said openly that it had nothing to do with China, and they were voting to shut down TikTok because people are starting to like Hamas when they watch it.
The transcript questions whether it is okay for Congress to decide they don't like the effects or radicalization of one social media platform and shut it down, since Americans have a right to like anything they want and come to their own conclusions about any conflict.
Section 230 already regulates these platforms as a different category of business, making them not liable if they take down illegal content. The proposal is to keep 230 but make it contingent on allowing all adult users to filter their own content, while still policing child exploitation and copyright violation.
When users go into social media platforms, they should have a chance to decide what they want to see and what they don't want to see. Platforms like X already can feed users their own platform stream, and Elon has gotten pretty close to that at X.
Mark Zuckerberg at Meta decided to copy the Elon Musk model of crowdsourcing, which is the spirit of the First Amendment. Google in a letter to Chairman Jim Jordan said they would move to something more like that. These are good directions, but the only issue of Section 230 reform should be to expand the speech that's allowed, not restrict it.
What they want to do is give the deep state, DHS, NSF, DoD, the power to choose the people that will decide what the truth is as these NGOs who would then get NSF money and special access to the data. This was their whole vision, and they were close to achieving it before it was discovered with the Twitter files.
They are set back in the United States but are moving in that direction in Europe, Britain, Brazil, and California would like to do the same. If Gavin Newsom signs the legislation described, the hope is that the Supreme Court or courts strike it down, as they struck down the last California censorship initiative.
We're on a knife's edge, making some good progress in the United States in exposing and defunding censorship, but worldwide the trends are in the wrong direction. On college campuses with young people, there has been an increase of support among censorship, with every generation from baby boomers to Gen Xers to millennials to zoomers showing support for censorship going up.
Support for censorship is about protecting feelings and expressive individualism, where my feelings are the most important thing in the world, and if my feelings are hurt, then somebody has to pay a price. This is the ideology driving the censorship, representing intolerance and entitlement.
There are decent people whose best impulses have been hijacked by totalitarians and used against them. Good people, mostly women, who think we can't be mean to this or that group, and while that's a good impulse, it is hijacked by the censors who are acting on their own behalf, not on behalf of whatever marginalized group they claim they're acting on behalf of.
The censors don't care about those groups, as the lives of black people in inner cities did not improve after the George Floyd riots. They hijack the impulse by saying that if you care about the weakest among us, you will get on board with censorship.
It is easy to show how much of an abuse of power can come with hate speech laws. People will say they are not defending the right of people to call for genocide, and so we will carve that out. But the same people who say that point out that European settlers committed a genocide to create the United States of America.
It would be easy to criticize somebody who praised America, praised the western expansion, and praised the European settlers taking over this land from indigenous people, saying that's defending genocide. This shows how easily and quickly it comes.
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue is mentioned as one of these deeply sinister groups that refused to have dialogue and personally smeared the speaker and others. The group is described as creepy and close to British intelligence.
British organizations serve as intermediaries for deep state entities seeking to censor Americans, since US intelligence cannot directly target American citizens. The British groups pick on Americans because the US intelligence community cannot go after Americans directly, so they use British allies instead. These groups labeled criticism of George Soros as anti-semitic, even when the criticism did not reference his Jewish identity.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a sinister organization very connected to the Labor Party of Britain. The European Union, NATO, the United Nations, Germany, France, and Britain have all been involved in pushing censorship. The European economy is bigger than the United States economy, and this creates significant pressure on American platforms.
When Trump punished Brazil with tariffs for censorship and banning opposition party leader Bolsonaro, China made up the difference in the loss of trade. There is an organic decline of real belief and support in free speech with a global move toward a censorship industrial complex system of censorship by proxy. These entities can exercise economic power over platforms.
Elon Musk has made great decisions for the most part since taking over the platform. However, if anything were to happen to Elon, companies like Mark Zuckerberg, Google, and Sundar Pichai have shown themselves to be quite cowardly. Facebook was worried about lack of help from the Biden administration to retrieve valuable user data from Europe, which their laws require.
Facebook agreed to do censorship that even their own social scientists said would backfire. Internal people at Facebook said that censoring mothers sharing information about COVID vaccine side effects would make mothers more nervous. The Facebook execs prioritized getting help from the Biden administration with their data in Europe over following their own internal research.
It is not a good system if one South African-born naturalized American is the only thing standing between the public and tyranny. The media would not be what it is without Elon Musk opening up the platform because he believes in it.
The share of college students who said violence may sometimes be necessary to stop a campus speaker was under 20% in 2020, and is now 34%. One-third of college students think violence might be necessary to stop a campus speaker. This represents pathological behavior.
George Orwell was a leftist who wrote 1984 after reading James Burnham, a former Trotskyist who became a conservative. Burnham's book about the managerial state predicted how totalitarianism would emerge out of society through safetist and harm reduction demands, creating a nanny state that polices speech.
The response to the Charlie Kirk assassination and the desire to go into universities requires figuring out how to move down the numbers of young people who think violence is acceptable. Charlie Kirk was inspiring in the way he would go into places with the sign saying prove me wrong, demonstrating openness to debate.
It is powerful that the person assassinated was the person doing what is needed most, the person who was getting people comfortable with having difficult conversations and conversations with people whose values they do not share. The numbers of intolerance kept increasing over the last 10 years.
Pew found that the share of Democrats who thought the government should be involved in censoring misinformation online rose from 40% in 2018 to 70% in 2023. Earlier this year, the same question showed it declined to 58%. This suggests the trance about fighting misinformation may be breaking, though there is still cultural work needed.
Free speech is not intuitive. Little kids on playgrounds yell shut up at each other when they hear something they do not like. The alternative, to listen to somebody and actively disagree, takes practice. Kids in K through 12 and college students need to be taught how to do this, and that doing so is a core value that will be rewarded in life.
Technological advances may be harnessed to affect censorship without people knowing it. The Twitter files revealed a vast censorship program at Twitter that most users had no idea about. AI increases the power of platforms to take information off sites without anyone knowing it has been removed.
Decisions about what gets censored and what AI censors are ultimately made by people. The worst episodes of censorship over the last 5 to 10 years can be traced to specific people and groups demanding the censorship. At the company level in the Twitter files, there was debate around deplatforming the president of the United States.
The FBI ran a deception operation against social media platforms in an illegal conspiracy that included spreading disinformation about the Hunter Biden laptop. Twitter called their shadowbanning practice do not amplify lists and trends blacklists.
Twitter wanted to censor content related to QAnon conspiracy theories including the Kraken, which was tied to those theories. When someone figured out that the Seattle hockey team is the Kraken, tweets around hockey were getting swept up in the censorship.
Section 230 gives platforms the power to be a monopoly and the permit to operate as a functional natural monopoly. Platforms should have to give adult users complete control over all legal content, while being able to censor illegal content. Australia is using kids to create digital identifications as a way to implement censorship.
Using kids for censorship is a transparently cynical attempt to censor political speech. Any pretext will do, including the terrorism pretext under the Bush administration. The terrorism thing was huge, but they cannot define what it exactly is.
The NATO organization has a treaty that requires members to be free democracies that allow free speech and allow people to choose their candidates. Romania has prevented their presidential front runner from running. France is about to ban their presidential front runner Marine Le Pen on completely trumped up charges. Germany banned a mayoral candidate for made-up reasons because he liked Lord of the Rings.
The United States subsidizes NATO to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The public should make clear they do not want to be part of a military treaty that risks American lives for illiberal autocracies like France, Germany, Romania, and potentially Britain.
Americans need to know they should pay more for orange juice if it means protecting freedom of speech. Free speech is the main event and the reason America is the greatest country that has ever existed. If you do not have free speech, you do not have democracy, dignity, prosperity, or working infrastructure.
Great Britain is arresting more than 12,000 people a year for saying things the government does not like. This represents the end of an 80-year cycle that began in 1945 with the end of World War II, when the United States pushed an open society ideology to prevent another war in Europe.
The open society ideology went too far after 1990. The United States decimated industries by exporting them to China and created an NGO sector that pushed censorship and disorder simultaneously. George Soros wants censorship and also wants disorder and anarchy at the street level.
The contradictions of the ideology involve guilt around the past and the construction of singularities of evil including the Holocaust, slavery, and indigenous genocide. These became the new original sins for a new woke religion that replaced the older story of Western civilization.
The older story was that Christianity gave way to the Enlightenment, which secularized Christian values including the idea that all people are born with dignity and rights. This beautiful open society vision from 1946 became its complete totalitarian opposite.
The foreign policy establishment was behind the Online Safety Act in Britain that passed in 2023 under the conservative government. The same foreign policy blob was behind the American censorship industrial complex.
The censorship industrial complex emerged as a reaction to massive populist unrest over out-of-control migration policies, energy policies aimed at creating scarcity and high prices, and trans ideology. At Twitter, they censored Megan Murphy for saying a man is not a woman.
Hideous medical experiments are being conducted on the bodies of adolescents and mentally ill people, while authorities try to censor people talking about it and demand that people believe it is possible to change sex. This represents biological alchemy where civilization convinced itself you could perform such changes.
Thanks to the opening of the platform, the success of people like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, and the creation of an alternative media universe, there is a chance to remake the case not just for free speech, but for the tiny moment in history where every citizen of a country got to be free.
The greatest tragedy is the assassination of Charlie Kirk being leveraged by people to construct a world that he hated and fought against for his entire short life, using his assassination as a pretext for censorship.
The left emphasizes compassion and the desire to view themselves as good people. This immediate emotional appeal frames law enforcement and mandated care as cruel, while ignoring the reality that interventions are necessary to prevent self-harm. People claiming to be fine while living in waste and experiencing nightly sexual assault while smoking fentanyl demonstrate the need for intervention, yet sentimentality prevents action.
The ability to censor represents an incredible act of power and domination that the weak cannot exercise. Censorship originates from arrogant, overly empowered, entitled elites displaying traits of antisocial disorder with no empathy for those they censor. While some genuinely believe they're being empathetic, many are motivated by the will to power and the pleasure of controlling what people can say online.
Those doing the censoring have been profiled at a psychological level and are power-hungry, arrogant, closed-minded, and not very smart. The history of totalitarianism shows it is run by incompetent, awful, idiotic bureaucrats rather than competent leaders. Figures like Nina Jenkowitz and Renee Desta exemplify power-hungry, petty, small people with a neediness for validation about how good they are and how much they care.
The concept of suicidal empathy or pathological altruism masks something darker and more nihilistic. The motivation is hedonistically feeding off the power of dominating, censoring, and persecuting others, rather than serving beautiful values as Western foundational spiritualities and philosophies intended. The drive to censor transcends specific topics—whether COVID, antisemitism, trans issues, migration, or the Ukraine war—and reflects a deep, pathological impulse. This parallels the war impulse where killing represents the ultimate expression of power, as some derive pleasure from the idea of killing because it makes them feel alive.
Charlie Kirk's memorial demonstrated that not all is darkness. However, Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska discussing coordination with Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL—an organization described as the most anti-human encountered—suggests a bipartisan conspiracy to strip people of their most basic freedoms.
Totalitarianism encompasses censorship, disinformation, dehumanization through state and parastatal proxy entities, and secrecy. The Epstein files represent the most explosive case where the FBI and DOJ face no legal barriers to release, yet continue providing excuses. The story has shifted, but evidence suggests the files contain more than Jeffrey Epstein's personal pornography collection.
The Epstein situation likely covered up a sex blackmail operation, with New York Times photos published two weeks prior showing hidden cameras, one pointing directly at a bed in Epstein's New York apartment. Congressman Massie identified 20 names in the files, including the CEO of Barclay's Bank, a Hollywood producer, rock star, and magician. The MAGA movement has remained committed to pursuing this issue despite potential resistance from Speaker Johnson.
The UAP issue represents another area where disclosure is needed. Despite President Trump's promise to identify drones over New Jersey, no information has been released. Key documents provided by John Greenwald remain heavily redacted. Tulsi Gabbard serves as the legally designated head of the intelligence community, yet the CIA remains recalcitrant with minimal personnel changes—only two individuals involved in the bogus 2016 Russia interference intelligence assessment have departed.
The CIA was likely behind the 9/11 attacks as a botched operation. The organization has conducted regime change coups followed by dictators who tortured people, infiltrated American student groups, used labor unions for regime change, spawned the censorship industrial complex and lawfare, contributed to the 9/11 attacks, and conducted torture afterward that created bad information and stained America's moral character.
The CIA operates as its own country—autonomous with no oversight or command control structures. It lies about its activities, and no mechanism exists to verify its claims. The House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen supposedly know the full budget, but this is classified. Tom Cotton, running the Senate Intelligence Committee, functions as an apologist for the CIA with no real oversight.
Drone sightings over New Jersey and similar incidents shutting down Danish airports on Sunday demonstrate physical phenomena recorded at scale. The government engages in extensive, well-documented disinformation on this topic, including an alien crash retrieval manual officially labeled fake despite its extraordinary quality. Some UAP hearing testimony described successful reverse engineering of technologies.
Jacques Vallee, the French researcher portrayed by François Truffaut in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, has identified a spiritual element to UAP phenomena that cannot be reduced to military hardware. A notable case involves an English woman in the countryside during the 1950s who witnessed a UFO described as a Mexican hat with a dome, containing two beautiful people with long blonde hair and slightly bigger foreheads. She maintained the truth of her account despite ridicule, and her testimony does not resemble the word salad of psychotic individuals.
Surveys reveal 60-80% of natural scientists cannot replicate famous studies in their fields, yet they maintain trust in their disciplines. The taboo against questioning human origins and the big bang creation story has prevented open discussion, though political shifts now enable broader conversations about spiritual experiences, government cover-ups, and non-human intelligence evidence.
Thousands of high-quality videos, photos, sensor data, and radar data exist that the military and CIA withhold. The administration has disclosed more than the previous one on free speech and other matters, but significant gaps remain on Epstein, COVID origins, pandemic response, FBI weaponization, CIA rot, and UAPs. The lack of information makes conspiracy theorizing and speculation necessary, and releasing documents would address concerns about misinformation rather than fermenting conspiracy theories and race hatred as distractions.
The naming of America's military headquarters after a pentagram raises questions about deliberate symbolism. When younger and living in Washington, understanding that government agencies systematically lied about UAPs led to the explanation that public knowledge would be destabilizing, though this may mask participation in activities the public would not approve of or would find shocking.
UFO phenomena appear closely connected to occult practices, with recent documentaries exploring occult behaviors within NASA. There is remarkably little societal curiosity about these anomalies in human evolution, history, and archaeological sites where evidence does not align with established narratives. Pseudo-archaeologists are increasingly winning public arguments about these inconsistencies.
The intellectual life of the country—encompassing universities, newspapers, and major media companies—has served as the mechanism for censorship over the past 80 years. The internet represents a partial return to the pre-radio, pre-broadcast era when people could freely print whatever they wanted, allowing public examination of anomalies that challenge conventional understanding.
Jimmy Corsetti has documented how the official excavators at Göbekli Tepe are actively destroying the ancient site through multiple methods: planting trees whose roots will damage the structures, and constructing grotesque roofing systems that compromise the integrity of the archaeological remains.
Significant Tesla research materials remain missing that would likely reveal important technological developments. UAPs consistently appear around nuclear facilities, including documented drone sightings at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Workers at these sites often avoid discussing these incidents due to concerns about public perception of danger.
When the New Jersey drone incidents occurred, official statements proved demonstrably false, including John Kirby's claim that 3,000 drone cases were evaluated within 48 hours—an impossible timeframe. Evidence shows drone swarms have appeared at approximately two to three dozen US military bases, with particular activity when nuclear weapons are present in the area.
The drones exhibit behaviors that would be extremely difficult for Chinese or Russian operators to execute. While these objects appear to use advanced propulsion systems potentially involving anti-gravity technology, reverse-engineering such capabilities would require an enormous effort comparable to the Manhattan Project, making it unlikely that current technology originated from classified US programs.
The Pentagon's Arrow organization appears to function as a deception operation, consistent with CIA recommendations from the 1950s Robertson Panel, which advised that the government should debunk UFOs and ridicule researchers. People working in this field face significant threats, making this one of the most concerning issues alongside transgender ideology.
While President Trump indicated he would reveal information and Tulsi Gabbard expressed interest in investigating the topic, the pattern suggests officials prefer to handle UAP files similarly to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The intense governmental response indicates a spiritual component to the phenomenon beyond mere technological or extraterrestrial considerations.
Michael Shellenberger's commitment to journalism despite the risks involved in covering these sensitive topics is acknowledged, with particular appreciation for his principled approach and return to delivering weekly monologues on free speech issues.
Keep Tucker Carlson in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
