Censorship Industrial Complex
Julian Assange laments growing censorship, suppression of truth in the West upon release

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, attends the European council on October 1, 2024, in Strasbourg, France
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Speaking after 12 years of confinement, Julian Assange warned of the erosion of free speech in the West, linking his own prosecution to global censorship, political corruption, and attacks on honest journalism.
On October 1, Julian Assange made his first major speech since his release. In it, he delivered a verdict on how we are governed which is as damning as it is revealing.
āI am not free today because the system worked,ā Assange said, āI am free today because after years of incarceration I pled guilty to journalism.ā
Julian Assange was convicted under the U.S. Espionage Act and spent 12 years in confinement, first taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, followed by five years in Britainās maximum-security prison in Belmarsh.
Had his plea not been accepted heĀ facedĀ a sentence of 175 years in prison. He was speaking in Strasbourg, France, at a hearingĀ convened by the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council ā which recognized Assange as a āpolitical prisoner.ā
Saying how āincarceration has taken its toll,ā Assange noted how the world he had rejoined had changed ā for the worse:
I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period. How expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
Assange gave a chilling account of the state of the Western world today, saying he now seesĀ āmore impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth, and more self-censorship.ā
He believes that his own treatment was a turning point for the suppression of freedom of speech in the West:
It is hard not to draw a line from the U.S. governmentās prosecution of me ā its crossing the Rubicon by internationally criminalizing journalism ā to the chill climate for freedom of expression that exists now.
During his speech, Assange alleged that former CIA director Mike Pompeo devised a plan to kill him, following Wikileaksā revelation in 2017 of CIA operations in Europe.
Citing the testimony of āmore than 30 former and current U.S. intelligence officials,ā Assange said that āit is a matter of public record that under Pompeoās explicit direction the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate meā while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
TheĀ revelationsĀ published by Wikileaks which prompted the plot included evidence of CIA espionage on European governments and industries. In addition, WikileaksĀ reportsĀ ārevealed the CIAās vast production of malware [spy software] and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs, and iPhones.ā
Assange was originally pursued for havingĀ publicizedĀ U.S. actions in Guantanamo Bay, and alleged war crimes in Iraq, which he explains intensified following Wikileaksā CIA revelations.
Cracks in our system
Assangeās case and his extraordinary testimony reveals one of many fault lines in the Western world.
āToday, the free world is no longer free.ā said Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele, describing also how the West is becoming āmore pessimistic,ā adding that, ā[t]ragically, we can see more evidence of this decline every day.ā Speaking at the United Nations on September 30, he said:
When the Free World became free it was due to freedom of expression, freedom before the law. But once a nation abandons the principles that make it free itās only a question of time before it completely loses its freedom.
The āFree Worldā is no longer free.
El āMundo Libreā ya no es libre. pic.twitter.com/IOrLv33KbW
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) September 30, 2024
His observations are echoed by statements from across the political divide in the U.S.
The former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard warned on October 5 that the party she left now seeks to undermine the First Amendment. She said onĀ X,Ā āPeople like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not believe in the First Amendment because they see it as an obstacle to achieving their real goal: ātotal control.āā
Her remarks followed those made by Hillary Clinton in a recent video interview, in which Clinton said āwhether itās Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok ā¦ if they donāt moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.ā
Hillary said it: when you allow free speech, āwe lose total control.ā People like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not believe in the First Amendment because they see it as an obstacle to achieving their real goal: ātotal control.ā https://t.co/euQJgAVxV4
— Tulsi Gabbard šŗ (@TulsiGabbard) October 5, 2024
Clintonās remarks about losing ātotal controlā come after Sen. John KerryĀ spokeĀ at the World Economic Forum on September 25, sayingĀ āour First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer [disinformation] out of existence.ā
Kerry argued that opposition to the polices of the WEF was fueled by ādisinformationā when critics in fact simply dislike its policies. Populism generally is described as aĀ threatĀ to democracy in the West, when it is also simply theĀ preferenceĀ for popular policies, against the unpopular ones of the current ruling elite.
āDisinformation,ā and āmisinformationā are terms invented and used by the language and ideological police to hide their malicious intent.
It appears that unpopular policies such as those of permanent war, Net Zero, deindustrialization, and denationalization can only be pursued with ātotal controlā of the information seen by the public.
The meaningful political debate is not about left and right. It is about the meaning of what is right, and the outrage at what is obviously wrong. Assange says āit is uncertain what we can doā about the āimpunityā of our leadership, which as yet has faced no meaningful consequences for its pursuit of deeply unpopular policies at the expense of widespread corruption and defended by censorship.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

By
āIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā
āWeād never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā
Youād think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldnāt expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like theyāre hunting down a cartel. But thatās precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine ā two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughterās school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in questionāMaxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of twoāhad the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the schoolās bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a āmalicious communicationsā charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governorāso presumably knows his way around a budget meetingāasked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about āinflammatory and defamatoryā social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause ādisharmony.ā One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
|
![]() |
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages. |
For the crime of ācasting aspersions,ā Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parentsā evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, whoājust to add to the bleakness of it allāhas epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you mightājust mightāvent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, āKarenās upset againā sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charityāpresumably a heinous act in todayās climateāwhen she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
āI saw six police officers standing there,ā she said. āMy first thought was that Sascha was dead.ā
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. Thatās enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience ādystopian,ā and, for once, the word isnāt hyperbole. āIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā he said. āWe’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. Itās like being detained by police for āvibes.ā
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a ānuisance on school property,ā despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the schoolās defenseāsuch as it isāthey claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become āupsetting.ā Which raises an important question: when did being āupsettingā become a police matter?
What weāre witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hillās leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. āThe number of officers was necessary,ā said a spokesman, āto secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.ā
Right. Nothing says āchildcareā like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeksāfive weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transferāthe whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, whatās next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
Itās a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
|
|
Reclaim The Net values your free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.
Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance. Consider making a modest donation ā just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out. Thank you.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
They knew it was a lab leak all along

MxM News
Newly Revealed Documents Confirm Lab Leak Coverup
Quick Hit:
The global debate over COVID-19ās origins has taken a dramatic turn after newly uncovered reports indicate that intelligence agencies in Germany had determined with near certainty that the virus originated in a Chinese lab as early as 2020. Despite this revelation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly chose to suppress the findings, aligning with a broader pattern of obfuscation by Western governments and media outlets.
Key Details:
-
German newspapers Zeit and SĆ¼ddeutsche Zeitung reported that Germanyās intelligence agency, the BND, concluded in early 2020 with 80% to 95% certainty that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China.
-
The intelligence was based on a combination of public-domain research and classified investigations under the code name “Saaremaa.”
-
Merkelās administration allegedly buried the findings, with her successor Olaf Scholz continuing the suppression, ensuring the information remained hidden from the public until now.
Diving Deeper:
Journalist Alex Berenson detailed the shocking revelations in hisĀ Substack op-ed, underscoring how “the American media is doing its best to ignore the biggest news this week.” Berenson criticized legacy media outlets for fixating on the five-year anniversary of COVID-19 while sidestepping the implications of newly surfaced intelligence.
According to Berenson, German intelligence reached its high-confidence conclusion after analyzing public materials and conducting covert operations. “The materialā¦ indicated that there had been some risky research methods used there [at the Wuhan Institute of Virology], compounded by breaches of laboratory safety rulesā¦ [and] so-called gain-of-function experiments, in which viruses occurring in nature are manipulated [to become more dangerous or transmissible],” he wrote.
Rather than alert the world to the evidence, Merkel chose to suppress it. Berenson sarcastically noted, “Who immediately told the world of the findings and demanded a full investigation into what Chinaās totalitarian government knew and when it knew it? Nah, Iām funning you. Angela stuffed that report in a drawer and got back to doing what she did best, destroying Germanyās industrial base to make Greta Thunberg happy.”
The refusal to disclose this intelligence aligns with a broader pattern of deception from both governmental and media institutions, which spent years dismissing the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Berenson noted that during early 2020, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci and Peter Daszakā¦ were gently steering their fellow scientists towards a conclusion that COVIDās origins were 100 billion zillion percent natural.”
Even after Merkel left office in 2021, Scholzās government continued to keep the intelligence under wraps. “The BND told her replacement, Olaf Scholz, āwithout the results finding their way to the publicā ā as the British newspaper The Telegraph delicately put it,” Berenson wrote. Now that the findings have emerged, the German government has not denied the reports, leaving Berenson to conclude, “Thereās about a 100 to 100 percent chance theyāre true.”
The final takeaway? “We all sorta knew this already, right? Both the lab leak and the coverup,” Berenson observed. “But thereās knowing and thereās knowing. And it looks like the same American news outlets that spent 2020 and 2021 lying (or, at best, being hopelessly credulous) about China and COVID still arenāt ready to come clean.”
As new evidence continues to surface, the question remains: Will legacy media and world leaders finally acknowledge the lab leak theory as fact, or will they continue to deflect responsibility and protect their preferred narratives?
-
Business2 days ago
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidiesāeven ones they benefit from
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Carneyās Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
-
Business2 days ago
Trump Tariffs are not going away. Canada needs to adapt or face the consequences
-
Health2 days ago
Dr. Pierre Kory Exposes the Truth About the Texas āMeasles Deathā Hoax
-
Economy2 days ago
Support For National Pipelines And LNG Projects Gain Momentum, Even In Quebec
-
Business23 hours ago
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
-
Business2 days ago
Why a domestic economy upgrade trumps diversification
-
COVID-1921 hours ago
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his familyās liability claim