Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

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

Published

7 minute read

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.

ā€œI am not free today because the system worked,ā€ Assange said, ā€œI 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 Britainā€™s 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 ā€œpolitical prisoner.ā€

Saying how ā€œincarceration 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 ā€œmore 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. governmentā€™s 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 ā€œmore than 30 former and current U.S. intelligence officials,ā€ Assange said that ā€œit is a matter of public record that under Pompeoā€™s explicit direction the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate meā€ while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

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

Assangeā€™s case and his extraordinary testimony reveals one of many fault lines in the Western world.

ā€œToday, the free world is no longer free.ā€ said Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele, describing also how the West is becoming ā€œmore pessimistic,ā€ adding that, ā€œ[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 itā€™s only a question of time before it completely loses its freedom.

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 ā€œPeople 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: ā€˜total control.ā€™ā€

Her remarks followed those made by Hillary Clinton in a recent video interview, in which Clinton said ā€œwhether itā€™s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok ā€¦ if they donā€™t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.ā€

Clintonā€™s remarks about losing ā€œtotal controlā€ come after Sen. John KerryĀ spokeĀ at the World Economic Forum on September 25, sayingĀ ā€œour 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 ā€œdisinformationā€ 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.

ā€œDisinformation,ā€ and ā€œmisinformationā€ 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 ā€œtotal 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 ā€œit is uncertain what we can doā€ about the ā€œimpunityā€ 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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on

logo

By

ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€

ā€œWeā€™d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€

Youā€™d 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 wouldnā€™t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like theyā€™re hunting down a cartel. But thatā€™s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine ā€” two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughterā€™s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in questionā€”Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of twoā€”had 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 schoolā€™s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a ā€œmalicious 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 governorā€”so presumably knows his way around a budget meetingā€”asked 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 ā€œinflammatory and defamatoryā€ social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause ā€œdisharmony.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 ā€œcasting 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, whoā€”just to add to the bleakness of it allā€”has 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 mightā€”just mightā€”vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, ā€œKarenā€™s 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 charityā€”presumably a heinous act in todayā€™s climateā€”when 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.
ā€œI saw six police officers standing there,ā€ she said. ā€œMy first thought was that Sascha was dead.ā€
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. Thatā€™s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience ā€œdystopian,ā€ and, for once, the word isnā€™t hyperbole. ā€œIt was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,ā€ he said. ā€œWe’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.ā€
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. Itā€™s like being detained by police for ā€œvibes.ā€
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a ā€œnuisance on school property,ā€ despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the schoolā€™s defenseā€”such as it isā€”they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become ā€œupsetting.ā€ Which raises an important question: when did being ā€œupsettingā€ become a police matter?
What weā€™re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hillā€™s 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. ā€œThe number of officers was necessary,ā€ said a spokesman, ā€œto secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.ā€
Right. Nothing says ā€œchildcareā€ like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeksā€”five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transferā€”the 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, whatā€™s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
Itā€™s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

They knew it was a lab leak all along

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Newly Revealed Documents Confirm Lab Leak Coverup

Quick Hit:

The global debate over COVID-19ā€™s 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 Germanyā€™s 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.”

  • Merkelā€™s 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 Chinaā€™s totalitarian government knew and when it knew it? Nah, Iā€™m funning you. Angela stuffed that report in a drawer and got back to doing what she did best, destroying Germanyā€™s 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 COVIDā€™s origins were 100 billion zillion percent natural.”

Even after Merkel left office in 2021, Scholzā€™s government continued to keep the intelligence under wraps. “The BND told her replacement, Olaf Scholz, ā€˜without 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, “Thereā€™s about a 100 to 100 percent chance theyā€™re true.”

The final takeaway? “We all sorta knew this already, right? Both the lab leak and the coverup,” Berenson observed. “But thereā€™s knowing and thereā€™s 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 arenā€™t 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?

Continue Reading

Trending

X