The establishment powers that be that rule, the internet and the
entire flow of information these days say that vaccine hesitancy is
being driven by MIS information.
And that misinformation, it must be stopped because it's killing untold
millions of people, probably billions of people, probably even entire civilizations
that have yet to be discovered on far away and distant planets, but who decides
exactly what qualifies as information?
How did the decide that that information is information or miss information?
And maybe, maybe that the hesitancy that we're seeing across the globe, because
it's not just in a specific nation, but we're seeing global demonstrations and
protests against these mandatory vaccines.
And we're seeing global, uh, vaccine hesitancy.
Maybe that is all been fueled by lack of transparency.
And it's raising a question among the general public.
Why such a tool push of one censorship and then two mandatory
vaccines from the ruling elite.
Why, if the science is so clear and so convincing, then why is there such fear?
Why is there such control?
Why that censorship and why the compulsion.
Hey, it's Lucas robot.
And you're listening to the Lucas robot show where we uncover purpose, pursue
truth and own the future episode 241, July 18th, 2021 coming to you from planet
lockdown yet locked down everywhere.
We're about to hear in the middle east, go into a four day lockdown.
Can't leave the house.
Australia is in the midst of, or going into a five day lockdown
where you can't leave your house.
Everything's closed.
We're seeing protests across Europe, uh, concerning mandatory vaccines
in France, in Greece and elites.
It leads me to wonder why, why is there such.
A, what seems to me to be a totalitarian pushing authoritarian, push to control
media, to control the information, the flow of information, to control people.
And in moving far past, uh, liberalism or libertarianism and moving to
controlling every aspect of society, not just the aspects of our movement in
the aspects of our business, but even pushing towards universal, basic income,
pushing towards controlling what you can and can't post pushing towards who you
can and can't associate with, and then creating less so that other people can
know what sort of information that you might be reading or consuming on the
big, bad, terrible internet, because the internet is a scary place, but we
at the show probably a year or two.
We created these, these stickers and the sticker is this little warning sign.
And it says, watch your thoughts.
And the triangle represents the triangle of cognitive behavioral therapy
and cognitive behavioral therapy.
At the top of the triangle.
It says, watch your thoughts because your thoughts control the second point of the
triangle, your feelings and your feelings influence your control, your actions, and
then your actions come up and reinforce that singular thought that you have.
So if you have a negative thought or a thought of doom and gloom, maybe
about your significant other, that is going to lead into a spiral, a
negative spiral that normally happens quite quickly about your relationship.
But if you can replace that one negative thought that might be alive, that might be
miss information, and you can replace it with something that is true rather than.
My significant other doesn't like me, or doesn't enjoy spending time
with me and replacing it with, we have a great relationship.
We, my significant other does laugh with me.
They do like me that then puts us on a virtuous cycle.
Now, the reason that I bring this sticker up and I love this sticker,
it reminds me to guard my thoughts reminds me to be sober-minded.
It reminds me to be careful about the thoughts that are flitting through my.
Because the, the progressive postmoderns would like to tell us that any thought
that goes through our head one, because w we're just sacks of chemicals.
And if we're just a sack of chemical, any thought that goes through our
head, you know, that must be your true self, but that, that postmodern,
progressive ideology says, well, any thought that flies through your
head, that must be your true self.
But I absolutely reject that notion because I know that I know that
any thought that goes through my head might not be my thought.
And I have the ability to take thoughts, captive.
I have the ability to.
Evaluate thoughts and say, is that something that I want to adopt or not?
Because thoughts are like Trojan horses that when we let them in,
they could crude in our life and they grow and they spread just like
in cognitive behavior, oral therapy.
Now the, the power, the elite powers that be, they, they will understand this.
And they've understood this for thousands of years, maybe not in the exact, uh,
psychological language as cognitive behavioral therapy, but they understand
that if you can control the media, if you can control the flow of information,
then you can control language.
You can control thoughts.
If you can control language, the things that people can and cannot say.
Then you can control what people do or do not think which is the
top of this little triangle.
If you can, if I can control what I think then I can.
And could you control my thoughts and control my tongue?
Because the tongue is like a rudder.
It turns our ship, the ship of her life, any which way the tongue is like
a spark that can set a forest on fire.
So language it's thoughts and language is so important.
If we can control those two things.
And if the intellectual elite, the powers that be, if they can control
what the public thinks or says, then they understand that they
can control how the public feels.
And if they can control how the public feels, they can control their
behavior and what they do and by doing so they're able to rule the masses.
Out force without tyranny, without having to use violence, which in some ways, in,
in, in a healthy society that hasn't, that has virtuous and truly virtuous, not
just ideas or ideals or notions, but is truly seeking to do good for everyone.
That is a great thing.
When there is a sort of unity of thoughts and heart to believe last one,
another, not for selfish gain or selfish mission, but in serving one another,
when there is that unity within a group, great things can happen because now
there's not dissension, there's not.
And people can move forward and build something.
But when there are controversial subjects, when there are life and death
subjects, when there are different views of opinion, that is where we
need to have a plethora of thoughts.
We need to have a free exchange of ideas and of language so that we
can discern, we can discern what is the best way to move forward.
We can discern what is the, the moral plum line by which we should walk forward
when, uh, when a nation is forming or when there, when a nation is trying to create
a movement or a group is trying to create a movement or uniformity, oftentimes.
Fate.
And we see this throughout the communism and socialism and the CCP and the USSR.
We see a uniform being put into place, a dress code being put into
place, because if you can even control the way that people dress.
And if everyone is dressing uniform with uniform, And in conformity, then
what it also implies by the visual eyes is saying everyone is the same.
Everyone is lockstep.
Everyone is thinking and speaking the same thing.
So I'm not going to Harbor thoughts that might go against the establishment
view, but the moment that someone can even dress differently and by
dressing differently, they're making a statement, they're choosing a
language, they're saying something.
Then that breaks that, that spell of uniformity and conformity, where
a person is able to say, wait, they are thinking something different
than the establishment view.
Maybe I could think something different too.
I'm going to test and explore this idea.
I'm going to wave these ideas against each other.
Because from that, from our ability.
To speak freely that actually can Cordingley or conversely.
It gives us the ability to think, because speaking freely is thinking freely.
If, if we don't have the ability to speak freely, it inhibits our ID.
Our ability to actually think, because speaking and communicating is the process
of thinking, and we have to be able to speak and talk things out in order
to discern what we're thinking and in order to weigh and evaluate other ideas.
This is even why a few episodes back when we were talking about this, this
trans movement or, or even when we're talking about critical race theory, CRT,
if we just outright ban and try to ban it from curriculums in schools, just
outright, we're probably not going to win that war because critical race theory
and all of these ideologies that are coming through it, it's going far beyond.
It goes far beyond what is in a textbook and it's, it, it is in the way that
something is even presented in speech.
You can take any textbook and the way, and a teacher can phrase or turn a question
to a student can easily shape the, the form and the direction of the company.
So censoring something, right.
It's not the way to win the way to win it from a libertarian standpoint.
And when I say libertarian, I do not mean necessarily progressive left
because the progressive left has is no longer really become libertarian.
They have become libertarian.
They become anti liberal in so many ways as the Overton window of
thought, and speech has been moved.
But the way to win is by having a free, a free exchange of ideas, where we're able
to evaluate those ideas, but the powers that be, do not want us to evaluate ideas.
They want to control the narrative.
They want to control the thought.
And that's what we're going to be talking a little bit about today on this episode.
And we're going to start with vaccine hesitancy now for full disclosure.
I love vaccines.
I'm definitely not an anti-vaxxer.
Our kids all get vaccinated.
I am grateful.
I deeply deeply grateful for modern science.
However I would for full disclosure, I would definitely categorize
myself as vaccine hesitant.
Now, what that means is probably at some point in the future.
And for all you listening, if, when you're, if you're totally on the
vaccine, uh, anti-vax side, for sure.
You're going to hate me.
And if you're like really pro vaccine, you're probably going
to hate me too, but that's okay.
Probably at some point in the future, maybe.
A year or two years if there's actual need.
And there's, we've reached a place where I feel like, okay, this is, this is safe.
There's a safe option out there.
When it comes to a vaccine, we'll probably end up having to take one just
because of the, the ease of travel.
Um, and we travel a lot.
And it's going to be really difficult if these totalitarian methods and control
controlling the flow of travel across the globe, depending on how this all shakes
out, I would prefer not to get one.
We don't get the flu vaccine or shot.
Um, so, and we were in a place where age it, the risk versus reward
just doesn't seem to be there.
But now there is a really global push right now to break it vaccine hesitancy.
And at the same time, there is an enormous amount of vaccine hesitancy.
You look across Europe, you look across Australia, you look across the
middle east and we see shocking rates.
What the, the Provax side with the establishment would say would be
shocking rates of vaccine hesitancy, which causes me to, has caused me to
ask, well, why, why might there be.
Such hesitancy.
Where is this coming from now?
The establishment would say, well, it's because of all this misinformation
that's being put out there saying that, well, vaccines, this, this vaccine, the
COVID vaccine is causing infertility.
This COVID vaccine is causing deaths.
This COVID vaccine, you know, all this Ms.
Quote unquote misinformation.
And at the same time we're reading and we're seeing it's all over the place where
it's not misinformation, but they're very viable stories where we know people who
they've died after getting the vaccine, or they have severe side effects.
We see story after story after story.
And so is all of a sudden, all of these stories is that all
missed now, just misinformation.
We're just supposed to dismiss the stories that are out there.
Although I would say.
To counter what I just said.
It could be a confirmation bias.
I mean, if there's been hundreds of millions, hundreds of millions of
vaccines given out, and there's a, maybe 50,000, a hundred thousand,
maybe there's more worldwide.
We don't have an exact number of adverse side effects or maybe
thousands of deaths worldwide.
We, we don't know, at least, I don't know, from looking at the data, how much
of that is actually correlated directly to eight, the COVID vaccines or how much
is just happens to be confirmation bias.
There, there happened to be a comorbidity somewhere else that happened to
trigger at the same time that maybe.
Not related to the vaccine, just as we made the argument that all of
these COVID deaths that are being chalked up as COVID well, you know,
maybe someone actually just died in a car accident and it wasn't because
of COVID, but it was something else.
And it's getting marked as a COVID death.
I think it'd be fair in the argument to say, okay, well, it can go both ways.
For instance, I was checking, uh, the American verus report, um, the vaccine
adverse events reporting system verus.
Now, when you go into this system, it's quite advanced, there's so many
options to actually utilize it properly.
You have to really know what you're doing.
So I pulled just a really basic, really basic report looking at all of
the vaccines from the time that this record was created beginning in 1990.
And seeing what sort of percentage, what sorts of adverse reaction to
vaccines were out there and how many of those are correlating to COVID?
Now what's important to note that right there on the, the virus website,
when you are entering their portal, there's a disclaimer that you need
to click and accept or read, which is realizing that all of these reports
does not mean that they're verified to be connected to that vaccine.
It's someone had a vaccine and then afterwards, at some point afterwards,
they had some sort of adverse reaction.
They ended up in the hospital or it resulted in death.
And then those people, whether it's the individual or the doctor or the people
around them, decided to file a claim.
Now, this is only.
America.
There are obviously 95% of the global population exists outside of America.
So we don't have global numbers, but I feel like it is very important to
note that we can't just look at these numbers and say, aha, there is the proof.
We can't say that because the data, the statistics is
definitely more complex than that.
It would be the same thing as saying a hub look, more black.
People are being arrested than white people.
And therefore that systematic racism.
Wow.
We can say, well, actually, when you look at the number
of crime, Per the population.
We actually see that in America, black people are arrested or pulled
over less than the proportionate amount of violent criminal crimes
that they commit in America.
Those are statistics.
So the same way, if we're going to judge one thing by actually breaking
down the statistics and understanding it, which I was not able to do fully
at this, but we need to understand that this could be far more complex than
we're making it out to be in this little vignette that we're doing right here.
But what it does.
With these numbers do show is that there are a huge amount of
either side effects or confirmation bias side effects or something
that's going on with this vaccine.
Whether it's people just don't trust it, but if they don't trust it and then.
Vaccinated then that doesn't make fully sense, full sense.
And it could be a lot of these cases are just not verified.
And if we broke them down, if someone was able to go through and break them
down, we can see how many of these were actually, uh, tied in directly correlate.
To these COVID vaccines.
And of course there's a very number of them that are out there.
I didn't even go down into that depth of, of Madrona versus Pfizer,
et cetera, but here are the numbers.
So the vaccine adverse event reporting system said that dating back to
1990, there was 1.5 million total cases reported, but get this of
those cases, 38%, 432,919 as of July 18th, 2021 were from COVID vaccines.
So you're looking at, and you're saying, wait a minute, 38, 30 8%.
38% were related to a COVID vaccine.
And then you look at the deaths and out of the deaths reported
for COVID and not for COVID.
Excuse me, for, for all the vaccines that were been reported to this forest,
that the COVID vaccines COVID-19 vaccines account for 56.77% of all of
all the cases going back from 1990.
Now, again, not all of these are one-to-one correlated.
We don't actually know did all of these 5,930.
Reports to verus, uh, were those actually cases or were there other
comorbidities maybe involved?
Were there other things that were at play?
Is there a direct link, but this is one reason.
This is one reason why people are extremely hesitant.
They do not feel safe, but the response that we are seeing that I am seeing,
instead of addressing these things head on, from what I've seen, I see
big tech and governments, sensor.
These things try to call if, if trying to call anyone who is speaking out about
this or raising these questions, they're saying, well, this is disinformation.
This is misinformation we need to censor or, or shadow ban or silence.
These sorts of, of narratives, these sorts of questions, these sorts of data points.
And that to me, that, to me signals and explains why people are mistrusting
and why people are hesitant to me, I'm hesitant at least is one because
the stories that are out there, the evidence that is out there, I don't
feel like it's been addressed properly.
And then to, instead of there being a free flow of information to say,
yeah, let's have this out here.
Let's let's air this conversation.
Let's look at this.
It seems to.
The media powers that be inclusion with the government ruling elites
that be, are trying to just shut this down all together to silence the
conversation and that breeds dis trust that breeds distrust among the public.
For instance, this February, just a couple of months ago, there is a
quanie actor machete Abballa he died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
Now this is how the, the official narrative goes.
And this, I think even if this is true, even if this is true, it is
highly, it makes me highly skeptical.
It makes me highly skeptical that this is true just by the way it unfolds here.
This famous, uh, Kuwaiti actor, 700,000 followers on Instagram.
He goes in to get his vaccine first vaccine, the Pfizer.
And he's very excited.
He posts on social media, tells everyone get vaccinated.
This is a great thing.
You know, I'm getting my first one, this malign in God's name, like hamdulillah
right afterwards, he comes down, ill, sick back into intensive care and he dies a
number of days later, the official story.
Is that he contracted COVID at the vaccination center
while getting vaccinated.
That's the story.
After we've heard story after story of this Pfizer vaccine causing people
with rare blood conditions or heart conditions to have swelling in their
hearts and then die to have these adverse side effects from this vaccine that has
not fully passed FDA global approval.
It's still in, in its quote unquote experimental phase.
It's not fully been approved yet.
And so what makes I think what makes people skeptical?
What makes me skeptical is here this, this story that could be
cause for someone to pause and say, Hey, this seems like a problem.
And instead of there being what I believe to be clear reporting, or at least raising
the fact that this seems like, well, maybe the vaccine had something to do with it.
Maybe he didn't contract COVID and it was an adverse reaction to
this bad vaccine, but instead the narrative goes, oh, he got COVID.
This is why we all need to get vaccinated.
This is what causes people to distrust the media, to distrust the
government that is controlling media.
It's the distrust, the CDC and the who that is theirs.
There's a one narrative that you must follow.
And if you fall out of that narrative, then we are going to one silence
you, and to change the narratives.
Now, as I said, vaccine hesitancy across the globe is at record record numbers and.
23% are, are pro-vaccine.
That means 77% are vaccine hesitant in Kuwait in Jordan only 28% say that
they'll get the vaccine and Egypt.
They did a poll of over 27,000 Egyptian medical students.
This was back in January and only 46% said they were, excuse me, only
40 per 6% said they wanted to wait.
Meaning that only 54% were saying that they were actually
going to get the vaccine.
And of all of Egypt, 52% said they're unwilling or not sure if
they're going to be vaccinated.
Here's another story from Iraq, a gentleman named Mahmud
who's an Iraqi civil servant.
He said under the conditions of anonymity.
But one of the reasons that he was vaccine hesitant, he had an appointment given to
him by the, the government to get his jab.
And then he decided to pass on it.
One of the reasons he said the vaccine has come here so fast, he tooled a
DW, but that's so strange in Iraq with things like this, you usually can't
get access without some corruption, you have to pay somebody, but the vaccine
is free and available for everyone.
It's a bit suspicious.
Now, when you have a society that is continually feeling like anything that
is good, they have to fight to get anything that is worth getting that.
Anything that is valuable, you have to twist some arms and
pay someone off and slide money across the table underneath it.
And now these people are being distrusting because of past history.
And when you, when you couple it with narratives that say, Hey and
scientific data, and the research that says these things, some of
these things don't seem to add up, and then you censored those voices.
There is going to be concern for everyone in Tunisia.
It shows that only one third were wanting to get vaccinated in Lebanon.
Only about 17% around April 15th, 17% of the Lebanese population had
registered to get vaccinated in Yemen.
84% said they did not want to get the.
This is, this is widespread throughout the middle east.
There are some nations that are, are doing much better at
getting everyone to get the job.
Those nations, according to DW would be nations like the UAE and Saudi
Arabia where they say, quote, unquote, media is more tightly controlled.
So the official messaging on vaccinations explain mood Casale Lebanese expert,
and an open source verification said that in March surveys suggested that
62% of residents in Saudi were willing to be vaccinated, but that's still
only two thirds of the population.
Now at the end of this article by DW a German newspaper.
They have a quote from Hazem or Howie who is a Syrian health expert.
And she said, in my opinion, the best way to deal with the high levels of
vaccination hesitancy is to give clear, truthful and transparent messages.
And I fully agree that is the best.
We need to have clear, truthful and transparent messaging,
but is not what we are seeing.
And that is a problem.
We have not seen clear, truthful or transparent messaging
throughout this whole thing.
In fact, what we have been seeing is a sensory of anything that goes against
the establishment point of view.
We've been seen that from big tech we've been seeing.
Everything's falling in line with the who CDC, if you post or say
anything that goes against the narrative, he will be censored.
You'll be turned off.
You'll be labeled as Ms.
In for mation.
Now, if these, if these vaccines truly, truly are safe, if they are,
then I say the, probably what we're seeing right now is like the boy
who cried Wolf, except in reverse.
If you remember the story of the boy, boy who cried Wolf, the boy who cried Wolf is
this, there's this little shepherd boy.
And he's out in the field watching the show.
And he's bored.
He's lonely.
So he rings the bell calls out to all the other, all the other
villagers says, there's a Wolf, there's a Wolf quick come and save us.
They come out.
There's no Wolf happens again.
Two, three times.
Now the fourth time, there actually is a Wolf.
He rings the bell and nobody comes the boy who cried Wolf.
But this time it's the opposite in this, in this crisis, we saw the opposite.
We saw ah, it's it didn't come from a lab in China.
Uh, no, you can't say that.
Oh, this, this isn't going to be a problem.
Trying to Denine that there, there was any issue.
Oh, you don't need to wear masks.
Oh, now you need to wear a mask.
Oh, we're all gonna lock down for one, two weeks and we'll flatten the curve
and then we'll be back to normal.
Now it's going to be three months.
Oh, lock downs.
Don't work.
Oh, we're going to do more lockdowns it's back and forth messaging.
And anytime that someone tries to step out of that narrative, any
voice that's dissenting is shut down.
I mean, look at president Donald Trump.
So many of the things that he said when he said them were called
xenophobic, we're called ridiculous.
And then just months later, the mainstream media, there's, there's a
change in the regime and the white house.
And now the mainstream media is going along with what Biden is now saying,
which he is now just echoing what president Donald Trump used to be saying.
So these are reasons that people are healthy.
Because for so long, people would get shadow banned or taking their videos
taken off of YouTube for saying that this originated in, in a lab in China.
And now is the story comes out.
Oh, it looks like you actually might have originated in a lab in China.
Now that's allowed again.
So the population is saying, if this is the case, then why should we trust?
Why should we trust you now?
What if these actually turned out to be unhealthy, turned out, to
actually have severe problems?
We're going to wait a little bit.
We're just going to hold our breath a little bit until we see.
What exactly is happening?
Well, as I said, this it's breaking down across the world.
Uh, Australia, here's a clip from Australia.
Actually think this clip was from April, but here is a clip from
Australia and some protests that people are having when it comes to the
mandatory vaccinations, the group is opposed to the government's pandemic
response and critical of the COVID jab, border closures and mandatory masks.
And now all this talk about the mandatory vaccine.
We have watched leave nothing to distinguish from Australia,
between Australia and China, basically informed consent.
That's what they're saying here in this clip is true.
We're seeing this push, we're seeing a lockdown.
We're seeing mandatory masking, mandatory lockdown, and now mandatory.
Vaccinations with this gentleman was seen in this clip.
And what they're arguing is we want to have the freedom of choice.
We want to be able to choose it.
Shouldn't be something that's mandated on us.
Well, in France, over the last week, France came out and said that
government workers are going to be, have forced, mandatory vaccines,
and to enter public places or coffee shops or public transport, you
will be forced to have a vaccine.
Well, people were definitely not happy with that.
Here's a complication from a allergies.
See people fighting police tear gas.
Here's an older lady saying I'm absolutely against this health pass
because I think it's ridiculous that I have to get injected just
to have coffee and outdoor table.
It's just crazy more people filling the streets.
People kicking tear gas in protests.
This man says I've chosen to protest today to fight the health pass, which is
just a complete anti-democratic measure.
It completely arbitrary one.
I think right now we are heading more and more towards a dictatorship.
This is coming from France.
France is it's definitely not the, at least from our American viewpoint.
It's definitely not our favorite nation.
When it comes to America, there's a lot of bad blood between
the Americans and the French.
And we've seen throughout French history with bloody revolutions time and time.
When they embrace the age of reason and throughout religion as a whole, we saw the
catastrophes that happen and France has very high resistance to these vaccines.
And yet the government is mandating them when that is being compulsory.
Right.
We put on people.
There is, there is going to be pushback because people are saying, if this
is so great, if this is really going to save my life and everyone else's
life, then why are you mandating it?
Why are you forcing it on me?
If you're saying that you can convince me otherwise, then convince
me otherwise don't force it on me.
Well, the same thing is happening right now in Greece.
This is from the global news.
Athens, Greece, July 14th, 5,000 people gathered to pose vaccinations
for, uh, mandatory vaccinations for workers in certain sectors.
This man says every person has the right to choose.
No government can choose.
What we do our bodies and what others do for us.
It's for us to decide not them thousands of people across Greece gathering saying
we want to have the right to choose.
This should not be something that the government is arbitrarily
pushing on us for a disease that for many under 50, 60 has a 95.
To 93%, 95, 99 0.5.
Excuse me.
Percent recovery rate.
It's.
It's not, it's not what it's been made out to be well, Australia, as well
as going into a five day lockdown.
Here's a clip from the Australian news, uh, commenting on, uh, what's
happening there in Australia.
Victoria is beginning its fifth lockdown of the pandemic this
morning as authorities launch a preemptive strike against the
highly contagious Delta strained.
Last night, protesters took to Melbourne's streets just hours
before the five-day stay at home.
Orders came into place, but many residents are embracing the moon.
And, and here, if you're listening and not watching, uh, you can see on your,
if you're listening to a podcast, 2.0 compatible app, you'll be able to see,
uh, a photo of the crowded streets in Victoria, Australia with signs of people
saying we will not consent, no compliance.
Uh, you'll not force this on us.
Well, they did a couple of man on the street interviews and wow, these are,
these are hopefully it's five days.
We'll get out of the way and we'll be free again.
Hopefully, hopefully five days we'll get it out of the way.
It will be free.
Yeah, right.
We've heard that narrative.
And we've also heard the who say, Hey guys, it doesn't look like lockdowns work.
In addition to that, we have a couple more clips, but still in addition to that, I
wrote an article saying that more children committed suicide then died from these
lockdowns that these lockdowns you're more like a child is more likely to die
from suicide from the lockdowns, the increase that we've seen in child suicide
in the last 20 months than to die from.
COVID-19 the damage that these things are doing to an entire generation.
It's astounding.
Here's another lady from Victoria.
I'm disappointed about it, but what else is the other option?
Maybe to not shut everything down.
Here's here's another lady getting used to it by now.
I'm kind of getting used to it die now.
And that's the whole point, the whole point when we can, when,
when you can normalize something over time, you start small and you
slowly, slowly boiled the pot until we're used to totalitarian methods.
As, as you said in this verse, very first clip from Australia.
Uh, and, and this man talking about how first it started with mandatory mass,
then it started with mandatory lockdowns.
And now we have mandatory put a shot in your room.
That is where it is going.
Well, the U S press secretary, Jen WISeKey.
She had, uh, had quite the show, the, uh, last Thursday at the white house
with some pretty shocking statements concerning, uh, censorship and the
push that the Biden administration is looking to take an influence Facebook
and other big tech platforms with here is, uh, the us press secretary.
So we are regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest
narratives, dangerous to public health that we, and many other Americans
seeing are seeing across all of sorts of social and traditional media.
Notice, they're making sure that they're flagging there.
They're talking to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, big tech platforms about
the narratives that are out there.
Remember, this is a war about narratives is the entire movie.
At the beginning that if you can control language, if you can control thoughts,
if you can control that narrative, then you can control the people.
And they're saying we are going to make sure that the narratives
that we do not want out.
Are being controlled and we want our narrative to be pushed forward.
She, she goes on in this clip
and we worked, you engage with them to better understand the enforcement
of social media platform policy.
A couple of the steps that we have, um, you know, that could be constructive for
the public health, uh, of the country are, uh, providing, uh, for, for Facebook or
other platforms to measure and publicly share the impact of misinformation.
So the, the Biden administration is saying, and pause, if you are
somewhere else in the world, if you're not an American, I'm an American, I
live outside of the United States, but this directly is going to have
an impact on everyone in the club.
The way that that big tech ends up responding to this in the future is going
to impact the entire flow of information.
On the global level, we we've talked a number of times about section
70 in India, that, that deems these social media platforms as
essentially public bulletin boards, but they don't have editorial power.
The same as section two 30 in the United States, which says Facebook and Twitter.
They're not public services, even though there are, are statements by
the U S Supreme court, which seemed to open the door to say that, well,
these are actually almost becoming like phone lines in public utilities.
You're seeing these platforms have the freedom to take some things down
without being editorial in them, but they're not going to be held liable
for something that you or I post because it's a public bulletin board.
But if governments are able to merge with these platforms, if they're
able to merge with these platforms and begin to shape the way that that
information is flowing on these plans.
Even though they might remain private companies, governments, centralized, uh,
establishment narratives can be pushed and forced on these platforms, silencing
anyone who, who thinks otherwise.
So this is what she's saying first, going back to the press secretary, let me
replay that little, last bit of that clip.
Are there platforms to measure and publicly share the impact of
misinformation on their platform?
She wants these platforms to measure and publicly share.
The, the impact of mission information on their platforms, which I'm assuming it's
how many people are engaging with what the white house is considering misinformation
and the audience it's reaching, uh, and the audience it's reaching.
So now that could just be big macro data saying this is the basic demographic of
the person that it's reaching, but it can also go much further if you remember, just
last a couple of weeks ago, we didn't talk about it here on the show, but Facebook
began to show messages to the users.
Is someone that, you know, are they potentially becoming radicalized?
If so, let us know and report them.
So we know that they're, they're already pushing to look to individuals, not
just big mass conglomerates of people, but they're, they're taking their data.
And they're laser focusing on specific individuals.
So is, is what will happen is now there's going to be a public list to let
everyone know sort of information you or I have read or going to be reading.
Will it become public because at least for sure right now
that list is already out there.
There there's already metadata on everything that you or I read when
we use platforms like Google, all that data is then compiled and sold,
not only to governments, but it's sold to advertisers and market.
And it sounds like what she's to me, it sounds like what she's saying is we
need to have a, a public record that we need to know who these messages
are reaching and who believes what
misinformation on their platform, uh, and the audience it's reaching, uh, also
with the public, with all of you, um, to create robust enforcement strategies
that bridge their properties and provide transparency about rules, you should
robust enforcement strategy that bridges their property.
and creates enforcement of rules, essentially saying we need to have,
you know, the internet started off as this decentralized place,
these decentralized platform.
And then we began to see some centralization we saw and it's
been great because of the network effect we saw MySpace come about.
And that network effect connected people we saw Facebook come about and we were
able to connect with time lost friends.
That network effect is so powerful, but now we're seeing a further,
a further unification of power saying we need to bridge all.
We need to bridge Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat and Tik, TOK, and Instagram.
We need to compile a unified database on all of these users.
Why?
Well, she goes, wouldn't be banned from one platform and not others.
Here you shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others properties
and provide transparency about rules.
You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others.
So some people are arguing that she's saying you should
be banned from all platforms.
Other people are saying, well, no, no, no.
That's not what she's saying at all.
But what is clear?
What seems to be clear to me is that there is an argument for unification of
controlling, controlling the narrative, controlling the media of saying, we want
to know on a unified, on a unified way.
To collate all the data.
So we can see who is sharing, what we can share, who is reading what?
And then we can take a unified action against individuals in their sharing,
across all platforms, a deep platform, people uniformly across these platforms
and to have a unified codafide system of what can, and can't be shared if
that, and that's going to be informed by who, by the establishment powers
that be in, in the government.
If that's not censorship.
And of course they're saying that it's not censorship.
Why?
Well it's because it's private companies that are ultimately making
those decisions, not us, but if it's in lockstep with government
institutions being informed by government institutions, so highly suspect,
if you, for, uh, providing misinformation out there, taking faster action
against harmful posts, as you all know, information travels quite quickly, if
it's up there for days and days and days, when people see it, you know, there's,
it's hard to put that back in a box.
And of course, promoting quality information algorithms.
I don't know how they work, but they all do know how they work.
Um, so those are some of the steps that we think could be constructive for public.
For public information, uh, for public, uh, and you know, the
right of the public to know.
So right here, what she's saying is we need to have more algorithms.
We need to have algorithms that not only pushed down information that
we don't want spreading, but we want algorithms that push forward.
Our narrative, that narratives that we deem are good for the public health.
Now, of course, We do want, we do want experts.
We do want scientists.
We do not.
We do want people who are educated and know what's going
on to properly inform the public.
And of course the government does have a responsibility in helping
and sorting through what is, what is accurate and verifiable information.
But it definitely.
That they are looking to leverage these platforms and create algorithms that shape
public opinion and who gets to decide.
And once these policies are established, once these, these modes of controlling
the narrative, art established, maybe today, it is really for a good cause,
but that means tomorrow it can be used for, for whatever other purpose.
Once the policy is established, it can be used for administration
after administration for, for globally shaping, uh, narratives.
Here's a clip.
We're a reporter in the crowd, pushes back, taking what Facebook said, cause
your, uh, the U S press secretary, she's saying, well, Facebook isn't.
Enough, but Facebook responded to this and saying, actually, we've done a huge
amount to promote vaccinations and to take down what we deem as disinformation.
Here's the pushback.
\And Facebook responded yesterday after the press briefing, they say that they
removed 18 million pieces of COVID this information they've connected more than
2 billion people to reliable information.
So does the white house find that sufficient?
Clearly not because we're talking about additional steps that should be taken.
So if you're already upset with what we're seeing happening across YouTube
and Facebook, as far as censorship taking down posts, flagging posts,
I mean, my wife, she has posts that are flagged that it's just her and
her and her son, her and our kid.
And it's, this is deemed inappropriate.
You know, this is filing information or shall I have something on.
That's flagged when she's talking about healthy marriages and saying, this is
misinformation and against our community policy and it's, you know, a little sensor
above it, they want to do more of that.
This is what a Saint, we want to create policies that do more about that.
Well, here is here's another reporter pushing back just a little
bit more on, uh, on Jennifer.
No, I think for a lot of people on Facebook is that now this
is big brother watching you.
They're more concerned about that than people dying across the country because
of a pandemic where misinformation is traveling on social media platforms.
That feels unlikely to me.
If you have the data to back that up, I'm happy to discuss it.
So, so what are you saying here is people are a little bit more concerned.
About big brother, about government oversight, watching everything that
you're saying, watching everything that you're reading, controlling
the flow of information, people are more concerned about that.
Then about the fact that there might be there might, it shouldn't really
be misinformation information.
That's not scientifically accurate.
That's floating around.
And I agree with this and here's why, if there's something that's truly
misinformation, if people are looking for it, let there be a free form
of ideas and people can go and they can make their informed decision.
They can.
At both sides of the argument.
If they're looking to find what's true and accurate, but the moment that we
give away our liberties for the sake of safety, and here she says, because
of a pandemic, what does the pandemic?
And COVID spreading across the globe.
That's not being spread by Facebook, but yet they're not letting you
a good crisis go to waste there.
They're moving their, their goals and their goal line and their agenda
forward by taking more liberties away so that they can better control.
And yes, I do believe I am more concerned about what the
government might do years from now.
If they have more control and more sensitive, What they might do.
Cause we've seen history.
We've seen history, we've seen how it played out.
We see how it played out in the USSR.
We see how it played out in, in the CCP.
We S we've seen how it played out time and time again, when a few people have
the power to control the global narrative or a national narrative, and we see how
more than just a few people end up dying.
We see massive man-made famine.
We see totalitarian control, and that is a danger sign that
many, that many are concerned.
And it's not just right-winged Americans.
We just went through clip after clip, after clip of people in France, people
in Greece, which are both, you know, very, very left leaning nations.
We've seen people in Australia.
People across the globe are saying, I don't, I don't like the direction that
this is going and wary about this.
It's not just, uh, something that's centralized to American politics.
It is a global issue.
We don't anything down.
We don't block anything.
Facebook and any private sector company makes decisions about what
information should be on their platform.
Is that there is information that is leading to people, not taking the
vaccine and people are dying as a result.
So here, yes.
As we said before, governments do have a responsibility to, to look at the
data, to look at the science and to have a, an open forum, to discuss best
practices, to inform the public and to help carry that out in the public.
But here she's saying we're not the ones that censoring, but we're
definitely telling them what to sensor.
We're definitely telling them how to use and what to flag as misinformation.
And more, more over, we have to ask who are the people that gets to
decide the narrative, who are the people that gets to decide what is
misinformation and what is actually real.
Because it's the people that get to decide that gets to decide
who is legitimate and who is not what is accepted and what is not.
So what's that process.
What's that process of censorship and John Milton wrote, wrote about this,
the moment that you begin censoring, you have to sensor the sensor sensor, the
sensors who are censoring the sensors.
And before you know it, you can't have windows because you
can't look outside the window.
Cause who knows what you might see.
This is the error that comes in.
When we begin to seek to control information in seek to control media,
rather than letting the best ideas win.
Well, Wikipedia was the place was the place was being the
imperative word in that sentence.
The broad in decentralized place of information on the internet
where the best ideas one and where you're able to go to get a rounded
viewpoint of any hot topic issue.
Back back when it started, it was a place where millions of curators came
to on the backend, argue about what should or shouldn't be in any post
of any entry to make sure that people had a grounded, full view of what was
happening and what is happening on any given subject, any given topic.
But that has changed.
Wikipedia used to be a place of neutrality, used to be a place of
decentralization in broad, where you know that you're, you're going there and
in the going there, this is where I go.
I would go to Wikipedia because I know that people have fought
it out and I'm going to here.
Sides of the story.
I'm going to hear more than one perspective, but according to Larry
singer, the co-founder of Wikipedia in this interview with Preti Sayer,
Freddie say yours from lockdown, TV, uh, segment locked down TV
on his podcasts, YouTube show.
Unheard.
Uh, Wikipedia is changed now,
especially over the last five years or so.
Wikipedia has has changed as you indicate.
Quite a bit.
Um, so first of all, um, yeah, I mean, uh, it's really hard to
participate on a lot of articles.
If you go in and you make any edit at all, um, you will be sternly
warned if not just kicked out.
And it doesn't matter if it's a completely positive and positive edit.
This sometimes even happens on articles that are, are, you know, unimportant,
Wikipedia is known, um, now by everyone to have a lot of influence in the world.
Um, and so there's a very big, nasty, complex game being played behind the
scenes, um, to make the articles.
What somebody wants them
to say, there's a game being played behind the scenes to make the article,
say what somebody wants them to say, what the establishment wants them to say in
a, used to be a place where ideas were fight out and the best ideas would win.
And you'd have a rounded viewpoint where all ideas were being included in
the, in the, the broad, decentralized excite pedia of humanity, Wikipedia,
where everyone gets to contribute.
Everyone gets to join in, but no longer is the case.
As you're saying, even if you're making a positive edit, oftentimes you're going
to get banned and kicked off and your edit will be rejected, even if it's true.
Why?
Because the people have figured out that millions and millions of
people are looking to Wikipedia to inform their worldview, to
inform the way that they view the.
The important subjects of the world, of our time of society and of culture.
Larry, Sarah goes on.
If you look
at the articles that Wikipedia has, he can just see how they are, are, um, simply
mouthing the, the view of the world, economic council or world economic forum
and, um, the world health organization, uh, and the CDC and, and various other
establishment mouthpieces like Fowchee.
Um, they take their, their, uh, cues from them.
Now it's, it's understandable from their point of view, why they would
do that because, um, they're simply.
Uh, by their policies, they aren't, they're not totally
restricted to secondary sources, but that's what they emphasize.
They emphasize not the primary sources for information.
So don't, they don't look up tables of statistics and draw their own conclusions.
They want them to, to cite articles by journalists who have looked
at those tables of statistics,
right?
And this is important point.
What he's making the point he's making here is saying one.
Everyone, when you look at the Wikipedia sites are all following
lockstep with world established powers, who the CDC, and he's saying
it makes sense why they would do that.
Why?
Because the people who are editing and creating these pages, they're not looking
at original data because one, most of these, maybe, I dunno, it depends.
Wikipedia is compiled by millions of people, but Wikipedia doesn't want you
to go to going to the original source.
Wikipedia wants you to go to secondary sources, people and Trump
quote, unquote, trusted experts.
Who've already said, this is what the data means.
And then you pull from those secondary sources.
But now, if you are able to control the secondary sources, you are
able to control the final output.
That is, that is presented to you and I who go to Wikipedia probably
every day, if not every week.
Continues
and not all journalism, like the daily mail is out.
You can't, you can't, um, cite the daily mail at all.
You can't cite Fox news on socio-political issues either.
Um, it's just, it's a band now on, on, uh, so what does that mean?
It means that, um, if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream
center, left media, um, then it's, it's not going to appear on
Wikipedia.
If it doesn't appear on Wikipedia, then it doesn't exist.
If you just buy these, this established the establishment, the progressive left
by then being able to control one little thing, which is, Hey, we're going to
totally reject any sort of publications.
These rights center, right?
Leaning, uh, journalistic houses.
We're going to reject anything from these sources.
You can instantly shape the narrative.
You can instantly shape the information that people are seeing it.
And if, if you can influence what people are seeing that very first
point, what your thoughts are.
Well, then the games one, because if you don't have language for it,
the information is not presented.
Then you can win the battle.
You can win the worldview, and if you can win the worldview,
you can control society.
Well, for one thing, there are a lot of experts out there who are not going
along with, um, the, the, uh, Prevailing establishment point of view, but there's a
lot of Nobel prize winners, distinguished doctors, and so forth whose views are
not only not welcome on Wikipedia.
They're literally censored, um, on, uh, YouTube.
And sometimes Facebook and Twitter, um, were, uh, videos of interviews
made with such people are, are removed.
So it's not just a fringe group of people who are quack scientists
who are pseudo scientists who, you know, got their university,
their degrees from universities.
Like what's the matter you, and, you know, just home-baked background wackos.
These are people who have won Nobel peace prize who are not welcomed to
post and have their, their information shared on places like Wikipedia.
The other big tech industries, because there is a, there's a unified
narrative that is being followed.
He, he, he goes on to more clips by Freddy.
We put
one version of reality out there then, um, we are, first of all, Manipulating
what everyone is supposed to believe.
In other words, we're making a decision for them as encyclopedic guests.
Um, and second of all, and, and there's something wrong with that.
Um, it, again, takes the, uh, the right to decide based on
what evidence is available.
Um, what we shall believe on such a question.
Okay.
I mean, we're talking about how we should think about all of the issues
that, that, uh, inform, um, how, uh, how we vote, how our representatives.
Initiatives are going to be received by the public and, and, and so forth.
So if, if only one version of the facts is, uh, is allowed, then that gives a huge
incentive to, um, wealthy and powerful people to seize control of, of things
like Wikipedia, um, in order to, um, to shore up, uh, their, um, their power.
And they do that.
You, so right here at the end, if, if only one set of fact and opinion
is allowed only one narrative, if we're willing to compromise.
And if we're willing to say well for the sake of safety, for the sake of
public safety, we're going to just shave this corner off a little bit.
We're just going to round this out.
We're going to make this a little bit more.
I know, center of the road a little bit more appealing.
We're going to make this a little bit.
What goes along with the establishment, the moment that we do that, and we begin
to sensor just a little bit powers that want to control the way that you see the
world, the way that you think about the world, the way that you, that you think
about your life, they are able to step in and shape everything that you think,
because they're able to shape everything that you see because you're turning to.
Sources like Wikipedia, where you're expecting to get a rounded view
to understand, well, what are the different, what are the different
data points that are out there?
But instead you're getting one side while being told you're getting both sides.
For instance, here at the show, I it's, it's clear, you're getting my opinion.
You're getting my side of the story.
You're getting the way that I have looked at the narratives, looked at
the facts and say, Hey, this is the conclusion that I'm drawing this.
Isn't an unbiased non-biased.
I've never said that it was clearly, it's not clearly we're saying, Hey, this
is, this is how we can build a coherent and cohesive worldview that enables us
to own our future enables us to, to have right standing your right relationships
with, with people around us to, to lay a framework and a foundation of morality,
a framework and foundation of relational health with one another of, of leadership.
That is what we're doing.
We're not, we're not an unbiased journalistic news source.
And yet at the same time, I get comments on one videos, you know, saying you're
a propaganda shill for, you know, the Zionist dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.
And on the next video, it's your a propaganda show for Islam and
dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, and the next video, you're a propaganda
show for, you know, fill in the.
I get people on both sides, contradicting, even on the same video saying I'm
a show, but for the other side, so that to say, even though I am giving
an opinion and this show gives a specific opinion, I definitely don't
think that we fall along just a pure, uh, propaganda show mouthpiece.
We do try to look at the topics and the issues in depth, not just following
one single, uh, line of thought, processing a narrative, even as we did.
W w w even in this area, When we looked at the, the vaccination numbers, there
is so many, uh, qualification saying, okay, let's understand how this data is
working and let's not jump to conclusions, but this is probably why people are
hesitant because they're hearing these stories and they're not being dressed
addressed well by government or media.
Instead, they're being dismissed with another narrative,
just being placed over it.
Now these narratives, these are the, the, the, the, the spirits, if you
will, of origin that are, that are in the atmosphere that are in the airways.
And if you can control that, these are, if you can control what's in the
airwaves, not only in the natural realm, but in the spirit realm, then you can
control and influence the minds and the thoughts and the attitudes of people.
And that's why we need to take those things.
Captive, everything that props itself up against.
Against the knowledge of God against the laws that God gave us to live by, against
the, the it's really it's been propped up against the knowledge of God, because
most of these ideologies beyond just what we're seeing with vaccine hesitancy,
but when it comes to CRT and this trans movement, it is saying we are worshiping
creation rather than the creator.
All of these ideologies, we are worshiping creation rather than the creator.
And they're there.
It's, it's a cosmic humanism that is taking, taking place.
That's being replaced with a sound, sound, morality, and sound moral
views, uh, and, and being able to see the world have frameworks to view
the world through the right abstract.
And that that is what's being, uh, being pressed upon this generation,
this postmodern generation that is what's being pressed.
There is no truth and you are equivalent to God because you
can decide what is true for you.
So what is, but what is the answer one last clip from Larry singer,
the co-founder of Wikipedia.
What is the answer to the centralization of media and controlling of
the voices that are out there?
Well, here's this last short clip,
the answer, and I hope this is the direction we're moving in.
And there's some evidence that, that it is, is that we, we move back
to a more decentralized internet.
Um, so, uh, when Wikipedia was getting, uh, started the internet
stood for, um, you know, a plethora of independent voices.
Right.
That's that's what you win.
It was like the wild west.
Yeah.
That's what the internet used to be.
It was a wild west, a plethora of, of international voices where you could
go and you could sort of sort out for yourself, the topics and the issues,
but is now moved to decentralization.
And you heard, uh, Jen, WISeKey saying that we want to see a bridging
of all of these centralization, centralized platforms to create
even greater centralization so we can control the information flow.
So we can track to know who is consuming, what, and in the unfortunate
circumstance that this needs to happen.
We can de platform someone from all three platforms at one time, because
we can track exactly what is being said and who is saying it and who has
consumed it so that we can follow up with those persons, maybe with the door.
To let them know that they've been deeply deceived by people who are going against
our narratives well, for an X segment.
That makes sense.
Yeah.
That makes sense.
Welcome back.
Yeah, that makes sense.
We're in a post-truth society where we have exchanged truth for
lies, reason has been exchanged for postmodern irrationality.
The only thing that makes sense is the absurd, the absurd becomes normality.
And I mean, that's what we saw in those, those great clips from Australia
where the ladies are, are saying, you know, we're kind of used to it.
Now, this absurdity is now normality or the gentleman from that same clip
saying, you know, hopefully in five days we'll get our freedom back.
It's like, It's it's been a year and a half.
You don't got your freedom back yet.
I don't think five days is going to change anything, but man, in this
segment today, if that make sense, The American bookseller for free expression,
which is acronym a B F E, which is a sponsor and advocate for band book week.
Now, bam book week is a week that celebrates the freedom to
read, uh, by encouraging readers.
And bookstores displays in community activities designed to raise the awareness
of the ongoing threat of censorship.
So to break that down, there's the American bookseller for free expression
who sponsors and runs banned book week banned book week it's Hey, there's all
these, all this literature that has been banned in the past since censored
material, we're against censorship there.
The slogan for banned books week this year is books unite.
Us, censorship divides us well.
The American bookseller for free expression is owned by another
company, which is the ABA, the American bookseller association.
Okay.
So far so good.
So we have the American booksellers association, the own a B a B F E,
and then those people are sponsoring and run the scent, the band book.
Well, this is where it all begins to make sense.
In this backwards world, the ABA sent out Abigail Schrader's book,
irreversible damage, the trends, transgender craze, seducing our daughters.
We just talked about this book, just a couple episodes back where we, we pulled
a bunch of clips from Abigail talking about transgendered, transgendered,
ism, and how it's really an epidemic as the scientists are using that word.
Uh, the sociologist sociological it's the psychologist I'm using
that word, uh, because it's not just transgendered is it's not just
exploding everywhere across the globe.
It's exploding in a very small, unique demographic of young teen girls who are
mostly, uh, socially isolated who have helicopter parents who are online more
than they have in-person relationships.
And, and in this book she describes.
There would be classes of, of in all girls schools, classes, 80%
of the class all coming out as transgendered in the same day.
And then the school system just going along with it.
Changing everyone's name.
Oh, not, not responding to a parent when the parent responds or, or says the
actual name of the child and the school systems are just fully drunk, drunk the
Kool-Aid and going along with it that if a teenage or if a child, a five-year-old
a, three-year-old says one day in class flippantly, I'm the opposite gender.
Well, then it must be true because you know what?
Those straight people, every straight people is just, you know,
they're just a little bit, there's a little bit gay inside of everyone.
But once you realize that you're transgendered or you're gay or you're,
whatever, well, that is your true identity and you couldn't possibly be straight.
You can impossibly be cis-gendered.
You can impossibly be born in the right body.
You know, you're you're mismatched, somehow.
Everyone is.
And so all you cis-gendered people, you just haven't woken up to the
fact that you're not sisters.
Uh, normative, whatever words they're tacking on.
There's just so many words.
You're not that, but really deep inside there's there's
probably something else going on.
So the moment that a kid reaches that revelation while.
There you are, you're your identity has changed and we're going
to transition you home morally hormonally as, as fast as possible.
Well, so the ABA sent this book out and promotional material
to their 750 bookstore members.
And of course, uh, the rage soon came tearing down on ABA for sending out
this hateful, uh, violent, violent book.
Here's some of the things that blew up on Twitter, uh, one person said on Twitter,
well here, the, the ABA first issued an apology and this was, they got in trouble.
Because they sent the book out in two, cause their apology wasn't good enough.
ABA issued an apology on Twitter saying the anti-trans book was included
in our July mailing to our members.
This is a serious violent incident that goes against abs and policy values
and everything we believe in support.
It's inexcusable since when has sending a book in a newsletter that you're
subscribed to when you're coming up on banned book week, a book that has
been banned, how has that evolved?
How has that.
Remember, we we've moved from our words.
Violence is violence and violence is no longer violence violence.
The, the only correct response to the, the systematic oppression that you would
feel if you, uh, move into violence.
Well, that is the most noble thing that you could do.
But if you speak your speech is violence.
If you don't speak, your silence is violence.
And now if you mail a book that mailing of a book that someone doesn't
like that they find offensive while that is a serious violent incident.
Well, it's, it's never enough.
And th the, their responses to the apology on Twitter are just as scathing.
One user wrote.
I'm disappointed with the use of passive language at the beginning of
the statement and the shift in the blame shifting, they really should
say that we included this book rather than saying an anti-trans book was.
So, so it's never good enough.
It is once you bow and once you begin to appease and, and, and
apologize, you give them out.
They want a glass of milk.
They're going out more and more and more.
And so the apology wasn't enough.
One longtime ABA book member with the beloved staff across
the transgendered spectrum.
Another person wrote as a long time ABA book member with the beloved
staff across the gender spectrum, we were greatly disappointed, extremely
disappointed and angered to see the ABA promoting dangerous and widely
discredited trans anti-trans propaganda.
And we're calling for accountability said the Hartford bookstore
why'd we discredit promoting dangerous.
It's a dangerous book to say that, Hey, we should think twice before
injecting a kid with hormones.
Hey, we should think twice before giving young teenage girls double
mastectomies and a historical.
We should think twice before instantly transitioning a person where it's
irreversible that's dangerous.
Yeah.
That's dangerous.
Well, the, the CEO of ABA, Alison hill said we traumatized and endangered
members of the trans community.
These incidences harmed booksellers harmed.
They harmed booksellers and ABA board members and ABA staff who identified as
LGBT Q I a plus, and, or biopsy people of color as well as the wider community.
They also added to the toxic culture.
Overall, the toxic culture we've moved from, Hey, we shouldn't ban books.
We shouldn't have burned books.
In fact, we're going to have a whole week where we are going to read banned books.
Do you saying we're going to ban these books because the banning and
censorship of books, isn't a toxic culture, but promoting a book is violence
and it actually does harm to people.
Well, the, the diversity equity and inclusion officer, that dye officer,
uh, Korea, who identifies as a.
Queer Latino fat bodied person said we're dealing with a historically
white and CIS organization in a white supremacist society.
So there's going to be a lot of missteps there.
There's the problem.
It's historically white SIS organization with white supremacy society.
That's the problem.
It is white supremacy.
That's the problem.
We found the issue.
It's actually racism.
It's racism.
It's white supremacy.
That's the issue, not the fact that not the fact that we are going to
continue to sensor any sort of speech that goes against the status quo.
This, this show is brought to you by listeners.
Like you, we don't have advertisers, advertisers.
So if you get value out of the show, which I assume that you do, because
you're here listening, I would ask that you would consider contributing your
hard, cold Fiat, or even you can stream Bitcoin to the show as you listen.
If you want to contribute your fiance to the show, you can visit Lucas scroll
bot, SK robot.com, and you can click the appropriate button there to, to
contribute to our work and time intensive work here to produce this show, to
keep it free for you and free for all.
Or you can stream Bitcoin as you listen, which I like to do personally,
for the podcasts that I listened to.
And you can do that by visiting new podcasts, apps.com and find a
podcasting 2.0 certified app like pod friend, breeze, Sphinx, or pod station.
And you can listen to your show there.
You can load up your Bitcoin wallet and you can stream one or 2 cents.
A minute as you listen.
All right, don't go away.
We'll be right back with our closing Weaver and loom segment.
Welcome back to Weaver Luma, part of the show where we take ancient
wisdom and we weave it in with our everyday lives so that we can own our
future and weave our destiny today.
Today's.
Is a quote that has stuck with me for a long time and actually really
influences the way that I view leadership.
I remember the first time that someone shared this principle
with me, uh, I was hesitant.
I was hesitant.
I was principal hesitant for awhile.
Uh, and I had to think about it for, for quite some time.
It was shocking.
It was jarring to my mind.
I'll get to the quote.
It's a little bit long, but we'll, we'll read through it.
And then we'll, we'll discuss that quote.
Here it is.
Shepherd.
The flock of God that is among you exercising oversight, not under
compulsion, but willingly as God would have you not for shameful gain.
But eagerly not domineering over those in your charge, but being an example
to the flock, that's from the Bible.
First, Peter five verses two through three.
Now, when I first heard this, it was in the context of when you were
leading don't force people to do something, don't do something because
you're being compelled to do it.
And don't lead by compulsion.
Meaning if you're leading your team and your community, if you're doing it by
compulsion, you're doing it the wrong way.
You're having to use manipulation.
You're having to use force you're hefting to use authoritarianism, but instead
lead and an exercise oversight in a way that people are following you willingly.
And while you lead do not be dominated.
Over those who are in charge do not be totalitarian, do not control what
they do and can't do can, and can't say what they can and cannot wear.
Now, of course, as a leader, you need to define culture needs to define
values, need to establish that.
So that there's a healthy culture and community that brings not only uniformity,
not uniformity in a way that, uh, is controlling where everyone looks the
same, but uniformity around vision, where there's a harmony where there's
agreement, where there's unity among people, even when they don't agree.
So, but that needs to be established, not under compulsion, not under force, not by
using methods of shame and manipulation and gaslighting and arm twisting.
People should willingly follow.
And the way that we do this is by serving it's, by being an example,
it's by leading with humility, it's by walking humbly and it's in that place
of humility that we, that we receive grace and strength and wisdom to lead
because God opposes the proud, but he supports and exalts the humble.
So as.
You lead humbly as we lead our flock, uh, humbly as we lead those that, that
God has placed under us humbly, not under compulsion, not under forcing
someone, but showing them using the, the ideas of, of liberalism and the
idea of libertarianism and the ideas of, of freedom of thought and freedom
of speech where you're making arguments.
And you're, you're proving yourself and you're proving the moral virtues
and ideas and the plumb lines that we hold onto as being true.
Not whether I went, when I say true in that statement, it's not, you
know, opinion a over opinion B but the overarching framework that we
accept to be as truth, which is that.
We worship the creator and not the created where there is, as we talked
about Thomas Aquinas's of the four, four laws that eternal divine human
and natural laws, that there are things that exist outside of us.
That act as plumb lines in our lives and society.
Those are the things that are true, and that is the truth that we are
seeking out how to order our lives.
And if we can lead that way, if we can lead in humility rather than
forcing and twisting someone's arm, we will actually create a healthier
community and a healthier society.
Now thank you for listening to this show.
Thank you for being here.
This is my mighty long episode, longer than normal, but, uh, I
feel like it did, it did its job.
If you want to get more out of the show, you can do that by
sharing the show with someone else.
This is how we build culture.
It's brick by brick conversation by conversation.
And by sharing it, not only will that person feel loved because you
included them in your life, but it also strengthens your viewpoint.
It strengthens your opinion, and maybe you'll be proved wrong.
Maybe you'll be proved.
And you'll see something from a new angle from having a conversation
around these topics, around these issues, with people in your community.
And that is how we lead.
That is how we lead a community.
We do it by sharing, by pulling people in to relationship and
by helping define reality.
And it's.
We're able to discern truth that the terminal plumb lines that
we should order our rise by.
And that is the thing that grounds us to uncover our purpose,
that we might own the future.