Believe it or Dismiss it – YOU DECIDE!
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© August 6, 2023
ZeroHedge
and THE EXPOSÉ have
picked up some very good old posts that explain much and made them recent by cross
posting them. AND I’m getting on the train by cross posting them together. The
posts on first appearance may seem unrelated.
ZeroHedge cross posted a Paul Craig Roberts 8/3/23 fantastic
analysis of the Trump indictments showing how the Dem-Marxist prosecutors are absurdly
twisting or even fabricating laws to keep the actually elected President Trump
from re-taking Office and therefore Power. The underlying looming question is, “WHY
AND WHAT are the Deep State hacks so afraid of with Trump running the show?”
THE EXPOSÉ cross posted Substack’s A
Lily Bit 8/4/23 look at Klaus Schwab/WEF dumbing the useless humans down
with Metaverse Totalitarianism no doubt to better control the
Sheeple to make them more gullible to accept the likes of Jack Smith
indictments against Donald Trump.
AND THAT’S MY CONNECTING ROD. You can believe it or dismiss
it. The critical thinking is something I pray YOU embark upon. Below are updated
versions of the cross posts.
JRH 8/6/23
Thank you to those who have stepped up! I need Readers
willing to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity is
appreciated. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying women’s menstrual health, healthy collagen,
vitamin supplements/products, coffee from my wife’s Online store: My
Store (please use referral discount code 3917004): https://modere.co/3f9x6xy
Big Tech Censorship is
pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
**********************
The Orchestrated Cases Against Trump Explained
Posted by TYLER DURDEN
Authored
by Paul Craig Roberts
AUG 05, 2023 - 06:30 PM
President Trump has broken no laws.
The charges against Trump brought by corrupt Democrat
appointees are for propaganda purposes and for sidelining the candidate who the
Democrats know will win the next election.
If the Democrats did not regard Trump as the winning
candidate, they would not have shown their corrupt colors with four false
indictments.
Indictment Lawfare Against Trump
Many of the charges are based on interpretations or
assertions of law never before seen in any court other than Stalin’s purge
trials in the 1930s.
Start with the realization that the three charges and a
pending fourth are charges against Trump while he was in office as President of
the United States. The Democrat’s charge that a President of the United States
committed numerous felonies amounting to four separate felony trials. Ask
yourself how likely is this.
Remember, also, that the Vietnam War, Gulf of Tonkin,
bombings of Cambodia and Laos, Manning’s revelation of war crimes, etc., etc.,
real crimes all, never resulted in indictments of responsible administration
figures, except for Manning who was indicted for blowing the whistle on crimes.
In Washington’s justice, it is not those who commit crimes who are indicted. It
is those who expose crimes.
Let’s start with the fake case of Trump’s retention of
some national security documents. Presidents and presidential
appointees are allowed copies of their work in office. Among the many boxes of
documents packed up for Trump there were allegedly 31 classified documents. On
the basis of these few pages a nonentity named Jack Smith, a total failure as
head of the Justice Department’s “Integrity Unit,” managed to create out of
thin air 37 felony counts against Trump. Not a single one of these charges has
any basis in law. No one has ever been charged under these phony charges.
Moreover, President Trump had the authority to declassify documents, which he
says he did.
But the Democrats know they own the media, and the law
schools, and the governing class that defines what is acceptable. For these
corrupt people, getting rid of Trump is all that matters. Every lie that serves
the cause of removing a threat to the corrupt establishment is permissible.
The 37 felony charges contain no evidence that Trump knew
what was in the boxes, assuming anything was. It is just an assertion. After
the boxes were seized, anything could have been put into them. Why would
anyone believe the FBI after so many FBI lies and scandals have been revealed?
In 2012 Judicial Watch sued to force President Bill Clinton
to turn over records in his possession, but Obama appointee judge Amy Berman
Jackson said the court had no ability to second-guess a president’s assertion
of documents to which he was entitled. The judge said that “since
the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal
of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for
this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority
to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”
But Jack Smith has brought a felony case based on nothing
but Jack Smith’s assertion that he, not President Trump or a federal judge,
knows what documents the President has a right to retain. As for integrity,
Jack Smith scores zero. From
a headline story this morning:
“Special counsel Jack
Smith’s team made a startling admission in its case against former President
Donald Trump, acknowledging in a new court filing that it failed to turn over
all evidence to Mr. Trump’s legal team as required by law and falsely claimed
that it had.”
In other words, Jack Smith lies, so why believe his case?
If I understand the nonsensical case, one of Jack Smith
charges is that Trump violated the law by letting a lawyer lacking the security
clearances search the document boxes for the alleged “contraband.”
So much for the charge of national security breaches.
It is total nonsense.
Jack Smith’s other fake case is that by challenging the
stolen election, President Trump while still President of the United States
Trump was involved in a conspiracy to “impair, object, and defeat the counting
of votes.”
Think about this charge. The charge is not that Trump
defeated the vote count, which he obviously didn’t as he was replaced by Biden
but that he challenged the vote count. Do you see what this means? If a
candidate challenges vote irregularities, and there were many in the stolen
election, he is guilty of “conspiracy to overturn the election.”
The alleged January 6 “insurrection” was the work of federal
agents at the capital while Trump and his supporters were more than a mile away
at the Washington Monument where Trump was speaking. Only a thoroughly
corrupt Department of Justice (sic) could configure an insurrection out of
police escorting a few unarmed people around the Capitol. The evidence
is clear that the federal agents and the police provoked the few protesters
present in an effort to create a violent scene for the presstitute media to
turn into an “insurrection.”
A black Atlanta prosecutor, Fanni Willis, has turned
President Trump’s request to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to
investigate the widespread evidence of electoral fraud that cost Trump the
state’s electoral votes by a mere 11,000 votes. Only an ignorant quota hire
could possibly confuse a crime with a request for an honest vote count.
Some people think that Raffensperger and the Governor took
bribes to use the Dominion voting machines that experts say are easily hackable
and easily programed to count votes differently from how they are cast. The
suspicion is that the Georgia Republican authorities could not investigate
without risk that their bribe would surface.
Alvin Bragg, another quota hire serving as a New York
prosecutor, has charged Trump with 34 felonies for paying extortion money to
porn actress Stormy Daniels. The charge is that Trump’s lawyers reported the
payment as a legal expense when it should have been reported as a campaign
expense. The charge is not that Trump paid the porn star but that the
payment was incorrectly reported, which is merely the opinion of the
prosecutor.
Ask yourself, how can 34 felony charges come out of a
dispute over how a payment is reported?
The reason the Democrat hatchet men turn single
charges into 34 charges and 37 charges, is to create in the public’s mind that
Trump has committed a massive number of crimes. He must be guilty of something,
because “where there is smoke, there is fire.” In the American system in
which the media are totally biased against Trump, it is easy for Democrat
prosecutors to create smoke.
These indictments of Trump consist entirely of smoke.
That such spurious charges can go forward constitutes proof that in the
US law has been weaponized. Just like the dollar. Just like the
news.
Many people dislike Trump for personal reasons or because
the media has succeeded in indoctrinating them against Trump, but once innocence
or guilt depends on personal emotions, the rule of law is dead. And that
is precisely what the Trump indictments indicate.
COPYRIGHT
©2009-2023 ZEROHEDGE.COM/ABC
MEDIA, LTD
+++++++++++++++++++++
Schwab has dreams of controlling a metaverse that
permeates nearly every facet of our lives
Schwab Dreams to Control Metaverse - Featured image: Klaus Schwab (left). WEF Sets up Its Own Metaverse Global Collaboration Village (right)
Posted by RHODA WILSON
August 6, 2023
The metaverse is an emerging technological concept
centred around virtual and augmented reality. Lurking beneath
this alluring veneer is a dark underbelly – it has the ominous capability to
become a breeding ground for censorship, unbridled surveillance, and an
insidious form of digital enslavement, surpassing anything humanity has ever
encountered. And, the World Economic Forum is taking steps to have control over
it.
A Feel-Good Space Where Your Freedom Takes a Virtual
Vacation – Permanently.
By A
Lily Bit
The metaverse is an emerging technological concept centred
around virtual and augmented reality. It tantalisingly offers humans the
prospect of an unprecedented digital escapade – one that boasts greater
expanse, interactivity, and intensity than any prior experience.
However, lurking beneath this alluring veneer is a dark
underbelly. The metaverse has the ominous capability to become a breeding
ground for censorship, unbridled surveillance, and an insidious form of digital
enslavement, surpassing anything humanity has ever encountered.
If people increasingly immerse themselves in the metaverse,
integrating it into every facet of their lives, they inadvertently open
themselves up to manipulation by those who wield technological control. This
potential dependency raises the spectre of a dystopian scenario where the very
virtual realm designed to liberate morphs into a digital prison, with its
inhabitants confined and subjugated.
This technology is still in its early stages of development,
and its potential to either enhance digital opportunities or devolve into a
digital catastrophe remains uncertain.
Interestingly, the World Economic Forum (“WEF”), a prominent
international organisation known for its advocacy of digital censorship and
surveillance, is already taking steps to assert its control over this emerging
digital frontier.
Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the WEF,
succinctly conveyed the organisation’s ambitions for the metaverse during a
speech in February 2023 at the appropriately titled World Government Summit. In
his address, Schwab proclaimed that those who gain mastery over new
technologies, including the metaverse, will wield a significant degree of
influence over the world’s affairs.
“We are at the beginning, when
you look at it, at technology transformation, it usually takes place in the
terms of an S-curve. And we are just now where we move into the exponential
phase. And I agree, artificial intelligence, but not only artificial
intelligence, but also the metaverse, new space technologies, and I could go on
and on, synthetic biology. Our life in 10 years from now will be completely
different, very much affected, and who masters those technologies, in some way,
will be the master of the world.”—Klaus Schwab.
Youtube VIDEO [16-minutes]: The State of the World
[Posted by World Government Summit
Posted on Feb 15, 2023
Schwab and his organisation are employing a recognisable
strategy to assert their dominance over the metaverse.
They engage in collaborative efforts with both the public
and private sectors, orchestrating initiatives that further the WEF’s agenda.
This subtle manoeuvring enables them to progressively amass control and wield
influence.
At the forefront of the WEF’s metaverse endeavours lies
their primary initiative, aptly named ‘Defining
and Building the Metaverse’. Initially, the organisation
made no attempt to conceal its intentions of leveraging these partnerships to
establish a form of governance over the metaverse.
A previous iteration of the initiative’s webpage stated its
mission as, “to formulate and disseminate actionable strategies for the
creation and governance of the metaverse.”
This language has subsequently been substituted with a more
subdued mission, which now aims to “facilitate the progress of a secure,
interoperable, and economically feasible metaverse.”
The initiative has already forged partnerships with over 150
prominent entities, encompassing corporate giants, government bodies, and
international organisations.
Among these partners are Meta, Microsoft, Sony, HTC, and
Magic Leap, which stand as key manufacturers of virtual and augmented reality
hardware essential for metaverse interaction. Notably, both Meta and Microsoft
staunchly advocate for online censorship.
Furthermore, a number of private sector factions and
government representatives associated with censorship have also become
involved.
This includes the Australian government’s e-safety
commissioner, a figure
advocating for a recalibration of fundamental rights such as free speech,
and GLAAD, an advocacy group that has called for government intervention to
combat what it labels as “hate speech.”
Moreover, a number of influential financial institutions
hold membership in this initiative.
Among these notable entities is Mastercard, an advocate
of digital
identification systems, which has actively participated in the New York
Fed’s pilot program for central bank digital currency. The company has also
imposed blacklists on various alternative tech platforms.
Another participant is PayPal, a corporation that has
de-platformed numerous users and lent its assistance to the Bank of England’s
endeavours concerning central bank digital currency.
The colossal financial institution JP Morgan, recognised for
its involvement in Singapore’s CBDC and its enthusiasm for biometric payment
methods, has similarly engaged in this initiative. JP Morgan has also
undertaken de-platforming actions against its customers.
Deutsche Bank, foreseeing the inevitability of central bank
digital currencies, has also aligned itself as a partner within the WEF
Metaverse initiative.
In alignment with the WEF’s customary approach, governmental
agencies and international organisations form an integral part of the
collaborative landscape.
This particular category of partners encompasses the United
Nations Office of Counterterrorism, the United States National Institutes of
Health National Human Genome Research Institute, and Interpol.
It’s pertinent to note that the United Nations has
consistently issued calls for censorship, displaying a stance contrary to the
principles of free speech.
The National Institute of Health has faced allegations of
attempting to stifle dissent during the covid pandemic, and Interpol’s global
arrest warrant mechanism has been misused to target journalists.
While these affiliations serve as telling indicators of the
WEF’s intentions for the Metaverse, the revelations within the reports
published by the Defining and Building the Metaverse initiative are even more
illuminating.
Within these reports, the WEF openly acknowledges its
aspirations to exercise control and impose restrictions on broad domains of
legal conduct and speech within the Metaverse. It aims to introduce digital
identification systems and advance the notions of diversity, equity, and
inclusion, a term often used to coerce users into complying with various
mandates and speech regulations, while simultaneously censoring dissenting
voices.
A particular report, titled ‘Privacy
and Safety in the Metaverse’, meticulously outlines the
WEF’s strategy for overseeing what it terms as “harms” – instances of perceived
wrongs that may not necessarily amount to criminal activity but are deemed
objectionable by others.
The report advocates for Metaverse stakeholders to
proactively combat cyberbullying, harassment, misinformation, and
disinformation – four terms frequently invoked to rationalise the censorship
practices of major tech companies.
The suggested approach for this crackdown involves the
establishment of a mechanism for “recourse and redress,” enabling users to
promptly report instances of harassment, discrimination, or abuse in real time.
This framework also incorporates robust investigation and enforcement
procedures capable of holding both individuals and organisations accountable
for their conduct, along with a tiered system of sanctions.
The report distinctly indicates that within the framework of
recourse and redress, the protection of free speech will be accorded a lower
priority. It goes so far as to quote a source expressing difficulty in
countering perceived toxic elements due to, in their words, “freedom of speech
concerns” and a scarcity of legally chargeable offences.
Alongside proposing extensive measures to clamp down on
expressions and behaviours within the Metaverse, the report delves into the
notion of safeguarding children – a recurring
argument often employed to rationalise the curtailment of both free speech and
privacy for all individuals.
These legislations encompass the Children’s Online Privacy
Protection Act, which has negatively impacted numerous independent creators;
the California Age-Appropriate Design Code, which seeks to compel apps and
websites to verify visitors’ identities; the European Union’s Digital Services
Act, a comprehensive censorship law; and the UK’s online safety bill, replete
with provisions that pose threats to free speech and privacy.
Another report emanating from the WEF’s Metaverse
Initiative, titled ‘Social
Implications of the Metaverse’, unveils the
organisation’s desire for significantly more stringent controls over avatar
customisation within the Metaverse compared to the prevailing gaming domain.
While several popular video games permit players to opt for
or craft avatars possessing different genders or races, this report asserts
potential repercussions arising from users adopting avatars that differ from
their own race or culture. These potential repercussions, as outlined in the
report, encompass “cultural appropriation,” “identity tourism,” “digital
blackface,” harmful stereotypes, and misrepresentations.
The report employs these instances of perceived avatar
misuse as the rationale for enforcing constraints on avatar customisation and
advocates for the implementation of moderation policies.
Furthermore, the report emphasises the importance of
regulators giving careful consideration to “the provision of digital identities
in the Metaverse,” while advocating for the establishment of “an ecosystem of
trusted digital identity issuers.”
Despite recommending privacy-centric digital IDs, the
mandatory adoption of digital IDs within the Metaverse introduces a range of
inherent drawbacks for users. Digital IDs can foster exclusion, rendering
individuals without one unable to access specific Metaverse experiences.
Although the concept of “privacy-preserving” holds appeal in
theory, many systems claiming such attributes still inadvertently disclose
certain personal information.
At the very least, a network of trusted digital identity
providers suggests that these entities will hold personal user data.
Furthermore, the ‘Social Implications of the Metaverse’
report asserts the imperative of prioritising diversity, equity, and inclusion
at multiple levels while constructing Metaverse teams and crafting Metaverse
hardware, software, and encounters.
While diversity, equity, and inclusion are often framed as
principles promoting fairness and openness, such initiatives frequently devolve
into situations where corporations impose arbitrary quotas across their
operations and vehemently silence any dissenting voices criticising these
mandates.
Not only is the WEF promoting a bleak vision of the
Metaverse characterised by stringent control over speech and behaviour,
mandatory digital identification, and the enforcement of DEI (Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion) mandates, but it has also birthed its own Metaverse
known as the ‘Global
Collaboration Village’. This endeavour is a collaborative venture
involving Accenture and Microsoft.
The Global Collaboration Village is framed as an “inclusive
and responsible” initiative, with its primary goal being the enhancement of
sustained public-private cooperation and the reinforcement of global
collaboration.
Partners contributing to this initiative include Infosys, a
company co-founded by the architect behind India’s digital ID system, and closely tied
to the puppet that currently serves as the UK’s prime minister; the
International Monetary Fund, actively engaged in developing a global Central
Bank Digital Currency (“CBDC”) platform and supporting CBDCs’ potential to
control people’s purchasing habits; the United Nations Development Program;
non-governmental organisations; academic institutions; various countries; and
even Interpol.
While the notion of the WEF assuming control over the
Metaverse is unsettling, the situation becomes even more disconcerting when one
realises that the organisation envisions the Metaverse permeating numerous
crucial sectors of society.
The WEF’s outlook encompasses a plethora of domains in which
the Metaverse is projected to intersect, including banking and capital markets,
corporate governance, financial and monetary systems, the future of
consumption, global governance, health and healthcare, internet governance,
justice and law, mental health, pandemic preparedness and response, and the
digital transformation of business.
Despite its aspirations to govern the Metaverse, the WEF
fundamentally diverges from democratically elected governments. Schwab, along
with his benefactors and the constituents of the WEF, hold positions that are
not subject to election or the possibility of being voted out by the public.
Read more: The WEF
– A Marketplace for Ideas that You Have no Say in, A Lily Bit, 15
September 2022
Furthermore, ordinary citizens find themselves devoid of
influence over the regulations that the WEF intends to impose upon the
Metaverse, resulting in the suppression of voices advocating for freedom.
Instead, the influential entities and individuals within the
WEF’s membership sphere are advocating for a digital future rife with
authoritarianism, where unwelcome speech is silenced and a universal digital
identification system is imposed.
Should the WEF’s vision materialise – an extensively
controlled Metaverse permeating nearly every facet of society – the unelected
WEF would bring to fruition the prophecy outlined by Schwab in his 2022
discourse on world governance: the WEF, in some manner, would wield mastery
over the world through its role in governing the Metaverse.
About the Author
A Lily Bit is a Substack page authored by Lily who is
dedicated to providing her readers with valuable insights into The Great Reset
and the World Economic Forum. She is committed to providing accurate and
thought-provoking content on this topic and believes that understanding The
Great Reset and the World Economic Forum is essential to making informed
decisions about our future. You can subscribe to and follow her Substack
page HERE.
THE EXPOSÉ HOMEPAGE
SUPPORT
THE EXPOSÉ
