Imagine deciding to disrupt someone's wedding. You'd have to think that it would help your cause, you were entitled to disrupt, and you were good and they were evil. Grandiosity, entitlement, and "splitting" (black & white thinking) define pathological narcissism. https://t.co/mv3X2PE2bstwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Let's start from the beginning. Emissions have been declining in the UK and around the world. They will continue to decline if @JustStop_Oil & others allow for more natural gas production to replace coal. Instead, they're blocking natural gas production.
@JustStop_Oil Humans and ecosystems are doing pretty well adapting to higher temperatures, despite the hysterical disinformation from regime media, which refuse to publish basic data like these.
@JustStop_Oil Regime media actively spread disinformation. They create disinformation by refusing to account for reporting bias, something you learn about in statistics 101.
@JustStop_Oil Regime media deliberately fail to account for reporting bias on other issues, like race and trans, in order to claim an increase in hate crimes and police violence.
@JustStop_Oil Here are a few government/news/social media disinfo campaigns:
— “Trump is a Russian asset”
— “Covid lab leak is a debunked conspiracy theory”
— “Vaccine side effects are misinformation”
— “Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinfo”
— “Twitter Files didn't show censorship”
@JustStop_Oil The effort to dismiss Covid lab leak was a disinformation campaign, meaning the people who waged the disinfo effort knew it was disinfo. They weren't just wrong. They were lying.
@JustStop_Oil US government officials got third parties (eg Stanford) to run the disinformation efforts and demand the censorship, including of true information
@JustStop_Oil Both Facebook and Twitter say that these disinformation efforts were coming from within federal law enforcement and intelligence communities.
@JustStop_Oil Aspen Institute, Stanford, and others participated in the disinformation efforts, running sessions to brainwash journalists, who were happy to oblige. They then engaged in disinfo by spreading a wild conspiracy theory (ie the Russians did it).
@JustStop_Oil Propaganda (disinfo) works by tapping cultural values. Today, the dominant value is "preventing harm against vulnerable groups."
Groups tied to military intel. and security organizations in Five Eyes nations are trying to censor & read your private messages "to prevent harm"
@JustStop_Oil The media started to brainwash the American people into believing that racism was a much bigger problem than we had believed before 2015, and it worked. Look at the change in attitudes.
@JustStop_Oil A big part of this is political. Brexit and Trump freaked out Western elites, who responded by seeking to protect the Western Alliance and NATO by running propaganda and censorship campaigns through NGO cut-outs, weak regime journalists (propagandists), and "think tanks."
@JustStop_Oil They tapped into the new Woke religions born from secularization and nihilism.
@JustStop_Oil Propagandiss tap into the new secular religions, which offer a new external authority (climate/nature), a new hierarchical moral order (BIPOC), and a new view of the human soul and human nature (a gendered soul + infinitely malleable body).
@JustStop_Oil The combination of secular nihilism, rising anxiety from social media, the 2016 revolutions, and the new Woke religions has resulted in the rise of Cluster B psychiatric disorders including anti-social (psychopathy), borderline, histrionic, and narcissism, as with @JustStop_Oil
@JustStop_Oil The climate activists who narcissistically feel entitled to attack a sacred event like a wedding engaged in narcissistic behaviors last year, attacking sacred works of art. Contrast their behavior to the genuinely altruistic behavior of civil rights activists in the past.
@JustStop_Oil Anti-social personality disorder, or psychopathy, is aggressive, dangerous, and violent. It preys upon the weak. It's the urge to censor, silence, or force people to salute or use their preferred words under threat of violence. It emerges in mob behavior. It claims victim status.
@JustStop_Oil Histrionic behavior, which used to be called hysteria, and "splitting" (black & white thinking), are often exhibited alongside narcissism and psychopathy.
@JustStop_Oil What can be done? We have to explain, not just condemn. That's the lesson a Polish psychologist who suffered under Nazi and Communist totalitarianism concluded. You can't just say, "That's bad." You have to show how it's psychopathological. Deranged. A sign of Cluster B.
@JustStop_Oil We must take care not to become the thing we're fighting.
We must be courageous. We must fight to return to Enlightenment values including freedom of speech and equal justice under the law.
@JustStop_Oil We must also debunk the misinformation. Facts still matter. Debunking is not enough, but it's a requirement.
We must tap into our innate optimism. We are more tolerant of racial, religious, and sexual differences than ever before. We still believe things will get better.
@JustStop_Oil And we must provide a positive vision to the dystopianism of @JustStop_Oil
We can lift everyone out of poverty while saving nature.
We can have it all: freedom, prosperity, and freedom.
Days before last year’s election, the media claimed Trump wanted to kill Liz Cheney, which we debunked at the time. @BBC has now admitted it was a lie. @CNN should do the same. Notably, BBC & CNN have, for years, promoted censorship of their competitors for “misinformation.”
The media around the world demand government censorship on the basis of the disinformation it produces on Trump, covid, climate, gender, Ukraine, etc. The EU is currently paying European media to act as “trusted flaggers” — censors — of social media.
It’s digital totalitarianism.
Marco Rubio is the most powerful Secretary of State since Kissinger. As such, it is significant that he believes the US has recovered alien tech and given it to private military contractors. A senior Rubio advisor says, “We’re headed toward massive disclosure.”
Since May of this year, Marco Rubio has served in a dual role as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The National Security Advisor is the President’s principal in-house advisor on all national security matters, chairs the National Security Council, coordinates the interagency process across the government, and briefs the President daily.
As Secretary of State, Rubio negotiates treaties, appoints and directs ambassadors, controls the $84 billion State Department and USAID budget, oversees 80,000 employees at more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide, and has direct authority over diplomatic security, intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens abroad.
The last official to hold both such positions was Henry Kissinger from 1973 to 1975. For Rubio, who was also the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to play both roles reflects President Trump’s high confidence in him.
As such, it is significant that Rubio believes that elements within the US government have recovered technology from a nonhuman intelligence, reverse-engineered it, and let private military contractors take control of it in ways that could be undermining national security and result in a Pearl Harbor-like event.
“The real risk in transferring technology that is not useful to us today to a corporate entity over decades,” says Rubio, “is that the corporate entity comes to basically possess and control access to it for their own purposes, not for the purposes of national security.”
Nick Pope, who investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) for the UK Ministry of Defence, said, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of [Rubio’s] statement. Rubio’s remarks are so forthright that one could speculate they’re officially-authorized prelude to Disclosure, to test the waters ahead of an official, Presidential announcement.”
The State Department declined to provide an on-the-record comment to Public for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of War said it had no “verifiable information to substantiate claims that any U.S. government or private company programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials and technology have existed in the past or exist currently...."
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the full article!
Any true skeptic of this issue should want significantly more government transparency and disclosure on UAP. Anyone arguing against greater transparency and disclosure is telling you that they want to continue the cover-up.
If you belive that this is all a dangerous delusion and social contagion resulting from years of government disinfo to cover up secret weapons programs, which has now infected the highest levels of government, then you should be the loudest advocate for UAP transparency and disclosure in the world.
The secrecy has gone on for too long. It is destablizing for our highest security, defense, and intelligence officials say one thing to journalists and filmmakers and for the DOD to say something completely different. The State Department, CIA, ODNI, and White House all declined to comment publicly for my piece. We need our government officials to be honest about what is going on.
There is no security justification for this level of secrecy. We are free people governed by a constitution that protects us against unaccountable government actors. We must fight to maintain that status.
We can trust Oracle to centralize our data in a single place to create digital IDs, says Larry Ellison. We can't. Thanks to a "previously unknown & widespread vulnerability" in Oracle's "E-Business Suite software" thousands of us recently had our personal data stolen.
"The Washington Post... didn’t explain why it took almost a month to determine the amount of data stolen and has not responded to multiple requests for comment." @JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews
@JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews "Oracle quietly admits data breach, days after lawsuit accused it of cover-up"
New Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbi
From WaPo:
"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.
"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."
“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."
In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.
In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.
At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.
The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme.
But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.
And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.
On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”
Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.”
The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”
A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.”
But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.”
A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.”
The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.”
But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.”
The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.”
Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies.
And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”
As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing.
All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs.
Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
Here is the leaked agenda from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center's secret foreign censorship meeting on September 24, 2025:
Fifty-five percent of people on the Left justify the murder of Trump, five times more liberals than conservatives defend political violence, and not a single high-profile Democrat has called for @jonesjay to drop out. The Left truly can not make its intentions any clearer.
The person whose legacy is most being destroyed by this is @BarackObama . He must demand that @jonesjay step down. Now. And he should take extraordinary efforts to demand the Left back down from its utterly crazed support for violence. This building should not open until he does that.