Royce White — Now Officially a Republican Candidate for US Senate in Minnesota — Joins Alex Jones to Break Big News
Royce White discussed his senatorial campaign on the Thursday Alex Jones Show.
Don’t miss:
Total Vindication: NATO Admits Russia Did Not Blow Up Nordstream Pipeline
US Lying About Involvement in Kursk Attack – Putin Aide
Kiev would never dare to stage a large-scale incursion into Russian territory without Washington’s blessing and NATO support, former Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said.
Last week, Kiev launched its largest attack on Russian territory since the outbreak of conflict in February 2022. Western officials have voiced their support for the incursion into Kursk Region but denied any prior knowledge or involvement in the operation.
”The US leadership’s claims of non-involvement in Kiev’s actions in Kursk Region do not correspond to reality… Without their participation and direct support, Kiev would not have ventured into Russian territory,” Patrushev told Izvestia in an interview published on Friday.
READ MORE: Biden admits ‘direct contact’ with Ukraine over Kursk assault
The adviser to President Vladimir Putin, who has recently been appointed to oversee Russia’s global maritime strategy, emphasized that the “West put the criminal junta at the head of Ukraine,” while “NATO countries have supplied Kiev with weapons, military instructors, and continuous intelligence while controlling the actions of neo-Nazis.”
The operation in Kursk Region was also planned with the involvement of NATO and Western special services.
The advance of Kiev’s troops was swiftly halted by Russian forces, although they maintain control over several settlements in Kursk Region. According to the local governor, at least 12 civilians have been killed and another 121 wounded due to the incursion, forcing more than 120,000 residents to evacuate.
READ MORE: Ukrainian troops in Nazi helmets taunt Russian pensioner (VIDEO)
”This criminal action stems from the premonition of the imminent collapse of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime,” Patrushev said, adding that “the residents of Ukraine are suffering for the sake of American interests, as the US has turned the country into a military anti-Russian project.”
Russian officials have stated that by attacking civilians in Kursk Region, Kiev has eliminated any chance for peace talks—an objective that Ukrainian officials claim the incursion brings closer. Moscow characterizes Kiev’s military tactics in Russia as “terrorist,” while Western nations arming Kiev share responsibility for atrocities committed by Ukrainian troops, officials have asserted.
”Washington’s efforts have created all the prerequisites for Ukraine to lose its sovereignty and part of its territories, including those coveted by some American allies,” Patrushev added.
Total Vindication: NATO Admits Russia Did Not Blow Up Nordstream Pipeline
Google in the Hot Seat as Trump Assassination Attempt Sparks Congressional Showdown
One of the most jarring developments (and that’s saying something) this US campaign season so far has been the assassination attempt on former President Trump, now a candidate for the country’s highest office.
But even worse, it soon became clear that the focus was being quickly shifted from this major event; Trump supporters suspected this was not an organic lack of interest from voters, but Big Tech censorship. However, if these allegations are found to be true, the whole thing could easily be treated as an actual conspiracy.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
And so, both the House and the Senate are launching investigations.
The Congress Republicans want to know – did Google and Meta, the most powerful message- and narrative-controlling online entities, deliberately suppress news stories about the assassination attempt? And why?
Google’s response to Senator Roger Marshall’s letter effectively asking these questions has left him seeing no option other than to have Google execs IMMEDIATELY (the capitalization in senator) subpoenaed by the Senate Homeland Committee.
They will be asked to expound on what exactly was meant when they tried to (“bizarrely,” Marshall stated) justify the attempt as a “hypothetical act of political violence” – because “Google systems” were supposedly programmed to do that long before Trump narrowly escaped death.
In just five words, Google may have just proven what the Trump camp claims regarding deliberate tampering of the autosuggest search feature to omit references to the incident – to the point where this basically turned into political interference – are all true.
A “shocking” admission, Marshall writes in one of his posts on X – and would Google representatives now please show up before the Committee and try to explain that, but not only that.
Namely, the Committee is launching what the senator calls “a full probe” into Google’s “litany of failures and history of suppressing conservative viewpoints. Time for accountability – time for top-down subpoenas,” the post reads.
And, an investigation has already been in the House. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability announced it on Wednesday, in light of “recent concerning reports indicating Meta’s AI assistant and Google Search’s Autocomplete function generated inaccurate or nongermane information related to the assassination attempt of President Donald Trump.”
A press release added that Google CEO Sundar Pichai has received a letter from Committee Chairman James Comer requesting “documents and information to better understand how Google designs its Search product and Autocomplete features. In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman Comer seeks documents and information to better understand how the Meta AI chatbot is designed, reviewed, managed, and updated.”
That’s one way of putting it. Another came from free speech platform Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, who summarized the situation in a post on X like this: “Google is in deep shit, on so many fronts.”
Total Vindication: NATO Admits Russia Did Not Blow Up Nordstream Pipeline
Starmer’s Free Speech Flip-Flop: From Once Defending Offensive Speech to Now Jailing People for Tweets
In the past, UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer was among those expressing concern for free speech on the internet and how a law that results in fines and arrests because of social media posts could have “a chilling effect on free speech.”
Right now, his government is carrying out mass arrests of people who get convicted for precisely that reason: the things they’ve said on the internet.
But back in 2012, speaking about the Communications Act 2003 and its section 127, Starmer was worried about the law resulting in “a lot of prosecutions” – even though his comments overall can hardly be interpreted as coming from a strong advocate for freedom of expression.
Referring to what is considered “grossly offensive messages” and criminalization of communications of that nature, Starmer wanted to see what he called a high threshold for people’s right to be offensive and insulting.
That, he said, needed to be protected. Otherwise, a large number of prosecutions would have “a chilling effect on free speech, and I think that’s a very important consideration,” Starmer told the BBC.
According to him, the criminal offense here was “overarching,” hence the fear that it would apply to the type of communications he mentioned, and if the only response was a criminal one, he warned, “there might be the temptation to resort too quickly to that response.”
In 2012, Starmer would have preferred to have the option of using different kinds of remedies, such as lodging a complaint.
The “high threshold,” as he advocated for it, was to prosecute what would be considered online harassment campaigns that presented “a credible and genuine threat” and differentiate that from speech that is simply grossly offensive.
But Starmer wasn’t above prosecuting those expressing themselves in that way, either – he wanted “a slightly different” approach and a set of guidelines that would be used to determine when grossly offensive speech was enough to prosecute people over.
When pressed about specific scenarios where people were making “unpleasant” comments about British soldiers who were killed or missing children – and were at the time prosecuted for that, having to pay fines or were ordered community service, Starmer said:
“Well we live in a democracy and if free speech is to be protected there has to be a high threshold people have the right to be offensive, they have the right to be insulting and that has to be protected.”
Effectively, Starmer wasn’t challenging the law as such but was in favor of avoiding a large number of prosecutions. And he supported to all intents and purposes pressuring social media companies into removing content, citing their “responsibility.”
“In many of these cases the appropriate response may be for you (social media companies) to take this material down swiftly and that may reduce the requirements for a criminal prosecution,” he said.
The debate is not abating over the way protests and riots in the UK have been handled from the viewpoint of the crackdown on free speech online, an approach to the crisis chosen by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government.
Among his critics is Baroness Claire Fox, who is worried that the government is essentially intimidating people when it warns them to “think before they post,” and that this produces an atmosphere in society akin to that once present in old-style communist regimes.
“A Stasi-like (former East Germany secret police) atmosphere of looking over your shoulder in case somebody’s listening,” as Fox put it.
She is concerned that things won’t be looking up going forward, either, and believes Starmer’s government will be responsible for introducing even more “explicit censorship” by way of expanding the Online Safety Act – an already controversial, sweeping censorship law – to cover “legal but harmful content.”
The baroness also noted that currently, the authorities are moving in the direction of using legal means to go after people not only for speech that is found to have incited violence or rioting – but also for speech that they decide could have had that effect.
Fox spoke about the lack of clarity over what hate speech, misinformation or disinformation are, noting that these are “very often subjectively interpreted.”
As for “two-tier policing” – that is, people receiving different treatment that is believed to be the result of a politicization of law enforcement – Fox doesn’t think some people perceive that to be true “because somebody saw a meme on X.”
“It’s because that idea of two-tier policing spoke very deeply to the fact that people do not feel they get fairly treated by the police,” she said.
And while all this is happening in the UK, some politicians there, like Lord David Frost, are keeping an eye on the EU – specifically the extraordinary case of Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton threatening X with censorship ahead of Elon Musk’s Donald Trump interview.
Frost slams this as the EU saying it could “censor or block X, or punish it after the fact, for broadcasting a live interview conducted outside its own territory, and in that of a friendly allied country.”
Frost is also not pleased that Breton went for the UK riots as a way to justify this move.
But even if the EU doesn’t have jurisdiction over the UK, as Frost, a member of the House of Lords, remarked, the government’s actions in his country are clearly emboldening others to try to crack down on online speech.
“If the EU get away with this, it won’t stop there,” Frost warned, adding, “Any interview they consider harmful in some way will be at risk of the same treatment, even those conducted in this country.”
And he summed up the situation: “To judge by their statements in recent days, it’s difficult to believe our own government will be particularly troubled by this.”
Total Vindication: NATO Admits Russia Did Not Blow Up Nordstream Pipeline
Google May be Forced to Split After Court Decision
The U.S. Department of Justice is considering taking serious action against Google after a court ruling found that the company has a monopoly in the online search market. According to sources close to the negotiations, one of the options being considered is to break up the tech giant.
Experts at the U.S. agency are looking at several possible ways to break Google’s dominance in the market. Among them, the most drastic would be to break up the company, which would be Washington’s first such attempt since its failed lawsuit against Microsoft two decades ago.
Sources said the most likely scenario would see the Android operating system and the Chrome browser spun off from Google. There is also talk of forcing a possible sale of the AdWords advertising platform.
A less radical solution is to force Google to share more data with its competitors. Measures are also being considered to prevent the company from gaining an unfair advantage in the market for artificial intelligence products.
Discussions have intensified after a judge ruled that Google had unlawfully monopolized the market for online search and search-text advertising.
As for the Android operating system, Google was found to have entered into agreements with device manufacturers that effectively shut out competitors. Although the company has indicated that it will appeal the decision, the judge ordered the parties to start preparing the second phase of the case.
A Google spokesman declined to comment on possible sanctions, while the Justice Department has also not commented on the case.
Total Vindication: NATO Admits Russia Did Not Blow Up Nordstream Pipeline
Deadly Sloth Fever Has Spread To Humans In Europe
A debilitating virus that originates in sloths and spread by insect bites, has been reported in humans for the first time in Europe. According to the European Center for Disease Control (ECDC), the Oropouche virus […]
The post Deadly Sloth Fever Has Spread To Humans In Europe appeared first on The People’s Voice.