I’ve always said that most institutions with the words “international” or “world” in their titles are globalist, pinko organizations. Examples include the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). This does not include Ihop and their delicious boysenberry syrup.
An op-ed article appeared on the WEF website, claiming there is a need for a form of global censorship. It doesn’t say, “We need global censorship,” because the commies are too clever to be that blunt. They offer to shred our rights the way the bolshies always have, by saying it’s for the betterment of the people. In this case, they call for cracking down on “the radicalization of extreme opinions, the spread of misinformation and the wide reach of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).”
The article begins with a note that was clearly added after the op-ed was posted, which reads:
Readers: Please be aware that this article has been shared on websites that routinely misrepresent content and spread misinformation. We ask you to note the following:
1) The content of this article is the opinion of the author, not the World Economic Forum.
2) Please read the piece for yourself. The Forum is committed to publishing a wide array of voices and misrepresenting content only diminishes open conversations.
As we can clearly see, the WEF has already decided which sites spread “misinformation.” Also, if the WEF is into a “wide array of voices,” perhaps I’ll submit an op-ed on how I believe WEF founder Klaus Schwab is a lizard person.
Let’s talk about the aforementioned “radicalization of extreme opinions” first. Though I think I’ve already answered this question, who gets to pick which opinions are and are not “extreme”? The FBI recently decided that various patriotic flags are signs of “militia violent extremists.” That means your memaw’s weekly pinochle game night might get raided because of that traitorous Betsy Ross flag flying on the porch.
If the WEF wants to chase down Antifa sometime when they’re planning one of their violent hissy fits, I’m cool with that. But I don’t see that happening, and Twitter allows them to plan their riots and threaten people on its app without repercussions. If the pinkos at Twitter won’t crack down on the Democrats’ brownshirts, I don’t see how “global censorship” will make a difference.
"This is a direct threat. Enjoy your kneecaps while you've still got them." @philostic, a student at @UNTsocial, threatened the young woman. Police did nothing.
It can be revealed the extremist is John Brown Gun Club member & #Antifa militant, Garrett Lee.https://t.co/74ccAkpHSv pic.twitter.com/a6umPVNCFd
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) August 10, 2022
I asked my Magic 8 Ball if allowing globalists to decide which opinions are “extreme” and what is and isn’t “disinformation” is a good move for the people of earth. It replied, “Better not tell you now.” I fear my Magic 8 Ball has been compromised.
I have an idea: How about we just keep the First Amendment? While we’re talking about global moves, maybe other countries, like Canada, can allow their people the same freedom. Before you know it, freedom will ring worldwide—but I don’t think that’s what the WEF is looking for.
The WEF doesn’t need to focus on internet bullying. If someone is abusing me online, I can block them. I admit that I have had extremists try to radicalize me on the internet, but then I just stopped having Facebook fights with libtards.
And I would love it if the WEF chased down international pedophiles to disrupt “the wide reach of child sexual abuse material,” but first, they’d have to audition for the job. They could win the gig today by simply exposing Jeffrey Epstein’s list of kiddy-diddlers. They won’t, of course, because (I suspect) many global elites are in on it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member