Tyrants fear a people who are able to think, speak, and publish their thoughts freely; in an age where information can be just as impactful as a standing army for deciding a nation’s future, the pen is truly mightier than the sword. The freedom to think and speak without fear of imprisonment is considered so important to the continuity of a free society that our nation’s founders took it upon themselves to codify it into law. When the first ten amendments, dubbed the Bill of Rights, were ratified and added to our Constitution on December 15th, 1791, our natural rights to speak freely, practice religion, assemble peaceably, and petition our government, were collated into written law. This was done so that they may be better insulated from illegal government prohibitions:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, December 15th, 1791
Our fourth president, James Madison, arguably played the crucial role in the addition of the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. On June 8th, 1789, he gave a speech to the House of Representatives in which he recommended the following addition:
“The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.“
-James Madison, Speech to the House of Representatives, June 8th 1789.
Madison considered it of the highest importance to include a Bill of Rights in our Constitution in order to better protect we, the American people, from any potential tyranny imposed on us by government. Moreover, he considered the freedom of the press a “great bulwark of liberty,” that if censored, could spell the end of freedom altogether. It can therefore be assumed by every living American that the following are true:
Our natural right to speak and express ourselves is inherent to us as created beings, from the moment we’re conceived until death. Our tongues may not be tied.
We have a right to defend our freedom to speak regardless of illegal, prohibitory laws passed by our governments
Sadly, although our founding fathers took painstaking measures to guarantee this most sacred right isn’t lost, we find ourselves today facing a threat against it which, if left unopposed, will end an era of free expression as never before enjoyed throughout our history. Presented below are the brainchildren of two globalist entities that seek to “tear out our tongues,” as it were, and silence Madison’s “great bulwark of liberty”:
The first is a UNESCO campaign (implemented jointly with the European Commission, Twitter, and the World Jewish Congress) titled “ThinkBeforeSharing,” which is aimed at stopping the spread of what they consider to be “dangerous conspiracy theories” online.
The second is an article by the World Economic Forum detailing their plan to utilize both Artificial Intelligence and human actors to stop the spread of “misinformation” and “extreme opinions” online.
Both the UNESCO campaign and the WEF article should be treated as foreign adversarial threats to our Constitution (our legitimate governing authority), and we should take immediate action to ensure that our voices will not be silenced across any media, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum. Although we are undoubtedly living in dangerous times fraught with “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories,” these terms are being increasingly abused by globalist entities (such as the WEF and UNESCO) as social engineering tools to discourage the spreading of ideas that conflict with their desired world order. Although there are certainly many bogus theories out there regarding socio-political subject matters, we cannot deny that our public is being gaslit in real time concerning the agendas of these wealthy globalists.
To cite one example, the United Nations published it’s Agenda 2030, or their plan to promote sustainable global development. Per their own admission, their plan requires member nations to submit and comply, against the sovereign will of their peoples, to fundamentally change the way our societies “produce and consume goods and services”:
“28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, including through the mobilization, from all sources, of financial and technical assistance to strengthen developing countries’ scientific, technological and innovative capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production…”
-United Nations, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
As Americans, we should be beholden to the excellence of our own nation, and not others. We mustn’t needlessly sacrifice our nation’s production capacity and resources to our detriment. Why should we comply with globalist agendas? Although most criticism of such publications have been dubbed “conspiracy theories,” their sovereignty-destroying goals are laid out for all to see and scrutinize. Why does the United Nations imply in their Agenda 2030 that not only nations, but also individuals, must contribute to their plan? This is absurd; we don’t have to comply with any of their demands, and we should cut our ties with any organization that tries to subjugate us beneath a similar jackboot. It’s not conspiracy, but rather rational conjecture, to suggest that if our government goes rogue and sells us out to an agenda like Agenda 2030, or surrenders our sovereign authority to an external body politic, that we will inevitably forfeit our liberty, and no longer determine the fate of our nation.
There has been an aggressive push in recent years to globalize industries and unite them and government under a single, global-fascist banner disguised as a “democratic” endeavor, and we should be allowed to criticize those persons and publications promoting such a system. Given that the World Economic Forum and UNESCO have overtly declared their ambitions to censor speech online, it can be assumed that “conspiracies” surrounding these particular allegations have merit, and others should be given more credence.
Alien and Sedition
Although the above examples demonstrate that there are globalist forces at work today trying to prohibit our free expression, this isn’t the first time our nation has faced such a threat. In the past, Americans were confronted with vast, unconstitutional censorship in the form of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. To provide an example, an addition to the Acts made on July 14th that year stipulated the following:
“SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States…then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.“
-Addition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, approved July 14th, 1798.
These Acts censored Americans’ speech concerning our government, and to add insult to injury, prevented the American people from organizing in opposition to its laws. The phrase “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” is no different than today’s “misinformation.” Who decides what constitutes “misinformation” versus proper, acceptable information? In the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts, our elected government was charged with rooting out information critical of its actions. Today, it appears that globalist-aligned businesses and conglomerates, entangled in the affairs of our government, have taken it upon themselves to moderate online speech and decide what can and cannot be expressed. As of today, they haven’t made any evident proposals for punishments for offenses, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility to suggest that it’s next on their roster, or that they’ll seek to try and convict anyone critical of their machinations.
Concerning the Alien and Sedition Acts, once again we find that our fourth president, James Madison, voiced his strong opposition to them when he drafted the Virginia Resolutions:
“…That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution, in the two late cases of the “alien and sedition acts,” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government; and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers, to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon,which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right…”
-Virginia Resolutions, December 21st, 1798
A Muzzle Over Our Mouths?
The primary argument Madison made against the Alien and Sedition Acts was that it was unconstitutionally infringing upon the First Amendment, “the only effectual guardian of every other right.” Thanks to the efforts of men such as Madison, the Acts were eventually repealed by 1802. As Americans, we have a right not only to voice our opinions publicly, but to also question every government policy and law that’s enacted without fear of retribution. Ideally, our society should be both free and moral; if there are evil opinions and ideas, we must allow them to be voiced, and subsequently judged by the court of public opinion. Someone advocating an evil law has a right to promote it, but it’s up to us as a society to judge it and, if it’s determined to be aligned against our free interests, it may be disregarded. But every opinion must be allowed to be spoken; if not, we can no longer say we live in a free and just society.
Following James Madison’s 1798 example, we should therefore reject and oppose the World Economic Forum and UNESCO, as well as any other globalist entities, who seek to implement media policies that subvert our First Amendment rights; their efforts are unconstitutional,and illegal. Although not every nation has codified a freedom to speak in their constitutions or charters, it must be remembered that free speech is a natural right inherent to all human beings, and no matter if it’s here in America, or elsewhere in the world, we all have a right as human beings to speak our minds freely, and challenge laws that forbid us from doing so. Will we find the necessary courage to stand together and defend our right to speak, or will we accept the globalist yoke, and allow both today and posterity to be muzzled forever?