Elites Panic As Anti-War Populist Wins in NATO-Member Slovakia. PLUS: Canada Targets Podcast Platforms w/ Despotic New Censorship Law | SYSTEM UPDATE #153
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7pm Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, public support for the war in Ukraine continues to erode, not only here in the United States, Where half of all House Republicans and at least half of all Americans now oppose any further spending to fuel that war.
But public support is also eroding internationally, most dangerously from the perspective of the EU and NATO.
It is eroding in Europe itself.
Western elites have been warning for months that their ability to continue to fuel this war may be jeopardized, in particular by upcoming European elections, in which parties and leaders who run on a platform of ending support for the war in Ukraine, on the grounds that those resources would be better used at home, have significant chances of winning.
As increasingly war-weary Europeans in both East and West Europe start to wonder exactly why they are sacrificing and suffering so much to keep this war going even as there is virtually no progress.
Those concerns have been severely exacerbated by the results of a national election in a NATO country over the weekend.
Slovakia, formerly one half of Czechoslovakia, which was part of the Iron Curtain and thus assumed to be anti-Russian, and a bordering country of Ukraine, just delivered a resounding victory to the former Prime Minister, the populist Robert Fico, and his leftist SMER party, which means direction.
FICO ran on a platform of explicitly refusing to provide a single more cent or a single more weapon to Ukraine.
It was really that emphatic.
And that would be a radical change for a country that was one of the very first to send weapons to Ukraine, its neighbor, upon Russia's invasion.
Obviously, the election featured more than just Ukraine.
Fico cobbled together a more populist agenda.
He had long been considered a leftist.
He ran as more of a populist.
It stressed limitations on immigration and pushback against the EU's LGBT agenda, as much as it did traditional left-liberal social programs.
But he sounded very standard populist themes by, for instance, often proclaiming, quote, people in Slovakia have bigger problems than Ukraine.
The election outcome obviously bodes poorly for the future of Western support for the war in Ukraine, but that election result is also predictably being blamed on, three guesses, Russian disinformation.
And is thus already being exploited to prove that greater and greater online censorship is needed.
Now, as some of you may recall, the EU, to great fanfare in the Washington Post, just released a couple of weeks ago a study purporting to show that Russian disinformation was proliferating online more than ever due to what the EU considers to be the failure of large social media platforms such as Facebook and Google and Twitter to censor more.
The EU explicitly warned when it released this study that these censorship failures could result in the wrong election outcomes, including in Slovakia.
Yet again, we see here the now common theme in the West that it is simply too dangerous to allow populations to enjoy free speech on the Internet.
And the EU is wasting little time threatening to use its so-called Digital Services Act as a way to prevent more outcomes like the one we just saw in the middle of this vital NATO country in Central Europe by increasing even further the level of censorship controls it wields over the content of online speech.
Then, speaking of online censorship, the Canadian government just issued a truly chilling decree.
It ordered that all platforms that allow podcasts, and that would obviously include this platform, Rumble, as well as YouTube, Spotify, and any other streaming service with podcasts, immediately register with the government, with the Canadian government, to allow government regulators to subject these platforms to greater degrees of legal and regulatory controls.
In May, the Canadian Parliament enacted the Digital Streaming Act, also known as C11, and it became law when it received royal assent.
Yes, Canadians need the permission of King Charles to enact laws.
Now, while its liberal advocates insisted that the law was not intended to empower them to censor political content, perish the thought, there is no question that this new law does enable exactly that.
While the law is not as explicit or severe as the ones now enacted in the EU and the UK, nor is it as severe as the one pending in Brazil and countless other countries, the key context for this law, and for the Canadian government's new order for podcast platforms to register with it,
is the very flagrant pro-censorship climate in Canada, which has repeatedly supported all sorts of legal limitations on hate speech and disinformation, as well as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the Trudeau government, which, as I'm sure you'll recall, waged extrajudicial war against peaceful truckers who are protesting COVID mandates, including by seizing their bank accounts with no due process.
We'll examine all of these developments in Slovakia and Canada and beyond to understand the implications for the war in Ukraine and the viability of online free speech in the West.
As a few programming notes, we are encouraging our audience to download the Rumble app, which works both on your phone and your smart TV.
And if you do that, It will enable you to follow your favorite programs that appear on Rumble, including this one we hope, and others as well.
And if you turn on notifications, which I hope you will, it will mean that you will get a notification the minute that we or any other show that you follow start streaming and broadcasting live online.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can find each episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble, and you can find them across all major podcasting platforms, including Spotify and Apple.
And if you follow, rate, and review the show, it really helps spread the visibility of our program.
As we do every Tuesday and Thursday night.
We'll do that tomorrow.
We'll do that Thursday.
As soon as we're done here with our one-hour live show on Rumble, those two nights, Tuesday and Thursday, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, for our interactive after show that's live.
We take your questions.
We comment on your feedback.
We really interact with our viewers.
That show, that after show is available solely for subscribers to our Locals community and those subscribers also have access to the transcripts we produce each day for each show.
They're very professionalized transcripts so that you can read the show if you want in written form.
And we also post a lot of original journalism there that we intend to increase a lot more in the future.
And obviously, joining our localist community is an important way to support the independent journalism that we do here.
For those who want to join, just click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you to our localist community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
One of the very first and most significant leaks from WikiLeaks that I ever covered as a journalist was the release of this very interesting memo, this so-called red cell memo that came from the CIA.
And it was written in 2008, and the concern that drove the CIA to write this memo was the spread of anti-war sentiment throughout Western Europe.
Particularly anti-war sentiment against the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
As you might recall, the United States was working to occupy Afghanistan with a wide range of Western European and NATO partners.
And there had been two elections, one in Holland, one in another smaller Western European country, where the party that was running on a platform of withdrawing support from the war in Afghanistan On the grounds that it had gone on for too long, that they were spending too much money on it, ended up winning the national elections in two separate countries as a result of those elections, withdrew from Afghanistan.
And the CIA was very worried about that, and they wrote this memo asking, how can we stop this from continuing?
How can we stop this anti-war sentiment from continuing to spread in Europe?
Because if we don't stop it, we're going to be left with the entire burden of fighting the war in Afghanistan.
Now the answer to that memo that the CIA gave in this memo was fascinating.
What they essentially said was the real chance we have to stop the tide of anti-war sentiment is if Barack Obama is elected president in 2008 instead of John McCain.
And their argument, which turned out to be quite prescient, Was that as long as the war was considered to be a right-wing war in Europe, one sponsored by this swaggering evangelical George Bush or then the warmonger John McCain, that it would fuel anti-war sentiment in Western Europe.
It would continue to turn countries against the war in Afghanistan and would ultimately force more and more countries to withdraw.
But if President Obama became the face of the war in Afghanistan, as ended up happening, then Western Europeans who were swooning for Obama, who worshipped Obama as this kind of cosmopolitan sophisticate, this coastal intellect, They would start to see the war differently.
They would start to see it as a noble war, a liberal war, and that would stem the tide of anti-war sentiment, and that's exactly what happened.
Once Obama won that election and began advocating for the war in Afghanistan, and it was he who was prosecuting it, there was virtually no more elections that resulted in the withdrawal of other countries.
Now, I recount all that because one of the things that Western intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex in the West fears more than anything is when populations start to turn against their wars.
And we've been reviewing the polling data over the last year that has been steadily showing more and more opposition to the war in Ukraine here in the United States to the point where, according to CNN, last month it finally reached the tipping point where a majority of Americans, 55%, now favor cutting off further military aid to fuel the war in Ukraine, arguing that we've done enough.
Other polls since then have shown similar trends, around 50%.
Overwhelmingly, it's Liberal Democrats who support the war, while Independents and Moderates and Conservatives are increasingly skeptical of it.
But obviously, the Ukrainians are concerned, and the CIA is concerned, and the Pentagon is concerned, that if anti-war sentiment continues to increase, you'll start to see things like what we saw over the last week, which is House Republicans Close to a majority of House Republicans now voting against further spending for the war in Ukraine.
You still have the entire Democratic Party on board, but obviously a public opinion turns enough against that war in the United States that will cut off or force Washington to cut off more and more spending for the war in Ukraine.
They already see the same polls I just recounted.
They don't care yet.
They need to be really pressured, but that's the concern.
So what they're really worried about, and you've seen these concerns expressed in articles in Europe over the past several months, is that a lot of elections are coming up over the next six months in Europe, in Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe.
And there are a lot of parties and a lot of leaders seeing that Europeans, like Americans, are going against that war, and they are now running on a platform of opposing the war in Ukraine, of opposing further expenditures of national resources, weapons of money to Ukraine.
And they're petrified that this is going to start to happen, like it happened with Afghanistan.
And there are a lot of sleepless people right now inside the CIA, inside Western intelligence agencies, and inside Kiev as a result of the election that just was held in Slovakia.
Now, Slovakia is a small country.
It's about 5 million people, but it's an extremely important country because it's situated right there in Central Europe.
It was part of the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact.
During the Cold War, it borders Ukraine.
It's a country that was one of the first to stand up and say, we will support Ukraine in the war against Russia.
And they sent symbolic but still important weaponry and money to fuel the war in Ukraine.
And yet the national election was held over the weekend and a former prime minister who long was identified as a leftist ran a more populous campaign where he centralized, among other things, the vow to cut off all future funding and support for the war in Ukraine for Ukraine on the grounds that their the vow to cut off all future funding and support for the war in Ukraine for Ukraine on the grounds that their country can't afford it, that they would rather spend money on the lives of And he won.
He won the election.
Here you see from AP on October 1st, the headline, a populist ex-premier who opposes support for Ukraine leads his leftist party to victory in Slovakia.
Quote, a populist former prime minister and his leftist party have won early parliamentary elections in Slovakia, staging a political comeback after campaigning on a, quote, pro-Russian and anti-American message, according to complete results announced on Sunday.
Former Prime Minister Robert Fico and the leftist SMER, or Direction Party, had 22.9% of the votes, or 42 seats, in the 150-seat parliament, the Slovak Statistics Office said.
Public and exit polls predicted a tight race, but in the end, Fico won relatively big after his campaign, considered aggressive and the most radical of his career, attracted voters who favored the far right.
Note that this is a politician who was long considered not just to be on the liberal left but to really be a leftist.
And as has happened so much in our politics in the West, the standard left-right dichotomies are breaking down.
Is ending the war in Ukraine or opposing fueling the proxy war in Ukraine and joining NATO a left-wing or a right-wing position?
It's very hard to say at this point.
It's both and it's neither.
Because that's not really the relevant metric any longer.
He also aligned himself with the views of Viktor Orban, who clearly is a right-wing prime minister of Hungary, when it came to the ability of the EU to interfere in the sovereignty of their country, to dictate to the population how they should feel on social issues, including LGBT issues.
But at the same time, he advocated his long-standing belief in and support for left-liberal social programs.
In other words, it was, let's close the borders.
There was a lot of anti-immigration sentiment that was part of his campaign.
Let's close the borders.
Let's stop sending our money to Ukraine into that war that can escalate very easily and threaten our national security.
And let's do more to take care of the people of Slovakia.
It's kind of a nationalist, populist, winning message.
It's hard to say if it's left or right, but this is a politician long associated with the right, and yet he got right-wing votes based on that platform and won for that reason, according to the AP.
Quote, Saturday's election was a test for the small Eastern European country, support for neighboring Ukraine in its war with Russia, and the win by FICO could strain a fragile unity in the EU and NATO.
FICO 59 has vowed to withdraw Slovakia's military support for Ukraine in Russia's war if his attempt to return to power succeeds.
Quote, people in Slovakia have bigger problems than Ukraine, he said.
The country of 5.5 million people created in 1993 following the breakup of Czechoslovakia has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since Russia invaded last February, donating arms and opening the borders for refugees fleeing the war.
Slovakia has delivered to Ukraine its fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jets, the S-300 air defense system, helicopters, armored vehicles, and much-needed equipment.
In other words, in other countries, including Germany, France, and Spain, populist parties skeptical of intervention in Ukraine also command significant support.
So you're seeing the rise of this messaging, which is, why are we sending tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, enormous amounts of expensive weaponry that we then need to replace to fuel this horrific war in Ukraine that is not achieving any good, The front line hasn't moved in nine months, as we showed you last week.
Huge numbers of young Ukrainian men are dying against their will, meaning they don't want to fight in this war.
They're conscripts.
They're forced to do so.
And the threat of escalation, as we're also about to show you, is most definitely greater than ever.
And obviously, if you live in that region, even though the escalation could very likely be nuclear, You're going to be a little bit more nervous about the threat of escalation from this war as it goes on than you will if you live far away.
And that's what a lot of these countries are now recognizing, which is that people don't see the continuation of this war as important to them.
In fact, they see it as threatening.
AP goes on, quote, many of these countries have national or regional elections coming up that could tip the balance of popular opinion away from Kiev and toward Moscow.
Note how slimy that formulation is.
They keep saying pro-Russia, tipping popular opinion away from Kiev.
The people of Slovakia are not pro-Russian.
People who oppose fueling the war in Ukraine are not pro-Putin or pro-Kremlin any more than people who oppose the war in Iraq or pro-Saddam.
Or the people who opposed the war in Libya or are pro-Qadhafi?
They're just people who don't want to keep fueling this war.
Not because they love Russia, but because this war is disastrous and expensive and dangerous.
AP goes on, quote, another potential coalition partner, the ultranationalist Slovak National Party, a clear pro-Russian group, received 5.6% or 10 seats, making it even more likely that FICO is now going to form the majority coalition in the parliament and become the prime minister.
Now, there are two things that are happening as a result of this election.
And again, you can look at Slovakia and dismiss it.
It seems kind of boring.
Let's go talk about the exciting things in the house with Kevin McCarthy or Jamal Bowman pulling the fire alarm.
But one reason it matters is because this is a NATO country and it's kind of a bellwether for what's happening all throughout the West, including here in the United States, in terms of public opinion in the war in Ukraine, finally.
But also, it's important because the EU is now seizing on this to claim that the reason this bad outcome happened, meaning the outcome that they didn't want, the candidate they favored didn't win, the candidate they dislike won, It's not because the voters of Slovakia exercised their independent judgment and will.
Of course not.
That never happens when they lose.
It's only a free and fair election when Western elites win.
The reason they say it happened is because of Russian disinformation.
That's an excuse for everything.
We went last week through four different episodes just from last week alone.
Where Western elites blame Russian disinformation for everything from Justin Trudeau standing up with Zelensky and applauding and cheering for a Nazi SS soldier to Niger and the people of that country expelling France from their country.
It's not because they got tired of colonialism or French exploitation.
It's because Russian disinformation tricked them into believing that they'd be better off without the French.
Hillary Clinton, of course, blamed Russia, and so did Fox News, blaming Russia and Russian disinformation for why so many Republicans and Americans are now against the war in Ukraine.
So already they're seizing on this election to say, look, we warned you that the threat of Russian disinformation was real, that it could swing the outcome of elections.
It just happened.
And this proves even more that we need to gain a stronger stranglehold over the flow of information on the internet.
It's being used like almost everything these days to justify greater and greater degrees of internet censorship.
Here at the New York Times, The day before that AP report, so September 30th, had a headline, What does a Russia-leaning party win in a EU nation mean for Ukraine?
There you see that same scummy formulation, a Russia-leaning party.
They're not Russia-leaning.
They're just anti-war.
But the New York Times sub-headline says, In much of Europe, the election in Slovakia was seen as the bellwether of mainstream support for Ukraine in its war with Russia, but voters seem more concerned with pocketbook issues.
As though those aren't related.
Those are very related.
The winning candidate tied the war in Ukraine and the fact that Slovakia is sending so many weapons and so much money to Ukraine to the fact that they could be using that money at home instead.
Quote, given Mr. Fico's vociferous opposition to aiding the Ukrainians, the election was closely watched across Europe as an indicator of mainstream consensus on the war.
Mr. Fico vowed during the campaign to, quote, not send a single cartridge of ammunition to Ukraine if elected.
Do you think there were any pro-EU voices and CIA voices and pro-NATO voices involved in that election as well perhaps?
influential Moscow-friendly news media outlets in Slovakia and pro-Russian voices on social media.
Do you think there were any pro-EU voices and CIA voices and pro-NATO voices involved in that election as well, perhaps?
You think the New York Times might want to mention that?
Quote, the vice president of the European Union's executive arm in Brussels, Vera Zhirova, a Czech politician responsible for digital policy, policy, called last week on digital platforms like Facebook and TikTok to do more to blunt what she described as Russia's "multi-million euro weapon of mass manipulation ahead of elections in Slovakia and in Poland in mid-October."
The Slovak vote, she said, was a "test case" for Russia's ability to influence voters' choices through online disinformation.
Do you see what they're doing?
Every time they don't get their way, every time there's an election outcome they dislike, starting with Brexit and Trump's victory in 2016, which is what spawned this entire disinformation industry and censorship regime.
Every time they don't get their will, their way, and their will isn't served, they say, this proves the internet can't be free.
They have an all-purpose villain in Moscow they blame for everything.
And they say that this endless flow of Russian disinformation, somehow Russia is fighting this existential war in Russia against every single Western power.
And more than holding its own, it occupies close to 20% of Ukrainian territory.
And at the same time, Russia is controlling the outcome of every election in every Western country, driving public opinion all throughout the world.
It's like the most omnipotent country in human history, Russia is, even though It has an economy smaller than Italy's, but they've built it into this giant to keep you in fear, to keep populations in fear, to justify why they need unlimited power.
Now, as you might recall in a reference at the start of the show, last week, or maybe two weeks ago, we reported on a new study issued by the EU.
It was commissioned by the EU, rather, but it was issued by an organization claiming, of course, that they're disinformation experts, funded by Pierre Omidyar, needless to say.
The entire disinformation industry is funded by three neoliberal billionaires, Pierre Omidyar, George Soros, and Bill Gates, and this group was funded by Pierre Omidyar.
And the purpose of the study was to claim, and they announced it through the Washington That the failure of Twitter principally, but also Google and Facebook to censor insufficiently is allowing the flow of Russian disinformation more than ever before.
And the EU's real purpose in issuing this study was to threaten first Twitter, which they know is more unpopular because of Elon Musk, but also Facebook and Google that look, we have this new law in our hands.
There you see the show we did on the screen.
It was from September 6th.
We have this new law in our hands.
Call the Digital Services Act, and it is one of the most powerful censorship laws in the world.
And because we can prove that Russian disinformation is overflowing the internet because you're not censoring enough, we're going to start using this law with greater aggression to force you to censor more and more.
And they're using the example of what happened in Slovakia, the election outcome they lost, as proof of how necessary it is that they do so.
Here from that Washington Post article, I just want to show you one paragraph of it because they explicitly admit that what they're really worried about is that the fact that they can't control elections if there's too much free speech online.
There you see the headline of this article, and we covered it at the time in depth on that show I just showed you.
Must new Twitter policies help spread Russian propaganda, EU says.
Excess failure to slow the spread of disinformation on the internet would have violated EU and social media law had it been in effect.
So in this article, they're threatening Twitter and Facebook and Google.
They're saying, this new law that we just enacted, if it had been in effect at the time over the last year when we did this study, you would be violating the law.
We would have the power to punish you, to fine you severely under this law.
They're essentially saying, you better start censoring a lot more content that we dislike in Europe, this is the EU, it's all of Europe, or you're going to suffer serious consequences.
That is the threat being issued in almost every democratic country to these companies.
Censor the internet as we want or prepare to suffer the consequences.
That has been the message of the Democratic Party explicitly ever since they gained control of the Congress.
Here is the paragraph from the Washington Post article that I want to highlight because it really gives the game away.
It quotes the senior advisor of Reset, this is the group of self-proclaimed disinformation experts funded by Pyramiddyar, Felix Carty, and he told the Washington Post, quote, the myriad propaganda... Let's put that paragraph up on the screen, please.
The Reset senior advisor, Felix Carty, told the Washington Post that the myriad propaganda That the myriad propaganda campaigns used hate speech, boosted extremists, and threatened national security, potentially influencing European elections next year.
So, they're admitting that this is what they were concerned about, was that they cannot continue to control election outcomes.
Now, just to emphasize the point, how
Explicit there being about it here from the New York Times in October on October 1st It was a company article to the report on the Slovakian election There you see the paragraph the headline rather unease in the West as Slovakia appears set to join the Putin sympathizers Can you believe that they voted to stop spending a ton of money to Ukraine so they can spend it on themselves and their own lives and the New York Times calls them Putin sympathizers and
The frontrunner in the parliamentary vote, this was actually before the election result happened, the frontrunner in the parliamentary vote has pledged not to send a single cartridge to neighboring Ukraine, a sign of the flagging European support for a victim of Russian aggression.
Here's how the New York Times talked about this election, quote, the victory of Robert Fico, a former prime minister who took a pro-Russian campaign stance.
Do you see how pervasive this propaganda is in the West, in the media?
Over and over, a pro-Russian campaign stands.
In Slovakia's parliamentary elections is a further sign of eroding support for Ukraine in the West as the war drags on and the front line remains largely static.
House Republicans declined to meet with Vladimir Zelensky, the Ukrainian president in Washington last month.
These are the countries that were oppressed when Russia was the Soviet Union, right in that region.
have surfaced.
In Central Europe, once the core of fierce anti-Russian sentiment among fearful frontline states that endured decades of harsh communist rule as reluctant members of the Soviet bloc, the war is now viewed with greater nuance.
These are the countries that were oppressed when Russia was the Soviet Union, right in that region.
And the New York Times is right, they were the leading hawks when it came to this war.
We have to stand by Ukraine, do everything possible.
And 18 months later, they're turning against that view.
Mr. FICO's victory, taking about 23% of the vote on a platform that included stopping all arms shipment to Ukraine and placing blame for the war equally on the West and Kiev, is a case in point.
A global sex survey in March of public opinion across Central and Eastern Europe found that 51% of Slovaks It's hard to overstate.
That is a very common view in Brazil.
It's a common view in the Global South.
It's a common view in Asia.
That it was the West and Ukraine that provoked the war, that share half the blame.
It's a view you almost never hear in the United States or most of Western Europe, and anyone who expresses it is immediately denounced.
as a kremlin spy or a putin apologist or whatever but it is a very common view all over the world and now 51 of the people in this eu country in this nido country now believe that that is who is responsible for the war mr fico who served for more than a decade as prime minister until 2018 played off this sentiment even in western europe
a recent german marshall fund survey found that Support for Ukrainian membership in the EU stood at just 52% in France and 49% in Germany, barely a majority.
In Germany, only 45% of respondents favored Ukrainian membership in NATO.
Quote, more and more we are hearing a clear message to Mr. Zelensky, please cut a deal with Putin.
That a country on the Ukrainian border, Slovakia, should now have voted for a man who has said he will not send a single cartridge of ammunition across that border can only increase the pressure on Ukraine's leadership.
It also poses evident problems for a European Union already worried that Donald J. Trump may retake the White House next year, and facing divisions that a Polish election may sharpen further.
One aspect of this that's really interesting is how the West views Eastern Europe, which is largely governed by right-wing coalitions.
You wind up anyone in the West and they'll start talking about how Viktor Orban is this sort of Hitler figure or this fascist, when the reality is the Eastern Europeans are at least as right-wing as he is.
But because they have been so supportive of the war in Ukraine, everybody loves Poland in the West now.
Suddenly.
Just like the Italian Prime Minister, you probably recall when she was first elected last year, they called her the new Mussolini.
They were very worried that she was going to join Orban in resisting NATO support for Ukraine.
But the minute she got into office, she emphatically supported the war in Ukraine and has never faltered since.
And therefore, these concerns about how she's the new Mussolini have all but disappeared.
That is the top priority of NATO and the CIA and Western elites and the Western media is the war in Ukraine.
It's the litmus test.
So you have a lot of these governments in Eastern Europe that we've been applauding who are really aligned with Orban.
And now this new leader of Slovakia, even though he's long been identified as leftist, has taken this populist view that also aligns him with Viktor Orban.
And there's going to be a lot of fracturing in the EU over a lot of these issues, including support for the war in Ukraine.
Now, here's an article, just a random article from 2016, just showing that this new leader has always been talked about as being a leftist in Slovakia, even though if you read a lot of articles now, it will almost depict him as being this right-wing fanatic because they have to demean anybody who is opposed to further support for the war in Ukraine.
And the way you demean people in the West is you claim they're on the right.
The problem is he's an actual leftist.
Even though Iran was a populist this time, they're petrified that the western left is going to start getting awakened and join a lot of people on the right in opposing this war.
So here from 2016, Slovakia's governing party loses a majority as far right makes gains.
There you see the article, quote, Prime Minister Robert Fico's leftist mayor social democracy party, which has governed since 2012, finished with 28% of the vote on Saturday.
So they've always been talked about as being on the left, but you really won't see many articles doing that now.
Now, As I said, it's not just that this is scaring the West about whether they're going to be able to continue to fuel and fund the war in Ukraine without limits.
It's also immediately being exploited, and already was before the election even happened, to claim that censorship is necessary to constrain the harm and dangers of Russian disinformation.
Here from Politico on September 26, so several days before the election, The specter of Russian disinformation hangs over Slovak election, he warns.
They were preparing the public to say, if our candidate loses in Slovakia, it's not going to be because it's a fair election.
It's because it's going to be because of Russian manipulation.
You're up on high alert as disinformation surges across popular social media sites.
Quote, the upcoming Slovak elections are a test case Can we put the article on the screen?
elections are to the quote multi-million euro weapon of mass manipulation that Moscow uses to meddle in votes throughout through online disinformation, the EU's chief digital affairs official said on Tuesday.
Can we put the article on the screen?
So you see how they're preparing the public to start thinking about if this election, if we lose this election it means we need more censorship.
The article goes on, quote, Slovaks head to the polls on September 30th for the parliamentary election, leading the polls of the populist Smer SD party, headed by Robert Fico, the controversial former prime minister who supports sending military support to Ukraine.
Now, let's look at, I just showed you how he's always been called the leftist.
The Social Democrat here now is how they describe him now that he's opposed to the war in Ukraine.
He's the populist.
It's no longer the left.
There's no left there anymore.
It's now just the populist party headed by no more left here either.
The controversial former prime minister who supports any military support to Ukraine.
And it's true.
He has been in corruption scandals.
There was a murder of a journalist that was linked to his party.
It's not untrue that he's controversial, although he just won.
It's just that for years, when he was the former Prime Minister, automatically he would have the term leftist.
And now that's been taken away, now that he opposes the war in Ukraine, and now you get these other, more derogatory terms instead.
The article goes on, quote, the vote is crucial, quote, because the approach to Russia or Ukraine is a divisive line, said EU Commission Vice President Vera Zhorova, the Czech politician in charge of digital affairs and democracy at the EU level.
The risk that Moscow interferes in next year's EU elections is, quote, particularly serious, she said.
Quote, the Russian state has engaged in the war of ideas to pollute our information space with half-truths.
And lies to create a false image that democracy is no better than autocracy, she said.
The Commission and the slowback media regulator had a string of meetings earlier this month with companies including Facebook's Meta, Google's Alphabet, and TikTok, telling them to invest more to curb the problem, Politico reported Monday.
Do you see how coordinated and aggressive these schemes are?
The EU regulators are meeting With Facebook, Google, and TikTok and telling them we have this law in our hands to punish you severely if you don't spend more to fix the problem.
What's the problem?
The flow of what they claim is Russian disinformation, which as we know in the United States means anything that's said That undermines their desire for what the election results should be.
Remember, right before the 2020 election, the CIA and almost every media outlet in the United States used the term Russian disinformation to demean and get censored reporting based on the Hunter Biden laptop.
That is what they mean by Russian disinformation.
Anything that undermines our interests.
And they now have a systematic and overt effort underway To coerce and threaten social media companies, you better censor what we regard as Russian disinformation because it's so dangerous.
Quote, Jaraba said the country was, quote, fertile ground for Russian pro-war narratives, echoing similar fears of independent researchers and the country's media watchdog.
So they have all these institutions they've created now, supposedly as the objective arbiters of what truth and falsity is.
The government has that.
The government is in the business of decreeing and arbitrating what is truth and falsity.
Just like Homeland Security tried to do when it appointed Nini Yankovic last year, the disinformations are.
That's what this scheme is.
And it's penetrating all of the West, including the United States.
The New York Times also, several days before the election, depicted the Slovakian election as a test case for how aggressive the EU was going to get in its censorship powers.
Here's the New York Times, September 27.
The headline, the EU law sets the stage for a clash over disinformation.
The law aimed at forcing social media giants, forcing social media giants to adopt new policies to curb harmful content is expected to face blowback from Elon Musk, who owns X. Quote, the Facebook page in Slovakia called Somsi Dedny, which means I'm from the village, trumpeted a debunked Russian claim last month that Ukraine's president had secretly purchased a vacation home in Egypt under his mother-in-law's name.
A post on Telegram, later recycled on Instagram and other sites, suggested that a parliamentary candidate in the country's coming election had died from a COVID vaccine, though he remains very much alive.
A far-right leader posted on Facebook a photograph of refugees in Slovakia doctored to include an African man brandishing a machete.
As Slovakia heads toward an election on Saturday, the country has been inundated with disinformation and other harmful content on social media sites.
What is different now is new EU law.
What is different now?
So, the New York Times starts off the article with three different examples of posts that contain alleged disinformation.
No indication of how viral it was, how many people posted it, just three random posts containing allegedly false claims.
So now you're supposed to be thinking, wow, this is very serious.
This is very dangerous.
So all these false claims being circulated on the internet, they don't come from the New York Times, of course, or major media corporations, just the internet.
And now here's after priming people's fears about disinformation, here's what the New York Times says.
Listen to how important this is.
What is different now is a new European Union law that could force the world's social media platforms to do more to fight it or else face fines of up to 6% of a company's revenue.
The law, the Digital Services Act, is intended to force social media giants to adopt new policies and practices to address accusations that they routinely host and through algorithms popularize corrosive content.
Five years ago, or just a little bit more, this idea did not exist.
The idea that the government determines what is corrosive or harmful political speech And then sends government regulators to demand its removal from the Internet?
This idea has become completely normalized through the creation overnight of an industry and this new theory That the government and outside experts are qualified and competent to identify disinformation, even though these are the same people who lie constantly.
They're now being asked, or they're now demanding, the power to be trusted with determining what is true and false to the point where they have the power to force companies to remove what they claim is false information online.
Quote, if the measure is successful, as officials and experts hope, Its effects could extend far beyond Europe, changing company policies in the United States and elsewhere.
Do you understand that?
No American government, no American state could enact a law like this because of the First Amendment.
The federal court in the United States, the Fifth Circuit, as we reported on, just ruled The Biden administration's attempts to do this outside of the law, to call up Twitter and Facebook and Google continuously and threaten and force them to remove content they disliked, was a violation of the First Amendment.
In fact, one of the gravest violations of free speech in the history of the judiciary, said the court.
So how do you get around that in the United States?
The answer is by having these companies have to change their policies and censor more in response to European law, UK law, Canadian law.
And as a result, the result will be that these companies will change their company policies in the United States and elsewhere as well, meaning they will censor in accordance with these governments' demands.
And these governments are neoliberal governments.
They want the same kind of information censored.
Information interviews against the war in Ukraine, for example, to make sure that only their candidates win.
When you really put this together, you can see how dangerous it is, I hope, how menacing it is.
The New York Times goes on, quote, the law, years of painstaking bureaucracy in the making, reflects a growing alarm in European capitals that the unfettered flow of disinformation online Much of it fueled by Russia and other foreign adversaries threatens to erode the democratic governance at the core of the EU's values.
It's so hard to overstate how we're welling in their sentences.
They're saying there's a growing alarm in Eastern European capitals.
What is this alarm about?
That information will be unfettered.
You may recall during the time that there was the explosion in popularity of that app called Clubhouse, where people would, on their phone, go and join and enter rooms and have conversations.
It became very popular for about three months and then it flamed out.
The New York Times had an article complaining and warning about the fact that what was happening on Clubhouse were, quote, unfettered communications, unfettered conversations.
That was when Taylor Renz would go into rooms and she would go run to Twitter and say, Mark Andreessen was in a room and he used the R word, even though he hadn't, or this person was in a room and someone said this.
And then she wrote an article and started the New York Times warning that clubhouses allow, unquote, unfettered communications.
That's what these people fear most.
Free speech is another way of calling unfettered communications.
And the amazing thing is they have the audacity, and the New York Times of course is endorsing this view, to claim that the democratic governance of the EU is in danger if you don't allow these states to censor the flow of information online.
In other words, the only way to save democracy is by turning these governments and these officials into authoritarian censors.
That's what they're saying.
They're saying the only way we can protect you from authoritarianism is if you allow us to censor the information that you're exposed to.
And that is what these laws are designed to do.
They're in place already.
They're in place in the EU.
We showed you the law, the similar law in the UK, called the Online Safety Act, which is what that Baroness in the Parliament used to go to every social media company and platform and demand that they demonetize Russell Brand.
She cited this law.
That now allows the UK to pressure social media companies to remove quote unsafe material online.
It's the same thing in the EU.
Now, as I said, this election outcome in Slovakia, which The election in Slovakia, the first in Europe since the law went into effect last month, will be an early test of the law's impact.
Other elections loom in Luxembourg and Poland next month, while the bloc's 27 member states will vote next year for members of the European Parliament in the face of what officials have described as sustained influence operations by Russia and others.
Although Slovakia joined NATO in 2004 and had been a staunch supporter and arms supplier for Ukraine since the Russian invasion, the current frontrunner is Smear, a party headed by Robert Fico, a former prime minister who now criticizes the alliance and punitive steps against Russia.
Facebook shut down the account of one of Smear's candidates, Ljubis Baja, in 2022 for spreading disinformation about COVID.
Known for inflammatory comments about Europe, NATO, and LGBT issues, Mr. Blaha remains active in Telegram posts.
Would you have any idea that this party they banned and that they're talking about is a left-wing party?
They're complaining Mr. Blaha remains active in Telegram posts, which Smear reposted on its Facebook page, effectively circumventing the ban.
This is the party that just won in Slovakia.
The New York Times is angry that this official isn't effectively censored.
Jan Zielinski, a social scientist from Slovakia who studies the use of social media at Technical University of Munich in Germany, said the law was a step in the right direction.
Quote, content moderation is a hard problem.
Platforms definitely have responsibilities, but so do the political elites and candidates.
So there you have it.
This is a country of 5 million people.
The person who won is the candidate advocating a policy view that the people of Slovakia favor, but that EU elites oppose.
And as a result, they're so indignant That they're threatening to eliminate free speech in order to protect us and our democracy.
Now, in case you aren't somebody who's already concerned about the war in Ukraine, despite how much we've been covering it since it began, let me just show you how this war is becoming increasingly more dangerous.
First of all, here's the Guardian on September 30th.
British troops could deploy to Ukraine for the first time to train soldiers, says Grant Shapps.
The UK Defense Secretary says the proposal is being discussed and it would reduce reliance on the UK and other NATO members' bases.
The reality is the UK, the US, a lot of governments, NATO governments, have advisors, that's the term that they use to start the Vietnam War as well, on the ground in Ukraine.
And now they're considering a formal deployment of British troops, British troops to Ukraine.
What will happen, and the Russians are already threatening this, if those British troops, which become legitimate targets in Ukraine, become targeted by the Russians and killed?
I assume there's going to be a lot of political pressure in Britain to respond to that.
The escalation dangers are not just obvious, but impossible to overstate.
Here's the Guardian, quote, after a briefing with General Sir Patrick Sanders, the Chief of the General Staff, and other senior personnel at Salisbury Plain, the Defense Minister Schaaf said, quote, I was talking today about eventually getting the training brought closer and actually into Ukraine as well.
Particularly in the west of the country, I think the opportunity now is to bring more things in country.
Not just training, but we're also seeing BAE, the UK defense firm, for example, move into manufacturing in the country, for example.
So the British are deploying their arms manufacturers to Ukraine and now British troops possibly to Ukraine.
Obviously, the UK is a NATO member.
And as I said, the escalation risks are obvious.
And one of the people to whom they're obvious is Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president who remains one of Vladimir Putin's closest advisors.
He's also a very aggressive wielder of rhetoric on Twitter.
And just let me give you a taste for what Dmitry Medvedev is saying in response to not just the UK's threats to send troops, but also German announcements for getting more involved in the war, as well as the spectacle that debacle in Canada, where they applauded the Nazi.
First of all, here's his tweet on October 1st, 2023.
Now you can dismiss all this if you want as just buster or whatever.
I kind of think it's worth taking seriously.
At least as a threat.
Here's what he said, quote, Number one, led by the loveful, degenerate Prime Minister Trudeau, Canadian animals fraternize with Nazis in their parliament.
Number two, Abrams tanks from NATO arsenals are delivered to Ukraine.
Number three, Kiev authorities are promised long-range ATCOMS missiles.
Russia, it seems, is being left with less and less choice except direct ground conflict with NATO.
We are ready, even though the end result will be achieved at a far greater cost for mankind than in 1945.
The number of idiots in power in native countries is growing.
One newly minted moron, the British Secretary of State for Defense, decided to move the UK military training of Ukrainian soldiers into Ukraine, that is, to turn the British military instructors into our armed forces' legal targets, while being fully aware that they will be ruthlessly eliminated, and this time not as mercenaries but as British NATO specialists.
Another fool from the Bundestag, the chairwoman of German Defense Committee with an unpronounceable surname, is clamoring to immediately provide the Ukrainians with Taurus missiles to enable the Kiev regime to hit deep into Russia's territory to weaken the supply of our army.
That is, it is in accordance with international law.
Well, in that case, the strikes against the German plants which produce those missiles We'll also fully correspond to international law.
Really, these halfwits are actively pushing us toward World War III.
I just feel like when the world's largest nuclear superpower actively engaged in a war is warning of the risk of escalation and nuclear exchanges and World War III, it's something we should at least pay attention to and not laugh off.
That's especially true since... Actually, here is a...
Okay, those are two separate tweets.
That's especially true since, as the New York Times reported today, Russia may be planning to test a nuclear-powered missile.
Visual evidence from a remote base in the Arctic shows launch preparations mirroring those that preceded earlier tests.
So the people of Slovakia decided they've had enough of this war.
They've had enough of sending tens of billions of dollars in weapons and money.
They've had enough of having their country flooded with immigrants from Ukraine.
People who are driven out of their country and they've had enough of living under the specter of escalation, which obviously would consume their country.
These are people who obviously lived through the Cold War and were people with memories of World War II.
And they take this very seriously, as they should.
And the response of Western elites Is not, oh, well, maybe we should be a little bit more concerned about the escalations of this war and the fact that populations are turning against it.
Instead, it's these people are stupid.
They're not actually exercising their free will.
They're victimized by Russian disinformation.
And that shows the reason why, more than ever, we need to censor the Internet and ensure that the only things they're hearing are things that we want them to hear.
It is.
Very difficult to express how deranged and authoritarian the West has become.
Now, we're going to have a second segment that is about Canada and censorship.
A very disturbing story, I should add.
Very chilling.
And we're going to do that right after an exciting new sponsor.
I'm always excited to get new sponsors, given the war that is being waged on Rumble to drive sponsors away.
So when we get new sponsors, it is really a kind of act of courage to support Rumble, to support the cause of free speech.
And we hope you will listen to our ads.
And if you patronize our sponsors, that obviously helps our show.
It helps Rumble.
It helps the cause of free speech by telling corporate advertisers and companies that you won't be punished if you advertise on Rumble, but rewarded.
We'll be right back after this.
We'll be right back.
There's been an explosion over the last decade of plaintiff's litigation representing employers against or employees against their employers.
There's been all kinds of longstanding legal requirements about the ways that you have to deal with your employees.
And then, of course, there's just awkward or difficult or complex situations involving employee complaints against other employees.
And it takes a lot of caution and a lot of specialization to handle that the right way.
If you handle it poorly or you make a mistake, it can cost you a huge amount of money in terms of government action or lawsuits or just loss of your reputation.
The problem, of course, is that if you're a small business owner, you can't really afford to have a dedicated full-time human resources manager that cost $80,000 or $100,000 a year to have a minimally competent one.
And that's where our new sponsor, which we're delighted to have, Bambi, comes in.
They are a standalone HR manager that enables you at It's just the cost of starting at $99 a month.
If you contract the service, you will be able to have a US-based specialized assigned HR specialist available for you to answer your questions or help guide you through difficult sort of employee situations.
And it is a website that has thousands of clients and thousands of positive reviews because they really do have dedicated specialists that you don't have to pay full time.
You only pay on this as needed basis.
So if you have an employee problem, you call them.
You can speak to them by email, by telephone, by online chat.
They're all based in the United States.
They're all heavily trained, highly trained in how to guide you in handling HR problems.
So in the future, if you have some sort of employee who raises an awkward complaint, you're not quite sure how to handle it, or there's a lot of issues involving people coming back from working remotely back to the office of what rights they have.
Any kind of doubts or questions you have, obviously you shouldn't be guessing.
At the same time, it's hard to have a full time HR manager if you're a small business.
We're a small business here.
We have 15 employees or so, but we obviously don't pay $100,000 a year for an HR manager.
So when questions happen in your mind, it's just always best to be sure, better safe than sorry.
And Bambi is the company that allows you to do that.
It is Bambie, B-A-M-B-E-E.
You will have access to their service, understand how it works, and under the field podcast, you just type in my last name, Greenwald, when you sign up, which really helps our program.
It shows our advertisers that our viewers are patronizing them.
We talked a lot about the importance of supporting and patronizing our sponsors, especially with the war on rumble.
Underway designed to show corporations and companies that they shouldn't advertise on rumble because there'll be more trouble than it's worth Patronizing the sponsor for our program and other rumble programs really helps preserve the free speech cause rumble is fighting but in this case this service is Really a great service.
It's something that you absolutely need if you're a small business or if you employ any kind of employees.
You may be subject to serious problems or liabilities if you handle employee or human resource situations incorrectly.
And they really are great at guiding you on how to make the best choices.
Again, that's B-A-M-B-E-E dot com.
Just type Greenwald under the podcast field.
So as you undoubtedly know, if you watch this show at all, let alone watch it regularly, I do a great deal of reporting on the trends in the West, in the United States, in Canada, in Europe, about online censorship, about states, and working hand-in-hand with large corporations, large tech corporations and working hand-in-hand with large corporations, large tech corporations to censor political speech on the Internet, the primary means that we use now to communicate.
Okay, so, I just spent an hour walking through what's happening in Europe.
It's something I do regularly and so I'm pretty accustomed to reading some pretty shocking things.
Things that I think are genuinely Alarming, including what I just went through, the kind of attitude and mentality of the EU and the way they're armed now with this new law.
And yet, despite how kind of immunized I think I am to being viscerally shocked, I was amazed when somebody sent me a couple of days ago this press release from the government of Canada that, in very clear and unvarnished terms, ordered Any platforms that allow podcasts that make a certain small revenue cutoff, a year, something like $10 million, to register with the government of Canada.
Register with the government of Canada to allow a new regulatory agency or an old regulatory agency applying a new law to ensure that the content of these podcasts and the platform comports with Canadian law.
So first let me show you what the government itself said.
Here's the press release.
I posted this.
On Twitter over the weekend, it went super viral because of how disturbing it is, how obviously disturbing it is.
So here's the headline, the CRTC takes major step toward modernizing Canada's broadcasting framework.
The CRTC is the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission.
So don't worry, podcast platforms are required to register, but it's only because they want to modernize their regulatory framework, not because they want to control the flow of information.
You don't need to worry.
Here's what they said, quote, today the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada's broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and indigenous content.
First, the CRTC is setting out which online streaming services need to provide information about their activities in Canada.
Online streaming services that operate in Canada, offer broadcasting content, and earn $10 million or more in annual revenues will need to complete a registration form by November 28, 2023.
Registration collects basic information, is only required once, and can be completed in just a few steps.
Second, the CRTC is setting conditions for online streaming services to operate in Canada.
These conditions take effect today and require certain online streaming services to provide the CRTC with information related to their content and subscribership.
So not only do you have to report the fact that you're operating in Canada, you also have to provide the CRTC, the Canadian agency, with quote, information related to your content and subscribership.
The decision also requires those services to make content available in a way that is not tied to a specific mobile or internet service.
Quick facts, quote, social media services must register.
However, users do not.
Online services that offer podcasts must register.
However, individuals use social media to share podcasts do not.
Online services that only provide video game services or audiobooks do not have to register, obviously because those don't contain political content the way podcasts do.
Now, all of this is being done pursuant to a new law that Canada has.
We went over the law that the EU has last week.
We reported on the new law the UK has to empower the governments to control the content of information.
As I said at the top of the show, this new law, the Canadian law, which is referred to as C11, It's the Online Streaming Act is not a law that if you just read it would be as explicitly disturbing as the one in the EU or the UK or pending in other countries like Brazil that are soon going to likely be adopted.
It seems more benevolent on the surface, but the key context for this is two things.
Number one, there's no question that the government does have the power to regulate the content that these streaming services are offering.
And number two, the Canadian government has demonstrated repeatedly that it has authoritarian tendencies, to put that mildly.
And that's the reason why people are so alarmed when the Canadian government seeks to exert power over the expression of political speech.
Here's from the CBC when the law was first enacted on April 28, 2023.
Controversial bill to regulate online streaming becomes law.
Quote, a controversial government bill to overhaul Canadian broadcasting laws to regulate streaming services has passed the final hurdle in the Senate and received royal assent Thursday evening.
The legislation requires streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows.
It also requires the platforms to promote Canadian content.
Specifically, the bill says, quote, online undertaking shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming in both official languages as well as in indigenous languages.
The chain gives the CRTC, Canada's broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the act.
Conservatives have slammed the bill as an attack on freedom of expression.
Under this archaic system of censorship, government gatekeepers will now have the power to control which videos, posts, and other content Canadians see online, a conservative web page on C11 says.
Here from the Toronto Star that same week when it was enacted, April 27th, Ottawa's controversial online streaming bill becomes law despite protests from digital giants.
Quote, the Liberals introduced the bill early last year in an attempt to subject streaming giants like Netflix, Disney Plus, and Spotify to the same regulations that already apply to traditional television and radio broadcasters in Canada.
The reason why that makes no sense, unless you want to control content, is because the internet is infinite.
Whereas traditional television and radio broadcasters occupy finite space.
They've always been subject to regulations.
The internet is infinite.
Unless you're trying to control content, the kinds of things Canadians can and can't hear There'd be no reason to have this bill.
Quote, in introducing C11, Rodriguez sought to refresh Canada's outdated Broadcasting Act, which was crafted in the days long before Canadians relied heavily on the internet to access TV shows, movies, and music.
To do that, the bill carves out a new class of broadcasting called, quote, online undertakings, which share content on the internet, including, in some cases, social media platforms.
The bill also calls on streaming services to contribute to the promotion of Canadian content on their platforms and it would give this agency broad powers to enforce the act, including the ability to penalize platforms that violate it.
Precisely what those powers will be and how the newly passed legislation will impact Canadians' experience with consuming content online has yet to be determined.
It was also backed by the NDP and the Quebec Bloc Party.
That left only the Conservatives to campaign against the bill, and the Conservative leader referred to the law as Justin Trudeau's censorship law.
The official opposition argued C11 overreached in what it captured under the proposed regime, handed the CRTC too much power and control, and unduly interfered with what kinds of content Canadians would be able to find online.
There has been, as I said, a lot of confusion deliberately generated by the government because the government intruded Justin Trudeau, putting on his nice voice and saying, we don't want to interfere in free speech in Canada.
We just want to promote Canadian content and indigenous content.
That's all we're trying to do.
And they insisted the law doesn't really allow them to dictate to social media companies what gets algorithmically promoted or suppressed.
And yet, When the CRTC chairman, Ian Scott, went to testify, he acknowledged, he admitted that the bill can be used to pressure internet platforms to manipulate algorithms.
Here from an article by a law professor in Canada, Michael Geist.
You see the headline that the CRTC chair admitted they can use it to pressure internet platforms and the article reads, quote, the government has insisted that algorithms are off limits in the bill.
For example, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told the House Heritage Committee, now other people will say, oh my God, you're going to play with algorithms.
No, it's clearly written there that the CRTC cannot play with algorithms.
Lots of things are said about the bill that have nothing to do with the bill.
The commission may not tell the platform specifically how to adjust the algorithm, but that is a distinction without a difference, since it can issue orders on the end result as it is presented to subscribers or users.
In other words, he admitted, in this video I'm about to show you, that they absolutely have the power to regulate and control which videos get promoted and which videos get suppressed.
This is the CRTC chair, Ian Scott.
Scott, let's play this video.
And I think there will be a number of ways that the industry can do it.
I'll give you simple examples.
Instead of saying, and the Act precludes this, we will make changes to your algorithms, as many European countries are contemplating doing.
Instead, we will say, this is the outcome we want.
We want Canadians to find Canadian music.
How best to do it?
How will you do it?
I don't want to use to manipulate your algorithm.
I want you to manipulate it to produce a particular outcome.
Oh, wow.
What a difference.
So it's not the Canadian regulators who actually go in and recode the algorithms.
They just tell the social media companies, this is what the outcome, this is the outcome we want.
These are the videos we want promoted.
These are the videos we want suppressed.
And you are now to go change your algorithms to ensure compliance with our orders.
Did that sound reassuring to you at all?
That's them trying to make the law sound benign.
And of course, I was just on Laura Ingraham, I did a segment on this issue, on this issue in Canada.
I taped it right before our program began, it's probably, it probably just appeared live 15 minutes ago or so at the end of her program at seven o'clock, which is on the same time as our show.
And one of the points I made was, look, no government ever stands up and says, we're authoritarians, we're tyrants, we're here to take away your right of free speech and right of dissent.
They all presented in this benevolent way, like, oh, we're just trying to protect you.
We're trying to keep you safe from hate speech.
We're trying to protect you from the dangers of disinformation.
We're just trying to promote Canadian art.
But the minute they have the power to dictate to social media companies which content gets promoted and which content gets suppressed, as the CRTC chair, Ian Scott, admitted in that video I just showed you that they do have, obviously the dangers of censorship admitted in that video I just showed you that they do have, obviously the dangers of censorship are immense, especially when they're ordering platforms that offer podcasting, which is overwhelmingly political in content, to register with the state to be
Here is an article from the same law professor, Michael Geis.
And the reason I'm showing you his analysis is because he's extremely kind of moderate.
He's much less concerned about this law, for example, than I am or than free speech advocates in Canada are.
He's come out and kind of defended the government in a way, saying critics of this law are wildly overstating the dangers when they say that Canada has become China.
And nonetheless, he does acknowledge that there are real censorship dangers to this law and that the government is not being honest about the sorts of powers it gives them.
So here he is in an article.
This is Michael Geis at the University of Ottawa Law School in March of 2023.
And there's the article headline, The Latest Bill on the C11 Debate, Sacrificing Freedom of Expression for Quebec Cultural Lobby Support.
And this is what he wrote, quote, As I've stated many times, the bill does not limit the ability to speak, but could impact the ability to be heard.
That raises important implications for freedom of expression, but it does not turn Canada into China.
So the claims that user content regulation is excluded from the bill, which is what the government is trying to claim, we can't control content regulation, user content regulation, The law professor, who, as I said, is pretty moderate, says section 4.12b and section 4.22 clearly scope such content into the bill.
An interpretation that has been confirmed by dozens of experts and the former chair of the CRTC.
Liberal and NDP MP claims to the contrary should be regarded as disinformation.
A deliberate attempt to spread false information.
Indeed, the Supreme Court proposed a fix.
The government rejected it.
That was supposed to be the focus of the debate, yet liberal MPs falsely claim that there is no there there.
So the people who are saying they need to protect you from disinformation and they need this censorship power to do it are themselves, according to this mildly pro-government or at least government defending law professor, themselves spreading disinformation, which of course is exactly what they're going to do.
Here he is in March 27th, right before the bill was passed, referencing a claim by an MP who favored the bill, saying that her claims are deeply troubling and explains a lot.
And I want to show you what she said.
This is the Quebec bloc party member justifying this bill and how it will be used by the Canadian government.
If violating freedom of expression means ensuring that Quebec content is well represented online, well, then that's worth it.
Look at this woman here in the left, let me show this video again, in this left corner, the woman with the brown hair sitting down to the speaker's right, as she says, If we have to limit and violate freedom of expression in order to get what we want, which is the content that we want promoted, so be it.
Watch how that other MP reacts when she says it.
It means ensuring that Quebec content is well represented online.
Well, then that's worth it.
I can't explain, I can't count how many examples I now see of Western politicians doing this.
Meaning, look, we're being accused of violating freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
And you know what?
So be it.
We are doing that.
Because the dangers of allowing free speech are too great.
And the importance of us controlling the flow of information is too high.
But we don't care any longer about these complaints.
We're admitting we're limiting free speech.
We are limiting free speech.
We want to limit free speech.
Free speech is too dangerous.
That is absolutely the prevailing view of these Western neoliberal power centers.
And you may be comforted by the fact that we, at least in the United States, have the First Amendment.
For a while I was too.
But what the EU is saying, and they're in touch with the Americans all the time, is what their plan is, knowing that they have this First Amendment problem in the U.S., is to force these companies to change their policies to restrict freedom of speech online, to ensure that the censorship demands of Western liberals are honored and obeyed.
And then these companies will have no choice except to ensure those limitations also apply to the United States.
And free speech all throughout the West will be curbed and violated and limited over the primary technological means we now use to communicate with one another, which is the Internet.
And the reaction when you say this is no longer to deny it because it's no longer feasible to deny it.
It's to do with those two politicians just did.
Yep.
We're violating free speech.
We're limiting your free speech because the goals we have are more important.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can follow us on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcasting platform.
Each episode appears there 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble.
And if you rate, review, and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As another reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, we have our live after show on Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform for our Locals supporters only.
You also, if you become a local supporter, not only get access to those after shows, which is live and interactive in nature, as well as the written content that we post there, including the daily transcripts of each show that we post for those of you who want to consume the programs.
That way, and if you join our locals community, it really supports the independent journalism
