If you believe that the censorship of information is being coordinated on a global scale, then you’re absolutely right. Officially!

The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts who work together to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.”

What could possibly go wrong?

Who are the IGDC?

Background:

The idea to create the IGCD originally came from four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments:

Damian Collins and Ian Lucas from the U.K., and Bob Zimmer and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith from Canada.

The first meeting of the IGCD took place at the end of November 2018, so they’ve been quietly working in the background for some time.

Since then, the IGCD have held meetings in Canada and the U.K. and hosted seminars in the U.S. These ‘clandistine’ meetings have been attended by spiritual leaders, journalists, technology executives, “subject matter experts” and parliamentary leaders from 21 countries.

These countries included Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, St. Lucia, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.

According to the IGCD, their organization functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states. Never mind the fact that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.”

Logistics for the group are provided by an initiative called “Reset,” which is a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for the WEF’s Great Reset strategy.

Clearly this organisation (IGCD) recognises that people will never go along with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan if everyone is allowed to discuss the full ramifications of this scheme on a free and democratic basis.

The IGCD helps shed light on the technocracy front group known as the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Interestingly, one of the CCDH’s board members, Damian Collins MP, is also one of the founders of the IGCD.

Both groups were formed in 2018 and they clearly have the same goals and agenda.

UK ‘Online Safety Bill’ Seeks to Shut Down Counter Narratives

One of those goals is to eliminate free speech online, which is what the U.K.’s proposed “Online Safety Bill” would achieve. Not surprisingly, Collins is part of the Online Safety Bill Committee, charged with examining the Bill “line by line to make sure it is fit for purpose.”

In a blog post on August 11, 2021, Collins requested the public’s help in tracking down counter-narratives. He asked that the public took screenshots of the ‘offending material’ and email it directly to him.

In the post he said;

“Unless harmful content is reported, whether it is terrible images of self-harm, violent or extremist content or anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, it can otherwise be unknowable to regulators and governments.”

It’s impossible to miss the fact that Collins is now linking “anti-vaccine” commentary together with violent and extremist content (that should be censored) and, in reality, that’s one of the top categories of information this proposed bill seeks to control.

As reported by iNews;

“The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has repeatedly insisted the powers contained within the legislation would help crack down on … anti-vaccine disinformation.”

Online Safety Bill: Catastrophic for Free Speech

While some might think it’s a good idea to spoon feed people “correct” information about vaccines, it’s also important to understand that whilst vaccines may be the focal issue of today, tomorrow it could be a completely different topic that the UK Government could arbitrarily decide is out of bounds for public discussion.

So, this proposed ‘censorship‘ bill is part of a slippery slope to a UK dictatorship where our rights to ‘freedom of speech’ have been removed completely.

As reported by BBC News, the “Legal to Say. Legal to Type” campaign warns that if the Online Safety Bill becomes law, Big Tech firms will be in a position of extraordinary power:

“While the group supports the bill’s aim of ensuring online platforms remove images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence, it fears other provisions will adversely affect free speech …

Under the bill, Ofcom [the British Office of Communications] will be given the power to block access to sites and fine companies which do not protect users from harmful content up to £18m, or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

Campaigners claim this gives tech firms an incentive to ‘over-censor,’ and ‘effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley’ …

MP Mr. David Davis described the bill as a ‘censor’s charter.’

He added:

‘Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal’ …

Campaigners are also concerned that technology companies may use artificial intelligence to identify harmful content. That, they say, may introduce racial biases and will wrongly censor language, ‘especially when it comes to irony-loving Brits.’”

US Democrats Attack Free Speech

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., would suspend the Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections in instances where social media networks are found to be boosting, what in their opinion are “anti-vaccine conspiracies,” and then hold them liable for such content.

In a July 22, 2021, article, Tech Crunch reported:

“The bill would specifically alter Section 230’s language to revoke liability protections in the case of ‘health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service’ if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm.

The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of COVID-19, and wouldn’t apply in normal times. The bill would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with defining health misinformation.”

As with the British Online Safety Bill, the Health Misinformation Act is an open portal for abuses. Ironically, the Act actually relies on misinformation to make its case. It specifically mentions the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report, which falsely claims a dozen individuals are responsible for a majority of the “anti-vax misinformation” which is being shared on social media platforms.

‘Disinformation Dozen’ Have Negligible Reach

Meanwhile, on August 18, 2021, a statement by Facebook’s vice president of content policy, Monika Bickert, stated there’s no evidence to support the CCDH’s claims, and that the people named by the CCDH as being responsible for the vast majority of vaccine misinformation on social media were in fact only responsible for a tiny fraction – 0.05% – of all vaccine content on Facebook.

Here’s an excerpt from Bickert’s statement:

“In recent weeks, there has been a debate about whether the global problem of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can be solved simply by removing 12 people from social media platforms.

People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn’t any evidence to support this claim …

In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.

The report upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users. They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.

Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis.

There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”

It’s quite clear that the CCDH exists to fabricate “evidence” and then use it to destroy the opposition in order to control the information.

As such, the CCDH is nothing more than a front group for the much larger, global IGCD, which aims to shut down free speech across the entire world.

The ‘Whistleblower’ Con-Trick

One of the dirtiest tricks the dark state is now using in order to shut down free speech is to employ fake whistleblowers.

For example Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee turned “whistleblower” who testified before Congress October 5, 2021, accusing her former employer of aiding evildoers, is not an actual whistleblower.

She is being legally represented by a firm called Whistleblower Aid, founded by a national security lawyer, Mark Zaid, who is known for betraying his clients and siding with prosecutors.

Whistleblower Aid is funded by tech billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Reset Initiative, which provides logistics for the IGCD, is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies. That tells you everything you need to know about the intended purpose behind Haugen’s testimony.

As reported by The Gray Zone:

“Haugen emphasized in her testimony that she ‘doesn’t want to break up’ Facebook; she was merely looking for increased ‘content moderation’ to root out ‘extremism’ and ‘(mis/dis)information’ … Haugen appears to be little more than a tool in a far-reaching plan to increase the U.S. national security state’s control over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.”

In short order, Haugen managed what has been impossible for other whistleblowers. She secured audiences with lawmakers in France, the U.K. and the European Union to discuss the need for more censorship.

Project Pogo

The purpose of the Project Pogo operation is to put out truthful channels in order to attract people to them. They call it tag, track, and ID. TTID.

So what does this tell you?

It tells you that the dark state want to tag you, track you, and ultimatley identify exactly who you are.

Therefore by watching, liking or commenting on these apparently ‘exposing the truth‘ channels and, if you are informed and awake on the issues being discussed on these channels then the dark state actors behind them will add you to their list of “potential subversives“.

Follow The Money – the Dark Money

Over the past year, the CCDH’s fabricated “Disinformation Dozen” report has been repeatedly used as a foundation for calls to strip American citizens of their First Amendment free speech rights.

This fake report is now being used by the attorney general and selected politicians, and it’s also being cited in all the Big Tech hearings on countering dis-information.

Aside from being directly tied to the global IGCD (remember, Damien Collins MP is on the board of both the IGCD and the CCDH), the CCDH is also connected to Arabella Advisors – the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S. – by way of CCDH chairman Simon Clark.

(“Dark money” is a term that means the identities of those funding the organization are kept secret.)

Simon Clark is also a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, where he specialises in “right-wing domestic terrorism” which is funded by a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss.

Wyss also funds Arabella Advisors, which runs a large number of temporary front groups that pop in and out of existence as needed for any given campaign.

Reporter Hayden Ludwig,  a Senior Investigative Researcher at Capital Research Center and a columnist at the Washington Free Beacon, has described the inner workings of Arabella Advisors and the influence of the “dark money” flowing through it as follows:

“Arabella’s nonprofits act as the left’s premier pass-through funders for professional activists. Big foundations — including the Gates, Buffett, and Ford Foundations – have laundered billions of dollars through this network, washing their identities from the dollars that go to push radical policies on America.

But the real juice from these nonprofits comes from the vast array of ‘pop-up groups’ they run – called so because they consist almost solely of slick websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through.

We’ve counted over 350 such front groups pushing everything from federal funding of abortion to overhauling Obamacare to packing the Supreme Court.

Arabella is as dark as ‘dark money’ gets. It’s also the prime example of liberal hypocrisy over anonymous political spending, operating in nearly total obscurity …

As more of this massive web of groups – responsible for churning out nearly $2.5 billion since its creation has come into focus, one thing’s become clear:

When a special interest donor goes to Arabella, they’re expecting a political payoff.”

You can learn more about Arabella Advisors and their hidden influence over U.S. politics through pop-up front groups in the Capital Research Center series, “Arabella’s Long War Against Trump’s Department of the Interior.”

Open War on Public

Many people now believe we are in an on-going dilemma where asking valid questions about public health measures are regarded as acts of domestic terrorism. Unbelievable in a free and democratic society, yet here we are.

Since the arrival of the C-19 scamdemic pandemic, the rhetoric used against anyone who questions the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or those who have shared scientific data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are a really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.

Dr. Peter Hotez has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on all American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and his vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.

His article should have set off alarm bells at the CCDH, if the CCDH were actually protecting us from online hate.

However, the CCDH is not about protecting the public from hate. In classic Orwellian Doublespeak, this ‘dark-state’ operation actually exists to foster and create hatred. That is towards anyone who dis-agrees with the UK Government.

Recently the journal Nature published an article by CCDH founder Imran Ahmed, in which he discusses the need to destroy the “anti-vaxx industry.”

In his article, Ahmed flat out lied, saying he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers.” Far from being “private,” the meeting in question was actually a public online conference, open to anyone and everyone around the world, with access to the recorded lectures part of the sign-up fee.

How this state employed bad actor, with absolutely no medical credentials, ever managed to meet the magazine’s publication requirements is a mystery. This alone demonstrates we cannot trust some of our most esteemed medical journals – especially if they are ‘state controlled’.

The fact that Ahmed lied about such an easily verifiable point tells you everything you need to know about the CCDH – and by extension the IGCD, which it clearly is working with.

And Finally…

In the end, lies cannot stand up to the truth, which is precisely why the CCDH and IGCD are working overtime to ‘harmonize’ laws across the democratic world to censor any and all counternarratives.

Like I have said before, right now, the goal of both the CCDH – and by extension the IGCD – is primarily about silencing any questions or inconvenient truths about the COVID shots.

However, in the future, these proposed laws will allow these corrupted governments to silence all discussion on any topic which threatens the undemocratic New World Order controlled by the globalists.

In order to avoid such a fate, we must be relentless in our pursuit of sharing the truth. We must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for our rights to freedom of speech and all other Constitutional rights.

Author: Anon.

Special Thanks to…

Dr J Mercola

Robert F. Kennedy Jnr.