Musk Sues Deep State Censorship Arm “CCDH”

By Ty & Charlene Bollinger
August 2, 2023

TTAV is experiencing heavy censorship on many social media channels since we’ve been targeted by the mainstream media sellouts, social media bullies, and political turncoats. Be sure to get the TRUTH by subscribing to our email list. It’s free.

0 Shares

The fight for freedom is escalating. As increasingly more people are awakened to the truth and established propaganda outlets continue to lose credibility, we all have front-row seats to the final gasps of the Censorship Industrial Complex.

We could talk about the verified lab-leak theory (or the COVID biolab recently busted in California), the latest evidence that our current president colluded with his crackhead son to sell U.S. influence, or that the CDC is already warning of a late-summer COVID wave.

But that’s not what this article is about.

Because all of the stories we’ve just listed have one thing in common: Censorship.

One of the biggest blows to the Censorship Industrial Complex was the purchase of Twitter (now X) by Elon Musk. The social media platform just recorded record users despite slashing over 70% of their overhead budget. And unlike Facebook (and Instagram), Google (and YouTube), and countless other government-controlled media outlets, X has become the last true bastion of free speech online.

Now, Elon Musk is suing one of the seediest and most aggressive operatives in the global effort to erode free speech. His target? The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), the same people that listed us, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Sayer Ji, Dr. Rashid Buttar, Erin Elizabeth, and others in their “Disinformation Dozen” hit list.

(We’re in the middle of releasing our latest docu-series, Remedy, which features all of the freedom fighters listed above and is dedicated to our dear friend, Dr. Buttar. Ironically, our Twitter ad for Remedy was blocked and our biggest Twitter accounts are still suspended!)

We’re going to give you access to the entire lawsuit filed by Musk, break down the lawsuit itself, expose the CCDH’s allies and members, discuss the impacts of censorship on democracy, explain why the CCDH is just another covert arm of the Censorship Industrial Complex, and challenge you to fight for freedom.

Let’s start with the full lawsuit filed by Musk:

We’ve been vocal on X about this already: <div align="center"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@elonmusk</a> As a member of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DisinformationDozen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DisinformationDozen</a> with our good friends <a href="https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RobertKennedyJr</a> & others, we were the first group attacked, banned, & our businesses threatened by this questionable group funded by dark money. RFKJr testified about this days ago: <a href="https://t.co/9vHh6SXvZp">https://t.co/9vHh6SXvZp</a> — The Truth About Vaccines (@TTAVOfficial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TTAVOfficial/status/1686192490238369792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div> Let’s start by breaking down the lawsuit. <h2 style="text-align: center;">Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against the CCDH – Defending Freedom of Speech</h2> In an extraordinary development that raises critical questions about freedom of speech, tech pioneer Elon Musk has lodged a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This lawsuit brings to the spotlight not just the actions of the CCDH but also their broader implications for the First Amendment and the very concept of freedom. Elon Musk, known for his bold ventures such as SpaceX and Tesla, has been a vocal critic of what he sees as overreach by social media platforms in their censorship of unorthodox views. His decision to fight back legally against the CCDH serves as a significant moment in the struggle to maintain the integrity of free speech in the digital age. The CCDH, which Musk accuses of conducting a concerted campaign of misinformation against him and his companies, identifies as a research and advocacy group focused on combating digital hate and misinformation. However, Musk’s lawsuit suggests a different narrative – alleging that the CCDH is part of what he calls the “Censorship Industrial Complex” and is actively working to stifle free discourse. This lawsuit comes at a time when many opinions initially deemed as “misinformation” in 2020 and 2021 have since been validated by the scientific community, the courts, and Congressional committees. It raises troubling questions about how swiftly and decisively certain views have been suppressed without adequate consideration or debate. This issue is not just about Elon Musk or the CCDH; it has profound implications for every American citizen. It’s about the essential democratic principle that everyone has a right to express their views without fear of being silenced. Musk’s lawsuit is a beacon for those who feel their voices are being systematically stifled. It emphasizes the urgent need for accountability and transparency from organizations that claim to act in the public interest. By pursuing this legal action, Musk has triggered a larger conversation about what constitutes hate speech, misinformation, and whether censorship is ever a justified response to unorthodox views. The outcome of this lawsuit could be a defining moment for digital discourse. If Musk is successful, it could change the landscape of digital communication, re-emphasizing the importance of the free and open exchange of ideas. Elon Musk has stood up to challenge the powers that he believes are chipping away at our fundamental freedoms. His fight serves as a potent reminder that the battle for free speech is far from over, and that it is a cause worth defending. But what – or, more importantly, who – is the CCDH? Let’s take a look. <h2 style="text-align: center;">Advocacy or Agenda? A Closer Look at the CCDH and Its Members</h2> Founded in 2018, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) presents itself as an international non-profit NGO that aims to dismantle online hate and misinformation. However, closer scrutiny of the organization and its members raises important questions about their motivations and the validity of their cause. <h3>Powerful Allies</h3> There seems to be a revolving door between CCDH and the United Kingdom Parliament. Recently, former CCDH board member and founder Morgan McSweeney left to become Labour Leader Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff. Keir Starmer is the only parliamentarian who is also a serving member of the Trilateral Commission. Founded in 1973 by oil and banking tycoon David Rockefeller and political king maker Zbigniew Brzezinski (who devised Operation Cyclone to financially support, arm and equip Islamist extremists), it brings together world political leaders with global investors and bankers, academics and policy advisers. The Trilateral commission is a powerful and influential globalist policy think tank whose stated aim is to build: “[An] international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.” The CCDH’s association with people like London Mayor Sadique Khan, McSweeney, and Starmer, afford representatives like Ahmed the kind of political clout he needed to meet with Twitter bosses and have people banned from their platform. Incorporated as Brixton Endeavours Ltd in 2018, the CCDH re-registered their name in August 2019. As a so-called Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), despite an extensive web of connections to government and policy makers, under section 477 of the 2006 Companies Act, the CCDH are exempt from audit and can thus keep their finances largely secret. Financial transparency is not a requirement for UK-registered NGOs. The CCDH’s Stop Funding Fake News campaign encourages advertisers to avoid placing ads on websites the CCDH doesn’t like. Their successful campaign apparently influenced Twitter to ban the website Zero Hedge before the Musk takeover. At least the CCDH are happy to give that impression. Among their other campaigns, Stop Hate for Profit specifically targets Facebook advertisers. Again the objective is to silence any and all who the CCDH don’t agree with. The CCDH says Zero Hedge is a “fake news” site that spreads coronavirus misinformation. Zero Hedge republishes work from other sites and, it is fair to say, the quality can vary. However Zero Hedge also produces their own content which is well researched, cites all the evidence it uses. It is very far from the genuine fake news we commonly see from the mainstream media (MSM). The CCDH reported that Twitter banned Zero Hedge for the doxxing (revealing personal contact details) of a Chinese research scientist. The offending article does report Dr. Zhou’s office contact email and work phone number, which were publicly available on the Wuhan Institute of Virology website at the time. Zero Hedge didn’t reveal anything at all, they simply reported information already in the public domain. While failing to correct this erroneous charge of doxxing, the CCDH were spinning fake news of their own. They wrote: “…They [Zero Hedge] claimed [Dr. Zhou] was behind the global Coronavirus pandemic.” Zero Hedge made no such claim in the article. They cited a lot of evidence which made it a perfectly legitimate question to ask. All they did was report the evidence and ask the obvious question the evidence raised. According to the CCDH this is coronavirus disinformation. Yet it is their misreporting of the facts that is disinformation and their claims that are fake news. Which doesn’t lend much credibility to further allegations they have made against the other websites and small businesses they have decided to attack. The CCDH numerous partners in their “Stop Funding Fake News” drive include the global NGO the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The WWF is a project of the British Crown and has gathered support from many of the world’s biggest, so called, NGOs, global financial institutions and governments alike. Formed in 1961 by the eugenicists Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson (among others), it has relentlessly pursued its goal of depopulation and undemocratic global governance. All done using the ruse of environmental concern as a ploy to cover its appalling objectives. Among its other founding members were Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, who established the Bilderberg Group and took bribes in the Lockheed Martin arms scandal, and his close friend Prince Phillip (the husband of the Elizabeth II) who in 1988 said that if he were reincarnated, he would like to be a deadly virus to do something about overpopulation. True to form, in its 2008 document Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems: A Manual on Integrating Health and Family Planning into Conservation Projects the WWF advocated mass sterilization of human beings. This research was produced with the help of Johnson & Johnson who were recently fined for putting asbestos in talcum powder. On Page 39 the WWF happily inform the reader: “…Projects also facilitate access to long-term methods [of sterilization] such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) and permanent methods (vasectomy and tubal ligation), including organizing medical missions to travel to remote populations to deliver these services…….These efforts require particular care in ensuring that clients are fully informed and that all participation and choice is voluntary.” The WWF, who think a healthy human being is an infertile one, is essentially a front organization and fund raiser for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which brings together globalist institutions like the World Bank, The European Commission, the United Nations and the U.S. State department. The UK, and U.S. governments, with the European Union, are also among the “partners” of the WWF. This gives us an insight into just how “independent” the CCDH are. It is also a glimpse at who it is that is collaborating with the social media and tech giants to establish the global censorship grid. Despite its small size, it is clear that the CCDH packs a considerable punch. They do so because, via their labyrinthine connections, they have the backing of institutions like the World Bank, The European Union, intelligence agencies, major political parties, multinational corporations and governments from around the world. Some British Royal support never goes amiss either, and with the backing of groups like the WWF, is entirely as expected. Their power-base is somewhat obscured through the network of NGOs and globalist think tanks who partner with the CCDH and whom their board represents. However, by exposing these relationships, it’s pretty clear who the CCDH are and whose agenda they serve. <h3>Imran Ahmed</h3> With extensive links to the right wing of the Labour Party, given his government policy advisory role on the Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force, Ahmed’s apparent Technofascist tendencies are worrying. As we’ve already discussed, the CCDH meet the Commission on Countering Extremism definition of so called hateful extremists, however Ahmed’s personal views are particularly egregious. He would like to see people who disagree with him imprisoned under anti-terrorist legislation. In his own words: “I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk.” In keeping with the objectives of the parliamentary Labour Party he represents, Ahmed fully supports State censorship. Talking about the need for the Online Harms Act, with regard to the people he labels as anti-vaxxers, he said: “It’s not just hatred… There is no excuse for delay. The government must urgently table the online harms bill to put an end to vile hatred and dangerous medical misinformation online.” Were Ahmed’s attempts to see people incarcerated for disagreeing with him not so dangerous, the irony that the CCDH’s Anti-Vax Industry report is brimming with quite staggering levels of misinformation would be hilarious. For example, talking about the highly qualified research scientist Dr Judy Mikovitz, whose well informed whistle-blower opinion Ahmed considers to be disinformation, the CCDH misleadingly reported: “Mikovits enjoyed a recent surge in popularity after fronting a conspiracy theory video titled Plandemic which claimed the Coronavirus pandemic was planned in order for Bill Gates and others to profit from a vaccine.” That is not what Mikovic or the film makers of Plandemic Part 1 said. Though basic research and honesty don’t seem to matter much to the CCDH. What does appear to matter to them is censorship that will rule out any challenge to the global political and business interests they defend. To “evidence” their claim, rather than citing the film itself, they offer the spurious opinion of Taylor Hatmaker writing for TechCrunch. TechCrunch are part of the Verizon Media empire, and Verizon are a participating business partner in the CCDH Stop Hate For Profit campaign. Verizon, formerly Oath inc, received $510,000 in 2016 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to: “…Raise awareness and understanding of neglected diseases through content creation and engagement around immersive and 360 videos.” While neither Mikovic nor the makers of Plandemic Part 1 said the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “planned the epidemic” in order to “profit” from the vaccine, development of the vaccine is, nonetheless, heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They have contributed $750 million to the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine alone. They also hosted Event 201 with the John Hopkins University and the World Economic Forum (WEF). This planning meeting was a tabletop exercise of global public health “leaders” which just happened to model a global coronavirus pandemic weeks before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out. That it also modeled, in quite precise detail, the lockdown and media response we have seen to the global coronavirus pandemic is simply an amazing, almost completely unbelievable, coincidence. Apparently. However, Ahmed and the CCDH don’t think you need to know this either, and they really don’t want you to watch Plandemic. So they have made up some stuff to put you off, and have then had the gal to claim their own disinformation is evidence. There is also a board of directors, consisting of: Tom Brookes – Executive Director of the European Climate Foundation Simon Clark – A YouTube and podcast creator Damian Collins – A member of the British Parliament Dr. Siobhan McAndrew – A professor at the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol. Kirsty McNeill – Save the Children’s Executive Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns Lord Jonny Oates – A British Liberal Democrat politician and member of the House of Lords and former Director of Policy and Communications at the Liberal Democrats Ayesha Saran – Migration Programme Manager at the Barrow Cadbury Trust Each of these members has significant ties to neo-socialist movements and the globalist, technocratic agenda, though some have a more sordid background than others. <h3>Damian Collins</h3> The CCDH describe themselves as an international not for profit “non governmental organization.” While many of their board members have links to government and policy makers, in Damian Collins they have cut out the middleman and simply given a seat on the board to a Member of Parliament for the ruling government party. Damian isn’t just any old government back-bencher. As an A-Listed Chair of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS) he has a central role in the governments efforts to roll out mass censorship. The DCMS responsibilities include advising (devising) policy related to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Online Harms. Damian is well placed in government to be part of the CCDH’s non governmental censorship operation. The DCMS published their “Fake News” Report in February 2019. Obsessed with an imperceptible threat from Russia, despite acknowledging that the UK government had reported that they have “not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia,” the DCMS, led by Damian, concluded: “The Government also cannot state definitively that there was no evidence of successful interference” That is to say, no evidence of something is considered to be proof that it might exist by the DCMS. The same logic means that unicorns and soup dragons are distinct possibilities. What it really reveals is that, under Collins’ leadership, the DCMS has no interest in evidence, uncovering the truth or forming balanced conclusions. It has a clear agenda, in this case to demonize Russia, and the absence of any justification is no reason not to pursue it. With Damian on the board, the CCDH have adopted the same approach. With the help and support of their influential network of government and non-governmental backers, the CCDH have established themselves as an influential social media watchdog in a very short space of time. This is entirely in keeping with its board director Damian Collins’ plans for an Online Harms censorship grid. the DCMS state: “Social media users need online tools to help them distinguish between quality journalism, and stories coming from organizations that have been linked to disinformation or are regarded as being unreliable sources. The social media companies should be required to either develop tools like this for themselves, or work with existing providers, such as Newsguard.” This statement is key to understanding the censorship grid that is being created. You are not encouraged to consider evidence and make up your own mind, but rather to trust the right, authoritative”sources” without question. Those sources are the ones favored by the government and its NGO and corporate partners. Any alternative media sources that question the State’s narrative will be deemed organizations linked to disinformation. The DCMS recommended Newsguard is another truth-teller and fact checker which sells itself as a great bastion of epistemological certainty. Touting themselves as the Internet trust tool, they have created a handy browser extension that will automatically censor the Internet for you. There is no attempt to encourage critical thinking, any independent research or intellectual autonomy, but rather a color-coded warning system, perfect for infants, that will do your thinking for you. Selected websites will receive Newsguard’s trust rating. This is based entirely upon a set of meaningless criteria, which sound great, but absolutely boil down to Newsguard’s bought and paid for opinion. Newsguard’s founder and leading investor is Steven Brill. He is a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) whose European branch (the ECFR) Kirsty McNeill graces. As a leading U.S. foreign policy think tank the CFR is arguably one of the most influential policy organizations on Earth. It is likely that Newsguard’s advisers, such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former General Secretary of NATO, and Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, share Brill’s enthusiasm for U.S. foreign policy objectives. Safe to say any source which questions U.S. foreign policy will be considered very untrustworthy by Newsgaurd. As will anyone who questions vaccines. The French communications technology giant Publicis Group are among the seed funders that got Newsguard up and running with a $6 million cash injection. One arm of their business is Publicis Health who boast highly lucrative accounts with a range of pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers, such as Astrazenaca and Sanofi, and were excited to announce their $1.5 billion deal with the world’s leading vaccine corporation GlaxoSmithKline. No source questioning vaccines can expect a very high “trust rating” from Newsguard. Damian Collins resigned as a trustee and Director of the neocon Henry Jackson Society in January 2017, a couple of months after becoming Chair of the DCMS. Damian is a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society Statement of Principles. Those principles include a supremacist ideology that all countries should adopt the policies of so called western democracies, which are all controlled by global corporations; The HJS strongly support economic and political imperialism to assist countries to adopt essentially western corporate policies; they are enthusiastic advocates for UK, European and U.S military dominance, including U.K and U.S supremacy over European defense; they have unbridled admiration for NATO and the OSCE; crony capitalism (monopolies run by global corporations) is an HJS principle, but a true free market economy has to be “limited,” and they clearly state their firm belief that any nation that isn’t within the NATO, OSCE, western military industrial and intelligence complex sphere of influence is “illegitimate.” Damian Collins wholeheartedly subscribes to these principles. Damian Collins supports the CCDH efforts to see anyone who questions vaccines silenced and, if they won’t shut up, imprisoned under anti-hate and possibly anti-terrorism legislation. Damian Collins is elected by the people. Or at least he was, until the government he represents banned all elections. <h3>Kirsty McNeill</h3> Aside from her role with the CCDH Kirsty is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) Another globalist policy think tank whose stated objective is: “…To conduct cutting-edge independent research on European foreign and security policy and to provide a safe meeting space for decision-makers, activists and influencers to share ideas.” It seems Kirsty only supports the activists and influencers who share her world view. Those who don’t agree with her should be censored and certainly don’t deserve any safe meeting spaces. Presumably, because the CCDH are totally independent and impartial, Kirsty forgets all about her commitment to European foreign and security policy when she takes her seat on the CCDH board. As a member of the ECFR, she represents an organization which is funded, not only by governments, but by the Atlantic Council (NATO), the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), The United Nations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Kirsty was a special adviser to the former UK Prime Minister and Labour leader Gordon Brown. As a staunch advocate for a New World Order he unsurprisingly said the global coronavirus pandemic was an opportunity to establish a global government. In 2015 Kirsty became Director of Policy at the Save The Children Fund (STCF) after her predecessor, Brendan Cox (also an ECFR member), resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct. From 2016 to date, during Kirsty’s time as Policy Director, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have donated more than $40 million to the STCF. None of which had any influence over the CCDH decision to describe ordinary citizens who question vaccines as fringe radicals and extremists. The STCF are also partners of the GAVI vaccine alliance created by the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and BMGF. STCF say they are really worried about the horrific loss of children’s lives in Yemen. While most of them are starving to death or being blown to bits by Saudi and UAE supplied weaponry, the STCF are also very concerned that they aren’t getting enough vaccines. Perhaps their Director of Policy could help, because the ECFR Kirsty represents are also funded by the French weapons manufacturer Thales whose missile systems are being used to kill the children in Yemen. It isn’t known if Kirsty considers them to be extremists. <h3>Lord Jonny Oats</h3> Lord Jonny Oates is the former Chief of Staff to former UK deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Clegg is currently the Head of Global Affairs for the social media giant Facebook. With a background in public relations and political campaign management he received a life peerage in 2015. He’s a spin doctor. From 2004 Oates was a director of the PR firm Bell Pottinger. This probably gave him a fantastic insight into fake news and propaganda. During his time as a director, the Pentagon was working with Bell Pottinger to produce fake terrorist videos in Iraq. The contract, worth more than half a billion dollars, saw a Bell Pottinger team stationed at the U.S. Military base Camp Victory, in the summer of 2006. As a former Director of Communications for Number 10 Jonny has plenty of experience in government. He also worked for the Westminster Foundation For Democracy. Another globalist governmental organization with strong ties to the European Union, the World Bank, the United Nations and the OSCE who fellow CCDH board director Ayesha Saran worked for. <h3>Ayesha Saran</h3> Following a very brief stint as an investigative journalist, Ayesha hopped between the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE.) Finally settling to work for the Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) for the last 12 years or so. Ayesha is the Migration Program Manager for the BCT. The BCT stated purpose included influencing public opinion. As part of their efforts, they are partners with Access in the Connect Fund whose objective is to build a better social fund market. The BCT partners, Access – the Foundation for Social Investment, were formed with the support of the Big Society Capital (BSC) and the UK government Cabinet Office. Responsibility for managing the Connect Fund has now shifted to the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS), chaired by Ayesha’s fellow CCDH board director, Damian Collins. The public are given the impression that the NGO sector and large charities are independent of the public-private partnership state. This is essentially a deception. Big Society Capital is funded by the UK’s leading private banks, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS (now rebranded as Nat West Group.) The Connect Fund is a project of the Big Society Trust (BST) chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, a member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. As chair of the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee, there won’t be much point complaining about CCDH disinformation reported without any scrutiny by the BBC. Other BST board members include Ian Holmes, former Finance Director for BBC News and Current Affairs. Another is Robin Budenberg, Chair of the Crown Estate as well as chair UK Financial Investments which merged with the Shareholder Executive to become UK Government Investments (who manage the UK Government’s banking industry investment portfolio.) Direct oversight of BST by the UK Government is provided by Jo Fox from HM Treasury’s Corporate & Private Finance team. This relationship between BCT and Access, via BST, is the epitome of how the NGO and charities shell game works. The Connect Fund doles out grants to charities who, though well-meaning and staffed by honest, hardworking people, are controlled at the board level by funding commitments ordained by the State and its corporate partners. They control the finance and the flow of information. Someone like Ayesha, with a background in government and defense and security policy making organizations, is then appointed to a group like the CCDH, who can legitimately claim they are an NGO, despite the sprawling web of connections they have to government and the corporations. Ayesha may well have the very best of intentions but, via her connections to the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the network controllers stay abridged of the situation and can operate the levers of finance as and when required and make the decisions that count when they choose. As we look at the Board Directors of the CCDH these connections become increasingly clear. Despite its claims of independence nothing could be further from the truth. <h3>Simon Clark</h3> Simon is a non-resident senior fellow for the policy think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) and an adviser to the Scowcroft Group. He is also the Chairman of Foreign Policy for America (FP4A) where he is joined by many former U.S. government officials and advisers including Dr. Stephen Grand, senior fellow of the NATO think tank the Atlantic Council. Among the FP4A advisory board are Amb. Dan Baer, U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, and Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA.) With a background in venture capitalism and investment management, Simon was also the first director of Web Services for the global news agency Reuters (called Thomson Reuters since 2008.) Simon was key in the efforts to build Fidelity’s European venture capital operation. It is no surprise that CAP list the Fidelity charitable group among their major financial supporters. They are among the leading grant makers in the U.S, having committed more than $4.2 Bn to good causes, such as devising political policy, in 2020 alone. They manage an asset portfolio worth an estimated $30 Bn. Rather than pay the tax that would theoretically allow the people to prioritize where the money is spent, the globalist class, often misnamed the elite, effectively withhold tax to pursue their own objectives. Fidelity is one of the leading investment management firms who channel their tax deductible investments to further their agenda. This enables philanthropists like the Gates, the Carnegies, The Rockefellers, Soros and other globalist oligarchs to run their projects. These always advance their goals, objectives and business interests, while reducing their tax burden. All the aforementioned families finance the Center for American Progress who, through their FP4A Action Network (PAC), fund U.S. Democrat party candidates and election campaigns. This isn’t done in exchange for nothing. The Center for American Progress recently proposed A Comprehensive COVID 19 Vaccine Plan. That policy assessment came directly from interviews with vaccine manufacturers. They recommended that, amid the process of funneling billions of tax dollars directly into their business accounts, their pet politicians should: “Plan a massive vaccination campaign by recruiting medical experts, sports stars, celebrities, and community leaders and partnering with grassroots organizations and medical organizations.” This massive, tax funded propaganda campaign is envisaged to change people’s behavior. Rather than openly discuss the relative costs and benefits of vaccines, providing people with the facts and evidence they need to make their own judgement, CAP suggest using “country music stars, NASCAR drivers, and faith leaders” to change people’s opinions. The CCDH determination to roll out the flip side of this propaganda operation, namely the censorship grid, sits well with the commitments of its board director Simon, and the network of globalists he represents. <h2 style="text-align: center;">Censorship Impacts: A First Amendment Implication</h2> The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to express their thoughts, beliefs, and ideas freely. It is this freedom that has served as a cornerstone of American democracy for centuries, allowing for robust debate, dissent, and a vibrant exchange of ideas. But when activist organizations, like the CCDH, take it upon themselves to define what constitutes “hate” or “misinformation” and proceed to silence those who disagree, they encroach on this sacred right, creating a chilling effect on free speech. Many are feeling the brunt of this kind of censorship, including scientists, journalists, and everyday citizens who have seen their digital platforms stripped away, their reputations tarnished, and their voices silenced. We’ve been one of their victims. What is being labeled as a fight against misinformation can quickly devolve into an ideological battle where only the approved narrative is allowed to persist. The first and most obvious impact of this censorship is the violation of an individual’s right to free speech. When a person is de-platformed or silenced because their views are deemed “dangerous” or “misleading,” it deprives them of their ability to contribute to the societal conversation. This violation is further compounded when those suppressed views later turn out to be true, as has happened with many assertions initially labeled as “misinformation” over the past 3 years. Secondly, censorship stunts societal progress. Historically, societal advancement has depended on the free exchange of ideas, including those that are controversial or unorthodox. By suppressing these voices, organizations like the CCDH not only violate individual rights but also potentially rob society of innovative perspectives and solutions. Lastly, there is a dangerous precedent set by such censorship. If organizations can suppress speech under the guise of combating hate and misinformation, what’s to stop these boundaries from expanding? This encroachment on free speech under the banner of protecting society creates a slippery slope that could lead to more widespread control of thought and expression. A prime example of this slippery slope is the de-platforming of those questioning the narrative of the “pandemic.” Initially, these individuals were silenced for spreading supposed “misinformation.” Yet, with time, many of their claims have been validated by science, court rulings, and even congressional committees. (It’s why <a href="https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/illegal-censorship-lawsuit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">we’re suing the Information Cartel</a>.) This is not just about protecting the rights of a few outspoken individuals. This is about preserving the very essence of American democracy. The right to free speech, including the right to question and dissent, must be upheld if we are to continue thriving as a free and democratic society. The CCDH and organizations like it are not merely trying to promote a safer, more harmonious online environment. They are stepping into a role that infringes on basic constitutional rights and setting a dangerous precedent for the control of information and free speech. <h2 style="text-align: center;">A Covert Attack on American Freedom</h2> Censorship, as we’ve discussed, is far more than an impediment to free speech; it’s an assault on American freedom itself. The right to express our ideas, the right to question, to challenge, to innovate – these are the bedrock of American values. They are the essence of American freedom. Yet, it is precisely these values that are under assault. Increasingly, the narrative is being controlled by powerful entities and organizations who decide what information is deemed “acceptable” or “trustworthy.” While masquerading under the banner of preventing the spread of misinformation, these organizations are systematically silencing opposition and alternative viewpoints, making it difficult for the average citizen to access a full and nuanced perspective on important issues. Let’s consider for a moment the sheer irony: as organizations like the CCDH vilify those who question prevailing narratives, time has revealed that a vast majority of what was initially deemed “misinformation” in 2020 has since been proven to be true (lab-leak, children’s vulnerability, mask efficacy, lockdown repercussions, etc…). It’s not just about stifling dissenting voices or muzzling those with different perspectives. It’s about the manipulation of information to control narratives, influence thought, and shape public opinion – an insidious encroachment on our personal freedom. Here’s the UN’s Melissa Fleming veritably screeching from her globalist platform about the fact that we still have a platform on social media: <div align="center"><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Chu3T6CTaV4" width="560" height="200" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">

We’ve been vocal on X about this already:

@elonmusk As a member of the #DisinformationDozen with our good friends @RobertKennedyJr & others, we were the first group attacked, banned, & our businesses threatened by this questionable group funded by dark money. RFKJr testified about this days ago: https://t.co/9vHh6SXvZp

— The Truth About Vaccines (@TTAVOfficial) August 1, 2023

Let’s start by breaking down the lawsuit.

Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against the CCDH – Defending Freedom of Speech

In an extraordinary development that raises critical questions about freedom of speech, tech pioneer Elon Musk has lodged a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This lawsuit brings to the spotlight not just the actions of the CCDH but also their broader implications for the First Amendment and the very concept of freedom.

Elon Musk, known for his bold ventures such as SpaceX and Tesla, has been a vocal critic of what he sees as overreach by social media platforms in their censorship of unorthodox views. His decision to fight back legally against the CCDH serves as a significant moment in the struggle to maintain the integrity of free speech in the digital age.

The CCDH, which Musk accuses of conducting a concerted campaign of misinformation against him and his companies, identifies as a research and advocacy group focused on combating digital hate and misinformation. However, Musk’s lawsuit suggests a different narrative – alleging that the CCDH is part of what he calls the “Censorship Industrial Complex” and is actively working to stifle free discourse.

This lawsuit comes at a time when many opinions initially deemed as “misinformation” in 2020 and 2021 have since been validated by the scientific community, the courts, and Congressional committees. It raises troubling questions about how swiftly and decisively certain views have been suppressed without adequate consideration or debate.

This issue is not just about Elon Musk or the CCDH; it has profound implications for every American citizen. It’s about the essential democratic principle that everyone has a right to express their views without fear of being silenced.

Musk’s lawsuit is a beacon for those who feel their voices are being systematically stifled. It emphasizes the urgent need for accountability and transparency from organizations that claim to act in the public interest. By pursuing this legal action, Musk has triggered a larger conversation about what constitutes hate speech, misinformation, and whether censorship is ever a justified response to unorthodox views.

The outcome of this lawsuit could be a defining moment for digital discourse. If Musk is successful, it could change the landscape of digital communication, re-emphasizing the importance of the free and open exchange of ideas.

Elon Musk has stood up to challenge the powers that he believes are chipping away at our fundamental freedoms. His fight serves as a potent reminder that the battle for free speech is far from over, and that it is a cause worth defending.

But what – or, more importantly, who – is the CCDH? Let’s take a look.

Advocacy or Agenda? A Closer Look at the CCDH and Its Members

Founded in 2018, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) presents itself as an international non-profit NGO that aims to dismantle online hate and misinformation. However, closer scrutiny of the organization and its members raises important questions about their motivations and the validity of their cause.

Powerful Allies

There seems to be a revolving door between CCDH and the United Kingdom Parliament. Recently, former CCDH board member and founder Morgan McSweeney left to become Labour Leader Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.

Keir Starmer is the only parliamentarian who is also a serving member of the Trilateral Commission. Founded in 1973 by oil and banking tycoon David Rockefeller and political king maker Zbigniew Brzezinski (who devised Operation Cyclone to financially support, arm and equip Islamist extremists), it brings together world political leaders with global investors and bankers, academics and policy advisers. The Trilateral commission is a powerful and influential globalist policy think tank whose stated aim is to build:

“[An] international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.”

The CCDH’s association with people like London Mayor Sadique Khan, McSweeney, and Starmer, afford representatives like Ahmed the kind of political clout he needed to meet with Twitter bosses and have people banned from their platform.

Incorporated as Brixton Endeavours Ltd in 2018, the CCDH re-registered their name in August 2019. As a so-called Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), despite an extensive web of connections to government and policy makers, under section 477 of the 2006 Companies Act, the CCDH are exempt from audit and can thus keep their finances largely secret. Financial transparency is not a requirement for UK-registered NGOs.

The CCDH’s Stop Funding Fake News campaign encourages advertisers to avoid placing ads on websites the CCDH doesn’t like. Their successful campaign apparently influenced Twitter to ban the website Zero Hedge before the Musk takeover. At least the CCDH are happy to give that impression.

Among their other campaigns, Stop Hate for Profit specifically targets Facebook advertisers. Again the objective is to silence any and all who the CCDH don’t agree with. The CCDH says Zero Hedge is a “fake news” site that spreads coronavirus misinformation. Zero Hedge republishes work from other sites and, it is fair to say, the quality can vary. However Zero Hedge also produces their own content which is well researched, cites all the evidence it uses. It is very far from the genuine fake news we commonly see from the mainstream media (MSM).

The CCDH reported that Twitter banned Zero Hedge for the doxxing (revealing personal contact details) of a Chinese research scientist. The offending article does report Dr. Zhou’s office contact email and work phone number, which were publicly available on the Wuhan Institute of Virology website at the time. Zero Hedge didn’t reveal anything at all, they simply reported information already in the public domain.

While failing to correct this erroneous charge of doxxing, the CCDH were spinning fake news of their own. They wrote:

“…..They [Zero Hedge] claimed [Dr. Zhou] was behind the global Coronavirus pandemic.”

Zero Hedge made no such claim in the article. They cited a lot of evidence which made it a perfectly legitimate question to ask. All they did was report the evidence and ask the obvious question the evidence raised.

According to the CCDH this is coronavirus disinformation. Yet it is their misreporting of the facts that is disinformation and their claims that are fake news. Which doesn’t lend much credibility to further allegations they have made against the other websites and small businesses they have decided to attack.

The CCDH numerous partners in their “Stop Funding Fake News” drive include the global NGO the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The WWF is a project of the British Crown and has gathered support from many of the world’s biggest, so called, NGOs, global financial institutions and governments alike.

Formed in 1961 by the eugenicists Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson (among others), it has relentlessly pursued its goal of depopulation and undemocratic global governance. All done using the ruse of environmental concern as a ploy to cover its appalling objectives.

Among its other founding members were Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, who established the Bilderberg Group and took bribes in the Lockheed Martin arms scandal, and his close friend Prince Phillip (the husband of the Elizabeth II) who in 1988 said that if he were reincarnated he would like to be a deadly virus to do something about overpopulation.

True to form, in its 2008 document Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems: A Manual on Integrating Health and Family Planning into Conservation Projects the WWF advocated mass sterilization of human beings. This research was produced with the help of Johnson & Johnson who were recently fined for putting asbestos in talcum powder. On Page 39 the WWF happily inform the reader:

“….Projects also facilitate access to long-term methods [of sterilization] such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) and permanent methods (vasectomy and tubal ligation), including organizing medical missions to travel to remote populations to deliver these services…….These efforts require particular care in ensuring that clients are fully informed and that all participation and choice is voluntary.”

The WWF, who think a healthy human being is an infertile one, is essentially a front organization and fund raiser for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which brings together globalist institutions like the World Bank, The European Commission, the United Nations and the U.S. State department.

The UK, and U.S. governments, with the European Union, are also among the “partners” of the WWF. This gives us an insight into just how “independent” the CCDH are. It is also a glimpse at who it is that is collaborating with the social media and tech giants to establish the global censorship grid.

Despite its small size, it is clear that the CCDH packs a considerable punch. They do so because, via their labyrinthine connections, they have the backing of institutions like the World Bank, The European Union, intelligence agencies, major political parties, multinational corporations and governments from around the world. Some British Royal support never goes amiss either, and with the backing of groups like the WWF, is entirely as expected.

Their power-base is somewhat obscured through the network of NGOs and globalist think tanks who partner with the CCDH and whom their board represents. However, by exposing these relationships, it’s pretty clear who the CCDH are and whose agenda they serve.

Imran Ahmed

With extensive links to the right wing of the Labour Party, given his government policy advisory role on the Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force, Ahmed’s apparent Technofascist tendencies are worrying. As we’ve already discussed, the CCDH meet the Commission on Countering Extremism definition of so called hateful extremists, however Ahmed’s personal views are particularly egregious.

He would like to see people who disagree with him imprisoned under anti-terrorist legislation. He recently stated:

“I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk.”

In keeping with the objectives of the parliamentary Labour Party he represents, Ahmed fully supports State censorship. Talking about the need for the Online Harms Act, with regard to the people he labels as anti-vaxxers, he said:

“It’s not just hatred……..There is no excuse for delay. The government must urgently table the online harms bill to put an end to vile hatred and dangerous medical misinformation online.”

Were Ahmed’s attempts to see people incarcerated for disagreeing with him not so dangerous, the irony that the CCDH’s Anti-Vax Industry report is brimming with quite staggering levels of misinformation would be hilarious. For example, talking about the highly qualified research scientist Dr Judy Mikovitz, whose well informed whistle-blower opinion Ahmed considers to be disinformation, the CCDH misleadingly reported:

“Mikovits enjoyed a recent surge in popularity after fronting a conspiracy theory video titled Plandemic which claimed the Coronavirus pandemic was planned in order for Bill Gates and others to profit from a vaccine.”

That is not what Mikovic or the film makers of Plandemic Part 1 said. Though basic research and honesty don’t seem to matter much to the CCDH. What does appear to matter to them is censorship that will rule out any challenge to the global political and business interests they defend.

To “evidence” their claim, rather than citing the film itself, they offer the spurious opinion of Taylor Hatmaker writing for TechCrunch. TechCrunch are part of the Verizon Media empire, and Verizon are a participating business partner in the CCDH Stop Hate For Profit campaign. Verizon, formerly Oath inc, received $510,000 in 2016 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to:

“……Raise awareness and understanding of neglected diseases through content creation and engagement around immersive and 360 videos.”

While neither Mikovic nor the makers of Plandemic Part 1 said the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “planned the epidemic” in order to “profit” from the vaccine, development of the vaccine is, nonetheless, heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

They have contributed $750 million to the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine alone. They also hosted Event 201 with the John Hopkins University and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

This planning meeting was a tabletop exercise of global public health “leaders” which just happened to model a global coronavirus pandemic weeks before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out. That it also modeled, in quite precise detail, the lockdown and media response we have seen to the global coronavirus pandemic is simply an amazing, almost completely unbelievable, coincidence. Apparently.

However, Ahmed and the CCDH don’t think you need to know this either, and they really don’t want you to watch Plandemic. So they have made up some stuff to put you off, and have then had the gal to claim their own disinformation is evidence.

There is also a board of directors, consisting of:

Tom Brookes – Executive Director of the European Climate Foundation

Simon Clark – A YouTube and podcast creator

Damian Collins – A member of the British Parliament

Dr. Siobhan McAndrew – A professor at the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol.

Kirsty McNeill – Save the Children’s Executive Director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns

Lord Jonny Oates – A British Liberal Democrat politician and member of the House of Lords and former Director of Policy and Communications at the Liberal Democrats

Ayesha Saran – Migration Programme Manager at the Barrow Cadbury Trust

Each of these members has significant ties to neo-socialist movements and the globalist, technocratic agenda, though some have a more sordid background than others.

Damian Collins

The CCDH describe themselves as an international not for profit “non-governmental organization.” While many of their board members have links to government and policy makers, in Damian Collins they have cut out the middleman and simply given a seat on the board to a Member of Parliament for the ruling government party.

Damian isn’t just any old government back-bencher. As an A-Listed Chair of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS) he has a central role in the government’s efforts to roll out mass censorship. The DCMS responsibilities include advising (devising) policy related to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Online Harms. Damian is well placed in government to be part of the CCDH’s non-governmental censorship operation.

The DCMS published their “Fake News” Report in February 2019. Obsessed with an imperceptible threat from Russia, despite acknowledging that the UK government had reported that they have “not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia,” the DCMS, led by Damian, concluded:

“The Government also cannot state definitively that there was no evidence of successful interference”

That is to say, no evidence of something is considered to be proof that it might exist by the DCMS. The same logic means that unicorns and soup dragons are distinct possibilities.

What it really reveals is that, under Collins’ leadership, the DCMS has no interest in evidence, uncovering the truth or forming balanced conclusions. It has a clear agenda, in this case to demonize Russia, and the absence of any justification is no reason not to pursue it. With Damian on the board, the CCDH have adopted the same approach.

With the help and support of their influential network of government and non-governmental backers, the CCDH have established themselves as an influential social media watchdog in a very short space of time. This is entirely in keeping with its board director Damian Collins’ plans for an Online Harms censorship grid. the DCMS state:

“Social media users need online tools to help them distinguish between quality journalism, and stories coming from organizations that have been linked to disinformation or are regarded as being unreliable sources. The social media companies should be required to either develop tools like this for themselves, or work with existing providers, such as Newsguard.”

This statement is key to understanding the censorship grid that is being created. You are not encouraged to consider evidence and make up your own mind, but rather to trust the right, authoritative “sources” without question.

Those sources are the ones favored by the government and its NGO and corporate partners. Any alternative media sources that question the State’s narrative will be deemed organizations linked to disinformation.

The DCMS recommended Newsguard is another truth-teller and fact checker which sells itself as a great bastion of epistemological certainty. Touting themselves as the Internet trust tool, they have created a handy browser extension that will automatically censor the Internet for you.

There is no attempt to encourage critical thinking, any independent research or intellectual autonomy, but rather a color-coded warning system, perfect for infants, that will do your thinking for you. Selected websites will receive Newsguard’s trust rating. This is based entirely upon a set of meaningless criteria, which sound great, but absolutely boil down to Newsguard’s bought and paid for opinion.

Newsguard’s founder and leading investor is Steven Brill. He is a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) whose European branch (the ECFR) Kirsty McNeill graces. As a leading U.S. foreign policy think tank the CFR is arguably one of the most influential policy organizations on Earth.

It is likely that Newsguard’s advisers, such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former General Secretary of NATO, and Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, share Brill’s enthusiasm for U.S. foreign policy objectives. Safe to say any source which questions U.S. foreign policy will be considered very untrustworthy by Newsgaurd.

As will anyone who questions vaccines. The French communications technology giant Publicis Group are among the seed funders that got Newsguard up and running with a $6 million cash injection.

One arm of their business is Publicis Health who boast highly lucrative accounts with a range of pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers, such as AstraZeneca and Sanofi, and were excited to announce their $1.5 billion deal with the world’s leading vaccine corporation GlaxoSmithKline. No source questioning vaccines can expect a very high “trust rating” from Newsguard.

Damian Collins resigned as a trustee and Director of the neocon Henry Jackson Society in January 2017, a couple of months after becoming Chair of the DCMS. Damian is a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society Statement of Principles.

Those principles include a supremacist ideology that all countries should adopt the policies of so called western democracies, which are all controlled by global corporations; The HJS strongly support economic and political imperialism to assist countries to adopt essentially western corporate policies; they are enthusiastic advocates for UK, European and U.S military dominance, including U.K and U.S supremacy over European defense; they have unbridled admiration for NATO and the OSCE; crony capitalism (monopolies run by global corporations) is an HJS principle, but a true free market economy has to be “limited,” and they clearly state their firm belief that any nation that isn’t within the NATO, OSCE, western military industrial and intelligence complex sphere of influence is “illegitimate.”

Damian Collins wholeheartedly subscribes to these principles. Damian Collins supports the CCDH efforts to see anyone who questions vaccines silenced and, if they won’t shut up, imprisoned under anti-hate and possibly anti-terrorism legislation. Damian Collins is elected by the people. Or at least he was, until the government he represents banned all elections.

Kirsty McNeill

Aside from her role with the CCDH Kirsty is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) Another globalist policy think tank whose stated objective is:

“…..To conduct cutting-edge independent research on European foreign and security policy and to provide a safe meeting space for decision-makers, activists and influencers to share ideas.”

It seems Kirsty only supports the activists and influencers who share her world view. Those who don’t agree with her should be censored and certainly don’t deserve any safe meeting spaces. Presumably, because the CCDH are totally independent and impartial, Kirsty forgets all about her commitment to European foreign and security policy when she takes her seat on the CCDH board.

As a member of the ECFR, she represents an organization which is funded, not only by governments, but by the Atlantic Council (NATO), the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), The United Nations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Kirsty was a special adviser to the former UK Prime Minister and Labour leader Gordon Brown. As a staunch advocate for a New World Order, he unsurprisingly said the global coronavirus pandemic was an opportunity to establish a global government. In 2015 Kirsty became Director of Policy at the Save The Children Fund (STCF) after her predecessor, Brendan Cox (also an ECFR member), resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct.

From 2016 to date, during Kirsty’s time as Policy Director, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have donated more than $40 million to the STCF. None of which had any influence over the CCDH decision to describe ordinary citizens who question vaccines as fringe radicals and extremists. The STCF are also partners of the GAVI vaccine alliance created by the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and BMGF.

STCF say they are really worried about the horrific loss of children’s lives in Yemen. While most of them are starving to death or being blown to bits by Saudi and UAE supplied weaponry, the STCF are also very concerned that they aren’t getting enough vaccines. Perhaps their Director of Policy could help, because the ECFR Kirsty represents are also funded by the French weapons manufacturer Thales whose missile systems are being used to kill the children in Yemen. It isn’t known if Kirsty considers them to be extremists.

Lord Jonny Oats

Lord Jonny Oates is the former Chief of Staff to former UK deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Clegg is currently the Head of Global Affairs for the social media giant Facebook. With a background in public relations and political campaign management he received a life peerage in 2015. He’s a spin doctor.

From 2004 Oates was a director of the PR firm Bell Pottinger. This probably gave him a fantastic insight into fake news and propaganda. During his time as a director, the Pentagon was working with Bell Pottinger to produce fake terrorist videos in Iraq. The contract, worth more than half a billion dollars, saw a Bell Pottinger team stationed at the U.S. Military base Camp Victory, in the summer of 2006.

As a former Director of Communications for Number 10 Jonny has plenty of experience in government. He also worked for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Another globalist governmental organization with strong ties to the European Union, the World Bank, the United Nations and the OSCE who fellow CCDH board director Ayesha Saran worked for.

Ayesha Saran

Following a very brief stint as an investigative journalist, Ayesha hopped between the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE.) Finally settling to work for the Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) for the last 12 years or so. Ayesha is the Migration Program Manager for the BCT.

The BCT stated purpose included influencing public opinion. As part of their efforts, they are partners with Access in the Connect Fund whose objective is to build a better social fund market.

The BCT partners, Access, and the Foundation for Social Investment, were formed with the support of the Big Society Capital (BSC) and the UK government Cabinet Office. Responsibility for managing the Connect Fund has now shifted to the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS), chaired by Ayesha’s fellow CCDH board director, Damian Collins.

The public are given the impression that the NGO sector and large charities are independent of the public-private partnership state. This is essentially a deception.

Big Society Capital is funded by the UK’s leading private banks, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS (now rebranded as Nat West Group.) The Connect Fund is a project of the Big Society Trust (BST) chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, a member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. As chair of the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee, there won’t be much point complaining about CCDH disinformation reported without any scrutiny by the BBC.

Other BST board members include Ian Holmes, former Finance Director for BBC News and Current Affairs. Another is Robin Budenberg, Chair of the Crown Estate as well as chair UK Financial Investments which merged with the Shareholder Executive to become UK Government Investments (who manage the UK Government’s banking industry investment portfolio.) Direct oversight of BST by the UK Government is provided by Jo Fox from HM Treasury’s Corporate & Private Finance team.

This relationship between BCT and Access, via BST, is the epitome of how the NGO and charities shell game works. The Connect Fund doles out grants to charities who, though well-meaning and staffed by honest, hardworking people, are controlled at the board level by funding commitments ordained by the State and its corporate partners. They control the finance and the flow of information.

Someone like Ayesha, with a background in government and defense and security policy making organizations, is then appointed to a group like the CCDH, who can legitimately claim they are an NGO, despite the sprawling web of connections they have to government and the corporations. Ayesha may well have the very best of intentions but, via her connections to the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the network controllers stay abridged of the situation and can operate the levers of finance as and when required and make the decisions that count when they choose.

As we look at the Board Directors of the CCDH these connections become increasingly clear. Despite its claims of independence nothing could be further from the truth.

Simon Clark

Simon is a non-resident senior fellow for the policy think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) and an adviser to the Scowcroft Group. He is also the Chairman of Foreign Policy for America (FP4A) where he is joined by many former U.S. government officials and advisers including Dr. Stephen Grand, senior fellow of the NATO think tank the Atlantic Council. Among the FP4A advisory board are Amb. Dan Baer, U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, and Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA.)

With a background in venture capitalism and investment management, Simon was also the first director of Web Services for the global news agency Reuters (called Thomson Reuters since 2008.) Simon was key in the efforts to build Fidelity’s European venture capital operation.

It is no surprise that CAP list the Fidelity charitable group among their major financial supporters. They are among the leading grant makers in the U.S, having committed more than $4.2 Bn to good causes, such as devising political policy, in 2020 alone. They manage an asset portfolio worth an estimated $30 billion.

Rather than pay the tax that would theoretically allow the people to prioritize where the money is spent, the globalist class, often misnamed the elite, effectively withhold tax to pursue their own objectives. Fidelity is one of the leading investment management firms who channel their tax-deductible investments to further their agenda.

This enables philanthropists like the Gates, the Carnegies, The Rockefellers, Soros and other globalist oligarchs to run their projects. These always advance their goals, objectives and business interests, while reducing their tax burden. All the aforementioned families finance the Center for American Progress who, through their FP4A Action Network (PAC), fund U.S. Democrat party candidates and election campaigns. This isn’t done in exchange for nothing.

The Center for American Progress recently proposed A Comprehensive COVID 19 Vaccine Plan. That policy assessment came directly from interviews with vaccine manufacturers. They recommended that, amid the process of funneling billions of tax dollars directly into their business accounts, their pet politicians should:

“Plan a massive vaccination campaign by recruiting medical experts, sports stars, celebrities, and community leaders and partnering with grassroots organizations and medical organizations.”

This massive, tax funded propaganda campaign is envisaged to change people’s behaviour. Rather than openly discuss the relative costs and benefits of vaccines, providing people with the facts and evidence they need to make their own judgement, CAP suggest using “country music stars, NASCAR drivers, and faith leaders” to change people’s opinions. The CCDH determination to roll out the flip side of this propaganda operation, namely the censorship grid, sits well with the commitments of its board director Simon, and the network of globalists he represents.

Censorship Impacts: A First Amendment Implication

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to express their thoughts, beliefs, and ideas freely. It is this freedom that has served as a cornerstone of American democracy for centuries, allowing for robust debate, dissent, and a vibrant exchange of ideas. But when activist organizations, like the CCDH, take it upon themselves to define what constitutes “hate” or “misinformation” and proceed to silence those who disagree, they encroach on this sacred right, creating a chilling effect on free speech.

Many are feeling the brunt of this kind of censorship, including scientists, journalists, and everyday citizens who have seen their digital platforms stripped away, their reputations tarnished, and their voices silenced. We’ve been one of their victims. What is being labeled as a fight against misinformation can quickly devolve into an ideological battle where only the approved narrative is allowed to persist.

The first and most obvious impact of this censorship is the violation of an individual’s right to free speech. When a person is de-platformed or silenced because their views are deemed “dangerous” or “misleading,” it deprives them of their ability to contribute to the societal conversation. This violation is further compounded when those suppressed views later turn out to be true, as has happened with many assertions initially labeled as “misinformation” over the past 3 years.

Secondly, censorship stunts societal progress. Historically, societal advancement has depended on the free exchange of ideas, including those that are controversial or unorthodox. By suppressing these voices, organizations like the CCDH not only violate individual rights but also potentially rob society of innovative perspectives and solutions.

Lastly, there is a dangerous precedent set by such censorship. If organizations can suppress speech under the guise of combating hate and misinformation, what’s to stop these boundaries from expanding? This encroachment on free speech under the banner of protecting society creates a slippery slope that could lead to more widespread control of thought and expression.

A prime example of this slippery slope is the de-platforming of those questioning the narrative of the “pandemic.” Initially, these individuals were silenced for spreading supposed “misinformation.” Yet, with time, many of their claims have been validated by science, court rulings, and even congressional committees. (It’s why we’re suing the Information Cartel.)

This is not just about protecting the rights of a few outspoken individuals. This is about preserving the very essence of American democracy. The right to free speech, including the right to question and dissent, must be upheld if we are to continue thriving as a free and democratic society.

The CCDH and organizations like it are not merely trying to promote a safer, more harmonious online environment. They are stepping into a role that infringes on basic constitutional rights and setting a dangerous precedent for the control of information and free speech.

A Covert Attack on American Freedom

Censorship, as we’ve discussed, is far more than an impediment to free speech; it’s an assault on American freedom itself. The right to express our ideas, the right to question, to challenge, to innovate – these are the bedrock of American values. They are the essence of American freedom. Yet, it is precisely these values that are under assault.

Increasingly, the narrative is being controlled by powerful entities and organizations who decide what information is deemed “acceptable” or “trustworthy.” While masquerading under the banner of preventing the spread of misinformation, these organizations are systematically silencing opposition and alternative viewpoints, making it difficult for the average citizen to access a full and nuanced perspective on important issues.

Let’s consider for a moment the sheer irony: as organizations like the CCDH vilify those who question prevailing narratives, time has revealed that a vast majority of what was initially deemed “misinformation” in 2020 has since been proven to be true (lab-leak, children’s vulnerability, mask efficacy, lockdown repercussions, etc…).

It’s not just about stifling dissenting voices or muzzling those with different perspectives. It’s about the manipulation of information to control narratives, influence thought, and shape public opinion – an insidious encroachment on our personal freedom.

Here’s the UN’s Melissa Fleming veritably screeching from her globalist platform about the fact that we still have a platform on social media:

The term “misinformation” has evolved from referring to deliberate falsehoods to a convenient label used to suppress dissenting or unorthodox opinions. Instead of fostering a robust marketplace of ideas, this approach propagates a monolithic narrative. Ideas that challenge the status quo are quickly labeled as “misinformation,” and their proponents are ousted from the digital public square.

This kind of control is not just about creating an echo chamber; It is about the consolidation of power and control. When one narrative is allowed to dominate, it guides public opinion and influences policies. It allows the powerful to control the narrative, the discourse, and ultimately the decision-making processes.

In the end, this is not just an assault on our First Amendment rights; it’s a threat to democracy itself. A society where one viewpoint is favored and others are silenced is not a democracy: It is an autocracy in disguise.

Our freedom of speech, our right to question, our ability to dissent – these are not just American values; they are human rights. And these rights are under assault.

The CCDH: An Arm of the Censorship Industrial Complex

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the CCDH is yet another clandestine arm of what some have termed the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” This seemingly innocuous organization, which bills itself as a champion against hate and misinformation, is part of a far-reaching network that works tirelessly to control narratives, silence dissent, and suppress free speech. A group against hate speech is literally espousing hatred.

The fact that the CCDH’s influence extends to global powerhouses like the World Bank, European Union, multinational corporations, and even governments around the world is a testament to its power and reach. The organization is far from a neutral player. It serves a particular agenda, one that aligns with the interests of those who wish to control information and suppress opposing viewpoints.

What’s encouraging, however, is the pushback against this kind of unbridled censorship. Lawsuits, like the one filed by Elon Musk and X Corp, play an essential role in this resistance. By challenging the CCDH’s activities in court, these entities are taking a stand against this growing threat to free speech and accountability.

These lawsuits are about more than one company or individual. They represent a fight for the core principles of free speech, transparency, and democracy. They serve as a bulwark against the seemingly unstoppable march of censorship, reminding us that we still have the means to resist.

As the fight continues, it’s essential that we remain vigilant. Censorship, disguised as a fight against misinformation, is a threat to our American values. We must stand up for the right to express unorthodox opinions, to question, and to dissent. Only then can we ensure that our society remains truly free.

In the face of organizations like the CCDH, we must remember the value of our rights, the power of our voices, and the importance of our freedom. For it is these elements that form the bedrock of our democracy, and it is these elements that we must strive to protect at all costs.

The Fight for Freedom: The Importance of Pushing Back

Remember: there is ALWAYS hope. This is not an insurmountable problem, nor is it an inevitability that our freedom will erode completely. We are not passive observers in this process. Citizens, corporations, and advocates of free speech have the ability and the responsibility to push back.

The recent lawsuit filed by Elon Musk exemplifies this resistance. Such legal challenges highlight the extent to which these censorship practices infringe upon fundamental rights, and they serve to hold organizations like the CCDH accountable for their actions.

The courts are one arena for this fight, but not the only one. The battlefield extends to the realm of public opinion and the court of public discourse. We must remember that the right to speak freely, to question, and to dissent, are not privileges; they are rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. And it is our duty as citizens to protect these rights.

The Musk vs. CCDH lawsuit is more than just a legal dispute between a billionaire entrepreneur and a supposedly independent research organization. It represents a broader conflict about the boundaries of free speech, the nature of truth, and the future of democratic society.

Lawsuits like Musk’s are necessary, not just to protect individual rights, but to ensure the survival of a free and democratic society. They are part of a broader struggle to challenge the censorship narrative and to reaffirm the principle that free speech is a fundamental right, not a privilege granted by the powers that be.

Every American should understand the implications of this fight. It is not just about who gets to speak and who gets to decide what is true. It’s about preserving a system in which the free exchange of ideas is valued, and dissenting voices are not just tolerated but encouraged. It’s about defending the idea that truth is discovered through open debate and discussion, not imposed from above.

The CCDH and similar organizations represent a clear and present threat to this system. They are part of a broader effort to centralize control over information, suppress dissent, and reshape society according to their vision. This is not hyperbole; it is a sober assessment of the stakes involved in this fight.

In this battle for free speech, every voice matters. Every citizen who values freedom and democracy has a role to play. By standing up for our rights, challenging censorship, and pushing back against the erosion of our freedoms, we can ensure that the principles upon which our country was founded will endure. As the fight against censorship continues, let us remember the words of George Washington: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” We must not let that happen. We must fight back, for the sake of our freedoms and for the future of our democracy.

0 Shares

Ty and Charlene have been on this mission together to reach as many people around the world with the truth that saves lives as they can, and they need your help! As you know, they are being censored with many other truth tellers. Please support their mission by sharing this article! Next, you can support them by going to www.thetruthaboutcancer.com and signing up for their FREE Newsletter! Also, join Ty & Charlene on Alt Social Media platforms where the TRUTH is allowed and join the discussion there!

Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:

1. X, Formerly known as Twitter: https://twitter.com/TTAVOfficial

2. Telegram: https://t.me/TheTruthAboutCancer_Vaccines

3. GAB: https://gab.com/TyCharleneBollinger

4. GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/cancertruth

5. TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@TheTruthAboutCancer

6. CloutHub: https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/TheTruthAboutCancer

7. Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vX3lcHH4Dvp0/

8. Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheTruthAboutCancerOfficial

9. Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/thetruthaboutcancer

Musk Sues Deep State Censorship Arm “CCDH”

Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against the CCDH – Defending Freedom of Speech

Advocacy or Agenda? A Closer Look at the CCDH and Its Members

Powerful Allies

Imran Ahmed

Damian Collins

Kirsty McNeill

Lord Jonny Oats

Ayesha Saran

Simon Clark

Censorship Impacts: A First Amendment Implication

A Covert Attack on American Freedom

The CCDH: An Arm of the Censorship Industrial Complex

The Fight for Freedom: The Importance of Pushing Back

Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:

About Ty & Charlene Bollinger

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

About Us

The Truth About Vaccines Presents REMEDY

Top Posts

Vitamin K for Newborns: A Necessary Risk or a...

Lockdowns Cost Heart Attack Patients Years of Life

Unmasking Controversy: Congressional Hearing with CDC...

The Great Government Capture: How Corporations Took...

Skip links

Main navigation

Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against the CCDH – Defending Freedom of Speech

Advocacy or Agenda? A Closer Look at the CCDH and Its Members

Powerful Allies

Imran Ahmed

Damian Collins

Kirsty McNeill

Lord Jonny Oats

Ayesha Saran

Simon Clark

Censorship Impacts: A First Amendment Implication

A Covert Attack on American Freedom

The CCDH: An Arm of the Censorship Industrial Complex

The Fight for Freedom: The Importance of Pushing Back

Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:

About Ty & Charlene Bollinger

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Footer

About Us

The Truth About Vaccines Presents REMEDY

Top Posts