The United Nations is Responsible for Censorship, Cancel Culture

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
United Nations / Cancel Culture / Censorship
_____________________________

Wonder where social justice, censorship, and cancel culture originated from since these inflammatory and civil rights violations are not original to America? 

Then look no further than the United Nations. On their site for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, anyone can read how the United Nations views human rights.

Article 29, Section 3

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Anyone who is tied into the United Nations take over of the world via our governments through treaties and accords, private corporations using censorship, banning, and deplatforming of people and businesses, and training the citizenry from elementary school to believe in social justice is apart of the New World Order, planetary government, one world government scheme. 

Did you vote in the United Nations? Did you vote in Smart Technology? Strong Cities Initiatives? Or, even CFL light bulbs? 

All these different types of fads are driven by the United Nations' Agenda 21, 2030, Megaregions 2050.

Your elected officials are pushing you into a one-way street straight into world government. Check out HR 1111. If you speak up, corporations and governments are using Article 29, Section 3 to delete you from your digital existence. 

In the case of Congressional Candidate Laura Loomer, these entities without due process of law have banned her from social media, fundraising, even Uber, Lyft, food ordering and more. 

Section 230 exists because internet providers and platforms are considered utilities and therefore not allowed to restrict access to people based on any type of political, religious, or other affiliation. 

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking

and screening of offensive material

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(b) Policy It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

So where is censorship based on political views legal again? Nowhere. Where is deplatforming based on political views legal again? Nowhere. 

The social media platforms Americans paid for through development with their tax monies have taken censorship on themselves to promote and protect the United Nations' one world government power grab.  

It appears through their own words that the United Nations believes their mission, vision, and goals are above any single national law. Anyone who sides with the United Nations appears to be able to be above the law as well (e.g., Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex of private contractors). 

Big Tech Censors

Alex Jones

Banned.video

Laura Loomer

Proud Boys

Roger Stone

Do we see a pattern here? 

Big Pharma Censors

Frontline Doctors

Dr. Simone Gold (fired from her job)

Anti-vaxxers

So anyone going against deceptive WHO recommendations is gone? 

And the Military Industrial Complex of private contractors are nothing more than mercenaries online as bots, spies, and bullies trying to keep the house of cards from falling down around them. Their no-bid contracts are gold. Taxpayer funded lottery for a small group of people feeding off Americans and people around the world like parasites. 

If you cross these terrorists, you end up arrested (Millie Weaver, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Julian Assange), or dead (Seth Rich, and anyone who has ever done business with the Clintons is seems like). 

The middle pyramid piece to total control and surveillance of the whole of humanity appears to be: the United Nations. Under the United Nations entities and corporations are allowed to lie under oath in front of Congress, cheat to create monopolies, and steal from the American people through information gathering, contracts, and tax breaks. 

As we know from the information sourced in the documentary Shadow Gate, by journalist Millie Weaver, that these private corporations steal our information and then create profiles in order to incite civil unrest. Private corporations, nonprofits, and others have also pushed their way into the classroom under Agenda 21's Common Core to indoctrinate generations of children into the cult of social justice that allows for this censorship and cancel culture to continue. 

If you do not agree with the United Nations, then you are control-alt-deleted from cyberspace, families, and friendships. 

This problem needs to be removed from our culture. American society is about free speech, freedom of expression, and fair play. The United Nations has reversed hundreds of years of the Enlightenment and taken humanity back to the Dark Ages. 

America needs to disengage itself from the United Nations. 

Stand up for freedom, the free market, and free ideas: Cancel our membership to the corrupt United Nations. 

Maybe then Americans can find the justice needed to combat these enemies foreign and domestic. 

Sources: Cornell Law, Shadow Gate, HR 1111, Regional Planning, 

Gender Dysphoria, the Mental Disorder, and the Child Abuse Promoting this Ideology is the New Sterilization - Population Control Campaign

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Gender Ideology / Child Abuse 
_____________________________________

Want someone to voluntarily sterilize themselves? Why not convince children there is something inherently wrong with them so that the State can carry out chemical and surgical sterilization without a fight from the intended victims and be able to neutralize parents with rules, policies, laws, educators, psychologists, and government authorities?

Welcome to the new Dark Ages. Gender ideology seeks to do the worst to humanity by confusing the most vulnerable about their bodies. 

“Where does the APA or DSM-V indicate that Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder?”

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is the author of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition(DSM-V). The APA states that those distressed and impaired by their GD meet the definition of a disorder. The College is unaware of any medical literature that documents a gender dysphoric child seeking puberty blocking hormones who is not significantly distressed by the thought of passing through the normal and healthful process of puberty. 

From the DSM-V fact sheet: 

“The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition." 

“This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” 

 “Where does the DSM-V list rates of resolution for Gender Dysphoria?”

On page 455 of the DSM-V under “Gender Dysphoria without a disorder of sex development” it states: “Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.” Simple math allows one to calculate that for natal boys: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 2.2% = 97.8% (approx. 98% of gender-confused boys) Similarly, for natal girls: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 12% = 88% gender-confused girls

If resolution in confused boys and girls happens, then why are the authorities creating intervention? 

Conclusion: 

Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned. Specifically, they advise: affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as “non-male” or female. Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions. For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety.

Source: American College of Pediatricians