Censorship Wars: Jake Morphonios and Victurus Libertas Speak Out In Their Own Words



“There are times in life when those of us who refuse to be herded into the cattle car of convenient thought, those of us who have no interest in parroting our favorite news-heads can barely rest.  This is one of those times.”  Jon Robberson

“These are the times that try mens’ souls.” Thomas Paine, American Crisis

For those of you who have been tracking my attempts to chronicle the YouTubeFacebookTwitterGoogle New Media Saturday Night Massacre, starting with an analysis of the trouble that the Tech Tyrants caused Dr Jerome Corsi and followed by a presentation of two hypothesis as to why the socials are silencing us, I want to say “Thank you.”  There will be a subsequent part to said efforts and it will post early this week.
Today’s work is different.  Today’s work is our opportunity at The Hagmann Report to throw open our doors, brew a pot of coffee and welcome three patriots to our platform who have been both generous and kind enough to join us on The Hagmann Report recently.

In Their Own Words: Jim and Angie, Victurus Libertas


On May 10, 1933 student groups at universities across Germany carried out a series of book burnings of works that the students and leading Nazi party members associated with an “un-German spirit.” Enthusiastic crowds witnessed the burning of books by Brecht, Einstein, Freud, Mann and Remarque, among many other well-known intellectuals, scientists and cultural figures.


For the past week, the Google Gestapo has been digitally burning tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of digital books throughout its YouTube video platform.
Within the last 36 hours, the google gestapo has burned over 1100 of our digital books. Some were short stories, some were heart wrenching memoirs of abuse captured during interviews and some were poetic novels of justice and sovereignty.

All were personal, and all were created and shared with love and good intent for mankind.
We had amassed close to 70k loyal followers, our videos viewed 16 million times and within one fell swoop, an evil regime allowed artificial intelligence to make the decision to burn our channel from the pages of history.
If this does not alarm you, it Should.
If you don’t think this will continue to happen, it will.
If you don’t think they are coming for your guns, they are.





Folks, you don’t need to be clairvoyants to know what happens next or at the least, what the plan is. You need only go back to your history books or perhaps read a novel by George Orwell that many of you are familiar with… titled 1984.
Read that book and you will be a prognosticator. You will know what’s to happen next. You will know what the plan has been for quite some time for the citizens of this country and the world.
In the meantime, we are not giving up. We will continue posting on this channel for now, mainly for the ease of posting on Patreon and for our loyal followers that are hesitant to leave YouTube.
You will also find Angie and I on, Bitchute, Steemit, DTube, Minds, Gab, Facebook and Twitter.   We want to thank all of you for your continued support.
If and only if you have the means to support us via Patreon or PayPal, it would be much appreciated while Angie I regroup and gather our thoughts and form a strategy moving forward.

In His Own Words: Jake Morphonios, Blackstone Intelligence Network



I’ve been investigating and reporting on rogue activities by the CIA and other rogue intelligence agencies for 17 years.  My professional background is investigation, including years working as a financial crimes investigator for a major bank.

In 2013, I shared detailed information on the US State Department’s transfer of weapons to Libyan mercenaries working in Syria.  This reporting resulted in a swift takedown of my first YouTube channel – three bogus community standard strikes in rapid succession.


And, just this week, my second YouTube channel has been taken down in similar fashion.  I had over 135,000 subscribers and my reports received in excess of 2 million views per month. My work is meets the highest standards of professional journalism.  I use quality sources, often double-sourcing my information. YouTube has no justification to consider my reporting a violation of any standard.

I’ve been quoted by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and more than two dozen other mainstream news outlets just since October.  I’ve been filmed for documentaries by several large news outlets, including the largest news channel in Russia.  To take down my channel simply because certain parties don’t like the information I’m revealing is an outrageous assault on free speech and freedom of the press.

This recent social media Purge that has tried to silence masses of independent journalists appears to be the largest attack on the first ammendment in the last century. The lurch toward totalitarian control of information is absolutely spine-chilling.


Not only have these censors tried to silence my reporting on the internet, but in the last six months I have been subjected to repeated acts of harassment, property destruction and death threats.  I’ve been threatened with lawsuits by members of the Deep State twice.  My tires have been slashed 7 times.  I ran two men off my property late at night after they fired a gun outside my home.  I have had paramilitary goons try to physically intimidate me at a movie theater. The FBI is working with a German national who tried to set me up in a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud the US government.  And just yesterday, I had to chase a lunatic off my property with a baseball bat.

To those who might challenge my claims, I have published many photos, video and audio recordings and police reports to verify my statements regarding this harassment.

The lengths to which these people go to intimidate journalists like me is frightening.  I now have weapons distributed around my house and home surveillance cameras to keep an eye on my property.  At times, I do fear for my life.






EXCLUSIVE – Kobach: The Gun Confiscation Crusade Begins


The next chapter of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting saga has begun. Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.

Quietly, but quickly, a raft of identical gun confiscation bills have been filed by liberal politicians in states across the country. They are all copies of a ballot measure that passed in Washington State in November 2016. And that ballot measure was loosely based on a California gun confiscation law enacted in 2014 and a much older Connecticut law from 1999.
The first bill in the recent wave was actually enacted before the Parkland shooting. Oregon’s SB 719, a Democrat bill which passed with only one Republican vote, was signedinto law in August 2017. Since the Parkland shooting, copy-cat bills pushed by progressive legislators anxious to signal their opposition to guns have moved with alarming speed in blue states. On Wednesday, the Vermont Senate approved its version, S 221. In Rhode Island the bill is H 7688.

In total, more than a dozen states are now considering similar gun confiscation laws. Even red states like Kansas, where SB 431 has been submitted, are considering them. On Thursday, Ohio’s Republican Governor John Kasich jumped on the bandwagon and called for a similar law in his state.
Sometimes dubbed “red flag laws,” they provide for “extreme risk protective orders” that direct police to confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any person who is targeted by such an order. At first glance, that might seem reasonable – nobody wants an unhinged psychopath who poses an “extreme risk” to others to possess a gun. But the laws are written so loosely that law enforcement can also seize the guns of ordinary citizens who have never broken the law.


These gun confiscation measures grossly violate the due process and Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. The constitutional problems are as follows:




  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.


One need not be a lawyer to see the multiple violations of due process in these laws. Even the ultra-liberal ACLU acknowledges that such confiscation laws threaten due process. Hopefully, when the legal challenges eventually occur, the judges will recognize the multiple constitutional problems.
But such concerns won’t stand in the way of an anti-gun state legislator demanding that we “do something” now. And never mind that the Connecticut confiscation law did nothing to stop the Sandy Hook shooter.

To be sure, a constitutional republic can and should keep guns out of the hands of homicidal maniacs, consistent with the Second Amendment and due process. But these new laws go far beyond what is necessary and shred the Constitution in the process. Indeed, if a government wanted to incrementally disarm its citizenry, then these “extreme risk” confiscation laws would be the perfect first step.





The "Purge" Is Out Of Control, Congress Must Strip Social Media, YouTube Liability Immunity From Them Because They Are Not "Neutral" Public Forums


In January 2018, Senator Ted Cruz grilled representatives from Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube over their overt censorship of Independent and conservative users, providing multiple examples of that censorship, showing it was almost entirely enacted against those that lean right of the political aisle. 

Cruz prefaced his direct and pointed questions by forcing these representatives to answer one simple question, which was "Do you consider your companies to be neutral public forums?" Despite attempts to not directly answer the question with a simple yes or no, two of the companies finally had to claim they were, and the third simply answered 'yes' before Cruz moved on to provide evidence that they were indeed censoring conservative content.

By the end of their interactions, Cruz stated the pattern he noted in the examples he offered was "highly disturbing" and then he highlighted his original question, then pointed out that "If you are a neutral public forum that does not allow for political editorializing and censorship, and if you are not a neutral public forum, the entire predicate for liability immunity under the CDA is claiming to be a neutral public  forum, so you can't have it both ways.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability immunity for website owners, such as Google's YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, that publish content provided by others, whether it is commentary in discussion forums or comment sections, or Twitter feeds, or articles shared on a platform such as Facebook, or a video uploaded to YouTube.

Those services are offered immunity from liability only if they are a "neutral conduit," which is why Cruz specifically highlighted their claim with his beginning question before providing multiple examples of their decisions showing a disturbing "pattern" of censoring conservative opinion.

The reason that is so important is because Section 230 of the CDA does offer sites protection from liability enabling them to remove content, stating they can "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," but they preface that by stating it must be done "in good faith."

The censorship by big tech has not only continued unabated, but has increased exponentially since Senator Cruz issued his warning to Twitter, Facebook and Google/YouTube, as we have seen a massive #TwitterLockout, where under the guise of a "bot" purge," thousands upon thousands of "real people," were locked out of their Twitter accounts, and sure enough, the majority of them were conservatives. 

Previously it had been reported, via undercover videos, that Twitter employees, were deliberately flagging content by conservatives that spoke of God, Guns, America first, the American flag, etc..... as potential bots, teaching their algorithms to label those people as "bots," in order to justify terminating their accounts.

That shows Twitter is deliberately targeting one specific ideological group, making it no longer a "neutral conduit" for content and information, instead making it biased to one particular ideology, which under the CDA, is justification to strip them of their liability immunity.


YouTube has been purging dozens of Independent Media content creators, as we have previously reported, with increasing intensity since the Parkland, Florida High school shooting. While YouTube claims many of those purged happened "mistakenly," more Independent Media creators are still being targeted and purged.

Via Verdict we see that Bombard’s Body Language, with 264,000 subscribers received a permanent ban, despite having had no prior "strikes" against its account, after analyzing the behavior of Florida school shooting survivors.


David Seaman Online with 161,900 subscribers was purged off of YouTube for his comments on the Florida shooting. Stranger than Fiction News with 150,000 was purged for questioning the official narrative regarding the Florida shooting. Blackstone Intelligence Network with 126,600 was purged after questioning the events documented by surviving students, the media and government officials. Destroying the Illusion has had his channel purged after being given three strikes in four days for sharing information “deemed too sensitive” relating to the Florida shooting. Charles Walton was purged from YouTube after making comments about shooting survivor and gun control advocate David Hogg and members of his family.

Via Breitbart we see that Mike Cernovich has had a video removed showing Antifa thugs chanting death threats, and Google banned political YouTuber Carl Benjamin, better known by his online pseudonym “Sargon of Akkad," and completely locked him out of all his Google accounts without warning. His access was restored after appeal.

On Friday, the Alex Jones channel, with over two million subscribers was blocked from putting up any new content and before that they were blocked from livestreaming the InfoWars shows. The channel habitually uploaded approximately 15-20 videos a day, and a look at the channel at 3pm, Saturday, March 3, 2018, shows nothing has been uploaded for 19 hours.






NGO: China Using 'Predictive Policing' to Put Thousands in Communist 'Education' Camps


The NGO Human Rights Watch revealed this week that China is using data compilation technology to enact “predictive policing” measures resulting in the arrest and disappearance of Chinese citizens to “political education camps” based on the potential that they may someday defy the government.
The individuals in question do not face any criminal charges; instead, HRW states, their government profiles indicate that they are likely to engage in anti-communist activity in the future.

The data analysis system that compiles the relevant information – the “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” (IJOP) – has allegedly gone live in Xinjiang, China’s westernmost province, home to the nation’s ethnic Uighur minority. The Uighurs are predominantly Muslim and culturally distinct from the nation’s Han minority, facing significant discrimination from the government and pressure to learn Mandarin and integrate with the Han.
Xinjiang is home to at least one homegrown terrorist group, the separatist East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Beijing uses concerns over ETIM activities to target the Uighur minority en masse, confiscating “unauthorized” Qurans, imposing mandatory GPS tracking on all cars in Xinjiang, and detaining and threatening relatives of American Uighurs who choose to speak out on the repression.

According to HRW, which links to Mandarin-language government documents as proof, the IJOP is a mega-database collecting from CCTV cameras, internet monitoring systems, and the province’s many government checkpoints to build a profile of every single person living within its reach:


Targeted individuals first receive visits from government officials who gather more information, including “a range of data about their family, their ‘ideological situation,’ and relationships with neighbors.” Those who have family members detained or investigated for political behavior incompatible with the Communist Party reportedly receive extra scrutiny.

HRW found a document advising government officials that, following the home inspections, “who ought to be taken should be taken,” whether there is probable cause to believe they committed a crime against the state or not.


Most are taken to either prison or “political education camps.” A January report by Radio Free Asia (RFA) found that China is currently detaining at least 120,000 people in these camps for a variety of political “crimes” in Xinjiang. The Guardian, reporting on the RFA revelation, cites estimates that up to 800,000 people may be trapped in these camps.