Chris Dangerfield - "The comments are awful!" https://www.bitchute.com/channel/VPrU3l1oETAM

Zanimations - "What are Rechutes?" https://www.bitchute.com/video/sNawGVbNChVX

Max Igan - "Get an Osmo Pocket" https://www.bitchute.com/channel/tj99AwcN3zlH

Take a stand for free speech and get a 40% discount this Halloween https://www.bitchute.com/membership

https://www.bitchute.com/membership

They were used to store valuable goods such as grain, olive oil, jewelry, and important documents, acting as safe places to preserve wealth.

These granaries were often built on elevated or fortified locations to protect against theft and raids. The architecture of Igudar was designed with security in mind, often featuring thick walls and reinforced doors.

Each family or individual within a community would have a designated space in the Igudar, and they would trust these communal structures with their most valuable possessions. The system relied on collective trust and cooperation within the community.

The secret service is at its most autonomous when the government dithers, and jeepers we know about that.

How you can avoid paying for a TV license in the UK https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/

I recently saw this video on X that both Elon Musk and Rand Paul endorsed. In it Murray Rothbard says that only Washington can create money. This is not the case today, as banks create money every time a new loan is created.

Some might argue this is credit and not money. However the central bank guarantees much or all (depending on the country) of all the money created in this way, therefore it does not have the risk associated with credit and is money.

About 80% of all money is created by banks in this way.

*The money system has changed overtime, and I don't know what year this video was made. I do know Elon Musk and Rand Paul endorsed it in 2024.

Jake Shields - Fight Back Podcast is a new channel on Bitchute. I hope you check out the full video and consider subscribing: https://www.bitchute.com/video/3GmKAvZF9Dm7

This is just a random clip I found, the whole video is worth watching.

I'm not sure if he is right or wrong about the bare minimum required. In some respects, it hardly matters because today, governments are doing too much, and any move toward them doing less is surely better for our freedom and for stripping out corruption.

I also believe that a concentration of government power results in a concentration of power in corporations that buy their power from governments, so removing the first would therefore remove the second.

Well we all knew he didn't kill himself.

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-information-integrity-en.pdf

It's worth keeping a close eye on what these guys are up to.

I would understand if Trump stated his intention to help people get along better and reduce the division within our society today, but that’s not what he actually expressed.

We have laws and due process in place; while it is possible to try to change someone's mind, discussions about removing individuals for their protected speech are concerning, regardless of their opinions.

Joe Rogan Experience #1711 - Patrick Bet-David

I keep seeing this guy, I call him Jake.

Today I once again saw some crepuscular rays, but this time the Sun was also poking out from behind the clouds and it was interesting to see how well the rays on each side seem to line up with the Sun in the distance.

I was out walking the other day and I saw these beautiful crepuscular rays, it's not something I've seen very often in my years so I thought I would stop and take a video. In the opposite direction the moon was already out.

I remember seeing this and it did look convincing but it's important to consider there are people who would make a video such as this just to go viral.

Marianna Spring of the BBC covered it here https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-59896688

Also the AP https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-528817055623

I have never seen the social media posts that were supposedly scrubbed so I can't confirm or deny that. Perhaps you did?

Crisis actor or covid patient? That's for you to decide.

This is an old documentary that I once believed was lost, but fortunately, I've rediscovered it. I'm safeguarding it here since I couldn't locate it anywhere else on the internet. It's important to note that my decision to keep it doesn't necessarily imply complete agreement with its content. Nevertheless, it contains valuable information and offers a unique perspective from the year it was created.

Internal rough cut, not for distribution

I was late to learning this but I felt like mentioning it anyway. 2023 saw the loss of a legend. RIP Jim

We recently received an invitation to participate in an academic study led by Professor Stuart Macdonald, the individual featured in this video.

Despite my lack of familiarity with Professor Macdonald prior to this invitation, I am generally enthusiastic about contributing to academic studies, particularly when platforms like Bitchute can provide valuable insights.

However, after watching the video, I grew uneasy. Professor Macdonald advocates for restricting free speech not only in cases of direct incitement but also in what he terms as indirect incitement. According to his definition, determining indirect incitement transcends the words alone; it involves deciphering the speaker's intentions.

Although he concedes that a 280-character tweet lacks this power, this suggests that a longer text would meet the required threshold. Consider this: both you and I could write the same speech, and if law enforcement deems my intentions pure but questions yours, you might face legal consequences.

While I respect Professor Macdonald's right to advocate for this, I choose not to contribute to its realization.

Sorry for the foul language