The Australian Government secretly surveilled and sought to censor online Covid-related speech throughout the pandemic in partnership with Big Tech platforms, newly released documents show.
Allow me to define the persecution of unvaxxed as sub-humans not deserving of citizenship, healthcare opportunity to work or travel or custody over their own children as "abuse content, revenge porn, and violent extremist content."The 'moderators' are active in using these on a daily basis, and use the guise of 'moderation' to silence, slander and censor those who oppose.
The Heffernan report suggests that the very people in charge of 'moderation' are in fact made up of a significant number of paedophiles, and the guise of 'moderation' is used a substantial amount to protect them, rather than to actually stop child pornography.
Perhaps then, the powers that be wish the Overton window to remain as: "When the Australian Government censors violent extremist content via the Department of Home Affairs, or child abuse content via the eSafety Commissioner, this is entirely appropriate."
or as a discussion on the nuances of the definition of "harm".
Rather than actual accountability for actual crimes being regularly committed.
I'm not saying those discussions are not valuable or well made. I am suggesting they are virtually irrelevant at this moment in time. Like discussing seatbelt safety while the terrorists are still flying the airplane.....
That’s absolutely perfect! The terrorists in fact would have argued “mandated” passengers to tight their seat belt lest they have a fighting chance to stop the plane killing themselves and couple of thousands more..
This case in the US against the Biden government is exposing the depth of the suppression of free speech. It's worth reading in its entirety. The Australian government was following the model.
I was unsurprised, many people "felt" the Oz Gov were actively silencing speech. Antic proved it, but I suspect it is quite prevalent over many other subjects.
I’m referring to the substack, I haven’t read the Umbrella article yet but it looks meaty! I hadn’t heard the Australian gov had been caught with their own Twitter files
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the most consistent human behaviours that can be observed throughout history. The mind longing for power will always construct a rational argument (e.g. it is for the greater good) to oppress any doubts and justifies any corruption. Further,, corrupt people infect the institutions and organisations they work in if there are no inbuilt constitutional safe guards. In turn, this institutional corruption infects all future people working there long after the first spreader is gone.
Complicit with corruption is intent. The Davos Directives are fueled by infinite money. Infinite money (power and influence) begets infinite corruption and hubris, but it also begets distorted intent, unconstrained by the limitations of the ordinary mortal. One the one hand it may breed abject boredom, on the other, it may breed the desire for a project that actually tests the bounds of self-perceived limitless power. Billionaires testing boundaries. They sure have.
I concur totally, Rebekah. Your summation is excellent. I think that Governments and their bureaucrats have tasted a significant increase in power and most of the actors are loathe to surrender it.
Just this morning I made a post on a MarketWatch article (about misinformation) and said that when media collides on what’s “truth” that it’s simply implementing an information oligopoly and that instead we should stick to what’s always worked which is to find the smartest people in each side of the issue and let them have a civil debate. I then cited four examples of media “truths” that were later proven untrue and include: Hunter’s laptop was a big deal, Trump didn’t collude with Russia (I actually believed that one at the time!), the shots of don’t stop the virus and the virus likely came from a lab.
My comment was rejected for “violating community standards.”
As you can imagine I lean heavily towards the 'censor nothing' side of the aisle but the CP is the hard stop. Unfortunately, federal agencies like the FBI use CP networks to communicate with each other because they know that they can bring down a member of the public who investigates their activities - thus being in posession of CP themselves. Whether it's planning false flags, coups, or infiltrating citizen groups or churches, that's how the federal agencies communicate. I recently saw an article about how the FBI is one of the largest distributors and maintainers of CP for the purposes of communication. It is diabolical.
Years before The Big C, I had a friend with ovarian cancer. She was right into "science" so signed up to TROG to be a volunteer for novel cancer drugs. She kept a blog of her "cancer journey" as people like to call it. She had her blog blocked for a time. This made her extremely upset. She did nothing "alternative". Her last post was the most harrowing piece I've ever read.
People who've written about over coming a disease condition without drugs frequently get cancelled.
She was a very socially active person with a large network of friends and email didn't support the numbers. She she set up a blog so people could check in when they had time to see how she was going. I remember feeling her anguish in the FB post saying she was blocked from her website.
Perhaps the easy rule of thumb can be, they have crossed the line when;
- 'When an entity claims itself to be the last word on a given topic, and censors anyone who disagrees.' For example, the UN apparatchiks claiming to 'own the science' about climate change. Or TonyTheRat proclaiming like some Baptist minister, 'I am the Science*'. Other apparatchiks during the Plandemonium claiming 'the science is settled'.
Science doesn't work in darkness. Not even in shadows.
Evil likes darkness.
And we've accommodated and fed that evil for long enough.
The current configuration of MSM/SM and their legion of fact checkers - all employed by the same people, has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is an ever-louder megaphone pressed to our ears.
They have nothing but force on their side. Just look at McGowan et al. Petty tyrants using whatever laws existed to force their people to poison themselves. Then enacting additional laws to make it easier to apply that force. When they start giving back some of those powers, removing them from the books, people may start trusting government again.
Just to let you know, when I tried to pull up this site my phone displayed a warning that this site was "unsafe" and would I prefer to go back to the previous screen. Obviously I kept going but it proves to me that the "agencies" are already attempting to disrupt and destroy our abilities to communicate together on sites such as this one.
I am a free speech absolutist, no censorship, the more speech the better … for the simple reason that it must go hand in hand with an impartial yet robust legal system that deals with the consequences thereof. Inciting hatred … that may be a crime depending on the legislation around what is or isn’t incitement or whether it’s issued by a corporation for example. But in reality the hate speech is itself self-defeating as society (EDIT: recognising that such a society would need to be sane) would choose not to shop with them or otherwise support that business - its good to know what a group or individual thinks (think the latest Target satanic-groomer marketing ploy debacle), especially if it’s hate-filled, insulting or shows intention to harm. ACT on that incitement however and that WOULD be a crime depending on the act (don’t fire-bomb a Target, choose never to shop there again or otherwise make it known their marketing sucks). This is the fundamental problem in the west today … a captured legislature and judiciary have essentially allowed an arbitrary definition of laws and statutes based on identity and political affiliation, rendering the notion of speech completely up to the listener or viewer. The Offence-taking and victim-culture industries have usurped the simple notion that you can hate what someone says, you may disagree or even find it highly inflammatory or offensive, but you can ignore it, and you certainly don’t have to act on it. Ironically the area today where this topic is most in need of urgent review is among government leaders who seem to have free reign to state the most appalling hate-fueled invective against say “the unvaccinated”, (or parents who think boys shouldn’t be castrated to feed a delusional mania) to make all manner of obscene and inflammatory remarks about us, backed by the power of the state, and the judiciary is silent or even supportive. That’s the real concern.
It seems that constitutionally mandated censorship, clear published rules, a trusted adjudicator to handle appeals can produce media that are 80% trusted, like China's.
More boring than ours (though their scandals are MUCH bigger when they're revealed) but far more trustworthy sources of information about stuff like, say, Covid. And vaccines. Here are the rules:
The following rules apply to everyone (more stringent mass media rules apply to anyone with over five thousand social media followers):
No infringing, fake accounts, libel, disclosing trade secrets, or invading privacy;
No sending porn to attract users;
No torture, violence, killing of people or animals;
No selling lethal weapons, gambling, phishing, scamming, or spreading viruses;
No organizing crime, counterfeiting, false advertising, empty promises or bullying;
No lotteries, rumor-mongering, promoting superstitions;
No content opposing the basic principles of the Constitution, national unity, sovereignty, or territorial integrity;
No divulging State secrets or endangering national security.
If you get censored, you can appeal directly to the Chief Censor, whose office was established in the Tang Dynasty and filled, then as now, by the country's leading public intellectual.
I recently wrote about our state Premier and his links to China. The wind was blowing that he was angering the American intelligence apparatus and lo and behold he quits a few days later. No one else is talking about this. Given your topic I thought you would find this interesting https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/micro-donations-to-excessdeathsau
And surprise surprise, the cause of these deaths is almost entirely due to Covid 19 (and its referring to Jan and Feb 23) base don the death certificates. Wherever the narrative of causality for the pandemic is concerned the mainstream continues to peddle the standard line they ran out from the start. Ironically, the notion that present excess deaths are primarily due to Covid supposedly does not really fit with current standard line that suggests Covid is of little concern despite it running rampant at the moment especially among the vaccinated masses. That these poor folks (mainly in the older age groups) died from or with Covid might have something to do with their vaccination status may not be suggested or discussed of course. A society which lies to itself so comprehensively must have as its concomitant function, an overwhelming deployment of surveillance - it has to know, what may not be known, in order to engineer the next tranche of censorship of the things it seeks to know. Let's keep feeding the beast until it over-inflates and...
Allow me to define the persecution of unvaxxed as sub-humans not deserving of citizenship, healthcare opportunity to work or travel or custody over their own children as "abuse content, revenge porn, and violent extremist content."The 'moderators' are active in using these on a daily basis, and use the guise of 'moderation' to silence, slander and censor those who oppose.
The Heffernan report suggests that the very people in charge of 'moderation' are in fact made up of a significant number of paedophiles, and the guise of 'moderation' is used a substantial amount to protect them, rather than to actually stop child pornography.
Perhaps then, the powers that be wish the Overton window to remain as: "When the Australian Government censors violent extremist content via the Department of Home Affairs, or child abuse content via the eSafety Commissioner, this is entirely appropriate."
or as a discussion on the nuances of the definition of "harm".
Rather than actual accountability for actual crimes being regularly committed.
I'm not saying those discussions are not valuable or well made. I am suggesting they are virtually irrelevant at this moment in time. Like discussing seatbelt safety while the terrorists are still flying the airplane.....
That’s absolutely perfect! The terrorists in fact would have argued “mandated” passengers to tight their seat belt lest they have a fighting chance to stop the plane killing themselves and couple of thousands more..
This case in the US against the Biden government is exposing the depth of the suppression of free speech. It's worth reading in its entirety. The Australian government was following the model.
https://aaronkheriaty.substack.com/p/update-missouri-v-biden-part-1-by
I second the recommendation.
I was unsurprised, many people "felt" the Oz Gov were actively silencing speech. Antic proved it, but I suspect it is quite prevalent over many other subjects.
Absolutely fantastic article with I think three quotes I want to save for use later on. Very well written!
I’m referring to the substack, I haven’t read the Umbrella article yet but it looks meaty! I hadn’t heard the Australian gov had been caught with their own Twitter files
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the most consistent human behaviours that can be observed throughout history. The mind longing for power will always construct a rational argument (e.g. it is for the greater good) to oppress any doubts and justifies any corruption. Further,, corrupt people infect the institutions and organisations they work in if there are no inbuilt constitutional safe guards. In turn, this institutional corruption infects all future people working there long after the first spreader is gone.
Complicit with corruption is intent. The Davos Directives are fueled by infinite money. Infinite money (power and influence) begets infinite corruption and hubris, but it also begets distorted intent, unconstrained by the limitations of the ordinary mortal. One the one hand it may breed abject boredom, on the other, it may breed the desire for a project that actually tests the bounds of self-perceived limitless power. Billionaires testing boundaries. They sure have.
Ok. How about political, moral and spiritual corruption?
I concur totally, Rebekah. Your summation is excellent. I think that Governments and their bureaucrats have tasted a significant increase in power and most of the actors are loathe to surrender it.
.
At The End Of 12,000 Innings
It’s The Vaccinated: 0
And The Unvaccinated: ... Too Many Points To Tally.
.
Well done Rebekah, thoughtful piece clearly written - and I like that you return to the principles of John Stuart Mill.
Just this morning I made a post on a MarketWatch article (about misinformation) and said that when media collides on what’s “truth” that it’s simply implementing an information oligopoly and that instead we should stick to what’s always worked which is to find the smartest people in each side of the issue and let them have a civil debate. I then cited four examples of media “truths” that were later proven untrue and include: Hunter’s laptop was a big deal, Trump didn’t collude with Russia (I actually believed that one at the time!), the shots of don’t stop the virus and the virus likely came from a lab.
My comment was rejected for “violating community standards.”
“Colludes”, not “collides.” Typo.
I believed the Trump one too!
wtf Rebekah. You have come a long way. You've looked into 9/11 by now, right?
Edit: I'm so glad you are here.
Lol yes.
Moon landing ?
Good article.
As you can imagine I lean heavily towards the 'censor nothing' side of the aisle but the CP is the hard stop. Unfortunately, federal agencies like the FBI use CP networks to communicate with each other because they know that they can bring down a member of the public who investigates their activities - thus being in posession of CP themselves. Whether it's planning false flags, coups, or infiltrating citizen groups or churches, that's how the federal agencies communicate. I recently saw an article about how the FBI is one of the largest distributors and maintainers of CP for the purposes of communication. It is diabolical.
What is UP with Substack, I had to resubscribe to you today. Missed all your recent ones.
I had to do the same to yours. Someone said that my stuff was being censored. You probably are as well.
This is not a new thing.
Years before The Big C, I had a friend with ovarian cancer. She was right into "science" so signed up to TROG to be a volunteer for novel cancer drugs. She kept a blog of her "cancer journey" as people like to call it. She had her blog blocked for a time. This made her extremely upset. She did nothing "alternative". Her last post was the most harrowing piece I've ever read.
People who've written about over coming a disease condition without drugs frequently get cancelled.
Wow what platform was she using?
She had a WordPress website and linked to FB.
She was a very socially active person with a large network of friends and email didn't support the numbers. She she set up a blog so people could check in when they had time to see how she was going. I remember feeling her anguish in the FB post saying she was blocked from her website.
A nicely balanced post, Rebekah.
Perhaps the easy rule of thumb can be, they have crossed the line when;
- 'When an entity claims itself to be the last word on a given topic, and censors anyone who disagrees.' For example, the UN apparatchiks claiming to 'own the science' about climate change. Or TonyTheRat proclaiming like some Baptist minister, 'I am the Science*'. Other apparatchiks during the Plandemonium claiming 'the science is settled'.
Science doesn't work in darkness. Not even in shadows.
Evil likes darkness.
And we've accommodated and fed that evil for long enough.
The current configuration of MSM/SM and their legion of fact checkers - all employed by the same people, has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is an ever-louder megaphone pressed to our ears.
They have nothing but force on their side. Just look at McGowan et al. Petty tyrants using whatever laws existed to force their people to poison themselves. Then enacting additional laws to make it easier to apply that force. When they start giving back some of those powers, removing them from the books, people may start trusting government again.
Peace.
*-Did anyone 'fact-check' him?
Just to let you know, when I tried to pull up this site my phone displayed a warning that this site was "unsafe" and would I prefer to go back to the previous screen. Obviously I kept going but it proves to me that the "agencies" are already attempting to disrupt and destroy our abilities to communicate together on sites such as this one.
I'm hearing this a lot.
I am a free speech absolutist, no censorship, the more speech the better … for the simple reason that it must go hand in hand with an impartial yet robust legal system that deals with the consequences thereof. Inciting hatred … that may be a crime depending on the legislation around what is or isn’t incitement or whether it’s issued by a corporation for example. But in reality the hate speech is itself self-defeating as society (EDIT: recognising that such a society would need to be sane) would choose not to shop with them or otherwise support that business - its good to know what a group or individual thinks (think the latest Target satanic-groomer marketing ploy debacle), especially if it’s hate-filled, insulting or shows intention to harm. ACT on that incitement however and that WOULD be a crime depending on the act (don’t fire-bomb a Target, choose never to shop there again or otherwise make it known their marketing sucks). This is the fundamental problem in the west today … a captured legislature and judiciary have essentially allowed an arbitrary definition of laws and statutes based on identity and political affiliation, rendering the notion of speech completely up to the listener or viewer. The Offence-taking and victim-culture industries have usurped the simple notion that you can hate what someone says, you may disagree or even find it highly inflammatory or offensive, but you can ignore it, and you certainly don’t have to act on it. Ironically the area today where this topic is most in need of urgent review is among government leaders who seem to have free reign to state the most appalling hate-fueled invective against say “the unvaccinated”, (or parents who think boys shouldn’t be castrated to feed a delusional mania) to make all manner of obscene and inflammatory remarks about us, backed by the power of the state, and the judiciary is silent or even supportive. That’s the real concern.
It seems that constitutionally mandated censorship, clear published rules, a trusted adjudicator to handle appeals can produce media that are 80% trusted, like China's.
More boring than ours (though their scandals are MUCH bigger when they're revealed) but far more trustworthy sources of information about stuff like, say, Covid. And vaccines. Here are the rules:
The following rules apply to everyone (more stringent mass media rules apply to anyone with over five thousand social media followers):
No infringing, fake accounts, libel, disclosing trade secrets, or invading privacy;
No sending porn to attract users;
No torture, violence, killing of people or animals;
No selling lethal weapons, gambling, phishing, scamming, or spreading viruses;
No organizing crime, counterfeiting, false advertising, empty promises or bullying;
No lotteries, rumor-mongering, promoting superstitions;
No content opposing the basic principles of the Constitution, national unity, sovereignty, or territorial integrity;
No divulging State secrets or endangering national security.
If you get censored, you can appeal directly to the Chief Censor, whose office was established in the Tang Dynasty and filled, then as now, by the country's leading public intellectual.
I recently wrote about our state Premier and his links to China. The wind was blowing that he was angering the American intelligence apparatus and lo and behold he quits a few days later. No one else is talking about this. Given your topic I thought you would find this interesting https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/micro-donations-to-excessdeathsau
Moderation of views, self-censorship and general editing for acceptability are a few of the impacts of surveillance ... when the Australian Actuaries started reporting on excess deaths a few months ago the causes appeared to be an open question. Their most recent iteration has cleaned up its act remarkably https://www.actuaries.digital/2023/06/01/covid-19-mortality-working-group-excess-mortality-in-first-two-months-of-2023-is-mainly-due-to-covid-19/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=230602-MCOM-Digest-%20Sub%20Digest&utm_content=230602-MCOM-Digest-%20Sub%20Digest+CID_1edda9fa28ef3dfbe3f769cc0354ccc9&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Catch-up%20now
And surprise surprise, the cause of these deaths is almost entirely due to Covid 19 (and its referring to Jan and Feb 23) base don the death certificates. Wherever the narrative of causality for the pandemic is concerned the mainstream continues to peddle the standard line they ran out from the start. Ironically, the notion that present excess deaths are primarily due to Covid supposedly does not really fit with current standard line that suggests Covid is of little concern despite it running rampant at the moment especially among the vaccinated masses. That these poor folks (mainly in the older age groups) died from or with Covid might have something to do with their vaccination status may not be suggested or discussed of course. A society which lies to itself so comprehensively must have as its concomitant function, an overwhelming deployment of surveillance - it has to know, what may not be known, in order to engineer the next tranche of censorship of the things it seeks to know. Let's keep feeding the beast until it over-inflates and...