If a regime spends all its time lying, it needs to do something about those people that have the temerity to call them out. It's impossible to maintain an illusion if the public square is allowed to self regulate. For the state, convincing critics that they are wrong is far less important than silencing them. Plus, of course, the former course of action would involve engaging with the evidence and that is not something our lords and masters are fond of. They prefer to commence operations downstream of the facts, in the region known as Narrative.
This approach works as long as the facts at issue are difficult to uncover, which is often the case if the regime wishes to hide them. The other main tactic, repeating the lie ad nauseam – in the absence of firm evidence that refutes it – is also likely to be effective for a considerable time. Moving on swiftly from one lie to another is another winner as scrutiny cannot be maintained when attention has wandered. And, lastly, the labeling of opponents as conspiracy theorists has a long and dishonorable history that relieves the accuser of any obligation to prove anything. We are witnessing all four stratagems at the present time.
It's also possible to discern the other themes that are becoming ever more familiar; a normalization of new facts of life and creeping incrementalism. There have been a rash of re-definitions of accepted terms or the creation of new ones, not least during the Covid saga, combined with a vagueness around what it is that they now mean. For example, vaccines now include experimental gene therapies that do not prevent disease in the host, nor the transmission of it to others. As we shall see, misinformation and disinformation have come to mean anything that those in authority want them to mean, with no requirement for proof.
The public/private partnership that now represents the state knows no boundaries, embroiled as it is in mandating, censoring and surveilling us. There is a reliance on the testimony of experts that subverts the democratic process and is either the result of lawmaker's laziness or cunning, inasmuch as it gives them plausible deniability when things go wrong. In similar vein, rules, regulations and guidelines occupy territory that should, instead, be the domain of laws duly passed in a legislature.
At base, our ruling class exhibits a confusing mix of arrogance and seeming desperation – arrogance inasmuch as they insist that they know best, that they have the right to define what is disinformation and what isn't (for example) and desperation because they have an overwhelming need to silence any and all opposition, which is not something that confident people generally feel the need to do. Perhaps some of them truly believe that what they believe is right and, therefore, that what the opposition believes is wrong and should be silenced.
Others may fear that the opposition might be believed by the general public. Given that a good proportion of the elites know exactly what it is that they are doing and hold the view that they should impose their will on the rest because they are better than us, it's curious that they seem fearful that the proles that they despise might actually be smart enough to work out that although they are being encouraged to live a Through The Looking Glass existence, but the truth is that nothing of what the globalists say or do is for the welfare of others but instead designed to accrue more power for themselves.
Once again, it's important to note that there are at least two distinct factions within the opposition ranks; there are the zealots who believe in a quasi Marxist, Progressive ideology and there are the cynics who may express solidarity with that belief system, but whose primary purpose is to use the ideologues for their own ends. Particular features of the true believers include a pathological care for certain groups, always a minority of some persuasion, and an almost total lack of morality when pursuing desired outcomes. The modern Progressive wokester is narrowly focused on this care, to the total exclusion of any sense of fairness or proportionality. They rarely, if ever, weigh the consequences of their limited first order thinking. Their thinking is child like and simplistic but, because it's based on strong feelings, it must (in their view) be right.
Their cynical fellow travelers are similarly reluctant to dwell on the existence (or otherwise) of any evidence that justifies their actions. Their thinking is rather less confused than the Progressives. They can clearly see that opponents, animated by the ability to engage their critical faculties, are wont to dwell on the facts that the elites have ignored because they don't support the desired outcome. There is a need to silence these dissidents because the regimes know that the truth will hurt them. Either way, there is a nexus; both wings of the globalists want to silence dissent and the two most effective ways to achieve that end is by the use of surveillance and censorship.
As noted above, the re-purposing of existing words and the introduction of new ones (or turbo-charging of recently minted ones) is a well known authoritarian tactic. To that end, the elites have appropriated the words 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' and given the phrase 'hate speech' renewed life. As far as I can tell, misinformation is incorrect information delivered with no ill intent, whereas disinformation is incorrect information distributed with malice aforethought. Hate speech can mean anything you want it to mean, provided somebody can say they are 'triggered'.
These words share a couple of obvious similarities. 'Hate speech', as a concept, sounds as if it could have been lifted directly from 1984.
Any speech that threatens a person's 'safe space' can be hate speech; the right to define it is handed to anyone who wishes to be offended. In this way, intent is removed from the equation and the focus is shifted to the 'victim' and their hurt feelings. Importantly, hate speech has no consistent relationship with facts. In other words, a factual statement can still be hate speech. Equally importantly, in the US at least, hate speech doesn't exist – legally. There are laws of slander and libel and that's it; none of which stops the ideologues from pretending otherwise.
Misinformation and disinformation must, you might think, be correlated with truth and lies. After all, how can something be regarded as inaccurate if it's not also untrue to some degree? But the regimes that seek to weaponize these words never explicitly refer to either category as untrue, although the inference is clear. I suspect this is mainly to do with ideology; the Progressive holds that absolutes don't exist, that there is your truth and my truth and that everything is, therefore, relative.
For this reason, they don't want to be explicitly claiming that a certain fact is or isn't true, even though that is exactly what they are saying. Nobody who listens to these people could be in any doubt that they view misinformationists as liars, rather than simple, deluded souls. However, the deployment of proxy words that are then freighted with malign intent is a nice way to square the circle, in their eyes. To others, it is further demonstration of the bankruptcy of their ideology.
However, control of what constitutes hate speech and correct information equates to control of all speech and that is what is being attempted. If you want to control people, you have to control the way they think and if you want to control the way they think, you have to control the language they use. The effort to control free speech is being done incrementally, masked by the disinformation narrative. And there are precedents; some countries have laws which criminalise Holocaust denial, for instance. How difficult would it be to introduce legislation that makes denying that man causes global warming illegal, or any other narrative that the regime wishes to force upon us?
In fact, the conflict over the truthfulness of information has a long history.
In the United States, in the 1850s, the South suppressed any anti-slavery sentiments, even going so far as to arrest a clergyman who preached in opposition to it.(1) It was openly stated that no-one should be allowed to preach such a doctrine because “domestic quietude depends upon the suppression of such doctrines.”(2) For the elites, at all times, the assumption is that:
“The common run of the people, lacking the necessary education, leisure, and economic independence to make an impartial assessment of public problems, were mercurial playthings of leaders who could profit by exciting their fears.”(3)
In times of war, propaganda and the suppression of truths are expected (and tolerated), largely because officialdom has made the argument that the morale of the populace needs to be sustained and news of military reverses would have the opposite effect. Of course, it also serves to cover up any cock-ups, too. And, although this may be a minority view, I can't see how even this is acceptable resting, as it must, on the assumption that the people are too mentally fragile to demonstrate fortitude in the face of the enemy. I would suggest that the London Blitz, in World War II, gives the lie to that. It also suggests that, once again, the elites know best, as they are the gatekeepers of the truth in these situations and they should not be distracted from the task at hand, which they might be if the public knew what was really going on. Nonetheless, every major American conflict has featured assaults on free speech and civil liberties in general.(4)
Stating that somebody with views that are disagreeable is a liar is not novel either; neither are the effect of possible falsehoods more problematic in the present day than they ever were previously. There is no logical argument stating that free speech must be moderated out of existence in order that democracy be protected – that argument is oxymoronic. The practice of democracy explicitly requires the practice of free speech. The Leftists that are demanding the opposite are either intellectual pygmies who cannot summon forth effective arguments to highlight the supposedly demonstrable superiority of their ideas, or simply autocrats who don't care to stoop to the level of explaining themselves to the great unwashed.
The regime dogma is expressed as follows:
“The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform.”(5)
Which, of course, is what the likes of CNN and the BBC do on a daily basis, but that's okay because they are aligned with the elite world view, whereas Elon Musk (the subject of this ire) might not be. In any event, as per usual, no attempt is made to justify the use of the term 'disinformation', nor is the argument logically sustainable. The right to say what you want is just that; it matters not how many people you say it to. But, apparently, free speech is only protected if it's delivered to a small audience? I don't think so. Plus, there are already some exceptions to the general rule and to transgress can indeed land a person in prison. Nonetheless, this is the position that the autocrats have adopted and they are now taking steps to force compliance.
There is a particular way of doing things in a supposed democracy and this involves utilising existing structures, where they are useful and paying no heed to the perverse use to which they are put. In the US, this means that the narrative must be filtered through departments that are notionally tasked with securing domestic quietude, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Once again, it matters not whether their actions are reasonable or their conclusions accurate. It only matters that they provide an ersatz authority backing whatever it is that the regime was going to do anyway. And so, we get this nonsense, whereby the DHS declares a heightened terrorism threat due to fake news online:
“several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.”(6)
Once again, no attempt is made to evidence what it is that is MDM. Certain subjects are referenced; for instance, government figures are demanding that tech platforms inform the government when users purvey MDM about Covid, because they claim that such MDM is an urgent threat to public health.(7) One assumes that anybody who uses the government's own statistics to show that the 'vaccines' aren't safe and effective would be in the cross-hairs. It's important to note that, as we will see elsewhere, an important line is being crossed. The DHS is not complaining about an illegal act; no law is being broken by people posting their own views online, whether evidence based or otherwise. The regime is, instead, normalizing a situation whereby any opinion that contradicts its own is, in some way, illegal.
This is dangerous territory and also an unsustainable position. For example, what the regime is propagandizing at one time may change and frequently does. In Covid World, the official position on masks and 'vaccine' mandates has changed over time. What may be viewed as MDM one week is the official position the next. This doesn't matter, of course, because it's not about consistency and truth; it's about fealty to the narrative, however illogical that may be.
Now the iron law of incrementalism comes into play. By making dissent officially problematic, further corruptions are legitimized and, as if on cue, the government has taken it upon itself to define the term 'domestic terrorist', which is:
“any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.”(8)
This is a ridiculously broad definition; it would cover opposition to a war, for instance. The terms used are inexact; they shouldn't be, but they are. The words 'violence' and 'incitement' have a legal meaning, but legal rulings have little relevance to the regime; if they did, then they wouldn't be ignoring the Supreme Court ruling that specifies that hate speech doesn't exist. When does incitement begin? What is imminent? As speech can be held to be violent by Leftists, is that also included in the definition? One thing is certain, though - the definition won't extend to anyone left of the political centre (such as Antifa or BLM, responsible for $1 billion plus damages through the summer of 2020, or those groups that are fire-bombing pro-life health centers).
There is also a trend towards preventing pre-crimes, aimed at those who are allegedly mobilizing towards violence, but have yet to commit an actual crime. What possible offences could be committed in these types of scenarios is anyone's guess. There are already laws concerning conspiracy, which might be thought to make the pre-crime emphasis redundant, but my guess is that the intention is to infer intent to a 'domestic terrorist's' actions before any existing criminal threshold is met.
The strategy is explicitly targeted at “right wing white supremacists”, although the regime goes to some lengths to assure us that they'll go after anyone who perpetrates violence. If they were truly going to do that, they'd have done it already and they haven't. Instead, left wing politicians contributed to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (which bailed out people arrested during the 2020 riots)(9) and law enforcement did next to nothing to prosecute offences, whereas over 800 people have been arrested for the Capitol riot, most of whom were waved into the building by police and therefore didn't know that they weren't supposed to be there.
However, anyone who:
“violently opposes... all forms of capitalism...corporate globalization...or... resist(s) government authority...based on perceived overreach...”(10)
is also now a domestic terrorist. It does have the feel of a set up. The inclusion of these very specific terms allows them to go after anyone that they disagree with and there can be no expectation that they will be any less partial than they have already been. Under these terms, the regime could implement a policy that was blatant overreach or clearly unconstitutional and then label the resistance 'domestic terrorists'; which is exactly what is going to happen, I strongly suspect. While it is within a government's remit to take steps to deal with those that might oppose it violently, there has never previously been the need to widen the definition of what a domestic terrorist is in this way. It has been done in order to target those who are not, in fact, domestic terrorists at all, merely dissidents.
There are several ramifications already. The Justice Department has set up a special team (11) and, ominously and incrementally, the DHS is taking steps to:
“...build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners...that includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”(12)
The pieces are slowly staring to fall into place. Firstly, the absurdly wide characterization of domestic terrorism to include those who simply oppose the regime ideologically, combined with the possibility that 'violence' and 'incite' may be interpreted in an equally imprecise manner. Next, a commitment to utilize the private sector, both home and abroad in these efforts. More specifically still, as one of the four pillars of regime strategy:
“understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies...”(13)
Nearly there. Now they have named private tech companies as allies. And why would they need them to be involved? Because the regime's mission is to do with:
“enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.”(14)
And there we have it. When you put it all together, they will be targeting those people that disagree with the official story on pretty much anything and, this time, it won't be a case of shadow banning or getting kicked off Twitter because the government has noticed a dissenting opinion. This time, because the state has decided that dissent is now domestic terrorism, there will be the full weight of the regime behind any action. The illusion that we are supposed to fall for is that they will only go after those who plotting a 'violent' response. They won't; indeed, that pretense has already been exposed by evidence that government agencies have targeted school parents who protested that critical race theory was being taught in their child's school.(15)
Other censorious entities are being created. The recently formed Disinformation Governance Board in the US, which is tasked with combating 'Russian disinformation' (yet another hoary old chestnut that was never evidenced and never will be now) and MDM about the southern border - specifically, what the elites now refer to as “irregular migration”, also known as illegal immigration – has had an uncertain start, but is still in operation.(16) Apparently, people smugglers have been telling the migrants lies about the ease with which they can settle in America. Except that the cartel smugglers are merely telling the truth; there are 1.2 million illegal immigrants served with deportation orders who aren't being expelled. And in its implementation, yet again, the entire concept is undemocratic. The Board has no right to exist, as no laws are being broken. It's a naked attempt by the regime to control speech.
The farcical selection of its first head has also served to reveal another shadowy organisation that has been making friends and influencing people since 2015 (although it has now been forced out of business); the Integrity Initiative, yet another of those Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) that are funded by government, in this case the UK's. The alleged mission of the Integrity Initiative is to “defend democracy from disinformation”; to that end, they set about recruiting clusters of individuals throughout Europe and North America:
“The picture that emerges so far is as disturbing as it is undeniable. The Integrity Initiative was a secret, government-funded influence operation that engaged secret “clusters” of journalists and academics to coordinate in order to meddle in the political process of Western democracies under the guise of combating “disinformation” and “defending democracy”.”(17)
The Integrity Initiative made good use of social media, Twitter in particular. The Disinformation Governance Board also scheduled meetings with Twitter, with the specific purpose of co-opting them into censoring those voices that the regime considered purveyors of MDM.
Figure 1 Instructions for Disinformation Governance Board
There are plenty more initiatives across the globe. In the UK, the government is helpfully directing the public towards a site that they have set up, seemingly oblivious to the fact that anybody with reservations about government actions is unlikely to be seeking reassurance from the government themselves. Nevertheless, sharechecklist.gov.uk is keen to tell us that some sources can be trusted, specifically the ones that they know will support the regime narrative and it's important that people get with the programme and only share approved material.(18) NGOs throughout Europe are attempting to enlist the public's help in their alleged crusade against hate speech, by pushing China style smartphone apps. One in particular has caught the eye; HateAid have an app called ReportHeroes which provides the public with a means to report those who don't toe the Progressive line.(19) This information is passed on to the authorities, who then have to negotiate a political minefield in deciding how to deal with the complaints. This appears to be yet one more attempt to force the law into places it should not go.
It's not simply the open internet that is being targeted; governments want to be able to eavesdrop on private encrypted communications, as well. All under the guise of keeping the public 'safe' and with no regard for the collateral intrusion that such a course of action would entail.(20) According to the former Attorney General, Bill Barr:
“Warrant-proof encryption is also seriously impairing our ability to monitor and combat domestic and foreign terrorists.”(21)
I'm sure that being provided with a 'backdoor' into WhatsApp would be greatly appreciated by the likes of the FBI. However, a more convincing case could be made if they first managed to act on the intelligence that mass shooters and the like post openly to social media, which they often don't. Nonetheless, Facebook (owner of WhatsApp) have developed said backdoor anyway. What's the betting that it's already being used?
In one more example of suspicious synchronicity, the EU has drafted a law that would allow them to monitor and scan EU citizen's text messages, so that they might “combat child sex abuse”; the so-called chat control regulation. This was, apparently, previously voluntary. Now it will become mandatory.
“The result will be mass surveillance using fully automated real time messaging and the end of confidential and private digital correspondence.”(22)
I hate to say it again, but that's the law of incrementalism in action. Plus, if we're feeling generous, yet another example of first order thinking and a total lack of proportionality. If we are to be a little less gullible, we would conclude that there is nothing incomplete or unintended in the thinking behind this. It's exactly as it's meant to be. And there'll be no-one to complain to when mistakes are made, because the whole operation will be accomplished via an algorithm. But it isn't as though 'phone companies aren't already censoring text messages; T Mobile has been removing links that they don't approve of, right wing websites to the fore.(23)
In this practice and others like it, we see echoes of another favored tactic; normalization. The concept of 'safe spaces', once introduced in the physical sphere, can then be transposed into the digital realm. Once safety is the be all and end all, many subjects may be censored and they have been. Covid is just one example. Election integrity would be another. Prior to the 2020 election, large numbers of conservatives were banned from Twitter. The media buried the Hunter Biden laptop story, which reveals the corruption of the current President and others. This act alone transformed the election; 16% of Biden voters stated that they would not have voted for the Democrat had they known of the details beforehand.(24)
Currently, any information about the war in Ukraine is also being heavily doctored. Videos shared on social media are wiped (along with the user account) and all information from Russia itself is banned. There has been no official explanation for this state of affairs. If you happen to display the letter Z in Germany, it will be taken as support for the Russians and you might find yourself being prosecuted.(25) What the Germans seem to have forgotten is that they aren't at war with Russia, although maybe they think they are.
But it's the UK that is leading the legislative way. The PM, in the wake of Musk's bid for Twitter, felt the need to remind all online platforms that they must not allow people to be 'hurt', (26) as if that could ever be possible, but there are much more definitive measures in the pipeline in the guise of the Online Safety Bill, which looks as if it will sail through Parliament as the pond life masquerading as the Labour Party are not going to offer any opposition.
This legislation will force social media companies to remove any content which risks “having, or indirectly having, a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult,”(27) an utterly vacuous requirement which could cover any content published online. It is (once again) victim defined and so broad as a definition as to be meaningless. Disinformation and misinformation are also going to be clamped down on although, as per usual, these terms are undefined. What we do know is that there will be exemptions for journalists and politicians, who will receive special protection for any content that they post online (naturally), so elite opinion will still get an airing while the rest of us are effectively silenced.
However, the biggest red flag of all is the fact that the bill will censor “legal but harmful” content, presumably by now making it illegal without so much as a nod to long standing common law. And that won't be the end of it, either. As is usual in the UK, with the state's fondness for umbrella legislation, there will be further opportunities to pass secondary legislation that augments the act in yet more draconian ways and all by committee and a nod through vote.(28) These are sorts of things that happen when you live in what is only notionally a democracy. The political class is united in opposition to the interests of the people.
Beyond the UK, Israel is in the process of legislating similarly (29) and Canada is passing a bill that regulates news online.(30) And, inevitably, the EU is in the process of drawing up the Digital Services Act, which will tackle ye olde misinformation and disinformation, too:
“This Code will be a clear game changer to adapt the responsibility of online platforms by ensuring timely, adequate and efficient measures to fight disinformation in the EU. The informational space should not be a Wild West exposing citizens to untamed disinformation flux.”(31) Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton
Untamed disinformation flux? Really? There's a sense that regimes are in the process of realizing that their narratives are not being uncritically adopted by the lumpen masses and that the time for a clampdown on dissent is now. Equally, the transition from democracy to totalitarianism must inevitably involve an attempt to crush any opposition that refuses to believe the Big Lie and isn't afraid to show others the receipts.
The surveillance drive is clearly twinned with enhanced censorship – it's helpful to have the ability to identify those that oppose you, in the first instance, and then monitor and intimidate them in the longer term. It's a tool that is intended to be weaponized at some point; there is no point simply gathering intelligence unless you intend to use it. Any attempt to measure compliance with the regime narrative (in order that the zealots and rule followers may be rewarded and the dissidents punished) is dependent upon surveillance.
The regime in America is attempting to pass the Domestic Terrorism Bill, which is an attempt to convert what they are already doing via strategic document and regulations into legislation; it is highly unlikely to pass,(32) which they know. But in addition to what is proposed by the DHS, there is already widespread surveillance of all Americans via immigration enforcement, who have wormed their way into other federal agencies and third parties (such as utility companies). This is warrant-less surveillance that is largely unaccountable.(33)
Additionally, Clearview AI (a US company) was found to have illegally harvested over 20 billion images of UK residents – from social media – in the course of establishing a global database for the purposes of facial recognition.(34) They had also collected biometric and geolocation data and sold the service to numerous law enforcement agencies, who not only acquired images but also information that amounts to a monitoring of behaviour, thus circumventing laws that are supposed to limit the scope of the snooping to a defined target.
Surveillance isn't always covert, though. Sometimes it's front and centre. Chula Vista, near San Diego, has recently become the first American city to submit itself to China-style spy drones which monitor the whole city; they even have speakers, so that they can shout at miscreants. The implementation followed a familiar pattern – create a scare (Covid) and provide a solution that would never have been acceptable in normal times.(35) The US seems to be particularly prone to authoritarianism; the country now ranks lower on the democracy ladder than Argentina and Mongolia, which ought to give pause, but doesn't.(36) Facial recognition is another new technology that is receiving heavy backing, from the World Economic Forum and other globalists.(37)
The UK has its own drone issues. You would have to be extremely gullible to believe the official explanation for the inevitable trial, mind you. Ostensibly, the pilot project is to do with women's safety:
“Women in fear of an attack will be able to use a phone app to summon a drone, which could arrive within minutes armed with a powerful spotlight and thermal cameras to frighten off any potential assailant.”(38)
What could possibly go wrong with that? There's a clue as to the intended direction of travel, with the regime already talking up the possibility that drones could replace police helicopters and the trial isn't even off the ground yet. I imagine that it won't be long before they are armed with facial recognition software.
But we are already been monitored anyway. The CDC was caught tracking people via the 'phones during lock-down (39) and anyone using any of Google's apps or products are almost certainly being tracked without their knowledge, whether they turned off the location application or not.(40) Google have been doing it since 2014 at the latest, via software called Safeguard, for which practice they are currently being sued.(41) Plus their more ephemeral tactics like manipulated search results and auto-fill suggestions.
Not forgetting the contact/trace apps that people downloaded during the 'pandemic', which normalized a habit whereby people kept their 'phone with them at all times, thus embedding an acceptance of technology as a dictator of freedoms and behaviors.(42) And the apps that just appear on your 'phone unbidden, such as MassNotify in Massachusetts.(43) It's the same principle as a shedding 'vaccine'; informed consent be damned.
It is a well established truism that by virtue of human nature, given enough time and despite good intentions (in some cases), all regimes will eventually exploit a scenario where they are the sole arbiter of what is true. If government actions are not subject to scrutiny, there is no effective deterrent to corruption and matters will inevitably go south.
The most striking feature of current regime behaviour is the arrogance. Some of them seem to truly believe that only they know best, that what is in the best interests of the masses (or what their just desserts are) is not something that can be honestly articulated, so it's acceptable to deploy lies and half truths in the service of the greater good. What they actually intend is for the vast majority of any given population to be kept in their place by the elites by any means possible.
It's beyond dispute that not every citizen can be the sharpest tool in the box, but that doesn't mean they should be regarded as an untermensch. Furthermore, most often, a stratospheric IQ combined with postgraduate degrees are not essential when dealing with big political issues; common sense and a moral framework are more apposite requirements.
Labeling opposition to the regime as misinformation, without engaging in vigorous debate or providing any empirical evidence that proves the point is doomed to fail in one way; it doesn't make most people suddenly believe the lie that the elites are spinning. It just demonstrates what regimes deem off limits and provides a 'justification' for repression. It's a closed loop; the regime lies, the opposition calls it out, the regime labels the opposition as misinformation artists and domestic terrorists whose false and misleading narrative undermines trust in government.
It is clear that the drive to censor and surveil us is gathering momentum. It is equally obvious that there is strong evidence of supranational coordination. The fact that many nations are in the process of passing legislation that will further encroach on our civil liberties is not a coincidence. A framework is being constructed; those who fail to demonstrate sufficient loyalty to the elite narrative are being identified and will undoubtedly be victimized under a more repressive future regime. Perhaps the Green Camps that various countries have constructed can be repurposed as Dissident Detention Centers. At any rate, the information gleaned by the surveillance state will certainly play a part in calculating a future social credit score which will, in turn, determine in what ways an individual may partake of society. That’s a place we don’t want to be.
Citations
(1)
(2) Ditto
(3) Ditto
(4) https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2002/02/15/the-first-amendment-a-wartime-casualty/
(5) https://time.com/6171183/elon-musk-free-speech-tech-bro/
(6) https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022
(8) https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/06/investigative-reports/who-is-a-terrorist-in-bidens-america/
(10) https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/06/investigative-reports/who-is-a-terrorist-in-bidens-america/
(13) https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/06/investigative-reports/who-is-a-terrorist-in-bidens-america/
(14) Ditto
(15) https://spectator.org/white-house-weaponizes-doj-against-parents/
(18) https://sharechecklist.gov.uk/
(21) Ditto
(22) https://expose-news.com/2022/05/12/chat-control-is-ineffective-and-illegal-says-mep/
(24) https://www.unz.com/aanglin/can-the-ukraine-win-the-war-against-free-speech/
(26) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61225355
(27) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-uk-risks-becoming-a-world-leader-in-online-censorship
(28) https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
(29) https://reclaimthenet.org/israel-votes-to-push-social-media-censorship-law/
(30) https://thecountersignal.com/trudeau-tables-bill-c-11-to-regulate-online-news-in-canada/
(31) https://reclaimthenet.org/europe-extends-its-coronavirus-disinformation-surveillance-campaign/
(33) https://americandragnet.org/
(34) https://expose-news.com/2022/06/01/ico-fines-company-for-illegally-using-data/
(36) https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
(37) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/world-economic-forum-pushes-facial-recognition-technology
(39) https://nypost.com/2022/05/04/cdc-bought-cell-phone-data-to-track-lockdowns-vaccination-docs/
(41) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/technology/google-location-services-lawsuit.html
(43) https://www.mass.gov/info-details/enable-massnotify-on-your-smartphone