To start off this piece, we need to talk about censorship, censorship isn't new, and takes many forms, one form is cancel culture, where a person is what is termed de-platformed, this is when they are entirely banned from social media sites. Three of the most recognisable social media sites who censor people are Twitter, Youtube and of course, Facebook. These big tech companies aren't interested in protecting free speech nor are they interested in protecting the truth, they are part of what is now seen as 'corporate media'. Corporate media is a term where social media sites act not in the public interest but in the interest of the government. One thing, I like to do when writing is to reference evidence, I would much rather use the words of tyrants against them so that you can clear in your own mind, that there is no doubt about what is going on and the real agenda. To that end, I found an absolute gem of a video from The Rubin Report which contains a clip of the CEO of Youtube who wants to work hand in glove with governments to bring in censorship laws. And, yes, you did read that last sentence correctly, the CEO of Youtube wants governments to enact censorship of the population so that what you say can be stopped. It is acknowledged that with free speech comes responsibility, sadly some people abuse free speech, they put out disinformation, they lie, they lie by omission, or they put stuff out which is factually incorrect because they failed to do due diligence on their material or they made assumptions not supported by evidence. To accept the concept of free speech as a human right, you have to accept but not approve that it will be abused. There is a famous quote on free speech which you should never forget.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I want you to watch this Rubin Report video, it is significant of were countries of the West are heading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhgihvqFDmc
Can you imagine what this means for society if censorship is brought in, human rights would be rolled back, dissent wouldn't be tolerated. People who speak out against tyranny are always targeted by the ruling political and their thugs. These people attack your character, they attack your livelihood by contacting your employer, and they seek to destroy your life and do it permanent damage. That type of thing is called 'Cancel culture' which is on the rise in Western countries, were self righteous people believe they have the right to destroy you. Cancel culture is just a tool in the over arcing umbrella of fascism. Countries were fascism is developing stronger are Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, France and Australia. As I have mentioned above, supplying you with evidence is the best way to wake you up. Here is a clip of Justine Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada admiring China and its dictatorship, where the individual doesn't matter, but compliance to the State does. The mindset of Trudeau can be found in Nicola Sturgeon, Emmanuel Macron, Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern. What do these people have in common? They are all leaders of liberal or socialist parties, but they are all ill-liberal not by just what they say but in the actions they have taken towards their own people. Watch this second clip of the Rubin Report which shows a clip of Trudeau.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXtwDlWM7bA
Are you awake yet, in understanding that your government in places like Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, France and Australia doesn't work for the benefit of citizens? There is a fight for Freedom taking place at the moment, it is the biggest fight in the history of mankind. What is that you say, you have seen nothing in the mainstream press? In countries through-out the world, 'Freedom protests' over covid restrictions are growing. You should be aware, these people involve hundreds of thousands of people who are standing up for their freedom and their country against tyrants who hold the levers of power. These protests are in history the equal of the America fight for civil rights which took place in the 1960's. Ordinary people who have been attack, bullied, who have seen their jobs, businesses and communities destroyed by government, and for what end? Who benefits, who is making money from closing down local corner stores which at the same time multi-national supermarkets remain open? Here is clip of the French police attacking its citizens who are protesting for their freedom from covid passports and restrictions. If you thought you were living in a democracy, you want to question that belief rather strongly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pLm_NVKERo
Part of the psyops campaign is to paint Covid protestors as a small group, and a group of conspiracy theorists in order to demonise them, and destroy any support that they would get from the public. While it is true, that there are conspiracy theorists in an element of the Covid protests, the bulk of these people are and always will be ordinary people. The man and woman next door who you pass in the street. Another tactic to discredit freedom protests by governments is to plant people in the protests to act like extremists. This is one so violence can occur, thus giving the police the green light with political support to use violence on the public. In the aftermath, the politicians will cite acting in the public interest. The use of undercover police acting in this manner isn't new, it has been exposed in court cases. When the police do step in to create violence, they do so armed with weapons. In the interests of fairness, not all violence at protests are started by the Police, there are people who join protests for different reasons, most criminals who seek to exploit the situation in the unfolding choas. There is an interesting clip of a man who was attacked at a protest and ha his leg broken. I was wanting to post this clip to show you the extent of how much violence the police are prepared to use on people, sadly, this clip is very difficult to find, if you use google, they can alter their search engine to hide material.
On the subject of hiding material, I want to move on to something which is happening in Scotland under Nicola Sturgeon's SNP. A public body called Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on Covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status. The obvious question to this is why the truth should be concealed from the public? The fact that a body such as Public Health Scotland is doing this is censorship, it should also set alarms bells rings, truth by its very nature stands up by itself. The reason of concealment isn't in the public interest but is said to be that people who are Anti vaccine can use this information to prosecute their case that there is something wrong with the covid vaccines that cause death and injury. The obvious question is, have covid vaccines caused death an serious injury? The answer to this is yes, so why conceal now, perhaps one reason is that the SNP government wants to continue to inject children in lower age groups. If these got harmed then the data would be there to flag up concerns. Why wouldn't a government which claims to act in the public interest not want to be open an transparent especially since there is documented data already of the effects on adults and young children in relation to vaccine induced illness such as heart attack, stroke or myocarditis?
With the suppression of evidence, this would allow government politicians to claim that people who object aren't basing their objections on scientific data. The politicians would dismiss concerns by "demanding proof" which they have taken steps to have concealed. in others words, 'give me the proof which we have prevented you from legally obtaining'. Is this how a true democracy acts? We don't live in a democracy, yes, we do have elections, yes, we do have on occasion changes of government, but during their term in government, and hold the levers of power, we cannot affect government policy in general. Politicans who are supposed to be the gatekeepers of democracy aren't our representatives, they are more like our 'managers', if they bring forward policies which are harmful, they can get away with it. The democratic mandate is a key to tyranny in the wrong hands, since 2007, Scotland has steadily declined and fascism is on the rise, not by the general public but by the political class which is corrupt. For Public Health Scotland to say that Anti-vaxxer concerns force removal of deaths by vaccine status data from Public Health Scotland reports is a nonsense. Public Health Scotland shows that they are corrupt, bias and malignant by saying officials will focus on publishing more robust and complex vaccine effectiveness data. In others words, you will only get information which doesn't paint the SNP government in a bad light. Why are they do this? Is it because that in the data that they recognise a growing and horrific trend in premature deaths and injury? Given that Nicola Sturgeon and her Ministers have been gung ho in pushing vaccines on the public, if there is a tsunami in the form of a health crisis in the population, the evidence of Public Health Scotland would be proof against them. Since when was it acceptable for public body like Public Health Scotland to be changed into the PR wing for the SNP Government?
Do you still think you are living in a democracy, all the way through this piece, I have given you sources and facts, I have highlighted censorship, I have linked up the fact that government, politicians, big tech and the press both tv, radio and in print are all working to the same agenda. Only the public is standing up for freedom and standing up against censorship, where are the opposition politicians? Why don't they speak out? If they are the supposed leaders and parties in waiting to form a government why wouldn't they protect our human rights? You might want to ponder these thoughts because these really are big questions.
For a moment let's read what PHS want you to believe, one PHS official said that focusing on vaccine effectiveness rather than the existing “very simple statistics” would result in “much more robust” data for the public.
They said:
“The main important point around all of the analysis is we understand whether the vaccines are working against catching it and against getting severe Covid, and that’s where the vaccine effectiveness studies come in which are a completely different methodology. The case rates, hospitalisation rates, the death rates are very simple statistics, whereas for the vaccine effectiveness studies we use modelling, we compare people who have tested negative to those who have tested positive and match them on their underlining co-morbidities. It’s a completely different method which is much more robust and that’s what we want people to focus on.”
But despite all that they say clearly that their goal is to get you to focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine, so do you believe their explanation? PHS don't like the fact that their data has been promoted on social media by individuals including The Spectator’s associate editor Toby Young. Is Toby Young a radical, the answer to that is No, Toby Young is involved in the Free Speech movement, a movement which values truth above all else. So, why would man with a distinguished history and working for some of the prestigious be anything other than scrupulous in how he chooses words and how he presents evidence? Does PHS think that someone like Toby Young is a liar or a bad person, or just plain making things up for mischief? Generally if a person is labelled a crank, there is usually wealth of evidence to choose from, along with a documented timeline which shows a pattern of behaviour. Earlier I mention that the politicians responsible for censorship and oppression all come from liberal and socialist parties, people who are speaking out tend to come from more Conservative or socially conservative backgrounds, the reason that they end up publishing their views on alt media such as GETTR, Brand New Tube, Bitchute and Rumble, isn't because they are right wing rednecks but rather due to censorship, and de-platforming in sites like Twitter, like Facebook, and like Youtube. The alt media sites are them attacked as right wing extremist sites, which isn't really the case. Anyone can join these lat media sites regardless of their politics to express their own opinions. Political parties don't like members having a public profile unless they are part of the accepted group, there is no such thing as a broad church in political parties. A living example of this is the Labour Party, yes, there are left wing members and candidates, but the control and direction of the party is firmly right wing, but not in a good way. If you haven't visited alt media sites like I have listened above, pop along, they aren't as well developed yet in terms of operation like Youtube just yet, but they do offer people a chance for their voice to be heard.
Finally, I would like to highlight a further part of the explanation by Public Health Scotland to justify censorship, they said:
“For example we know it (vaccines) is 50 per cent effective against getting infected, but that it is much higher effectiveness against hospitalisations and deaths which is the key thing really as that’s what we want to prevent.”
Do you remember when vaccine first came out and it was said repeated by governments, printed press, medical doctors, celebs, radio and TV that the vaccines were 95% effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Xb61Ik7no
We know that the 95% effectiveness is factually wrong, it is allowed to stay up on Youtube, and this figure appears on multiple videos, we know the effectiveness of the shot declines rapidly. We are being lie to by government, by big tech, by drug companies, by medias, by NGOs and a whole host of other bit players promoting propaganda, this isn't a theory, it is a proven fact. Things like this raise concerns because in the race to censor the public, those who seek to do research will also face being able to access data in order to make judgments. This represents a scary scenario, if critical thinking and analysis cannot be employed by people in the field of science, then bad products which cause harm will have no external mechanism to be challenged. How do you feel about that?
No comments:
Post a Comment