The left have now ruined every Western institution. By Greg Sheridan in The Australian. A quick survey, because there are whole books that could and will be written on this.

Transformation from high-trust to a low-trust society:

Half of America doesn’t trust Trump in any way and regards the prospect of a future Trump presidency as a mortal threat to democracy.

The other half doesn’t trust the courts to act fairly. They regard the weaponsiation of justice by the Democratic Party as a bigger threat than Trump. They resent an unelected establishment with a political agenda that will frustrate them no matter how they vote.

 

 

Most Australians want to have the quasi-pornographic violence of the alleged terrorist knife attack on the Assyrian bishop in southwest Sydney removed from the net. Yet many don’t trust the government to regulate the internet. They don’t trust social media companies and they don’t trust government to regulate social media companies. …

Most Australians probably agree with ASIO boss Mike Burgess that law enforcement, especially counter-terrorism agencies, should access private criminal messages even if they’re encrypted. But citizens don’t want government agencies with the power to snoop on their own encrypted messages. …

Russian and Chinese influences weaken our institutions further:

China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law requires every Chinese company to co-operate fully, if necessary secretly, with the Chinese government in intelligence matters. …

In the first quarter of 2023, YouTube terminated 18,000 channels linked to China and 900 linked to Russia.

Take some real-world examples not mentioned in any report. From the earliest days of the Black Lives Matter movement, Russia was extremely active magnifying the movement online. The divisions within the US, and in other Western societies such as Australia with derivative leftist movements, served Moscow’s strategic interests.

As soon as an Australian government announces the location of an east coast nuclear submarine base, Chinese agencies will get very busy with anonymous social media campaigns against the site. …

AI is going to make it worse:

A few years ago I visited a university in Istanbul. Its student body was running a massive anti-Israel installation/presentation. A lot of exhibits were captioned in English. One contained the statement that Israeli tank commanders in Palestinian territories routinely strapped Palestinian children to the front of their tanks as human shields. There’s not a speck of truth in this. With AI technology it would be easy to create such realistic images that would be explosively powerful emotionally, a dangerous accelerant in radicalisation.

 

 

Social media:

With all the problems of credibility, relevance and performance that much traditional media have brought on their own heads, they are still infinitely more reliable than anything on social media. But partly because the algorithms of social media deliver material that reinforces whatever prejudices you already have, confirmation bias leads people to give greater credibility to things they see on social media than to traditional media, or even to the reality before their eyes. …

But social media in effect is becoming the public square. It needs to be, in some way, neutral, fair to all citizens. At the moment, social media companies decide their own policies, which give them enormous political and cultural power. It’s exceptionally difficult for national governments to regulate, however, because it operates across so many jurisdictions. Many of its companies are headquartered in the US, which prizes freedom. Some big social media companies, such as TikTok and WeChat, originate in China, which pays little attention to anybody else’s regulatory views. …

Global bans don’t work:

For Australian law to prevent the material being published in, say, the US is inherently ridiculous. But if it’s published in the US then any Australian can construct a virtual private network, pretend to be American and access the material. That’s just bad luck.

It’s as though when Australian censors banned the publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, they couldn’t have claimed to ban it in the UK as well because Australians could purchase it by mail order from Britain. …

They control you by controlling what you know:

The right to free speech is always limited, by libel, incitement to violence and other matters. The challenge is to bring social media under the rule of the normal law that already exists and applies to everyone else.

The challenge is not to create a government arbiter of truth that can enforce conformity on everybody. Through the voice debate I argued it was a racially divisive proposal that would result in a racist institution. The government claimed this was factually wrong. Misinformation laws would prevent such normal debate.

Facebook decided the claim that Covid originated in a Chinese laboratory was misinformation and therefore should be taken down. The lab theory, which at the time I thought mistaken, is now nearly accepted wisdom. Similarly, Facebook wouldn’t allow the story of the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, to run because it allegedly was Russian disinformation. It turned out to be completely true.

 

 

There’s a big problem of social media publishing foreign interference material, and harmful exploitative material, but also a problem of censoring stuff that contradicts the prejudices of the day (now woke).

Citizens are left in a mess, with no faith in the integrity and neutrality of social media companies, and no faith in governments that attempt to regulate them. …

Anzac Day is the last holdout:

Take the Anzac Day we’ve just had. It’s the last national day, the last national symbol, Australians are allowed, even encouraged, to venerate. This year it was attacked by pro-Palestinian activists who argued the original Anzacs were war criminals. There was also criticism from some Aboriginal groups that wanted frontier wars to get as much attention as the Anzacs. The attack on Anzac Day was immediately rejected by both sides of politics. But only a few years ago similar attacks on Australia Day were similarly rejected.

Lefty wreckers:

Once our national symbols were themselves nationally unifying, paid respect and in a sense neutral. Now the left’s ideology has moved from righting specific wrongs to condemning every aspect of societies such as Australia as rooted in evil, racism, colonialism, sexism and all the rest. This undermines a host of national institutions, as it’s meant to. …

Legal system no longer neutral:

One of the worst developments is the political weaponisation of civil and criminal law, and the judicialisation of politics.

 

 

America is witnessing a grotesque parody of law in the prosecutions brought against Trump. …

Trump was absurdly fined hundreds of millions of dollars for overstating the value of his properties to obtain loans that he fully repaid, about which lenders never complained.

He’s now facing criminal prosecutions from four Democrat prosecutors in four different jurisdictions in cases that are a ludicrous abuse of process and politicisation of law.

He is currently in a felony prosecution over the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. Trump’s lawyer in 2017 paid Daniels $US130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Now Trump is on trial (and effectively tied to a New York courtroom for six weeks) brought by a New York prosecutor, for recording this transaction as a legal fee instead of a campaign expense. … Such a misdemeanour as Trump is accused of is prosecutable as a felony only if done in the process of committing another crime. The prosecutors allege Trump’s “other crime” was to win the presidential election by means of deception. This is almost beyond parody. As an assault on process, it’s a gravely damaging development in modern Western politics. …

Lawfare is taking us back to the 16th century, when politicians regularly used to throw each other in jail (and, not coincidentally, the average IQ was 20 points less than its peak in 1880 — today it is 10 -maybe 15 points down on that peak):

As the Daniels trial has begun Trump has indeed suffered a decline in the polls, in several of which Biden now leads. So the Democrats may succeed in weaponising the law to devastating effect. This will permanently disfigure American politics. It will be the shape of things to come. …

 

 

But this is happening all over the West. Cardinal George Pell was as unlike Trump as it’s possible for a human being to be. He was completely innocent of the foul crimes of which he was accused, as the High Court took five minutes to decide. Yet because an atmosphere of public hysteria had been whipped up against Pell, over genuinely terrible crimes for which he however had no responsibility, too much of the legal system saw him as the enemy, or someone who was so obviously guilty that the main question was how to convict him. In fact, he was completely innocent. The prosecution and temporary conviction of Pell are a dark, ugly stain on the institution of the law in Australia. …

A British bank closed Farage’s bank accounts because it didn’t like his politics.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s party struggles to find a French bank that will deal with it. But banks are meant to provide a politically neutral service. If they provide banking on the basis of politics, democracy is seriously weakened.

 

 

In a nutshell:

Society has lost faith in the integrity, impartiality and effectiveness of many institutions. Some of these institutions respond by courting favour with the activist class. All sides of politics increasingly see these institutions as biddable, in a sense potentially corruptible, in their core purposes. They thus try to weaponise these institutions for political ends.

At the same time new institutions, specifically social media, have grown up in an institutionally norm-less time, without accepting the political, legal and cultural norms that once governed the public space institutions of the past. Governments typically are blundering and dangerous in their attempts to regulate these institutions. Meanwhile, authoritarian foreign governments ruthlessly exploit the new cynicism, the new distrust, as well as the regulatory gaps, in Western societies.

Yep, that’s where we are in 2024.

It’s going to get uglier in the next decade because the paper money system is starting to bust in a debt-laden and inflationary mess.

Just How Nasty Are the Chicoms? By David Archibald, excerpted from a longish article here.

Covid:

The technology for covid was developed by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Wuhan was chosen for putting it together because it was outside of US jurisdiction and Chinese labs can be relied upon to leak.

After the outbreak, the Chicoms locked down Wuhan from travel within China but allowed flights out to Milan to continue. This was to infect the rest of the world while China remained virus-free. China planned on walking into countries depopulated by a virus, just as Europeans did in North America back in the 17th century.

But China kept having outbreaks and the lockdowns were bankrupting the provincial governments. Consequently, Xi flipped to ‘let her rip’ and three million elderly promptly died. China is now having bacterial outbreaks of things such as mycoplasma, indicative of suppressed immune systems.

Covid has backfired on the Chicoms. The combination of viral shedding in wastewater, vitamin D levels of 13 ng/ml in summer and 9 ng/ml in winter, along with apartment living, means that China has set itself up for perpetual reinfection and a chronic disease burden. …

Johnson South Reef Massacre:

On 14th March, 1988, 76 unarmed Vietnamese soldiers standing on Johnson South Reef in the Spratly Islands were machine-gunned by a couple of PLAN ships, killing them all. …

 

Grainy video still of the massacre proudly released by the Chicoms

Organ Harvesting:

Wait times for obtaining vital organs in China are among the shortest in the world, often just weeks for organs such as kidneys, livers, and hearts. Cardiac transplants can only come from deceased donors, so how can the hospital match a patient with a potential “deceased” donor weeks in advance?

China has made an industry out of killing prisoners to feed its international transplant tourism. The sequence is to give a prisoner a suspended death sentence and then when enough of his organs have been presold to transplant tourists, carry out the death sentence. Once China started prosecuting the Falung Gong, kidney transplants shot up, more than doubling.

A medical procedure called extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation allows the Chicoms to harvest up to four organs from one individual.

 

Yang Hengjun – an Australian citizen given a suspended death sentence in China

 

Unfortunately for Mr Yang, he is a healthy-looking specimen. The Chicoms should be able to get a lung, heart, liver and both kidneys out of him. His organs will live on. If you are flying into China and you are asked what your blood group is at customs, things will only go downhill from there. …

The 14 Demands:

On 18th November, 2020, the Chinese Embassy in Canberra handed a list of 14 demands on Australia to the lefty media outlets Nine News, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Basically, the list complains that Australia is guilty of thinking for itself and not kowtowing to China. The list of demands follows:

 

The list indicates that China treats Australia with contempt. The historic analogy is Japan’s 21 demands made on China on 18th January, 1915. Japan invaded China 16 years later in 1931 after a false flag attack at Mudken Bridge in Manchuria.

Forewarned is forearmed, but only if you’re paying attention.

AI can predict political orientations from blank faces — privacy challenges. By Greg Norman at Fox News.

A study found that artificial intelligence can be successful in predicting a person’s political orientation based on images of expressionless faces.

A recent study published in the journal American Psychologist says an algorithm’s ability to accurately guess one’s political views is “on par with how well job interviews predict job success, or alcohol drives aggressiveness.” …

“I think that people don’t realize how much they expose by simply putting a picture out there,” said Kosinski, an associate professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.

“We know that people’s sexual orientation, political orientation, religious views should be protected. It used to be different. In the past, you could enter anybody’s Facebook account and see, for example, their political views, the likes, the pages they follow. But many years ago, Facebook closed this because it was clear for policymakers and Facebook and journalists that it is just not acceptable. It’s too dangerous,” he continued.

“But you can still go to Facebook and see anybody’s picture. … What our study shows is that this is essentially to some extent the equivalent to just telling you what their political orientation is,” Kosinski added. …

Kosinski told Fox News Digital that “algorithms can be very easily applied to millions of people very quickly and cheaply”…

The genetics revealed by your face:

“Participants wore a black T-shirt adjusted using binder clips to cover their clothes. They removed all jewelry and –- if necessary -– shaved facial hair. Face wipes were used to remove cosmetics until no residues were detected on a fresh wipe. Their hair was pulled back using hair ties, hair pins, and a headband while taking care to avoid flyaway hairs,” they wrote.

The left has banned all talk of genetics, because acknowledgement of genetic differences and trends are kryptonite to the left’s self-serving ideologies.

China’s next target is Vietnam, not Taiwan. By David Archibald, excerpted from a more general article about defense and China here.

China has been making plenty of threats for over 20 years now but these have been ignored because it would be inconvenient to take them seriously.

Actually, China’s threats started before WW2. They have been in abeyance until they had the resources to act on them. [Here is] a map from a Nationalist primary school textbook in 1938, showing where they thought China’s borders should be:

 

 

The map isn’t completely correct. At their last meeting, Xi asked Putin to hand Vladivostok to China. …

Who’s first?

Now, having established that China is intent on war and that this undertaking is ill-advised, foolish and likely end in tears, which country will China attack first?

Not Taiwan:

China has said that it will be Taiwan but it should be borne in mind that China lies about most things, that deception is a big part of the Chinese modus operandi, and that China would prefer to practice on a country that doesn’t have defence treaties with third parties. If it is Taiwan, Taiwan will fight because China will kill the entire Taiwanese political class down to provincial council members. The rest of the population will spend their remaining lives having an hour per day spent on studying “Xi Jinping thought,” which will be a living hell.

Taiwan has two monsoon seasons and so there are two weather windows for an invasion — May to July and the month of October:

 

 

China says that it will invade Taiwan but has laid very little concrete to that end. There have been no helipads laid on Chinese islands in the Taiwan Strait despite the fact that such things would be very useful in an assault on Taiwan. China has built at least one expeditionary helipad in the Nanji Islands for an attack on the Senkaku Islands, but nothing opposite Taiwan.

Vietnam, again?

Not much concrete has been laid for an invasion of Taiwan but plenty of concrete has been laid for invading Vietnam. The prime example of this is this base built 10 kilometres north of the border:

 

 

Construction of this base started a decade ago. What marks it as being different from other buildings in the region is the fact that the roofs are red, while all commercial buildings have blue roofs. This means that they were built at the command of an authority from outside the region, which also organized the steel supply. The oldest roofs have now faded to grey.

The purpose of the complex is to shield PLA armoured units from satellite observation. Units would move in at night, with the troops barracked in the small, narrow buildings in the centre. China has also built artillery pads right along the border:

 

 

China is also building a SAM site [at Banxin] just 20 kilometres from Vietnam, within range of Vietnamese artillery:

 

 

The fact that they are building it so close to the border suggests that they think their invasion will go exactly to plan, so it won’t be in range for long. Note the running track that most PLA facilities come with.

China has been attacking Vietnam since 116 BC. The last time they attacked was in 1979. In that exercise China lost 30,000 troops in three weeks, then withdrew. They kept shelling Vietnam until 1991.

The Chinese modus operandi is to launch a surprise attack and call it a defensive pre-emptive strike. The attack routes used in the 1979 war are shown in the following figure. They will use the same ones again, constrained by the difficult topography.

 

 

There is another reason why China is likely to attack Vietnam first. China claims the whole of the South China Sea while Vietnam has 47 bases in China’s claim area. This graphic also shows the Chinese, Malaysian, Filipino and Taiwanese bases:

 

 

… While China has been attacking Filipino ships supporting their bases on the eastern side of the Spratly Islands, and this has received a lot of public attention, they have left the Vietnamese bases alone so far. This is because they know the Vietnamese will shoot back. In fact, all the Vietnamese manning these bases have been told that it will be a fight to the death when China attacks.

 

 

Vietnam’s bases in the Spratly Islands show a wide range of building styles. One particular style is quite interesting. They are small bases in shallow water. Each bases has two arms coming out so that the defenders can fire down on Chinese forces in the water. A second base is built 100 metres from the first one, with an elevated walkway in between, so that the two buildings provide each other with mutual fire support:

 

 

Photos of these bases show a lot more dogs than you might expect. It seems that the dogs are used to warn of PLA attacks by frogmen at night. When China’s war starts, each of these bases will have its own fate. They will absorb some of China’s initial missile salvo, so they are protecting us too.

Vietnam has another attraction for China. While the result of an attack on Taiwan is binary — it will be obvious whether or not China has won — an attack on Vietnam could be like the last one. China may call it off after a few weeks and announce a victory. China and Vietnam are both repressive communist dictatorships. The animus between them is racial rather than based in philosophy.

When China’s economy was only ten times larger than Vietnam’s, Vietnam was reasonably confident that they could hold China off. With the temporary liberalization of China from 2000, the economic disparity widened and Vietnam became concerned that it would be overwhelmed. So Vietnam liberalized its economy too and its economy has been growing rapidly. The extra cash has enabled Vietnam to spend more on its bases in the Spratly Islands. For example, this satellite photo from late 2023 is of the base on Namyit Island:

 

 

The green area on the lower right is the original island base. Being enlarged [by cutter-suction dredging] will enable the base to absorb a far greater amount of Chinese artillery. Given that Vietnam is expanding bases on islands that China says are rightfully theirs, Xi would consider this to be the height of insolence.

On the 8th March, 2024, Xi announced that the PLA “should coordinate the preparation for maritime military conflicts, the protection of maritime rights and interests, and the development of the maritime economy.” This opaque language has been decoded to mean war over the South China Sea.

In Vietnam’s case, China’s attack will be supported by an armoured assault into northern Vietnam. China will undertake not to withdraw until Vietnam gives up its bases in the Spratly Islands. If it does so, Vietnam’s ships will have to hug the Vietnamese coast to get anywhere. This would add 3,000 km to a voyage to Japan, for example. The Chinese boot would be stomping on the Vietnamese face forever. Vietnam would rather fight. …

Vietnam is handicapped by its constitution, which doesn’t allow defence treaties with other countries. The good news is that Japan has started talks with the Philippines about basing Japanese troops there. Japan knows that its best chance of survival is being involved in China’s first war from day one, so it wants to have tripwire troops there. The Philippines has also clarified that the trigger for invoking its defence treaty with the United States is the death of a single Filipino soldier by any foreign power, meaning China.

2027 is the rumored date the Chinese are working with, but the Chinese are big on deception.

Wakeley is merely Islam’s latest attack against Christianity. By Henry Ergas.

What the [stabbing of Sydney Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and three others at Wakeley’s Assyrian Church of Christ the Good Shepherd last week] confirms, were further confirmation needed, is the continued vehemence of Islamism’s hostility to Christianity.

Islamist attacks on churches are scarcely isolated incidents. In France alone there were more than 600 attacks on Christian places of worship in 2020, culminating in the murder of three parishioners at Nice’s Basilica of Notre Dame by an Islamist carrying a Koran.

Meanwhile, violence against Christians remains endemic in the Arab Middle East, where the share of Christians in the population has, over the course of the past century, collapsed from around 14 per cent to barely 3 per cent.

Seen in the longer term, the eradication of Christianity from its regions of birth appears even more starkly. In AD732, when Islam consolidated its hegemony over what later became the Arab lands, Christians were by far the majority of the population in the Oriental patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as in North Africa.

Now, after centuries of persecution, those ancient churches are becoming an insignificant presence …

Whether that persecution has a clear basis in the Koran is controversial. It is, however, indisputable that the Koran directly condemns Christianity, claiming that Christians “accept two gods”, will not “tolerate you (Muslims) until you follow their religion” and wilfully lie about the Bible.

 

 

Moreover, the so-called “verse of the sword” — which, according to many Islamic scholars, abrogates the Koran’s more tolerant affirmations — enjoins Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them”, sparing them only if they “repent, perform the prayer and pay alms”.

And according to a tradition authoritatively reported by Malik ibn Anas (711-795), the Prophet’s last words were “May God fight the Jews and the Christians! Two religions will not remain in the land of the Arabs.”

It is therefore unsurprising that the Muslim conquest was viewed by Mesopotamian Christians as an apocalyptic disaster, with the first substantial Christian commentary warning that there is “no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood”. …

But Sydney? Really? Who let these people in?

Islam’s bloodthirsty foundations have never been reformed:

No doubt, some attacks on Christians are the work of extremists; but many are not. All too often they are sustained by the rhetoric of highly regarded clerics who demonise reformers (such as Egyptian Farag Foda, who was assassinated after being denounced by Islamic scholars linked to al-Azhar) and condone, or refuse to firmly condemn, religious violence. As Turkish intellectual Mustafa Akyol recently argued, “Islam’s problem is not just the Islamists; it’s the mainstream.”

Bernard Lewis famously stated some years ago that “for Christians and Muslims alike, tolerance is a new virtue and intolerance a new crime”. The great historian was only half right: Christianity has changed, but tolerance has scarcely made its mark in the Islamic world, and when it has, it has invariably struggled.

Islam will either reform (perhaps under pressure from everyone else) or conquer the world. Crash through or crash.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton Takes Pro-Civilization Line on Gaza.

Peter Dutton delivering the speech that Albanese is too weak to deliver.
Thank You Peter!!
*Some of his speech. 👇 pic.twitter.com/R6TscvcSSw

— JILL (@1Swinging_Voter) April 19, 2024

The October-7/ Gaza contrast is driving many Jews and pro-civilization people from the left to the anti-left. It’s a major turning point that has red-pilled millions.

This will have major implications throughout the West, especially for the donations driving left activism:

Rich-lister Naomi Milgrom rethinks support for teals, by Yoni Bashan in The Australian.

Shy rich-lister Naomi Milgrom [whose father is a Jewish refugee from Romania] lavished a substantial donation on Climate 200 and the teal independents during the 2022 election campaign, and from what we hear that tap’s about to be turned off real fast, this being surely one of the most serious cases of philanthropic remorse we’ve diagnosed in a while.

Milgrom and her three children gave $500,000 to the teal independents via Simon Holmes a Court and his Climate 200 initiative (don’t call it a political party!). Seems like Milgrom’s generosity may have gone even further than hard currency, too. Last year C200 moved its operational headquarters out of Sydney and into a building owned by the Milgrom family in the inner-Melbourne suburb of Richmond. …

Our concern … is whether or not C200 will survive its tenancy through the winter, given Milgrom’s feelings of immense betrayal.

Margin Call understands the Sussan Group owner has made it clear, privately, that she’s ceasing support for the teals as a consequence of how some of the MPs responded to the October 7 massacres in Israel.

Those with short memories might recall North Sydney MP Kylea Tink and Mackellar MP Sophie Scamps joining with Greens leader Adam Bandt and Tasmania’s Andrew Wilkie to white-out parts of a motion condemning terrorist group Hamas over the attacks.

What ended up happening was that Tink and Scamps voted to erase a reference to Australian support for Israel and its “inherent right to defend itself”.

In its place, they called for a ceasefire and wanted to add a line ­denouncing “war crimes perpetrated by the state of Israel, including the bombing of Palestinian civilians”. This was nine days after the massacres took place.

And that was followed up by Kooyong MP Monique Ryan, who went online in early November posting about the suffering under way in Gaza – without mentioning the role of Hamas in that suffering, or the 240 hostages being held captive at the time by the terrorist group. You bet that cheesed off a large number of people.

Whiplash.

I Am a White Man and I’m Sorry. By Dominic Frisby.

Watch it all the way through 🙂

Bonus craziness:

 

WEF, Censorship, and Julie Inman Grant in Australia. By Michael Shellenberger.

American–born Julie Inman Grant [the current eSafety Commissioner of Australia] is a key architect of the multigovernmental “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to censor the speech that politicians and government bureaucrats fear. …

 

 

Violence is not the only thing the Australian government has told X to remove. It has also targeted political speech. And nothing can justify the Australian government censoring the entire global Internet of content it does not like. …

Here is Julie Inman Grant, boasting of her extraordinary censorship powers:

“…We also have some pretty significant ISP blocking powers. We just had some new powers given to us… in addition to be able to compel that takedown, to be able to fine perpetrators as a deterrent effect, and fine content hosts that don’t take down this content …”

She goes on to say that she is already working with Ireland, the UK, France, and other governments around the world.

At the World Economic Forum, Inman Grant said she had launched a global censorship body called “the Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to unify governments around censorship …

This global censorship body gives governments extraordinary power to invade privacy, explained Inman-Grant:

What this legislation will give us is the ability to compel basic device information and account information. And more and more and more social media companies are starting to collect phone numbers and email addresses so that our investigators can at least find a place to issue a notice or a takedown notice or infringement notice of some sort.

Inman Grant may be working with other governments to create identity requirements and to stamp out Virtual Private Networks, which millions of people in China and other totalitarian societies use to access the free Internet. “You can use VPNs, you can use burner phones,” she said, “different SIM cards every day. So it’s going to be a challenge for a long time because, again, the internet’s global. If there is no such thing as a kind of global identity system or even a piece of identity everybody can agree with, you know, should we all be sharing our driver’s license or our passports?”

At that same World Economic Forum meeting, one of the European Union’s top censors, Věra Jourová, called for censorship to avoid “events like January 6”, and to fight hate speech. … Who is Jourova? Why she’s the same person that public caught spreading disinformation about a new Russiagate hoax two weeks ago.

 

 

The karens have been unleashed. Bossy girls regulate what we can say.  (So human progress will grind to a halt, like it did under the matriarchy for the million years before the agricultural revolution started, about 10,000 years ago.)

The Spectator:

For the ludicrous eSafety Commissioner, the American import and World Economic Forum aficionado Julie Inman Grant, to ban the footage of the attempted assassination by a young terrorist of a prominent church bishop is as disgraceful as it is idiotic. What next? Ban the Zapruder footage of JFK’s murder? Ban the photos of the attempt on the lives of Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul?

What is crystal clear is that this attempted killing of a prominent figure is being cynically used by the left to impose completely unacceptable government censorship on this nation. It must be resisted at all costs, and it is imperative that the Coalition immediately change course, or watch themselves sink into oblivion.

Stabbed bishop is ok with the video of his stabbing online:

“… noting our God-given right of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I’m not opposed to the videos remaining on social media. I would be of great concern if people use the attack on me to serve their own political interests to control free speech.”

Cannot criticize Islam, because that might in turn lead to criticizing the massive immigration to Australia.

Brendan O’Neill:

They don’t want Australians having an open, frank discussion about radical Islam and the social disarray it springs from. Hide the video, stop the debate.

Mental Freedom: The COVID vaccine damaged our body’s ability to produce cells responsible for decision-making. By The Full Measure.

Dr. Michael Nehls is a molecular geneticist and former CEO of a biotech company. His new book, “The Indoctrinated Brain,” offers a novel explanation for why he says some people seemed to blindly do as they were told during the COVID pandemic — even when the advice was questionable or bad.

Nehls argues that the COVID vaccine damaged our body’s ability to produce cells responsible for decision-making.

Nehls: Conscious thinking requires these cells to be produced, and if they’re not produced, conscious thinking is not possible, and then we are just sheep following the herd.

Nehls says both COVID and the vaccine cause measurable brain changes that can affect people’s ability to think clearly and critically. And he argues that’s by design.

 

 

Nehls says research shows that COVID and the vaccine target the hippocampus, a complex brain structure that plays a major role in learning and memory. Every night when you sleep it makes new brain cells — a “mental immune system” of sorts — protecting your ability to remember and think clearly. But COVID and the vaccine, Nehls says, disrupt that process.

He says there are a number of factors that can trigger that same brain disruption, and are the reason we’re seeing an explosion of certain brain disorders.

Nehls: Depression and Alzheimer’s have the same cause: a lack of production of new nerve cells in the hippocampus.

Nehls says there are largely-ignored treatments that can turn the tide for some brain issues. Lifestyle changes like exercise, engagement in life, and nutrition, which includes proper amounts of dietary lithium and vitamin D that most Americans are low on, can prevent or reverse the effects of Alzheimer’s, depression, and COVID. …

Nehls: The German Cancer Research Center published a paper, and in its title, it says nine of 10 COVID deaths can be prevented by just increasing vitamin D. And there are hundreds of publications out.

Lisa: So there are hundreds of publications out that validate that research.

Nehls: Absolutely. …

Nehls: It was never about health. If people are not able to think clearly — consciously think — and have the ability to choose between two things, then there is no democracy anymore. And this is all happening right now.

I hope someone authoritative follows this up so we can get to the bottom of it, because it sounds very important. But “authoritative” is going to mean hired or funded by government, and governments are complicit in both covid and the vaccine mandates. So don’t hold your breath waiting for proof or disproof.

Columbia Switches To Online Classes So Jewish Students Can Participate From The Attics Where They Are Hiding. By the Babylon Bee.

 

At publishing time, the Columbia administration had put forth plans to load Jewish students onto train cars and transport them to special camps to help them concentrate.