2022-03-04
Patrick Wood (Technocracy News and Trends) reviews the political narrative landscape and shares some of his thoughts past and present with us.
The global power struggle between East and West is now literally a struggle for power (gas and oil - nobody is struggling for control of the windmills as far as I am aware). The green imperative is threatening our warmth cooking and transportation.
The single-minded focus on the Ukraine has drawn attention away from the imperative to deal with the perpetrators of the pandemic crimes against the people.
As we note elsewhere, the WHO are sailing on serenely into a future where they will effectively reign supreme of the world's pandemic preparedness and reactions - can would be foolish indeed to suppose that they have the best interests of the common people at heart.
It is also abundantly clear that government officials advisers and ministers the world over have appeared to be complicit with Big Pharma and Big Media in suppressing the knowledge and use of cheap and effective remedies in favour of novel experimental vaccines of ever-diminishing safety and efficacy. This amounts to a crime that must not be allowed to fade unchallenged into history.
The United Kingdom used to be known for its robust attitude towards free speech and the independence of the individual - "the Englishman's home is home castle". Now we have a government ever more keen to "protect us" through enacting ever growing volumes of legislation to police an ever growing range of our activities, including our very thoughts.
Hate is not an action, it is an attitude of mind or an habitual negative thought pattern, freely being conflated by our politicians with offering offence.
Some would say that offence is taken rather than offered, but in any case offering something that somebody may or may not want or may or may not consider offensive has never been a criminal (as opposed to unpleasant) activity (unless straying into the realms of harassment or threatening behaviour).
It may fall well short of intentionally offensive behaviour but even if it doesn't, an occasional such incident is something we should all be able to cope with, even learn from, without taking recourse in law.
Even if we do feel inclined to take recourse in law, it would make sense for this to be through a civil claim rather than a police investigation / criminal prosecution. A judge could then assess the appropriate damages due to the offended party and the police could get on with dealing with real criminals.
My intention is not to witter on about hate speech but to illustrate how far our governing classes are moving the goal-posts away from freedom and robust good sense, and towards legalistic control over aspects of life which have never in the past been seen to require the attention of the blunt arm of the criminal law.
The other obsession is with the suppression of mis-dis-alt-information. Yes, it is highly desirable that we should be told the truth, but telling lies in order to persuade us to take a course of action that we would come to regret is already illegal - it is called fraud. If the government or anyone else can can prove fraud then appropriate legal remedy already exists and why not prosecute the miscreants through the courts?
We don't need this vast and ever-expanding panoply of statute law to "protect us", but maybe we are getting it anyway in order to protect the authorities.
