Nobody asked for this:
In 2023, public debate in Australia was dominated by the “voice” referendum and Australia Day. As Adam Piggott predicted, the extremist left is exploiting its cultural defeat in the referendum to just censor us even harder.
The Albanese government engaged in so-called “consultation” to give this legislation the impression of legitimacy, but at no point has it sought a popular mandate. They’re just doing it.
Moreover, following the pattern we witnessed during the Covid lockdowns and mandates, multiple Western parliaments are presenting practically identical legislation.
This indicates that censorship and digital tracking is a coordinated, top down policy agenda which serves the interests of the rulers and not those they purport to represent democratically. This in turn demonstrates how the definition of democracy has been inverted.
The term “our democracy” has become ubiquitous official parlance. It has come to mean the institutions of democracy – elections, mainstream political parties, the judicial system, the Lying Press – which developed over the course of centuries to ensure that no one man or political party could dominate a country without a counterbalance to its power.
As the President of El Salvador recently pointed out, institutions are meant to serve the people and not the other way around.
Now the expression of views which fall outside the accepted Overton Window and the success of political parties or figures which threaten the status quo are deemed “a threat to our democracy”. Under this new definition, the democratic process itself is a threat to “our democracy”.
This fact is illustrated in an amazing interview Tucker Carlson recently conducted with former State Department official Mike Benz:
By definition, “democracy” should mean “rule by the people for the people”. Democracy is populist by its very nature. Now that our rulers have taken control of the institutions of democracy, they have been weaponised against the people. (The following is a long but important cut and paste):
TUCKER CARLSON:
“But you’re not describing democracy. I mean, you’re describing a country in which democracy is impossible.”
MIKE BENZ:
“What I’m essentially describing is military rule. I mean, what’s happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Democracy sort draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it’s not really being ruled by an overlord because the government is actually just our will expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the 2016 election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the 2016 Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the internet. And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions and who are the democratic institutions?
“Oh, it’s the military, it’s NATO, it’s the IMF and the World Bank. It’s the mainstream media, it is the NGOs, and of course these NGOs are largely state department funded or IC funded. It’s essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you’re left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the Democrat institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work. I mean, the amount of work these people do. I mean, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region for the finance and the JP Morgans and the BlackRocks in a region for the NGOs in the region, for the media, in the region, all of these need to reach a consensus, and that process takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation from their perspective.
That’s democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with BlackRock, to agree with the Wall Street Journal, to agree with the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative that is the difficult vote building process from their perspective.
“At the end of the day, a bunch of populous groups decide that they like a truck driver who’s popular on TikTok more than the carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass. Well then from their perspective, that is now an attack on democracy.”
From here, if the definition of “democracy” is inverted, so is the mission of NATO, the military organisation constructed to defend it. (One more long cut and paste):
“The Gerasimov Doctrine is the idea that you don’t need to win military skirmishes to take over central and eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem because that’s what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it’s infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media. An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the British Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit, essentially infrastructure that was created initially stationed in Germany and in Central and eastern Europe to create psychological buffer zones, basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies to censor Russian propaganda and then to censor domestic, right-wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.
“So you had the systematic targeting by our state department, by our intelligence community, by the Pentagon of groups like Germany’s AFD, the alternative for Deutsche Land there and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now, when Brexit happened in 2016, that was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t have to worry just about central and eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds. And so Brexit was June, 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets if they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it’s not just Russian propaganda this, these were now Brexit groups or groups like Mateo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox Party.
“And now at the time NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It’s losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right-wing populace groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when the US was pressuring this energy diversification policy. And so they made the argument after Brexit, now the entire rules-based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media because Brexit would give rise to Frexit in France with marine Lapin just Brexit in Spain with a Vox party to Italy exit in Italy, to Grexit in Germany, to Grexit in Greece, the EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired. And then not only that, now that NATO’s gone, now there’s no enforcement arm for the International Monetary fund, the IMF or the World Bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War II would collapse.”
According to this logic, the “rules based order” of the Globohomo West must genocide its own people through mass immigration and multiculturalism in order to defeat Russia and China. If Europeans and Americans object to being replaced by foreigners at the behest of their own governments, this is a threat to the military organisation formed to protect Europeans and Americans in the first place.
It follows that if White people are to survive, “our democracy” and NATO must be destroyed. Furthermore, if White people are to survive, the Russian and Chinese Empires may well have to defeat the Globohomo Empire.
Either way, Anglos are in for a very hard time.
This brings us back to the issue of censorship and digital tracking. As stated, Globohomo is at war with Russia and China. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia and Eastasia. It is an unrestricted, hybrid war in which information and the opinions of the general public matter as much as yards won or lost in the Donbass. If we vote for a nationalist or resist conscription, Globohomo is weakened. So information must be controlled. The censorship bills being enacted across the West are the current year equivalent of wartime censorship during World Wars I and II.
So, what can we do? Here are two observations from where we can begin.
Firstly, understand that much the information you see on the internet exists because our rulers let it exist, particularly content which is allowed to go viral. “Christian Nationalists”, “historians” and Covid Truthers who promote civic nationalism, and “red pill” commentators who promote miscegenation are generally astroturfed, political operatives.
Even Tucker, whose father worked for the CIA, does not directly answer the question of why our rulers act diametrically against the interests of their own people, ie, we are not ruled by our own people.
Thus, be very careful about the content you absorb.
Secondly, understand that in hybrid/unrestricted warfare, everything you do is an act of war either for or against us. To Globohomo, not only are Russia and China the enemy, we are the enemy. Growing your own food, engaging in metapolitics, following Jesus Christ, joining, forming and supporting Anglo communities, or reading and sharing this article counter the interests of Globohomo. There are no civilians. Globohomo would not commit such extraordinary resources to coerce the way you think and vote otherwise.
