Skip to main content

So You Think Censorship Is Not Happening To You?


Welcome to the Rabbit hole. I suggest everyone who hasn't ready Daniel Estulins book on the Bilderberg meetings either read it or do some equivalent research.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/bilderberg-summit-forget-the-g7

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/13808

http://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-ford-foundations-behind-world-social-forum-wsf-the-corporate-funding-of-social-activism/5540552

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bilderberg-google-and-the-g8-new-global-tax-regime-already-in-the-works/5336719

It's fascinating because it starts at the top, the captains of industry and leaders of all the worlds most influential sectors have a yearly meeting where they all get a chance to hob-nob and.....

Do what exactly? Do your own research.  There is no other conceivable reason for these people to meet other than to maintain competitive advantage, and the recruitment of their latest two proteges, Google and Facebook, have made their jobs soooo much easier.



Once you read this you will want to ditch Facebook altogether! (Link below)
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-uncensored-alternative-social-media-network-to-facebook/

It's the age of the algorithm. Yes, the algorithm  with AI makes it easy for a computer program to gently filter through all of our interactions on comments, posts and elsewhere, and make subtle yet nuanced manipulations to our sentiments.

It is thought that Google alone holds the key to election outcomes, but it's not just the big issues where this comes into play.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548

http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/98469/

I am a blogger, and I blog about controversial and provocative subjects so I am far more likely to fall victim to this sort of mischief by the software programmers.  Without manipulation I am very much more likely to enter the realm of debate purely by the nature of what I blog about but I do careful research and the factually consistent nature of my posts makes it very difficult for the "tin foil hat" insult to stick. Somebody who takes issue with my views usually finds the burden of proof to much and retires from a discussion or debate.  It's like that when you argue for the truth instead of a baseless opinion, you are much more likely (in the long run) to be vindicated.  I completely understand why it would be much more effective to silence me or marginalize me and others like me(who take the time to research facts).

Scary?  It's already been done.  I've noticed it a bit but it's only when you dig a little deeper that the scary truth really emerges.



An exercise for you at home to experience how your sentiment is subtlety manipulated:

On Google Type: "Hillary Clinton is"
Auto-complete will volunteer the following options:
Hillary Clinton Israel
Hillary Clinton is awesome
Hillary Clinton is winning
and one or two others as at today's date 15/August 2016



On Bing you will get instead:
Hillary Clinton Israel
Hillary Clinton is a lying crook
Hillary Clinton issues
Hillary Clinton ISIS plan

....you get my drift?

Here is what "The Guardian" says about it's famous censorship (never mentioning the fact that it lets some users post, shows them their OWN post but others can't see it, so they have no idea they were censored) The Guardian, you see, it doing it only for our own good.... yeah right!
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/31/comments-audience-censorship-criticism




What are some solutions?

For Bloggers:
https://steemit.com

Email:
www.protonmail.ch

For Social media:
You will have to individually monitor each case, send screenshots, complain on the the community forum, report the topics they typically censor, try trial status updates with provocative words and experiment to see where they penalize you.  Whether you know it or not your contribution on Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, Instagram and elsewhere is being managed under the pretense of "Spam Filtering"  It's done in this manner for PR purposes so that the overall user sentiment comes out in favor of the censorship, it's a clever angle in.

This is real. It's a reality and we need to start acting like grown-ups and taking accountability for how informed we are.  I no longet take it easy on ill informed, there is still enough freedom in information in todays world to be better informed and if you choose not to you are complicit in the crime.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke 

Be Vigilent:

Those that seek to censor will always use the excuse that they are trying to protect us, that they should decide what we can deal with, that dropping bombs brings peace and that there is a simple explaination for everything.  Don't fall for it.
For a broad reaching starting point to the uninitiated, try the grassroots movement ANONYMOUS, they are "Hacktivists and as a result have many tech-tips that could be useful for online activity and censorship awareness

http://anonhq.com/



Remember, if you don't take an interest in politics, politics will take an interest in you!

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…