The 5G Dragnet – the end of privacy?

This is a must watch video – if you aren’t aware of 5G, or don’t know the thinking behind it, this video pretty much encapsulates all the issues which this new technology creates.

For more on the “Smart” agenda, read this previous post: https://selahministriesblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/smart-agenda-relies-on-our-ignorance-of-it/

If you value freedom of thought, you will resist 5G. It’s not about freedom of speech anymore. This recent article shows why (Link) in which is the following exchange between a pupil and a teacher in the UK. I quote [emphasis added]:

The three-minute video shows the teacher explaining to the child why he was asked to leave the class at an Aberdeen-shire secondary school, after the teenager had claimed there were only two genders.

The teacher tells the pupil: ‘You’re entitled to your opinion’, to which the teenager responds: ‘If I am, then why did you kick me out of class? It’s not very inclusive.’

Then the teacher replies: ‘No, I’m sorry, what you were saying is not very inclusive. This is an inclusive school.’

The teacher then says there is more than one gender ‘by law’, and that by claiming there are only two genders, the pupil had not been ‘inclusive’.

The member of staff continues: ‘You were clearly given an opportunity not to pursue it. You chose to do so.’

At this point, the pupil tells him: ‘I think it’s silly to have anything other than two genders, sir.’

The teacher then urges him: ‘Could you please keep that opinion to your own house? Not in this school.’

Once you have a smart speaker in your home, a 5G enabled fridge, a smart home which can be hacked into by criminals etc. will you be allowed to keep that opinion even at home? No, of course not. Pre-crime – they’ll be out to get you before you spout any more hate. Like reading the bible aloud…

Yeshua is coming soon. The great and terrible day of the LORD.

Lis

Advertisements

Survivial of “Democracy” depends on censorship according to Senator

Oh dear. Can of worms…

thought crime

Freedom of speech is not Senator Chris Murphy’s strong point. Does he claim to support the Constitution?

Lis

Peter Hitchens catches a sniff of the coming totalitarianism

I’m sure once upon a time I would have found Peter Hitchens to be a stuffy and “ignorant” journalist. In my youth – when I knew everything. When I was twenty I really felt that everything was very simple. Everything was black and white and the unwise clarity and ignorance of youth (ignorance of the subtlety of life and of people) really was beyond my understanding. In spite of having a high IQ, and access to a good education, there is nothing like, firstly, age (which should bring wisdom, but at least affords experience), and secondly becoming a believer in Yeshua! The second one made the first richer, and less important (worldly wisdom is as nothing in the face of the wisdom of God!)

Peter Hitchens’ writings have changed for me. Not, I think, because he has changed, but because God has changed me and I appreciate them more. He’s a Christian conservative with vast political and social experience and wisdom. His warning today is very stark indeed.

He writes: (Link)

Is THIS a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.

I disagree with Mr Corbyn about many things and actively loathe the way he has sucked up to Sinn Fein. But he has a better record on foreign policy than almost anyone in Parliament. Above all, when so many MPs scuttled obediently into the lobbies to vote for the Iraq War, he held his ground against it and was vindicated.

In this, Peter is referring to the appalling media frenzy against Jeremy Corbyn for having the apparent temerity to demand the government follow international protocols, produce evidence in the Skripal case (clue: I don’t think they have any), and for this he has been mercilessly mocked and derided.

As I said before, and I quote: “It is also annoying to find myself in agreement with Jeremy Corbyn (a Marxist) who is calling for talks with Putin over the Skripal case). Of course the press paint him as “shameful” for not wanting WWIII!”

I reiterate it is very annoying to find myself agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn, but I have a preference for agreeing with those who are on the side of right, rather than agreeing just with those who are politically on the right. What he has said is correct, and his calls for Theresa May to deal with this properly are absolutely vital and must be heeded. How convenient for the elites that Labour’s leader is a laughingstock who no one listens to! Did they plan this? I would hate to ask!

Back to Peter – he is already noting in his own experience the cooling of attitudes towards anyone who dares to speak up for Russia on the basis of truth, if not affection: [emphasis added]

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.

In any case, the crude accusation, with its implication of treachery, frightened me. I expect, as time goes by, I will be accused of being an ‘appeaser’ and of being against ‘British values’. And then what? An apparatus of thought policing is already in place in this country. By foolishly accepting bans on Muslim ‘extremists’, we have licensed public bodies to decide that other views, too, are ‘extremist’.

Because the authorities are terrified of upsetting Islam, nothing much will happen to Muslim militants. But conservative and Christian views such as mine will suffer.

And there is the vital piece of the puzzle – I wrote about this before (Read: How to close an open society – UK version. I urge you to read all of that article if you haven’t already, because in it I show the path to where we are now. The silencing of free speech starts with the control of “extremism” as personified by the “invader” (legally allowed in for the purpose). Taking aim at vocal islamists, the laws have been changed and will now affect you and me, dear reader. I quote from that article:

The laws that are being passed to stop *points* those people over there, are equally applicable to the native population who clamoured for those laws to prevent the perceived, actual or even faked activities of *points* those people over there – within our own country.

And behind all this anti-Russian rhetoric, and the devastating effect it is already having on freedom of speech (and freedom of thought) is none other than the CIA and the rest of the deep state (on behalf of their real masters).

Don’t believe me? Do you remember Udo Ulfkotte? He was a german journalist who came out publicly and admitted that he had been given his “talking points” by the CIA. In Germany. Let that sink in for a moment!

I quote from this excellent article: (Link)

An ARD TV documentary titled Strippenzieher und Hinterzimmer (‘String-pullers and Back Rooms’) – showed journalists, ministers and party functionaries consorting in a conspiratorial world of jiggery-pokery away from the public eye [on Youtube[2]; UU’s ARD link gives a 404 ‘not found’]. The journalists featured there considered it normal behaviour, but took offence when challenged. One responded (in an NDR report):

ndr

ndr 2

UU comments: so truth is only for journalists?

The site notes that: “Udo Ulfkotte’s book Bought Journalists (Gekaufte Journalisten) was scheduled for publication in English in May 2017 under the title “Journalists for Hire”. However it seems the publication was delayed and then cancelled and to date no copies of the book are available in English.” We should also remember that Udo Ulfkotte died suddenly at the age of 56 in January of 2017. We shouldn’t be surprised, he was becoming vocal. So vocal that Wikipedia has to call his books “populist” “islamophobic” etc.

The truth, as anyone sees it, if that truth goes against the narrative being fed to us in the media, is dangerous. Thus the Marxist methods – discredit and destroy – are used against those who do not come into what Peter Hitchens refers to as the “leaden conformism” being promoted, he says, by the TV and internet.

The war which is brewing is nothing to do with anything Russia has done. It is a war for your mind and your allegiance. Your allegiance must be to the lies of your government or you may be called an extremist (even though your words, actions and adjurations to others are pacifist to the “nth” degree). My goodness when you can get suspended or sacked for offering to pray for someone (get your righteousness off me now!), you know that the thought police are well on their way to a totalitarian state.

May God Bless us with fortitude to speak the truth, even if there is a cost, a penalty, in this world for doing so. Let us try to remain honest in our words (where honesty is least often acceptable to others) and not be swayed by the liars in power.

Lastly, as a nation, we deserve our liars in power. We may despise them – because they are evil – but we deserve them for our acts. Our abdication of moral agency began long ago, and has been encouraged, leading to the permissiveness we see today which God so hates.

Russia is not our enemy. The truth, and words, are not our enemy either. Those who seek to curtail freedoms, or start wars on the basis of lies, are the real enemy of mankind (all mankind – of all colours and creeds).

God Bless you

Lis

More on the end of free speech in the United Kingdom

Following on from yesterday’s piece, this truly beggars belief.

southern.jpg

I saw the article above (Link) this morning, and it contained a bit more detail about what happened to Lauren Southern on her intended (and prevented) entry into the UK. I quote: [my comments added]

Southern took to Twitter to document the incident, and said: ‘I’m not kidding about this, but during my questioning by the UK police.

‘I was asked about my Christianity and whether I’m a radical. I was also asked how I feel about running Muslims over with cars.

A British security official confirmed all three had been refused entry and said when Sellner and Pettibone landed at Luton Airport, north of London, on Friday, border police refused to allow them to enter Britain.

They were detained and then deported on Sunday. [No, they weren’t – they never entered therefore were not deported, they were denied entry.]

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the couple had been banned from entering by Britain’s Home Office on the grounds that their ‘presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good’. [According to whom?]

On Monday, British border police stationed in the French port of Calais also denied entry to Southern.

After being detained, Southern tweeted that British authorities had told her she was ‘officially banned from UK for “racism”‘. [Islam is NOT a race]

Note they call her “far-right” – in other words she is white, and seeks to prevent white genocide (even going to South Africa to film a documentary about the farmers’ plight there – brave lady!).

Katie Hopkins tweeted out this image of her refusal notice:

denied entry.jpg

Note the wording carefully – “by your own admission” – I’d like to know how that went down – admitting to distributing material which the government deems to be racist is the most likely explanation here. Also note the phrase “You have not sought entry under any other provisions under the immigration rules” – in other words there are other provisions which can be applied (presumably to the actual terrorists we keep letting back in to our country, no?).

Lauren also tweeted out this image which I only saw in the article quoted above today:

scehdule 7

Lauren was held under Schedule 7 – part of the terrorism act.

So words (printed on paper or spoken out of our mouths) are actually terrorism now?

Do you know who the only people are who are terrorised by words? Those whose arguments or behaviour cannot stand up to scrutiny. In this case that is the British establishment. I can’t imagine any Christian, or muslim being unable to defend their beliefs. Words don’t harm and words don’t terrorise.

When vivisecting unsuspecting people and calling it organ donation instead of murder is OK with the government, but speaking out about the coming genocide of whites is not (and you will be not only held, you will be denied entry to the country), we have a problem!

It won’t be long before the citizens of this country get locked up for wrong think too – except there will be nowhere for us to be “deported” to!

Ah well, at least Lauren had some fun with the system while she was in detention:

police 5.jpg

Next time, Lauren, try identifying as British. 😉

God Bless you

Lis

Peter Hitchens nails it –

I read his piece yesterday in the Mail on Sunday – an he get’s it just right. I agree with him:

“As an extremist, I am very worried about the planned Extremism Bill, which our Prime Minister is about to ram through Parliament.

So should you be. You are probably extremists, too, or will soon become extremists.

You may well remember when many opinions now viewed as despicable and more or less criminal were freely expressed – often by the same people and media who now condemn them.

I certainly do. Much of the conservative patriotic Christianity which my parents’ generation saw as normal has now been driven underground, and those who express it – especially in the public sector – face discipline or the sack, and are sometimes prosecuted.

Many of the current establishment’s attacks on Labour aren’t disagreements among free people in a free society. They are demands for abject recantations expressed by people who clearly think such views should not be allowed.

And the expression ‘extremism’ doesn’t mean anything objective or measurable. It just means a view that is out of favour with the current government and establishment.[…]

Yet, instead, we waste our time and destroy our freedom by futile attempts to control what people think.”

Yes, Peter, as an extremist myself – for example, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and as such I’m likely to be viewed as though I might want to throw a gay man off a tall building which is the very last thing I would do, or condone, but hey, I’m an extremist. If you’re reading this blog, you probably are too.

You are committing a thought crime by even considering that the world is flat, just as God said it was. You are committing a thought crime by questioning the media’s version of events surrounding any of the too-numerous-to-mention false flag attacks, most notably 9/11. For being against war. For believing that unfettered immigration is treason against the British people. I could go on…

Get ready to be locked up for what you believe. What goes on in your head is no longer “nobody’s business” when your very facial expression can be read by a facial recognition camera and have you logged for further surveillance.

I am saddened that we have reached this point of all-out Stasi state, all out Communism in fact. It looks like fascism, but they are really the same. Easiest to refer to it as totalitarianism. That it certainly is.

God Bless you

Lis

What will you do when you can no longer speak out?

When no one will be allowed to hear your views?

If you are a Christian this will be sooner rather than later. If you’re in the UK it’s coming – the government wants to crack down on ‘extremism.’ Yet so far it has declined to define extremism – which makes it very easy to become a target.

Firstly I will say that free speech is a benefit to all. If you cannot HEAR a view which is repellant, how can you educate the young to be repelled by it? If such views are deemed ‘unacceptable’ where other views are deemed to be sacrosanct, we’ve entered an Orwellian nightmare.

maxresdefault2-1024x576If extremism is undefined, the government has free reign to move the goalposts until even speaking the Law of God will become an offense – how can it not be? God’s Law says that homosexuality is wrong – what could be more offensive than that, these days?

Extremism is a moving target – and an oppressive regime such as the one we appear to have elected, can use it how it likes, when it likes, to stop any action or mode of speech – it’s a race to totalitarianism.

Let’s look at extremism:

800px-ExtermeironingrivelinI’m not joking – that’s extreme ironing (source).

extreme ironing

I’m not trying to be flippant here – my point is serious. Extremism is too broad a term to use. Where does it end – that’s my point. The UK is already falling down the rankings of ‘free countries’ for journalism:

“‘Freedom of Press’ is published by the US-based Freedom House, an NGO established in 1941 that has been ranking countries worldwide since 1980 in relation to democracy, human rights and press freedom. In May 2014 it reported that Britain has slipped down the global rankings for freedom of the press to 36th place.

The organisation said press freedom and therefore free speech, had fallen to its lowest level for over a decade. It partly blames regressive steps in countries such as Libya, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as the actions taken against journalists reporting on national security issues in both the US and UK.

Karin Karlekar, the report’s project director, said: “We see declines in media freedom on a global level, driven by governments’ efforts to control the message and punish the messenger.”” (source)

My views may differ from yours, but if I cannot hear your views, because you are censored, how can I learn what is right and wrong? How can I hold my views, if opposing views are not allowed? My views then become ‘unnecessary’? We would all become ‘drones’ of one viewpoint. Thought might be banned altogether.

God Bless you

Lis