SAFE?! I don’t think so when I read the following!
‘Springfield police are investigating a report from Kenwood Elementary School that allegedly involved several students and a racial incident.
Officers were called to the school around 10 a.m. Monday about an incident that happened Friday during recess on the playground, according to the police report, which states assault and menacing as the potential offenses.
The school principal told officers that a group of Black students gathered several white students on a spot of the playground “and forced them to state, ‘Black Lives Matter,’ against their will,” the report stated.
The principal said a few of the students who tried to avoid the situation were “chased down and escorted, dragged or carried” back to the spot on the playground, and one student was punched in the head by one of the suspects, according to the report.
The group of students also reportedly recorded the students who were forced to make the statement.
‘At least one Canadian senator is drawing chilling historical parallels and similarities between censorship legislation being introduced by the Liberals and what is seen in totalitarian regimes.
It’s coming in the form of Bill C-11, a piece of legislation brought forward by the federal Liberal government that would mean sweeping regulation of internet content and censorship by the Canadian Radio-Television Corporation (CRTC).
As the first of its kind in Canada, Bill C-11 An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act, has been widely criticized as an Orwellian attempt to control the content Canadians can produce and access online. Yet it passed in the House of Commons and has now made its way to the third reading at the Canadian senate – where the only hope of squashing it is by appealing to unelected and primarily liberal-appointed senators.
Hitler utilized mass media to propagate his radical ideologies and political goals while his faithful followers burned books to ensure the purity of the state.
“Stalin again will be looking over our shoulder when we write,” furthered Canadian Senator Richards, drawing additional similarities between this bill and dictatorships.
Stalin took control of the notorious Russian publication Pravda (meaning truth), and used it as a powerful tool that eventually became the official mouthpiece of the Soviet Union and Stalin’s own dogmas.
The official ideologies of these regimes had this glaring commonality – censorship and control of all printed and produced communication with the public.
Senator Richards continued with his unsettling parallels, stating that he thinks the bill is “censorship being bundled up and sold to the public as ‘national inclusion,’” before further criticizing the legislation for “creating compliance instead of greatness,” even referring to the dystopian writings of George Orwell directly.
“Orwell said that we must resist the prison of self-censorship. This bill goes a long way to construct such a prison.”
The totalitarian society described in 1984 uses a superstate party-approved version of English referred to as “NEWSPEAK” to quell complex thought and manipulate its citizens into robotic interactions. One infamous word is the term thoughtcrime which defines any belief that questions the ruling party as a crime.
It’s exactly what appears to be currently happening to any remaining intellectual free thinker in Western society over the last decade or so – arguably prior – but has especially intensified under the COVID-19 regime.
Or consider free-speech advocate, psychologist, author, speaker, and academic Jordan Peterson, who is facing an onslaught of censorship mobs, and has most recently received an order from his regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, in a disturbing attempt to re-educate him.
It’s a slippery slope and we’re already on it.
Will Canadian senators squash Bill C-11 as we continue on this downward spiral into an oppressive censorship abyss?
‘Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ 6,000-word essay, recently published in left-wing publication The Monthly, shows conservatives were correct in predicting the Albanese Labor government would be a meddling, bigger-spending, anti-capitalist nightmare.
However, while there is an understandable temptation to label Chalmers’ love letter to big government as “socialism”, that’s not quite right.
It embodies something that could prove far worse.
Chalmers’ promise to “redesign markets for investment in social purposes, based on common metrics of performance” sounds innocuous.
As does his purported optimism that “2023 will be the year we build a better capitalism” that is “uniquely Australian”.
However, this supposedly better capitalism, or “values-based capitalism”, as he puts it, is not uniquely Australian.
It’s been virulently propagated internationally for decades by the likes of Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), under the banner of “stakeholder capitalism”, and is a core component of the WEF’s Great Reset initiative.
The Great Reset is a proposed alliance between big government and big business to “reset” the global economy post-pandemic, by pushing companies to adopt “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) policies as a condition of operation.
ESG policies are characterised by identity politics and radical climate action, and are determined in part by faceless, unelected corporate elites.
It’s not socialism; it’s neo-feudalism.
ESG policies are the “values” of Chalmers’ “values-based capitalism”.
We know this because his essay bears a striking resemblance to the type of stakeholder capitalism outlined in Klaus Schwab’s 2022 co-written book, The Great Narrative, a sort of sequel to his 2020 book The Great Reset.
This, for anyone who holds right-of-centre values, should be cause for alarm.
Chalmers describes a core component of values-based capitalism as enabling investors “to work out the climate-risk rating of a firm just as a lender can work out a credit-risk rating”.
“In 2023, we will create a new sustainable finance architecture, including a new taxonomy to label the climate impact of different investments. That will help investors align their choices with climate targets, help businesses who want to support the transition get finance more easily…This strategy begins with climate finance,” he continues.
Similarly, in The Great Narrative, Schwab says stakeholder capitalism “welcomes the idea of legislative action to define with precision the benchmarks for ESG reporting and performance”.
“In the same way that companies have an obligation to report their financial results…in the not-too-distant future they will have a similar obligation to report on ESG metrics… governments will make the last call for setting the legal obligations, targets and incentives around ESG standards.”
Ultimately, the purpose of both values-based and stakeholder capitalism is to justify politicians working with corporations to create big government policies, and insidiously exert the kind of control over markets and individuals that, in isolation, is unpalatable to your average voter.
This is the antithesis of democracy.
Jim Chalmers can claim all he wants that his values-based capitalism is the right thing for Australians, but he seems to forget that values are often subjective.
While he may believe that markets geared towards controlling citizen’s behaviour is a moral good, others (like me) believe this is – at best – overly stubborn.
‘As Voltaire once mused, “Prussia is not a nation. It is an army that controls nations.” Today, that army is an invisible enemy, hiding behind a complex matrix of globalist corporations. It has infiltrated governments and central banks worldwide. It has taken over national education systems and indoctrinated our youth to hate everything about their culture. At the helm of this monolithic beast sits the World Economic Forum, or as we have named it, the ReichsWEF.
‘A man wearing a plain yellow t-shirt that read “Jesus Saves” at the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN was recently approached by mall security and told that he would have to remove his t-shirt if he wants to continue shopping as it was deemed “offensive” to some shoppers. Not only is there no dress code in the mall that would prohibit the wearing of such a garment, but it is clear that the actions of mall security were a blatant violation of the state’s discrimination laws.’https://disntr.com/2023/01/17/mall-of-america-security-orders-man-to-remove-christian-t-shirt-or-leave-the-property/
whatyareckon 