10 Things You're Not Meant To Discuss
Keep off the lawn; that's why they legalized marijuana
(2,200 words or eight minutes’ read)
Mar 21, 2022
As we struggle to make sense of what’s going on, we should borrow a trick from the would-be manipulators: Take their words to mean the opposite.
French philosopher Michel Foucault once said officials use obfuscation to seem important; if they didn’t bloviate we wouldn’t take them seriously. And he knew.
Canadian psychologist at Harvard Steven Pinker points out the use of qualifiers to avoid getting to the point. Politicians are not dealing in “concepts about concepts” but banal realities yet their language serves as a get-out clause to avoid accountability.
In this crisis we face something closer to military deception: Operation Mincemeat in which the British dumped a dead body with papers to mislead the Axis powers before the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily.
The American scholar of technocracy Patrick Wood has shown by textual analysis that the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, of 1992, is really a cover for commercial exploitation; enabling pharma and biotech to profit from genetic manipulation and the patenting of life.
That phrase we hear all the time, “sustainable development,” is not about protecting the environment — but modifying the genes of plants and animals including humans so that they are owned.
Look around and you can see it. Agenda 21 is being implemented and 2030 comes soon time.
Keep it simple
Before delving further, let’s see how it is possible that we are deceived. We are presented with a tsunami of information from the screen. Then we are told it's mostly fake news; to listen to the “trusted voices.”
Events are piled one upon another. Even if the sharp eyed spot a common motive, they come at us too fast.
It’s war and “pick a side.” Covid masks are lifted, the cases go down, the papers talk of a new variant. The emergency regulations were never removed, the new agencies, the fusion of military, police and health with their the Joint Biosecurity Centres, are a fixture, and lawmakers approve digital passports and censorship bills regardless.
This pitch would not work if information flowed at a modest pace, giving people time to judge, query or ignore for themselves. The 24 hour headlines — “never wrong for long” — confuse by design.
Journalists are also flummoxed. They don't stop to think why they are changing the rundown every hour, why they are running to stand still, instead of standing back, assessing importance, veracity, and slowing the flow to what matters.
Alongside the ideas that we are instructed to acknowledge, are those we are forbidden to consider.
Not to get dragged into complexities too soon, let’s look at what we’re not meant to discuss.
The donkey has bolted - 10 things we're not meant to discuss.
My body, my choice - supplanted by the good of the Comirnaty.
Property rights, ownership and bodily integrity - you can't lose one without the other. “You'll own nothing,” is literal.
Privacy and the consequences for your autonomy - “to observe is to influence.”
Inversion of innocent until proven guilty - proving your identity is proving your innocence.
Inversion of burden of proof - government/media makes assertions; you have to prove they're wrong.
“The man” is above criticism - anti-government speech is now a thing.
If “hate crime” is an act motivated by prejudice; prosecution becomes political.
Freedom of speech - so last century.
Corporation as Übermensch - the rights of the individual but with greater power. “Some are more equal than others.”
Let’s take that last point first, because it’s the key one, as we’re about to see.
“Hate crime” or “hate speech” are going to be the main ways in which our freedoms (of comment, integrity, privacy) are lost and it has little to do with saying nasty things or abusing free speech by shouting “fire” in a theatre.
The UK government’s Online Safety Bill — “to keep children safe, stop racial hate and protect democracy online” — was introduced to the House of Commons on Mar 17, 2022, and is claimed to solve every problem from romance scams to cyberflashing.
The only thing that matters is that it supercharges censorship by corporations. They already falsely claim the right as “private companies” to block any information they don’t like (see the laws of common carriage). Now they will also get orders from government.
Hate speech laws are controversial because they broaden restrictions on the advocacy of violence to mere expressions of intolerance. In an era of identity politics we soon see the problem of laws concerned with “protected classes” — some are more equal than others.
Facebook has just allowed the advocacy of violence against Russians. Which earthly deity sits on the throne and decides whose protection from hate speech shall be rescinded this month?
George Orwell’s resonant phrase dates from the era when the Soviet Union promoted laws against “hate speech” precisely because they could be manipulated politically.
Eric Wilson’s book, Government of the Shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty, shows how personal interest is transmitted through the corporate and political world. It is precisely the sectarian and the venal who mask their enmities and rivalries under the cloak of civility.
Political correctness is just about being polite? Sure it is.
The irony is that hate crime traces its roots to the post-Civil War reconstruction era:
“The first historical period that is usually considered, is the nineteenth-century post-American Civil War period when federal civil-rights statutes were passed by the American Congress to protect vulnerable groups of people who were victimised because of their race and prior status as slaves.” 
These are the laws such as the 14th Amendment that were supposed to protect personhood. Yet corporations abused this law to extend “equal protection” to themselves. The vast majority of rulings under the 14th Amendment were corporations seeking advantage in law; relatively few favoured former slaves.
Thus we find ourselves in an era of the woke corporation which can deny equal service to citizens because it claims to have an identity, feelings, even a corporate spirituality.
“There are absurdities that flow from granting legal fictions Constitutional rights that were intended for humans. Corporations don’t have minds, and without one it is hard to see how a corporation “thinks” about any political issue du jour from gay rights to the budget deficit. Without a soul, it’s hard to conceptualize how a corporation could “believe” in anything whether it is transubstantiation of communion or the morality of birth control. But here we go again. A corporation makes a Constitutional claim to the righteousness of their legal position.” 
The new fascism
Individuals are no match legally for a corporation, so our rights are trampled while society is reshaped in the image of corporations.
Perhaps this is a new definition of fascism. It is no longer state corporatism because it doesn't require the state. The new fascism is the transnational brotherhood of corporations with the same rights as the individual, but much greater might.