While they pontificate about Iran, China, Russia – anywhere, really, except their own backyard – the pro-censorship manipulators of the western world edge forwards stealthily.
It’s become increasingly apparent to observant independent observers around the world – those of us who aren’t bought and paid for, that is – that there’s a widening gulf between current affairs and modern history information available via the Internet and the mainstream media’s dominant narrative.
It's been a while since the German people last had to hack down a Wall
The situation isn’t stable. As things stand, given Internet access to alternative narratives about history and current affairs, popular demand for genuinely free media will eventually become a deafening roar.
A few years ago, in a society such as Australia, disparaging comments about a distorted mass media narrative were relatively unusual; it’s my observation they have become significantly more common.
The key fission line in this Internet-era battle between freedom and censorship has been – and continues to be – Zionism.
Zionist ‘opinion formers’ – in cahoots with a compliant, corrupted mainstream mass media – stand to lose most from an untamed Internet. That’s because they’ve been successful in getting their preferred narrative of history and politics ‘enforced’ through the principle channels of information in the western world. It’s their very dominance of the MSM that’s the reason for the disparity between mass media ‘consensual’ verities and internet-facilitated questions that don’t receive serious answers. The result is a growing mass media ‘credibility gap’. Zionists are necessarily the focus of blame for this; it is they who have used media dominance in a duplicitous and self-serving way, not only in recent years but going back over several generations.
When promoting their pro-Internet censorship case, leading Zionists have been careful to stay well out of the limelight. The main tactic has been to portray moral panic on the part of ‘fundamentalist Christians’ as the primary force behind Government moves to introduce censorship – and to insist the real target of censorship is ‘child pornography’.
It’s nonsense, of course. Not that many Christians – and other religious folk – wouldn’t like to see the Internet censored more widely to block pornography – and not that there aren’t legitimate concerns about the display of pornographic images of children and childrens’ exposure to pornography. But these are side show issues for the easily-deceived.
A group of mainstream media consumers sit down to watch TV news; nothing odd about this living room!
The real push to censor the Internet comes from the same delightful folk behind 9-11 and the USS Liberty cover-up, to name but two recent historical events that have been systematically distorted by the mainstream western media. They would like to re-write history – in real time if possible. They’ve had a successful track record, to date, in pursuing this crazed Orwellian agenda.
But they have some problems… Once engaged, the rational mind of most of humanity reels against the notion of compulsory Internet censorship by governments operating in secrecy. In Australia, opponents to the Rudd Government’s ‘internet filtering’ proposals mounted an online campaign, during 2008, of unprecedented ferocity. The Australian Government’s attempt to introduce ISP-level ‘filtering’ is currently stalled in trials.
It was always going to be harder to keep Germany’s internet free, where not only are the major political parties Zionist-dominated, but in addition the current Government is a conformist coalition. Germany already has laws in place, dating back to the first post-war occupation decade, that provide for censorship of heterodox historical views about the Nazi era. The trap could be sprung shut on Germans more easily than Australians – and I suggested as much back in January: First They Went for Canberra… Now They Want Berlin!
Not unexpectedly, I copped spurious allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ for publishing the article. Few other blogs and news sites in Australia – sites generally keen to cover minor nuances of the campaign against compulsory ‘Internet filtering’ – have run stories about the parallel debate that’s been underway in Germany. It doen’t fit the simplistic but popular ‘Christian Lobby’/child porn hypotheis of what’s really driving censorship.
Most Australians – decent progressive folk that they are – are trapped by false consciousness that’s a lifetime’s habit; they’re petrified of straying from what they understand to be the dominant norms of inoffensive discourse. They don’t want to suffer criticisms experienced by commentators with the audacity to mention a live-in elephant. They’d rather put up with ‘an elephant in the living room’, by staring steadfastly out of the window and scrutinizing the walls.
What's the point of A1 propaganda if people make up their own (well-informed) minds?
Yesterday, moves to censor Germany’s Internet moved forward one more ratchet. Even so, I surmise there may well be deep unease, not only within the German populace as a whole but also within its political elite, about where this is really heading. According to an early report (see below), the new law as enacted delivers little in terms of new political censorship. It does, however, get German ISPs used to complying with a Government censorship regime. It’s more bricks in a new Wall – but the Cyber-Wall is far from complete. Brick by brick…
In the initial stage, Germany’s ‘filter’ may well be used only to label unpleasant pornographic sites; it’s possible the whole experience proves so farcical that in three years time, the sunset clause will actually kick in and Germany’s new ‘compulsory filter’ law will become history. Apparently presidential approval is also still needed – and there’s a possibility of judicial review.
The topic was extensively covered by Slashdot last week:
The following article is from Deutche Welle, June 19th 2009:
The German lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, has adopted a new set of laws making it possible to block child pornography Web sites.
The legislation requires Web hosting companies to post “stop” signs when internet users try to access child pornography sites. The bill still has to go through several stages before it becomes law.
The motion has been the subject of a protest petition, with opponents claiming it is a first step towards Internet censorship. The petition has gathered 130,000 signatures calling for the bill to be scrapped.
The proposed law has been promoted by Family Affairs Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who claimed it was an “important sign from society.
“We in Germany won’t stand for it any longer that images of children being raped can be called up on the Web,” said Leyen.
Lawmakers modified the bill to respond to the criticism and added a sunset clause whereby the legislation would expire after three years.
Others claimed that the bill did not go far enough in restricting access to child pornography.
Internet users will still be able to access child pornography sites even after the stop sign appears, but they will have to click through the warning, which informs them that viewing child pornography is a crime.
Once the legislation passes, police officials will have to draw up a list of Web sites that feature child pornography and send the list to all telecommunications companies.
The bill also requires Germany’s chief privacy commissioner, Peter Schaar, to regularly view the lists. Schaar has opposed this, saying it is not his job.
