The Tyrannical Online Safety Bill

The Tyrannical Online Safety Bill

The Expose | Patricia Harrity

If you are still waiting for a sign that you need to act against the corrupt government agenda, then the newly passed into law, Online Safety Bill surely has to be it. The UK has progressively become tyrannical and we will no longer have the ability to voice our opposition to the globalist agenda that is being supported by our government. “The warm-up is over. The conditioning Corona camp closed, the “global governance” of “public-private partnerships” was established in everyday life.”

“Interpretive elitist dominance, surveillance state technocracy, biosecurity doctrine, educational and attitude radio, algorithmized censorship, transport, energy and era changes, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and QR code dystopia.” A life with “ smombies ” and internet bubbles, instead of fellow human beings and a sense of community. “ The grand narrative ”, the “ new normal ”. Everything has long been a reality. ” – Tom Oliver Regenauer .

Autonomy and the ideals of a free society are still being contested consistently, and even though the widespread struggle from the upper echelons of society may be losing some of its momentum, international corporatism retains a strong position, and the machinery of propaganda and influence is firmly in place.

Through sophisticated social manipulation, nearly every social trend, disruption, and range of emotions serves the agenda of neo-feudal transformation orchestrated by a transatlantic plutocracy. This applies to resistance efforts as well. Furthermore, the excessive control and suppression of discourse, data, and documentation in the battle against bureaucratic obstacles not only consumes energy but increasingly obscures our perception.

The collective outcome is a kind of background noise, leading to disorientation, followed by periods of intense activism and eventual burnout.

Speak Now or be Forced to Forever Hold Your Peace

Nonetheless, it’s possible that we’ve witnessed the concluding stage, one that represents the ultimate suppression of opposing viewpoints and a massive infringement on our freedom of speech – the Online Safety Bill.

This is a critical juncture, a moment to voice objections, as failing to do so could mean forfeiting our rights indefinitely. Our human rights have deteriorated to such an extent that we may not have another opportunity to combat the tyranny that is already affecting us. Whether you want to recognise it or not and surprisingly many people would rather not.

The Iron Cage

Arguably this is because they have become ensnared in accordance with what Max Weber (1864-1920) identified as an “iron Cage” driven by the growing prevalence of bureaucracies and increasing rationalisation in Western capitalist societies.

In his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” written as far back as 1904-1905, the German sociologist, economist, and politician contended that these bureaucracies, often tainted by corruption, have given rise to oligarchies where a select few individuals wield significant political and economic power, manipulating resources for their personal gain.

While originally established to regulate governments and maintain political order, bureaucracies also exert a profound influence on society and the overall quality of people’s lives. Within this system, individuals forfeit their individuality as their labour is commodified and controlled by those in positions of authority.

Consequently, their autonomy is eroded as they are subject to the dictates of others, determining their value. Regrettably, according to Weber, bureaucracies also diminish individual freedom as people are assigned specific tasks in exchange for relinquishing their personal desires to align with the bureaucracy’s objectives.

They find themselves ensnared within the confines of an unyielding structure, experiencing mounting pressure to conform to specific behaviours that they believe are in their own best interest – and, to some extent, they may well be, in the short term at least.

We see this today, that within their enclosure, individuals may experience a sense of contentment, as they are gratified by their participation in the consumer-driven capitalist society. Through the earnings they acquire by working for the “man” they have adorned their “cage” or confinement they are comfortable there with mass-produced goods from retailers such as Argos and DFS.

Their entertainment needs are satisfied by “Love Island” various “talent” shows and platforms such as Netflix, which enables talking points and fosters a sense of belonging among a community of like-minded individuals.

They may even perceive themselves as liberated and are willing to defend their enclosure and all its associated comforts, even if it requires turning a blind eye to destructive societal issues unfolding beyond its walls.

This way of life is a social construction, and therefore we cannot entirely blame the individuals for being successfully content in the capitalist society. However, everybody has their price as they say.

Coronavirus Act

Arguably, that price was not the loss of freedoms due to the Coronavirus Act 2020 as individuals felt compelled to adhere to specific behaviours when it was implemented and enforced, as a means to contain the spread of a “novel virus.”

This was despite the fact that research suggests that the measures had adverse effects on a significant portion of the populace, leading many to develop an exaggerated fear of “COVID.” Paradoxically, this heightened fear often prompted them to take precautions that ironically contributed to increased fatalities from other causes (source). Many still turned that blind eye.

This is, it could be argued because they would rather not know the truth and have to suffer confrontations over refusing to either wear masks or receive a toxic jab. Their jobs were important enough to play Russian roulette with their lives, and they also needed to go on holidays apparently. Essentially they were still keeping their iron cage comfortable.

Additionally, our own government played on their fear of losing home comforts if they disagreed with interventions, and instilled even more fear, guided to do so by influential elites and aided by behavioural psychologists associated with the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

They also employed the Hegelian approach of problem, reaction, solution, which resulted in the public embracing these measures, even though they encroached upon all of our fundamental human rights.

Human Rights

The Human Rights Act which was initially established in 1948 with the primary objective of preventing the recurrence of the inhumane and brutal acts witnessed during World War II, grants us the freedom to hold opinions, express ourselves, and share information and ideas without interference from public authorities or government persecution.

For an action to qualify as a violation of human rights under this act, it must be perpetrated by an individual who is acting with the backing, authorisation, or consent of a state agent or by someone representing the state, such as a government official or a police officer.

Nevertheless, in the past three and a half years, since the emergence of the plandemic, we have witnessed these rights repeatedly encroached upon by individuals and teams representing the state while observing numerous video recordings and hearing accounts of extensive use of police authority. Often this involved brutality, directed at those who were peacefully protesting against government measures and mandates.

Some individuals, seemingly ensnared in their daily routines, have almost endorsed their erosion in the name of perceived “safety.”

Nonetheless, we have observed the stifling of opposition to the government, even from experts like scientists, medical professionals, and researchers, among others. Our rights grant us the freedom to participate in protests, yet these rights have been trampled upon through the harsh treatment of protesters and the suppression of dissenting perspectives.

The ‘ole Bill’s, Bill

In a concerning and authoritarian action, the government has bestowed upon the police the power to curtail protests they consider disruptive, even if they’re merely noisy. This essentially encompasses most impactful protests (source). Priti Patel added to the already illiberal Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in 2022, giving the police an extraordinary extension of powers and at the same time putting far too much power in the hands of the state, ordinarily seen in authoritarian states or dictatorships. (source)

“Under human rights law, we all have the right to gather and express our views. But these rights are not absolute rights” stated the Home Office, and although they admit that they “do not always strike the right balance” [at protests], they somehow imagine that the balance is in the favour of the protestor. While this may be so for Black Lives Matter, Stop Oil, and some other protests, it certainly was not what we observed at the anti-lockdown protests.

Below is a FaceBook post from 2020, which also shows that a former Police Officer would agree.

When we take into account that these transgressions will depend on the judgment of police officers and are therefore subjective, reflecting on the Trafalgar Square protests underscores the troubling nature of this Bill. It seems that this legislation could potentially be used by authorities with the aim of stifling voices of dissent. (source)

The Online Safety Bill

Now we have The Online Safety Bill to further silence those who rightly oppose the government’s tyrannical agenda. This bill resembles numerous other legislations aimed at overseeing online content and clearly impinges on our essential human rights by encroaching on the freedom of expression.

Despite its claim to protect individuals from harmful material, it is evidently primarily blatantly focused on censoring voices that diverge from the government’s narrative.

In essence, this implies that our ability to voice opposition and challenge policies or legislation that we believe to be detrimental to the general population, while primarily serving the interests of global elites and their agenda, will be severely constrained.

So, now in the UK, we have more Surveillance, restrictions on information, less privacy, threats of mandated medical interventions, less personal freedom, cost of living crises, and our national sovereignty threatened, we will not be able to do a thing about it.

The UK is no longer a democracy.

If the people of the UK do not get out of their cages and do something about it, they will find themselves with nothing, and although Klaus Schwab insists they will be happy, we will have absolutely no way of knowing if they are not.

This is your sign, it is time to get out of that cage and stand up against tyranny before it is far too late.

Original Article: