US Presidential Election 2024

[Belligerent Savant]

Actually Joe, lockdown's were an authoritarian policy based on totalitarian values.

The means were forceful(authoritarian) and the ends justified on a totalistic view of society as a monolithic organism(totalitarian).

Left and Right don't actually mean anything. Hitler had a collective policy that valued a group benefit over individual ones.

Lockdown's can only be opposed, in principle, using either Libertarian or Democratic values. Which is why every democratic tenet was trampled upon without justification.

It's actually all a totalitarian conspiracy. Two factions have just been bickering over whether human nature is good or evil, and whether to use words or numbers, to bring this about. Here if anywhere, is where you actually find the left/right divide.

Well-stated.

But even if we grant the notion that ‘lockdowns’ are Leftist under the guise of presenting a ‘for the collective good’ approach to crisis (real or conjured), it fails any sound litmus test, as lockdowns not only did not ‘benefit’ the majority as advertised, but they also caused clear and demonstrable harms to The Collective, both during their implementation and since then, with 2nd/3rd order harms still being experienced.

The same applies to mandates, of course.

Which is why (among other reasons), to drstrangelove’s point above, they were actually totalitarian in approach and implementation.

These enforcements/unprecedented policies & directives were sold to the masses as ‘collectivist’/‘for the greater good of all’ measures, which many self-described ‘Leftists’ (and those of other persuasions) swallowed with minimal, if any, discernment.

To our collective detriment.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Actually Joe, lockdown's were an authoritarian policy based on totalitarian values.

The means were forceful(authoritarian) and the ends justified on a totalistic view of society as a monolithic organism(totalitarian).

Left and Right don't actually mean anything. Hitler had a collective policy that valued a group benefit over individual ones.

Lockdown's can only be opposed, in principle, using either Libertarian or Democratic values. Which is why every democratic tenet was trampled upon without justification.

It's actually all a totalitarian conspiracy. Two factions have just been bickering over whether human nature is good or evil, and whether to use words or numbers, to bring this about. Here if anywhere, is where you actually find the left/right divide.

Well-stated.

But even if we grant the notion that ‘lockdowns’ are Leftist under the guise of presenting a ‘for the collective good’ approach to crisis (real or conjured), it fails any sound litmus test, as lockdowns not only did not ‘benefit’ the majority as advertised, but they also caused clear and demonstrable harms to The Collective, both during their implementation and since then, with 2nd/3rd order harms still being experienced.

The same applies to mandates, of course.

Which is why (among other reasons), to drstrangelove’s point above, they were actually totalitarian in approach and implementation.

These enforcements/unprecedented policies & directives were sold to the masses as ‘collectivist’/‘for the greater good of all’ measures, which many self-described ‘Leftists’ (and those of other persuasions) swallowed with minimal, if any, discernment.

To our collective detriment.

Stickdog posted a graph that showed Australia's covid infection rate. He claimed it showed lockdowns were useless.

It was basically a straight flat line then a 90 degree spike that started about three weeks after we ended all of our lockdown and lockout policies.

Two weeks after that spike Australia's excess death rate started to climb as well.

All the rhetoric you post can't account for these facts.

So i might agree with you that there harms from lockdowns. Especially economic ones. Its undeniable the wealth transfer that happened.

But you can't then just pretend that in one country where it was possible to measure how covid got into and around the population (cos we're an island with a covid quarantine policy) the major spread of the virus and associated death rates didn't happen until after the lockdowns ended.

If you want to make the claim that the harms associated with lockdowns are worse than the virus then go ahead and make your case but you need to acknowledge facts first.

Otherwise its just dogmatic bullshit.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Actually Joe, lockdown's were an authoritarian policy based on totalitarian values.

The means were forceful(authoritarian) and the ends justified on a totalistic view of society as a monolithic organism(totalitarian).

I'm not gonna argue with that. Left and right do mean something but having one axis or spectrum to describe the differences between political concepts is a form of mind control.

A political compass is still flawed but because it has four points, not two, its ablr to provide better descriptions or models of political ideas. I would argue that lockdowns are an left authoritarian policy as opposed to a left libertarian one.

Left and Right don't actually mean anything. Hitler had a collective policy that valued a group benefit over individual ones.

Hitler's movement was originally a working class one. But right and left do mean things. They refer to whether a political idea favours individual (right) or collective (left) outcomes/identities etc etc.

Lockdown's can only be opposed, in principle, using either Libertarian or Democratic values. Which is why every democratic tenet was trampled upon without justification.

It's actually all a totalitarian conspiracy. Two factions have just been bickering over whether human nature is good or evil, and whether to use words or numbers, to bring this about. Here if anywhere, is where you actually find the left/right divide.

Its funny you say that because Hitler was totalitarian more than leftist. The total of german society - the state and the people - colluded to empower him. In the same way US society has become increasingly totalitarian since the fall of Communism.

Anyway i dunno if you noticed or not but back in the 00s lockdowns weren't a popular thing. But as mass shootings became more hyped they became accompanied by lockdowns. In Australia mass shootings are rare but aometimes people would hole up in the suburbs with members of their own family as hostages.

The term "lockdown" got used with increasing breathlessness by media, especially commercial media as they described whatever event the cops used as pretext for restricting people's movement.

The tone that the media described lockdowns with was one that made them seem like a cool or exciting thing to experience.

It was so noticeable. It used to really piss me off in the 2010s.

[Harvey]

Actually Joe, lockdown's were an authoritarian policy based on totalitarian values.

The means were forceful(authoritarian) and the ends justified on a totalistic view of society as a monolithic organism(totalitarian).

Left and Right don't actually mean anything. Hitler had a collective policy that valued a group benefit over individual ones.

Lockdown's can only be opposed, in principle, using either Libertarian or Democratic values. Which is why every democratic tenet was trampled upon without justification.

It's actually all a totalitarian conspiracy. Two factions have just been bickering over whether human nature is good or evil, and whether to use words or numbers, to bring this about. Here if anywhere, is where you actually find the left/right divide.

Well-stated.

But even if we grant the notion that ‘lockdowns’ are Leftist under the guise of presenting a ‘for the collective good’ approach to crisis (real or conjured), it fails any sound litmus test, as lockdowns not only did not ‘benefit’ the majority as advertised, but they also caused clear and demonstrable harms to The Collective, both during their implementation and since then, with 2nd/3rd order harms still being experienced.

The same applies to mandates, of course.

Which is why (among other reasons), to drstrangelove’s point above, they were actually totalitarian in approach and implementation.

These enforcements/unprecedented policies & directives were sold to the masses as ‘collectivist’/‘for the greater good of all’ measures, which many self-described ‘Leftists’ (and those of other persuasions) swallowed with minimal, if any, discernment.

To our collective detriment.

Stickdog posted a graph that showed Australia's covid infection rate. He claimed it showed lockdowns were useless.

It was basically a straight flat line then a 90 degree spike that started about three weeks after we ended all of our lockdown and lockout policies.

Two weeks after that spike Australia's excess death rate started to climb as well.

All the rhetoric you post can't account for these facts.

So i might agree with you that there harms from lockdowns. Especially economic ones. Its undeniable the wealth transfer that happened.

But you can't then just pretend that in one country where it was possible to measure how covid got into and around the population (cos we're an island with a covid quarantine policy) the major spread of the virus and associated death rates didn't happen after the lockdowns ended.

If you want to make the claim that the harms associated with lockdowns are worse than the virus then go ahead and make your case but you need to acknowledge facts first.

Otherwise its just dogmatic bullshit.

I want to respond to this but can you please check that

...the major spread of the virus and associated death rates didn't happen after the lockdowns ended.

is exactly what you mean to say? It seems to contradict your preceding claim.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
There is ample information out there -- and even semi- or full acknowledgements, in some respects, by govt/bureaucratic representatives over the past ~year -- that detail how the metrics provided across mainstream sources, Re: covid 'death' rates, positivity rates, and underlying reasons for such rates, have been misleading at best, and/or purposely manipulated. This renders the need or perceived benefits of Lockdowns as a moot issue (other than to address the extensive harms as part of a postmortem, though it’s increasingly apparent lockdowns will be returning, if not for reported pathogens, then for reported climate ‘mitigation’)


To what extent is iatrogenesis factored into any of the figures referenced or cited by those that believe lockdowns served some benefit? Do you, Joe, believe that your govt (in Australia) was being wholly truthful in its representation of data/statistics? How and why?

Lockdowns did NOT curb the 'spread' because so much about the notion of "spread" (how a covid/flu-like 'illness' or 'death' is defined and/or tracked vs other types of similar illnesses or other causes of death, etc,) was/is in many cases a combination of misrepresentation, manipulation, overly-broad criteria, and/or flat-out lies From the onset.

(much of the issue here involves simply repeating data points as presented in systems -- this does not necessarily require willful intent to deceive, at least not at the lower levels, given the bureaucratic functioning of most of these systems in place. Most simply followed orders or parroted/repeated data as presented within the 'corpus of information' in databases)

While the below does not address Australia specifically, it offers a glimpse of blatant obfuscation attempts and lies disseminated since the onset of covid.

You (Joe) speak of 'dogma'. The irony. Go ahead and die on your hill. Continue to insist that lockdowns were beneficial in ANY way.

NOTE: Lockdowns in the U.S. started in earnest in mid/late March 2020.

Per the below, the massive spike in deaths occurred AFTER lockdowns were implemented.

@EWoodhouse7

They want you to believe a new deadly respiratory virus from afar spread silently with no impact on mortality in a city of 8M+, until it dropped like a bomb, killed ~20K, and then went away.

In other words, they think you're stupid.



...

By request

NYC daily deaths in 2020 that do NOT attribute Covid-19 as underlying cause



...

The city wants the world to believe that "novel virus" killed tons of people in hospitals under age 70, even when it did no such thing anyplace else in the world.

The *Health Equity* Equity crowd has been pretty silent about this cover up.

Why?

Most of the staggering “wave 1” NYC mortality increase among ages 20-69 occurred in hospitals, where there were no 3rd-party witnesses.

~100% of those “extra” hospital deaths have covid on the death certificate.

Huge red flag

https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/ ... 5483099136

[drstrangelove]

Hitler's movement was originally a working class one. But right and left do mean things. They refer to whether a political idea favours individual (right) or collective (left) outcomes/identities etc etc.

But if you think about it, people who support right wing parties are actually made up of people who live their lives more collectively than those that support left wing parties, who are made up of primarily atomised individuals who live in community-less urban areas.

So the more you think about it the less it means.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Actually Joe, lockdown's were an authoritarian policy based on totalitarian values.

The means were forceful(authoritarian) and the ends justified on a totalistic view of society as a monolithic organism(totalitarian).

Left and Right don't actually mean anything. Hitler had a collective policy that valued a group benefit over individual ones.

Lockdown's can only be opposed, in principle, using either Libertarian or Democratic values. Which is why every democratic tenet was trampled upon without justification.

It's actually all a totalitarian conspiracy. Two factions have just been bickering over whether human nature is good or evil, and whether to use words or numbers, to bring this about. Here if anywhere, is where you actually find the left/right divide.

Well-stated.

But even if we grant the notion that ‘lockdowns’ are Leftist under the guise of presenting a ‘for the collective good’ approach to crisis (real or conjured), it fails any sound litmus test, as lockdowns not only did not ‘benefit’ the majority as advertised, but they also caused clear and demonstrable harms to The Collective, both during their implementation and since then, with 2nd/3rd order harms still being experienced.

The same applies to mandates, of course.

Which is why (among other reasons), to drstrangelove’s point above, they were actually totalitarian in approach and implementation.

These enforcements/unprecedented policies & directives were sold to the masses as ‘collectivist’/‘for the greater good of all’ measures, which many self-described ‘Leftists’ (and those of other persuasions) swallowed with minimal, if any, discernment.

To our collective detriment.

Stickdog posted a graph that showed Australia's covid infection rate. He claimed it showed lockdowns were useless.

It was basically a straight flat line then a 90 degree spike that started about three weeks after we ended all of our lockdown and lockout policies.

Two weeks after that spike Australia's excess death rate started to climb as well.

All the rhetoric you post can't account for these facts.

So i might agree with you that there harms from lockdowns. Especially economic ones. Its undeniable the wealth transfer that happened.

But you can't then just pretend that in one country where it was possible to measure how covid got into and around the population (cos we're an island with a covid quarantine policy) the major spread of the virus and associated death rates didn't happen after the lockdowns ended.

If you want to make the claim that the harms associated with lockdowns are worse than the virus then go ahead and make your case but you need to acknowledge facts first.

Otherwise its just dogmatic bullshit.

I want to respond to this but can you please check that

...the major spread of the virus and associated death rates didn't happen after the lockdowns ended.

is exactly what you mean to say? It seems to contradict your preceding claim.

yeah it diid contradict it. thank you.

I edited oit to say

:...until after the lockdowns ended.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Hitler's movement was originally a working class one. But right and left do mean things. They refer to whether a political idea favours individual (right) or collective (left) outcomes/identities etc etc.

But if you think about it, people who support right wing parties are actually made up of people who live their lives more collectively than those that support left wing parties, who are made up of primarily atomised individuals who live in community-less urban areas.

So the more you think about it the less it means.

The whole fucken thing is borked.

For years left wing goups defended individual rights and right woing groups attackled them. it still happens to a degree.

But that's why a political compass with left-right and authoritarian-libertarian makes more sense. Even then it is only two dimensional. usually when we describe something as two dimensional its shallow, lacking depth or nuance or is obvious and see thru.

What would the third dimension be? You could maybe have a progressive-reactionary/conservative/regressive axis maybe? I dunno. Fuckwits and good people? LOL that's pretty subjective...maybe on an economic level sustainable vs growth/

i dunno.

[drstrangelove]

The whole fucken thing is borked.

For years left wing goups defended individual rights and right woing groups attackled them. it still happens to a degree.

But that's why a political compass with left-right and authoritarian-libertarian makes more sense. Even then it is only two dimensional. usually when we describe something as two dimensional its shallow, lacking depth or nuance or is obvious and see thru.

What would the third dimension be? You could maybe have a progressive-reactionary/conservative/regressive axis maybe? I dunno. Fuckwits and good people? LOL that's pretty subjective...maybe on an economic level sustainable vs growth/

i dunno.

we are in the third dimension. the shallow two dimensional binary of democracy vs totalitarianism has remained fixed for over 2000 years because it is extremely simple and principled.

we shifted into this third political dimension of ideology because it's irrational, emotionally driven, and basically just allows people to bypass the law of contradiction. you won't find a single person who admits to being a hypocrite, but to support a political ideology in this day and age you must become one. so politics becomes about pointing out hypocrisy while ignoring your own by pointing out those accusing you of hypocrisy are hypocrites.

there's no spectrum here because it's like Orwell's double-think. double. . .think. you have one layer of thought that is fixed and principled and simple and makes sense on a spectrum of things in distinct relation to other things from which you can tell when you pass from one onto another. then you have another layer which allows you to bend that spectrum to your will in anyway you like, like those theories about space/time bending, folding a sheet of paper and sticking a pencil through it like they do in the movies etc.

everyone is bending the spectrum of thoughts in their heads, traveling back and forth between support for the things they hate and love at whatever rate the news cycle is set at, and it seems to be set so that they both hate and love the same thing at the same time.

the roe V. wade overturning was marvelous timing to this end, because people who supported vaccine mandates had to suddenly love bodily autonomy, and those who loved bodily autonomy suddenly had to hate it. thus the principle of bodily autonomy was completely destroyed, because of course this is unacceptable to totalitarians, by making the majority of people hypocrites. the majority of people simply do not believe in bodily autonomy. since this is true, what right do they have to it? i mean that seriously.

what right does a person who doesn't believe in bodily autonomy have to it? none.

those who believe the government should intervene in the bodily autonomy of women to save human life, should shut the fuck up and take its vaccines. likewise, a woman who believes in vaccine mandates should shut the fuck up about her rights to abortion and abide by whatever laws she has given the government the right to govern her body with.

i've just offended the majority of people with a principled statement. both sides would use ideology to explain this as a false equivalency. as you can see, ideology is used to remove human liberty through the destruction of principles.

next one to cross off the list is free speech. what right does a person who doesn't believe in free speech have to it? do you see.

we're halfway done with this one, just wait for what elon musk has in store for twitter, or should i say X.

[Joe Hillshoist]

The whole fucken thing is borked.

For years left wing goups defended individual rights and right woing groups attackled them. it still happens to a degree.

But that's why a political compass with left-right and authoritarian-libertarian makes more sense. Even then it is only two dimensional. usually when we describe something as two dimensional its shallow, lacking depth or nuance or is obvious and see thru.

What would the third dimension be? You could maybe have a progressive-reactionary/conservative/regressive axis maybe? I dunno. Fuckwits and good people? LOL that's pretty subjective...maybe on an economic level sustainable vs growth/

i dunno.

we are in the third dimension. the shallow two dimensional binary of democracy vs totalitarianism has remained fixed for over 2000 years because it is extremely simple and principled.

we shifted into this third political dimension of ideology because it's irrational, emotionally driven, and basically just allows people to bypass the law of contradiction. you won't find a single person who admits to being a hypocrite, but to support a political ideology in this day and age you must become one. so politics becomes about pointing out hypocrisy while ignoring your own by pointing out those accusing you of hypocrisy are hypocrites.

there's no spectrum here because it's like Orwell's double-think. double. . .think. you have one layer of thought that is fixed and principled and simple and makes sense on a spectrum of things in distinct relation to other things from which you can tell when you pass from one onto another. then you have another layer which allows you to bend that spectrum to your will in anyway you like, like those theories about space/time bending, folding a sheet of paper and sticking a pencil through it like they do in the movies etc.

everyone is bending the spectrum of thoughts in their heads, traveling back and forth between support for the things they hate and love at whatever rate the news cycle is set at, and it seems to be set so that they both hate and love the same thing at the same time.

the roe V. wade overturning was marvelous timing to this end, because people who supported vaccine mandates had to suddenly love bodily autonomy, and those who loved bodily autonomy suddenly had to hate it. thus the principle of bodily autonomy was completely destroyed, because of course this is unacceptable to totalitarians, by making the majority of people hypocrites. the majority of people simply do not believe in bodily autonomy. since this is true, what right do they have to it? i mean that seriously.

what right does a person who doesn't believe in bodily autonomy have to it? none.

those who believe the government should intervene in the bodily autonomy of women to save human life, should shut the fuck up and take its vaccines. likewise, a woman who believes in vaccine mandates should shut the fuck up about her rights to abortion and abide by whatever laws she has given the government the right to govern her body with.

i've just offended the majority of people with a principled statement. both sides would use ideology to explain this as a false equivalency. as you can see, ideology is used to remove human liberty through the destruction of principles.

next one to cross off the list is free speech. what right does a person who doesn't believe in free speech have to it? do you see.

we're halfway done with this one, just wait for what elon musk has in store for twitter, or should i say X.

Are you familiar with the post modern concept "the map is not the territory"?

Three dimensions are a great map for discussing movement in space (not necessarily spacetime but they can work).

The dimensions are height, width and depth. So the plane or spectrum from left to right (or vice versa,) up and down and away from you directly in front of and behind you. We think of politics as either right or left.

But we live in a reality where are the most useful measurements generally, are right and left, up and down and forward or back. Surely politics and how we organise ourselves would be better described using those three spectrums rather than just one of them.

Ideology then has to fit a vaguely world shaped map instead of a simple binary, so it has to be less rigid/more flexible and as a result hopefully its more likely to not create the sort of binary dichotomies you're talking about with bodily autonomy. Ideology is useless except as a series of guidelines you use for guidance in specigic real world situations. So its useless if you blindly adhere to it. There will always be a situation where your ideology will fail to provide a reasonable or sane response to the situation.
.
Blind adherence to any ideology is dogmatic.

The old hippies around here used to say dogma gets run over by karma.

[stickdog99]

Yeah, Australiia should have been on lockdown forever because of a bad flu. And anybody who protested against this in any way should have been censored, debanked, and barred from employment.

That's 21st century collectivist spirit at its finest.

The fact that Australian government policy led to continuing historically high overall mortality rates and low birth rates means only that Australia should have locked down, censored, and persecuted noncompliance far longer and far harder.

That's "liberal" theology that no amount of data on the vastly incredible harms of lockdowns can make a dent in. We all bought in for right reasons, and you obviously can't expect totalitarianism to work unless it is total.

[Belligerent Savant]

the roe V. wade overturning was marvelous timing to this end, because people who supported vaccine mandates had to suddenly love bodily autonomy, and those who loved bodily autonomy suddenly had to hate it. thus the principle of bodily autonomy was completely destroyed, because of course this is unacceptable to totalitarians, by making the majority of people hypocrites. the majority of people simply do not believe in bodily autonomy. since this is true, what right do they have to it? i mean that seriously.

Yes, I called this out, essentially, when the ruling occurred. The timing of the overturn should have been a clear sign that none of this is mere happenstance.

They ARE, demonstrably, actively working to dissolve notions of consensus reality, ethics, autonomy, integrity (to the extent any of these traits were firmly in place to some degree among the populace)

They are creating scenarios, talking points and wedge issues to re-set foundational understandings of how we relate to each other, how we define our politics and understandings of the world/culture around us, and what we should expect, collectively, as humans living in a 'modern' society. Once 'legacy' constructs/notions are largely destroyed it helps usher in a new foundation of constructs to facilitate/maximize controls.

(Quite similar to Orwellian 'freedom is slavery'; 'Up is Down' programming as alluded by drstrangelove in his prior comment)

Like re-formatting a computer hard drive with a new Operating System.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of concepts/issues that have been prioritized for 're-programming' over the last ~3yrs:

- Bodily autonomy
- Free speech
- Gender (what it means to be a male or female -- a number of representatives recently refused to define 'woman' when prompted publicly), etc.
- Weather/climate 'alarm'
- Currency resets (centralized digital currencies & 'smart contracts'/social credits, etc)
- AI (or whatever currently passes for 'AI'; both in actual capability and/or how perception of capability will be utilized to reduce human involvement in the workforce, which in turn will require markedly less humans in most urban and/or densely populated areas [in addition to escalating depopulation/eugenics programs already in progress], leading to a draconian version of Universal Basic Income [UBI]. See prior point Re: centralized digital currency as it will become a key mechanism for the version of UBI to be proposed/implemented.

(Related: we should pay mind to the messaging that may follow from purported 'aliens', and the extent such messaging will align with WEF/WHO gameplans)

There is a reason there were marketing/branding efforts, globally, to dub this era The Great Reset. Revelation of The Method.

For a number of reasons, a subset of humans intuitively perceive the exploitation/re-programming attempts and rebuke them outright.

The hope is a large enough contigent wake up to these 'campaigns' before the 're-shaping' solidifies.

Also: none of the above is set in stone; some of the above would have seemed absurd just a couple years ago.

I would not have believed the 'aliens' narrative would actually come into play as it has, yet here we are (putting aside whatever may be the actual 'reality' of the Alien situation -- doubtful we'll ever get to the truth of this regardless of what is presented to the public)

[stickdog99]

All of our previous principles and critical analysis skills have seemingly been replaced by "Do and believe exactly what your political tribe commands OR ELSE!"

If you question your tribe's narrative one iota, you are treated as a Joe Rogan/Jimmy Dore/Russell Brand/Glenn Greenwald/RFK, Jr. pariah to your tribe. Calls are made to deplatform you, censor you, arrest you, debank you, and most of all to demonize anyone who dares to listen to you or agree with you about anything.

Anyone who remembers when their political tribe was completely anti-censorship, pro-bodily autonomy, anti-war, anti-Big Pharma, pro-First Amendment, and anti-Big Data is effectively erased.

Of course, I want the US government to pay for basic preventative healthcare of all citizens, just as every other first world nation has done for decades.

But we have gone from that agreeing with me on this being a litmus test to be a viable 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate to committing yourself to a platform of never-ending inflation, proxy war with a nuclear power, "mal-information" criminalization, child genital mutilation, child sexualization, CBDCs, WHO-sponsored lockdowns and forced injections, vaccine passports, and outlawing meat, small farms, and private cars in less than 4 years. And the assholes in charge just keep accelerating their dystopian demands.

So why isn't anyone even so much as protesting all this shit? Why is it still Team Blue vs. Team Red?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Yeah, Australiia should have been on lockdown forever because of a bad flu. And anybody who protested against this in any way should have been censored, debanked, and barred from employment.

That's 21st century collectivist spirit at its finest.

The fact that Australian government policy led to continuing historically high overall mortality rates and low birth rates means only that Australia should have locked down, censored, and persecuted noncompliance far longer and far harder.

That's "liberal" theology that no amount of data on the vastly incredible harms of lockdowns can make a dent in. We all bought in for right reasons, and you obviously can't expect totalitarianism to work unless it is total.

In NSW it was clearly stated that lockdowns would end when 95% of the population had antibodies either from vax or infection. That's what happened.

Even afterward, with greater number in the waves of infection no lockdowns occurred because they'd agreed to that policy and stood by it.

No one ever said Australia should be on lockdown forever and at no point did this happen but you continue to say it did cos you're as bad as the people you are criticising - more interested in spreading propaganda than recognising what happened. Go on why don't you now say that cos I disagree with you I want you to lose your job.

[Grizzly]

Ashley Biden Confirms Famed Diary Is Hers & The Full Story Behind FBI Raids On American Journalists

50,711 views Jul 31, 2023
[09.03.2020] VERITAS TIP LINE: "... Ashley Biden was staying in this room and they found her diary, all her clothes, luggage, pills... The diary is pretty crazy."

[10.08.2020] ASHLEY BIDEN: "I am Ashley Biden. It is my stuff."

[Mamaroneck, New York]

Today, Project Veritas published the real story behind the Ashley Biden diary and personal items, when and how it came into our possession, and the subsequent unconstitutional FBI raids of three Veritas journalists. Hear, for the first time, the fateful voicemail left on our tip line, as well as the call, in which Ashley herself confirmed the authenticity of the diary, and the rest of the full story.
In the Fall of 2020, Project Veritas was approached by tipsters claiming they had Ashley Biden’s diary. Veritas had neither met nor heard of these individuals prior thereto. Each of the tipsters indicated they had acquired the diary and personal effects of Ashley Biden after they had been abandoned in a room where Ms. Biden had stayed at that time. The tipsters also claimed the diary included explosive allegations against then-Presidential candidate and current sitting President, Joe Biden.
We took steps to corroborate the authenticity of the diary but, ultimately, made the decision not to publish. We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, Roberta Kaplan. Project Veritas then gave the diary to law enforcement to return it to its rightful owner. Soon after, we learned in 2021 that the Department of Justice began investigating the issue a year prior, claiming the diary was stolen. In November of 2021, James O’Keefe’s and two other journalists’ homes were subjected to pre-dawn FBI raids. Documents obtained by Project Veritas later revealed that details of the investigation were leaked to journalists at the New York Times during the raids.
During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Representative, Andy Biggs, James O’Keefe stated, “In short, we did nothing wrong other than the non-crime of investigating a story, as journalists do.”
When Project Veritas reached out to the Biden campaign for comment on October 16th of 2020, Ashley Biden’s attorney, Ms. Kaplan, responded by email stating, “We should send to the Southern District of New York.” Shortly thereafter, the SDNY approved the first of 19 secret subpoenas, orders and warrants, which gave the Department of Justice unfettered access to Project Veritas’ newsroom, sensitive email and phone data, and gag orders preventing our journalists from knowing about the seizures.
On April 13th, 2022, Project Veritas filed a motion demanding the return of its property from the Department of Justice. In a stunning revelation, it was revealed the Department of Justice had been Spying on Project Veritas journalists’ and security detail’s Apple and Google accounts for over a year.
The American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] published This November 14th, 2021 statement in response to the FBI raids, which reads, “Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures. We urge the court to appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.”
Representative Jim Jordan [R-OH], on April 6th of 2022, Spoke in favor of H.R. 4330, the Press Act, in response to the Department of Justice’s targeting of Project Veritas. Representative Jordan stated, “In a free country, we need to make sure that the government cannot unmask journalists’ sources without good cause. This Bill provides those protections, and it is time we get this legislation signed into law.”
Now, nearly two years following the pre-dawn FBI raids, Project Veritas has spent millions of dollars defending the three journalists. A ruling on whether the government will be allowed to legally see journalists’ privileged materials, including with their own attorneys, is expected soon by United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, Analisa Torres.
Project Veritas maintains that it neither broke any laws, nor committed any crimes, in the pursuit of this story.

Got a tip? VeritasTips@ProtonMail.com!