A bit of reality, censorship has arrived

In a few years you will not be able to say anything that is not approved by the official discourse, you will not be able to spend your money however you want and you will not be able to escape any of all that, reality is very harsh, the figure of the intervening state is the figure In the medium-term future, there will officially be no crisis and if someone denounces it, you will not be able to say that it is the fault of the irrational issuance of money or the disastrous management of your rulers, it will only be the fault of the companies or those who are not collectivists. .

I don't understand where the people are, what they expect, the intervening state makes sure that the sacrifice of a few is not rewarded, those who want to prosper in an environment that already does not favor the culture of effort are stigmatized, it is stigmatized. They sell working less and demanding more as social achievements, demands for many who do nothing and who finance themselves with a few who do a lot and that plunder, they call it taxes and also social justice, if you say otherwise, if you try to prove it, it will be fake news and end of debate.

The difference between how control over the population was proposed and the way it is done now lies in the fact that before it was done with some modesty and some care and now they explain it directly to us clearly, I suppose because they have realized that the level of social acceptance is so great that it is worth accelerating the process, they have realized that the social "chloroform" supplied has had an effect, an effect above what was expected, the "chloroform" has been injected in such a way So even in the most absolute misery and in the greatest degree of vital slavery, many people continue to think that this is not so bad.

I have already mentioned in other publications what is being prepared, without people realizing it, I am not talking to you about the digital euro (verified), nor about the mandatory health card (verified), also nor about the digital identifier (verified), nor legalized facial recognition after the latest reforms or the latest regulation in the Artificial Intelligence law of the European Union (verified), I am not talking to you about those, things I have already told you about in my other publications, which I recommend that you you see it

As you will hear in the video, and I ask you to listen to them first, Doña Úrsula calls for public-private collaboration to fight misinformation in the 2024 elections, Von der Leyen has changed the focus of priorities by placing a specific issue above others that They were previously considered of utmost importance, because according to her, for the global business community, climate change is no longer the main concern in the next two years, instead she says that she highlights disinformation and misinformation as the biggest current problem, followed by close, yes due to the growing polarization in our societies.

In her speech, as you have heard, Von der Leyen highlights the need to establish alliances between governments and the private sector to fight disinformation, she emphasized that the solution not only lies in collaboration between countries, but also lies in the crucial cooperation between companies, governments and democracies.

Finally, in that speech he warned about the dangers of disinformation and misinformation as I told you because he says they threaten social cohesion, he points out the risk that some governments act too slowly debating between preventing disinformation and protecting freedom of expression At the same time, she expresses concern that repressive governments will take advantage of stricter regulatory control to undermine human rights, giving lessons.

The second Pro-Censorship proclamation was in the hands of a panelist at the same Davos forum, Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes, who blames Trump for disinformation and asks companies to join the World Economic Forum and told them and governments around the world. the world to do something about it.

Oreskes' statements, although they seem to be aimed at combating disinformation, suggest a more active intervention by private companies and elites in the regulation of public discourse, this is clearly from the point of view of those who defend freedom of expression and oppose censorship, then a frontal attack, Naomi Oreskes' focus on the figure of Trump and his statements as a source of misinformation and the suggestion that social media platforms should be stricter in their censorship ignores something fundamental that I see as who decides what constitutes disinformation.

This proposal will pave the way for the most powerful companies and entities to have disproportionate control over the public narrative, which could evidently lead to bias and selective censorship, this woman who at the world economic forum represented the University said that the private sector plays a very active role or should play a very active role in the fight against disinformation, even if it goes against its fiscal interests. It also suggests a collaboration of elites and politics to restrict freedom of expression. expression, is obviously perceived as a tool of control rather than a genuine concern for truth and transparency.