Neil Oliver: 'The Government practice of lying about why they’re doing something is forever exposed'

The time when

government

s could offer an explanation for what

they

are

doing

and hope to have accepted has ended the

practice

of

lying

about why

they

are

doing

something

. By leaving a false trail you are irremediably and

forever

exposed

to

government

s. Whoever is behind the governments. The media drives narratives. Many of those governments will have to accept that with the arrival of the Internet and social networks, and the rest, either we are interested in asking citizens, we can discover for ourselves what is happening, we can no longer be fooled, whatever a government wants to do. The most important thing is why they want to do it, they are going to have to put on their big boy and girl pants and tell people the truth from the beginning, because if they don't, we will find out that truth anyway and what they used to call a Minute of New York which brings me to the BBC's latest ridiculous hypocrisy amid the launch of verifying a new Ministry of Truth sponsor state if ever there was one.

The BBC's own disinformation correspondent, Mariana Spring, revealed that as part of her own search. Truth be told, she had created fake profiles on social media with made-up names and cool photos. I have some covert accounts set up for the BBC americast podcast. You wrote this help understanding online polarization. It's fascinating to see at least those accounts set up during the 2022 midterm elections are Larry, a conservative Britain of faith and flag, of the populist right, Gabriella, the stressed outcast, Michael, the Democratic mainstay, and Emma, ​​​​of the progressive left, they all invented a fiction, self-evident that those false and misleading accounts are disinformation or misinformation and by their Presumably, their existence could exacerbate the polarization they are said to monitor.

The claim and defense of Springs' fake accounts is that they enable The Search for Truth (who's kidding), here falsehoods can cause really serious harm to society and the people in them, she wrote. It is a myth, a truth as well as a lie, and if so, why not use that more direct and precise word, lie? Or is the use of lies a slippery way of condemning and sidelining a valid alternative interpretation of events and reality that the BBC simply makes? "I Don't Like and I Certainly Don't Want Spring to Be Widely Circulated" highlights her concerns about what she calls the quote of the conspiracy theory movement and then she's also investigating other falsehoods and the real-world harm they can cause, wrote, writes about how the UK conspiracy theory movement has evolved and intensified since the pandemic, let us remember that both what is ridiculed and the conspiracy theory is revealed over time as truth, she is also determinedly looking for connections between conspiracy and far-right figures, are we to conclude that only the so-called far-right is to be subject to BBC scrutiny that no one on the left, whatever the left, now holds views that could be considered extreme.

Consider, for example, the published views of one Oscar Bentley now listed among the BBC's political facts. Checkers Bentley was described by The Daily Mail in April as a far-left who described Conservative MPs as inferior to invertebrates and said he never trusted Tori Bentley's work in helping to fact-check political debates (a role that a reasonable person might have assumed) required demonstrable political impartiality, but apparently not according to That BBC fact-checker, we should never trust our conservative because he has snake-like anatomy. I would say that his way of thinking seems less than objective, let me be clear, as we say now, that I have no faith in the honesty of the members of any group. political party over another liberal conservative labor SNP not even if they have thorns, with a couple of honorable exceptions.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could, but here is the BBC funded by a mandatory tax on the public seeking to claim the moral High Ground, an elevated position literally dominating its own newsroom upon which to build a veritable fortress, a Camelot of objectivity, reliability and truth, this is the same BBC that has recently made headlines such as that of 7 July 2021, backed by rural racism. Why is our Countryside 98 white and also made repeated use of the BBC's triple whammy of pale, stale and male target? I could go on and on about the blatant misappropriation of the BBC seeking to set itself up as a paragon of virtue, but the fact that hypocrisy also exposes an uncomfortable truth, which is that the State, as it now appears to be so frustrated with ordinary people speaking among themselves, doing their own research on topics that interest them and sharing information online, they have chosen to declare themselves the source of truth. while dismissing other voices as myths, truths, conspiracy theories, remember when Jacinda fell, the former prime minister of New Zealand urged her citizens to make our government the only source of truth on earth, if that didn't make her It would chill their blood in their veins.

I don't know what it would be like here in Britain, the state broadcaster now increasingly seeking to present its propagandists and activists as the Ministry of Truth, too late, too late, although too many people here and around the world are now so sensitive and, therefore, deliberately distanced from him. state propaganda and so helpfully immersed in legitimate sources of information that is not disinformation or disinformation, it is simply information that the antics of those who would treat us like naughty children and read to us while we sit on the naughty step are too obvious to ever be The truth can be trusted again, the real truth of the world is evident.

Each of us knows the difference between good and evil without having to be told. We know that when

something

feels bad, sounds bad, smells bad, is wrong, some might choose to do the wrong thing. anyway or remain silent while evil continues its murky affairs, but everyone knows the difference anyway the battle between truth and lies between good and evil is increasingly about simple fundamentals property and control of the land we live on the source and nature of the food we eat and must feed our children our freedom to ask questions of authority the freedom to go where we want in a free country without first proving our identity the freedom to buy and sell privately without the state and the banks controlling what we are doing freedom from a future in which the decisions about what we can or cannot do with our money could not be made by us but by others, not We know if the prospect, the threat of summer, all this and more, seems wrong to you, that is because it is what some are contemplating and now imposing on us.

It is wrong that the emergence of a BBC effort like verifying is a symptom of a state increasingly determined to be the only source of information this growing intention to make dissent first uncomfortable and then increasingly impossible should give pause to all those whose options are replaced by not choosing or by pushing or perhaps coercion a population must rightly be suspicious of the motives of those driving change I have already mentioned the land, what is the truth about the State? intentions regarding our land, specifically farmland, we absolutely need the truth right now because it is literally the soil beneath our feet that provides the very essence of Our Lives.

In the Netherlands, the government is firmly determined to drive farmers off the land they have found for generations. According to the EU's Natura 2000 standards, a third of Dutch livestock must leave to combat a nitrogen crisis, a crisis that does not exist in reality but in the projections and predictions prepared by those in power and driving the call green agenda. simmering across the Atlantic on May 10 at an Agriculture and Climate Summit hosted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Joe Biden's climate czar John Kerry said Net Zero's goals would not be achieved without addressing greenhouse gas emissions from American farms, according to Kerry's agriculture creates one-third of the world's total carbon emissions.

He said reducing those emissions had to be front and center in the war against global warming. He has said that government confiscation of farmers' land was not off the table if that is really true. Trying to save the planet, shouldn't food independence be the priority? Perhaps an approach that involves growing good natural foods as close to home as possible. An approach to eating fresh, seasonal foods instead of f

lying

food in from thousands of miles away. Who in their right mind would do it? put the central government in control of food as if history says that government collectivization of agriculture has ever gone well.

Let's not forget that when Stalin and Mao took control of the farmlands, tens of millions died of hunger and disease. I will gladly state for the record that "we" are not being told the truth about why so many things are being changed without our consent. Entities were supposed to trust that change is driven by the need to save the world and drive equity and diversity. I say the truth of it all is too uncomfortable for them. to say out loud I see the world being changed in the name of control of the many by the few the same old control of the earth 15 minute ghettos digital currencies and ID Net Zero none of this is about saving the world and They are all about control.

I was hoping that after all the outcry from voices questioning the government's handling of the covert debacle, things would have become easier and that talking about the latest issues of concern would have been accepted as the right thing to do, but no. it's the truth. It's that speaking up and asking questions is now even more likely to lead to ridicule, insult, and cancellation rather than being heard. People are even more casually dehumanized and reduced to labels of the most offensive kind. Racists, anti-Semites, far-right. Calamities that dishonor the issuer. of bile instead of its intended target. I've been on the receiving end of all of the above and more, and I hold the purveyors of said misapplied filth in the lowest regard, but in The New Normal none of what used to be considered the rules of polite discourse matter at all and individuals apparently must be reduced, translated, turned into something that must be considered despicable and disposable, but here's the thing, the truth has not moved or changed, the truth is where it always was and what it always was.

If our government, its propagandists and apparatuses had to come up with a new office and a new label to try to persuade that they are telling the truth, then I would say the ship has sailed.