There are times when you have to infer data because the aim of the government and all power elites is to hide data, hide intentions, hide aims, hide ambitions.

Its why you study the past - to understand the present and the future. So it can't be based solely on what the government is prepared to tell you. That's the attitude of the gullible and the anxiously led. Expecting some "leak, a memo, a whistleblower, an internal comms strategy" before becoming aware of what's actually going on is exactly how governments want it to work and how they get away with so much so often.

Sometimes you have to look past the facts that they are prepared to let you see, to understand what's really going on.

You have to form an opinion.

What was the name of this website again?

Yes, experience matters, mhaze.

//From that understanding, having seen it all before, you should be able to draw valid conclusions from incomplete data about where things will end up…//

But drawing conclusions from "incomplete data" isn’t the same as assuming intent without evidence. It’s one thing to anticipate possibilities; it’s another to treat them as inevitable outcomes. Especially when you're building them on distrust rather than data.

//Again they demand proof that the ultimate aim is censorship of the citizenry...//

Yes, because that’s how reasoned discussion works.

You’re accusing an elected government of planning mass censorship, yet offering only gut instinct and pattern recognition as justification. That’s not a warning, that’s a conspiracy theory dressed in hindsight.

//The ruling elite... controlled all the avenues... But that's all changed now with the rise of the internet... especially with Musk's purchase of Twitter.//

Framing this as a battle between "the elites" and free speech ignores the obvious: media has never been more decentralised than it is now. The internet didn’t just appear. And ironically, the biggest misinformation amplifiers are now private tech billionaires, not governments.

If your model requires Musk to be the underdog, it's probably outdated.

//This is the ALP’s solution to the problem.//

The ALP’s solution was abandoned after public consultation and backlash. That doesn't exactly scream repression. In fact, it shows the system worked.

//…which is why you need to get your VPN asap.//

This is where your whole argument veers off into survivalist theatre. If your best advice is "buy a VPN before the regime cracks down," then you’ve gone from political critique to dystopian fan-fiction.

Broken clocks still manage to be right twice a day. Even cuckoo clocks.

"You’re accusing an elected government of planning mass censorship, yet offering only gut instinct and pattern recognition as justification. That’s not a warning, that’s a conspiracy theory dressed in hindsight."

Well they most certainly want to censor anything they deem anti-Semitic, and this is a very fine line since some consider ANY criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, that's not about the kids and its not a conspiracy.

Care to agree with me mhaze? lol.

China could be the key to the success of the renewed “snapback sanctions” on Iran
http://aijac.org.au/fresh-air/china-could-be-the-key-to-the-success-of-the-renewed-snapback-sanctions-on-iran/

"Snapback provides a promising opportunity to finally bring Iran’s illegal activities to a verifiable end – especially now that sanctions are legally mandatory for all nations under UN Security Council resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835 and 1929. But for the pressure created by these sanctions to be effective, Washington will need to close off Iran’s Chinese safety valve, by moving forward on exploring secondary sanctions against Beijing. Moreover, for these secondary sanctions to be effective, other countries, including Australia, will also need to impose their own so as not to give Beijing room to use its economic power to retaliate against any one economy."

They seem happy enough to manage our foreign policy for us and tell us we need to sanction our largest trading partner, for them.
You want to tell me Israeli interests weren't trying to stop students supportive of Palestine at universities with donation blackmail?

//The ruling elite... controlled all the avenues... But that's all changed now with the rise of the internet... especially with Musk's purchase of Twitter.//

Oh and I hate to break the bad news to you mhaze, but the Israel lobby are going after X now too.

Netanyahu says so, and I cued up the part just for you.
http://www.youtube.com/live/1pDRbwI4R0I?t=969

Conspiracy theories...

Hi John Daysh, I got a question for you.

James Warburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

>>James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker, businessman, and writer. He was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and 'father' of the Federal Reserve System. After World War II, Warburg helped organize the Society for the Prevention of World War III in support of the Morgenthau Plan.

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."<<

When someone hold those kinds of credentials, and states this officially to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Do we believe it, or is it still a conspiracy?

John,

There you go proving my point. The east vs west experiment in Germany wasn't fascism vs communism. It was capitalism vs autocracy, and autocracy came a clear second. And looking at modern Russia, it has much in common with a fascist dictatorship, yet Putin was a communist agent. Like the gestapo agents, the left/right thing doesn't seem to matter as they are compatible with both. I think of fascism vs socialism as a fight between fanatical religious sects: They are both revolting, and both are nothing like the conservative politicians who are falsely being labelled far right.

"No, I favour separating free speech from deliberate disinformation campaigns. That’s not suppression. It’s protecting the space where real speech still means something."

Hitler or Honecker couldn't have said it better, John. Note that one of the first things Hitler did after gaining power was to censor the press, claiming that he needed to do this in order to stop the spread of misinformation. Do you imagine that opposition to the net zero nonsense and wind and solar lunacy amounts to some sort of sinister misinformation campaign? Clearly you do.

"/Your belief that defining truth is simple...//

That's a strawman. I've never said that. "

Well, you believed with certainty that the Uluru statement was a single page, which I saw as a clear indicator of an authoritarian bent.

"What I find particularly offensive, however, is your a loaded reframing designed to make me sound authoritarian: "defining truth...""

No need for me to do that, John. You've defined yourself with your repeated lies and aggressive verballing.