04 December 2025

Social media ban, chat control, digital id, are all a farce


Another global lie is being forced on the people.

As usual there is never one agenda behind any government's dystopian actions.

Governments and corporations around the world are attacking 'netizens' (users of the internet, 'net citizens) for no other reasons than to stifle free speech, then punish people for their 'free speech' and to enact institutional control over the masses.

Quite simply put the social media ban in Australia which is to be enacted in just under a week, to (allegedly) protect the children (of the cannon fodder) will not work.

In any event the people in charge of the masses (truly) do not care about the children of the masses, as they are disposable resources.

IF the authorities truly cared about child safety, then for example there would have been criminal charges laid against the people involved in the Epstein Files a while ago and not being the clown show for what it is.

IF the authorities truly cared about child safety, then the (migrant) child grooming gangs in the UK would have been sorted out a long time ago.

The dark reality is that governments want/need crime to exist, to keep the general population in fear and under control and distracted from the criminal actions of those in government/control.

From its inception, telecommunications was (deliberately) never designed for the masses to be 'private' and certainly not encrypted.

One cannot deny that governments and corporate authorities can and in a lot of cases are, corrupt, e.g. Wikileaks exposing US government corruption.

It is through necessity that software developers have created secure communications that benefit your privacy (and security), keeping communication away from the corrupt people in government, something that does not sit well with them.

They want the pleb's lives to be transparent, yet these so called 'public servants' rule in secrecy and deception.

Their motto is 'nothing to hide nothing to fear', where it goes both ways doesn't it?

See article: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-fallacy-of-you-have-nothing-to-fear-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

The 'chat control' has nothing to do with catching criminals, but rather thwarting the masses 'free speech' as the first perceived enemy of every government is the general population.

In this digital age, 'people' can more easily expose the ('alleged') criminal actions of those in power, which is something they do not want to happen.

INSTEAD of dealing with the accusations by whistleblowers governments 'shoot the messenger', again Wikileaks as an example, how honourable.

ANOTHER farce told by the UK is that they need to implement digital identification to stop illegal immigrant workforce.

Illegal immigration is a border issue and not an administrative card/digital id issue.

Another deliberately misguided action to fool the masses, that will enact fascist institutional control just like in a 1930s style 'Your papers, please' era.

Google is also enacting identification of developers that wish to make software for Android smartphones, saying that this action will prevent apps with malware.

Briefly, as this topic is beyond the scope of this article, this is another farce, as Google already possesses the technology to prevent malware from reaching Android users but chooses not to enable it.

This action is about exposing/doxing developers that create apps that are not conducive to the corporate fascists.

It's ALL about putting 'you' (the masses) into digital slavery.

Remember there WILL be data breaches and it will be YOUR identity that will be exposed, putting you and/or your finances at risk.

MANY content creators have spoken against these actions, where here is just a small collection:

The EU is Destroying Privacy:


What Happens If You Refuse Australia’s Digital ID in 2025?:



The "Digital Omnibus" Is Here: Protect Your Data Now:


EXPOSING Chat Control: The Government's Plan To Kill Free Speech:

Digital ID : Voluntary Now…Mandatory Later?:


Digital ID Australia - Techno Authoritarianism:



We are ALL In Danger!:


Doxing Yourself to (Not) Save Privacy Developers:


End of Encryption: How the EU Wants to Spy on ALL Your Messages:




02 December 2025

Dezi Freeman in South Africa? A monumental failure of government.

It has recently been reported that a Melbourne business by the name of “Stuart” who works in AFL circles allegedly saw alleged cop killer Dezi Freeman, in Cape Town South Africa on the 1st of September 2025, as reported by new.com.au



It was also reported that: “Shortly after lunchtime on September 2, the 74-year-old was walking north towards the waterfront at the corner of Dock Rd and S. Arm Rd when a man caught his attention.

“His eyes fixed on me. He was about seven metres away, but his gaze felt almost magnetic,” he said.”

There already is an inconsistency of dates, giving rise to Stuart being an ‘unreliable witness’.

Is it Monday or Tuesday (1st or 2nd of September) that Stuart allegedly saw Mr. Freeman?

After returning to Melbourne on September 4, Stuart contacted Crime Stoppers where later, a Victoria Police spokesman dismissed the claim.

Freeman would have had to flee Australia by air, as a seven day window between the alleged shooting of the two officers and alleged Cape Town appearance is too short for sea travel.

IF Freeman fled by air, then it’s a catastrophic failure by the federal government.

Airport facial recognition has been in Australia ‘officially’ since May 2011.

Therefore even if there was a passport with Freeman’s face with a false name, he should have been stopped at the gates.

Freeman should have been assessed as a flight risk from the moment he fled.

If he wasn't, then that's a failure of government.

If caught or he's still alive, will Freeman ever have a ‘fair trial’?

Even if there is photo/video proof of an incident, in every criminal case magic word is ‘alleged’.

In the Rule of Law in Australia there is something called the 'presumption of innocence'.

The presumption of Innocence is a principle that states the prosecution must prove guilt, and the accused is considered innocent until proven otherwise.

The presumption of innocence ensures individuals will be punished by a court, only in accordance with the law. Until a person is found guilty, they are known as the ‘accused’.  An accused can be held on remand (in prison) while awaiting trial, but even if they are denied bail, they are considered innocent until proven otherwise. 

The onus of proof of the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove every element of the offence, rather than the burden shifting to the accused to prove their innocence. The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must satisfy this high standard before a person can be found guilty.  In criminal trials, judges or juries decide whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   

The mainstream media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch’s Herald Sun stated that Dezi Freeman is a “cop killer” without any court conviction or trial.


See also video of the title: 
Dezi Freeman: The Gunshot Police DON'T Want You to Know About