Both Israel and the US hold public grand juries which often lead to criminal or civil cases. I don't know if Australia has the same provisions but I think they are great peaceful avenues for fact-finding.
"It is anonymous and therefore deceitful."
Gotta disagree with you on this. Public anonymity is essential for free speech which allows the fruits of one's work to be judged on its own merits. Not everyone can afford private 24 hr security after being told they should be liquidated in a camp...also many of are behind enemy lines. When it's time to go for broke and unmask, it's time. Until then, anonymity is critical.
Hello there ExcessDeathsAU - sorry if I touched a sore point on anonymity. In your case it is not deceitful since you aren't trying to demonise people and manipulate the public. You are simply trying to write the facts (supported by evidence) as you see them. But in the CookerWatch ecosystem it is deceitful because they are pushing propaganda for unknown backers.
Perhaps I should have clarified (and I did in an earlier edit but i cut it for length) that the media is not supposed to use anonymous sources unless in cases where - as you say - the person is behind enemy lines and must be protected, the story is in the public interest and cannot be got any other way. In fact that used to be the ideal encouraged in newsrooms. But government media spox started demanding we all use "spokesperson" instead of their name and got angry if journalists quoted their name... so standards slipped and suddenly anonymity was for everyone.
As is so often the case in journalism, everything is a case-by-case merit basis. CookerWatch's case for anonymity has less merit because the ecosystem is clearly designed to destroy political opponents. Therefore the public has a right to know who is backing and funding them and who they are connected with.
Ok, but to play devil's advocate, who decides who is 'meritorious' enough to retain anonymity? And what is in the 'public interest'? And isn't that ultimately the point of politics? To destroy your political opponent in the court of public opinion? Everyone pretends it isn't, but it definitely is. Instead, perhaps people should declare funding and conflicts of interest more often, and we could actually have a mechanism for stopping people who are compromised. Often people declare their COI and then nothing happens. I find that really annoying.
We do not live in a world of absolutes so there are not clear cut categories. But as a journo, the ideal is that anonymity is for whistleblowers not political head-kickers. Anonymity is for those who are acting in the public interest at risk to themselves. It is not for people to use as a shield to bully others or engage in politics. I agree with you it is annoying when nothing is done about conflicts of interests.
Or another view, anonymity is the father of cowardice 🤷♂️
The fact that people need protection for expressing their point of view shows how far our society has descended, as a species we seem to be de evolving unfortunately.
You think the ABC needs to be held to account and I think it’s beyond help and should be defunded.
The ABC interview with the Russian Ambassador on Ukraine demonstrated how pathetic an excuse for journalism it has become, only it’s chosen propaganda narrative is permissible.
Bizarre times we live in right now but essentially history repeating in ways we couldn’t have imagined even a decade ago, with the changes in technology and “science “. But actually repeating nevertheless.
Another excellent article by you, and I look forward to your book launch.
I am currently reading 180 degrees by Feargus O’Connor Greenwood and will read your book even if it is only for entertainment as some might accuse me 😎
yes and the interview with Bill Gates was extremely weak also, and pandered to him, giving him dorothy dixers about "antivax conspiracy theorists" when he is the WHO's 2nd largest funder and his charity foundation web pushed the mRNA vaccines - and also owns the patent for GSK's new TB vaccine (which is why the WHO is now pretending the reliable and safe BCG doesn't exist). The one "tough" question asked was easily deflected, about Jeffrey Epstein, which he simply parried by saying he only went to dinner a few times with him. It wasn't a very hard question. She didn't for example probe Whitney Webb's allegations of his being in tight with Epstein (a Democrat financier) a decade earlier, as reported in the UK press. It was just a hat tip to toughness thrown in to make it look like a hard-hitting interview, which it wasn't.
Those underdog few of us that can handle the Truth appreciate that you have the true grit to keep calling it Alison.
Matthias Desmet whose current teachings on Mass Formation Psychosis, destined to become seminal. Insists we must and have a moral obligation to keep propagating the truth even against the odds, his belief is that it makes a difference even if it’s not obvious at the time!
yes, you are right. I thought 'mass formation psychosis' was just a fancy new term for "the madness of crowds' but that insight is important - it's important to say the truth even if it's not obvious to others, because it opens a window for freedom of thought. If you can't even imagine a possibility other than what you are told by the government because you never hear different, then no freedom is possible. This is why i love infowars/alex jones even when it's totally wrong and exaggerated and silly. Because it allows for freedom of thought.
Guerrilla tactics is the most proven way against a vastly superior force, all we can do is chip away at the edges of what ultimately becomes a top heavy and increasingly clumsy ego centered foe 🤷♂️
We must find common ground and attempt to unite within our minority.
Sounds somewhat like 'Swaledale mutton' lot in U.K who attacked vaccine injured on social platforms like twitter. Saw some of what they wrote, toxic and psychopathic
Interesting how the commonwealth nations all did similar, someone pointed out canada also weakened its regulations for new medicine safety testing around the same time we brought in provisional registration (2018). The five eyes nations also get around domestic restraints on spying by just helping each other from a different jurisdiction, it has been reported
Sounds like CookerWatch are implementing Saul Alinskys Rules for Radicals.
No one is anonymous, just more tech savvy than their target. Sooner or later they will target someone with some decent skills, and their cover will get blown.
Yes, I think they might be. I have read a bit of Saul Alinsky but it's a lot of 'community organising' before you get to any rules.... It's wrong of media to roll out the red carpet for this anonymous control operation as who they are backed by and who their affiliates are (which we cannot know) makes a big difference --- for example, if they are subcontracted to Home Affairs eg, or a PR company hired by Medicines Australia - that would make a difference to our interpretation of them making fun of people who oppose forced injections of genetic vaccines to control the culture. It makes a big difference because of what they do.
"cooker" is short for "cooked unit" which means someone on drugs or been in the sun too long and fried their brain. It means crazy person. It's derogatory and offensive.
As I see it, the problem is not that their victims are forced to back down, but that they become socially isolated and unable to fairly compete in the marketplace of ideas. Their voices are marginalised. It is a control mechanism to restrict speech and political organisation tightly but with deniability.
You didn't provide a *shred* of evidence. You listed your suppositions, and proved none of your claims. No proof of ASIO affiliation, no proof of corporate affiliation, no proof of any organisation whatsoever. If you are making these claims, the onus is on you to prove them - not just make vague statements you claim come from 'sources' with no context and no supporting evidence.
Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand the concept of individual, grass-roots initiatives from people who are sick to death of cooker lies and harassment? Do you think yourselves so important that you need to invent a cloak-and-dagger, government-funded task force whose sworn duty is to bring you down at any cost?
Good investigative journalism requires more than assertions. It requires research, supporting evidence, and - above all - objectivity. Your article has none of these.
How could anybody ever post evidence of asio affiliation. It wouldn’t be legal even if you could get it.
You’re free to throw rocks but i stand by my piece. Vaxatious Litigant will be throwing rocks at the injured and bereaved class action next. I notice vaxatious litigant is all over the twitter feed of ABC’s sydney-based court reporter, no doubt trying to influence his coverage to put down the people trying to have their voices heard.
Because Cookerwatch is anonymous I would have no way to know whether the account claiming to be Cookerwatch actually represents Cookerwatch. Because they are anonymous is your answer. It doesn’t look like Cookerwatch ever gives a right of reply to its victims.
You could have easily DM'd me on Twitter. You could have asked anyone from the Twitch community. I've often revealed myself. You just can't accept that a single person can object to you and that it has to be some secret government sponsored agency.
Like most conspiracy theorists, you are just used to seeing things that are not there.
I don't claim to be a journalist, yet you do. I thought that's what journalists do. Maybe you are no longer a journalist because that would explain things.
As I said, I would have no way to know if the account responding actually represents Cookerwatch which is anonymous and therefore deceitful - and more importantly who is behind them. It is quite self-evident what the Cookerwatch account is doing by their public tweets.
Both Israel and the US hold public grand juries which often lead to criminal or civil cases. I don't know if Australia has the same provisions but I think they are great peaceful avenues for fact-finding.
"It is anonymous and therefore deceitful."
Gotta disagree with you on this. Public anonymity is essential for free speech which allows the fruits of one's work to be judged on its own merits. Not everyone can afford private 24 hr security after being told they should be liquidated in a camp...also many of are behind enemy lines. When it's time to go for broke and unmask, it's time. Until then, anonymity is critical.
Hello there ExcessDeathsAU - sorry if I touched a sore point on anonymity. In your case it is not deceitful since you aren't trying to demonise people and manipulate the public. You are simply trying to write the facts (supported by evidence) as you see them. But in the CookerWatch ecosystem it is deceitful because they are pushing propaganda for unknown backers.
Perhaps I should have clarified (and I did in an earlier edit but i cut it for length) that the media is not supposed to use anonymous sources unless in cases where - as you say - the person is behind enemy lines and must be protected, the story is in the public interest and cannot be got any other way. In fact that used to be the ideal encouraged in newsrooms. But government media spox started demanding we all use "spokesperson" instead of their name and got angry if journalists quoted their name... so standards slipped and suddenly anonymity was for everyone.
As is so often the case in journalism, everything is a case-by-case merit basis. CookerWatch's case for anonymity has less merit because the ecosystem is clearly designed to destroy political opponents. Therefore the public has a right to know who is backing and funding them and who they are connected with.
Ok, but to play devil's advocate, who decides who is 'meritorious' enough to retain anonymity? And what is in the 'public interest'? And isn't that ultimately the point of politics? To destroy your political opponent in the court of public opinion? Everyone pretends it isn't, but it definitely is. Instead, perhaps people should declare funding and conflicts of interest more often, and we could actually have a mechanism for stopping people who are compromised. Often people declare their COI and then nothing happens. I find that really annoying.
We do not live in a world of absolutes so there are not clear cut categories. But as a journo, the ideal is that anonymity is for whistleblowers not political head-kickers. Anonymity is for those who are acting in the public interest at risk to themselves. It is not for people to use as a shield to bully others or engage in politics. I agree with you it is annoying when nothing is done about conflicts of interests.
Or another view, anonymity is the father of cowardice 🤷♂️
The fact that people need protection for expressing their point of view shows how far our society has descended, as a species we seem to be de evolving unfortunately.
I have listened to your point, ExcessDeathsAU and I have put in a clarification paragraph about source anonymity.
You think the ABC needs to be held to account and I think it’s beyond help and should be defunded.
The ABC interview with the Russian Ambassador on Ukraine demonstrated how pathetic an excuse for journalism it has become, only it’s chosen propaganda narrative is permissible.
Bizarre times we live in right now but essentially history repeating in ways we couldn’t have imagined even a decade ago, with the changes in technology and “science “. But actually repeating nevertheless.
Another excellent article by you, and I look forward to your book launch.
I am currently reading 180 degrees by Feargus O’Connor Greenwood and will read your book even if it is only for entertainment as some might accuse me 😎
yes and the interview with Bill Gates was extremely weak also, and pandered to him, giving him dorothy dixers about "antivax conspiracy theorists" when he is the WHO's 2nd largest funder and his charity foundation web pushed the mRNA vaccines - and also owns the patent for GSK's new TB vaccine (which is why the WHO is now pretending the reliable and safe BCG doesn't exist). The one "tough" question asked was easily deflected, about Jeffrey Epstein, which he simply parried by saying he only went to dinner a few times with him. It wasn't a very hard question. She didn't for example probe Whitney Webb's allegations of his being in tight with Epstein (a Democrat financier) a decade earlier, as reported in the UK press. It was just a hat tip to toughness thrown in to make it look like a hard-hitting interview, which it wasn't.
Those underdog few of us that can handle the Truth appreciate that you have the true grit to keep calling it Alison.
Matthias Desmet whose current teachings on Mass Formation Psychosis, destined to become seminal. Insists we must and have a moral obligation to keep propagating the truth even against the odds, his belief is that it makes a difference even if it’s not obvious at the time!
yes, you are right. I thought 'mass formation psychosis' was just a fancy new term for "the madness of crowds' but that insight is important - it's important to say the truth even if it's not obvious to others, because it opens a window for freedom of thought. If you can't even imagine a possibility other than what you are told by the government because you never hear different, then no freedom is possible. This is why i love infowars/alex jones even when it's totally wrong and exaggerated and silly. Because it allows for freedom of thought.
Guerrilla tactics is the most proven way against a vastly superior force, all we can do is chip away at the edges of what ultimately becomes a top heavy and increasingly clumsy ego centered foe 🤷♂️
We must find common ground and attempt to unite within our minority.
Thanks Alison.
Brilliant.
Philip
Thanks Philip, you've made my day.
Sounds somewhat like 'Swaledale mutton' lot in U.K who attacked vaccine injured on social platforms like twitter. Saw some of what they wrote, toxic and psychopathic
Interesting how the commonwealth nations all did similar, someone pointed out canada also weakened its regulations for new medicine safety testing around the same time we brought in provisional registration (2018). The five eyes nations also get around domestic restraints on spying by just helping each other from a different jurisdiction, it has been reported
Sounds like CookerWatch are implementing Saul Alinskys Rules for Radicals.
No one is anonymous, just more tech savvy than their target. Sooner or later they will target someone with some decent skills, and their cover will get blown.
Yes, I think they might be. I have read a bit of Saul Alinsky but it's a lot of 'community organising' before you get to any rules.... It's wrong of media to roll out the red carpet for this anonymous control operation as who they are backed by and who their affiliates are (which we cannot know) makes a big difference --- for example, if they are subcontracted to Home Affairs eg, or a PR company hired by Medicines Australia - that would make a difference to our interpretation of them making fun of people who oppose forced injections of genetic vaccines to control the culture. It makes a big difference because of what they do.
Isn't "cooker" alleged slang for Anti-Vaxxer? I never heard of it here in WA.
"cooker" is short for "cooked unit" which means someone on drugs or been in the sun too long and fried their brain. It means crazy person. It's derogatory and offensive.
ahhh, so "crazywatch" is their name.
oh well, people like that are fun to acknowledge and escalate, they assume the insults result in a backdown. I don't.
As I see it, the problem is not that their victims are forced to back down, but that they become socially isolated and unable to fairly compete in the marketplace of ideas. Their voices are marginalised. It is a control mechanism to restrict speech and political organisation tightly but with deniability.
Pfizer documents: Naomi Wolf speech at Hillsdale College last week is a cracker. Off topic, but for those who haven't seen it's worth watching https://rumble.com/v2hpryu-naomi-wolf-whats-in-the-pfizer-documents.html
This is the most laughable thing I've seen in a long time.
Every one of your 'deductions' about CookerWatch is stupidly, embarrassingly *wrong*.
Every one of your accusations about what individual activist have done is also stupidly, embarrasingly wrong. Provably wrong.
Really? How so since it is an anonymous account, feel free to post your evidence. I linked and sourced all my assertions, with evidence.
You didn't provide a *shred* of evidence. You listed your suppositions, and proved none of your claims. No proof of ASIO affiliation, no proof of corporate affiliation, no proof of any organisation whatsoever. If you are making these claims, the onus is on you to prove them - not just make vague statements you claim come from 'sources' with no context and no supporting evidence.
Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand the concept of individual, grass-roots initiatives from people who are sick to death of cooker lies and harassment? Do you think yourselves so important that you need to invent a cloak-and-dagger, government-funded task force whose sworn duty is to bring you down at any cost?
Good investigative journalism requires more than assertions. It requires research, supporting evidence, and - above all - objectivity. Your article has none of these.
Oh, btw, i am not an investigator. I am a journalist but not particularly investigative. That is the actual paid job of 4corners who are not doing it.
How could anybody ever post evidence of asio affiliation. It wouldn’t be legal even if you could get it.
You’re free to throw rocks but i stand by my piece. Vaxatious Litigant will be throwing rocks at the injured and bereaved class action next. I notice vaxatious litigant is all over the twitter feed of ABC’s sydney-based court reporter, no doubt trying to influence his coverage to put down the people trying to have their voices heard.
Why didn't you reach out to me for comment? Some sort of journalist you are.
Because Cookerwatch is anonymous I would have no way to know whether the account claiming to be Cookerwatch actually represents Cookerwatch. Because they are anonymous is your answer. It doesn’t look like Cookerwatch ever gives a right of reply to its victims.
You could have easily DM'd me on Twitter. You could have asked anyone from the Twitch community. I've often revealed myself. You just can't accept that a single person can object to you and that it has to be some secret government sponsored agency.
Like most conspiracy theorists, you are just used to seeing things that are not there.
I don't claim to be a journalist, yet you do. I thought that's what journalists do. Maybe you are no longer a journalist because that would explain things.
As I said, I would have no way to know if the account responding actually represents Cookerwatch which is anonymous and therefore deceitful - and more importantly who is behind them. It is quite self-evident what the Cookerwatch account is doing by their public tweets.
@CookerWatch
Respectfully asking a few direct questions if you’ll indulge me for a moment …
What is the purpose of anonymity?
What are your expertise in determining what is or isn’t a conspiracy theory?
Do you completely agree with 100 population should be injected with the c19 💉 . ?
Much appreciated 🙏
Well this was a dumb read. We can not know if Alison is a pedo or a freemason or a person with a foot fetish
Sounds like you are affiliated with cookerwatch, and your ad hominem attack says more about you. That is why i am leaving it here for all to enjoy.