About

About unseenbeings

Written on: September 2025

This page is not written in the voice of neutrality. It is a record of method and philosophy: how and why this archive exists.

unseenbeings began as an attempt to map absence.
It has since evolved into an investigation of deliberate non-implementation —
where government builds the scaffolding of oversight only to leave it empty.

Its sole purpose is to strip away the halos of institutional performance and human self-comfort, leaving a stark record of the void, the limit, and true accountability.

1. What We Found in the Archive (The Supervisory Illusion)

🕳️ The OIC’s Time Black Hole

The OIC has officially admitted to a severe backlog and has no timeline for resolution.
Its case allocation process is non-transparent and non-chronological, meaning a complaint can be indefinitely shelved.
Conclusion: The right to an external review, when indefinitely delayed, is a right nullified.

🔒 The Ombudsman’s Procedural Deadlock

Confirms it cannot investigate the OIC, citing jurisdictional limits.
The Ombudsman’s official position is that it will not act until the OIC has closed its case.
The result: the OIC’s delay automatically becomes the Ombudsman’s delay.
Given the Ombudsman’s own tendency for delays, this creates a dual time-lag — dysfunction compounded.

🎭 The Illusion of Parliamentary Channels

WA Committees: Often engage in performative theatre, where process is more symbolic than substantive.
Federal Level: The Senate and its committees have long noted FOI and oversight failures, but lack the will or power to enforce repairs.
Essence: Parliamentary oversight is often just another act of archiving a known failure.

The Equation:

Animal Welfare Regulation = A Known Theatre
FOI / OIC / Ombudsman = A Procedural Illusion
Parliament = A Theatre of Summation

→ The entire oversight system reveals itself to be an illusion.

⚖️ The Underlying Cause

This systemic failure, documented in official papers, cannot be explained away by mismanagement or lack of resources.
It points to a deeper dilemma of power, responsibility, and self-deception.

The Consumer Contradiction: The public desires cheap, mass-produced meat.
The Cultural Contradiction: Society wants to see itself as humane and civilised, but cannot face the cruelty of industrial farming.
The Core Conflict: Factory farming reality is incompatible with civilisation’s self-image.
The Result: The system manufactures supervisory illusions (OIC, Ombudsman, Parliament), creating the appearance of oversight while the structure is hollow.

2. The Philosophical Argument

An institution is not omnipotent. It has limits. It can fail.
But it cannot fail and simultaneously feign innocence.

This requires acknowledging humanity’s historical shift: from prey to sovereign.
The issue is not the act of eating meat, but the act of pretending innocence — of denying the blood on our hands.

Truth: illusion is the deepest form of violence. To acknowledge the facts is the bare minimum of honesty.

Response: unseenbeings refuses this illusion.

3. The Project’s Stance

I do not rescue.
I do not persuade.
I do not mobilise.

I only record.
I translate the outputs — ∅ (No Document), ✖ (Exempt), ~ (Smokescreen), ✓ (Delivered) — into a map of systemic rupture.

4. The Ethical Conclusion (Humanity & Animals)

To eat meat is not the original sin. But we must acknowledge that the meal on the plate was once a life, a consciousness.
Humanity is part of a chain. We must see the blood on our hands — and only then make our choice.

From 2030, the rise of cultured meat may offer a technological exit from systemic oppression and slaughter.
But a deeper reckoning lies further ahead.

unseenbeings translates this act of seeing into an archive, and entrusts it to the future.