Egregious political chancer George Galloway saying that he is not “antisemitic” because, inter alia, when he was working undercover as a pro-ANC agent in South Africa in the 1980s, Jews were those who provided him with cars, overnight accommodation (and cash?) etc.
At that time, Galloway was General Secretary of War on Want, a supposed charity partly funded (then, though not now, I think) by the British taxpayer. It gets EU monies as well.
Galloway got into trouble over his expenses. He was cleared of actually stealing (embezzling), apparently, but all the same had to repay nearly £2,000 (worth maybe £10,000-£20,000 now). He never sued over allegations in the Daily Mirror that he had been enjoying “a life of luxury” at the expense of War on Want’s donors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#War_on_Want.
The point Nick Griffin is making, and justly so, is that Jews are always behind any attacks on white Northern European culture and politics. There they were in South Africa, the Jews, making money, living in large numbers in the most expensive parts of Cape Town and Johannesburg (to the extent that white people in Africa used to call “Jo’burg”, “Jewburg“!), yet at the same time undermining the whole foundation of that society.
Now look at the UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia, USA, Canada, Australia etc…
As for Galloway, how pathetic is it that he, and many like him who are self-describing “Left” or “socialist” types, oppose Jewish hegemony and supremacism in Palestine, yet pay lip-service to Jews and the Jewish “community” in the UK, France etc? Truly pathetic.
On the pseudo-nationalist side of UK politics (as in the USA) you get people, especially those trying to make a living out of their activities, who loudly proclaim their (usually unwanted) allegiance to the Jews and Israel: Katie Hopkins, Breitbart, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Tommy Robinson” (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), Anne Marie Waters, Jayda Fransen, “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) and others.
Politically-speaking, and in fact usually in general, foolish people. They are political nullities, dependent for their income —and such prominence as they have— on their social media profile. If that is taken away, they have nothing left.
More tweets seen
Before the political midgets currently “ruling” the UK “defy” China in the South China Sea, they should take a look (Wikipedia has overviews) at the relative strengths of the Royal Navy of the UK, as against the Chinese navy. Britain has about 2 or 3 dozen large ships and submarines, and about 170 naval aircraft. The Chinese have some 600 ships and a similar number of naval aircraft. I suppose the idea is that the UK will be a poodle for American power, again…
The absurd irony is that, while Britain is undertaking gestures of the above sort, Chine people are flooding into the UK. Take a look at any British city. Boris-idiot has also invited up to 6 MILLION Hong Kong Chinese to live here.
Yes, they may be, some of them, anti-Peking. Don’t place too much reliance on that. Anyway, the numbers are huge, and will change our whole society.
That (((Myers))) individual used to tweet rubbish about me and others, but went quiet for a while after he was exposed as a pathetic little sex pest a few years ago: https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/junior-barrister-whose-inappropriate-behaviour-made-women-feel-uncomfortable-admits-he-got-professional-help-after-metoo-shaming/; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gq-fires-rupert-myers-online-allegations-a8009961.html
Law Commission report on proposed changes to the law on communications offences
“The new “harm-based” communications offence
1.33 The offence that we recommend should replace section 127(1) of the CA 2003 and
the MCA 1988 is an offence based on a communication’s potential for harm rather
than on its content fitting within a proscribed category (such as “grossly offensive” or
“indecent” content). Specifically, we recommend that it should be an offence for a
person to send or post a communication (letter, electronic communication, or “article”,
in the sense of “object”) that is likely to cause harm to a likely audience, intending that
harm be caused to that likely audience. “Harm” for this purpose is defined as
psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.
1.34 This moves the focus away from broad categories of wrongful content, as we see in
the current offences, to a more context-specific analysis: given those who were likely
to see the communication, was harm likely or not likely? This formulation therefore
ensures that, first, communications that are genuinely harmful do not escape criminal
sanction merely because they cannot fit within one of the proscribed categories.
Secondly, communications that lack the potential for harm are not criminalised merely
because they might be described as grossly offensive or indecent etc.
1.36 The fault element for our recommended offence is set at a higher level of culpability
than is the case under the current law: the defendant must intend to cause serious
distress. Under section 127(1) CA 2003, the defendant need only have intended to
have sent the communication of the proscribed character (ie they need not have
intended any particular result). The MCA 1988 offence requires proof that the
defendant intended to cause alarm or distress, which is the same fault element as
harassment (but, notably, harassment requires a course of conduct, whereas the
communications offence is complete at the point of sending a single communication).
Our threshold is higher; it requires proof that the defendant intended to cause
psychological harm amounting at least to serious distress.” [Law Commission report]
I have not yet read the full report, but what I have read so far seems to be (and could hardly not be) an improvement on the existing Communications Act 2003, s.127, which has been abused for years by Jew-Zionist cabals. notably the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (fake charity) crowd.
I contributed (as a member of the public) to that report. What effect (if any) my contribution had, I have no idea. No matter. “The stars in their courses fight on the side of the just” [Chinese proverb].
I have noticed the same phenomena, more or less, at the Waitrose (the only fairly close local supermarket), a mile or two from my home. I was there yesterday. No-one wearing latex gloves, but 90% or more masked, and I even saw one idiot wearing a helmet with a visor, as though Ebola virus was about, rather than Covid-19 (which has killed about one in every thousand people in the UK, and a far smaller proportion where I live). Different ages, but the vast majority at least of retirement age, reflecting the age-demographic locally (and especially true of local Waitrose shoppers).
Introduce that tyrant to Madame Guillotine.
The history of the middle and late 20thC would have been very different had that come to pass.