I took an online quiz purporting to show to what extent one is “a difficult person”. My result: “You are a very difficult person to get along with (68.7%)“! If I am honest, I really do not think that that is so.
I probably judged myself too harshly…
Such tests are amusing and interesting, but probably do not mean much.
Intrigued (as people often are when it is “all about them”, as with popular astrology), I took another such test, this a Jungian one. The result: “Versatile, dynamic, and quirky, you are tireless in your pursuit of the untested, the untried, and the fight against the status quo. You love to interact with all kinds of people and you carry yourself in an expressive and warm manner that ideally sees lots of affirmation flowing both ways. Charismatic and imaginative, you tend to have a well-honed ability to see the world through the eyes of those who do not normally have an advocate to speak for them. You are interested in the potential of others and you often long to help them develop their own aspirations more fully. Ever-inquisitive and appreciative, you have a love of fantasy and adventure and are easily bored by the business-as-usual routines of the corporate and business world. Your own enthusiasm and energy for finding a new and better way arises spontaneously and can often be quite contagious. However, you tend to have little love for resolving the factual specifics of a case, preferring to work by pure inspiration and bursts of energy instead.“
Again, interesting, but I think that I took a similar test last year and came up with a slightly (though admittedly not very) different result.
This is addictive! I did a “Harry Potter” test too, but because I do not know the characters well (I have seen one or two of the films, on TV, but was probably not really concentrating) had to look up the one supposedly (according to the online test) most like me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Eater#Lucius_Malfoy
Bottom line: you cannot create an advanced society with a backward population. The migration invasion over the past 70 years has badly damaged the quality of the UK population.
Tweets seen this morning
A connected point: if you are employed, or in a “regulated” profession, you are never free. Even the formerly quite free occupations of a professional nature, such as the Bar, are now “regulated”, which means in effect under Jew-Zionist control.
A self-employed person in an occupation unregulated by malicious parasites is in an inherently better position, whether he (or she) is a car repairer, plumber, small business owner, estate-owner, farmer or smallholder (etc), than is an employee or “regulated” professional.
20,000 votes, too. Telling, even if “unscientific”.
Reminiscent of a scene in the film of The Cruel Sea, in which scene the waiter at the Trocadero (I think), asked about dust in the water brought to accompany whisky, says “Oh, I’m so sorry, Sir. It’s the War, you know“! [the particular clip, I could not see on YouTube]
I love how his banner proclaims him a radical, while at the same time he proudly boasts of being on CNN.
When met with actual radical ideas he shits it and signals toward the power structure.
I noticed some tweets by Twitterati using a test or quiz similar to the one below, which indicates (supposedly) one’s political orientation. I have tried such tests previously and obtained similar results, perhaps closer to dead centre.
So it seems that I am not very “woke”. Quelle surprise…
Jesus H. Christ!
200 migrant-invaders “caught” in just one day and brought to Dover! The untermenschen, having been “caught” in the Channel ( meaning “rescued”, or in reality “escorted”), will now be registered, given accomodation, money etc, and will batten off the British people forever. Whoever supports this is a traitor and should be treated as such.
People still tend to think that the “Conservative” Government and its ministers somehow want to stop the migration-invasion. No they don’t. They are slaves of the Zionist money-power, of ZOG and the New World Order (NWO). They want to import blacks, browns, and others in huge numbers. Wake up, people, for God’s sake! Look at the way Boris-idiot has just now invited as many as four million Hong Kong Chinese to settle on our overcrowded islands…
A Gurkha like that has earned the right to live here, but I should have thought that he could live better by far on the same money (military pension etc) back in Nepal.
Well, the “government” of Boris-idiot is now actually reinforcing the misplaced fear in the population by mandating (not yet official, but almost certainly) the muzzling of shoppers as well as travellers. The ridiculous “lockdown” shutdown should have been for a few weeks only, to rub in the message of caution to the population.
This 4+ months of “lockdown”/shutdown is trashing the economy, and that will continue, despite the official lifting of the “lockdown”, because the Government insists on muzzling the population, which makes many people think that they are still in danger from “the virus” despite the fact that most people are in no danger anyway, and never were; the wave has passed now, and there is no compelling evidence that there will be any “second wave”. There may be, there may not be. Probably, there will not be. In any case, most of the most vulnerable in the UK have succumbed already.
The black man [above] is presumably a U.S. citizen. Even so, his belief in the U.S. Constitutional “free speech” rights (as amended by statute and case law) is frighteningly naive (or disingenuous) for someone who, according to his Twitter profile, is a columnist for the New York Times. Reading his tweet, maybe he is just rather stupid.
I am still, though purely nominally, an attorney of the Bar of the State of New York, and have lived and worked in the USA (New York, New Jersey, South Carolina), as well as visited the country for leisure and pleasure (Florida, mainly). The fact is that, yes, in principle and subject to exceptions, you have “free speech” in the USA to a greater degree than exists in the UK or EU. That “free speech”, however, only protects you (to some extent) from arrest and imprisonment; not from other, socio-economic, sanctions or penalties.
It is cold comfort that, in the USA, someone might be —relatively— immune from arrest for holding or expressing the “wrong” views on politics, society, religion, history, but yet might, because of the Jew-Zionist influence, lose his or her job, profession, and so (quite possibly) income, home etc.
In most EU states, expressing the “wrong” view about the Jewish “holocaust” narrative is illegal, actually forbidden by law, just as, in the mediaeval period, expressing the “wrong” (even if accurate or “right”) view about religion, astronomy etc was illegal, and might be punished by death as a capital heresy.
In the EU today, to examine modern history, and to revise the popular or “brainwash” view even in a limited way, is illegal and termed “holocaust” “denial”. A modern heresy law.
The NWO/ZOG nexus has moved from trying to criminalize free speech (though that is still part of the plan, especially in the EU and UK) to making the big moves over the glasses of Champagne (or bowls of chicken soup?) with the aim of simply having huge capitalist enterprises remove “account-holders”, thus “deplatforming” them.
Those “alt-Right” accounts whose holders were making a living from being dissidents have mostly now been removed from most platforms of importance, meaning mainly YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. These platforms are not classical monopolies, but are effective monopolies; quasi-monopolistic enterprises, if you like.
An “account-holder” on Twitter and the rest has no real rights, certainly none qua citizen; only —almost non-existent— consumer or contractual rights.
The joke is that the bulk of the Twitterati, for all their supposed “socialism”, “human rights”, and —in some cases— quasi-revolutionism etc, end up bleating that Twitter, YouTube etc have every right to remove unwelcome dissidents, because those dissidents signed up to get a account in a private-enterprise company, and so signed up to (no doubt Jew-Zionist-drafted) “Terms and Conditions of Service”.
In fact, the pitiful weakness of the “woke”, of the supposed “socialists” etc is made manifest very plainly in respect of this question. Very instructive. It is why the pseudo-socialists have no traction politically, as seen in the 2019 UK General Election. Ideological weakness. You could even call it an ideological vacuum.
The “alt-Right” wastes of space thought that they could both put forward views and make a living online, relying on “free speech rights” and on being doormats for the Jew-Zionist lobby. I suppose that the Breitbart crowd led the way. Paul Joseph Watson etc. “Prison Planet” Watson. He perennially kow-tows to the Jews and Israel, even though many and perhaps most despise him and laugh at him. He still had his YouTube channel removed, and there is nothing he can do about it but beg and plead and stamp the foot.
Katie Hopkins. Similar. Very similar. “Alt-Right” “conservatism”. Pro-Israel. Pro-Jewish lobby. Despised by the Jews, most of them. What happened? Removed from Twitter and, I believe, YouTube.
The lesser “alt-Right” wastes of space went the same way, or are going there. “Sargon of Akkad” etc. Without their “mainstream” online platforms, they are unpersons. The Jews and their “antifa” puppets are laughing. Why? Because they know that “Prison Planet” Watson, Katie Hopkins, “Sargon of Akkad” etc are not going to raise an army to annihilate them. In fact, they are not going to do anything except bleat and stamp feet on the small and uninfluential platforms to which they still have access: GAB, Parler, Telegram, Minds etc.
The reader will get my point readily enough: these “alt-Right” people are men of straw and indeed (in the case of Katie Hopkins and lesser-known ladies) women of straw. Their online “armies” of “followers” will not gather together offline, but will just surf other online accounts. It is hard to escape the conclusion that, in one respect, the Jewish and “antifa” cabal(s) are correct: without those online platforms, these fake “conservative”-“nationalist” people have nothing, and are nothing.
What of “Tommy Robinson”? He, to some extent, has bridged the gap between the online world and the offline “real” world. Yet without his online presence, all that he can command is a loose army (a small one, at that) of drunks and bottle-throwers.
In fact, for what do the “alt-Right” wastes of space stand? Nothing really. Certainly nothing tangible. They are against a few things, such the migration-invasion, the Islamist element, the “Black Lives Matter” nonsense. On all these matters, I stand on their side. The problem resides in the fact that they have no positive ideology.
Not having an ideology is a characteristic of the contemporary political scene in the UK. The “Conservative” Party government of Boris-idiot, Cummings etc has no real ideology, not even the pro-private enterprise quasi-“libertarianism” of Mrs Thatcher and her like.
As for the “Labour” Party, equally misnamed now, can it be said to “have an ideology”? No, unless bleatingly pathetic “wokeness” can be said to constitute one.
Other tweets seen today
A tweet below re. the recently-trending #JewishPrivilege Twitter hashtag from the malicious “CAA” [“Campaign Against Antisemitism”] Jewish pressure group (heavily involved in ZOG activities and especially the devising of false complaints to police and social media organizations):
Condemned out of (((their))) own mouths. “They” want to “regulate” social media, meaning control and censor accounts and content.
The reply tweet below caught my attention
How accurate that is, I mean the assertion that Jews controlled, eventually, much of the transatlantic slave trade, I cannot say, though I have seen (purported) evidence before. It seems plausible. After all, there was big money to be made out of slavery before the British banned it.
I had to correct Julia Hartley-Brewer once on Twitter, some years ago, after the radio loudmouth tried to correct me (a former practising barrister) on a matter of law or legal procedure. I was right; she was wrong. After she realized that she was making herself look stupid, she just gave up and blocked me. So much for her listening to other views (and in that case, my “view” was not an opinion but verifiable and —for anyone knowledgeable— indisputable fact).
Having said the above, she is right on the issue here in question, i.e. the echo-chamber of the “woke” types, something about which I have been writing for years. Julia Hartley-Brewer only just realized? Well, after all, she is a great deal less intelligent, educated and aware than she imagines…Still, at least she agrees with me on something.
“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”
“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”
“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”
“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”
“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”
“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”
General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.
Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.
At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.
Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):
A Trump supporter is milkshaked by a hostile crowd in Parliament Square.
A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.
Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.
We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.
As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.
This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.
Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.
There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).
It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).
Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.
You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:
If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.
The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.
Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).
I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also
In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.
When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:
Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.
Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.
I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.
The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.
As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.
There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:
Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.
So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.
What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.
A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.
In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.
Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.
Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.
There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.
This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.
Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):
In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.
In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.
More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!
I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!
It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…
It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.
What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.
I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.
I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.
In Pittsburgh, someone has apparently shot some Jews in a synagogue. His motives need not concern us. What does concern me is how the System has seized upon the event as an excuse to censor social media comment. In particular, the enemies of freedom have taken the opportunity to attack and try to shut down GAB [https://gab.com/home], at which the alleged shooter is said to have maintained an account.
The rationale for this censorship conspiracy (and of course it is obvious which tribe is behind it) is that GAB is somehow (unspecified) responsible for the Pittsburgh shooting event because the alleged shooter had a GAB account!
Now these days almost everyone has a social media account. The mass killer, Anders Breivik, had a Facebook account. There was no conspiracy or clamour to shut down Facebook after he shot about 80 people a few years ago.
In fact, it turns out that the alleged perpetrator of the Pittsburgh event also had accounts on both Facebook and Twitter! However, neither Facebook nor Twitter are facing any threat of close-down, unlike Gab; neither are the hardcore Jewish Zionists on those platforms calling for any such shut-down. Only Gab is facing destruction…Surely even the “antifa” idiots can see that there is something fishy here?
In other words, the attack on GAB is purely political and is being led, basically, by the Zionist element, which is trying to remove any space wherein social-national or “white nationalist” views can be expressed. Twitter has already purged thousands of its most interesting accounts (including my own) after Jews complained. Now GAB is under threat for not purging the same sort of views. It has nothing to do with violence or supposed incitement to violence. Most GAB posters do not incite violence (far less than do the more extreme Jewish Zionists and their “antifa” “useful idiots”). It is a purely political attempt to prevent any social-national or even traditional-type nationalist views from being expressed anywhere.
It is sobering to look at Twitter and see how the mob is baying for the blood of GAB. Many of the most fervent supporters of censorship are those whose predecessors would have gone to the barricades in defence of freedom: journalists, TV presenters, academics, writers, film directors etc. Many are not Jews but “useful idiot” types, completely bamboozled (but withal aware that to stand against Zionism is often not a good career move in a milieu where “they” have a stranglehold…).
What happens when people are denied a voice, even where that voice is small? Let history judge.
When I spoke at the London Forum in February 2017, I used the last part of my talk to raise the point, only since then raised by others (both in UK and especially USA), about what I called “the privatization of public space” online. As I explained in that talk, what I meant was that a very few huge online enterprises now act as near or quasi-monopolies: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon (in respect of book reviews etc), ebay. If the citizen is thrown off those sites and/or barred from expressing opinion, his right to self-expression has been denied him, and that remains true even if there are small websites where he can still comment. The citizen has no right of redress qua citizen, only as a “customer” of those sites. That amounts to no right at all when it comes to freedom of expression.
There should be a right of appeal to an independent agency or tribunal, or to the courts. At present, the large online companies can arbitrarily remove a person from posting, without appeal even in-house in most cases. Those who say that these are private enterprises and have the right to remove whomsoever they wish are missing the point. Risibly, such unthinking and/or malicious people often think of themselves as the “tolerant” and “freedom”-loving ones…their glee at GAB being shut down tells the true story, though. They simply wish to repress freedom of expression for those with whom they (in, often, their smug ignorance) disagree on political, social or historical matters.
Below: Gab comments via its Twitter account (and retweets supporters)
There are like 3-4 total companies who decide if you exist on the internet or not. In the future that will mean they decide if you ever existed at all.
Facebook and Twitter began banning people, sometimes for no reason at all, they ran to something like Gab, so they're trying to ban that too. Will there be no vestige of free speech on the internet? #GABshutdown
The ENTIRE internet had the same freedoms of @getongab from 1991 until about five years ago. Despite free speech being fettered everywhere online in the past few years it has not made the world safer – crazy people still commit acts of violence even if you silence them online…
Well now I know never to do any business with @GoDaddy since they're in the business of "playing God" now and deciding who gets to have a site and who doesn't based on what they think is appropriate free speech. I think there needs to be some @FCC intervention for public sites.
Meanwhile, the Jewish-Zionist element is holding conferences about how to “manage” the news and how to present those whom they hate…it seems that the spirit of Pravda and Komsomolskaya Pravda is not dead…
Really excited to be taking part in the Media Forum on "Normalising hate – how should journalists cover the far right?" @goldsmithsuol
“Free speech” in the Britain of 2019! Note (in the above newspaper report) the robotic refusal of Humberside Police to apologize or engage with the free speech argument, even now. Sinister is the right word for this.
Believe it or not, this idiot (Paul Bernal, see tweet below) is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot..). What an idiot!
Time for the regular reminder that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
It has now been about three months since I was expelled from Twitter. Am I chafing under the restriction? No.
Most Twitter users regard removal from Twitter as akin to being cast into outer darkness, a phenomenon to be feared (if it happens to them), to be protested against (if it happens to those whom they regard as ideological friends), to be laughed at and celebrated (if it happens to those they dislike, hate, or oppose ideologically).
Twitter is in fact a habit akin to having a piece of chocolate with your morning coffee. I used to love posting my views and comments on the affairs of the day, as well as posting favoured music and art. Self-expression. I used to think also that I was, at least in a small way, influencing the national and even international debate. That might have been so, but only to a very limited degree.
My Twitter account had just under 3,000 followers when it was eliminated by the Twitter organization. The absurdity of imagining that you are much influencing society is shown when it is considered that –to take just one example and one which comes into my mind— a mentally-disturbed Jewess whose Twitter account is replete with long complaints about her illnesses, alcohol consumption, problems with the DWP, and those she dislikes politically (including me!), as well as pictures of her dogs and photographs of owls, actually has 500 more Twitter followers than had my account, with its –as I would like to believe, anyway!– intelligent, pithy views and comment on politics, strategy and society. She does follow thousands, though, whereas I followed only a few dozen accounts. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, has 598,000 Twitter followers, while Jeremy Corbyn has no less than 1.84 million. To extend the idea to absurdity, take the One Direction pop group: they have 31 million Twitter followers.
A superficial view might be to imagine that someone with many thousands (or, a fortiori, millions) of Twitter followers has huge influence or impact upon society, upon political views etc. A moment’s thought shows that even if that be true, the influence and impact comes out of what the tweeter does offline, certainly off Twitter, not what he or she posts on Twitter. Theresa May’s Twitter influence is a mere adjunct to her position as Prime Minister. As to such as “One Direction”, were they not well known as entertainers, their influence (whatever it may be) would be close to a zero point.
I keep in touch with comment on Twitter, read about this and that, largely out of habit, but am no longer fooled by the idea that those tweeting are influencing many outside their own existing circle (or “echo chamber”). I sometimes look at the tweets of the Jew-Zionist cabal on UK Twitter. The same few dozen idiots, mostly concentrated in parts of North London, still tweeting pretty much what they were tweeting five years ago— to as little effect.
Another example, that of the “Alt-Right”: “Prison Planet” Watson, meaning Paul Joseph Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson, a young-ish (about 38-y-o) blogger and vlogger (and who does not accept the “alt-Right” label now), tweets to his 904,000 Twitter followers from (as I read somewhere) a basement flat in the Battersea area. Consider that: 904,000 followers, when the Prime Minister of the country only has 598,000… On the other hand, who of the two has more real influence, let alone real political power? That is not even a question.
Another point is that many “celebrity” or would-be celebrity tweeters buy huge numbers of followers, in an attempt to “big up” (in the inelegant phrase of the day) their Twitter profile and so (they hope) their real-world profile. To take one example, not entirely at random: a certain well-known Jew-Zionist solicitor, very vocal about “anti-Semitism” etc, (and who is or was wont to scream imprecations to me and others about how we should die and how he looks forward to our deaths) had about 5,000 Twitter followers when I became aware of the bastard’s existence (around 2012). That follower count increased to about 80,000 within one week! I wonder how much those “followers” cost him and whether the fake total helped him to pose as a hot-shot lawyer and almost a “public figure”? At any rate, he now has about 20,000 “followers”. His fakery does not stand alone, there are many whose “follower count” is hugely inflated, but I seriously doubt the utility of doing things like that.
There is another point. Many Twitter users follow literally thousands of accounts, so the influence of any one account on the follower is likely to be very small.
It might be asked why I am now on GAB if I think that being on Twitter is a waste of time. GAB has only 500,000 users, against Twitter’s 400 million. I am on GAB mainly because it is possible to communicate with others of similar views easily, either publicly or privately (as on Twitter). In addition, I want to support a genuine free-speech platform.
Mao opined (later printed in the “Little Red Books”) that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”:
That may not be the whole truth, but political power certainly does not grow out of tweets on Twitter.
Further thoughts [22 August 2018]
I just saw that privileged, superannuated schoolgirl-type and politico-social one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez has no less than 46,200 Twitter followers! There are innumerable similar examples on Twitter.
I have never met Nick Griffin, I have never spoken with him. My view of him is, in a nutshell, that he did very well with the BNP to make a large part of a silk purse out of what was mostly a sow’s ear. He made the BNP at least half-credible (up to 2009). He and Andrew Brons got elected as BNP MEPs. He has courage. He has intelligence, too.
On the more doubtful side, Griffin was naive enough to think that he had been invited onto BBC Question Time because the BNP had all but broken through into the magic circle of “major parties” and was being treated as such; instead, he was ambushed and trashed in a totally planned way. All those who took part in that ambush are enemies of the people. That finished the BNP.
As to what Griffin writes, I agree with much of it and in particular with much of his recent attack on the corrupted “Alt-Right” and other [what some call] “kosher nationalists”.
Griffin has reposted one or two of my tweets (though I am now expelled from Twitter) and GAB posts. I must have retweeted or reposted a couple of dozen of his.
I think that Griffin is basically right to say that the purely political fight, in the manner of the BNP, UKIP etc in the UK (he says throughout Western Europe) is now not possible. He has a point. Encroaching State/ZOG repression, Jewish Zionist influence and control, the ever-increasing hordes (armies?) of blacks and browns in the urban areas. Still, God works in mysterious ways…
I had not heard of Mark Collett until this year, or possibly, peripherally, 2017. He once worked with Nick Griffin and was tried –and re-tried– (and acquitted) with him:
I have read The Fall of Western Man, Collett’s book. I agreed with almost all of it, though I was slightly underwhelmed. I do not think that Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg or Oswald Spengler have much to worry about.
I have from time to time reposted and (prior to my expulsion) retweeted Collett’s comments online. He, however, has (as far as I know) never reposted any of mine.
Nick Griffin led the BNP; Collett led part of the BNP (the “youth wing”) and, obviously, wants to be seen as a nationalist leadership figure generally. Both men do seem to take the view that they must cultivate a slightly aloof persona in order to achieve their purposes. I have no quarrel with that, so long as the attempt does not look silly. At present (again, as far as I know) they are both generals without troops, and the fact that they both have about 35,000 Twitter followers means almost nothing. I myself, not a leader of or even a member of any party or group, had 3,000. I wonder how many of my 3,000 Twitter followers would follow me into battle– or even to a meeting in a pub? Not too many, anyway.
My point is that a political leader must of course have the aura of leadership, of slight mystery, of slight aloofness (as ever, we look to Hitler), but that must be based on the real, not merely or only that which is the result of cultivation.
In the past year or two we have seen numerous social nationalists persecuted by Zionist Jewry. I myself was disbarred in 2016, then questioned by the police in 2017, at the instigation of connected packs of Zionist Jews. Others have to date suffered more: satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz; Jez Turner of the London Forum. Turner is right now sitting in Wandsworth Prison and will not be released until Autumn.
I have seen no word of support from either Nick Griffin or Mark Collett for any one of the above-named people.
Leadership demands fealty and loyalty: the leader demands both fealty and loyalty from his troops. However, loyalty works both ways. The leader must give more than he receives. Those who would be first must be the servant of all. The duty of those who would lead social nationalism is to support all social nationalists who remain true.
In the short time (about 5 hours) since the above was published, I have been made aware that in fact both Mark Collett and Nick Griffin have expressed support (on Twitter and GAB) on at least two occasions for Alison Chabloz, though not (as far as I know, to date) for Jez Turner. Anyone knowing differently is welcome to comment in the Comments section below.