Tag Archives: terrorism

Terrorism and Reason

Thoughts about the recent “Islamist” terrorists

When Joseph Conrad wrote The Secret Agent in 1907, he used as the basis for his plot a real plot of 1894 to blow up the Royal Observatory, Greenwich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Agent#Background:_Greenwich_Bombing_of_1894

In 1920, Conrad wrote this about a discussion about that real event of 1894:

…we recalled the already old story of the attempt to blow up the Greenwich Observatory; a blood-stained inanity of so fatuous a kind that it was impossible to fathom its origin by any reasonable or even unreasonable process of thought. For perverse unreason has its own logical processes. But that outrage could not be laid hold of mentally in any sort of way, so that one remained faced by the fact of a man blown to bits for nothing even most remotely resembling an idea, anarchistic or other. As to the outer wall of the Observatory it did not show as much as the faintest crack. I pointed all this out to my friend, who remained silent for a while and then remarked in his characteristically casual and omniscient manner: “Oh, that fellow was half an idiot”.” [Wikipedia re. Conrad— The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale]

The supposed attempt on the Royal Observatory has in the past been described as “pure terrorism”, in that there could be no direct political “reason” to explode a bomb at or destroy the Observatory. I say “supposed” attempt because it was never proven, though it is hard to imagine any other reason why an anarchist carrying a bomb would climb the hill from Greenwich. Anyone who has been there knows that, to this day, the Royal Observatory stands alone, apart from an ice-cream shack etc, at the highest point of Greenwich Park; there is there no obvious other potential target:




In more recent years, that is in the 1990s, the Provisional IRA blew up buildings in London etc, trying as far as possible not to injure or kill anyone. That secondary intention was not born out of compassion or military decency, but purely out of reasoned calculation: destruction of important buildings in the City of London and elsewhere hit the “British Establishment” but resulted in little or no public outrage.

That campaign of the 1990s was in fact the polar opposite of the 1970s bombings of the Provisionals. Those 1970s attacks were poorly conceived from the political point of view and were, in some of the most outrageous examples, designed to kill or injure as many people as possible. The targeted buildings were often pubs sometimes frequented by British soldiers (entirely or almost entirely “other ranks”) as well as by civilian members of the public.

The Baltic Exchange was one such 1990s attack. I happened to hear the massive bomb detonate. At the time, I was in a small cafe-restaurant in Bloomsbury, nearly 3 miles away, with my then girlfriend. The sound of a bomb of that sort is distinctive. I remarked on it. We were puzzled.

In fact, despite the evening timing, the location of the target (uncrowded in evening) and a 20-minute warning, three people were killed (and 91 injured).


The IRA (in collaboration, inconsistently, with Sinn Fein) had a political purpose and a strategy. Basically, a United Ireland, achieved via making Northern Ireland too much of a nuisance to hold on to.

It could be argued that, despite the apparent sincerity of the “peace talks” that led eventually to the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Fein/IRA “won”, strategically: power sharing in a democratic Northern Ireland (which is leading over time to a Catholic/Republican and so Sinn Fein victory, via the greater birth rate of the Catholic/Republican community); as Mosley predicted decades before, greater concordance of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic within the EU (until Brexit, at least…); Sinn Fein to pursue a peaceful political strategy in the South— which seemed unrealistic and even quixotic to me, but not now that —over 20 years on— Sinn Fein has become the most significant political party in the Republic and may form a government:


Other “terrorist” campaigns have been launched over the years and decades, but they have all had serious political aims: Jews against the British in Palestine, Arabs against the Jews in Palestine/Israel, Communists and Social-Revolutionaries in imperial Russia etc.

Now let us move to these “Islamist” terrorists (in the UK) of recent years. They appear to have no directing brain or organization, and any “allegiance” to the main body of the ISIS barbarians seems to be little more than notional.

More than that, the individuals seem to want to create havoc as far as they can, but in the absence of heavy-duty weaponry can only do so using whatever weapons are freely available: knives, axes etc, cold weapons generally.

Targets have generally been ordinary members of the public. Even the police have mostly been killed or injured not because they were the main targets, but because they became involved in the course of fulfilling their duty.

What is the political aim of the “Islamist” terrorist? There seems to be none, save for a generalized or “pie in the sky” wish that the UK, along with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, turns to Islam and adopts Sharia law. I suppose that that desire might be described as having been the aim of Islam since its foundation in the 7th Century:


The term “Islamist” is in fact only a convenient label. It appears that the recent UK “Islamist” terrorists, such as the Streatham attacker, knew little of their own religion.


Certainly most have not been noted as having attended specifically-Islamic madrassahs. The Streatham attacker had attended secular schools in or near London and was only 20 at time of death.

No attempt has, as yet, been made by such “Islamists” (in the UK) to assassinate any famous politician or high-ranking military figure. That may be purely because the “Islamist” terrorists, as “lone wolves” or small groups, have not the ability or means to undertake reconnaissance or intelligence work in order to discover addresses, schedules, daily habits etc.

The recent “Islamist” attackers have no real political or religious aims. The connecting thread seems to be a wish to hurt and kill non-Muslims and to achieve a spurious “martyrdom” by being “killed in battle”, i.e. shot by police or SAS during an incident. The secular equivalent is called, in the USA, “suicide by cop”. They have no real strategy and their tactics are pathetic. They not only have no prospect of success or victory but also no way of even forming a conception of what such success or victory might look like.

In short, “Islamist” terrorism, like Islam itself, is a dead end. Islamist terrorism can lead to nothing on the socio-political level and its only results are, and can only be, death. Death for any victims, and death for the “Islamists” themselves. A form of evil not seen in Europe previously, even during the Mongol invasion of the 13th Century.

What can be done? Nothing, directly. If a state has within its borders millions of Muslims, a certain small proportion of them will fall victim, in their own uneducated or semi-educated minds, to Islamism. Perhaps one in a thousand. There are about 3 million Muslims in the UK, so maybe 3,000 potential terrorists. In fact, that is the figure the police are suggesting [see Notes, below]. Others may also be radicalized, usually blacks of non-Muslim origin.

The only long term solution is for Britain to become an ethnostate, and Europe a collection of ethnostates. In the meantime, these stupid, pointless and unpleasant attacks will continue.




Diary Blog, 21 January 2020

NWO: New Zealand

Oh dear. New Zealand had so much going for it not so very long ago. Now, the multikulti madness is killing it:

NWO: France

The Rothschilds/NWO/ZOG gopher, Macron, let the mask slip a couple of years ago:

Now we see what NWO/ZOG means on the ground. French dissidents being brutalized on the streets, civil rights being cut back too, while anyone saying anything about the Jews or the “holocaust” farrago is being prosecuted. What a co-incidence…

[one of my favourite films]

Harry and the Royal Mulatta— latest


So Harry has flown off to Vancouver, to be the modern Vronsky. I wonder whether he understands that, without the royal and other titles (not to mention the £30M he apparently has inherited from his mother and/or been given by his father) he would be a complete nullity. In his own person, he is of no interest: a former young and high-spirited officer of insufficient intellect and talent to be promoted beyond major.

Has this whole episode damaged the UK Royal Family? Well, it has not improved its image…the danger that the royals face is neither outright “revolutionary” hostility nor even a republican surge, but simple indifference as they become irrelevant to the people. The antics of Harry and for that matter Andrew do spike actual hostility, but it is indifference that kills the relationship between ruled and (nominal) rulers.

“Lie-detectors” and terrorists

This sounds like a pretty silly idea to me. So a “terrorist” (let’s just take that as given) is in prison. He is eventually released and as part of a “monitoring process” is subjected to polygraph testing. Such “lie-detectors” can be beaten. Whatever some Americans say (and the USA is the only country where they are routinely used) this is not a reliable way of assessing veracity:


Also, what will happen if a “terrorist” is released from a prison sentence, shows no other indication of further similar offending, but fails the polygraph test? Will he be incarcerated again simply on that basis, because he failed the test? It seems unsafe and likely to damage the image of “British Justice”.

Mike Stuchbery

Readers may have seen my earlier blogging about Mike Stuchbery, “antifa” inciter, self-described “journalist”, “historian” and tour guide, who tweets now from Stuttgart cafes about how “Nazis” (social nationalists, conservative nationalists and others of whom he disapproves) should be violently attacked (by others).

My previous main article about him is here below:


I am also blogging (updated as necessary) about his attempt to sue the supposedly “nationalist” activist known as Tommy Robinson:


Leaving aside the rights and wrongs (and I think that Stuchbery was the author of his own fate), his legal action against “Robinson”, to my mind, has little or no chance of success (see above articles).

The GoFundMe launched by Stuchbery’s UK colleague or fellow “antifa” idiot, one “Roanna” (aka, on Twitter, the “Witch of Peace”), failed in November/December 2019 even to get to the halfway point of the original £20,000 target, at which point that failure was spun to a narrative that Stuchbery’s wife (supposedly or notionally German) would be joining him as claimant (what was once known as “plaintiff”). The GoFundMe has restarted, but has run into the sand. I suppose that there are only so many mugs around…

I notice that, as of today, the fund stands at £11,514. In the past few days, a grand total of £50 has been donated. In the past 24 hours? Nothing. I cannot say whether this funding appeal and the proposed legal action are just a scam (perhaps not entirely) but I am sure that the proposed lawsuit will either never get off the ground or will be prevented from continuing, if ever started, by the lack of money for Security for Costs (see my main blog articles).


above: Stuchbery having a meltdown when “Tommy Robinson” apparently turned up at his, Stuchbery’s, then house at Luton, UK, following Stuchbery’s (and others’) attempt to send peculiar people to Robinson’s wife’s house (also at Luton).

Not much sign of the “antifa” “warrior” who urged people to “keep punching Nazis. Never stop.” or the Stuchbery who recommended that “they should bus in some German antifa; they really know how to crack skulls“…and who, even in the past week, has tweeted that anyone questioning the absurd “holocaust” farrago should be “decked and laid out“.

Stuchbery has also been tweeting in commendation of some little “hoes” who, in 1940-41 Holland, pretended to like young German soldiers in bars, then lured them to quiet places where gangs of terrorists (often Jews) could murder them. The Provisional IRA tried that tactic in early 1970s Belfast, and a few British soldiers were killed but the public reaction (even on the Republican side) was so negative that the Provos dropped the idea (also, the British started to infiltrate plainclothes military intelligence and special forces soldiers into pubs and bars, as a precaution).

Now look again at the pathetic creature above, crying his eyes out. “What goes around comes around” [American saying].

On a side issue, Stuchbery’s appeal does show the limitations of Twitter slacktivism. Here we have Stuchbery with his nearly 88,000 Twitter followers. I am prepared to accept, in his case, that they are all genuine, unlike those of, say, “Mark Lewis Lawyer”, the Jew-Zionist legal scammer, who in 2010 had about 8,000 followers but then bought about 70,000 “followers” back around 2013 (he still claims about 27,000).

If Twitter followers meant much, you might expect at least 4,000 of Stuchbery’s 88,000 Twitter followers to give £5 each (the minimum amount) to his GoFundMe, thus reaching his £20,000 target sum effortlessly. In reality, only about 700 have donated. Slacktivism. Clicktivism.

Labour leadership

Loudmouth idiot Jess Phillips has had to pull out of the contest to avoid total humiliation. Good riddance.


News from the Mushroom Bureau

Yes, there really is such an office:


I hesitate to say that Britain is a land of cretins, because I have lived in a number of other countries. Even so…

More thoughts about Harry

Harry and the mulatta have enough money to live rather luxuriously indefinitely. What Harry does not have is a role, even that of “businessman”. He has no profession save that of arms, and in any case does not need an income. He needs a reason to exist. His intellectual life is no doubt limited, so he needs a “job” of some kind to replace the “royal prince” one.


Well, nearly midnight UK time, so maybe time to say goodnight to my blog readers

The Extinction Rebellion Levellers


I have just been listening to a rather disturbing Hard Talk interview on BBC World Service radio, in which BBC man Stephen Sackur interviewed the co-founder and (?) de facto leader of “Extinction Rebellion”, Roger Hallam.

Extinction Rebellion

I have blogged previously about Extinction Rebellion:


Roger Hallam

As to Roger Hallam, this is what Wikipedia has to say about him:


The Wikipedia entry is not very detailed, saying nothing about Hallam’s life before 2017 (he is, at time of writing, 53, having been born in 1966) except that:

Hallam was previously an organic farmer in Wales; he attributes the destruction of his business to a series of extreme weather events.” [Wikipedia]

Strange. When I was about 25, I worked for a couple of weeks (unpaid) on an organic farm in West Wales. That farm, Blaencamel Farm, in 1982 a rather pathetic though beautiful 24 acres (now, I notice, 50 acres) in Ceredigion, has become (as I heard on BBC Radio 4 Farming Today a couple of years ago), a highly-successful business which is also the hub of the organic movement in that part of the world:


Apropos of nothing, I notice that the farmer at Blaencamel Farm, Peter Segger (who had previously, that is before he bought that farm in 1979, been a mainstream food industry executive, buying shiploads of Arctic fish etc), seems to have mellowed considerably and, though still recognizable, has aged considerably (haven’t we all?) in the past 37 years!

I suppose that the point is that there are numerous successful or at least sustainable organic farms in West Wales. I have no idea whether Hallam farmed 500 acres, 50, or lived on a 5-acre smallholding. I suspect nearer 5 than 500, which if so would make his farming inherently unsustainable from a strictly business viewpoint. In fact, when questioned by the Daily Mail in April 2019, Hallam said that ” ‘No-one wants to get arrested. I want to get back to my farm. I’m just a poor farmer, nothing special.” So he still has a farm? I thought that he was supposed to have lost it? Does it mean that he still owns a farm but does not farm it? We do not know.

[Update, 17 September 2020: Hallam’s Wikipedia entry now reads “Hallam was previously an organic farmer on a 10-acre (4-hectare) farm near Llandeilo in South Wales.” So it seems that my guess that Hallam’s farm was “nearer 5 acres than 500” was pretty close to the mark.]

In any event, he first came to public attention in 2017: “Between at least 2017 and early 2019 he was studying for a PhD in civil disobedience at King’s College London,[5] researching how to achieve social change through radical movements. In January 2017, in an action to urge King’s College London to divest from fossil fuels, Hallam and another person, using water-soluble chalk-based spray paint,[4] painted “Divest from oil and gas”, “Now!” and “Out of time” on the university’s Strand campus entrance.[7][5]They were arrested in February when they again spray painted the university’s Great Hall,[7] charged by the state with criminal damage and fined £500.[8] In May 2019, after a three day trial at Southwark Crown Court, they were cleared by a jury of all charges, having argued in their defence that their actions were a proportionate response to the climate crisis.[5] In March 2017, Hallam went on hunger strike to demand the university divest from fossil fuels—the institution had millions of pounds invested in fossil fuels but no investment in renewable energy.[8] Five weeks after the first protest, the university removed £14m worth of investments from fossil fuel companies and pledged to become carbon neutral by 2025.”

Now I have no objection to older people studying, though I am surprised that King’s College London offers a Ph.D. in Civil Disobedience (is this 2019 or 1969?), but for someone in his fifties to spraypaint the interior and exterior of his college with activist graffiti seems not so much youthful as puerile.

In the Hard Talk interview, Hallam sounded fanatical and inflexible. He kept referring to “the Science” (with a capital “S”), repeating it like a religious mantra, yet he himself is not even a scientist. He referred to himself as “a sociologist” at one point. So…here we have someone who got a sociology degree from somewhere (either in recent years or perhaps in the 1980s), and is now an almost perennial student aged 53 who has taken 2 years, it seems, to get a “doctorate” in “Civil Disobedience”, and yet (in the radio interview) lectures the interviewer on the need to believe The Science (which Hallam may or may not understand and —at least judging from his rather unintelligent radio persona— probably does not). He certainly does not think that there can be any doubt about what he says that The Science tells us about “climate change” (formerly “global warming”), despite there being a degree of scientific debate on the subject.

I have to say that I found Hallam’s style disturbing. Did the Levellers of Cromwell’s time sound like that? Or the true believers in Trotsky, Lenin or Stalin, circa 1920 or 1930?

Hallam referred, in the interview, to his belief (he said “fact”) that 6 billion people would die if the UK (and the rest of the world?) did not reduce “carbon emissions” to zero by 2025. When challenged by Stephen Sackur about how that would mean that, within 6 years, the UK would have to have no (or very few) cars, planes, trains, or centrally heated (by gas) houses, Hallam just retreated into his bubble of unreality and said that it was a matter of political will! I suppose that the last country to try that was mid-1970s Cambodia, sub nom “Democratic Kampuchea”, the Year Zero society of The Killing Fields etc.

Hallam claimed that the UK produces 10% of “emissions”. That is plain wrong if he meant 10% of the world’s carbon emissions. The real figure is about 1% (he may, however, if I take the role of Devil’s advocate, have meant 10% of all EU emissions). In other words, even if the UK disappeared into a black hole tomorrow, the other 99% of “emissions” in the world would still be there. That is taking “The Science” at face value, as Hallam obviously does.

What Hallam and his fellow Extinction Rebellion types fail to see is that in fact only the removal of 90% (maybe 80%) of the world population will “save” the planet now. Man-made climate change (taking it as Extinction Rebellion believe it to be) is not caused, at root, by cars, planes etc as such, but by the billions of people in the world, as well as their farmed animals, cars, planes, central heating etc. Numbers.

I agree that there is an environmental crisis, though “global warming”/”climate change” is only part of it. I have blogged about it, as well as the need to create what would be seen as a “super-race”, i.e, evolution of the species combined with evolution of consciousness:


Who are they? What are they?

It is as plain as day that Hallam and many of his fellow leading Extinction Rebellion zealots are basically fanatical drop-outs and misfits, most of whom have and have had no profession or occupation (or much academic background) to speak of (see the Daily Mail report in Notes, below):

  • Hallam himself, ex-farmer and now a superannuated “student” aged 53: “Mr Hallam has also claimed paralysing traffic will eventually cause food shortages and trigger uprisings” [Daily Mail];
  • Simon Bramwell, 46-47, a former builder, now “bushcraft instructor”;
  • Gail Bradbrook, 47-48, a mother of two teenage children, who divorced her husband and became an “activist” after an hallucinogenic-drug trip to Costa Rica;
  • Tasmin Osmond, 34-35, “a veteran of ‘direct actions’ such as Occupy London, the poverty protest which set up a camp outside St Paul’s cathedral in 2011. The granddaughter of Dorset baronet Sir Thomas Lees, Omond [sic] went to Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, where she read English.” [Daily Mail] (no actual profession or occupation ever, apparently; presumably a trustafarian);
  • George Barda, 43-44: “He is a post-graduate student at King’s College in London and the son of classical music and stage photographer Clive Barda…Mr Barda is also a dedicated revolutionary who camped outside St Paul’s cathedral in the Occupy London campaign. Today, he is a director of XR parent company Compassionate Revolution and regularly appears on Russia Today.” [Daily Mail]. So again no profession or occupation, another “eternal student”…;

The XR “strategy”

I see that none of those noted above, or the others reported on by the Daily Mail, are climate scientists or anything similar (Gail Bradbrook apparently has a Ph.D. in molecular biology).

They have no programme either: see https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/about-us/

More accurately, they have a “programme” for protest action, or how to create a kind of anarchic situation, but no programme for what to do if, in some parallel reality, they were to attain to political power. They say that they want 3.5% of the population to create a momentum for change. 3.5%? From where does that come? Popular “philosophy”? Some paperback sci-fi novel? A brainwave by someone such as Hallam? Or a vision seen by the lady noted in the Daily Mail report below, in Notes, Gail Bradbrook, while on ibogaine, ayahuasca, peyote or magic mushrooms? We are not told.

I do not mistake labelling for understanding, but what do we call Extinction Rebellion, ideologically? Perhaps the closest is “anarcho-syndicalism meets treehugging” (and I favour treehugging far more than I do anarcho-syndicalism).

Were Extinction Rebellion actually able to stop government, society and economy from operating in the UK, the result would indeed be the deaths of millions, not from “climate change” but from disruption of supplies of food, water, medicine, not to mention huge lawlessness. That in turn would certainly lead to political dictatorship if not tyranny, as the “huddled masses” start to cry out for, not freedom, and most certainly not for “zero emissions” (!) but for safety, security, food, water, heat etc.

Maybe these Extinction Rebellion cranks think that they and their “3.5%” of (?) “woke” “activists” will become that dictatorship (once they understand that popular mass meetings cannot run a society of more than a couple of hundred people). More likely, they would be among the first to be put up against a wall and shot.

As I said earlier, I am very much an environmentalist and very concerned about the state of the planet in that way and in other ways, but this silly “reduce emissions to zero” idea will get nowhere in itself (even if it were to be put somehow into effect worldwide). In six years? Fantasy politics. As for “Extinction Rebellion” leading some mass movement, that is also complete fantasy:


I cannot see many begging for that. Certainly not Emma Thompson, achingly politically-correct actress and “XR” supporter. She would not want that (at least not for herself and her contrived multikulti “family”). My God, it might mean that she would not be able to fly First Class from LA to London to speak at the, er, Extinction Rebellion protests! She might even have to give up some of her half-dozen luxury homes around the world!

Roger Hallam, in interview, bravely opined that “young people” support XR, but quite a few of the XR activists are over 60 and most seem to be over 40 anyway, though I do not have statistics to support that provisional view. Hallam stood as an Independent for the London constituency, during the EU elections. His vote? 924 votes (out of 2,241,681), a vote-share of 0.04%, so not even a half of a tenth of one per cent… Seems that only 4 in 10,000 voted for Mr. Hallam. Statistical zero. Eloquent testimony.

The Extinction Rebellion protesters were (belatedly) cracked down on by the Metropolitan Police. Not for several days, though. Why? Was the fix in, as with so-called “activist” on climate change, the weird 16 year old Swedish autistic, Greta Thunberg, who has had a remarkably smooth ride, meeting leading politicians, receiving respectful attention, despite her obvious mental problems and what seems to me to be scarcely-concealed malice. [I shall blog separately about her].

Previous claims that “we have x-years to save the planet”

Silly people ranging from Ed Miliband and Al Gore to Prince Charles all said, back in or around 2009, that “we have 3/5/7/etc years in which to save the planet”. Then the planet yawned and the silly people went away again. There is too much of an attempt, a repeated attempt, to panic us (white Northern Europeans) into accepting lives that are not worth living. Yes there are too many people on this Earth at present. My view is that the advanced peoples should live, procreate and evolve higher. The backward peoples and races (who are by far the more numerous) are not required.

Accusations of “terrorism”; analogy with Greenham Common

One senior policeman said, after the London protests, that XR was, or was close to being, “terrorist”. I think that he was right. Look at these people. Listen to the Stephen Sackur interview. These people are willing to do anything to achieve their ends, even though their ends (insofar as they have “ends”) are in fact unachievable, certainly via protests etc.

The Greenham Common women in the early 1980s thought that they were stopping cruise missiles being based in the UK, whereas their protests (which were hell for the local people— much the lesbians and/or feminists cared…) actually achieved nothing. The missiles were removed by reason of NATO-Warsaw Pact negotiations. The “Women’s Peace Camp” was a complete waste of time and effort.

A series of meetings held during August and September 1986 culminated in a summit between United States President Ronald Reaganand the General Secretary of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík, Iceland, on 11 October 1986. To the surprise of both men’s advisers, the two agreed in principle to removing INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads.

The United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which led to the removal of all nuclear missiles from the base. The last GLCMs at RAF Greenham Common were removed in March 1991, and the 501st TMW inactivated on 4 June 1991.” [Wikipedia]

Incidentally and incredibly, even though the last missiles left Greenham Common in 1991, even though the Americans left Greenham in 1992 and even though the UK Ministry of Defence closed the base in 1993, putting it up for sale (the area being almost all designated by 1997 as public parkland), the “Greenham Women” stayed, some of them, until 2000! To me that proves that without their having “political activism” to do, some of them had nothing to do with their time or their lives. They were unable to accept that their protests (for 19 years!) had actually achieved nothing and in any case had been superseded by large-scale international events. Like the Japanese soldier in the 1970s, fighting a lone war in the jungle, 30 years after the Pacific War had ended.

Extinction Rebellion protesters are obviously not entirely peaceful. Some are willing to use violence or force to achieve their immediate aims, eg to shut down London. Hallam has, it seems, mooted the shutting down of Heathrow Airport using drones. This is not Gandhi’s “non-violence”. If 10,000 protesters are willing to shut down London by obstruction or inertia, if 1,000 are willing to be even more disruptive, then it may be that 100 are willing to use drones or other means to attack airports, electrical supplies etc. Is it not at least possible that, out of the 10,000, 10 might be willing to use violence of a directly and unambiguously terroristic kind “to save the planet”? I would not bet against it.

We shall soon know. The big “XR” protests are scheduled for October 2019.














Update, 22 August 2019


Update, 7 September 2019

Well, seems that Mr. Hallam will not have to get a job any time soon…


Update, 3 October 2019

…and once again the police tolerate Extinction Rebellion’s “protest” (they did make a few pretend arrests at the end):


Update, 7 October 2019


Extinction Rebellion is playing hardball:

“The Metropolitan Police have described the protests as “unprecedented” in their scale and length and warned that they will arrest those breaking the law.

However, Extinction Rebellion has told its protesters not to co-operate with so that they have to hold them in the cells and cannot arrest another activist.

The group wrote on their website: “There are roughly 1,000 jail cells in London – we filled many of them in April.

“Police could often only arrest 100-200 people a day because the cells were full. If we fill them every day – the streets will remain ours. That it is why we refuse bail, to fill up the cells and to show our open defiance of the system that is killing us.”” [Daily Telegraph]

My solution? If the arrested refuse bail, then stuff them ten to a cell like they do in Egypt. And if that is not enough, stuff them twenty to a cell. This is war.

Update, 8 October 2019


For once, I agree with Boris-Idiot…and while we are on the subject of idiots, what about the one featured in the report below? Pathetic does not even start to cover it. He must have mental problems.


Update, 15 November 2019

Extinction Rebellion’s Queen Bee, Gail Bradbury, has been committed for trial:


She has elected Crown Court trial (jury trial) despite the risk of a heavier sentence on conviction. She obviously hopes for a sympathetic jury. I see that the Daily Mail, itself ever-sympathetic to the middle classes, calls her a “molecular biologist” because she has a degree in the subject (though I doubt whether she has ever worked in that field or any other).

Update, 20 January 2020

Hallam now wants “a World War 2 mobilization of society”, with rationing and “confiscation of private property”. He says that “Nuremberg” trials should be set up for anyone “guilty” re. climate change, and that some people should “get a bullet in the head”.


What about people who just own a car, or central heating? Do they get a bullet too, or just deportation to re-education camps? In short, this Hallam character is not only an idiot, he is a dangerous idiot.

Update, 27 August 2020


Update, 24 September 2020