Tag Archives: US Constitution

Diary Blog, 13 July 2020

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.

personalised chart

I disparage the “left/right” usage, really.

If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps: [https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-5.75&soc=-0.31],try here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

This, below, is a similar test, incorporating “social conservatism” v. “wokeness”… http://www.thetakemachine.co.uk/quiz

My result: http://www.thetakemachine.co.uk/quiz/XFUNtk/results

[above: the copy function does not seem to work properly on this graphic; at the top should be written “—social— conservative”, on the bottom “woke”; “left” and “right” on the lateral axis]

So it seems that I am not very “woke”. Quelle surprise…

Tweets seen

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…

See: https://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

This has been carefully planned.

Amazing war story


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.

Tweets seen

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.

As far as the UK and EU are concerned, you have no or very little free speech. My experiences include (but not exclusively) the following: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/ and https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

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.

Musical interlude

Tweets seen

[click to read whole thread]

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.

More music (and a few interesting designs)

Midnight music

The War on Freedom of Expression in the UK, USA and EU States


Recent events have sharpened my already-keen interest in freedom of expression. On Twitter, the premier socio-political short-comment website, those regarded in the USA as “alt-right” have had their “blue ticks” removed, signalling that they are not very approved of by whomever decides policy at Twitter. In the UK, several people are currently about to be put on trial for saying or singing things of which the Jewish Zionists disapprove. Also in the UK, David Icke has just (17 November 2017) had his event at the Old Trafford facility owned by Manchester United (itself owned by a clan of American Jew-Zionists) cancelled. In the EU, the already considerable online censorship in Germany, France, Scandinavia has been intensified and new EU rules control online platforms as never before (and behind such restrictions, once again, “them”…).

Many reading this will be aware that, by reason of the activities of a pack of Jew-Zionists, I was disbarred in 2016. I have blogged about that and may do so again. Even before those events, I was prevented, I think in 2011 or 2012, from posting book reviews on Amazon (UK and US) because one (at first only one) obsessed Jew complained to the Jewish Chronicle about me. Other Jews joined in, the original one trolling anyone who liked my reviews (enough liked them to propel me to the top 40 reviewers), leaving stupid and unpleasant comments, many both defamatory and untrue). Once the Jewish Chronicle and other Jew-Zionist organizations piled in, Amazon caved in…

In fact, this censorship, largely exercized by the Jewish-Zionist element, predates the Internet era. I recall trying to advertize a small organization in The Spectator, around 1978. I was advised that I had to supply a precis of its political view. I did that, only to be told that my advertisement would not be printed. Same at that bastion of well-heeled and hypocritical Home Counties free-speech-ism, Private Eye. This at a time when these publications carried both “Conservative” and “socialist”, even Communist adverts!

The Internet opened up a window of freedom of expression, but “they” are rapidly moving to close it. Free speech is being shut down.


The free speech provisions of the US Constitution are as outdated and superseded as those governing arms in private hands and other matters. At present, with certain exceptions, the State (meaning government) will not (there are exceptions) criminalize something said by an individual in the street, on a placard, in print, but that does not prevent that individual losing his job (if an employer dislikes what he has said or written, or where the employer has been pressured by external forces, such as the Jewish Lobby, with its campaigns of boycott etc).  The US Constitution, in other words, cannot save the individual from losing his job, home, family, if his employer decides to penalize him because of his “free expression”.

Likewise, the writer who writes that which is disliked by the Jewish lobby will not be arrested in the USA, but may find that he cannot get books published by mainstream publishing houses. The academic who tries to expand the boundaries may find that tenure is denied, or employment terminated.

Now, in the Internet age of social media, we find that the major platforms for freedom of expression are not properly public, but private organizations, private enterprises, which can decide on almost any basis to prohibit any named individual from posting. Amazon, ebay (which e.g. allows Soviet but not German Third Reich memorabilia), Facebook, Twitter. These organizations are either owned or largely owned or strongly influenced (and staffed) by Jewish Zionists.

I spoke in February 2017 at the London Forum about, inter alia, the “privatization of public space” in this regard. Now, the “alt-right” personality Richard Spencer has echoed me from the United States, talking about how the fora of the past were public, but the (online) “fora” of the present age private, thus able to exclude those whose views are not approved by the owners of the websites (or the commercial advertizers thereon).

UK and EU

The above “privatization of the forum” (or fora) applies not only in the USA, but in the UK and other EU states. The EU has already (in most states) criminalized “holocaust” “denial” (examination and/or revision of that historical narrative). It has also forged ahead (under Jewish-Zionist control or influence) with plans to penalize Twitter, Facebook etc if the “wrong” symbols, cartoons, views are hosted.

In the UK, several people are now facing trial at the instigation of Jewish-Zionists: Alison Chabloz, Jez Turner, others. Whatever happens to them will be of significance for freedom of expression.

We now hear that Twitter is planning further purges, this month (November 2017), and on or about 22 December. Those changes may well mean the end of Twitter as a useful place online on which to exchange ideas. We shall see. I myself am half-expecting to be removed.

In the end, the consolation must be to remember that no revolution or takeover of any state has ever happened via social media, though online propaganda has helped one or two offline campaigns to achieve success. Boots on the ground are what count.

Update, 23 December 2018

I was expelled from Twitter in mid-2018. No reason given (beyond weasel words), no appeal, no clarification. Many others have gone the same way. The only consolation has been the realization of how totally pointless and self-defeating tweeting is!

Update, 13 January 2021

Since my last update, over 2 years ago, the war on freedom of expresson has intensified. See my later blog posts.

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution