This is what the anti-democracy shills want to bring in?

The clip below is only accessible via Twitter, which means playing Jack Dorsey’s game and signing up, which for various reasons, not least censorship by Dorsey, CEO, I understand you may not wish to do, given that I won’t go into Facebook. I have a skeleton page there and that’s all.

So immediately, there is a constraint on the sharing of information, or the samizdat. But it’s not really samizdat because that was largely not controlled by the USSR, it was unofficial, whereas this is scrutinised by the tech giant who uses a system of blue ticks, which I do not have. It’s not unlike the yellow star on Jews’ outerwear in times gone by.

The difference here is that we voluntarily use these platforms, the Jews did not in times gone by. And if you scroll down Twitter accounts listed one under the other as they appear, not unlike a blog, there’s a mix of neutral – e.g. ads for beer and pro left accounts such as Biden, left pundits, CNN etc., but ticks are missing from any of ours – those labelled, on the database, potential ‘hate speakers’.

This codeword ‘hate’ was taken up by Lara Trump, wife of Eric, son of Donald, sent out online from Trump Tower. So you’re getting pretty much unadulterated MAGA and KAG set pieces. To me, that’s fine, it’s a known-known such as CNN or RT, the Russian govt mouthpiece.

But in tech terms, it is coming through an enemy platform, in this case, Twitter. In the case of Dinesh D’Souza, it also comes through FB, an enemy platform, which I won’t access, although I’m set up for cross-platform.

And these tech giants most certainly censor anything vaguely ‘right’ or not on song with the Narrative. Most of you know all this but some still don’t, as I know from some of your comments.

How did this state of affairs occur? Well, talent scouts sought out bright young things with ideas, such as Jobs or Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and connected them to an endless slush fund. From where? It’s another topic. Point is, this was no struggling Dorsey, cap in hand, once he had the blue tick of approval, it was a well funded but demanding patron or two.

This is why no techie with right-leaning views has any major platform – they’re all global left, all of them. Into this comes Trump Tower but it still uses enemy lines. This blog uses WordPress, still largely neutral, which Blogger/Youtube is not, being Google and yet it can still be taken down by getting at mine host.

Twitter though – every message of mine is censored and if approved, is posted, but I have a long list of ‘rejected’ tweets and so far, have gone along with it.

There are alternatives such as Gab but even they have issues – global orthodoxy still affects their principals. So we have a state of affairs where, if you have a free pass, you are uncensored and waved through, with one exception. That exception is when we catch out a narrative-spewing miscreant with an account and very quickly, that account disappears unless we’ve archived or screenshot.

You may well use the word ‘insufferable’ for this state of affairs but hey, what’s fair under this hegemony? Those on the Deplorable side, many tech whizzes, simply have not the roadmap, the networks, willing to back our message, hence the cash does not flow.

In other words, market forces, which we support in general, work against us in this case, and anti-trust legislation, which the global left supports, being anti-capitalist, actually waves them through but stops us. It’s bizarre and on its head.

Also on its head is this weasel word ‘hate’, it’s their one catch-all word for anything anti-Narrative. One example used by Dinesh D’S and Lara T – remember, through FB – was the Andy Ngo attack by Antifa, itself under a joke banner.

And she, LT, raised the question, over footage of black-helmeted thugs with iron bars and chunks of concrete brought in (long lenses caught it) – the question of how. The police in the US are at the behest of the DA, who is under the control of local authorities.

They are officially bound by the same rules they promulgate. And yet here were dozens of black uniformed, helmeted thugs, including university professors, but mainly street thugs, able to perpetrate actual violence … and no police intervened.

Why not? Under which rules in law were they held back? Under no law except vaguely worded ‘threat to public peace’. At the whim of those local authorities.

How did those local authorities get into place? You know the answer and it comes right back to Senator Jenner (1954) and Professor Quigley (forget the year), on opposite sides but agreeing that that’s how it was done. Someone like reader Bill would write ‘most amusing’ that we’re still shocked this late in the piece.

The two words coming out of LT were ‘condoned’ and ‘abetted’ from above. To this can be added ‘funded’. And their standard defence against this accusation? ‘Tinfoil hat’, ‘conspiracy loon’. Was it a conspiracy loon who took footage of men paying the long lines of ‘refugees’ swarming up to the border? Paying money, feeding, a whole infrastructure in place? Simple military logistics and supply lines?

Do the college and schoolkids with the ‘refugees welcome’ banners see any of that? They do not.

Which part of McCarthy’s witchhunts or that of the HUAC has ultimately proven to be in error in its basic thrust?

None of it – there really is a highly organised and funded campaign to break down society. The highly inflammatory word ‘communist’ may have dated but the underlying organisation is the same. And you need look no further than Tavistock, Chatham House and Common Purpose to see it alive and at work, let alone at the top of the EU.

I saw a few seconds of a blue-ticked clip of this Swinson child, leader of a main UK party, on a platform of other anti-democrats, carrying on, with straight face, about how she and the others WOULD be heard, would NOT be suppressed, the ‘people’s’ voice WOULD be heard over the oppressor Johnson and the ‘people’s vote’ must take place.

Bizarre – whom was she trying to convince? Well, the legions of the simple-minded out here in people land. The question is asked – what about the people’s vote in 2016? Oh, that was false, the people didn’t understand.

A plebiscite was officially conducted but the people weren’t informed properly. Really? What of Cameron’s £9m leaflets to every household? Swinson knows nothing of that.

The two words ‘wrong’ and ‘lies’ or ‘barefaced lies’ do immediately raise their ugly faces. Who is lying here? Ignoring reality?

And so to this Twitter clip:

No doubt there are salubrious parts of Pretoria, no doubt those in the know will explain that to me, but they have to go past this dystopia in order to get to them. And is it the salubrious or the human flotsam being enticed into the UK and Europe, into the US? Ten seconds to think about it.

What’s the govt’s stated purpose in its immigration policy? To bring in the brightest and best, yes? To bring in those slotting straight into the society.

Oh but firms need cheap coolie labour, yes, despite outsourcing? How would those causing this situation in Pretoria fare as hard workers?

There really is a disconnect, would you not say?

But to say so is ‘hate’ speech.

Oh, and for the sex and violence junkies out there who get off on children being ‘enriched’ by our new neighbours, one of he latest:

9 comments for “This is what the anti-democracy shills want to bring in?

  1. James Strong
    August 28, 2019 at 7:26 am

    ‘ex-officio’ does not mean ‘unofficial’

    • August 28, 2019 at 11:09 am

      Going too fast again, word association error, I even was an ex-officio member of a committee once.

  2. August 28, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    Don’t forget Swinson has already promised to ignore the result of a second referendum if the referendum rigging fails and by some miracle the majority is still for leave.

    Strange times we live in: that a Party that has Democrat in the name refuses to recognise the result of a democratic vote (or more).

    But strange times indeed: the Anti-Fascists behave like fascists, the democrats are authoritarian and free speech becomes hate speech.

    How language has been hijacked for political purpose. How it has been twisted and bent so far it now means entirely the opposite of it’s original meaning when used in a political context.

    Talking of context: it doesn’t matter. Hate crimes are fabricated from a snippet of a sentence denying the defence of context. Pug dogs trained to lampoon Nazis are treated as if venerating Nazis without context.

    But it’s been there for decades: I’ve always said look for what a politician does, rather than what he or she says. Actions speak louder than words (sticks and stones, etc.), but even that has been stood on it’s head. Now words kill, words maim, words hurt: certainly the crime and the punishments meted out seem that way. Sticks and stones are irrelevant, along with the context. Actions, no matter how evil are irrelevant as long as the words are good.

    Murder becomes mercy killing, brainwashing becomes re-education. Good becomes evil, kindness is weakness. Inform on your neighbours for the social good.

    To quote Orwell: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Topsy-Turvy.

    We’ve seen it before in other parts of the word where Socialism becomes Marxism becomes communism.

    We all know what comes after the words change…. and it is not good. It is evil.

  3. Voice of Reason
    August 28, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    I suspect that one of the reasons for the domination of new technologies by liberals is that conservatives are, not surprisingly, resistant to change.

    Now, if you want to discuss talk radio, that is now exclusively conservative, after the failed attempt a decade ago by Air America.

  4. Pcar
    August 30, 2019 at 1:56 am

    “But on this occasion Facebook is being responsible” Ritchie allegedly said

    Raheem Kassam banned by Facebook Ahead Of Brexit Deadline

    Hmm, why? Is Raheem Kassam racist, xenophobe, white supremacist?

    Or because he supports Brexit & Trump? Candace Owen next?

    Tim W’s “their place, their rules” destroyed by SM testifying to Congress & HoC they are “Town Square”

  5. Pcar
    August 30, 2019 at 1:57 am

    Good article in DM

    The real scandal, John Bercow? How you ripped up the rules by siding with the government’s opponents to defeat Mrs May only to slam successor Boris Johnson for ‘constitutional outrage’

    …According to Parliament’s website: ‘The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times.’

    Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘He’s a Speaker who has ripped every page about impartiality out of the Speaker’s rule book.

    ‘It is hypocritical. He’s showing what an arch-Remainer he is. No doubt his impotence to stop prorogation will undoubtedly be making him go apoplectic.’

    Bercow’s critics say he’s on a one-man mission to destroy Brexit – he was spotted driving a car with a sticker saying ‘Bollocks to Brexit’. (Bercow told MPs the car belonged to his wife.) He used constitutional theorist Erskine May (who died in 1886) to bolster his opportunistic case to sabotage the EU referendum result.

    As a proud expert on parliamentary history, surely Bercow knows that proroguing Parliament is a normal part of the process of government. It happens almost every year as one parliamentary term ends and another begins.

    The difference this time is that the prorogation will last longer than normal and will happen at a tortuous time politically.

    Bercow’s ‘outrage’ might have been more convincing were it not for his long record of interpreting parliamentary rules and conventions in ways that favour the Remain side. In January, he defied convention and overruled his officials by allowing a vote on an amendment which forced Prime Minister Theresa May to present an EU Withdrawal Bill ‘Plan B’ to MPs after they rejected her deal.

    Bercow admitted he had flouted precedent, adding: ‘If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change… I have made an honest judgment.’

    He later prevented MPs from voting on a Brexiteer amendment which specifically ruled out a second referendum – even though it had been signed by 127 MPs.

    In March, when Mrs May was desperately trying to get her Bill through the Commons at the third attempt, Bercow, seeking to block the vote, was a stickler for precedent. He ruled that MPs could not vote because the motion was substantially unchanged.

    His justification was a convention dating to 1604, which, he said, had been used a dozen times – though not since 1920. Clearly, Bercow’s contradictory view of historical precedence is based on what he feels can be employed most handily to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in the Speaker’s choice of amendments to select for debate.

    In March he chose two motions that, if passed, would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the Commons (in the event, both were rejected). He blocked another motion that would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit.

    The fact is that a debate with a partisan moderator is not a true debate.

    As for his claim about prorogation being an outrage, Tory MP Philip Hollobone pointed out that as PM, Tony Blair regularly prorogued Parliament for 12 weeks.

    His former colleague Stewart Jackson observed with irony that it seemed fine for ‘Remain backbenchers with no mandate take control of legislation to work with Bercow to block voters’ decision’ on Brexit but that it was an ‘outrage’ to follow precedent and rules to prorogue Parliament ahead of a new government’s legislative programme. ‘Hypocrites!’ he added.

    Sir Christopher Meyer, our former ambassador to the US, tartly commented that it was ‘time for Bercow to keep quiet and keep out.’

    The Speaker says he has always sought to ‘champion the rights of members wishing to put their particular opinion – once a Right-wing Conservative but now a liberal – has repeatedly shown no qualms in advertising his Remainer views, reportedly telling students at Reading in 2017: ‘I voted to Remain.’ This summer, The Speaker travelled to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe to tell an audience that he would ‘fight with every breath in my body’ to stop the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament.

    Surely the correct place for such a remark, if at all, would have been the Speaker’s chair. It should not have been delivered to an ardently Remain-leaning audience at an arts festival in a country where the majority voted Remain in 2016.

    At the same event, Bercow was asked if MPs would be able to stop a No Deal Brexit. Rather than properly declining to answer, he replied with an enthusiastic: ‘Yes!’

    Already, MPs have condemned the Speaker for staying in his job more than a year beyond his self-declared retirement date. So is it any surprise when he so brazenly makes clear his views on the issue in Britain’s recent political history?

    Tory MP Peter Bone said on Wednesday: ‘Bercow no longer sounds like a referee – he sounds like he is playing for one of the teams.’

    The truth is that John Bercow’s behaviour shows that he is not an independent defender of the British constitution. He is a partisan figure who has exploited his office to arrogantly wield the political power that eluded him during the years he spent as a backbencher.

  6. Pcar
    August 30, 2019 at 3:10 am


    I know many SA (one was my deputy best man, died with son in airline crash – Kruger, Michael and Edward) & Rhodesia peeps who say independence has ruined their country, similar to what HK now saying. Left & msm anti-UK has caused as much harm/death as Stalin.

    BasedPoland’s vid here at ~6m 20s ?

    Absolutley Unfortunate – understatement of the month?

    Pretoria CBD Protest – http & www removed as only two URLs permitted



    PS What is the “Based” name about – BasedPoland, BasedAmy etc ?

    • September 2, 2019 at 1:31 pm

      ‘Based’ came into common use in 2016 thanks to young Trump supporters on Reddit’s The_Donald, which, incidentally, Reddit ‘quarantined’ a few months ago, although lurkers can read the first page of posts.

      ‘Based’ means someone with solid values and their feet on the ground who is not ashamed to admit it.

      • Pcar
        September 2, 2019 at 11:54 pm

        Thank you for “Based” explanation



Comments are closed.