This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
David Cameron's New Thought Police
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
You May No Longer Think Wrong Thoughts, Citizen
Shortly after the election victory that probably surprised no-one more than himself, David Cameron launched into explaining to the hoi-polloi what further transmogrification of the State is in store now that he’s got a free hand. He inter alia elated the audience with the following zinger:
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”
In other words, dear citizen, mafia uncle State will no longer leave you alone if you merely “obey the law”. Your “narratives of grievance” henceforth won’t be tolerated anymore!

As one reader remarked, all that’s missing now is Frau Bluecher making her entrance …
Cartoon by Steve Bell
As the Guardian reports, this means that now that the Lib Dems will no longer be able to veto Cameron’s more outlandish ideas, he intends to keep us all safe by fighting terrorism by means of an Orwellian thought police.
“A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalize young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.
The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organizations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.”
It is actually hard to see what this bill could possibly “fall short of”. Given that any ideas that might be considered to “threaten the functioning of democracy” will require a special police permit to be uttered, we have to wonder if e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy, the God that Failed will be banned in the UK. The definition of “harmful” provided above is quite striking. In order to be deemed too harmful to be tolerated by the thought police one only needs to create a “risk of causing alarm or distress”.
In light of this, we want to take this opportunity to apply for a broadcasting ban on David Cameron. The man is definitely causing us great alarm and distress now that he’s been handed the pants of power.

David Cameron, wearer of the pants of power
Cartoon by Steve Bell
Of course we can fully rely on the UK police force to be able to clearly differentiate “good and tolerable hate” from the “bad and distressing” kind when the time comes to make that determination. It’s really easy. Just consider how easy it has e.g. been to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.

Clear as day!
Cartoon by Brian Gable
Can We Still Call him a Fascist Twat in a Onesie?
As Glenn Greenwald remarks at the Intercept, UK home secretary Theresa May has been doing her best to explain why certain purveyors of thought crimes must henceforth be persecuted by the State in order to ensure our continued safety. You see, it’s all about being “One Nation”. Well, that’s OK then, right? Sieg Heil!
“In essence, advocating any ideas or working for any political outcomes regarded by British politicians as “extremist” will not only be a crime, but can be physically banned in advance.
[…]
It’s not enough for British subjects merely to “obey the law”; they must refrain from believing in or expressing ideas which Her Majesty’s Government dislikes.
If all that sounds menacing, tyrannical and even fascist to you — and really, how could it not? “extremism disruption orders” — you should really watch this video of Tory Home Secretary Theresa May trying to justify the bill in an interview on BBC this morning. When pressed on what “extremism” means — specifically, when something crosses the line from legitimate disagreement into criminal “extremism” — she evades the question completely, repeatedly invoking creepy slogans about the need to stop those who seek to “undermine Our British Values” and, instead, ensure “we are together as one society, One Nation” (I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German). Click here to watch the video and see the face of Western authoritarianism, advocating powers in the name of Freedom that are its very antithesis.”
(emphasis added)
It seems that many Western political leaders no longer know what freedom of speech actually means. Freedom of speech includes the possibility that people might utter opinions that cover the full range from “totally idiotic” to “potentially undermining someone else’s values” and more. Yes, it is a slightly risky concept, since some people may indeed be convinced by the rhetoric of very bad people. We’re quite sure it happens every day.
If we not only agree with Steve Bell that David Cameron is a “colossal twat in a onesie”, but augment that by calling him a “colossal fascist twat in a onesie”, are we engaging in hate speech? What about advocating anarchy, i.e., the possibility of doing away with ruling elites and the State altogether? Would that be regarded as criminally “undermining democracy”? Clearly, those who advocate a stateless society have to be considered “anti-democratic”, since there wouldn’t be a government or elections in such a society. How do we know anarchists won’t be prosecuted under the cover of this proposed legislation? Theresa May certainly hasn’t provided much reassurance on such fine points.

Will this symbol fall under the UK government’s definition of “harmful”? If an anarchy were to be established, both David Cameron and Theresa May would have to get real jobs, so our tentative guess at this point would be that the answer must be “yes”.
Many people might be tempted to think that since the superficially obvious goal is to curb the speech of Islamist fundamentalist hate preachers – of whom there is apparently no shortage in the UK – it is all fine and dandy. However, as soon as governments restrict free speech by means of new laws, it is an apodictic certainty that they will abuse this newly acquired power. It is in fact already happening. Glenn Greenwald provides a number of examples and includes links for fact-checking purposes:
“Threats to free speech can come from lots of places. But right now, the greatest threat by far in the West to ideals of free expression is coming not from radical Muslims, but from the very Western governments claiming to fight them. The increasingly unhinged, Cheney-sounding governments of the U.K., Australia, France, New Zealand and Canada — joining the U.S. — have a seemingly insatiable desire to curb freedoms in the name of protecting them: prosecuting people for Facebook postings critical of Western militarism or selling “radical” cable channels , imprisoning people for “radical” tweets, banning websites containing ideas they dislike, seeking (and obtaining ) new powers of surveillance and detention for those people (usually though not exclusively Muslim citizens) who hold and espouse views deemed by these governments to be “radical.”
Anticipating Prime Minister Cameron’s new “anti-extremist” bill (to be unveiled in the “Queen’s Speech”), University of Bath Professor Bill Durodié said that “the window for free speech has now been firmly shut just a few months after so many political leaders walked in supposed solidarity for murdered cartoonists in France.” Actually, there has long been a broad, sustained assault in the West on core political liberties — specifically due process, free speech and free assembly — perpetrated not by “radical Muslims,” but by those who endlessly claim to fight them.
(emphasis added)
What happened to “je suis Charlie”? As we recall, the rally in Paris in the wake of the attack was attended by all sorts of politicians from countries with a less than exemplary record of tolerating free speech, which should perhaps have been a tip-off that defending free speech wasn’t really what it was all about.
Meanwhile, David Cameron has no problem with the UK selling arms to assorted Arab theocratic and authoritarian rulers, as well as calling for arming “moderately mad mullahs” that might be induced to do the West’s bidding in various benighted Muslim lands. Much of this is likely to eventually boomerang in the form of “blow-back”, at which point we will be told that even more liberties will need to be curbed if we are to remain “safe”.

David Cameron and the Arab arms trade – arming moderately mad mullahs is apparently not regarded as a problem.
Cartoon by Steve Bell
Conclusion
We certainly don’t like what one might term “extremist hate preachers” and the ideas they are propagating. We are just as repulsed by people glorifying fascism, communism or Islamist fundamentalism as almost all civilized people presumably are. We too find it extremely unfortunate that a number of impressionable young people have been taken in by the slick propaganda published by outfits like the Islamic State. However, once government becomes the arbiter of what speech is and isn’t legitimate, the door is inevitably thrown wide open to the suppression of all political dissent.
It must be repeated here that even though terrorism certainly needs to be fought, the dangers emanating from terrorists are in reality exceedingly small. The average Western citizen is many thousands of times more likely to die from simply falling off a piece of furniture (e.g. a chair with an innately evil disposition) than to be killed by a terrorist. The act of taking a bath is almost a million times more risky than all the terrorism in the world, since accidentally drowning in the bathtub is statistically speaking a fairly common way of shuffling off the mortal coil. Life as such is inherently risky, given the fact that it invariably ends with death. And yet, no-one has proposed that it would be sensible to introduce State surveillance of all bath-tubs or furniture as of yet.
We therefore have absolutely nothing to gain in terms of enhanced security by restricting essential civil liberties. This is simply a government propaganda-induced illusion. We do however have a lot to lose. Once people feel they have to watch what they can say or write, an essential pillar of civilization and progress is severely undermined.
In order to make a small contribution to forestalling this sad trend for a little while longer, we will take the opportunity to repeat that David Cameron is a colossal fascist twat in a onesie.

- 27197 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Awh its nothin. This kind of thing happens at the onset of every ice age.
The "right to rule" exists only as long as those who claim it can indulge in more than the simple illusion of freedom for their constituents/subjects.
After that its a mess of shit-house rats fighting for the top dog spot
And yet, they all keep right on obeying.
Ho hum.
Do I detect a hint of fear in the elite?
i miss the sex pistols and clash.
That's what transJenner will look like
That's one ugly euro trash bitch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-StCO6IBEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-StCO6IBEM
Can't you see? He is a clone of Obama. Once he got the second term, he doesn't give a shit.
He reminds me a lot of W. Bush too. Poor England, they are in for it now.
Ya think the Scots want a do over?
Obama, Cameron, Abbott, Harper....they are muppets enabling corporate fascism, so fuck them and what they stand for!
Cameron is a pedophile who protects and shields other pedophiles in the UK government.
Obama is married to a tranny.
They are all blackmailable which is why they've been allowed by their NWO global financial oligarchy handlers to sit in the mascott seat.
Interesting.
It's been said many times that for somebody to reach the dizzy heights of power in the corporate sector or politics, they have to have some skeletons in their cupboard. It is these skeletons which allow those in the shadows to control them and bring them down if necessary.
We hav'nt had such stability in the administrative branch since, well the start of the country, karma bitches, it was written.
There are an ever growing number of Anarchy symbals popping up across Manchester.
Yeah but who has the guns? England is lost. Leave if you can.
They are finally pulling the curtains and revealing the New Reich
Or just the brick wall that Frank Zappa spoke of.
Go read his Wiki. He and his wife are dual shit-i-zens. His family of chosenites have worked for the Red Shield doing finanacing of wars for hundreds of years. Wars = mass murder of innocent people for money.
F this evil clown.
This is why the majority of the people in Scotland voted for the SNP.We have endured tory goverments in the past inflicted on us by our southern neighbours with no mandate in Scotland.The anti scottish propoganda during the election ,by Cameron ,in England would have fallen under this law .We would like to manage our own country away from control by banks ,multi nationals and American foreign policy.
Just didn't have enough testicular fortitude to vote for independence...
No sympathy for you
Some people tried. This guy was the best ambushing the slimy Labour Party getting off the train from london.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bGuCGdLxW0
Your expression of the desire for independence and seperation form the English government might be determined by the likes of May as undermining the "British" values and contrary to the notion of "One Nation".
Will the present conservative government seek to ban all such discussion, debate and promotion of secession or moves towards self determination by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Ireland peoples ?
quote from article :
What good does it do to break it off with the tyrannical regime at 10 Downing Street only to run into the arms of an even worse tyrant in Brussels?
You think you have no voice now in Westminster, wait until you cosy up to the EU.
All this reminds me of our current situation in the District of Criminals.
'Hate' legislation forms the basis for these restrictive measures. The 'hate' concept, although extended to other groups, was designed to pre-empt criticism of the Tribe and ultimately rested on the Holocau$t ™ Narrative. Which explains why questioning the Narrative can land you in jail in most Western countries.
The number 6,000,000 is one of the most interesting numbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10692757/Dav...
What was their job? (see his Wiki). Financing wars for the red shield. So his family would raise money for the MASS MURDER of innocent people for a profit. He is the spawn of Satan.
To think that this crap has emitted from an empty suit who has the front to call himself a "Conservative" is enough to make one vomit. It exactly contradicts the numerous speeches he gave before the 2010 general election in which he advocated more personal freedom, less government and all the rest of it. Speeches which were removed from the Tory Party website some months ago.
Cameron is just another Obola: Cameron Meets Obama
""The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy"."
"alarm or distress(!!) hhmmm. This is very much in the eye of the beholder and is a catch-all. It essentially means the police will be given broad powers to stop anybody from doing anything.
And of course, it means that anybody who makes any attempt to change the current system of "fake democracy" can be hauled in and shut up.
"They would include a ban on broadcasting..."
Here we go again. Broadcasters will be prohibited from broadcasting news about a huge demonstration going on in Britain to argue for political changes, because they think the current system has turned into fascism.
"...a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print."
Here we go. UK bloggers will have to submit their carefully researched and factual articles to the police for approval before publishing them.
The empire must be desperate choosing Soviet censhorship methods.
'"alarm or distress(!!) hhmmm. This is very much in the eye of the beholder and is a catch-all. It essentially means the police will be given broad powers to stop anybody from doing anything.'
Yes, which is why everyone who is against this needs to become a Special Constable, you get all the same power as a regular police officer and you have to give up four hours a week for free, but you can then use this law against them as they themselves will be breaking it, also remember that as a police officer you will be able to hack any system you choose. Everyone is equal under the law, even if they try not to be
http://www.policespecials.com/.
http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk/special-constables/index.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/15/intelligence-officers-hav...
We're all Emanuel Goldstein's now.
Well, maybe some of us are.
A wise policeman (or suicidal) might use that "alarm and distress" bit to shut down the government if he were placed high enough. Since none will do it, it is safe to say none are so wise (or suicidal).
No martyrs in England.
I remember in the late 70's when I was a kid someone sprayed this symbol all over our school, we were told by the headmaster the A stands for arsehole, I always found that odd, anyhow I will be adding this symbol to any CCTV free zone in due course, I guess I grew up into an arsehole.
So his plan is to tell everyone to shut up? Great! Just one thing Dave. Half the people are female. Good luck with that buddy!
You are a baaad citizen Andy!
Your “narratives of sexism” henceforth won’t be tolerated anymore!
Exibit A Hillery Clinton. If ya put tape over her mouth? She would just talk out the other end.
Priceless +1000
My bad.........I thought she had already been doing that for years.
His plan, if enacted energetically enough will have England in civil war in short order.
Democracy is overrated anyway. But these snakes won't even tolerate any opposition....what does that say about their "democracy"?
All of this was laid out in the proposed EU Constitution.
As is standard practice with the EU, it is presented as a 'National' policy rather than an 'EU' policy.
It was clearly stated in the proposed EU Constitution, that all opposition to the EU was to be a criminal offense, and any political Party opposed to the EU was to be illegal, and too many etceteras.
Basically any thought or deed opposed to the EU was to be forbidden.
All Cameron has shown, is that his Government is Vichy, and will kiss arse and do whatever Brussels tells them to do.
The 'Conservative' Party are as extreme left Marxist, as the rest of the EU's Establishment. Socialism is now entering its final death throes (in fact even Martin Armstrong commented on this a few days ago), and believe me, the damage it can do in its fury, spite, deranged insanity, and hatred, on its way into the dustbin of history, if we let it, is too disturbing to contemplate.
These frantic death throes of Socialism and the lawless State (which always inevitably fails, usually catastrophically, and usually accompanied by great bloodshed), aren't just affecting Britain. This plague has affected every Nation on Earth, and so will its demise.
We are now at the point of Tilt! Game Over! and 'interesting times' doesn't even begin to cover it.
pure hogwash. quote the relevant articles of that retracted "EU Constitution", I dare you and I challenge you
troll, with a week-old account stating you are "An old fart that by accident has ended up probably being the closest thing to a Constitutional Philosopher that's alive today"
I'm pleased to see that you regard yourself as a Constitutional Philosopher. I'm sure you can quote the relevant articles, then you surely studied them
btw, I don't mind you fighting for an Exit of the UK from the EU. In fact, I applaud that. But I do mind your lies about what it is or not
"...with a week-old account stating..."
Actually it's 46 weeks and 5 days.
smacker, I stand corrected, my use of the "weeks old" was improper, then it suggested more a few weeks then "less then one year"
what do you think about this kind of comments?
No problem.
I quite like such comments because they show a good understanding of where most of our political elites have their loyalties.
It's not on the freedom-loving Right but over on the Statist Left. In Britain, we have the Labour Party which leans towards unreconstructed commie collectivism and we have the modern day Tory Party (increasingly under Cameron) which leans towards Fascist Corporatism, lead by banksters.
They are two sides of the same coin with Marxism being the underlying belief system.
In the US pretty much the same thing has emerged with the DemocRATS and RepubliCANS.
All are into ever bigger government leading to totalitarianism and ever fewer personal liberties.
I don't get it. so you like them... even when they are patently false? no, I seriously don't understand and I am possibly misunderstanding you
this guy comes out with a rejected EU Constitution, and claims it would have restricted personal liberties. I'm still waiting for his quote
particularly for:
"It was clearly stated in the proposed EU Constitution, that all opposition to the EU was to be a criminal offense, and any political Party opposed to the EU was to be illegal"
(and don't get me started on the Charter of Rights that it would have included)
@Ghordius
Your "tone" "sounds" hateful and extremist. Not sure if you should be arrested as a speech terrorist or if you're a prime candidate to join der party leadership as a Minister of Peace
;-)
Do your own diligence. Read the damned thing, and try and comprehend it.
Why do you think the French rejected it? Each household had a copy delivered, and THEY ACTUALLY READ IT.
If you don't recoil in horror from such malevolent trash, there's something seriously wrong with you. Every Right, Liberty, and Freedom, had conditions attached to them in that disgraceful document. Such things are not conditional. Placing conditions, that are licenses, on Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms, turns them into privileges (privi = private; lege = law), and privileges always get withdrawn (it is never 'if' it is always 'when'). That document laid out the criminal, tyrannical intent of the EU in black and white, for all to see, if they had eyes to see it.
By every definition, the EU is a lawless State (the assumption of the proven lie and despotic tyranny of Divine Right, where "The Law is what 'we' say it is"). The proposed EU Constitution confirmed that reality on pretty much every page, and usually, more than once on each page.
If you want to carry on being a dutiful slave to such a lawless State, you carry on, but don't expect the rest of the People of Europe to be happy with that, when the reality of it arrives.
I read the damned thing. Where are your quotes?
Your words were:
"It was clearly stated in the proposed EU Constitution, that all opposition to the EU was to be a criminal offense, and any political Party opposed to the EU was to be illegal"
if it's clearly stated, it shouldn't be that difficult
as a reminder, I am the one in an hostile environment, here, sporting the EUR sign and defending the EU (which I would prefer not to, but I seriously abhor... bullshit)
I'm no fan of Ghordius, but when somebody asks you to produce the quote you used from in an easily-accessible document, it shouldn't be hard to do.
Here's a copy of the EU Constitution. Quote me Part, Title, Chapter and Section and I'll have a look. I'm not reading the whole damned thing because this document died in 2004 and I don't care that much about the EU. Certainly not enough to read it end-to-end at 7am:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe
Go.
+1
I challenge you to end the challenge.
"The 'Conservative' Party are as extreme left Marxist, as the rest of the EU's Establishment. Socialism is now entering its final death throes (in fact even Martin Armstrong commented on this a few days ago), and believe me, the damage it can do in its fury, spite, deranged insanity, and hatred, on its way into the dustbin of history, if we let it, is too disturbing to contemplate."
Excellent.
On Constitutions ...if Britain had one worthy of the name, it would hugely reduce the scope and power of any elected government and this sort of crap from the empty suit Cameron would never surface. Which is why none of the political parties in Westminster ever utter the word or ever enter into debate about the need for one.
I don't get it. If Cameron's vision of the Tory agenda is "extreme left Marxist"... what do you even understand as "extreme left Marxism"?
the Greek FinMin Varoufakis is a Marxist. Cameron is the extreme opposite of that. Extremes do resemble each other... superficially
the main difference is in the "Mandarins", the "Above The Others". in Marxism, it's the Party Members. in Cameron's case, it's the bank account level
Cameron is now showing his true colors as a corporatist fascist.
There are plenty of people who believe that fascists are really Marxists, as in the Nazi Party. Australian John Ray spent years reseaching this and produced a few long articles about it.
Here's a few of them:
Hitler The Nazis & Socialism
Hitler Was a Socialist
Hitler and Socialism
Mises Institute has also investigated this subject for years:
Mises-Why Nazism Was Socialism...
smacker, I know this kind of argumentation. it's based on the "Socialism = Bad", ergo "All That Is Bad is Socialism"
based on that, if a municipality has a Commons... it's socialism, ergo it's bad. ergo the whole Public Sphere is BAD, BAD, BAD. Privatize it
in short, your allergy to socialism makes you blind to the excesses of other ideologies, which, of course... are socialism
Few would deny that Fascism is totalitarian. And so is Communism.
The principle difference is over "who"owns the means of production.
Under Fascism, it's owned by big corporates, industrialists and oligarchs. Under communism, it's owned superficially by The State. But the State is often funded by big corporates, industrialists and oligarchs.
Jewish bankers played a big role in funding the Bolshevik Revolution. That says it all really. Jews are overwhelmingly Marxists or assorted Left-leaning people, especially those from the 13th Tribe.
Totalitarianism does not and cannot exist on the Right of politics because it is collectivist whereas the Right is Individualist. Plus quite a few other important differences.
So Fascism and Communism and all their variants are on the Totalitarian Left.
...just saying :-)
I only disagree on a slight, but subtle difference
Fascism is social-conservativism gone totalitarian. The real boss is the fascist party, i.e. it's leader. period. who tolerates industrialists and abhors financialists
because extreme social-conservativism is an extreme and complete rejection of liberalism
Cameron is fundamentally liberal-conservative. A Cameron going totalitarian is an extreme and complete rejection of all that is social, and of course of socialism
fine, you could say. but it is also a complete rejection of all that is not private, and this includes all that is... public
at the end, there is always some socialism in whatever is human. The Public Sphere, for example. Or whatever is owned by a municipality, and it's open for public use
at it's extremes, it means no public space, no public army (mercs), no public spending, no public charity, no public works...
all private or corporate... including police and judges, at the end
in short, Heaven For The Rich, Hell For The Poor. Neo-Feudalism. Brought To You By... Extremism
A Good Thing Is A Good Thing. Moar of a good thing... not necessarily so, at least not for everybody
You are arguing collegiate definitions of words and ignoring reality. Socialism, fascism, communism, marxism, stalinism, thisism and thatism are all a means of control by an elite over the powerless masses. You can call it a chocolate brownie but in the end the police will show up with guns and make you pay what someone else decided you are required to pay.
If reincarnation were a real thing I would bet you have died many times defending various kings and queens rights to own all the deer in the forest.
Exactly right.
"Cameron is now showing his true colors as a corporatist fascist."
Exactly. In the words of Benito Mussolini (who invented Fascism to save Internationalism for Communism, after the disaster for Internationalism that was WW1, and for which he was highly praised and rewarded by Lenin and the Russian Communist Party):
"Fascism is Communism".
Mussolini's definition of Fascism was "Corporate Socialism", and it is rather amusing that what Socialists today absolutely despise as 'Capitalism', is actually Cartel, Monopolistic, Corporate Socialism (Capitalism ceased to exist a long time ago, but will come back).
that liberal misunderstanding of Mussolini and Fascism in Italy is based on a subtle misunderstanding of corporativism
the corporations Mussolini refers aren't companies. they are the other kind of associations, from medieval guilds to trade unions to industrial interests associations
in short, public associations, not private or traded stock "incorporations"
or, explained differently, "the sum of all social parts", i.e. the people the fascists brought to a bargaining table (with the fascist holding a pistol in front of him, of course)
Your comments add to the evidence that Fascism is Communism (or some other fashionable name, socialists have so many(!))
Although I'm not so sure your interpretation of Musso's "corporatism" is very accurate since he was partly funded by some of Italy's industrialists, including jewish bankers because 35% of Italian jews joined Musso's Fascist Party. Hitler was partly funded by Germany's industrialists. In neither case did they privatise or seize ownership of the private sector but they did effectively take control of it.
But for me it is their overt "totalitarianism", "collectivism" and a bunch of other Left-Wing ideological traits that so obviously places them on the Far Left of the political spectrum.
One has to wonder "who" it was that decided to place them on the Far Right and has spent the last seven decades brainwashing us all. Well, that can only be the "Left" for the purpose of distancing itself from their own fascist bedfellows after WWII.
Then of course we have the modern day Tony Blair. Another life long socialist who has become a Fascist and Corporatist: Economist 1999 Blair New Corporatism
The great thing about the Internet and sites like ZH is that one finds other people with valuable views about these things without going anywhere near the corporate MSM which simply continues the lies and propaganda.
"Although I'm not so sure your interpretation of Musso's "corporatism" is very accurate since he was partly funded by some of Italy's industrialists, including jewish bankers because 35% of Italian jews joined Musso's Fascist Party. Hitler was partly funded by Germany's industrialists. In neither case did they privatise or seize ownership of the private sector but they did effectively take control of it."
exactly, fascists, being extreme social-conservatives, reject "collectivism" as such, and don't expropriate from "the right kind of citizen". i.e. not socialist
being from a conservative root, though, they might nationalize, i.e. forcefully buy up key industries for national industrial purposes, and they did, in select cases, as conservatives sometimes do
on the other side, note how much they hated financial centers, and "financiers" which are extremely liberal
I have it from the source, i.e. the very fascist books they wrote, their speeches and so on. on the continent, my explanation is "common sense", but after all we experienced fascism and nazism
fascist emphasis is control, not ownership. there you have it 100% right. and the "Jew bashing" came later, and the first target was... "Jewish" financiers, i.e. the City of London, etc.
There is no such thing as collectivism in practice. There is only the end of the barrel of a gun. Sheesh Ghordius. Get out of the classroom and look at the real world.
I seek some clarity in this throwing about of overlapping labels.
Hard Left is state control of everything and the individual is a pawn of the state (no matter how that state is ruled - dictator, politburo, oligarchy,monarchy - Hard right is the opposite - no state control, total freedom of the individual to own and direct his life and resources = effectively at the extreme its anarchy (most purported anarchists dont realise they are hard right) and most fascists (state control and suppression of individual rights) dont know they're hard left! Nazism was state control and direction and thus was leftwing with soviets being one step further left with state ownership as well as control. Most modern western Govts float slightly right of centre though the trend over the last 20yrs is a drift to the left with increasing state control and suppression of individual freedoms. The UK is slightly right of centre at the moment and the EU well left given its unelected politburo, unaccountable taxing and spending (never passed audit on its pork-barrel corruption) and restriction of individual freedoms in its quest to make all Europeans one size under the Council's diktats. Increasingly it is exerting control on finance and business and suppresses trade through its customs union and support of cartels.
Right wingers allow inequality of outcomes though support equality of opportuntities.
Left wingers seek equality of outcomes (under the 'more equal' state controllers) and manipulate opportunites.
Most of the media now totally confuse labels.
Excellent comments all the way.
For sure, there have always been a lot of flavours of the "Left" and they each have their own articulated ideologies, which is why they spend a lot of time fighting each other for supremacy. eg: Stalin -v- Hitler. One sought ownership and the other sought control. In essence it's not too different. The things they have in common exceed the things they don't and these things are not related to the Right which seeks individualism. The things in common coalesce around big government being the supreme authority and collectivism.
From the perspective of the disenfranchised, "what difference at this point does it make?" ...conveniently ignoring the rest of the quote, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again" ...and then the disenfranchised wonder why nothing changes.
Sort of like the popular delusions and the madness regarding the Demopublicans in America, a distinction without a difference from the outside, but distinctions do have consequences.
The distinctions regarding Demopublicans only relate to the rate of enslavement, not the end goal.
The extreme left is Trotskyite. Remember, Trotsky was so deranged and extreme, even the Russian Communist Party booted him out.
Trotskyites consider Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, to be 'extreme right wing'. To call any of these things 'right wing' automatically defines those saying it as Trotskyites.
Ultimately though the labels are just camouflage to confuse useful disposable idiots. The choice is between the denial of power (because nobody can be trusted with it) that is the Rule of Law (which works), and the power grab that is the lawless State (which has never worked and can never work).
When power is available to grab, it always ends up in the hands of the worst of the worst.
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
What you don't understand is that one form of statism is not right while another is left. Both are left.
Let me put this another way using your apparent political linear thinking:
If Cameron represents the extreme right where the government will have control
and
Marxism represents the extreme left where the government will have control
then
Where does that leave those of us who want the government to have little to no control?
...............................................
The only way this means of representing political relationships works is if the line is actually a circle where the far right and the far left are actually side by side on dark side of the circle while the rest of us are in the sunshine, 180 degrees from them.
someone disagreeing with his pro-eu pro-nwo marxist Bullshit is a troll . Funny coming from a year old troll .
someone disagreeing with his pro-eu pro-nwo marxist Bullshit is a troll . Funny coming from a year old troll .
a very, very simple/simplified explanation: the UK is, in Cameron's mind, to resemble moar and moar... Singapore
from a point of view of his interpretation of liberal-conservativism, the modern crown jewel of the "empire"
freedom of business, freedom of movement of capital, the maximum freedom you can imagine for those who have the... dough
on the other side, an astounding lack of personal liberties, best seen by the proliferations of CCTVs, where you are allowed to live, or even simple things like smoking and chewing a gum
try to chew a gum in Singapore. just try. actually, before you start chewing a gum in Singapore you are already a criminal because you imported illegally a chewing gum, defying prison
except if you are Obama on a visit. there, the Singaporean "public" had to be informed that "the President of the US will take gums with him and will chew them... live with it"
as a reminder, this is not the first time the UK rides on a wave of globalization, and it's not the first time that such mental policies were undertaken
a borderless world where services and wares and capital is free... while people - of course, the hoi polloi - have to be carefully watched, monitored and policed
during the First Great Globalization Period this resulted in deportation. steal an apple to feed yourself or your's, and Australia awaits you
a brave world of capitalist freedom... and little personal liberties, particularly in public spaces. or, more simply.... neo-feudalism
next step: arrivals in Heathrow with an immigration fast lane for "those who invest" and one for the masses
(Begin /S): after all, it can't be that a Chinese billionaire that bought a mansion in London has to stand for two hours at a lane, after all, and we can't expect that immigration lanes are shortened for everybody, and even worse we can't give a faster lane for such horrid people like "EU citizens" and we also can't abide to treat British Citizens at the same level as other EU Citizens, can we? (End /S)
Britons, if you do have a substantial amount of wealth, Cameron is your bestest friend, as much as he is the friend of all megacorps and all billionairs. Welcome to Greater Singapore, where three of the Four Freedoms of the EU reign supreme, and the fourth... depends from your bank account
I just pity the non-rich part of the English "anti-EU" crowd. they have no freaking idea what is in store for them, when the UK leaves the european clubs, beginning with the european human rights one
the saddest part is that many of them are against foreign immigration. they don't even realize that they are going to get less immigration from Europe... and moar from all over the world
"...freedom of business, freedom of movement of capital, the maximum freedom you can imagine for those who have the... dough
on the other side, an astounding lack of personal liberties, best seen by the proliferations of CCTVs, where you are allowed to live"
"a brave world of capitalist freedom... and little personal liberties, particularly in public spaces. or, more simply.... neo-feudalism"
Well said.
"try to chew a gum in Singapore. just try. actually, before you start chewing a gum in Singapore you are already a criminal because you imported illegally a chewing gum, defying prison"
I know this used to be the case. But I recall that several years ago, the government relaxed the rules and one could chew gum if it was prescribed by a doctor.
"...next step: arrivals in Heathrow with an immigration fast lane for "those who invest" and one for the masses"
To an extent that already exists. It's called the Diplomatic Channel and many well known VIPs also use it because it has a sign "VIP". And when the oil Sheiks arrive on their private planes, does anybody believe they are subjected to Passport Control queues?
Let us also not foget that HRH Tony Blair had one lane of the M4 into London from LHR converted into a Bus/Taxi Lane. Blair was the first person captured on CCTV using it but claimed it was for security reasons. It then became known as "The Party Lane".
"the (Singaporean) government relaxed the rules and one could chew gum if it was prescribed by a doctor"
correct. last time I tried it out, just for the fun. first, the doctor tries to dissuade you. then, you get a prescription. then, you have to wait for the delivery. then, you find out that it's medical chewing gum, and it's taste is a further attempt to dissuade you
but the last is the kicker: you are still forbidden to chew your medical gum in the public sphere, only in your private space
and this is neo-feudalism: the utter restriction of private liberties in the public sphere
wear, do, chew, eat, live what you want and how you want... in your private sphere. the public sphere... isn't yours
in the public sphere, you are a barely tolerated... serf. facing further restrictions on and of the public sphere, which has to be privatized to corporations, with corporate police
the Tragedy Of The Commons, where "The Commons", i.e. whatever is public... is dreaded Communism, and has to be destroyed, pardon me, privatized/incorporated
Some excellent comments there Ghordius.
I recall the first time I visited Hong Kong and saw signs at entrances to public open spaces and parks saying "No Smoking".
And on top of Victoria Peak I recall there are signs prohibiting: eating, drinking, smoking, sitting and pretty much everything else.
It's an attempt to keep public spaces up to a standard which is suitable for the elites to use without having to suffer the hoi polloi. As you say, it's neo-feudalism.
or the non-smoking ban in Central Park, NY, USA. great. huge expanses of public space, trees, lawns, lots of "public" space...
... but if you even dare to light up, even far away from anybody... you find out that it's against the law. thanks, Mayor Bloomberg, self-designated Champion of Public Health... for the whole world
you would not believe how many times I encountered Bloomberg travelling around and preaching total smoking bans in every corner of the planet
not restrictions, mind you. not 99% of the public space. 100% is just right. Total bans. Rhymes with Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is not the private property of socialists or conservatives only. there is a "Liberal Totalitarianism", and those bans are a telltale sign
another is when you arrive in an airport and you are forced to go though a (of course private/corporate) shopping space. of course with it's "public air" chockerblock full of "private perfume", then whatever sells is good
Yeah well, Bloomberg is yet another corporate fascist. Is it not astonishing how fast anti-smoking fascism spread across the world? Just goes to show how political elites are itching to justify ever more government controls over our lives.
You won't find the elites of Hong Kong hanging around in parks and other public spaces, particularly on the Peak where they hide in their private villas or on weekends when such places are inundated with Filipina and Indonesian maids. The closest thing to a public appearance by an elite will be in a toney high end shopping mall or a five star establishment.
One thing you can be sure of though, if they did not post those signs on the Peak, the mobs of Mainland Chinese tourists would have a field day spitting, tossing trash and cigarette butts around and letting their kids piss and defecate in public.
It is only a matter of time before the elites create their own version of Singapore's Speakers Cornered (see below).
.
OMG: I didn't realise how vulgar the Mainlanders are.
It is a big problem all around Asia now. The locals want the Mainland tourist business but can't stand the poor behavior that goes with it. The best advice is steer clear of public restrooms in areas frequented by them.
It's funny, most people in Singapore really couldn't care a less about the gum restriction. Typically, it is foreignors who get caught chewing. The streets are immaculate compared to the rest of Asia, which can be atrocious if you know where to look.
On the other hand, if you want to exercise free speech publicly, you will have to apply for a discretionary permit and then you are allowed to conduct your demonstration literally next to the Police HQ building downtown.
The place is called Speaker's Corner. But Singaporean's affectionately refer to it as Speakers Cornered.
Thankfully, the right to chew gum remains inviolate in Thailand where people are encouraged to chew gum instead of speaking out against the junta.
agree
people focus on the small stuff and overlook the big stuff
anyone who thinks the uk is or is becoming a facist state is deluded
if you want to live in a decent manner there must be some rules
i'd like to be able to leave my car unlocked because most people were like me and know stealing is wrong
and i'd like to be able to hang around a town centre in an evening with my mum and not hear too much anti social language and drunkenness
for too long the tail has wagged the dog in the uk
dave is saying that sometimes it's ok to say my values are better than yours
if your decisions overspill to other people (litter, smoking on occasion, loud music, intimidating behaviour) it's anti social and the state is right to frown on anti social behaviour
some of the libertarians on here would defend dropping litter as a freedom and the threat of a fine for doing so facism
absolutely agree with you both. my point is... moderation. which is a virtue, I'm told
so I don't judge the bans in public spaces as much as the punishments doled out for those who break those bans
as a reminder, once upon a time if you stole an apple you were shipped to Australia
this of course after the privatization of public space (the famous English Commons) which were the sustenance of the rural masses
this is about eliminating permanently those that would rise up and try to undo electronic voteing, and other structural supports of the tyranny. Without this law, we still had the media, science guys, teachers, and branches of govt keep their mouths shut around the globe when the fake moon landings were being presented as a theater peice. A total lie, and a very large one, and many others of course, thanks and a tip of the hat to the masonic orders and their companiion groups and controllers.
Those that give this a pass are going to be surprised to find this action of theirs does in no way make them -prized- and so they will not be killed by the various means coming down the pipe. All the media guys saying, oh this is nothing really, will find their obedience will not save their families and freinds and themselves as they will not be informed when the death methods are coming their way.
At some point I would think we must accept that society reflects its own values. Something that law and governance cannot long suppress.
Freedom lacks organization and therefore lacks the "constitution" of an ideology. Freedom allows the existence of the individual, whereas an ideology insists the individual is subsumed by the adoption of its belief system. a black man is not really a black man if he holds conservative views. Freedom always suffers organized ideologies as it lacks any real defense mechanisms. The age old saying together we stand and divided we fall....individuals being the epitome of "divided".
Those facing these revived constraints of the GB law will be forced to choose to adopt or "join" the government in its oppression of freedom or face punishment and ultimate failure for not. This is always the choice of those who believe in freedom. Fight the lonely battle, risking rejection of all other less "individual" thinkers, or capitulate.
The collective always wins in the short run because they have the power, but I contend that the ONLY vigor that the human race possesses is freedom based. Our productivity and prosperity die in captivity like a sunflower put under shade.
Freedom only returns once the destruction of the collective interest has completed its destruction.
Moderation is the desire. That beloved middle ground, that Goldilocks "perfect just right" mattress. But statistically moderation does not really exist. It is the theoretical midpoint between two extremes, like having 2.1 children. what we individually experience are the extremes, extremes that continue to shift.
now, this is a wonderful example of extremism, and a complete rejection of political moderation
(if you have one child and I have none, statistically we have half each, btw, and I might still be willing to pay for a public school for your child even though I don't have any)
I miss your point and you obviously miss mine.
Moderation is to be sought out from the extremes, but none the less, still represents the "middle". as was suggested here, what is moderate in Syria is not the same as in GB or anywhere else.
We are individuals regardless of how devoted we are to the collected. We each live our own lives and die alone. We can share values and act in a collective way, but still do so voluntarily, whereas the "collective" involves few voluntary actions that are not motivated by force.
Voluntary actions represent freedom. Conforming to the societal demand of the collective IS force.
Oldwood, my point is that individualism is super-duper fine. great. particularly if you live in a rural place on your own private ground
more then half of humanity lives in cities
and this number is growing. applying your extreme individualism at a remote ranch is one thing. applying it to whole cities... a completely different thing
and no, many people in cities would prefer to be at a remote ranch. they have to stick to the public spaces of the city. they don't have your choice
so applying extreme individualistic liberal-conservative political preferences to a remote ranch is Freedom
but applying extreme individualistic liberal-conservative political preferences to entire cities... is, I fear, a form of violence
you see, it's still neo-feudalism, even if you aren't among the serfs. or wish them to die, or whatever
Well you know, one of the nice things about "individualism" is that I get to choose who and how I help other people to have a better life. Instead of government stealing my money and using it for purposes they want, typically foreign aid which ends up in Swiss bank accounts.
absolutely. but again, it does not solve the "problem" of densely packed megacities. like London
where millions have to collaborate and share and work just to get that huge machinery going
a city, particularly a megacity, is an intensive exercise in... "socialism", I fear. and attracts females, the "more socialist sex", more then males
neither you nor I can change that. in Greek: Polis (the city), the root word for policeman, policy, politics and politician
When people co-operate together to get things done or to achieve things that they cannot achieve on their own, it is not automatically socialist. That would mean that all companies, all organisations and even all motorists are all socialist. But they clearly are not.
The best way available to enforce the rights of individuals against the collective is to have a strong Constitution (which the US does have) that is supervised independently for compliance (which the US does not have) with powers to punish anybody who violates it.
Britain has neither and as a consequence any elected government has virtually unfettered power to do what they want. Even the current Cameron government which was elected by 21% of the eligible vote, producing a democratic dictatorship of the minority.
A farce to be sure.
yes, it seems quite a few people are against discrimination of all sorts, except discrimination based on one's bank account.
Governments are collections of pathetic cretins.
yup, so don't let them ruin your day :-)
this isn't going to win me any friends but dave is right
in a mainly white mainly christian (by tradition) country you should have to live within the "norms" of that country
same as if i go to saudi arabia i expect not to be able to drink
there has been a reluctance to say some things are wrong and contrary to what most of the country wants
this isn't about thought control it's about being honest enough to say that:
female genital mutilation is wrong, not some tradition to be tolerated
sharia law is not the law we live by and we don't recognise it
honour killings are wrong
beating your wives or daughters for become western is wrong
living off the state as if it's a right is wrong
acting in an intimidating way in public with the intention of worrying people is wrong
i think the vast majority of the uk, britain, whatever you want to call if can agree with those statements
but for too long it wasn't the done thing to critisise people differences
for a long time we've been run by apologists that want to blame soceity for the wrongs made by an individual
if i kid ends up in jail for murder, it's somehow collectively my fault for not paying enough tax or giving him enough love or some shit like that
if the uk starts to look like singapore that's fine by me
it's a democracy and most people don't want to be surrounded by some of the sorts of people that we've tolerated and apologised for too long
Don't be deceived. This 'one Nation' isn't about Britain. This is about the EU.
It is ein Volk, ein Reich.
Next we get ein Führer
Dave is just furthering the EU agenda. Just like Labour and the SNP would have, if they had won the election. They are ALL in it, way over their heads.
Your theory breaks down upon further examination
In the case of the UK there is a necessary precursor to ein Führer (who would never be a Brit anyway)... one currency.
ein Volk, ein Reich, eine Währung, ein Führer.
Wake me up when the demented Teletubby is sucking Mario's cock.
this isn't about thought control it's about being honest enough to say that:
[insert standard thought control list here]
Please don't mention reality to the inmates.
Ldncalling - I agree most of your points about what we dont want, but Cameron's censorship laws do the opposite of what you want.
'sharia law is not the law we live by and we don't recognise it' -agree. But Camerons law will not let you criticize sharia for the barbarous immoral tyranny it is because Muslims can accuse you of causing them 'alarm' and you will need to submit your critique of Sharia to the police who will ban your critique and label you a racist and islamophobe. The ignorant 'equalities laws' and 'EU human rights' have banned free speech, banned criticism of pratices we dont agree with, banned the expelling of foreigners who break your laws. If you abolish EU human rights censorship laws and national censorship of criticism laws then all can be be aired freely. The UK survived much more happily before all these speech laws were imposed over the last 20yrs.
Camerons laws will stop you saying that Islam is an irrational inhumane barbarous primative theology that should be opposed, denounced and forgotton.
We need freedom to tell the truth and say that ISlam is idiotic and harmful to humanity, without threat of arrest.
yes i take your point
i suppose the implementation is unclear really
i tend to look at it that we're getting the power to shut up the people incite hatred
perhaps you're right and instead of shutting up the people we want to we should free everyone to speak up against them
my concern is that the majority of the country, that i tend to side with and guess perhaps you do, tend to be the "silent" majority and that's what needs to be changed
i think "we" want our country back, and by that i mean all forms of anti social behaviour, this isn't a race thing for me it's about civility and respect and consideration
maybe i am naive when i interpret his words
but as naive as i might i think there are some people that see facism and agendas where perhaps there are none
Hi LdnC. We are on the same side in this. Its the law of unintended consequences that is the problem. I dont see a fascist conspiracy, just a muddled drift into statism. Orwell's Animal Farm got it right - you start with high ideals but the more you intervene the more corruption you introduce. The EU human rights directive was passed with high ideals but prevents us from protecting our social values so Cameron is thinking of new laws to correct the imbalances of the old laws. Best to scrap all the subjective speech laws and let all criticise all - in the end the better arguement will win through, rather than making all arguement illegal. Same rules apply to tax laws. The more new laws they pass the more new loopholes they create requiring more new laws etc etc.
Cameron's daft change to inheritance tax promised in the election is a classic case. Currently if you & spouse die you can pass on 2x£375,000 tax free. But new law will create exception where if your wealth is in a house you can pass on 2x£500,000 of house equity tax free (but still only 2x£375k if invested in stocks). So now old folks, instead of selling their large homes they find difficult to manage and freeing them for young families to buy are incentived to stay and die in those houses to reduce tax, rather than sell and invest proceeds in productive companies! Totally illiterate Conservative idiocy that will achieve many unintended consequences (Note Labour and Lib Dems had their own insane 'mansion tax' where you'd be taxed on the postcode you live in - 2bedrooms in Chelsea -taxed, 6 bedrooms in Corby - no tax). Hats off to UKIP who sensibly just said scrap all death taxes. This UKIP abolition of state intervention would free people to run their affairs to the best, rather than skew investments to dance around pernicious taxes.
The best laws are the least laws. The best Govt is the smallest Govt. We may need some laws but at all times the drive should be to minimise and scrap them. Also scrap the surfeit of politicians -halve the Commons and quarter the Lords (and elect them by PR). And bin the supra-national EU Empire and its unecessary wastful oligarchs. But the rulers have no desire for true democracy. Join the rebel alliance and fight Darth Juncker and the EU empire !
No problem with the UK selling arms to assorted Arab theocratic and authoritarian rulers, as well as calling for arming “moderately mad mullahs”...
And yet personal ownership of firerarms is essentially banned in The UK.
Go figure.
Yet, wherever you turn, you find people who voted for him. Your waitress, your boss, your friend, your mom. Does it even make sense to think or write about threat to liberties anymore?
Tyranny is always publicly supported. The collectivist force drives people either inside the fence or out. Once everyone is inside the fence it starts all over again. Without the parsing of individuals, the collectivists have nothing else to do. Individualists have their own business to care for and little time and cause to be parsing anyone. They are always the untapped resource that collectivists seek to bridle.
David Cameron does not speak for the majority of Conservatives. His fascist tendencies will not be tolerated much longer in this new term of office. I do not believe he will serve out his term.
The new global awakening will expose the puppets in power for what they are. They are all going down. The controllers who have dictated how our world has been run are losing power, and this is going to escalate dramatically, probably as a result of a financial collapse.
A new paradigm in which there will be peace and prosperity for all those deserving people, is just around the corner.
Right "David Cameron does not speak for the majority of Conservatives."
Another use of language to manipulate people. Conservative my ass.
cameron is a typical brutish vacuous oafish unthinking "public school" product whom orwell wrote bitterly at length about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Such,_Such_Were_the_Joys
Thank you sir may I have another? [/Chip Diller]
Please Sir, I want some MOAR. [/Oliver Twist]
Democracy ... so good, we had to make it compulsory.
Cameron is one strange animal, so much so that you have to wonder whose penis is burried deep inside his anus that causes him to ape some character from an Orwellian novel.
Wonder if he has read animal farm as well?
Cameron is quite clearly the full foul mouthpiece of somebody/thing else, but like all politicians, happy to sell his soul for the 'status' of being in power. How ease politicians sell out the public for a pat on the head from somebody powerful, makes them feel part of the club. But all they are is dumb servants of others.
In Australia PM Howard layed on his back and squealed like a happy pig everytime GWBush said something nice about him. Happily sent Australians to die to keep GW happy so he could get more stomach tickles from him.
Policiticians come relatively cheap for the Oligarchs.
OhKaaay all ewe twats
In cays yoo didnt' know
That'sa clit on 'is crown.
"Okay...lets simplify this entire process okay?" "Now, therefore, effective immediately...everything you think or say is banned." God Save The Queen!
Just pay your damn taxes and STFU.
BTW, this cunt sounds like a British Nancy Pelosi...
Contrary to the suggestion in the article, politicians understand free speech very well. That's why they want to ban it. Cleartly, though, May doesn't understand (or can't articulate an excuse for outlawing), that such legislation is itself the anti-thesis of the British way of life or values.
Happy to be on the front of the first tank up Whitehall.
We already believe Natzis and terr'rists exist and are the greatest threat to our freedoms. I'm a good boy!
One Society, one Nation, one Reich... Oops, did I say that out loud?
Amazing how once productive nations slip so easily into Fascism...
Whinge & Whine Poms - the [almost] white Engrish niggas
"We need moar prisons for Thought Criminals."
"You see, it’s all about being “One Nation”. Well, that’s OK then, right? Sieg Heil!"
Nation entails common ethnicity, heritage, and culture. The UK is quickly becoming a forced multicultural cesspool. People calling the UK fascist don't understand the common heritage component is missing, the only commonality is in the ethnicity of the Oligarch bankers/corporate controllers.
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-fascism.ht...
Looking back over a thousand years it's evident that British history (insular & global) is even bloodier than Islamic history. Oliver Cromwell butchered a lot of natural-born British citizens to make his point. No person on earth is as civilized as they might like to believe when they look at their own well-fed manicured face in the mirror. Ordinary people in today's western civilization (starting with the UK) are beginning to get the hint that ISIS & The Islamics are dead-serious--with an emphasis on d-e-a-d.
Will someone explain to me how I can be "one nation" with, and "undivided" from, someone (presumably female, but who knows?) wearing what to all intents and purposes is a large black garbage sack? That person wearing the hiqqab has divided themselves from the rest of society.
Now the BIG question. Is that person guilty of dividing British society? What is the penalty?
Fascist quo.
No surprise to anyone, Democracy itself has been whittled down to where independent and well-intentioned candidates are villified if they do not belong to a registered party. Remind yourself not to give up. Continue to vote, as it still represents one of your only freedoms.
However, vote for what you believe, and if you do not have an option, find a way to enable your beliefs. True / Real / New / Athenian / Swiss / Direct Democracy is possible, and if promoted and realized, should get rid of this and other structural shenanigans.
Humans have an infinite capacity to inherently make complex systems, as we struggle to make things simple for ourselves.
YOU ARE DEMOCRACY