A knock on the door to be accused of a non-crime hate incident from a year-old tweet is not what people fought and died for in the war
9.40am: All my things were laid out ready for Remembrance Sunday. Black dress, black opaque tights, coat, a new poppy to go with the vintage enamel one that glints in my jewellery box awaiting its annual outing. I was still not dressed when Himself called up to say that there were police at the door for me. I did vaguely wonder what on earth they were doing here – something to do with our road being closed for the parade? But I went downstairs to greet them at the door and apologised to the two young constables standing outside for still being in my dressing gown. I wasn’t sorry for long.
PC S, the one on the left, who did all the talking, told me that they were here to inform me that I had been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI). It was to do with something I had posted on X (formerly Twitter) a year ago. A YEAR ago? Yes. Stirring up racial hatred, apparently.
WHAT? I stood there in my slippered feet trying to take in what the police officer had said; our market town was filled with the sounds of preparation for the forthcoming parade – a distant drummer, the metallic clang of barriers going up. Life going on as normal, but this wasn’t normal; it was far from normal.
“What did this post I wrote that offended someone say?” I asked. The constable said he wasn’t allowed to tell me that.
“So what’s the name of the person who made the complaint against me?”
He wasn’t allowed to tell me that either, he said.
“You can’t give me my accuser’s name?”
“It’s not ‘the accuser’,” the PC said, looking down at his notes. “They’re called ‘the victim’.”
Ah, right. “OK, you’re here to accuse me of causing offence but I’m not allowed to know what it is. Nor can I be told whom I’m being accused by? How am I supposed to defend myself, then?”
In Stephen Coughlin’s recent briefs, he describes bread crumbing the circle. By this he means that those of us with counter revolutionary beliefs are fed allowable opposition narratives by places like FOX News and too many social media accounts to name. Allowable opposition narratives mean the illusion of opposition, but actually allow the main dialectical effort, or by this I mean line of destructive actions against our freedoms and liberties of a specific kind to go forward while we focus on the misleading aspect of it.
The example I like a lot because you see it on Canadian TV nearly every day, is where they get a bureaucrat, politician, or government appointed ‘expert’ who you never heard of before, to come on as an interview, and ask what sound like tough questions, but are really supporting the state narrative.
Reporters would never ask any of the questions which challenge the why of illegal government measures for Covid, or asked what this meant to our freedoms. They never demanded to know why countless measures which directly lay in contradiction of laws and our constitution and individual rights were really necessary at all. Instead, they would ask why they are not locking down harder, pushing vaxx mandates with no reason to reject etc. I do not believe I ever even heard one ask why it made sense to allow COSTCO and liquor stores to remain open when you couldn’t go into so many other places like restaurants, and when you could go to restaurants, why you had to wear a mask to enter and leave but not to sit down and eat. Frankly the list of contradictory absurdities for Covid are too many to name. If it was a movie, everyone would have walked out by the intermission.
I speak it into existence!
They never ask if mass unvetted migration is good for Canada, or the rest of the West upon which it is being imposed, but instead, push the dialectic that any opposition to mass migration of people with fundamentally different values to the host country can only be due to ‘racism’.
In other words, the media did not fail to do its job, and this is the critical thing: They did not fail to do their job, they did their job exactly right, but not the job you thought it was.
The job of the broadcast media for some time now, is to enforce state narrative attacks. They push the racist or transphobic narrative with all issues concerning the push to destroy sexual identity without asking why we need to sterilize children and mutilate them for an idea that never existed till a few years ago. That being the idea that one’s sex, with the dialectically applied language of “gender”, can be changed just by saying so. (One might argue this is Lamarckism V3.0)
Pretend-Right leaning media tends to oppose the policies, but leads people away from the point by using terminology that the public gloms on to, which distract from the greater threat. For example, the numerous ways the 2020 election was stolen from the people in the US without ever looking at the ways in which it actually was. Things about satellites and voting machines and methods which either could never be proved or were known to be flat out wrong when they were introduced in order to keep us all looking the wrong way. I am unaware if any media looked at the sudden appearance of 15 million voters (and subsequent disappearance of the same number in 2024) in 2020. Or the methods pointed out by De’souza’s 2000 Mules documentary. And of course, by that point, the election was stolen and entrenched. There was no changing things no matter how much proof was presented. Those who challenged it faced harsh prison time if they went to the Capitol on Jan 6. Those who merely supported Goldstein Trump are being raided by multiple state agencies even now.
The phrase, Two Tier Policing is wildly viral. It is objectionable because it detracts from the real case.
The UK has become a communist polity. There is a consistent and one tier enforcement policy, which is in effect similar to Canada, the US, certainly Germany and much of the West. And that is:
Anyone who is counter-revolutionary is a criminal. Anyone who notices out loud the methods of the revolution, like mass immigration, Islamic jihad, the lack of evidence for Global Warming, men are not women no matter what they say they are, is to be punished.
Screenshot
Anyone who calls out Islamic jihad as Islamic jihad, and not give it a pass as an oppressed person who is mentally ill, is a thought-criminal in the UK. The purpose of these visits by the police to hundreds or thousands of British people over social media posts is to create an atmosphere, a culture where CRIMESTOP is practiced.
From 1984:
A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.
Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens. He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as 'two and two make five' were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain.
People already across the West put themselves in mental defence mode when you mention things which are clearly true but defy the party. Just for fun sometime, try explaining to people that the real conspiracy theory is that Western industry and driving cars will cause the planet to heat up creating a catastrophe of some kind. Mind you, if you do it entertainingly enough, it may get through. But if you bluntly state that Global warming from Carbon conversion is not true, that men are not women just by saying so, and a dozen other current and past mass line narrative attacks, you will people go rigid from CRIMESTOP.
The case of “Two Tier policing” is similar in that it prevents people from seeing the true nature of the polity they live in. That it is in fact perfectly consistent policing. It is that what is a crime has changed, but we were not told.
We all take it as given, that if you work for money, and buy something with that money, that thing is ours and we are allowed to buy whatever we want pretty much with that money. If someone takes that thing from you without your permission, or without meeting the terms set out for them to take it, such as paying for it, they are criminals and the state enforcement should deal with it appropriately.
Yesterday I got a communication from someone who works at a regional WALMART. They informed me that as they watched, two thieves entered the store, not once but twice, faces covered except eyes, and stole a bunch of stuff and left with impunity.
I have heard far more horrifying ones. In Ottawa, liquor stores are robbed by people just wandering in, taking stuff, all they can carry, and walking out bragging that there is nothing anyone can do. I wanted to make a film sketch of one of these guys setting up a stand in front of a liquor store, taking orders from people, and walking in and stealing it, and selling it right in front of the store for half price. And then, people down the block would rob that guy and set up another stand. But that wouldn’t work of course. Thieves understand mine and yours. Robbing the guy who stole the booze, that would not go well.
The way in which law is enforced is consistent both in terms of property crimes, and thought crimes. Both categories of central interest to the Communist International. Which is why it is not two tier policing any more than sharia law is two tier policing. It is merely a different system of values and crime than we are either able to accept, willing to accept, and the point of this post, being allowed to understand is the case by articles and media like the one quoted at the top of this post.
Controlled opposition often looks like it is on your side. That is what makes it effective.
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1820552987208765885
I would like to finish with this example of the way all law enforcement should be handled when they come to your home on a thought crime issue:
