Free Speech


Preview4:25Caitlyn Jenner Defends Her Vote for Donald TrumpYouTube · Late Night with Seth Meyers26 Apr 2017

Cut down in his prime , a Nation Mourns

– by A.N Oldman Posted April 17th 2021

Prince Phillip, Buckingham 1959 , home of the famous Duke who gave the Royal family a palace- Image Applene Archives

It has been a difficult year for us all , with the grim reaper taking so many of us more mature talented young people.

There has been speculation that Prince Phillip either had an adverse reaction to his flu jab or died of an evil new strain especially engineered to attack those of blue blood like the Royals.

The threat was considered so severe that the Prince’s favourite grand daughter in law ,Meghan, was told to ‘stay safe’ with her Royal offspring at her U.S mansion , in a country made so very safe now by Joe Biden and his team of people loving Democrats.

We all know that Prince Philip led  a life of duty. All those vile stories about cruising in a London taxi and assignations with Uncle Dickie and posh young ladies in Marylebone Road luxury flats in the 1950s , are vile lies – as are stories of Royal nibbling in the Officer’s mess on HMS Invincible. Jokes about renaming this ship HMS ‘Dirty Duke’ sparked outrage. As for the Hellfire Club , it never happened.

Philip , like all the Royals, always put duty first ,setting a fine example to his three fine sons , Charles, Andrew and boring ‘what’s his name.’ For years the Royal struggled to make ends meet, along with wife Elizabeth, they never knew where the next million was coming from.

Thanks to Britain’s exemplary welfare state support and social housing , Philip and Elizabeth soldiered on , doing their bit and more besides. Sadly Philip ,aged only 96 , had to take early retirement from plaque unveiling and supporting the queen , so she avoided the need for a stick in public.  

It must have been hell for the Queen having to unveil all those plaques and waving by herself for the last 3 years , suffering so much when a   woman in an old folk’s homes failed to curtsy. Poor Queen had to ask if the old lady knew who she was, being horrified by the answer ‘No’, along with the recommendation that matron might be able to help. Now she must face these horrors all alone as hard working Philip is laid to rest , cut down in his prime. So sad. A nation cries , but we still have the Queen , God Bless her.

Weakquality of Opportunity by Robert Cook April 16th 2021

Weakquality of Opportunity by Robert Cook April 16th 2021

Cleopatra , played by Vivien Leigh , in the film Caesar and Cleopatra. Her claim to rule Egypt, after besotting Caesar was , in her view, not based on her cleverness , but on the stupidity of others.

The elite now have grovelling arrogant young journalists and equally ambitious politicians re writinng history , finding scapegoats among the so ‘weakqual’ masses , burying truth and reinforcing the elite’s hegemony. A senior CNN figure was secretly recorded admitting his channel set about controlling news to get Biden & Co elected.

Note Cleopatra’s ‘fellow woman’ and slave working the fan. That job is the origin of the word.
Robert Cook

Shakespeare’s line , from The Merchant of Venice : ‘Me thinks the lady protesteth too much.’ might just as well be applied to those who pronounce, via tame elite media, that we live in democracies.  Those making these claims for Britain, Europe and the United States speak, as the Red Indians often said on the films of my childhood : ‘White man speak with forked tongue.’

As I write ,  an old film called Caesar & Cleopatra is playing. Ridiculed for her youthful claim to rule Egypt , she replies : ‘It is not because I am clever. It is because the rest are so stupid.’

Egypt , like the Roman Empire which invaded, were great civilisations. Now Egypt is at the mercy of  massively over populating war torn Black Ethiopia because of dam across the River Nile. Rome is no more than an historical curiosity for those still deluded enough to believe God will save them or even cares – such is human hubris and vanity.

History is being re written according to the powerful elite’s edit. BLM is part of the con. The reason white lives matter must be trounced as a movement is simply because  BLM is proclaimed as  maths denominator. If you placed WLM beneath it as an equal figure , then the number would be as one, the result al lives matter.  

The whole concept . maths and result are a con. No aircraft could fly by such calculations. It would crash on take off. This whole WOKE culture is not about equality of anything. To believe that is to believe anything. WOKE and BLM are about WEAK QUALITY for the masses and refined and ever stronger domination by ever more dangerous deceit.

The full consequences have yet to hit Britain and Europe , cradle of police state methodology , political correctness and class deference. Unfortunately those consequences are leaking in the U.S with yet another mass shooting yesterday along with a self righteous exclusivity and arrogance amongst a resentful black population – in a land where it is forbidden by mainstream media moguls to report blacks attacking Asians.

Weakness by divide and rule is the hallmark of this New World Order, where anyone can get a degree in idiocy and conformity if they can afford or risk the student debt. Weakqual opportunities is the name, instilling fear and creating weakness is the game. That is why Covid lockdown is so important.  Robert Cook

More Language Banning April 13th 2021

The harmful ableist language you unknowingly useShare using EmailShare on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Linkedin(Image credit: Alamy)

(Credit: Alamy)

By Sara Nović5th April 2021Some of our most common, ingrained expressions have damaging effects on millions of people – and many of us don’t know we’re hurting others when we speak.I

I like being deaf. I like the silence as well as the rich culture and language deafness affords me. When I see the word ‘deaf’ on the page, it evokes a feeling of pride for my community, and calls to me as if I’m being addressed directly, as if it were my name.

So, it always stings when I’m reminded that for many, the word ‘deaf’ has little to do with what I love most – in fact, its connotations are almost exclusively negative. For example, in headlines across the world – Nevada’s proposed gun safety laws, pleas from Ontario’s elderly and weather safety warnings in Queensland – have all “fallen on deaf ears”.

This kind of ‘ableist’ language is omnipresent in conversation: making a “dumb” choice, turning a “blind eye” to a problem, acting “crazy”, calling a boss “psychopathic”, having a “bipolar” day. And, for the most part, people who utter these phrases aren’t intending to hurt anyone – more commonly, they don’t have any idea they’re engaging in anything hurtful at all.

However, for disabled people like me, these common words can be micro-assaults. For instance, “falling on deaf ears” provides evidence that most people associate deafness with wilful ignorance (even if they consciously may not). But much more than individual slights, expressions like these can do real, lasting harm to the people whom these words and phrases undermine – and even the people who use them in daily conversation, too.

Not a small problem

About 1 billion people worldwide – 15% of the global population – have some type of documented disability. In the US, this proportion is even larger, at about one in four people, with similar rates reported in the UK.

Despite these numbers, disabled people experience widespread discrimination at nearly every level of society. This phenomenon, known as ‘ableism’ – discrimination based on disability – can take on various forms. Personal ableism might look like name-calling, or committing violence against a disabled person, while systemic ableism refers to the inequity disabled people experience as a result of laws and policy.Sara Nović discusses writing with students at the Rocky Mountain Deaf School in Colorado, US (Credit: Sara Nović)

Sara Nović discusses writing with students at the Rocky Mountain Deaf School in Colorado, US (Credit: Sara Nović)

But ableism can also be indirect, even unintentional, in the form of linguistic micro-aggressions. As much as we all like to think we’re careful with the words we choose, ableist language is a pervasive part of our lexicon. Examples in pop culture are everywhere, and you’ve almost certainly used it yourself.

Frequently, ableist language (known to some as ‘disableist’ language) crops up in the slang we use, like calling something “dumb” or “lame”, or making a declaration like, “I’m so OCD!”. Though these might feel like casual slights or exclamations, they still do damage.

Jamie Hale, the London-based CEO of Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, a UK charity run for and by people with neuromuscular conditions, notes that the potential for harm exists even if the words are not used against a disabled person specifically. “There’s a sense when people use disableist language, that they are seeing ways of being as lesser,” says Hale. “It is often not a conscious attempt to harm disabled people, but it acts to construct a world-view in which existing as a disabled person is [negative].”

Using language that equates disability to something negative can be problematic in several ways.

First, these words give an inaccurate picture of what being disabled actually means. “To describe someone as ‘crippled by’ something is to say that they are ‘limited’ [or] ‘trapped’, perhaps,” says Hale. “But those aren’t how I experience my being.”

Disability as metaphor is also an imprecise way to say of saying what we really mean. The phrase ‘fall on deaf ears’, for example, both perpetuates stereotypes and simultaneously obscures the reality of the situation it describes. Being deaf is an involuntary state, whereas hearing people who let pleas ‘fall on deaf ears’ are making a conscious choice to ignore those requests. Labelling them ‘deaf’ frames them as passive, rather than people actively responsible for their own decisions.

Ableist language crops up in the slang we use, like calling something “dumb” or “lame”, or making a declaration like, “I’m so OCD!”

Hale adds that using disability as a shorthand for something negative or inferior reinforces negative attitudes and actions, and fuels the larger systems of oppression in place. “We build a world with the language we use, and for as long as we’re comfortable using this language, we continue to build and reinforce disableist structures,” they say.

Say what?

If ableist language is so harmful, why is it so common? Why might someone who would never purposefully insult a disabled person outright still find ableist expressions among their own vocabulary?

Ableist language as colloquialism functions like any other slang term: people repeat it because they’ve heard others say it, a mimicry that on its face suggests use is undiscerning. However, according to University of Louisville linguistics professor DW Maurer, while anyone can create slang term, the expression will only “gain currency according to the unanimity of attitude within the group”. This suggests ableist slang is ubiquitous because, on some level, the speakers believe it to be true.

It’s possible for individuals to be truly unconscious of these biases within themselves, and unaware of the ableism couched in their own everyday sayings. But the fact is, discussions about the negative effect of a word such as “dumb” – a term originally denoting a deaf person who did not use speech, but which now functions as slang for something brutish, uninteresting or of low intelligence – have been happening in deaf and disabled circles for centuries.

According to Rosa Lee Timm, the Maryland, US-based chief marketing officer of non-profit organisation Communication Service for the Deaf, these conversations have remained largely unexamined by the mainstream because non-disabled people believe that ableism doesn’t affect them, and ableist language perpetuates and justifies that belief.

“Ableist language encourages a culture of separation. It defines, excludes and marginalises people,” says Timm. She adds that this allows non-disabled people to be bystanders in the face of ableist culture infrastructure at large.

A boomerang effect

Although these words and phrases are obviously harmful to the groups they marginalise, non-disabled people who casually use ableist language may be negatively impacting themselves, too.

“What happens to this group of hearing, non-disabled people later in life – be it hearing loss, an accident, a health issue, aging or any number of things – when they transition to the disabled community?” says Timm. “The ableist language they used has created an oppressive environment.”One of the most effective ways to move away from ableist language is understanding the disabled community, having conversations and listening to their concerns (Credit: Alamy)

One of the most effective ways to move away from ableist language is understanding the disabled community, having conversations and listening to their concerns (Credit: Alamy)

Timm notes this ‘environment’ includes an impact on their own self-worth. “Beauty standards are a good comparison, in terms of language’s psychological power,” she says. “As a parent, if I say, ‘wow, that’s beautiful’ or ‘that’s ugly’, my children see that and internalise it… This can have a profound impact, particularly if they examine themselves and feel like they don’t match the standard… The same goes for ability.”

Hale seconds the idea that nondisabled people who experience disability later in life will be harmed by the rhetoric they use today. They also note that the divisive nature of ableist language can even have a negative impact on people who will never experience disability.

“It hurts all of us when we de-humanise ways of being, and construct them wholly in the negative,” they say.

Dismantling ableist structures

Given how ingrained ableism is in our society, rooting it out may seem an overwhelming task. Being aware of the words you use each day is a necessary step in the process. “Dismantling disableist structures doesn’t start with language, but building a world without them requires that we change our language,” says Hale.

Examining your own go-to phrases and attempting to replace them with less problematic synonyms is a good start. “Think about what you mean. Don’t just repeat a phrase because you’ve heard it, think about what you’re trying to convey,” says Hale.

Often avoiding ableist euphemisms just means choosing more straightforward and literal language – rather than “fall on deaf ears”, one might say “ignoring” or “choosing not to engage”.  

Language is ever-changing, so eliminating ableism from your vocabulary will be an ongoing process rather than a static victory. You may stumble, but checking in with disabled people is an effective way to find your footing and continuing to build a more inclusive vocabulary. “My advice is always to listen,” says Timm. “Ask questions, avoid assumptions, and start by listening to the people who are impacted the most. Think about whether your own word choice is contributing to their oppression.”

It may feel uncomfortable, but discomfort and vulnerability necessitate introspection, which Hale points to as keys to dismantling ableist attitudes. “According to [disability equality charity] Scope, two-thirds of the British population feel uncomfortable talking to a disabled person,” says Hale. “Why? If you can work out why you’re uncomfortable, you’re well en route to changing it.”

What’s up with our fact-checking blind spots? Why do most people who can easily find holes in the official Covid narrative don’t do even basic fact-checking of people they’ve chosen to follow on the Covid-questioning side of the equation? April 11th 2021

Rosemary Frei, via her website

Three days ago I posted this tweet:

How do you know whether information from someone ‘on our side’ – whether me, or Tom Cowan, or Dolores Cahill – is actually true? You have to check our sources. But most people can’t or won’t do that. I think I know why.

— Rosemary Frei (@RosemaryFreiTO) April 5, 2021

Inmy video, I talked about being puzzled by why the vast majority of people who can see holes in the official Covid narrative don’t check the accuracy of information from the leaders of the Covid-questioning crew who they’ve chosen to follow.

Could these big fact-checking blind spots be chalked up to laziness or groupthink? It seems unlikely, since these blind spots are so broad and pervasive.

Then two weeks ago a subscriber to my website told me about John Taylor Gatto (and also about Charlotte Iserbyt).

So I ordered a copy of Gatto’s book The Underground History of American Education from the library.

In it, I found a highly plausible — albeit depressing — explanation. And what Gatto documents in the US is paralleled in most other countries around the world.

Gatto shows that since at least the 1960s, if not for decades before that, public schools have been deliberately making children:

  • believe they lack self-discipline and therefore need to be ‘educated’ on how to comply;
  • believe that intellectual work and creative thinking are distasteful or too difficult labour for them;
  • emotionally dependent on approval from authority; and,
  • intellectually dependent on experts and authorities to think on their behalf.

For example, Gatto describes on pages 40-42 of Underground History three seminal papers that help underpin the dumbing down of hundreds of millions of American children. Private foundations that’d been established by Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and Henry Ford were among the funders of the trio of papers and disseminators of the concepts within them.

Gatto writes that one of those three key papers, ‘Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program,’ explicitly sought to create:

schooling of a future America in which … ‘each individual receives at birth a multi-purpose identification number’ which enables employers and other controllers to keep track of underlings and to expose them to direct or subliminal influence when necessary.

Readers [of the ‘Behavioral Science’ document] [also] learned that ‘chemical experimentation’ on minors would be normal procedure in this post-1967 world, a pointed foreshadowing of the massive Ritalin interventions which now accompany the practice of forced schooling.

I’d add that this ‘chemical experimentation’ likely also involves the massive ramping up of vaccination, particularly of children, that started in about 1969.

Gatto notes that the document further:

identified the future as one ‘in which a small elite’ will control all important matters, one where participatory democracy will largely disappear. Children are made to see, through school experiences, that their classmates are so cruel and irresponsible, so inadequate to the task of self-discipline, and so ignorant, [that] they need to be controlled and regulated for society’s good.”

And there’s so much more. For example, on page 42-43 Gatto describes a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs by Mortimer ZuckermanZuckerman is a billionaire who was then, and still is, owner of US News and World Report and has extensive real estate interests.

Gatto records how, in the article, Zuckerman paints this type of education as a perfect tool for owners and managers of businesses because:

the American is indifferent to everything except a paycheck […] workers in America live in constant panic; they know companies here owe them nothing as fellow human beings. Fear is our secret supercharger, giving management flexibility no other country has. In 1996, after five years of record profitability, almost half of all Americans [employed] in big business feared being laid off. This fear keeps a brake on wages.”

Zuckerman seems to be correct, Gatto accedes. And Gatto takes it even farther, writing that he has:

little doubt that the fantastic wealth of American big business is psychologically and procedurally grounded in our form of schooling. … Schools train individuals to respond as a mass. Boys and girls are drilled in being bored, frightened, envious, emotionally needy, [and] generally incomplete.”

The result? The wiping out of the vast majority of children’s chance to get anywhere close to fulfilling their potential.

Gatto succinctly summarizes what is being done in the name of ‘education’:

Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy – these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another.”

So, that explains a lot.

I still don’t think it really excuses not doing even a modicum of fact-checking before believing information and passing it on to others. But it helps me understand why that’s so common.

A fair number of people viewed and responded to my April 5 tweet of the one-minute video. Many provided insightful comments. I’ve pasted five of my favourites below.

(A long and intense side discussion about whether Tom Cowan and Dolores Cahill — who I mention in the tweet and the video, even though I didn’t particularly seek to single them out — and others are really looking for the truth is continuing as I type this. But I’ll leave that for another article.)

One last question comes to mind: did Gatto have a hidden agenda? After all, unfortunately this is the rule rather than the exception in today’s world.

For example, could Gatto have been tacitly pushing for ‘charter’ (private) schools?

These are favoured by libertarian groups including the Cato Institute. They also are promoted behind the scenes by very powerful people seemingly on the other side of the political spectrum such as Barack Obama and his close friend Marty Nesbitt (see for example this 2016 Politico article).

(And of course the move to private schooling now has taken a giant leap forward among those who can afford it, due to the Covid-related measures.)

I’ve only just started to learn about Gatto and his views. So I don’t know yet what tacit biases, if any, he has.

Meanwhile, here are some more resources, kindly emailed to me by Aimee Hoffman  of

Meanwhile, here are some more resources, kindly emailed to me by Aimee Hoffman  of

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her otherOff-Guardian articles follow her on Twitter and read her website here.

Well ! What do they know ? By F.S April 8th 2021

I’ve just been reading an account of travels round Russia, the GDR, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the early 80s. So much of what the author observes correlates directly with society here now. In my view, the Cold War, however fictional, created an us and them: our dear leaders couldn’t go too far because they would be seen as acting too much like the enemy. Now that enemy isn’t there any more, they can get away with repression and control. The secret organisations used to have a focus outside our borders. Now they persecute anti-road protestors and other reprobates. The politicians don’t dare rein them in, because they know what will happen to them (and their reputations) if they try.

There’s a website called Deagel, which among other things supplies defence information to the US government. They forecast world population numbers based on economic and other factors. They’re currently suggesting that the UK population will be 14 million in 2025, down from 65 million now. That’s a 78% drop. Similar for many other countries. What do they know? We live in interesting times.

Slave New World – posted by F.S April 8th 2021

Tying down curriculums, teaching a set of facts to pass exams, rather than teaching how to think: It’s all part of the project. As John Ward says, fear, media propaganda and terrorist forms of censorship – used upon electorates educated towards uniformity – can sell anything to almost everyone if certain trigger jingoistic and smear terms are repeated with casual authority over and over again.

Craig Murray, a former British diplomat, once said that if the government wants you to know something, it won’t be true. Posted by F.S April 6th 2021

Following the same path as that great democracy China was never going to be a good look. All the information and data (from official sources) is out there for those who care to look. Few do. The brainwashing has been very effective.

A couple of times over the weekend I mentioned the WHO Covid death rate, which is 0.14%. Covid has never been in the top ten causes of death. This is not frightening. Yet the people to whom I mentioned this point, those who religiously parrot the figures from the BBC, looked at me as if I was stupid, and said – in essence – well, I believe what I believe. It’s become a faith.

The problem with trying to explain any of this to the unenlightened is that there are so many strands, so many layers of lies to unpick. Where do you start? And if you do, no one listens because you can’t undo months of propaganda in one conversation.

Just last week a court in Austria said the PCR test is useless as it doesn’t distinguish between live and dead strands of virus – something the inventor of the PCR test said, and mad people like me have been repeating for almost a year. Yet all govt policy has been based on the results of this test. There are rumours this week that the govt wants to apply the 30 year rule to all Covid-related documents. Of course they have nothing to hide.

Still live on the govt website is the advisory that Covid is no longer regarded as a highly infectious disease. This was posted before our first lockdown. It’s out there in plain sight. A survey of 10 million people in Wuhan discovered not a single case of asymptomatic transmission. Not a single study has concluded beyond doubt that masks work: it’s quite unlikely given that if you scale a virus particle up to the size of a football, the weave in a mask is equivalent to a goal mouth. Deaths with and from Covid have been so hopelessly conflated that we will never reach a believable number of deaths. 50% of people have natural antibodies and don’t need a vaccine.

The PHE/NHS document about the vaccine I’ve been sent doesn’t say that the jab is experimental – but it does list all the categories of person who should get the jab. I don’t fall into any of them, so why have I had two letters and a phone call instructing me to book an injection? And why am I being told it’s my responsibility to do so?

Flu has completely disappeared as a cause of death in the last year. This is not possible. Look at total UK deaths for the last thirty years and arrange with smallest number per year on the left and largest on the right. Pick out 2020. You can’t: it’s halfway across. Last year was not abnormal. The world’s billionaires have increased their wealth by 25% over the last twelve months, while hundreds of thousands of small businesses have gone bust. It goes on and on. F.S Political Editor

Just a bit of respect ? Posted April 5th 2021

The majority of the British population are religious hypocrits at best, believing that the Anglican Church is all about appearancess. They do not understand just how central to thei Muslim’s state of being the Islamic faith is. Followers of Islam face serious consequences if they wish to leave. To attack Islam is to threaten their sense of being alive. White liberals are like the Ostrich. This is an intractable probLEm that will not be solved by multi cuture, especislly in a country as small as Britain. R.J Cook
Drawing religious images is a serious insult and provocation to Muslims. A Bradford teaacher has been sacked and gone to hiding for insulting Islam by talking about this to an all non Muslim class.
Muslims protest outside the offending teacher’s school demanding his sacking for insulting Islam. Muslims are very serious about God, and though more likely to suffer from Covid, many resist vaccination because of fertility fears..
The problem is worse in France, where Islamists murdered offending journalists and beheaded an offending white teacher.

From Whitehouse to Whitewash Posted April 4th 2021

Some of us remember the revolt against the Christian Church in the 1960s. We were not all drugged out of our minds. Each one of us is more than Shakespeare’s actor on a world stage. We are all the epicentre of drama or soap opera that is our life span. My drama is approaching its final act. The scene shifters, with all the power and money, are preparing th stage for new players who may well be entering the opening scenes of a new ice age, third world war or more.

In this context we have multi cutural atomisation perceptions as the new script dynamic. Mary Whitehouse did her best to defend the Christain life as trendy Oxbridge type media folk ridiculed and destroyed her credibility. Blasphemy laws gathered dust and were forgotten in a Britain, while France effectively became a secular state in 1905.

Post Gulf War One and the new oil war against certain Middle Eastern States , there has been a flood of migrants from that area and North Africa facilitated by Libyan regime change. The fact these migrans all have darker skin specie adaptations to local climate makes it easy to label all Muslims as a race. Christianity was never so termed.

The race label takes the issue beyond blasphemy placing Muslims on an ethereal pedestal. Here in Britain their leaders are demanding more ‘respect.’ The fact that old Britain thought it was secular or that there is no evidence for the existence of the Judaic/ Christian/ Muslim God, doesn’t matter. This is the age of ‘woke’ culture and these three churches represent the same mindset that locked Galileo up for his evidence that the earth orbited the sun and was not the centre of their God’s universe.

Extreme violence , including burning dissenters at the stake, is at the heart if enforcing religious power and bigotry. Egypt was a most advanced society before Islam was imposed on it. Therefore one should read the following extract with caution.

Robert Cook

Muslims Are Not a Race Posted April 4th 2021

Caner K. Dagli

College of the Holy Cross

Caner K. Dagli specializes in Qur’anic studies, interfaith dialogue, and philosophy.

How you defend yourself will change you.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is a major problem confronting all Muslims in one way or another. We are undermined, challenged, and targeted in a daunting variety of ways, and the way we face this challenge will be woven into the fabric of our souls, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, many intellectuals are responding to anti-Muslim bigotry, commonly referred to as Islamophobia, with arguments whose ultimate and often overlooked presuppositions are antithetical not only to Islam but to religion as such. A growing, even dominant, trend in recent scholarly and activist literature frames Islamophobia as a form of racism.1 In this particular approach, anti-Muslim bigotry is not a phenomenon with a racial component or a racist dimension; rather, Islamophobia simply is a form of racism, or originates in racism, or should be studied through the framework of racism.

The formulation “Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism” is, at its best, intended to leverage existing legal protections for racial minorities and to benefit from the social stigma against racism, with the worthy goal of protecting vulnerable people from racism disguised as a concern for national security or culture or as a “critique of ideas.” But the reduction of Islamophobia to racism muddles our understanding of other real motives behind anti-Muslim bigotry and depends on misused or simply confused ideas such as “racialization” that are difficult for many people to grasp. Worse than that, the conceptual apparatus underpinning “Islamophobia is racism” turns Islam into a mere cultural marker of non-white people, a cipher that is spiritually, intellectually, and morally inert. The exclusively “racist” framework—in a world where human beings are motivated by many kinds of irrationality, egotism, and fanaticism—makes it seem that Islam could only be interesting or challenging insofar as it is the patrimony of non-white people. Religion becomes just one more social factor in a world where human affairs are reduced entirely to race, class, gender, and sexuality.

The third wave, 1967: an account – Ron Jones Posted Here March 24th 2021

2008 German film The Wave, based on these events

Schoolteacher Ron Jones’s personal account of his experiment which created a proto-fascist movement amongst his high school pupils in Palo Alto, California, which in 2008 was subject of the award-winning film The Wave.

For years I kept a strange secret. I shared this silence with two hundred students. Yesterday I ran into one of those students. For a brief moment it all rushed back.

Steve Conigio had been a sophomore student in my World History class. We ran into each other quite by accident. It’s one of those occasions experienced by teachers when they least expect. You’re walking down the street, eating at a secluded restaurant, or buying some underwear when all of a sudden an ex-student pops up to say hello. In this case it was Steve running down the street shouting “Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones.” In an embarrassed hug we greet. I had to stop for a minute to remember. Who is this young man hugging me? He calls me Mr. Jones. Must be a former student. What’s his name? In the split second of my race back in time Steve sensed my questioning and backed up. Then smiled, and slowly raised a hand in a cupped position. My God He’s a member of the Third Wave. It’s Steve, Steve Conigio. He sat in the second row. He was a sensitive and bright student. Played guitar and enjoyed drama.

We just stood there exchanging smiles when without a conscious command I raised my hand in curved position. The salute was give. Two comrades had met long after the war. The Third Wave was still alive. “Mr. Jones do you remember the Third Wave?” I sure do, it was one of the most frightening events I ever experienced In the classroom. It was also the genesis of a secret that I and two hundred students would sadly share for the rest of our lives.

We talked and laughed about the Third Wave for the next few hours. Then it was time to part. It’s strange, you most a past student In these chance ways, You catch a few moments of your life. Hold them tight. Then say goodbye. Not knowing when and if you’d ever see each other again. Oh, you make promises to call each other but It won’t happen. Steve will continue to grow and change. I will remain an ageless benchmark in his life. A presence that will not change. I am Mr. Jones. Steve turns and gives a quiet salute. Hand raised upward in a shape of a curling wave. Hand curved in a similar fashion I return the gesture.

The Third Wave. Well at last it can be talked about. Here I’ve met a student and we’ve talked for hours about this nightmare. The secret must finally be waning. It’s taken three years. I can tell you and anyone else about the Third Wave. It’s now just a dream, something to remember, no it’s something we tried to forget. That’s how it all started. By strange coincidence I think it was Steve who started the Third Ways with a question

. We were studying Nazi Germany and in the middle of a lecture I was interrupted by the question. How could the German populace claim ignorance of the slaughter of the Jewish people. How could the townspeople, railroad conductors, teachers, doctors, claim they knew nothing about concentration camps and human carnage. How can people who were neighbors and maybe even friends of the Jewish citizen say they weren’t there when it happened. it was a good question. I didn’t know the answer.

In as such as there were several months still to go in the school year and I was already at World War II, I decided to take a week and explore the question.

Strength through discipline
On Monday, I introduced my sophomore history students to one of the experiences that characterized Nazi Germany. Discipline. I lectured about the beauty of discipline. How an athlete feels having worked hard and regularly to be successful at a sport. How a ballet dancer or painter works hard to perfect a movement. The dedicated patience of a scientist in pursuit of an Idea. it’s discipline. That self training. Control. The power of the will. The exchange of physical hardships for superior mental and physical facilities. The ultimate triumph.

To experience the power of discipline, I invited, no I commanded the class to exercise and use a new seating posture; I described how proper sitting posture assists mandatory concentration and strengthens the will. in fact I instructed the class in a sitting posture. This posture started with feet flat on the floor, hands placed flat across the small of the back to force a straight alignment of the spine. “There can’t you breath more easily? You’re more alert. Don’t you feel better.”

We practiced this new attention position over and over. I walked up and down the aisles of seated students pointing out small flaws, making improvements. Proper seating became the most important aspect of learning. I would dismiss the class allowing them to leave their desks and then call them abruptly back to an attention sitting position. In speed drills the class learned to move from standing position to attention sitting in fifteen seconds. In focus drills I concentrated attention on the feet being parallel and flat, ankles locked, knees bent at ninety degree angles, hands flat and crossed against the back, spine straight, chin down, head forward. We did noise drills in which talking was allowed only to be shown as a detraction. Following minutes of progressive drill assignments the class could move from standing positions outside the room to attention sitting positions at their desks without making a sound. The maneuver took five seconds.

It was strange how quickly the students took to this uniform code of behavior I began to wonder just how far they could be pushed. Was this display of obedience a momentary game we were all playing, or was it something else. Was the desire for discipline and uniformity a natural need? A societal instinct we hide within our franchise restaurants and T.V. programming.

I decided to push the tolerance of the class for regimented action. In the final twenty-five minutes of the class I introduced some new rules. Students must be sitting in class at the attention position before the late bell; all students Must carry pencils and paper for note taking; when asking or answering questions a student must stand at the side of their desk; the first word given in answering or asking a question is “Mr. Jones.” We practiced short “silent reading” sessions. Students who responded in a sluggish manner were reprimanded and in every case made to repeat their behavior until it was a model of punctuality and respect. The intensity of the response became more important than the content. To accentuate this, I requested answers to be given in three words or less. Students were rewarded for making an effort at answering or asking questions. They were also acknowledged for doing this in a crisp and attentive manner. Soon everyone in the class began popping up with answers and questions. The involvement level in the class moved from the few who always dominated discussions to the entire class. Even stranger was the gradual improvement in the quality of answers. Everyone seemed to be listening more intently. New people were speaking. Answers *tarted to stretch out as students usually hesitant to speak found support for their effort.

As for my part in this exercise, I had nothing but questions. Why hadn’t I thought of this technique before. Students seemed intent on the assignment and displayed Accurate recitation of facts and concepts. They even seemed to be asking better questions and treating each other with more compassion. How could this be? Here I was enacting an authoritarian learning environment and it seemed very productive. I now began to ponder not just how far this class could be pushed but how such I would change my basic beliefs toward an open classroom and self directed learning. Was all my belief in Carl Rogers to shrivel and die? Where was this experiment leading?

Strength through community
On Tuesday, the second day of the exercise, I entered the classroom to find everyone sitting in silence at the attention position. Some of their faces were relaxed with smiles that come from pleasing the teacher. But most of the students looked straight ahead in earnest concentration. Neck muscles rigid. No sign of a smile or a thought or even a question. Every fibre strained to perform the deed. To release the tension I went to the chalk board and wrote in big letters “STRENGTH THROUGH DISCIPLINE.” Below this I wrote a second law, “STRENGTH THROUGH COMMUNITY.”

While the class sat in stern silence I began to talk lecture sermonize about the value of community. At this stage of the game I was debating in my own mind whether to stop the experiment or continue. I hadn’t planned such intensity or compliance. In fact I was surprised to find the ideas on discipline enacted at all. While debating whether to stop or go on with the experiment I talked on and on about community. I made up stories from my experiences as an athlete, coach and historian. It was easy. Community is that bond between individuals who work and struggle together. It’s raising a barn with your neighbors, it’s feeling that you are a part of something beyond yourself, a movement, a team, La Raza, a cause.

It was too late to step back. I now can appreciate why the astronomer turns relentlessly to the telescope. I was probing deeper and deeper into my own perceptions and the motivations for group and individual action. There was much more to see and try to understand. Many questions haunted me. Why did the students accept the authority I was imposing? Where is their curiosity or resistance to this marshal behavior. When and how will this end?

Following my description of community I once again told the class that community like discipline must be experienced if it is to be understood. To provide an encounter with community I had the class recite in unison “Strength Through Discipline.” “Strength Through Community.” First I would have two students stand and call back our motto. Then add two more until finally the whole class was standing and reciting. It was fun. The students began to look at each other and sense the power of belonging. Everyone was capable and equal. They were doing something together. We worked on this simple act for the entire class period. We would repeat the mottos in a rotating chorus. or say then with various degrees of loudness. Always we said them together, emphasizing the proper way to sit, stand, and talk.

I began to think of myself as a part of the experiment. I enjoyed the unified action demonstrated by the students. It was rewarding to see their satisfaction and excitement to do more. I found it harder and harder to extract myself from the momentum and identity that the class was developing. I was following the group dictate as much as I was directing it.

As the class period was ending and without forethought I created a class salute. It was for class members only. To make the salute you brought your right hand up toward the right shoulder in a curled position. I called it the Third Wave salute because the hand resembled a wave about to top over. The idea for the three came from beach lore that waves travel in chains, the third wave being the last and largest of each series. Since we had a salute I made it a rule to salute all class members outside the classroom. When the bell sounded ending the period I asked the class for complete silence. With everyone sitting at attention I slowly raised my arm and with a cupped hand I saluted. It was a silent signal of recognition. They were something special. Without command the entire group of students returned the salute.

Throughout the next few days students in the class would exchange this greeting. You would be walking down the hall when all of a sudden three classmates would turn your way each flashing a quick salute. In the library or in gym students would be seen giving this strange hand jive. You would hear a crash of cafeteria food only to have it followed by two classmates saluting each other. The mystique of thirty individuals doing this strange gyration soon brought more attention to the class and its experiment into the German personality. Many students outside the class asked if they could join.

Strength through action
On Wednesday, I decided to issue membership cards to every student that wanted to continue what I now called the experiment. Not a single student elected to leave the room. In this the third day of activity there were forty-three students in the class. Thirteen students had cut class to be a part of the experiment. While the class sat at attention I gave each person a card. I marked three of the cards with a red X and informed the recipients that they had a special assignment to report any students not complying to class rules. I then proceeded to talk about the meaning of action. I explained how discipline and community were meaningless without action. I discussed the beauty of taking full responsibility for ones action. Of believing so thoroughly in yourself and your community or family that you will do anything to preserve, protect and extend that being. I stressed how hard work and allegiance to each Other would allow accelerated learning and accomplishment. I reminded students of what it felt like being in classes where competition caused pain and degradation. Situations in which students were pitted against each other In everything from gym to reading. The feeling of never acting, never being a part of something, never supporting each other.

At this point students stood without prompting and began to give what amounted to testimonials. “Mr. Jones, for the first time I’m learning lots of things.” “Mr. Jones, why don’t you teach like this all the time.” I was shocked! Yes, I had been pushing information at them in an extremely controlled setting but the fact that they found it comfortable and acceptable was startling. It was equally disconcerting to realize that complex and time consuming written homework assignments on German life were being completed and even enlarged on by students. Performance in academic skill areas was significantly improving. They were learning more. And they seemed to want more. I began to think that the students might do anything I assigned. I decided to find out.

To allow students the experience of direct action I gave each individual a specific verbal assignment. “It’s your task to design a Third Wave Banner. You are responsible for stopping any student that is not a Third Wave member from entering this room. I want you to remember and be able to recite by tomorrow the name and address of every Third Wave Member. You are assigned the problem of training and convincing at least twenty children in the adjacent elementary school that our sitting posture is necessary for better learning. It’s your job to read this pamphlet and report its entire content to the class before the period ends. I want each of you to give me the name and address of one reliable friend that you think might want to join the Third Wave.”…

To conclude the session on direct action, I instructed students in a simple procedure for initiating new members. It went like this. A new member had only to be recommended by an existing member and issued a card by me. Upon receiving this card the new member had to demonstrate knowledge of our rules and pledge obedience to them. My announcement unleashed a fervor.

The school was alive with conjecture and curiosity. It affected everyone. The school cook asked what a Third Wave cookie looked like. I said chocolate chip of course. Our principal came into an afternoon faculty meeting and gave me the Third Wave salute. I saluted back. The Librarian thanked me for the 30′ banner on learning which she placed above the library entrance. By the end of the day over two hundred students were admitted into the order. I felt very alone and a little scared.

Most of my fear emanated from the incidence of “tattletaling”. Though I formally appointed only three students to report deviate behavior, approximately twenty students came to me with reports about how Allan didn’t salute, or Georgine was talking critically about our experiment. This incidence of monitoring meant that half the class now considered it their duty to observe and report on members of their class. Within this avalanche of reporting one legitimate conspiracy did seem underway ….

Three women in the class had told their parents all about our classroom activities. These three young women were by far the most intelligent students in the class. As friends they chummed together. They possessed a silent confidence and took pleasure in a school setting that gave them academic and leadership opportunity. During the days of the experiment I was curious how they would respond to the equalitarian and physical reshaping of the class. The rewards they were accustomed to winning just didn’t exist in the experiment. The intellectual skills of questioning and reasoning were non existent. In the martial atmosphere of the class they seemed stunned and pensive. Now that I look back, they appeared much like the child with so called learning disability. They watched the activities and participated in a mechanical fashion. Whereas others jumped in, they held back, watching.

In telling their parents of the experiment they set up a brief chain of events. The rabbi for one of the parents called me at home. He was polite and condescending. I told him we were merely studying the German personality. He seemed delighted and told me not to worry. He would talk to the parents and calm their concern. In concluding this conversation I envisioned similar conversations throughout history in which the clergy accepted and apologized for untenable conditions. If only he would have raged in anger or simply investigated the situation I could point the students to an example of righteous rebellion. But no. The rabbi became a part of the experiment In remaining ignorant of the oppression in the experiment he became an accomplice and advocate.

By the end of the third day I was exhausted. I was tearing apart. The balance between role playing and directed behavior became indistinguishable. Many of the students were completely into being Third Wave Members. They demanded strict obedience of the rules from other students and bullied those that took the experiment lightly. Others simply sunk into the activity and took self assigned roles. I particularly remember Robert. Robert was big for his age and displayed very few academic skills. Oh he tried harder than anyone I know to be successful. He handed in elaborate weekly reports copied word for word from the reference books in the library. Robert is like so many kids in school that don’t excel or cause trouble. They aren’t bright, they can’t make the athletic teams, and don’t strike out for attention. They are lost. invisible. The only reason I came to know Robert at all is that I found him eating lunch in my classroom. He always ate lunch alone.

Well, the Third Wave gave Robert a place in school. At least he was equal to everyone. He could do something. Take part. Be meaningful. That’s just what Robert did. Late Wednesday afternoon I found Robert following me and asked what in the world was he doing. He smiled (I don’t think I had ever seen him smile) and announced, “Mr. Jones I’m your bodyguard. I’m afraid something will happen to you.

Can I do it Kr. Jones, please?” Given that assurance and smile I couldn’t say no. I had a bodyguard. All day long he opened and closed doors for me. He walked always on my right. Just smiling and saluting other class members. He followed me every- where. In the faculty room (closed to students) he stood at silent attention while I gulped some coffee. When accosted by an English teacher for being a student in the “teachers’ room” her just smiled and informed the faculty member that he wasn’t a student. he was a body guard.

Strength through pride
On Thursday I began to draw the experiment to a conclusion. I was exhausted and worried. Many students were over the line. The Third Wave had become the center of their existence. I was in pretty bad shape myself. I was now acting instinctively as a dictator. Oh I was benevolent. And I daily argued to myself on the benefits of the learning experience. By this, the fourth day of the experiment I was beginning to lose my own arguments. As I spent more time playing the role I had less time to remember its rational origins and purpose. I found myself sliding into the role even when it wasn’t necessary. I wondered if this doesn’t happen to lots of people. We get or take an ascribed role and then bend our life to fit the image. Soon the image is the only identity people will accept. So we become the image. The trouble with the situation and role I had created was that I didn’t have time to think where it was leading. Events were crushing around me. I worried for students doing things they would regret. I worried for myself.

Once again I faced the thoughts of closing the experiment or letting it go its own course. Both options were unworkable. If I stopped the experiment a great number of students would be left hanging. They had committed themselves in front of their peers to radical behavior. Emotionally and psychologically they had exposed themselves. If I suddenly jolted them back to classroom reality I would face a confused student- body for the remainder of the year. It would be too painful and demeaning for Robert and the students like him to be twisted back into a seat and told it’s just a game. They would take the ridicule from the brighter students that participated in a measured and cautious way. I couldn’t let the Roberts lose again.

The other option of just letting the experiment run its course was also out of the question. Things were already getting out of control. Wednesday evening someone had broken into the room and ransacked the place. (I later found out it was the father of one of the students. He was a retired air force colonel who had spent time in a German prisoner of war camp. Upon hearing of our activity he simply lost control Late in the evening he broke into the room and tore it apart. I found him that morning propped up against the classroom door. He told me about his friends that had been killed in Germany. He was holding on to me and shaking. In staccato words he pleaded that I understand and help him get home. I called his wife and with the help of a neighbor walked him home. We spent hours later talking about what he felt and did, but from that moment on Thursday morning I was more concerned with what might be happening at school.

I was increasingly worried about how our activity was affecting the faculty and other students in the school. The Third Wave was disrupting normal learning. Students were cutting class to participate and the school counselors were beginning to question every student in the class. The real gestapo in the school was at work. Faced with this experiment exploding in one hundred directions, I decided to try an old basketball strategy. When you’re playing against all the odds the best action to take is to try the unexpected. That’s what I did.

By Thursday the class had swollen in size to over eighty students. The only thing that allowed them all to fit was the enforced discipline of sitting in silence at attention. A strange calm is in effect when a room full of people sit in quite observation and anticipation. It helped me approach them in a deliberate way. I talked about pride. “Pride is more than banners or salutes. Pride Is something no one can take from you. Pride is knowing you are the best… It can’t be destroyed …”

In the midst of this crescendo I abruptly changed and lowered my voice to announce the real reason for the Third Wave. In slow methodic tone I explained what was behind the Third Wave. “The Third Wave isn’t just an experiment or classroom activity. It’s far more important than that. The Third Wave Is a nationwide program to find students who are willing to fight for political change in this country. That’s right. This activity we have been doing has been practice for the real thing. Across the country teachers like myself have been recruiting and training a youth brigade capable of showing the nation a better society through discipline, community. pride, and action. If we can change the way that school is run, we can change the way that factories, stores, universities and all the other institutions are run. You are a selected group of young people chosen to help in this cause. If you will stand up and display what You have learned in the past four days…we can change the destiny of this nation. We can bring it a new sense of order. community, pride and action. A new purpose. Everything rests with you and your willingness to take a stand.”

To give validity to the seriousness of my words I turned to the three women in the class whom I knew had questioned the Third Wave. I demanded that they leave the room. I explained why I acted and then assigned four guards to escort the women to the library and to restrain them from entering the class an Friday. Then in dramatic style I informed the class of a special noon rally to take place on Friday. This would be a rally for Third Wave Members only.

It was a wild gamble. I just kept talking. Afraid that if I stopped someone would laugh or ask a question and the grand scheme would dissolve in chaos. I explained how at noon on Friday a national candidate for president would announce the formation of a Third Wave Youth Program. Simultaneous to this announcement over 1000 youth groups from every part of the country would stand up and display their support for such a movement. I confided that they were the students selected to represent their area. I also questioned if they could make a good showing, because the press had been invited to record the event. No one laughed. There was not a murmur of resistance. quite the contrary. A fever pitch of excitement swelled across the room. “We can do it!” “Should we wear white shirts?” “Can we bring friends?” “Mr. Jones, have you seen this advertisement in Time magazine?”

The clincher came quite by accident. It was a full page color advertisement in the current issue of Time for some lumber products. The advertiser identified his product as the Third Wave. The advertisement proclaimed in big red, white and blue letters, “The Third Wave is coming.” ”Is this part of the campaign, Mr. Jones?” “Is it a code or something?” “Yes.1′ “Now listen carefully.”

“It’s all set for tomorrow. Be in the small auditorium ten minutes before 12:00. Be seated. Be ready to display the discipline, community, and pride you have learned. Don’t talk to anyone about this. This rally is for members only.”

Strength through understanding
On Friday, the final day of the exercise, I spent the early morning preparing the auditorium for the rally. At eleven thirty students began to ant their way into the room; at first a few scouting the way and then more. Row after row began to fill. A hushed silence shrouded the room. Third Wave banners hung like clouds over the assembly. At twelve o’clock sharp I closed the room and placed guards at each door. Several friends of mine posing as reporters and photographers began to interact with the crowd taking pictures and jotting frantic descriptive notes. A group photograph was taken. Over two hundred students were crammed into the room. Not a vacant seat could be found. The group seemed to be composed of students from many persuasions. There were the athletes, the social prominents, the student leaders, the loners, the group of kids that always left school early, the bikers, the pseudo hip, a few representatives of the school’s dadaist click, and some of the students that hung out at the laundromat. The entire collection however looked like one force as they sat in perfect attention. Every person focusing on the T.V. set I had in the front of the room. No one moved. The room was empty of sound. It was like we were all witness to a birth. The tension and anticipation was beyond belief.

“Before turning on the national press conference, which begins in five minutes, I want to demonstrate to the press the extent of our training.” With that, I gave the salute followed automatically by two hundred arms stabbing a reply. I then said the words “Strength Through Discipline” followed by a repetitive chorus. We did this again, and again. Each time the response was louder. The photographers were circling the ritual snapping pictures but by now they were ignored. I reiterated the importance of this event and asked once more for a show of allegiance. It was the last time I would ask anyone to recite. The room rocked with a guttural cry, “Strength Through Discipline.”

It was 12:05. I turned off the lights in the room and walked quickly to the television set. The air in the room seemed to be drying up. It felt hard to breathe and even harder to talk. It was as if the climax of shouting souls had pushed everything out of’ the room. I switched the television set on. I was now standing next to the television directly facing the room full of people. The machine came to life producing a luminous field of phosphorus light. Robert was at my side. I whispered to him to watch closely and pay attention to the next few minutes. The only light in the room was coming from the television and it played against the faces in the room. Eyes strained and pulled at the light but the pattern didn’t change. The room stayed deadly still. Waiting. There was a mental tug of war between the people in the room and the television. The television won. The white glow of the test pattern didn’t snap into the vision of a political candidate. It just whined on. Still the viewers persisted. There must be a program. It must be coming on. Where is it? The trance with the television continued for what seemed like hours. It was 12:07. Nothing. A blank field of white. It’s not going to happen. Anticipation turned to anxiety and then to frustration. Someone stood up and shouted.

“There isn’t any leader is there?” “Everyone turned in shock. first to the despondent student and then back to the television. Their faces held looks of disbelief.

In the confusion of the moment I moved slowly toward the television. I turned it off. I felt air rush back into the room. The room remained in fixed silence but for the first time I could sense people breathing. Students were withdrawing their arms from behind their chairs. I expected a flood of questions, but instead got intense quietness. I began to talk. Every word seemed to be taken and absorbed.

“Listen closely, I have something important to tell you.” “Sit down.” “There is no leader! There is no such thing as a national youth movement called the Third Wave. You have been used. Manipulated. Shoved by your own desires into the place you now find yourself. You are no better or worse than the German Nazis we have been studying.”

“You thought that you were the elect. That you were better than those outside this room. You bargained your freedom for the comfort of discipline and superiority. You chose to accept that group’s will and the big lie over your own conviction. Oh, you think to yourself that you were just going along for the fun. That you could extricate yourself at any moment. But where were you heading? How far would you have gone? Let me show you your future.”

With that I switched on a rear screen projector. It quickly illuminated a white drop cloth hanging behind the television. Large numbers appeared in a countdown. The roar of the Nuremberg Rally blasted into vision. My heart was pounding. In ghostly images the history of the Third Reich paraded into the room. The discipline. The march of super race. The big lie. Arrogance, violence, terror. People being pushed into vans. The visual stench of death camps. Faces without eyes. The trials. The plea of ignorance. I was only doing my job. My job. As abruptly as it started the film froze to a halt on a single written frame. “Everyone must accept the blame No one can claim that they didn’t in some way take part.”

The room stayed dark as the final footage of film flapped against the projector. I felt sick to my stomach. The room sweat and smelt like a locker room. No one moved. It was as if everyone wanted to dissect the moment, figure out what had happened. Like awakening from a dream and deep sleep, the entire room of people took one last look back into their consciousness. I waited for several minutes to let everyone catch up. Finally questions began to emerge. All of the questions probed at imaginary situations and sought to discover the meaning of this event.

In the still darkened room I began the explanation. I confessed my feeling of sickness and remorse. I told the assembly that a full explanation would take quite a while. But to start. I sensed myself moving from an introspective participant in the event toward the role of teacher. It’s easier being a teacher. In objective terms I began to describe the past events.

“Through the experience of the past week we have all tasted what it was like to live and act in Nazi Germany. We learned what it felt like to create a disciplined social environment. To build a special society. Pledge allegiance to that society. Replace reason with rules. Yes, we would all have made good Germans. We would have put on the uniform. Turned our head as friends and neighbors were cursed and then persecuted. Pulled the locks shut. Worked in the “defense” plants. Burned ideas. Yes, we know in a small way what it feels like to find a hero. To grab quick solution. Feel strong and in control of destiny. We know the fear of being left out. The pleasure of doing something right and being rewarded. To be number one. To be right. Taken to an extreme we have seen and perhaps felt what these actions will lead to. we each have witnessed something over the past week. We have seen that fascism is not just something those other people did. No. it’s right here. In this room. In our own personal habits and way of life. Scratch the surface and it appears. Something in all of us. We carry it like a disease. The belief that human beings are basically evil and therefore unable to act well toward each other. A belief that demands a strong leader and discipline to preserve social order. And there is something else. The act of apology.

“This is the final lesson to be experienced. This last lesson is perhaps the one of greatest importance. This lesson was the question that started our plunge in studying Nazi life. Do you remember the question? It concerned a bewilderment at the German populace claiming ignorance and non-involvement in the Nazi movement. If I remember the question. it went something like this. How could the German soldier, teacher, railroad conductor, nurse. tax collector. the average citizen, claim at the end of the Third Reich that they knew nothing of what was going on. How can a people be a part of something and then claim at the demise that they were not really involved’ What causes people to blank out their own history? In the next few minutes and perhaps years, you will have an opportunity to answer this question.”

“If our enactment of the Fascist mentality is complete not one of you will ever admit to being at this final Third Wave rally. Like the Germans, you will have trouble admitting to yourself that you come this far. You will not allow your friends and parents to know that you were willing to give up individual freedom and power for the dictates of order and unseen leaders. You can’t admit to being manipulated. Being a follower. To accepting the Third Wave as a way of life. You won’t admit to participating in this madness. You will keep this day and this rally a secret. It’s a secret I shall share with you.”

I took the film from the three cameras in the room and pulled the celluloid into the exposing light. The deed was concluded. The trial was over. The Third Wave had ended. I glanced over my shoulder. Robert was crying. Students slowly rose from their Chairs and without words filed into the outdoor light. I walked over to Robert and threw my arms around him. Robert was sobbing. Taking in large uncontrollable gulps of air. “It’s over.” it’s all right.” In our consoling each other we became a rock in the stream of exiting students. Some swirled back to momentarily hold Robert and me. Others cried openly and then brushed away tears to carry on. Human beings circling and holding each other. Moving toward the door and the world outside.

For a week in the middle of a school year we had shared fully in life. And as predicted we also shared a deep secret. In the four years I taught at Cubberley High School no one ever admitted to attending the Third Wave Rally. Oh, we talked and studied our actions intently. But the rally itself. No. It was something we all wanted to forget.

Ron Jones (1972)

  • We have seen that fascism is not just something those other people did. No. It’s right here. In this room. Scratch the surface and it appears. Something in all of us. The belief that human beings are basically evil. A belief that demands a strong leader and discipline to preserve social order.
    Ron Jones

White is racist and worse – Posted March 23rd 2021

Whites have a history of racism so must bend the knee to black and mixed race people.

I’ve just read a piece entitled ‘Whiteness is a Pandemic’. It begins: Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people—white people and people who are not white, my mom included. There will be people who die, in 2050, because of white supremacy-induced decisions from 1850.

How do people get away with writing such total bollocks? Apparently all non-white people play no role in modern capitalism, serve in no armed forces, and fart fairy dust that magically revives the ice caps.The DSM business is entirely designed to keep shrinks employed and the drug companies happy. Normal human behaviour is pinned down and categorised with insulting labels. Everyone, according to them, needs to be medicated – for suffering from the disease of being human. F.S

Comment on the following.

Certain truths just won’t sink in to the pompous self righteous liberal mind. To bump up and discount the verbal and physical abuse women direct at men, we have to accept that women never lie, never provoke and that the true levels of violence against them are so much higher – and that women don’r come forward because the police won’t believe them. When women’s violence is undeniable, as with Caroline Flack, feminists and media join forces to blame the man.

Women increasingly reject motherhood or choose to be sole parents but never taking blame or finanacial responsibiity for the sons they create. Demand for state approved childcare has never been higher in this mad world of social engineering. Men are exhorted to change just so long as they do not start wearing women’s clothes and make up. Gender bending i strictly for superior females because they can be anything. Men must be and do as they are told. The cases of Raoul Moat and Michael Ryan should serve as a warning but they don’t. They simply attract the usual feminist version of analysis. Both had dominant mothers.

Women are increasingly men’s rivals, more aggressive , moving as a blob and femininity is ridiculed in favour of feminism. Men have little room for manouvre. Male to female transsexuals are labelled as some kind of devious super rapist plotting to take innocent women in public toilets – see Terfs. Women have the good taste to reject relationships. Men , according to liberal left dogma, are not the ones rejecting them.

Now we have the inevitable. A man who is probably some kind of hypocritical religious weirdo does not approve of massage parlours. According to the following highly paid – and therefore attractive – pundit it is Trumpism to blame for making men appear repulsive to all good women. Trump has so much to asnwer for, it seems. Now he is connected with mass shootings. R.J Cook

Beware the lonely, angry men Posted March 21st 2021

Damon Linker

We have so many mass shootings in this country, and so much gun violence in general, that those who come to a sweeping conclusion on the basis of any one massacre are playing a fool’s game.

Yet the facts wrapped up with Tuesday’s rampage at three massage parlors in the Atlanta area nonetheless raise disturbing questions about relations between the sexes in the contemporary United States — and in particular about the complex and ominous interaction of loneliness and rage inside a certain subset of American men.

In focusing on the gendered dimension of the attacks, I’m presuming they weren’t racially motivated hate crimes, as many assumed in the hours after the shootings took place, so much as homicidal misogyny. It’s understandable why people leapt to the other conclusion, given that six of the victims were women of Asian descent and the country has seen a nearly 150 percent spike in hate crimes against Asian Americans over the past year or so. Yet the confession of the alleged shooter, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, seems to indicate he didn’t explicitly choose his targets out of racial animus. Rather, he targeted women who worked at the spas he frequented, and those women happened to be Asian. Moreover, if the statement by the Cherokee County Sheriff about the perpetrator’s state of mind can be believed, the shooting was proximally provoked by an impulse to lash out at the objects of his lust.

That would place Long in the vicinity of incels — the “involuntarily celibates” who turn their failures at attracting women into an ideology of virulent misogyny that can inspire real-world acts of violence. Long supposedly frequented these businesses, so he wasn’t celibate. But he apparently confessed to being a sex addict — and his actions on Tuesday demonstrate that he reacted to his own compulsion to seek sexual satisfaction in a form of prostitution (rather than in a stable relationship) by harboring and acting out in rage against the women who serviced him for money.

Marriage rates have been falling for years. Men and women are both unhappy with the dating scene. There are numerous reasons for both trends. But one of them is the country’s growing political divide. Joe Biden won women by 15 points in 2020 while Donald Trump won men by 8 points.

When this gender gap is combined with increasing cultural and moral animosity between the parties, the possibility of a couple negotiating a cross-partisan relationship or marriage seems increasingly remote. One especially noteworthy bit of evidence of this difficulty was captured last summer in a poll from the Pew Research Center. It found that 47 percent of single adults on the dating scene definitely or probably would not consider being in a committed relationship with someone who had voted for Trump. Twenty-six percent said the same about dating someone who had voted for Hillary Clinton.

That’s a snapshot of a country in which the pool of potential heterosexual partners is quite a bit more constricted than it might first appear. A significant chunk of men are averse to becoming involved with the sizable portion of women who vote for Democrats, and a larger percentage of women apparently want nothing to do with men who support a Trumpified Republican Party.

That’s a snapshot of a country in which the pool of potential heterosexual partners is quite a bit more constricted than it might first appear. A significant chunk of men are averse to becoming involved with the sizable portion of women who vote for Democrats, and a larger percentage of women apparently want nothing to do with men who support a Trumpified Republican Party.

What We Learned From Meghan and Harry’s Interview March 21st 2021

The Sussexes accused the royal family of failing to protect them, both emotionally and financially.

Poor little rich kids deserve freedom and respect.

By Sarah Lyall and Tariro Mzezewa

  • Published March 8, 2021Updated March 12, 2021

Leer en español

Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, had been teased for days. So it was a shock to find when it aired Sunday night that it included a number of explosive revelations about the couple and their fraught relationship with the British royal family.

Here are the main takeaways:

Over the years, Harry has openly discussed mental health, grief and other issues that, in the past, were taboo coming from a royal. But audiences have rarely heard Meghan talk about her own mental health, with the exception of a 2020 article in The New York Times’s Opinion section about her miscarriage.

One of the most revelatory moments of the CBS interview broadcast on Sunday night came when Meghan talked about contemplating suicide while living and working as a member of the British royal family.

“I was ashamed to have to admit it to Harry,” she said of her suicidal thoughts. “I knew that if I didn’t say it, I would do it. I just didn’t want to be alive anymore.”

Meghan said that at one point she asked a senior royal about the possibility of seeking inpatient care, and was told that would not be possible because it “wouldn’t be good for the institution.”

The interview provided a reminder that Harry and Meghan weren’t afraid to talk about the mental health challenges they have dealt with, and their responses to Ms. Winfrey’s questions underscored a message they seemed keen to send to the world: In some capacity or another, they will continue doing work similar to what they were doing as members of the royal family.

Ultimately, hearing Meghan talk about navigating life in the palace with Harry as the sole source of support confirmed something that has seeped its way into news coverage of the couple over the past year: They say they did not receive adequate support from Harry’s family when they were struggling and seeking assistance.

From the beginning, the couple said, the tabloids were vicious to Meghan, making unabashedly racist comments about her. The question of her race also infused her relationship with the royal family, the couple said. They believed it might have been a factor in the family’s decision not to grant their son, Archie, a title or to provide security protection for him.

Editors’ Picks

How Meghan Markle Has Already Changed the Way We Talk About SuicideShe Kept a Library Book for 63 Years. It Was Time to Return It.I’m Helping My Korean-American Daughter Embrace Her Identity to Counter Racism

In one of the most shocking moments in the interview, Meghan mentioned a conversation Harry had with a member of the royal household while she was pregnant with their firstborn.

“We have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born,” Meghan said.

Harry said that someone had expressed worry about, as he put it, “what will the kids look like?”

Britain’s children minister, Vicky Ford, said in response that such comments were unacceptable. “There is absolutely no place for racism in our society,” she said in an interview with Sky News.

One of the most memorable moments of Harry and Meghan’s wedding is the image of Prince Charles, Harry’s father, walking Meghan down the aisle and Harry saying to his father, “Thank you, Pa.”

The moment earned Charles supporters around the globe for appearing to be a loving father and father-in-law who was taking in his new daughter-in-law at a moment when her own father wasn’t showing up for her.

How things have changed.

It was striking to hear Harry describe his father as not taking his phone calls and asking him to put things into writing when he and Meghan were weighing taking a step back from their roles as senior royals. Harry later said that Charles was now taking his calls again, but that “there’s a lot to work through there.”

“I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar,” Harry said, referring to the way the news media had hounded his mother, Princess Diana.

Prince William was barely mentioned in the interview, but when he did come up, Harry said that their “relationship is space, at the moment.”

More than once, both Harry and Meghan drew distinctions between the queen and the rest of the royal family. They told stories of interacting with her during their time in London and after stepping back from their roles as senior royals. There was a decipherable shift in tone, however, when discussing others, particularly William; his wife, Kate Middleton; and Charles.

The tabloid stories came one after the other, Meghan said: About her diva-like behavior, about how she had bullied her staff, about her supposed rift with her sister-in-law, Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge.

Not only were they not true, Meghan said, but the royal family did nothing to correct them.

She came to understand, she said, that the royal family was “willing to lie to protect other members of the family, but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.”

In a particularly resonant example, she said, the tabloids reported, long after her wedding, that she had made Kate cry before the lavish event over the bridesmaid’s dress that Kate’s daughter was meant to wear. In fact, Meghan said, it was Kate who made her cry.

Kate apologized and sent her flowers, Meghan said. But when the tabloid reports came out, no member of the royal family made an effort to correct the record.

“I’m talking about things that are super artificial and inconsequential,” Meghan said. “But the narrative about, you know, making Kate cry, I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. And they knew it wasn’t true.”

She added, “I thought, well, if they’re not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?”

Most members of the royal family receive money each year from the family coffers in exchange for carrying out official engagements. But when he introduced Meghan to the family, Harry said, that arrangement already seemed to be in jeopardy.

Members of his family suggested that she continue acting, “because there wasn’t enough money to pay for her,” Harry said. “There was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.”

He and Meghan said they pleaded with the royal family to pay for security for them and their son, only to be refused each time.

Then, when he and Meghan moved to the United States, Harry said, the royal family stopped giving them money.

“My family literally cut me off financially,” Harry said. When Oprah pressed him on the point, he amended it to “the first half, the first quarter of 2020,” leaving open the question of whether any money had arrived after that.

In any case, he said, speaking of his life in the United States, “I’ve got what my mum left me, and without that, we would not have been able to do this.”

At another point, Harry described feeling “trapped” in his life before being with Meghan and noted that, “without question, she saved me.”

Sounds Familiar March 12th 2021

What If God Was One Of Us , Video Video Results

  • 5:13Joan Osborne – (What if God Was) One Of Us – official music
  • 4:51Joan Osborne – One of
  • 4:51Joan Osborne What If God Was One Of
  • 5:14What If God Was One
If God made us and the world, with light of life & darkness of death , giving us free will, why is there a problem ? R.J Cook

The New Normal (Phase 2)

Most of Western Europe is still in “lockdown,” or “under curfew,” or in some other state of “health emergency.” Police are fining and arresting people for “being outdoors without a valid reason.” 

Protest is still bannedDissent is still censored.

The official propaganda is relentless. Governments are ruling by edict, subjecting people to an ever-changing series of increasingly absurd restrictions of the most fundamental aspects of everyday life.

And now, the campaign to “vaccinate” the entirety of humanity against a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms or, more commonly, no symptoms at all, in over 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of the infected survive (and that has no real effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile) is being waged with literally religious fervor.

“Vaccine passports” (which are definitely creepy, but which bear no resemblance to Aryan Ancestry Certificates, or any other fascistic apartheid-type documents, so don’t even think about making such a comparison!) are in the pipeline in a number of countries. They have already been rolled out in Israel.

In other words, as predicted by us “conspiracy theorists,” the “temporary emergency public health measures” implemented by GloboCap in March of 2020 are still very much in effect, and then some. That said, as you have probably noticed, the tenor of things is shifting a bit, which is unsurprising, as GloboCap is now making the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the “New Normal” roll-out.

Phase 1 was pretty much classic “shock and awe.” An “apocalyptic virus” was “discovered.” A global “state of emergency” was declared. Constitutional rights were cancelled. Soldiers, police, surveillance camerasmilitary drones, and robot dogs were deployed to implement the worldwide police state.

The masses were bombarded with official propaganda, photos of people dropping dead in the streetunconscious patients dying in agony, bodies being stuffed into makeshift morgue truckshospital ships, ICU horror stories, projections of hundreds of millions of deathsterror-inducing Orwellian slogans, sentimental “war effort” billboards, and so on.

The full force of the most formidable Goebbelsian propaganda machine in history was unleashed on the public all at once. (See, e.g., CNNNPRCNBCThe New York TimesThe GuardianThe AtlanticForbes, and other “authoritative” sources like the IMF and the World Bank Group, the WEFUNWHOCDC.)

But the “shock and awe” phase can’t go on forever, nor is it ever intended to. Its purpose is (a) to terrorize the targeted masses into a state of submission, (b) to irreversibly destabilize their society, so that it can be radically “restructured,” and (c) to convincingly demonstrate an overwhelming superiority of force, so that resistance is rendered inconceivable.

This shock and awe (or “rapid dominance”) tactic has been deployed by empires, and aspiring empires, throughout the course of military history. It has just been deployed by GloboCap against … well, against the entire world. And now, that phase is coming to an end.

The shape of Phase 2 is not entirely clear yet, but one can make a few logical assumptions. Typically, this is the phase in which the conquering force (in this case, GloboCap) restores “normality” (i.e., a “new normality”) to the society it has just destabilized and terrorized. It installs a new occupation-friendly government, restarts the economy, and otherwise begins the gradual transition from martial law to something resembling “normal” everyday life. It hands out candy bars to kids, financial aid to businesses, power to generals and police, and “freedom” to the shell-shocked public.

This appears to be where we are at the moment. As you’ve probably noticed, the corporate media, government leaders, and medical experts have been making noise about “the end of the pandemic,” or at least “the end of the emergency phase” of it. Suddenly, “some level of Covid is tolerable,” “Zero Covid is unlikely,” et cetera. This is happening pretty much right on cue.

Now that the vaccination push is underway, they are trying to temper the mass paranoia and hatred that they have fomented for over a year with some hope and a vision of a post-crisis future.

Governments are carefully relaxing restrictions, making sure we understand that if we don’t obey orders, wear our masks, get our vaccinations, and so, they will crack down on us again without mercy. They want to ease us into the pathologized-totalitarian future gently, so that it feels like we are being liberated, returning to some semblance of normal life, albeit in a new, more terrifying, perpetually-virus-and-extremist-threatened world.

For example, here in Germany, the government has decided to “return some freedom and trust to the people,” but they are prepared to lock us down “hard” again if they suspect we haven’t “used their trust wisely.”

According to the 5-Step Plan, bookshops and florists can reopen this week with a one-person-per-ten-square-meter limit, up to ten people can play non-contact sports, and five people from no more than two households can meet up (and, thus, also play non-contact sports), unless the “incidence rate” of positive PCR tests rises above 100 per thousand, in which case, back to “hard lockdown” we go.

Two weeks after that, on March 22, if the “positive-test rate” stays below 50, outdoor restaurant dining can resume, and theaters, cinemas, and opera houses can open. However, if the “positive-test rate” is more than 50 but less than 100, outdoor dining will only be permitted on a strictly pre-booking basis. (One assumes there will be roving goon squads examining restaurants’ booking records and ordering patrons to show their papers.) There are further Kafkaesque conditions in the plan, but I think you get the general idea.

Meanwhile, in the USA, although DC remains under occupation, the Capitol surrounded by razor-wire fences to protect democracy from an imaginary enemy straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, Texas, Mississippi, and a few other states are joining Florida in open rebellion, and allowing people to go out to eat, get together with their families and friends, walk around in public without medical-looking masks, and otherwise go about living their lives in a totally non-anus-clenched-paranoid fashion.

Notwithstanding the outrage of the Covidian Cultists, this development is not of great concern to GloboCap, as the coastal power centers are full-blown “New Normal,” and the liberals who predominantly occupy them have been transformed into paranoid, hysterical zealots who now dedicate a considerable amount of time to hunting down alleged “Covid deniers,” “anti-maskers,” “vaccine refusers,” “white-supremacist extremists,” “conspiracy theorists,” “libertarians,” dead “racist cartoonists,” and anyone else who won’t conform to their pathologized-totalitarian ideology, and obsessively trolling them on social media, or reporting their thoughtcrimes to the Reality Police.

This transformation of the relatively affluent, predominantly liberal, middle/upper classes, and the millions futilely aspiring thereto, into mindlessly-order-following “Good Germans” (or, rather, mindlessly-order-following “New Normals”) has also occurred here in Western Europe, and elsewhere throughout the global capitalist empire, and was one of GloboCap’s main objectives throughout Phase 1 of the “New Normal” roll out. This transformation has been in progress for quite some time, less dramatically and without a virus. It will continue once this virus is gone.

The “New Normal” isn’t just about a virus. The “New Normal” was never just about a virus. You don’t need a new “normal” because of a virus. You need a new “normal” when your current “normal” has outlived its usefulness to those in power, which, in our case, are the global capitalist ruling classes.

I’ve been writing about this for … well, most of my life, and publishing these columns for the last five years, so I’m not going to summarize all that here, but, basically, we’re living through one of those historic transformations of the structure of political power that we usually don’t recognize until after it has occurred … not just a “changing of the guard,” a transformation of the nature of power, how it is exercised, the beliefs it is based on, and the “reality” conjured into being by those beliefs.

This transformation began with the end of the Cold War, when global capitalism became the first globally-hegemonic ideological system in history. The roll-out of the “New Normal” is part of that transformation, not the whole of it, but an essential stage. We are transitioning from an ideological “reality” to a post-ideological, pathologized “reality” … a “reality” in which any and all deviation from official ideology (i.e., “normality”) is no longer a political challenge or threat, but an “illness” or “psychiatric disorder.”

I’m going to be obnoxious and quote myself, so that I don’t have to try to explain this again. Here’s a passage from a recent column:

A globally-hegemonic system (e.g., global capitalism) has no external enemies, as there is no territory ‘outside’ the system. Its only enemies are within the system, and thus, by definition, are insurgents, also known as ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists.’

These terms are utterly meaningless, obviously. They are purely strategic, deployed against anyone who deviates from GloboCap’s official ideology … which, in case you were wondering, is called ‘normality’ (or, in our case, currently, ‘New Normality’) … [t]he new breed of ‘terrorists’ do not just hate us for our freedom … they hate us because they hate ‘reality.’

They are no longer our political or ideological opponents … they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder. They no longer need to be argued with or listened to … they need to be ‘treated,’ ‘reeducated,’ and ‘deprogrammed,’ until they accept ‘Reality.’

As we shift from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the “New Normal,” the pathologization of political dissent will continue, and intensify, both overtly and subtlely. GloboCap and the corporate media will continue to warn of imminent “attacks on democracy” by imaginary “domestic terrorists,” as well as the old “non-domestic terrorists.” They will also continue to warn of imminent threats posed by exotic viruses, and “variants” of exotic viruses, and permanent “conditions” caused by viruses, and other threats to our bodily fluids.

Above all, they will continue to warn of the danger of ingesting “misinformation,” “conspiracy theories,” or any other type of unverified, unauthorized, un-fact-checked content. They will thoroughly diagnose the sources of such content, and exhaustively explain the pathological conditions these sources will clearly be suffering from. They will explore a variety of treatments and cures, and recommend prophylactic measures against potential exposure to these sources.

These multiplicitous “threats to democracy” (i.e., “terrorists,” “viruses,” “misinformation,” “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “transphobia,” “electoral-system scepticism,” “white-supremacist pancake syrup,” “premeditated pronoun abuse,” “oppositional-defiant-infant masklessness,” “vaccine hesitancy,” “religion,” et cetera) will fuse into a single Goldstein-like enemy which “New Normal” children will be conditioned to reflexively hate and fear, and want to silence, and quarantine off from “normal” society, or “cure” of their “illness” with government-mandated, “safe and effective” pharmaceutical therapies.

But whatever … I wouldn’t worry about that. I’m probably just getting all worked up over nothing. After all, as a lot of my ex-friends will tell you (through their multiple masks and prophylactic face shields), I’m just a paranoid “conspiracy theorist” spreading “unverified misinformation.”

CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at or consentfactory

Fairy Tales R.J Cook March 9th 2021

The first I ever heard of princes and princesses was when my Uncle Arthur and Aunt Joe sent me a Cinderella book for Christmas. I must have been about four and my mother was teaching me to read. I vaguely remembered my father hanging out lots of Union Jacks and bunting the previous year but never realised it was for the Coronation.

Over the years I was led to believe the monarchy were special. The media was conservative. The Empire was heroic, morphing into the Commonwealth. However poor we were, we felt we belonged to something much bigger and better.

Then self obsessed Princess Diana came along and changed everything. After her strange and mysterious death , there were those who made her into a cult, those of us who saw what she had exposed about the Royals and her own awful family, and those who were her sons. Edward has his therapist and Kate. Harry his anger.

And so we have ‘The Interview.’ Logically this should be the end of the Royal Family’s State role and function. It is stuffy , patronising, spoiled and classist. But it will survive because people need fairy tales , myths and Gods. I know what it feels like without them because, thanks to corrupt police and 13 years of serious police harassment , so called investigations, prosecutions and false malicious records about me and my son, I know what the reality of this vile country boils down to. I know how it destroyed and lied to other members of my family. It is run by liars and lackeys, paid like whores to be whatever they are asked to be and to do as requested.

I know what it is like to have the state turn one into an outcast and about wanting to die. I know the elite are racist, classist , hypocrits , propagandists, and manipulative greedy liars. Marx told workers of the world to unite. The elite have control of media and all the other resources. So it can’t happen while they divide and rule. Marx never mentioned race or gender on the way out of false consciousness. That’s where BLM . LGBTQI and feminism come in , dividing and ruling the lumpenproletariat – with lies, sugar lumps and bread crumbs.

R.J Cook

Here’s what we learnt from Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview

The bombshell royal interview everyone is talking about

By Ellie Austin Monday 8 March 2021

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the interview

Ever since Oprah Winfrey secured an invite to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding, speculation has swirled that the queen of television would, at some point, be sitting down with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for a tell-all interview.

Three years and, one can imagine, a lot of wooing later, that speculation has finally become a reality.

On Sunday night, American viewers watched Winfrey’s much-anticipated two-hour audience with the royal couple and it was even more packed with bombshell disclosures than the dramatic clips released over the past two weeks as teasers had suggested.

Publicity for the interview, which saw Meghan sit down for an hour-long one-on-one with Winfrey before Harry joined the conversation, promised it would cover ‘everything from stepping into life as a royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure’. In fact, it delved much deeper, with the pair speaking at length about race, their personal mental health struggles and their relationships with individual members of the Royal Family.

Read next

  • From Eleanor of Aquitaine to Prince Philip: The most historically significant Royal Consorts By Rebecca Cope

The couple’s first sit-down TV interview since they announced that they were stepping back from their roles as senior royals, the broadcast was always going to be one of the most talked-about events of the year. However, the sheer volume of revelations it delivered will ensure that it goes down in history alongside Diana, Princess of Wales’ Panorama interview and Emily Maitlis’ audience with Prince Andrew as a watershed moment for the Royal Family. So, what exactly did we learn?

1. Meghan had suicidal thoughts while pregnant with Archie

During her first pregnancy, Meghan felt so attacked by the press that she ‘didn’t want to be alive anymore.’ Describing the thought as ‘very clear and real and constant,’ Meghan explained that she asked the Royal Family to help facilitate professional help but it refused.

‘I went to the institution and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said, “I’ve never felt this way before and I need to go somewhere and I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.”‘

Although the people she spoke to at the palace expressed sympathy for what she was going through, they explained that there was nothing practical they could do to help as Meghan was not a ‘paid employee of the institution’.

2. A member of the royal family expressed concern over what Archie’s skin colour would be

In the months before Archie was born, Harry told Meghan of a conversation he had had with a family member where ‘concerns’ were raised about how dark their baby’s skin might be when it was born and ‘what that would mean’. When asked by Oprah exactly what was said, Harry confirmed that the conversation had taken place but refused to elaborate on which of his relatives was behind it.

Read next

3. Meghan claims that the Royal Family didn’t want Archie to be a prince

At the time of Archie’s birth, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had decided not to give their son a royal title in order to allow him a ‘normal’ life as a private citizen. However, according to Meghan, the decision was imposed on them by the palace during her pregnancy when the gender of the baby was still unknown.

‘They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn’t going to receive security,’ she said. ‘This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy.’

Meghan added that she was never given an explanation for the decision and was upset at the ‘the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way other grandchildren would be’.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey

4. Meghan and Harry are expecting a daughter in the summer

Unlike their first pregnancy where the couple waited until the birth to find out their baby’s gender, Meghan and Harry already know that their second child is a girl.

Read next

‘To have a boy and a girl, what more can you ask for?’ said Harry. ‘Now we have our family, the four of us and two dogs.’ They confirmed that the baby is due in ‘summertime’ and that they won’t be having more than two children.

5. Meghan and Harry married in secret three days before their official ceremony

Harry and Meghan were already husband and wife when they arrived at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, on May 19 2018. Three days earlier, they had called the Archbishop of Canterbury and asked him to carry out a private ceremony where they would be the only three people present.

‘Three days before our wedding, we got married,’ Meghan explained. ‘No one knows that. We called the Archbishop and we just said, “look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world. But we want our union between us.” So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.’

6. Harry was ‘cut-off’ by the royal family in January 2020

Security costs were a key theme of discussion as Harry and Meghan negotiated their departure from full-time royal life at the start of last year. According to Harry, he was told at ‘short-notice’ that he, Meghan and Archie would be stripped of their security protection once they left England for America. ‘Their justification was a change in status,’ Harry told Oprah. ‘To which I pushed back and said, “is there a change in threat or risk?”‘

‘My family literally cut me off financially in the first quarter of 2020,’ Harry added, contradicting reports at the time that Prince Charles had stepped in to fund security protection for his son’s young family.

Read next

Harry went on to explain that it was thanks to money left to him by his mother and later, deals with Spotify and Netflix, that he and Meghan were able to become financially independent.

Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey

7. Prince Charles stopped taking Harry’s calls

Harry revealed that the Queen was not, in fact, blindsided by he and Meghan’s decision to step back as senior royals; he had three conversations with her about his family’s future before making the announcement. He also consulted his father twice on the matter before Prince Charles stopped answering his calls.

‘I took matters into my own hands,’ explained Harry when asked why he thought his father cut communication.

They are now back on speaking terms, despite Harry still feeling disappointed at his father’s lack of support during such a critical time.

Read next

‘There’s a lot to work through there,’ he said. ‘I feel really let down.’

8. Harry and William have yet to heal their rift

After initially avoiding a question about the state of his relationship with his brother, Harry later admitted that they are currently giving each other ‘space’.

‘Time heals all things – hopefully,’ he added.

Earlier in the interview, Harry had acknowledged that his brother and father also struggle with the restrictions and expectations of royal life but don’t have the option to step back because of their rankings in the line of succession.

‘My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.’

9. Meghan called the Queen when Prince Philip was admitted to hospital

On finding out that Prince Philip had been taken to hospital last month feeling ‘unwell,’ Meghan called the Queen directly.

‘I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying that the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital. I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.’

Throughout the interview, both Harry and Meghan reiterated that they still have a very strong relationship with the monarch. ‘The Queen has always been wonderful to me… I’ve always loved being in her company,’ Meghan told Oprah.

Here’s what we learnt from Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview

The bombshell royal interview everyone is talking about

By Ellie Austin Monday 8 March 2021

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the interview

Ever since Oprah Winfrey secured an invite to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding, speculation has swirled that the queen of television would, at some point, be sitting down with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for a tell-all interview.

Three years and, one can imagine, a lot of wooing later, that speculation has finally become a reality.

On Sunday night, American viewers watched Winfrey’s much-anticipated two-hour audience with the royal couple and it was even more packed with bombshell disclosures than the dramatic clips released over the past two weeks as teasers had suggested.

Publicity for the interview, which saw Meghan sit down for an hour-long one-on-one with Winfrey before Harry joined the conversation, promised it would cover ‘everything from stepping into life as a royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure’. In fact, it delved much deeper, with the pair speaking at length about race, their personal mental health struggles and their relationships with individual members of the Royal Family.

Read next

  • From Eleanor of Aquitaine to Prince Philip: The most historically significant Royal Consorts By Rebecca Cope

The couple’s first sit-down TV interview since they announced that they were stepping back from their roles as senior royals, the broadcast was always going to be one of the most talked-about events of the year. However, the sheer volume of revelations it delivered will ensure that it goes down in history alongside Diana, Princess of Wales’ Panorama interview and Emily Maitlis’ audience with Prince Andrew as a watershed moment for the Royal Family. So, what exactly did we learn?

1. Meghan had suicidal thoughts while pregnant with Archie

During her first pregnancy, Meghan felt so attacked by the press that she ‘didn’t want to be alive anymore.’ Describing the thought as ‘very clear and real and constant,’ Meghan explained that she asked the Royal Family to help facilitate professional help but it refused.

‘I went to the institution and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said, “I’ve never felt this way before and I need to go somewhere and I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.”‘

Although the people she spoke to at the palace expressed sympathy for what she was going through, they explained that there was nothing practical they could do to help as Meghan was not a ‘paid employee of the institution’.

2. A member of the royal family expressed concern over what Archie’s skin colour would be

In the months before Archie was born, Harry told Meghan of a conversation he had had with a family member where ‘concerns’ were raised about how dark their baby’s skin might be when it was born and ‘what that would mean’. When asked by Oprah exactly what was said, Harry confirmed that the conversation had taken place but refused to elaborate on which of his relatives was behind it.

Read next

3. Meghan claims that the Royal Family didn’t want Archie to be a prince

At the time of Archie’s birth, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had decided not to give their son a royal title in order to allow him a ‘normal’ life as a private citizen. However, according to Meghan, the decision was imposed on them by the palace during her pregnancy when the gender of the baby was still unknown.

‘They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn’t going to receive security,’ she said. ‘This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy.’

Meghan added that she was never given an explanation for the decision and was upset at the ‘the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way other grandchildren would be’.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey

4. Meghan and Harry are expecting a daughter in the summer

Unlike their first pregnancy where the couple waited until the birth to find out their baby’s gender, Meghan and Harry already know that their second child is a girl.

Read next

‘To have a boy and a girl, what more can you ask for?’ said Harry. ‘Now we have our family, the four of us and two dogs.’ They confirmed that the baby is due in ‘summertime’ and that they won’t be having more than two children.

5. Meghan and Harry married in secret three days before their official ceremony

Harry and Meghan were already husband and wife when they arrived at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, on May 19 2018. Three days earlier, they had called the Archbishop of Canterbury and asked him to carry out a private ceremony where they would be the only three people present.

‘Three days before our wedding, we got married,’ Meghan explained. ‘No one knows that. We called the Archbishop and we just said, “look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world. But we want our union between us.” So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.’

6. Harry was ‘cut-off’ by the royal family in January 2020

Security costs were a key theme of discussion as Harry and Meghan negotiated their departure from full-time royal life at the start of last year. According to Harry, he was told at ‘short-notice’ that he, Meghan and Archie would be stripped of their security protection once they left England for America. ‘Their justification was a change in status,’ Harry told Oprah. ‘To which I pushed back and said, “is there a change in threat or risk?”‘

‘My family literally cut me off financially in the first quarter of 2020,’ Harry added, contradicting reports at the time that Prince Charles had stepped in to fund security protection for his son’s young family.

Read next

Harry went on to explain that it was thanks to money left to him by his mother and later, deals with Spotify and Netflix, that he and Meghan were able to become financially independent.

Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey

7. Prince Charles stopped taking Harry’s calls

Harry revealed that the Queen was not, in fact, blindsided by he and Meghan’s decision to step back as senior royals; he had three conversations with her about his family’s future before making the announcement. He also consulted his father twice on the matter before Prince Charles stopped answering his calls.

‘I took matters into my own hands,’ explained Harry when asked why he thought his father cut communication.

They are now back on speaking terms, despite Harry still feeling disappointed at his father’s lack of support during such a critical time.

Read next

‘There’s a lot to work through there,’ he said. ‘I feel really let down.’

8. Harry and William have yet to heal their rift

After initially avoiding a question about the state of his relationship with his brother, Harry later admitted that they are currently giving each other ‘space’.

‘Time heals all things – hopefully,’ he added.

Earlier in the interview, Harry had acknowledged that his brother and father also struggle with the restrictions and expectations of royal life but don’t have the option to step back because of their rankings in the line of succession.

‘My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.’

Read next

9. Meghan called the Queen when Prince Philip was admitted to hospital

On finding out that Prince Philip had been taken to hospital last month feeling ‘unwell,’ Meghan called the Queen directly.

‘I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying that the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital. I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.’

Throughout the interview, both Harry and Meghan reiterated that they still have a very strong relationship with the monarch. ‘The Queen has always been wonderful to me… I’ve always loved being in her company,’ Meghan told Oprah.

Former New Labour Foreign Minister Robin Cook mysteriously died on a Scottish mountain side 5 weeks after his Guardian interview asserting that Bin Laden was a U.S agent and that 9/11 was a set up for a war on terror.

Britain and the war in Afghanistan: the point is? Posted March 8th 2021 By Robert Cook.

Like many British people I have often wondered what the continued NATO presence there is actually all about. The invasion destroyed the Al Qaeda training camps and removed from power the Taliban regime that sheltered them. The original mission, one of revenge against the architects of 9/11, was accomplished in a matter of weeks.

The increasing death and injury toll of British male soldiers (as far as I know there has only been one female fatality) has recently caused more open questioning of a war to which little see any obvious purpose. Government has, as usual, done little to clear up the confusion. This despite ministers and the army talking about a ‘mission’ that they expect to last for years and one to which some officials see no end.

The most convincing explanation of the farcical occupation, and the ever-changing justification, is that America’s current foreign policy is dominated by oil. The long-term certainty that supplies are almost certain to run out in the future, coupled with increasing competition with China and India for declining natural resources, has forced the USA to act. It cannot be a coincidence that Afghanistan happens to be where a major oil pipeline coming from the Caspian Sea central Asia region will pass through on its way to Pakistan and the oil tankers. Iraq after all is about its oil stocks.

Powerful lobby groups who determine national policy dominate American politics. The oil industry, of which the Bush family is involved with, is one of the biggest and most well connected in Washington. British foreign policy is heavily influenced by

the USA (since World War Two the so-called ‘special relationship’ has dominated) and highly subservient to its aims and ambitions. Britain too faces much uncertainty about future energy sources, as North Sea oil becomes harder and more expensive to locate. Both nations have declining oil reserves but very high demand for it remains.

The ‘War on Terror’ looks more like a series of wars to secure access to current oil reserves ahead of China and India. No wonder other NATO countries, particularly Germany and France, have no interest in supporting war for the Anglo-American interests. 

Quite sensibly they are looking after their own national interests.

The fig leaf of national ‘security’, internal and external, used to scare the public into supporting military action abroad and suppression of basic civil liberties at home makes regimes dominated by a social economic elite far more secure. Protest is stifled at birth and democracy greatly reduced. That is particularly true for police state UK.

The average Briton, like the average American, will see very little economic benefit for themselves or their families and friends. What they will see are heavily armed paramilitary police and security personnel making sure that they continue to do what they are told. The threat of Muslim extremism vastly exaggerated and practised by a small radical minority (many of whom are already known to the Anglo-American security services) are the new Communists. These extremists are an easy way to distract people from the harsh realities of their personal situations. They are the enemy, both internally and externally, to be focused on rather than the massive social and economic inequalities increasingly prevalent within countries that make use of the decentralised, private industry social elite dominated, Anglo-Saxon economic model.  

Birmingham July 2009 Lot of British people live miserable lives in harsh conditions.  New Labour Government encouraged multi culture, but its still working the old elite con trick of divide and rule.  It bombed so much of the Muslim world. ( Image Copyright Robert Cook)

The Queen stresses importance of family in Commonwealth Day message ahead of Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview

The Queen visits Buckingham in the 1950s – see Buckingham Voices ny Robert Cook & Des Tunks 2001. Buckingham was the original county town , traitional and Royalist. They ask no questions of the past. Image Appledene Photographic Archives

The Queen has stressed the importance of staying in touch with family and friends during “testing times” in a message broadcast on television just hours ahead of the Sussexes’ Oprah interview.

By Grace HammondSunday, 7th March 2021, 5:00 pm

This is the world we live in , with the majority white working classes blamed for everything. Thatcher and middle class feminists started the attack of working class family life. Every speech the outdated Queen’s Corporate elite writers and advsers comes up with is a reminder that she is well out of date.

She thrives on the glories of World War Two fought by ‘privileged whites’ ( sic ), caused by the Elite – not mentally disturbed shell shocked Hitler from World War One caused by them earlier -and fought by lower class lackeys whose lives went from 1930s misery to absolute wartime hell. Now we have the horrors of today , with posh feminists hijacking Marx as the great under dogs along with the BLM who they patronise and purport to care for. R.J Cook

Queen Elizabeth II signs her annual Commonwealth Day Message in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle.

Focusing on the global impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the monarch spoke of using technology that “transcends boundaries or division” and how there has been a “deeper appreciation” of the need to connect to others during the Covid-19 crisis.

She also praised the “selfless dedication to duty” seen across the Commonwealth, particularly on the front line.

Senior royals including the Prince of Wales and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge joined forces to appear in the special BBC One programme on Sunday to mark Commonwealth Day, as the bitter fallout from ‘Megxit’ continued.

The Queen’s audio message celebrated collaboration, but stood in contrast to the troubles facing the royal family.

As Harry and Meghan were due to be seen focusing on their own experiences of life inside the monarchy, the Queen, who is Head of the Commonwealth, used her Commonwealth Day message to highlight the “friendship, spirit of unity and achievements” around the world and the benefits of working together in the fight against the virus.

“The testing times experienced by so many have led to a deeper appreciation of the mutual support and spiritual sustenance we enjoy by being connected to others,” she said.

Buckingham Palace is bracing itself for what Harry and Meghan will say in their controversial two-hour conversation with Oprah Winfrey – which airs on Sunday in the US, while the Duke of Edinburgh remains unwell in hospital.

In extracts, Meghan has already accused The Firm – as the royal family is sometimes known – of “perpetuating falsehoods” and told how she now felt liberated to make her own choices.

As footage was played of the Queen’s numerous official video calls, the 94-year-old acknowledged that the innovative technology “has been new to some of us, with conversations and communal gatherings, including Commonwealth meetings, conducted online, enabling people to stay in touch with friends, family, colleagues, and counterparts who they have not been able to meet in person.

She said: “Increasingly, we have found ourselves able to enjoy such communication as it offers an immediacy that transcends boundaries or division, helping any sense of distance to disappear.

“We have all continued to appreciate the support, breadth of experiences and knowledge that working together brings.”

She praised the “selfless dedication to duty” of medical staff and other key workers.

“Whilst experiences of the last year have been different across the Commonwealth, stirring examples of courage, commitment, and selfless dedication to duty have been demonstrated in every Commonwealth nation and territory, notably by those working on the frontline, who have been delivering health care and other public services in their communities,” she said.

Harry and Meghan were accused of being disrespectful to the monarch’s own life of duty when their permanent Megxit departure was finalised two weeks ago, with their camp saying, in what was seen as a parting shot: “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”

The message, pre-recorded at Windsor, was accompanied by new footage of the Queen filmed last week at the castle, where she has been staying in lockdown.

The monarch, dressed in an Angela Kelly delphinium blue dress and jacket, is seen walking through the grand St George’s Hall, which was lined with Commonwealth flags.

She is flanked, socially distanced, by her Master of the Household Vice Admiral Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt and her assistant private secretary Matthew Magee, who form part of the Queen’s HMS Bubble of reduced staff, and who were both smiling broadly.

The Queen then sits at an ornate desk in the middle of the hall and signs her Commonwealth Day message.

On her jacket is the sapphire chrysanthemum brooch which she wore in a photograph to mark her 73rd wedding anniversary with Philip in November.

Played over a montage of footage from around the Commonwealth, the message was in part reminiscent of the Queen’s Christmas Day broadcasts.

The one-off BBC show was arranged after the annual Commonwealth Day event at Westminster Abbey was cancelled this year due to the Covid-19 crisis.

Last year’s service in the central London church was the scene of Harry and Meghan’s final official engagement as senior royals before they quit the working monarchy.

They had been hailed as the new stars of the Commonwealth after pledging to work with the association throughout their lives.

In the programme, the Prince of Wales was featured standing alone in the Abbey, where his youngest son performed his last public duty and where they were last seen publicly together, as he delivered a speech.

Charles said the pandemic had affected every country “cruelly robbing countless people of their lives and livelihoods”, but praised how people responded with “extraordinary determination, courage and creativity”.

William and Kate were filmed making video calls to medical, charity and voluntary staff in South Africa, Bangladesh and Malaysia, while the Countess of Wessex spoke to three women from around the Commonwealth ahead of International Women’s Day.

The Duchess of Cornwall was interviewed by Clare Balding in the Abbey’s Poets’ Corner about the importance of reading for children during a disrupted year of education.

The bulk of the programme was filmed inside the Abbey, and presented by broadcaster Anita Rani, with musical performances throughout, and prayers by the Dean of Westminster.

The fetishisation of black masculinity Posted March 8th 2021

By Jason Okundaye13 October 2020

Once created, where does this market appeal for black men lead? Jason Osamede Okundaye explores the dangers of the fetishisation of black masculinity

Protest signs often provide the best insights into the creative, political imaginations of marginalised people. They can indicate the kind of world we want to build and they can loudly name ideologies we want to reject.

But signs held by white “allies” at the Black Lives Matter protests in June included the following: “I love black dick, so you will hear me speak”, “Stop shooting black men. I want mixed babies” and “BBC [big black cock] matters”.

All went viral on social media. And, incredibly, many white people couldn’t comprehend what seemed obvious: that orienting the value of black lives around their sexual desires is not only degrading but also dangerous.

The slogans on these protest signs fall under what we call the “fetishisation of black masculinity”. This is how white people objectify black men as more masculine and sexually potent than our white counterparts. It claims that there is an inherent “biology” to our blackness that makes us more muscular, more dominant, more athletic. The size of our penises are obsessed over and apparently betray our monstrosity.

In 2017, Fox News invited OJ Simpson’s former prison officer to detail how OJ’s massive junk made him feel inadequate, the suggestion being that there is a relationship between OJ’s big dick and his violent actions.

In 2017, the Chocolate City UK Tour, which offered a night of lap dances, stripping and other erotic entertainment from “hot black male Adonis dancers”, came under fire from black feminists who rightly denounced the performances as grossly cashing in on a speciality market for consuming black men’s bodies, a “niche” market made possible by the fact the country is only three per cent black.

And once created, where does this market appeal for black men lead? In bizarre, desperate acts from white women wanting to access us. In 2017, for instance, it was reported that a white female prison officer in Lancashire was caught with a syringe containing the semen of a black inmate because she “wanted a chocolate baby”.

But the problem of fetishising black masculinity goes beyond being treated as a walking black dildo by overzealous white people. Perhaps if white “allies” knew their history, they would reconsider their signs.

The over-sexualisation of black masculinity has, historically, led to intense surveillance and intervention over our bodies. Going back to the 19th century, the English Victorian eugenicist Francis Galton would make pseudo-scientific claims that there were “savages”, with “anatomical differences” between black and white men, such as penis and pelvis size. So white men were morally superior to black men because they were more sexually controlled.

‘Control’ of black men’s sexuality was used as a solution to white settlers’ fear of ‘black peril’

Black men in Britain were therefore seen as major threats to public health, with castration even being recommended as a method of preventative treatment to protect the safety and sexual dignity of white citizens.

What does this pseudo-scientific view of black men’s bodies and sexual capacities have to do with anti-black police violence today? Because this need to “control” the sexuality of black men through physical violence has been a long-term solution to what is termed “black peril” – the colonial-era fear white settlers had that black and native men would have sexual relations with white women.

In the colonised British New Guinea, “black peril” led to the “White Women’s Protection Ordinance” of 1926, which introduced the death penalty for the rape or attempted rape of a European female by a native person. This criminalised interracial sex between black men and white women. Interracial sex was viewed as a violation independent of the concept of consent. Naturally, this standard didn’t apply to white male colonisers, who were free to rape black and native women as their right.

In late 20th-century Britain, white feminist movements often complied with racist ideas that black men present a more significant sexual threat to them than white men. As Valerie Amos and Pratibha Parmar claim in Challenging Imperial Feminism, “Reclaim The Night” marches – which demanded that women be able to move through public spaces at night – would predominantly march through black inner-city areas. This “played into the hands of the racist media and the fascist organisations” such as the National Front, “some of whom immediately formed vigilante groups patrolling the streets ‘protecting’ innocent white women by beating up black men”.

And the fetishisation of black masculinity has also positioned white men as our sexual rivals, which has ultimately culminated in the kind of anti-black violence we have faced from police officers and so-called vigilantes. Liam Neeson’s confession in 2019 that he sought to kill a black man after his friend was raped drew parallels with the white men who murdered 14-year-old Emmett Till just 65 years ago. Again, presenting black men as aggressive sexual rivals encourages white men to seek sexual revenge.

How much you enjoy sex with black men isn’t a call to action. In fact, white “allies” should interrogate how their sensationalising of our apparent sexual prowess has been historically used to justify state and vigilante violence against us. The history of racism is also a history of sexuality.

This is me with a black friend I met as a work colleague. I was 25. he was 42.He invited me out for a drink. He then drove to Hayling sea front. We looked out at the lapping waves. It was dark, so was my mood because I was struggling to deal with an ended relationship. To my surprise , he held my hand and told me he loved me.

He was married to a black woman and I was shocked. Then he made it clear that my figure, my face and my white skin excited him. In spite of what would now be termed his alleged fetishisising of me, we went on to have a stimulating social and intellectual relationship, including him introducing me to the work of the sexually flawed and white young gay loving exciled U.S black writer James Baldwin.

I am not someone who fetishises blacks, but I am horrified by all the pseudo science psychologists and psychiatrists who come up with endlesss jargon to stop us doing what comes naturally- filling us with guilt.

Their pretentious drivel about the differeence between fetish and preference is frightening – making a dognatic distinction between the pain caused by preferring blondes being choice, not fetish,, as opposed to preferring black is creepy when laid out as science. Who is going to admit the reasons for ther choice if they have a brain, in this PC judegemental climate. R.J Cook.
R.J Cook

We Would Lose All Our Power by R.J Cook March 8th 2021

‘We Would Lose All Our Power’ R.J Cook  March 8th 2021

Fantasy female , the image of ‘Eve.’

Someone said, and I forget who : ‘You should never give power to the person who wants it. They will abuse it.’  Feminists are all about power and have achieved dominance in the EU. In my view, the outcome of a certain type of woman craving power has been appalling and is getting worse.

Hilary Clinton has said and done some interesting things in her time. They include ‘We came , we saw he died.’ This was her response to the Anglo U.S attack on Libya, opening the door for mass migration from North Africa into Europe and the U.K – importing drug crime gangs and massive health demands. This has amounted to an unsustainable situation. The female dominated European leadership will not admit failure because nice women never accept being wrong.

Reality Check, men need the illusion, hence the fetish of lingerie. New research suggests women fetishise black men.
The Lady’s Dressing Room
By Jonathan Swift
Five hours, (and who can do it less in?)

By haughty Celia spent in dressing;

The goddess from her chamber issues,

Arrayed in lace, brocades and tissues.

         Strephon, who found the room was void,

And Betty otherwise employed,

Stole in, and took a strict survey,

Of all the litter as it lay;

Whereof, to make the matter clear,

An inventory follows here.

         And first a dirty smock appeared,

Beneath the armpits well besmeared.

Strephon, the rogue, displayed it wide,

And turned it round on every side.

On such a point few words are best,

And Strephon bids us guess the rest,

But swears how damnably the men lie,

In calling Celia sweet and cleanly.

Now listen while he next produces

The various combs for various uses,

Filled up with dirt so closely fixt,

No brush could force a way betwixt.

A paste of composition rare,

Sweat, dandruff, powder, lead and hair;

A forehead cloth with oil upon’t

To smooth the wrinkles on her front;

Here alum flower to stop the steams,

Exhaled from sour unsavory streams,

There night-gloves made of Tripsy’s hide,

Bequeathed by Tripsy when she died,

With puppy water, beauty’s help

Distilled from Tripsy’s darling whelp;

Here gallypots and vials placed,

Some filled with washes, some with paste,

Some with pomatum, paints and slops,

And ointments good for scabby chops.

Hard by a filthy basin stands,

Fouled with the scouring of her hands;

The basin takes whatever comes

The scrapings of her teeth and gums,

A nasty compound of all hues,

For here she spits, and here she spews.

But oh! it turned poor Strephon’s bowels,

When he beheld and smelled the towels,

Begummed, bemattered, and beslimed

With dirt, and sweat, and earwax grimed.

No object Strephon’s eye escapes,

Here petticoats in frowzy heaps;

Nor be the handkerchiefs forgot

All varnished o’er with snuff and snot.

The stockings why should I expose,

Stained with the marks of stinking toes;

Or greasy coifs and pinners reeking,

Which Celia slept at least a week in?

A pair of tweezers next he found

To pluck her brows in arches round,

Or hairs that sink the forehead low,

Or on her chin like bristles grow.

         The virtues we must not let pass,

Of Celia’s magnifying glass.

When frightened Strephon cast his eye on’t

It showed visage of a giant.

A glass that can to sight disclose,

The smallest worm in Celia’s nose,

And faithfully direct her nail

To squeeze it out from head to tail;

For catch it nicely by the head,

It must come out alive or dead.

         Why Strephon will you tell the rest?

And must you needs describe the chest?

That careless wench! no creature warn her

To move it out from yonder corner;

But leave it standing full in sight

For you to exercise your spite.

In vain the workman showed his wit

With rings and hinges counterfeit

To make it seem in this disguise

A cabinet to vulgar eyes;

For Strephon ventured to look in,

Resolved to go through thick and thin;

He lifts the lid, there needs no more,

He smelled it all the time before.

As from within Pandora’s box,

When Epimetheus op’d the locks,

A sudden universal crew

Of human evils upwards flew;

He still was comforted to find

That Hope at last remained behind;

So Strephon lifting up the lid,

To view what in the chest was hid.

The vapors flew from out the vent,

But Strephon cautious never meant

The bottom of the pan to grope,

And foul his hands in search of Hope.

O never may such vile machine

Be once in Celia’s chamber seen!

O may she better learn to keep

Those “secrets of the hoary deep!”

         As mutton cutlets, prime of meat,

Which though with art you salt and beat

As laws of cookery require,

And toast them at the clearest fire;

If from adown the hopeful chops

The fat upon a cinder drops,

To stinking smoke it turns the flame

Pois’ning the flesh from whence it came,

And up exhales a greasy stench,

For which you curse the careless wench;

So things, which must not be expressed,

When plumped into the reeking chest,

Send up an excremental smell

To taint the parts from whence they fell.

The petticoats and gown perfume,

Which waft a stink round every room.

Thus finishing his grand survey,

Disgusted Strephon stole away

Repeating in his amorous fits,

Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!

         But Vengeance, goddess never sleeping

Soon punished Strephon for his peeping;

His foul imagination links

Each Dame he sees with all her stinks:

And, if unsavory odors fly,

Conceives a lady standing by:

All women his description fits,

And both ideas jump like wits:

But vicious fancy coupled fast,

And still appearing in contrast.

I pity wretched Strephon blind

To all the charms of female kind;

Should I the queen of love refuse,

Because she rose from stinking ooze?

To him that looks behind the scene,

Satira’s but some pocky queen.

When Celia in her glory shows,

If Strephon would but stop his nose

(Who now so impiously blasphemes

Her ointments, daubs, and paints and creams,

Her washes, slops, and every clout,

With which he makes so foul a rout)

He soon would learn to think like me,

And bless his ravished sight to see

Such order from confusion sprung,

Such gaudy tulips raised from dung.

The predictable female response to disagreement. and protest, is to ban the AFD , moralise about humanitarianism and pass more laws to prohibit and control certain language. Covid has been an excellent smokescreen. Hilary Clinton spoke for women when she said : ‘Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights.’ She also called, with massive media publicity, people who disagreed .’The Deplorables.’

The real Nazis are in plain sight. Nice men won’t challenge them because half the male population have daughters and love their mothers. The average woman always had the power to mesmerise the average man.  They have and continue to build on that. When the prospect of women avoiding child bearing by babies being born in special sacs , a woman panellist on the BBC said ‘Oh no, we don’t want that. We would lose all our power.’

It is a moot point as to which group, the Anglo U.S elite or the Islamists started the war between them. The Anglo Americans now have the conflict between appeasing their consequently massively expanded Muslim population or marginalising any expression of white working class protest .

For elite females it is simple to resolve. They make all the laws on language, so just apply the racist label and brainwash the young. To disagree with women, especially by raising one’s voice in frustration is judged abuse, attracting a criminal record and jail sentence – with more serious consequances afoot and more grist to the feminists’s mill. R.J Cook.

An elegant middle class prostitute chooses the danger filled darkness to display her manifesto, knowing full well she will have to ‘bend’ somewhat to please all of her electorate. Some suggest that prostitution has more than a little in common with with the equally dark world ofpolitics and politicians, with the female element hyprocritical and on the look out for rewards.
Image Appledene Photographics.

The following is extracted from Bellingcat.

The Websites Sustaining Britain’s Far-Right Influencers

Frank Andrews and Ambrose Pym

Frank Andrews is a journalist and editor based in London (Twitter: @frankandrews__). Ambrose Pym is a researcher covering the far-right and technology (Twitter: @ambrosepym).

February 24, 2021

Editorial Note: As usual, all the information in this investigation comes from open sources. However, Bellingcat has decided not to link to content or profiles of people promoting hatred or disinformation, and only named those who could already be considered prominent public figures. Given the many possible pitfalls of covering far-right communities, we tried to ground our reporting and writing of this story on the principles laid out in Data & Society’s report “The Oxygenation of Amplification”.

Another white supremacist YouTube video draws to a close. In this 21-minute monologue, a Brit—with 131,000 subscribers and 9.2m total views—advocates for a white ethnostate based on a racist caricature of black inferiority. In others, he stereotypes migrants as rapists and orders his followers to “fight or die”.

YouTube suspended, then reinstated, his main channel in 2019. He has since had 2.5m more views. His accounts aren’t monetised, so he isn’t paid for clicks. Instead, he uses YouTube—and Twitter—to direct people to other platforms where he can profit from his white supremacist conspiracy theories.

In video descriptions, he links to fundraising pages on SubscribeStar, PayPal, and Teespring; keys for cryptocurrency donations; and accounts on Telegram, Minds, BitChute and Gab—social media platforms popular among the far-right.

“Your support makes my work possible!” he writes.

A Bellingcat investigation into the online ecosystem sustaining popular figures on Britain’s far-right has found that many are using YouTube and other mainstream platforms—even from restricted accounts—to funnel viewers to smaller, lower-moderation platforms and fundraising sites, which continue to pay out.

This investigation was based on a database Bellingcat compiled—over three months—of popular personalities on the British far-right. It comes as the British government prepares key legislation to compel tech companies to make the internet a safer space.

Members of the English Defence League demonstrate in Walsall, Birmingham, central England, August 15, 2015. Photo (c): Reuters/Andrew Yates

Like other prominent international far-right influencers, Brits promoting hate and conspiracy theories are capitalising on the global reach of the biggest platforms to gain followers and money elsewhere. This despite a recent wave of deplatforming, and the fact that much of their content violates the rules of the websites involved: from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to fundraisers PayPal, SubscribeStar, Patreon and Ko-fi.

Some sites down this funnel have been co-opted by far-right communities. Other “alt-tech” alternatives actively endorse them. Many of these platforms, modelling themselves as free-speech advocates, were used to agitate for—and stream—the storming of the US Capitol in January.

Online Harms

Tech platforms’ amplification of harmful ideologies with real-world consequences is undeniable, yet they have consistently proven themselves unable—or unwilling—to consistently enforce their own terms of use.

Several deplatformed Donald Trump after the US Capitol break-in, which also led Google, Apple and Amazon to stop serving Parler, an alt-tech Twitter substitute (though it is now back online).

But such acts remain the exception, so governments are turning to stricter regulation.

This year, the UK will bring its Online Harms Bill before parliament, legislation empowering an independent regulator to fine platforms that don’t restrict unsafe online content. Civil society has urged for smaller platforms to be included.

The EU is currently weighing up a Digital Services Act, which would allow regulators to make larger platforms responsible for protecting users, with fines if necessary.

In the US, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it incites crime or threatens violence.

Online Influence

The British far-right has helped shift narratives about Islam and migration rightwards in recent years, contributing to the 2016 murder of MP Jo Cox by a far-right terrorist.

Nevertheless, it is increasingly splintered and organisationally weak.

The deplatforming of far-right groups like Britain First and figures like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known by his pseudonym Tommy Robinson) has severely restricted their influence.

A poor white woman, one of thousands in the U.S, made homeless by the last banking crash. Elite’s welcome migrants to virtue signal and get cheap labour. Fortunes are spent on bombing, propping up corrupt regimes in poor countries and doing little to challenge structiral issues , partuclarly that corruption which they fund and religion which they feed the poor – with lies of a better after life. Posh mouthy feminists don’t care about women like ths one. Their cheer leader, Hilary Clinton called her sort ‘The Deplorables ‘.

Comment Free speech has never been an option in my life time. There was a steady pop cultural uprising challenging sexual mores and Christian morality. It led us to the new repression of feminism and kow towing to Islam because of the effects of mass immigration of people from a very different cultural background. The ruling elite still dictate morality along the lines of what is best for them. The richests 1000 in the U.K have a combined ‘known’ wealth of £750 billion. They want more, along with the allied power over the ignorant masses.

They have created a new ‘topsy turvy land’ where their disinformation is information and alternative views are disinformation. If they , vested interests or their believers don’t like certain websites, they can get warnings posted with the links ,like the following to frighten people away. Meanwhile there are countless hideous porn sites available via google with not a warning in site. The internet was always meant to be the elite’s ‘Disinformation Highway.’

As in the 1920s and 30s, nice media folk and politicians are not interested in what pushes men to breaking point and manifestations which they virtue signal by labelling them ‘far right.’

Porn is O.K because it relieves male tensions while boosting the feminists’ necessay negative male stereotypes. Real abusive language is more subtle and not always spoken nowadays, where white men are the enemies of the state, blacks all victims and all women both saint and victims. So now we have aceptablly abusive terms like ‘privileged white male’ , ‘mansplaining’ and ‘toxic masculinity.’ R.J Cook

Lies that life is black & white, spoke from my skull I dreamed by R.J Cook – Posted March 5th 2021

The AFD have been designated an extremist organisation, opening the door for the security service to use any means to infiltrate, ostracise and destroy them.
This message ist verboten.
Bristol University students are among those on message, out to shame and smear all opposition. These people are closely allied to feminism and BLM, certain that only they have the correct view of the past and plan for the future.
Ironically there would be no elite Bristol University if Bristol had not thrived on its trade.
Female students raising their banners and voices – oh the arrogance of middle class spoiled pampered female youth , many descended from a class that also oppressed fellow whites to create their upper and upper middle class white dynasties – the richest 1000 in the U.K have a combined known wealth of £750 billion.
Accoding to these people, all white males – the sort used as cannon fodder in imperial Wars, including the romanticised hideous nuclear World War Two are privileged just because they are white. BLM activsts and their rich paymasters are lapping it up. There has never been a diverssion like it, and very necessary during the additional insanity of Covid lockdown…
Young blacks ,mainly Muslim men, appear to most of us as economic migrants taking advantage of Obama , Cameron and crooked Sarkozy bombing Libya, killing innocents and old friend Gadaffi to open the door to Europe. All they have to do is get in a little boat, flounder and wait for the navy and other do gooders. As we see here, they are angry and are encouarged to expect payment for their race’s history of colonialism. They want and are getting an urgent response.
Nigeria is rich in resources ,especially oil of which it is the largest producer in Africa. So that poses the question why this African nation’s massively overpopulated land has such appalling poverty and ignorance. After all , it has been run b y blacks since the late 1940s – black dictators who take all the profit for themselves , living as play boys and jet setters with mansions and luxury apartments across the western world, where they are feted by the white great and good. Islam helps them rule and keep the population down. What was done to Libya was done under the Nato flag, the pretence was democracy, the reality was resources and fear of Gadaffi’s planned North African trading area.
War is normal in Africa. The U.N has said that if Europe and the U.S doesn’t give enough help, the mobile young population – mainly young men- will flow to Europe. That is one of several reasons why the AFD must go the same wa as Tommy Robinson’s EDL. Lockdown is crucial because open borders, with all of the additional health risks and demands, is sacred. Anti racist and anti hate laws are vital. LGBTQI have a role to play, speaking up for the oppressed rather than seeing their sexual identity as their prime focus. But again, it is about distraction.
This expert says that if the west doesn’t sort the conflict between Muslims and Christians, then the young population will head for Europe, particularly France, Germany and Britain.
However, the EU and U.K elite want the migrants ,especially since feminism has killed the normal birth rate and the elite care only for money and keeping China out of their sphere of influence.
That is why 2,400 people own 59% of global wealth. They want more. War doesn’t bother these people. It amuses them to see them fight over religious differenes, which is why they equate Islam with race, so anyone who criticises Islam is a racist. Islamists want to impose Shiria law.
Believe the likes of Macron, Merkel , Biden and Boris Johnson and you will believe anyone. The EU is out to assert itself across Africa but will obfuscate the real issues and their intentions.
McMullin was interviewed on BBC’s eitist ‘Hard Talk ‘ programme yesterday. hae was on air to rubbish Trump, a man feared by today’s wealthy comfortable so called ‘left wingers.’
BBC ‘Hard Talk’ , state propaganda paid for by the taxpayer, men like this one get paid massive salaries to brainwash us in the name of truth. The masses can’t see through it because of their dumb ass education – remember I was a teacher and lecturer for 18 years ,as well as school governor and one time head of religious education.
Migration from long exploited Catholic Latin America has gone off the scale since Biden took over The White House. Criminals are flocking in.
Biden’s motley crew are telling Latinos they can come in, but ‘please wait so we can prepare a good system to welcome you.
Young black gangsters on the Congo , they smoke , sell drugs and organise proetction rackets. They want to come to Europe for a better life. Africans and Arabs are strongly linked to the drugs trade in Britain, Germany and France.
Muslims outraged in reponse to new laws following Islamist murder of French journalists who offended against Islam.
This is one woman’s African family. They will all want better lives and the west is the go to place because not much good is going to happen in Africa any time soon.

BLM is now as sacred as feminism , alliance is strong for the time being. March 4th 2021

Black Lives Matter, no argument or discussion of this exclusive view is allowed. As one BLM campaigner told RT today, ‘You are either with us or against us.’ Celebrities who don’t stay on message will be cancelled in the name of tolerance and diversity..

Channel 4 says its ‘views and values’ do not align with those of the former soldier and TV presenter

Ant Middleton

TV presenter Ant Middleton, who has been dropped by Channel 4 as it has ‘become clear that our views and values are not aligned’. Photograph: David M Benett/Dave Benett/Getty ImagesHannah J Davies@hannahjdaviesTue 2 Mar 2021 12.05 GMT

Former soldier and TV presenter Ant Middleton has parted ways with Channel 4, following controversial comments on the coronavirus pandemic and Black Lives Matter.

Middleton, who hosted the military-based TV contest SAS: Who Dares Wins between 2015 and 2020, was dropped by the broadcaster over his “personal conduct” following comments he made online last year. In a statement, Channel 4 said that it had “become clear that our views and values are not aligned”.

Last June, amid increased Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd and tension between activists and far-right groups, Middleton tweeted: “The extreme left against the extreme right. When did two wrongs make a right … BLM and EDL are not welcome on our streets, absolute scum”. He later apologised and removed the post, describing himself as “anti-racist and anti-violence” and said that he had not intended to describe BLM protesters as scum.

Prior to his comments, Middleton had told people to ignore safety measures implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic, vowing not to let the virus “dictate my life” and describing people who followed government guidelines as “sheep”. He later said that he was “sheltered” from the situation in the UK as he had been in New Zealand at the time.

All white people are guity of historic and current racism apparently, so must atone by joining the fights for the BLM , no questions asked. In case you wondered why blacks can’t be racist, just like women can’t be sexist, it is because they are at the bottom of the power structure.
Mustn’t mention class or the black leaders who sold black slaves and prospered from the trade – which is why black dictators steal , thrive and oppress ‘fellow’ blacks in Afroca today. That is why , in spite of having so much land in Africa, ignorance, diesease and poverty flourishes to feed religious distaction and mass migration to the west .
Here the influx feeds the fun of multi culture, repression and the elite’s desire to go on tightening the police state, with ever more censorship , cancel culture and fear in the name of freedom and diversity ( sic ). .
R.J Cook
Ex SAS soldier and TV celeb offended media elite sensibilities by calling BLM, and EDL , scum. Coarse words, though I doubt what he said about the anti Islamic EDL bothered them. How long before his book is banned ?

Islam & Free Speech February 24th 2021

Merseyside police with an interesting message. They want to protect the LGBTQI. What do they do when Muslims object to teaching the positivity of LGBTQI in BAME concentrated schools.

There is a comfortable white liberal myth that the rapidly expanding Islamic communitiesare a testament to a successful multi cultural Britain. To argue is to be offensive to Mulsims and to their liberal friends.

Before rushing to judgment because a fair number of Muslims have been enraged by oil grabbing attacks on their homelands and the convenience of elite stoked terror for the sake of more repressive laws in the name of freedom : non Muslims ( as someone who taught and headed the R.E department in a BAME area school , I know that many Muslims do not know what Islam is about ) should read the follwing. Free speech is most definitely not on the complex and heartfelt Islamic ( or liberal’s for that matter ) agenda :

The Higher Objectives of Islamic Law

The Higher Objectives of Islamic Law

Maqasid Al-Shari’ah

Shari’ah in its general sense means the way, and thus the Islamic Shari’ah is the way revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Allah Almighty says: “Then We put thee on the (right) Way [Shari’ah] of Religion: so follow thou that (Way)”[Q 45:18]. This revealed text has been understood and interpreted through the application of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as well as the Ijtihad of Muslims through centuries. Shari’ah in its more specific sense means legislation, Allah Almighty says: “To each among you have we prescribed a law [Shir’ah] and a method” [5:48]. The Islamic legislation constitutes meanings, laws, rules and principles concerning human actions. It particularly, it aims at identifying the legal rulings for the actions of the legally competent persons.

Muslim jurists—depending on the religious texts as well as the vast literature of Hadith, Exegesis as well as their deep understanding of the Arabic linguistics—provide fatwas, in responses to questions posed to them, and deduce legal rulings for each and every human action. They make their utmost effort to not only understand the texts but also to remain faithful to the Shari’ah’s spirit. For this reason, Muslim jurists and scholars of the science of Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) has developed a system of higher objectives that correspond to the purposes and aims Islam has come to convey upon humankind and preserve the Shari’ah’s spirit. This system of objectives is called “Maqasid.” A more general approach that pinpoints the objectives behind the corpus of rulings (al-ahkam at-tashri`iyyah) found in scriptural sources is what Muslim scholars believed is needed. Their goal was to extract and classify the “higher objectives of law” (maqasid ash-shariah) and thereby to constitute a general philosophy of Islamic law that can be integrated in the production of legal rulings, fatwas and good-manners.

The term “maqsid” (plural: maqasid) refers to a purpose, objective, principle, intent, goal, or end. The Maqasid of the Islamic law are the objectives/purposes/intents/ends/principles behind its rulings. The Shari’ah generally has come to the benefits of the individual and the community, and so, its laws are designed so as to protect these benefits and to facilitate the improvement and perfection of the life conditions of the human beings. Allah Almighty says: “We have not sent you but as a Mercy to the worlds” (21:107), which means that Qur’an singles out Mercy as the most important purpose of the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH): This can also be seen in the Qur’an’s characterization of itself as “a healing to the (spiritual) ailments of the hearts” and “a Guidance and Mercy” for the believers and mankind (10:57). Muslim scholars have, thus, considered Mercy to be the all-pervasive objective of the Shari’ah, which is considered in all intents and purposes to imply the benefit of interest (maslaha).

Accordingly, Muslim scholars agreed on five main objectives to be considered the Shari’ah’s high objectives. These five objectives are: the preservation of the self; the preservation of the reason; the preservation of the religion; the preservation of the property/monetary; and the preservation of lineage. Abû Ishâq ash-Shâtibî(died 790) is a prominent Muslim figure in the categorization of these universal higher objectives of the shariah in his book “Al-Mwafaqat fi Usul al-Ahkam) in the science of Usul al-Fiqh. We will come back to shed more lights on these five objectives in this article.

Maqasid as Understood From the Holy Qur’an

A vital principle that motivated Muslim scholars to develop such system of higher objectives is that they found in Qur’an and in Hadith a tremendous amount of texts and indicators that affirm the fact that Shari’ah is all-purposeful and that God’s deeds and rulings are of wisdom as He is All-Knowing All-Merciful.
Some of the Quranic passages that indicate and affirm that everything is created with purpose are:

“And in no way did We create the heaven and the earth and whatever is between them as playing.”(21:16)
And other passages explicitly refer to the “intent”or “purpose” of the Islamic laws:

“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful.”(2:185)

Imam al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr(224-310/839-923) in his interpretation of this verse sates: “Allah has intended for you O believers the ease as He knows how hard [is the rulings] on you in such cases [i.e. in pilgrimage]

Another verse that further explain how Allah intend ease to mankind by His Shari’ah and its rulings:

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be for the deceitful an advocate.”(4:105)
Thus, the purpose of revealing the Book of Allah is the just judgment among people through it.

And so was the purpose of all the revealed texts to all of the previous Prophets (peace and blessings upon them), Almighty says:

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by whatAllah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (5:44).

The Qur’an thus is expressive, in numerous places and in a variety of contexts, of the purpose, rationale and benefit of its laws, to the extent that the texts stipulating these laws are characteristically goal-oriented. This feature of the Qur’an is common to its laws, teachings and good-manners, or “ethics”. As Ethics are the good human characters of which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has said to have come to perfect them as mentioned in the famous Hadith narrated by Malik that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “I was sent to perfect good character”.

Maqasid as Understood in Hadith
Besides, the above mentioned Quranic verses that affirm the purposefulness of Shari’ah, there are many prophetic reports and companions’ sayings that clearly indicate the existence of maqasid in the Islamic Shari’ah.

Examples of these Hadiths are:
The Hadith narrated by Malik from Amr ibn Yahya al-Mazini from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “There is no harm nor return of harm.” This Hadith is understood as establishing one of the most important general rules in Islamic law that is applied variably in issuing fatwas and deducing legal rulings. Such rule is the basis of one of the Shari’a higher objectives, that is, the preservation of the self.

Another examples of Hadiths that are basis of higher objectives or indicators of the validity of developing a system of higher objectives are:

The Hadith narrated that Sa’d said, the Prophet came to visit me when I was in Makkah. I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall I bequeath all my money?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘One-half?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘One-third?’ He said: ‘(Bequeath) one-third, and one-third is a lot. If you leave your heirs independent of means, that is better than if you leave them poor and holding out their hands to people.” In this Hadith, the Prophet (PBUH) is clearly concerned with the consequences of the advice he gives to his companions and wellness of their families by means of securing their living-expenses even after Sa’id dies. From this Hadith and many others, Muslim scholars were able to establish the preservation of the property/money as one of Shari’ah’s higher objectives as it is the basis of people’s life on earth and their welfare.

These are just few examples of the many other Quranic texts and Hadith reports that indicate the existence of the maqasid in all Shari’ah rulings and teachings.

The Five Higher Objectives of Islam
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.111) has stated that “The Shari’ah’s purposes of the creation are five: to preserve their religion, their souls, their mind, their offsprings and their money. So, everything that includes preserving these five principles is considered a maslaha (interest). And everything that result in failure of these principles is a harm that should be fought and tuned to an interest. The prohibition of failing or restraining these five principles has always been included in all religions and Shari’ah, as Shariha comes for the interest of humankind.”

Therefore Muslims believe that the purpose of the provisions of the legislation is to keep these five essentials. These essentials are indispensable in the interests of the religion and the world, so if they are lost so are the interests of the world. The world would be of corruption and all human destiny in the afterlife to manifest loss. The reason why these five essentials are called objectives is that all of the Shari’ah legal rulings are emerged and based upon them as will be shown in the coming examples.

The first higher objective of Islam: the preservation of religion
Religion is the sum of beliefs, rituals and rules commanded by God Almighty to regulate people’s relationship to their Lord and relationships with each other. God Most High has intended through those provisions to establishing religion and install it in the people’s souls as they follow it. The reservation of religion is legitimated in many Shari’ah texts that call to faith and encourage it and forbid infidelity. Some of these Quranic texts are:

“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (3:85).

“Surely the religion in the Providence of Allah is Islam. And in no way did the ones to whom the Book was brought differ (among themselves) except even after the knowledge came to them, being inequitable among themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the signs of Allah, then surely Allah is swift at the reckoning.” (3: 19).

The second higher objective of Islam: the preservation of the self/soul
Islam has devoted a significant amount of texts and teaching into establishing the preservation of one’s soul as the most fundamental principle of all. It is through life that Mankind is able to maintain or preserve all of Almighty’s provisions and principles. Therefore, Islam has not only protected the soul from being killed or wasted but also established a set of rules to ensure its welfare spiritually and humanly—that is to secure surviving needs such as food, marriage, shelter, drinks and clothing—as well as establishing rules that deny and forbid the all means of self’s distractions.

Allah Most High says:
“And in no way is it for a believer to kill a believer, except it be by mistake; and whoever kills a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and present a blood money (diya) to [the deceased’s] family, unless they [charitably] remit it. As if [the slain] was from a people hostile to you and he was a believer, then [the penance is] to set free a believing slave; and if [the slain] was from a people between whom and you there is a covenant, then a blood money (diya) is to be presented to his family and [also] a believing slave must be set free. And whoever does not find [the means to do so] must fast two months consecutively, a penance from Allah. And Allah has ever been Knowing, Wise. (Q 4:92)”
And says:

“O you who believe! Retaliation (qiṣāṣ) is prescribed on you for the ones murdered; the freeman for the freeman, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever is forgiven somewhat by his [slain] brother (i.e., his family), then adhering to with fairness and payment ( adāʾ) [of blood money] to him in kindness (iḥsān). That is an alleviation and mercy from your Lord, but whoever transgresses [the limits of Allah] after that, he shall receive a painful torment. (Q 2:178)

“And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbade[to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason.” (6:33)

As well as many other examples from Quran and Hadith.

The third higher objective of Islam: the preservation of the mind
Allah Most High has commanded us to preserve our minds and has forbid all the means to disable it through the toxicities, alcohols. That is Allah Almighty has granted and distinguished humans from all other creatures by the grace of the mind, which means the ability to distinguish and making choices, and solving the difficulties faced in life. Allah has made humans, therefore, His successor on earth, and so they need to maintain the their mind, which is the basis of the discourse of the succession on earth. Numerous amount of Islamic teachings exhorts on the realization of the mind, its importance, and the describes it as the altitude grace. Some of the Quranic texts that encourage humans to use their mind to contemplate upon the creation of Allah Almighty and to understand their succession on earth are:

“So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.” (22: 46)

“Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], “Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.” (3:191)

And regarding forbidding what affects the mind or disables it, the intoxicants, Allah Almighty says:
“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.” (5:90)

The fourth higher objective of Islam: the preservation of lineage/offspring
For the sake of persevering human’s offspring, Shari’ah has legitimized marriage and reproduction, and for the sake of protecting it, Shari’ah has forbade adultery and assigned a legal punishment (had) for whoever commit it. Moreover, Shari’ah also assigned a legal punishment for whoever lies about or render someone guilty unjustly of committing it (had al-Qazf). This proves that in maintaining the lineage a necessity for the purity of offspring from any potential distortion or corruption by mixing it so one does not even know who are their parents or who are their own children. In Quran we find the forbiddance of adultery is stated clearly and affirmly, Allah Most High says: “And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way. (17:32). And its punishment is stated in: “The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.” (24:23)

The fifth higher objective of Islam: the preservation of wealth
Shari’ah has commanded for the purpose of preserving human’s wealth the pursuit of earning a living and permitted transactions and exchanges and trade. Shari’ah also, for the sake of preserving wealth as well, forbid and placed punishments upon theft, deception, treason and consuming people’s wealth unjustly, in addition to discouraging the squandering of money.

Money, as well as everything, belongs to God Almighty, who has granted humans the status of successors on earth, and so they are commanded to preserve such grace not to waste it.
Allah Almighty says in Holy Qur’an:

“And do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly or send it [in bribery] to the rulers in order that [they might aid] you [to] consume a portion of the wealth of the people in sin, while you know [it is unlawful].” (2:188)

“And give to the orphans their properties and do not substitute the defective [of your own] for the good [of theirs]. And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed, that is ever a great sin.” (4:2)

“Those who consume interest cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, “Trade is [just] like interest.” But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah . But whoeverreturns to [dealing in interest or usury] – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.” (2:275)

“Allah expunges riba (Interest or other unlawful) and He augments donations, and Allah does not love every most disbelieving most-vicious person.”(2:276)

The Islamic Shari’ah has thus established and reserved these five higher necessities and embodied them in all of its rulings, teachings and good-manners. Besides, Shari’ah has built a system of rulings to construct these objectives so that all that lead to them is permissible and all that apposes them are forbidden. Thus we see that all rituals are legislated for the preservation of religion; all norms (such as food, cloth, shelter, and drink) are legislated for the preservation of the self; all transactions are legislated for the preservation of wealth and lineage; and all punishments are legislated to prevent all harms and ward off that may occur on the way of achieving or fulfilling these higher objectives.

Muslim scholars have classified the entire range of maqasid (principles) based on the human’s interest, into three descending categories of importance: (i) the essentials, (ii) the complementary, (iv) and the desirable or the embellishments. The essentials are these five objectives, that are conceived as absolute requirements to the survival and spiritual well-being of individuals, to the extent that their destruction or collapse would precipitate chaos and the demise of normal order in society. The Shari’ah, on the whole, seeks, primarily, to protect and promote these essential values, and validates all measures necessary for their preservation and advancement. There is also a general agreement that the preservation of these necessities is the ‘objective behind any revealed law, not just the Islamic law.

The second category of maqasid, the complementary or the needs (hajiyat), are less essential for human life. Examples are marriage, trade, and means of transportation. Islam encourages and regulates these needs. However, the lack of any of these needs is not a matter of life and death, especially on an individual basis.

The third category of maqasid, the embellishments or luxuries (tahsiniyat) are ‘beautifying purposes,’such as using perfume, stylish clothing, and beautiful homes. These are things that Islam encourages, but also asserts how they should take a lower priority in one’s life.

Shari’ah is all Mercy and Justice

All of the Shari’ah rulings and teachings are to bestow mercy and justice upon mankind. Although some of the legal rulings and required rituals may seem of hardship, they are doable for ordinary people. Besides, Shari’ah has only intended ease to mankind as mentioned above, and so, such difficulty found in the rulings and ritual practices are meant to bring benefits for the believers. And any ritual that has a hardship in itself is not part of the Islamic Shari’ah. This concept is further assured in the Prophetic report that one of the companions took an oath on himself to fast while standing under the sun, and so the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has ordered him to continue his fast but forbade him from remaining under the sun while fasting, and said: “Ruined, were those who indulged in hair-splitting”. He (the Holy Prophet) repeated this thrice. This points out to the forbiddance of any rituals that are of unbearable hardship to the believers.

And in another Hadith reported by Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that some of the Companions of Allah’s Messenger, asked his (the Prophet’s) wives about the acts that he performed in private. Someone among them (among his Companions) said: I will not marry women; someone among them said: I will not eat meat; and someone among them said: I will not lie down in bed. He (the Holy Prophet) praised Allah and glorified Him, and said: “What has happened to these people that they say so and so, whereas I observe prayer and sleep too; I observe fast and suspend observing them; I marry women also? And he who turns away from my Sunnah, he has no relation with Me”

These are examples of the Prophetic application of Allah Most High’s Words in the Qura’n as He says: “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” (2:185)

Legal Maxims Related to the Higher Objectives of Islam
The First maxim: discomfiture is removed. This maxim is based on the Quranic verse: “He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty” (22:78).

Examples of the application of this maxim are: the forbiddance of Monastic, and the legitimacy of marriage.

The second maxim is: difficulty brings about ease. This maxim is based on the Quranic verse: “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” (2:185)

Examples of the application of this maxim are: the permissibility to break Ramadan’s fasting if sick or in travel. As well as all the Shari’ah legal licenses such as shortening prayers in travel as well.

The third maxim is: necessities allow prohibitions. This maxim’s legitimacy source is found in Quran (5:3): “But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” Examples are: eating dead animals in case of extreme hunger or uttering the disbelieving words in case of facing death threats.

The fourth legal maxim that is related to maqasid is: necessities are to be estimated according to its particular situation and are not to be exaggerated. This maxim’s legitimacy source is found in Quran (16:106) “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith.” For example, eating dead animals in extreme hunger is permissible only to the extent that one is surviving death and not until being full.

The fifth maxim is: preventing harms is to be put forward before brining benefits. This maxim is based on the Quranic verse: “They ask you concerning wine and games of chance. Say, “In (both) is great vice, and profits for mankind; and the vice in them is greater than the profit.””(2:219). Examples following this maxim are: forbiddance of intoxicants, and forbiddance of usury.

The sixth legal maxim concerning the higher objectives of Islam is: harm is to be removed, which is based on the abovementioned Hadith: “,“There is no harm nor return of harm.” Examples following this maxim are: the legitimacy of the Shof’ah sale (of which a partner is worthier of buying his/her partner’s portion of the shared property than any other stranger so that such partner is not harmed by new undesirable partners).
The seventh maxim is: harm is not to be removed by other types of harm. This maxim is based on the Quranic verse: “No woman giving birth shall be harmed on account of her child, nor shall a man to whom a child is born (be harmed) on account of his child” (2:233). Examples of the application of this maxim are: the obligation of looking after the circumstance of the woman who has the custody over the child, bankrupt debtor is to be given a period of time to payback his/her debts. Etc.

The eighth maxim related to the higher objectives of the Shariha is: the individual harm is bearable if it prevents a communal harm. Allah almighty says:“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (5:38). So, cutting the theft’s hand to protect people’s property is bearable. And so are all the punishments that secure the community’s structure and interests.

No Swearing Please We’re British. Posted January 27th 2021

Every swear word in the English language has been ranked in order of offensiveness.

The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, interviewed more than 200 people across the UK on how offensive they find a vast array of rude and offensive words and insults.

People were asked their opinion on 150 words in total. These included general swear words, words linked to race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, body parts and health conditions, religious insults and sexual references, as well as certain hand gestures.

They were asked to rate words as mild, medium, strong or strongest.

And this is what Ofcom found.

For general swear words, the following words were seen as…


  • Arse
  • Bloody
  • Bugger
  • Cow
  • Crap
  • Damn
  • Ginger
  • Git
  • God
  • Goddam
  • Jesus Christ
  • Minger
  • Sod-off


  • Arsehole
  • Balls
  • Bint
  • Bitch
  • Bollocks
  • Bullshit
  • Feck
  • Munter
  • Pissed/pissed off
  • Shit
  • Son of a bitch
  • Tits 


  • Bastard
  • Beaver
  • Beef curtains
  • Bellend
  • Bloodclaat
  • Clunge
  • Cock
  • Dick
  • Dickhead
  • Fanny
  • Flaps
  • Gash
  • Knob
  • Minge
  • Prick
  • Punani
  • Pussy
  • Snatch
  • Twat 


  • Cunt
  • Fuck
  • Motherfucker

Words rated as mild were thought to be okay to use around children, whereas medium words were seen by most to be potentially unacceptable before the 9pm watershed. The vast majority thought the strong words should definitely be saved for after 9pm.

For sexual insults, most words were rated as strong.

The only words rated mild or medium were:





Words rated strong were:














Ofcom, which says this has been its most in-depth research yet, found that TV viewers are becoming less tolerant of racist and discriminatory language.

Most words relating to gender and sexuality, and race and ethnicity, were seen as strong, whereas most relating to disability were seen as mild or medium.

An Ofcom spokesperson told indy100:

The findings are from new research on people’s attitudes towards potentially offensive language and gestures in broadcasting, the biggest study of its kind carried out by Ofcom.

The results are vital in supporting our broadcasting standards work to protect viewers and listeners, especially children.

Comment How this self righteous feminised country has changed. I recall , back in the 1960s, when Kenneth Tynan shocked trendy BBC 2 viewers – BBC 2 TV sets were more expensive and we didn’t have one, but my friend’s parent’s did – by sayin FU-K on air. Now using words is like crossing a minefield because you never know when you might step on a nice person’s feelings – or upset a person of colour etc. R.J Cook

Parliament January 1st 2021

Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers BillOral evidenceJoint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill……………………………………………………1Oral evidence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1Rachel Logan, Law and Human Rights Programme Director, Amnesty International (QQ 197-206)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3David Anderson QC (QQ 61-75)……………………………………………………………………………….19Professor Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, University of Cambridge (QQ 76-93)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34Adrian Kennard, Managing Director, Andrews & Arnold Ltd (QQ 116-126)……………………53Dr Paul Bernal, Lecturer in Information Technology, Intellectual Property and Media Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia (QQ 76-93)…………………………………………………..66Renate Samson, Chief Executive, Big Brother Watch (QQ 127-136)……………………………..85William E Binney, retired Technical Director of the United States National Security Agency (QQ 234-249)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….102Lord Blunkett (QQ 94-100)…………………………………………………………………………………….119Mark Hughes, President, BT Security (QQ 101-115)………………………………………………….131Professor Bill Buchanan, Head, Centre for Distributed Computing, Networks and Security, Edinburgh Napier University (QQ 207-215)……………………………………………………………..143Sir Stanley Burnton, Interception of Communications Commissioner (QQ 47-60)………..158Peter Carter QC (QQ 186-196)……………………………………………………………………………….171Jo Cavan, Head of the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (QQ 47-60)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..188Martin Chamberlain QC (QQ 186-196)……………………………………………………………………201Professor Michael Clarke (QQ 61-75)………………………………………………………………………218Jesper Lund, Chairman, the Danish IT Political Association (QQ 234-249)……………………233Rt Hon David Davis MP (QQ 174-185)……………………………………………………………………..250Foreign & Commonwealth Office (QQ 1-25)…………………………………………………………….266Erka Koivunen, Cyber Security Adviser, F-Secure Corporation (QQ 207-215)……………….287Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner (QQ 224-233)………………………………..302HMRC (QQ 26-38)…………………………………………………………………………………………………312Robin Simcox, Henry Jackson Society (QQ 216-223)…………………………………………………327Home Office (QQ 1-25)………………………………………………………………………………………….335James Blessing, Chair, Internet Service Providers Association (IPSA) (QQ 116-126)………356Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (QQ 174-185)……………………………………………………….369Lord Judge, Chief Surveillance Commissioner (QQ 47-60)………………………………………….385Eric King, Visiting Lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London (QQ 207-215)…………..398Colin Passmore, Senior Partner at Simmons and Simmons, on behalf of the Law Society (QQ 137-144)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….413Rt Hon Theresa May, Home Secretary (QQ 259-282)………………………………………………..423Tim Musson, Law Society of Scotland (QQ 137-144)…………………………………………………452Shami Chakrabarti, Director, Liberty (QQ 127-136)…………………………………………………..462Detective Superintendent Paul Hudson, Head of the Metropolitan Police Service Technical Unit (QQ 162-173)………………………………………………………………………………………………..479National Crime Agency (QQ 26-38)…………………………………………………………………………491Temporary Detective Superintendent Matt Long, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command at the National Crime Agency (QQ 162-173)…………………………………………….506National Police Chiefs’ Council (QQ 26-38)………………………………………………………………518Michael Atkinson, Secretary to the National Police Council’s Data Communications Group (QQ 162-173)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….533Andy Smith, National Union of Journalists (QQ 137-144)………………………………………….545Alan Wardle, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, NSPCC (QQ 197-206)…………………………555Adrian Gorham, O2 Telefonica (QQ 145-161)…………………………………………………………..571Professor Sir David Omand GCB, Visiting Professor, Department of War Studies, King’s College London (QQ 76-93)……………………………………………………………………………………588Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group (QQ 127-136)………………………………607Mr Owen Paterson MP (QQ 94-100)……………………………………………………………………….624Professor Christopher Forsyth, Policy Exchange (QQ 216-223)…………………………………..636Caroline Wilson Palow, Legal Officer, Privacy International (QQ 127-136)…………………..644Clare Ringshaw-Dowle, Chief Surveillance Inspector (QQ 47-60)………………………………..661Sir Bruce Robertson, New Zealand Commissioner of Security Warrants (QQ 250-258)…674Professor Mark Ryan, Professor of Computer Security, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham (QQ 76-93)……………………………………………………………………..681Matthew Ryder QC (QQ 186-196)…………………………………………………………………………..700Adam Kinsley, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, Sky (QQ 101-115)………………………..717Graham Smith, Partner at Bird & Bird LLP (QQ 186-196)…………………………………………..729Bob Satchwell, Society of Editors (QQ 137-144)……………………………………………………….746Rachel Griffin, Director, Suzy Lamplugh Trust (QQ 197-206)……………………………………..756Hugh Woolford, Director of Operations, Virgin Media (QQ 101-115)………………………….772Mark Hughes, Vodafone (QQ 145-161)……………………………………………………………………784Sir Mark Waller, Intelligence Services Commissioner (QQ 39-46)……………………………….801Simon Miller, 3 (QQ 145-161)………………………………………………………………………………..812Rachel Logan, Law and Human Rights Programme Director, Amnesty International (QQ 197-206)Evidence heard in publicQuestions 197-206OralEvidenceTaken before th

Rachel Logan, Law and Human Rights Programme Director, Amnesty International (QQ 197-206)Evidence heard in publicQuestions 197-206OralEvidenceTaken before the Joint Committeeon Monday 21 December 2015Members present:Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Chairman), Suella Fernandes MP, David Hanson MP, Shabana Mahmood MP, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Matt Warman MP, Baroness Browning, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Hart of Chilton, and Lord Strasburger.Witness:Rachel Logan, Law and Human Rights Programme Director, Amnesty International,gave evidence. Q197 The Chairman: A very warm welcome to all three of you. Thank you so much for coming along so close to Christmas. We are very grateful. As you probably know, the way the Committee operates is that we will ask you a number questions, which we hope will give you the opportunity to make whatever points you want. I will open by asking you a very general question and in each of your replies please feel free to make anything you like by way of an opening statement. What do you think of the draft Bill? Do you think it strikes the right balance between safeguarding our civil liberties and crime prevention? Perhaps we can start with you, Ms Griffin.Rachel Griffin: I should start by saying that I am from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. We run the National Stalking Helpline. A large proportion of the people who we help each year are affected by digitally-assisted stalking of some kind or another. The first thing to say about the draft Bill is that it is definitely necessary, from our point of view, for the police to have access to communications data to investigate many cases of stalking and cyberstalking. It is certainly necessary for the police to be able to access communications data to investigate and detect crimes. However, the point we want to make is that legislation should be only one part of a strategic plan to address digital offending. On a day-to-day basis we are finding that the police often do not make very good use of the legislation that they already have available to them. Our question would be whether a change in legislation would have an impact on the experience of victims on a day-to-day basis. On whether the Bill strikes the right balance between safeguarding and civil liberties, I defer to other organisations to answer that question. Our point of view is very much on the experience of victims of stalking.The Chairman:That is what we would expect it to be.Rachel Logan: Amnesty very much welcomes the opportunity to be here. We very much welcome having a draft Bill of some kind, because we are one of those organisations that has been saying for a long time that the existing statutory framework in thisarea is not up to scratch. Unfortunately, we are very disappointed by what we see in the Bill that has been put forward. To touch on a very small number of areas, given the time available, first, we see in the Bill not one, not two, but five sections dealing with bulk, indiscriminate collection of or interference with individual privacy. From our perspective, that simply does not strike the balance or draw the line in the right place. We even see some targeted powers shading into what we would see as bulk powers in the case of thematic warrants.I move on to intelligence sharing, which we have been litigating on for more than 18 months in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. It has been the subject of at least two rulings. We were very surprised to see in what bare terms it is dealt with in the Bill, given how big the subject area is.

Comment This is an extract. Men need to be very careful in their relationships with women, which is a primary focus of this bill. It has wider ramifications in terms of controlling the internet for the purposes of controlling information and consensus building. R.J Cook

Why it’s time for a British First Amendment to protect free speech

If we want to retain our right to free speech, we should copy the US approach—though it would require a UK constitution Posted December 20th 2020

by Hugh Tomlinson / February 20, 2018 / Leave a comment

Activists march in support of the New York Times. But is the British press also under threat? Photo: PA

Four years ago, under the watchful glare of technicians from GCHQ, Guardian journalists destroyed computers used to store the top-secret documents leaked to them by Edward Snowden. The then-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger had been required to set his staff to work on the hardware with angle-grinders and drills following government threats of an injunction. He explained his actions by reference to there being no right to free speech in English law. The bizarre episode led Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales to call for the UK to adopt a US-style “First Amendment,” the free-speech clause in the American constitution, to protect whistleblowers.

I have a special, personal interest in such suggestions since, during the Leveson Inquiry into the culture and practices of the press, I was involved in drafting a sort of British equivalent to the First Amendment (see below).

Had it ever been implemented, it would have required public authorities to uphold freedom of the press. But the incident in the Guardian basement reminded everybody of the obvious truth: governments find the temptations of censorship difficult to resist. This raises the question of how, in legal terms, speech can be properly protected.

The argument is never—not even in the United States—absolutely unconditional. Many kinds of speech are banned or criminalised under our law, such as threats to kill, or blackmail demands. Others are less obvious and are often brought in to respond to some new, passing, moral panic. The dangers of this are obvious, which is one reason why there is interest in some kind of over-arching protection of free expression.

The call for a British First Amendment has attracted wide support. In his polemic You Can’t Read This Book, the journalist Nick Cohen gave some “Advice for Free Speaking Citizens”: “If you have the chance to enact one law… make it the First Amendment,” which he calls the “best guarantor of freedom yet written.”

There is no doubt that the US approach is a tempting one. The relevant part of the 1791 First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Advocates of a British equivalent would like to see an Act of Parliament to enshrine the same approach in our law.

Unfortunately, this is not straightforward. The first problem is that the apparently unqualified words of the First Amendment cannot be taken literally. Everyone agrees that Congress can abridge freedom of speech and of the press in some circumstances. It can, for example, forbid witnesses to make false statements in court.

Again, in the well-known words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” The US courts have developed a complex and difficult set of principles for deciding when and how speech can be restricted or prohibited.


Read Afua Hirsch on why free
speech isn’t about freedom, but power


Nonetheless, free speech remains a “primary value” under the US Constitution—it is often a “trump card.” In the 1960s, the First Amendment was used to restrict the application of the law of defamation. In practice, public figures can only make defamation claims if they can show that person publishing the statement knew it was false. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome, and it has left some sensitive souls—foremost among them President Donald Trump—demanding that US libel law be made easier to use. Whether or not this is a good idea, it would now require a constitutional amendment.

Free speech does not, historically, have the same primacy under English law. Free speech is important but not decisive. The primacy of free speech is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights—a code written by British lawyers.

This requires that the various and frequently competing rights be balanced against one another. This approach is enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act. In some courts, there has been a tendency to privilege free speech over other rights, which led one judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to complain that, under US influence, some have made a “fetish of freedom of the press.” He called for the pendulum to swing back.

This call has been heeded. It is now well established that the Convention requires a “balancing” of rights in every case: on one side, free speech; on the other, reputation and privacy. At the outset, all these rights are taken to be of equal value. Everything depends on the particular facts—the type of speech involved, the nature of the damage to reputation or the kind of privacy. Political speech has a high value and is likely to prevail. Entertainment journalism has less value and so is more likely to lose out to privacy.

The European Convention forms part of English law. A US-style First Amendment, with the general presumption that free speech trumps other rights, is not compatible with human rights principles, and so would require us to leave the Convention. It would require the English law to set out in a very new direction.

But there is another, distinctly British, problem with a British First Amendment. The power of the US First Amendment derives from the fact that it is part of the US Constitution. Laws that are incompatible with the US Constitution can be struck down by the Courts. To take just one remarkable example, in 2005 Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act, criminalising false statements about military honours. But, seven years later, the Supreme Court struck this down as being inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Court was clear: false speech is protected.

None of this is possible in Britain. The constitutional protection of free speech requires a constitution. The so-called “unwritten constitution” of the UK is, in reality, no such thing. A proper “written” constitution sets limits on the powers of the institutions of government, “Congress shall make no law…” The loose and flexible set of rules that is described as Britain’s unwritten constitution sets no such limits. It can be changed—sometimes by new legislation, but often by mere government decision, or a change in practice.

The constitutional protection
of free speech requires a constitution. 

It is, of course, possible for a parliament to try and give special status to laws it passes. The Human Rights Act is a good example. But a subsequent parliament can always take a different view: throughout much of its 20-year life, there have been regular calls from the political right to repeal the Act, and these have sometimes been taken up as Conservative Party policy. The survival of the Act thus far has been entirely contingent: the combination of party policy and parliamentary arithmetic has never been quite right to repeal it, although Theresa May continues to flirt with the idea.

A First Amendment in the UK could, likewise, be encroached on or overruled by a subsequent Act of Parliament. This overruling does not even have to be explicit. A law banning offensive tweeting would take precedence over an earlier law prioritising free speech.

So is there any way to entrench free speech and enact a British First Amendment? There is, but it would require a UK Constitution. This would set out the powers of the institutions of the State and make clear their limits. Laws that were inconsistent with this Constitution would, as in the US, be struck down. This kind of system—which is in place almost everywhere else in the world—is not completely foreign to our own legal system. The Scotland Act 1998 operates as the constitution of that country. The powers of the Scottish Parliament and government are limited by this Act. Scottish legislation that is incompatible with it can be struck down by the courts.

A UK Constitution could, and should, include a “Chapter” protecting fundamental rights, which would include the right to freedom of speech. But such a right should, as in the human rights convention, remain a qualified one. It would have to be balanced against other rights—such as privacy and reputation.

Having worked on both sides of the issue, arguing for the protection of a person’s right to air controversial opinions, but having also represented the victims of phone hacking, a criminal invasion of private life aimed at no higher purpose than selling newspapers, I am convinced that such balancing is a requirement of justice, and provides continuity with English legal traditions.

But even with all the constraints outlined above, a free-speech provision would be of benefit in the fight to protect the right to expression. Most importantly, it would mean that when government or parliament brought in a measure restricting what can be said, that restriction would have to be properly justified. It would have to be for a proper purpose and necessary and proportionate to that purpose.

A balanced First Amendment in a UK Constitution would not provide universal protection for free speech. This is not possible. There is no easy way out of the difficult job of balancing rights on a case by case basis. The real value of such a provision would be to require government, parliament and the Courts to defend and justify the imposition of any restrictions on free speech. Fundamental rights should not be casually disregarded.

The British First Amendment

One of the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry into the British press was that an explicit duty should be placed on the government to protect the freedom of the press.

Hugh Tomlinson QC was involved in drafting such a measure, which some would call “a British First Amendment.” The first three clauses of this are reproduced below.

But the government didn’t like the idea and, because it was part of a package which included independent regulation, neither did the press. As a result, the proposal was never implemented.

1. Protection of media freedom

(1) Public authorities must aim to:

(a) protect the freedom of the media, and (b) support the independence of the media.

(2) In particular, in exercising their functions public authorities must:

(a) have regard to the importance of the freedom and independence of the media, and

(b) recognise the right of the media to receive and impart information without interference by public authorities.

(3) It is unlawful for a public authority to interfere or attempt to interfere with the media unless the interference or attempt is undertaken:

  1. (a)  for a legitimate purpose which the public authority considers necessary in a democratic society, and
  2. (b)  having full regard to the importance of the freedom and independence of the media.

The glory of the Hamlyn law lectures Conor Gearty / October 27, 2020 How a little-known benefactor established an academic series of immeasurable value

Supreme Court judges including Lord Reed, the current president, and Lady Hale the previous incumbent, leave the court together Photo: WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto/PA Images Attend Annual Judges Service At Westminster Abbey In London

Judges aren’t our enemies—they’re the best defence we haveJake Richards / June 9, 2020 Recent attacks on the judiciary have been unfair Share with friends


Prospect’s free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world— straight to your inbox. PLUS receive a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month’s Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

When Britain voted to leave the EU, the country seemed on course for a soft Brexit. So how, ask Jill Rutter and Anand Menon, did we come to the brink of a hard departure? Sam Tanenhaus looks at the final days of Trump, while Ngaire Woods examines Biden’s in-tray. Plus: Philip Collins on who’s to blame for Boris Johnson, and the latest on the search for a vaccineSubscribe

Most Popular

You have misunderstood the threat to liberal democracy

Eyes on the prize: my year as a Booker judge

Who killed soft Brexit?

Shock therapy: How the pandemic is resetting Britain’s whole free market model

The worst thing about Robert Downey Jr’s incomprehensibly Welsh Dolittle? It can’t even commit to being bad

About this author

Hugh Tomlinson Hugh Tomlinson QC is a barrister at Matrix ChambersMore by this author

Next Prospect events

See more events

Sponsored features


The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities. Follow us


Editor: Tom Clark
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Senior Editor: Alex Dean
Head of Digital: Chris Tilbury
Production Editor: David McAllister
Creative Director: Mike Turner
Assistant Editor: Rebecca Liu
Editorial Assistant: Emily Lawford
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Editorial enquiries: 020 7255 1344
Subscription enquiries: 0330 333 0173


Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulation Executive: Susan Acan
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Head of Finance and Resources: David de Lange

© Prospect Publishing Limited

Subject: Re. Roberta Jane Cook robertajane.cook <>To: Amanda Hawke;;;20/12/20 15:383

Dear Ms Hawke,

Trying to get information from yourselves is like seeking the proverbial blood from a stone. However, at risk of providing you, other NHS bodies and the police with more excuses to label me paranoid, I have no choice but press for more information. For the purposes of Satute of Limitations and my forthcoming indictment, I have to keep a record of your on going obfuscation.

As your Dr Laura Barone Scarone ( I am writing her name from memory and her name may be misspelt here), early on ,concluded, my gender is not the most important aspect of my life and I pity those who feel otherwise on this issue. Having visited my father in a terminal ward for 9 months,when I was aged between 9-11, hearing the death rattle of many before it was my father’s turn, and consequently growing up in a poor one parent working class family, I know there are more important issues than gender and what working class women like my mother, and pregnant unmarried schoolgirl sister, endured was no fashion parade.

Had your pre loaded so called psychiatrist Ramsay really wanted to profile me, he would have asked about this and my working life rather than taking a briefing from yourselves – as he admitted he had to me – Norden House and corrupt police. He would also have asked to see my substantial published work and taken interrest in my career and life changing moments before his ridiculous bi polar PPD diagnosis.

Above all, I am seeking evidence that Ramsay used to sustain his paranoid personality disorder ( PPD ) diagnosis which GIC clearly had concluded before my meeting with Sahota in February 2018 when she insisted on anti psychotics and me seeing Ramsay. Her body language and speech pattern on that day , was shifty and disconcerting.

If that was due to sudden source information, it is crucial you disclose – particularly if you seriously believe I am paranoid because then I am a risk to myself and others. Goodness knows how an alleged violent alcoholic anti social person like me handled truck driving, warehouse and customer care for the last 13 years – it is all in Ramsay’s report and a stark contrast to conclusions from a forensic psychiatrist Mr Maganty, a court witness who backed me in 2013..

If the GIC still refuses to explain , then it speaks for itself. If you knew at the outset, then I need to know why I wasn’t told and why two years following life changing treatment commenced without confronting this issue. Certainly if there was any evidence on my medical records at the outset, in 2016, then Ramsay, Norden House and yourselves were negligent. I tend to the conclusion that, the best one could say about the GIC is that you think all of your patients have mental health issues. My further research on this subject certainly pushes my conclusion in that direction. The GIC also seems to have some expecfation of transvestitism which they blur with transgender. Interesting.

Now, here are some simple questions for you, with possible repetition but new emphasis. I need to establish dates for, as I said, Statute of limitations and court ( that countdown cannot start until you answer, and I believe you et al are the reason my recent legal approach was dropped ) and for forthcoming Crown Court Trial.

1) What is my GIC status now. If I have been deleted, why wasn’t I told , when did it happen and why ?

2) If I have been deleted from you patient list , why have I not been informed , according to my GP’s written instructions to you ?

3) Explain how Ramsay supported his conclusions to you, using the files that he said would upset me.

4 ) Give me substantive examples of my delusions. This would include – if you have been guided by the police, as follows. :

a ) Evidence of dates, procedures, allegations, witness statements, response and investigations of alleged domestic violence, abuse, etc

b) Supply any evidence of me allegedly stalking my ex in laws, over weekend of October 4th/5th 2008 and any other dates, threatening violence to them, including threats of kidnapping and harming their children.

c) Tell me whether you were told that after West Mercia Police blocked my enhanced CRB for 71 days on the basis of malicious records, to stay with a female friend in her flat adjacent to the 9th year girls’ dorm at exclusive Woldingham School, that it was ultimately approved.

d) Supply any evidence used for supporting a PNC Criminal Marker and soft intelligence records created by my ex brother in law’s West Mercia Police force,-where he rose to second in command – placed on October 9th 2008. You must have been told because I saw a letter from the police advising my GP to contact you. This should include dates and the prior legal process of arrest, interview, charges, precise allegations etc. I assume you were told of officers numbers, location, interviews , disobeying warnings etc before the marker was placed. You are iinvolved in a very serious damaging criminal case raising questions about your methods, sources and integrity. If you can do this, you can prove that I am deluded.

e) Confirm that yourselves and Ramsay were told that the police lost two previous court cases concerning my criminal allegations – relevant because clearly you have sources stating that I am deluded on these matters, so fundamental to the PPD you have acted on. It follows that my allegations were and still are true. If I am deluded about that court case and all else, tell me where I got the 2016 court transcript from and the memories of a year’s hell, followed by 7 court hearings with the judge ranting about domestic violence and threatening me with a long jail term if I did not plead guilty. That is some delusion, and if you can prove it, then I will tap in to an amazing source of talent for fiction.

f) Relase information supplied by the police relevant to homsosexual prostitition allegations which obviously relate to Ramsay conclusion that I am more likely to die by misadventure than suicide. You were warned at the outset that I am a writer and member of the NUJ with specific interests, inluding transgender – hence my book on the subject. So don’t try to use that trick as an escape. You have nailed your colours to Ramsay,’s and the corrupt police’s mast. By the way, I don’t fancy men and am not a transvestite. So this point is most serious because your Ramsay has linked it to my possible cause of death among other things, by misadventure. Obviously this is part of Ramsay’s ‘ If Roberta saw all of the files it would upset her.’ Being patronised like that is, I must say, a true girlie experience – more powerful than wearing a dress. By the way, I remind you, the police lost the ludicrous whorehouse ruse, obviously triggered by a malicious ex partner who told me that the police had been in regular contact for a year before I ended our relationship. They also lost an attempt to jail me on the basis of me swearing at a CID officer in this case, which they tried to back with bad character based on 13 years of their lies and corruption.

As I said, I have to ask these questions for the record. The British police are instutionally corrupt and dangerous. Finally, bear in mind that without evidence or counter evidence, no person could reasonably conclude that I am deluded. However, if yourselves and Ramsay seriously believe this, then lets have answers to my questions to support your malicious and very nasty diagnosis along with the police and their malicious 13 year plus cover up. When this goes to court, in the absence of your fullsome response, I will apply for a court order for disclosure.

I would prefer to commit suicide -as I nearly did last time after 18 hours in a dirty cold police cell, on August 24th 2020,- than put up with this anymore. No doubt you will have received the police version of this event because, as a long time public servant, I was taught the mantra ‘cover yourself’.. May I remind you that I was then transferred to a mental health facility where, a panel of two doctors and a senior mental health practitioner accepted my explanation concluding that I was well enough to go free.

Since Ramsay’s diagnosis has not been revoked, the NHS still have duty of care and responsibility for consequences. I am aware that I have been put on an adult care list and will be citing Ramsay’s diagnosis for backdated care allowance, nominating my eldest son as my carer. No person could have endured all of this, including the loss of my beloved mother, without significant harm to physical and mental health – compounded by Covid lockdown. All replies must be in writing. I do not have equipment for video conference as previously suggested. It is not approprate. This, as I keep saying is very serious. I need a paper trail.

One doesn’t have to be insane to commit suicide. Such a goal is best achieved by the sane and preferable to my life of injustice, extreme insecurity, misery and social ostracism which threatens to put myself and son on the street – a prospect almost inevitable now Covid and lockdown has rendered me unemployed. The label paranoid is almost funny given the facts, raising the question that Ramsay is either an idiot or guilty of malpractice as his duty of care was and still is to me – not the police or you. This matter is no longer about my GRS. It is about your misconduct through involvement with a very corrupt police force who should have had no involvement in my health care, but as with everything else they have done, they are conforming to type and profile.

Yours Sincerely R.J Cook