Terrorist Offsetting and the Sexist Nature of Anarcho-Tyranny
‘When people like Milo, Rickey Vaughn, and Richard Spencer were thrown off Twitter, it happened in the wake of Andrew Anglin being banned from the platform, after organizing a Twitter “lynch mob,” dealing in death threats and pornographic hate imagery against a Jewish member of Britain’s parliament.’
When it comes to banning people and groups, and shutting down points of view, precedents are important, and so is moral justification. Powerful as the anarcho-tyrannic state governments and corporate social media companies of the West are, they realize that to overuse their power is to lose their power, and so, when they clamp down, they like to grease the wheels with a little moral unguent and emotional manipulation.
When people like Milo, Ricky Vaughn, and Richard Spencer were thrown off Twitter, it happened in the wake of Andrew Anglin being banned from the platform, after organizing a Twitter “lynch mob” dealing in death threats and pornographic hate imagery against a Jewish member of Britain’s parliament.
It could be said that the first ban of a prominent troll who self-identified as “Alt-Right” made it easier to ban other Alt-Right figures. Without that it would have been a lot harder to kick someone off who was merely guilty of making a few harmless jokes about the female version of the Ghostbusters movie.
It is interesting to note here the role played by the female. Both Anglin and Milo’s bans were noticeably in apparent defence of women – how chivalrous!
Anglin’s ban was essentially down to his attacks on the MP Luciana Berger, while Milo’s ban was an act of “gallant defence” on behalf of Leslie Jones, a rather unlikely piece of casting for the role of “damsel in distress”! The sexism in all this is rather blatant.
What makes this all very odd is that we live in “the Current Year” where women are supposed to be fully equal to men, even to the point where most Western militaries are experimenting with front-line female troops. The narrative is that women are just as physically tough as men, and indeed we often hear that they are mentally tougher. If that’s the case, then why are we bending over backwards to protect them by placing our free speech at peril?
Rather than embodying sexual equality, the presence of women in Western politics seems to be mainly a device for Western anarcho-tyrannies and their allied social media companies to clamp down on our freedoms. This definitely seems to be the case in the UK.
When David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, the problems of Britain’s multicultural society clearly presented a challenge that was inconsistent with the maintenance of free expression. Muslim radicals and British nationalists would have to be suppressed to some degree in order to protect the multicultural dream. In short, the heavy hand of the state would have to be applied.
What better way to make that heavy hand less onerous than by making it a female one? As the main minister responsible for censorship and law & order is the Home Secretary, Cameron was careful to give this role to a woman, namely Theresa May, who, since Cameron’s Brexit debacle, has now become Prime Minister and appointed a female replacement to her former position.
It was May, interestingly, who was behind a number of bans of Alt-Right figures from the UK, including Richard Spencer and Matthew Heimbach.
As Britain’s unstable multiculturalism has pushed it further towards greater anarcho-tyranny, it has become increasingly necessary to tap into British society’s latent chivalry in order to justify increasingly Draconian measures, both to suppress the actions of the racial invaders and the defensive reactions of the indigenous population.
Having a woman at the Home Office helm and citing the threat to female politicians is the perfect shortcut to this. The online attacks on Luciana Berger and the actual slaying of the female Labour MP Jo Cox just days before the Brexit vote, allowed heavy-handed censorship and banning to be delivered with relative ease. It is no coincidence then that the Home Office, the government department responsible for these measures, has been in female hands since 2007 (except for one year), and that the present occupant is also a woman – the iron fist must needs wear a velvet glove!
The recent banning of National Action (NA) can be seen in this context. Although I think the group’s “edgytarian” approach was largely misguided, banning it as a supposed “terrorist” group is ludicrous, especially at a time when the leader of the Labour Party is in the process of appointing the head of Sinn Fein’s London Office to work in his office. Sinn Fein, if anyone needs reminding, was the political wing of the IRA, a terrorist organization responsible for hundreds of deaths.
NA by contrast is nothing more than a bunch of political cosplayers, who probably steer some of the troubled young people attracted to their LARPy schtick, away from violence. Their only crime seems to have been adopting the words uttered by Jo Cox’s killer as a slogan: “Death to Traitors, freedom for Britain.” Interestingly, this slogan reflects the British Government’s official position: they claim to stand for “freedom” (especially when they join US interventions in the Third World), while treason is one of the few crimes that you can still technically be hung for in the UK.
But why the need to ban this relatively harmless group? There are a number of possible reasons. The first one is that post-Brexit Britain is more polarized than normal, and political passions are running high. It is not impossible that a young, impressionable British patriot might be prompted to an act of reckless violence. As I said earlier, precedents are important, and the killing of Jo Cox set an interesting one. But why should the banning of NA stop some troubled youngster from following this path? It may even facilitate it.
The more tangible reasons for the ban is to prevent actions that might provoke Muslims in Britain. Paul Golding, who recently stepped down from the leadership of Britain First, a pro-Christian group known for confronting radical Islam, was also recently jailed. The message is clear: don’t upset the Muzzies!
This is where the real threat of terrorism comes from.
And then there is the additional reason that bans on genuinely dangerous Muslim groups have to be “offset” like our carbon footprint by the banning of harmless advocates of White nationalism. Banning peaceful people, like Spencer and Heimbach, from the UK, and declaring NA a scary “terrorist” group, is useful cover to avoid inane charges of “racism” every time a Muslim group is banned: “See, we’re also banning Whites. We’re an equal opportunities anarcho-tyrant.”
The beautiful bow tied on this lovely package are female politicians. Remember, whenever you see female politicians, reach for your freedoms, because you can be pretty certain someone else is about to.