On Garron Helm and the Right to Utter Abuse

On Garron Helm and the Right to Utter Abuse
Sean Gabb

This must be less of an article than a statement on a right that seems to have vanished in modern England.

I begin by quoting an exchange of correspondence that I had on the 22nd October 2014:

Dear Sean,

I have become a regular reader of The Libertarian Alliance Blog over the last few weeks. I am contacting you to highlight the case of Garron Helm, who pleaded guilty to sending an offensive, indecent or abusive message (I think this must be under the Communications Act 2003) to Labour MP, Luciana Berger, and has been imprisoned for 4 weeks.

Obviously our political views are diametrically opposed, but I know that the Libertarian Alliance has a long and honourable history of protesting injustice and I do believe Garron’s treatment has been disproportionate and unjust.

I was wondering if you might be able to pen a few words about the case on your Blog, to highlight both the specifics and the general implications. I am sure you will be at pains to distance yourself from Garron’s political views, which is fine, but I would hope at least that the Libertarian Alliance might take an interest in the case and articulate the traditional position of free speech and free thought. These prosecutions represent a general threat to political liberty.

I hope to hear from you soon.

With Best Wishes,

[Name withheld]

Dear [],

I have my in-laws here at the moment, and am not familiar with the case. Can you tell me more about it? Just because we don’t agree with someone’s opinions is no reason to look the other way when he is punished for expressing them. I will try to make some comment.


Dear Sean,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The facts of the case are that Garron Helm, from Litherland, Liverpool, is a member of National Action, a British-based National Socialist youth group. On 7 August this year, Garron tweeted a photograph in which the yellow star of David was superimposed on an image of Luciana Berger, a Labour MP, with the hashtag ‘HitlerWasRight’. The tweet also contained the message: “Communist Jewess. Jews can always be counted on to show their true colours eventually.”

For this, Garron was arrested, had his home searched by police, and his electronic equipment confiscated, and he has been sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment. All this happened despite the fact that he did not at any point make threats against Luciana Berger. He insulted her in a way that the court found to be racially-aggravated. Garron is a first-time offender, with no previous criminal record, had pled guilty, and had written an apology to the victim.

In the interests of neutrality, here’s a link to the liberal Guardian take on the issue. It’s a short article.

Garron has had a troubled background. This Mail Online article gives some information about that. Not that this is of direct relevance: Garron made his own decisions.

Ms. Berger has also complained about anti-Semitic tweets in the past. Ms. Berger is quite a strident advocate for the various pillars of political correctness: ‘anti-racism’, anti-sexism’ and so on. She has a close association with Hope Not Hate, I believe.

I do appreciate that The Libertarian Alliance will wish to distance itself from Garron’s political views, and I would expect you to make that plain in any comment you make, however I am raising the issue with yourselves due to the need to highlight state incursions on political liberty. Many people will find these prosecutions justifiable, or at least defensible, without comprehending that this case is part of a longer-term trend involving the erosion of free speech and free association. It is the speech that others do not want to hear that needs to be protected most by the courts. I would also observe that the courts are meant to be independent of the state and do not exist to enforce the state’s political objectives. This basic constitutional principle is being subverted. In my opinion, it is no exaggeration to say that what Garron Helm has suffered is a mini-show trial, especially given the way the media has covered the case.

I hope that provides enough information. If you’d prefer, if it makes things easier, I could write something and submit it to you for consideration.

Best wishes,


Dear [],

I agree that this is monstrous, and I will certainly write something about it. The job description of an MP ought to involve putting up with any amount of non-threatening abuse.

My in-laws are here at the moment, so I shall need to squeeze the time out. But I will try to have something published tomorrow.

Thanks for bring the case to my attention.


This correspondence contains all the relevant facts of the case. Here is my comment:

1. As a national socialist, Garron Helm stands in a different ideological community from ours. This has no bearing on our duty to defend his right to express his opinions in any way that does not amount to a common law assault as this would once have been defined. No amount of abuse, regardless of how offended the recipient claims to be, should be a matter for the criminal law.

2. The only legitimate rights, in the liberal tradition, are to life and property. From these, we derive the specific rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, among others. There is no place for any right not to be offended. As such, the law under which Mr Helm has been punished is itself a violation of rights. To put things bluntly, he was, before conviction, as much a dissident as opponents of the system were in the old Soviet Bloc. Now he has been convicted, he is a political prisoner.

3. The concept of “racial aggravation” was brought into the English criminal law in 1998. Until then, the traditional elements of a crime were the objective test of whether a criminal act had been committed and the subjective test of whether there had been a criminal intent. These elements have now been joined by motivation. For example, if you beat a black man up nowadays, you will be punished for the harm you caused him, and your intent to commit harm. If it can be shown that you had a particular dislike of black people, you will be punished for that as well. This is, in itself, a criminalisation of opinion, and is illegitimate and even totalitarian.

4. Returning to the matter of giving offence, no one has a legitimate right not to be offended. This is particularly the case where politicians are concerned. They should be fair game for any degree of abuse that stops short of a common law assault. If Miss Berger cannot go about her duties without calling for people like Mr Helm to be put in prison for insulting her, she is unfit to be a Member of Parliament. There was a time in England when parliamentary candidates were pelted at the hustings with rotten vegetables and the occasional dead cat. Perhaps it is right that this particular liberty of political expression has dropped out of our traditions. Even so, politicians ought to possess a reasonable firmness of mind when they are abused by members of the public.

5. I was invited by my correspondent to distance myself from Mr Helm’s acts. I agree that the expression of his opinion was intemperate, and may well show a certain unsoundness of mind. But I have a strong dislike of denouncing the morals or character or opinions of anyone who has suffered under an unjust law. I will only say that his punishment was wrong in itself, and it sets a bad precedent that may one day be used against anyone with a taste for sharply-expressed opinions about the people who rule this country.

In conclusion, Mr Helm is a political prisoner, and his case brings great discredit on the laws of this country and on their mode of enforcement.


  1. I was the correspondent. I would like to thank The Libertarian Alliance and Sean Gabb for this statement. This is in the admirable tradition of The Libertarian Alliance, which protests breaches of liberty by the state regardless of political opinion.

    I think to imprison someone simply for expressing an opinion or insulting an MP is an outrage.

    • John you are a brave man even to put yourself above the trench-parapet.
      Most of us are shit-scared now, all the time.
      I am, every day. I lie awake at night, gritting my teeth rhythmically in horror.

      In truth, I am advising libertarians that the present battle for liberty is actually lost, and that we should all be looking to any acts we can do to preserve what knowledge of liberty, and also science, engineering and maths and history, can be possibly saved in side the coming Endarkenment.

      • David,

        Thank you for your comments.

        I also have children, but I do not see that as specially relevant. This is about our time, now, as much as the future, and the issue is really quite simple and transcends ideological differences.

        No-one should face prosecution and imprisonment for expressing controversial views or insulting important people.

        As it happens, I largely share Garron Helm’s views and I believe what he said on Twitter, etc., was right and correct, but I approached The Libertarian Alliance because I believe there are larger issues at stake than the views of National Socialists.

        The idea that history works teleologically and that social and political change is inevitable is, in my view, one of the great intellectual fallacies of our time. We can’t put these things off until tomorrow, until the ‘system collapses’ or the so-called ‘Dark Enlightenment’ takes hold. The revolution – which is really a fight of progress vs. devolution – is happening now or it isn’t. We each have to decide.

        If we opt out of progress in the belief that it will happen anyway or someone else will take care of it, then we are liable to wake up one day and find ourselves in a world that is a dream of someone else’s making: in other words, a living nightmare.


        • OK John. I still salute you for what you have done, and I take your points. I would not be brave enough, myself. It’s as much as I can do these days to (pretend to) edit this blog.

  2. People should be allowed to state their vile opinions.

    For example, if someone wants to write (on their own blog) “Paul Marks should be killed” that is their right – or so I believe.

    However,, there is a difference between tolerating vile opinions and actively promoting them.

    For example for someone to write a disgusting attack upon Britain and the United States in relation to the World Wars and the Cold War under the guise of attacking “militaristic ancestor worship” that is their right – their right to be disgusting and vile.

    However, tolerating such a thing is not the same as promoting it.

    Putting it on the Libertarian Alliance website (on the very day of the attack on the Canadian national War Memorial) is promoting it – it is supporting the enemies of the West.

    And that is exactly what Dr Sean Gabb did. Especially as he wrote a supportive introductive note to the post – this was NOT a matter of “toleration”, it was SUPPORT for the vilest anti British (and anti Western) propaganda against those who fought against the evils of German plans for domination in the First and Second World Wars, and against the Communists, and against the Islamist enemies of this country (and the West generally) today.

    I wrote and asked Dr Gabb to take down the anti Western propaganda post (attacking “militaristic” “ancestor worship” – on the very day of the attack upon the Canadian War Memorial), he has not done so.

    Therefore (in view of his publication, and supportive introduction to, the post on “ancestor worship”) any claim Dr Gabb might make not to be on the same side as the enemies of the United Kingdom, rings hollow.

    Dr Gabb is clearly no more the “patriot” he pretends to be, than the members of the “Right Club” (the foes of decent British people such as Winston Churchill) in the 1930s – who also pretended to be patriots.

    • (Britain) “propaganda against those who fought against the evils of German plans for domination in the First and Second World Wars,”
      Now that’s quite funny saying something like that from a British perspective. Evil German Plans for (world) domination, really ? You got to be kidding. Britain engaged in both world wars to stop Germany as a competitor. The Anglo Polish agreement had clauses that made it clear that it was solely directed against Germany (and to get a war going against Germany). Why do you think they never declared war against the Soviet Union?

  3. Mr Meyer – German plans in the First and Second World Wars are a matter of record.

    As for your claim that Britain engaged in both World Wars to stop Germany “as a competitor”.

    Do you mean as an ECONOMIC competitor? If you do – then you are a liar Sir. Germany was actually Britain’s number one independent export market before the First World War – and there were repeated efforts to form an alliance with Germany (all rejected as the German elite wished for military control – not friendship).

    Still at least you are open in your support for Nazi Germany concerning World War II – Sean Gabb relies on nods and winks over that (he is not open).

    As for opposing the Soviet Union – you mistake me for Sean Gabb.

    I am not a foe of the Berlin Airlift, or a foe of opposing the (Soviet ordered) invasion of South Korea by North Korea.

    Nor am I a foe of sending in British aid against the Soviet backed forces in Greece.

    As for Eastern Europe – British agents were sent in to help the resistance (in many countries) to the Soviets, but they were betrayed (by traitors such as Kim Philby) and they were all either killed or captured (most of those who were captured also died).

    Had the Soviets tried to take control of the northern coast of Europe (next door to Britain) as the Germans did in 1914 – then formal (open) war would have been unavoidable (just as the first Elizabeth could not accept Spanish control of all of this coast in the 16th century, or Britain could accept total French control of this coast in the 17th or 18th centuries – or during the French Revolutionary period).

    However, NATO (the American alliance) prevented the Soviets taking over Western Europe (as the Germans had tried to do in 1914) thus preventing open (formal) war.

    I can remember when Sean Gabb was pro NATO (anti Soviet) he was not always anti British.

  4. There are many interesting incidents from World War II.

    For example, the Earl of Suffolk (this branch of the Howard family is still on their estate in Wiltshire) managing to get the French supply of “Heavy Water” out of France in 1940 – before it fell into Nazi hands (the “Heavy Water” was stored in Windsor Castle – next to the Crown Jewels which had been moved there).

    War for economic reasons my backside. Why not go the whole way and blame the First and Second World Wars on “Jewish Capitalists”?

  5. Since when did this discussion involve who was right and who was wrong regarding WW1 and WW2? I thought it was about the principle of free speech. Wasn’t that what millions gave their lives for in both those terrible conflicts? To now abolish the very principal these brave patriots died for,, is beyond belief,.and a slap in the face of every man and woman who served their country. No one should be incarcerated for an opinion. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and everyone should be entitled to express that opinion without fear of being arrested and imprisioned. No free man should disagree with this stance.

    • Dickie, what you don’t seem to appreciate is that a certain poster here cannot really seem to handle any kind of revisionist or reflective criticism on characters like Winston Churchill or our involvement in the second world war.

      Nor can they, it seems, accept criticism of the decisions and cabals in America, both now and in the past, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

      This includes for example the questioning their foreign meddling, their penchant for destabilisation of nations; and (as a then burgeoning superpower) suggesting things like them joining the ‘war effort’ in the second world war in order to, in part, deflate and ultimately usurp the British as the number one position and render them into massive debt.

      Therefore, seeing as Mr Gabb is perhaps at risk to be describing Mr Churchill as ‘an old drunk’ from time to time (and maybe even a ‘bit of a warmonger’?) – and has the open-mindedness to wrestle with uncomfortable facts and concepts about these particular niches of Americans (and generally challenge aspects of our “we won the war story” national propaganda), a certain poster seems to want to pick this fight over and over again, even when the topic has nothing to do with it.

      It seems we all have to studiously believe that the Jewish movers and shakers were innocent little puppies in Germany at the time (and are nothing other than innocent little puppies at all times), that they do not have massive disproportionate influence in America and American foreign policy, that they do not have disproportionate influence in the media, in Hollywood or in the global financial system, or Communism, liberalism and all sorts of ways that are harmful for everybody else but good for them.

      All of that is perhaps just a coincidence you see and nothing should really be said about it or inferred about the role of the Jews in any major world events (or its shaping) because that would be “anti-Semitic” and no doubt “conspiracy theorist” from swivel eyed “Nazi” loons. Oh, people can say it, that’s okay, but they are no doubt ‘evil’ people who ‘tell lies’.

      It seems we have to believe that Germany had little to grumble about after the First World War, that “we” were right to “punish” them in the way that was done – and thus “right” to go to war over it when the Germans had become sick of it and sought to overthrow the grip of these sanctions and the nefarious influences and grip of some of the Jewish peoples and finances in Germany.

      We seem to have to believe that Britain saved the world from evil, that ‘we won’ the war, that we all benefited from it, that we should thank Mr Churchill for embroiling our people in it and for siding with the Communists, who were also themselves siding with Germany (in their own interests) to beat us.

      Also, if it is suggested that endless meddling in the Middle East might actually piss off loads of Muslims and that the actions of these historic (and present) meddling and toppling of rulers by guerillas and militias (that America and Britain have often actually funded and trained), and thus suggest that it leaves more vacuums for radical Islam to mushroom out of the cracks….and that Western powers thus do have something to do with the existence of groups like Isis, Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place, well, that means we are of course apologists for Islamic Extremism, and thus again quite wicked people, because nothing the Western powers do is questionable at all.

      They are innocent and wonderful paragons of virtue, of honesty and are defending “our values” at all times, and not at all raping other countries of their wealth or assets, not at all doing it for the purposes of ruthlessly pursuing and maintaining control financially and influentially, not at all causing endless distractions in the Middle East to serve as a diversion from Islamic nations from ever getting together and rising up against Israel.

      Absolutely not. That would be unthinkable.

      They are obviously looking after Western Values like the rights to “free speech” – * like we clearly see them upholding in this case with Garron Helm – and “protecting us from Islamism”.

      They are protecting this country and the Western world from Islam and Islamism by flooding the country with Muslims from all over the world and then allowing them to set up their own banking, courts, and so on, whilst also feeding and housing their massive families (that are going to turn Britain into an Islamic state), building them schools and, in the case of Simon Hughes of the liberal democrats, even begging them at conferences to be our “future leaders”.

      Yes, it is these Western governments and actions that are on our side, both past and present…any talk to the contrary is of course ludicrous and not to be given any serious thought at all.

  6. What I will say about Mr Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance is that they are pretty consistent and very fair to opinions and groups which do not reflect their own interests or positions.

    I think it can be extremely hard in so-called ‘modern Britain’ to be seen to “defend the right to abuse and to bring hate speech” – because the inference is usually that by defending them, you are defending the viewpoints of those who have got themselves into hot water, or defending some kind of evil.

    I am familiar with and part of what is deemed “the far right” – so I know what Mr Helm was driving at. Many in wider society will perhaps not have the first idea what could drive somebody to do such a thing, but I suppose I can understand how a frustration can build and an irrationality takes over, leading to poor judgements on how to express it or handle the situation.

    So, yes, even as a fellow traveller of the “far right” I do not really agree with how he chooses to go about challenging this world, in fact, given that such people know the power and influence of that particular tribe in all aspects of society, it seems pretty odd to me that such a stunt would be considered a good idea when *individuals* can so easily be “picked off” and crushed under the weight – whilst their juggernaut just continues to roll on regardless.

    So, even though I understand the background to his comments to this woman, I struggle to support what was done, both in terms of what would likely happen and in terms of it not really helping all that much. I put it down to youthfulness and misspent vigour or something.

    But as is the case on the Libertarian Alliance, I find it both ridiculous and frightening that people can be imprisoned for such a thing.

    This is even more the case when we see rapists and other criminals going free, and others having umpteen convictions for crimes before seeing the inside of a prison cell. The disproportionate ruling is there for all to see, but sadly we live in an age where many people now think they “deserve it” for being “horrible” to somebody else.

    I do not think this way, therefore I agree with the Libertarian Alliance commentary on this event.

    Sadly, this is not the first time that “hate speech” has landed people in prison. He is “lucky” to only get four weeks…….

    I urge you to read of this other case, for example – http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-man-jailed-16-months-racist-rants/story-21146421-detail/story.html

    Not only is the sentence ridiculous – what seems to be 16 months in prison for verbal abuse! – but the remarks of the judge are absolutely INCREDIBLE.

    “A judge has jailed a racist who insulted a bus driver and a security guard.

    Lewis Nigel Foulds, who was told his “disgraceful” views would not be tolerated in Leicester, began shouting and swearing at Judge Simon Hammond as he was sentenced to 16 months in prison.

    The 21-year-old, who appeared via a live television link between Leicester Crown Court and Leicester Prison, had to be restrained by guards and removed from the video-link room.

    Sentencing, Judge Hammond said: “Leicester is a multi-cultural society and people in Leicester are proud of that and work hard to promote it. There’s no place in British society for people like this defendant, who holds disgraceful, disgusting views and adopts disgraceful conduct.

    “People are entitled to go about their business without having racial insults thrown at them.

    “People who have racist views, and behave in a racist manner and insult people with their racist views, must expect custody.”

    Seriously, that is quite strong stuff on multiple levels. The guy was being a complete idiot, was apparently drunk at the time and is hard to defend….but please take a moment for the severity and implications of the judge’s remarks to sink in.

    • Concerned Briton,

      Thank you for your comments. As you might expect, I agree with most of what you say – but not all.

      I think his comments and the way he delivered them was entirely appropriate. I think the reason why many people are lapsing into the assumption that it wasn’t appropriate is because we have grown used to these curbs on our freedoms and the need for ‘appropriateness’ in public discussion and debate.

      That’s the danger. That’s the crux of the matter.

      It hasn’t escaped my notice – as I am sure it hasn’t escaped yours – that the rules about ‘appropriateness’ don’t seem to apply to the Left, nor do they appear to apply to Tory politicians who can say all sorts of rude and nasty things about UKIP members and politicians.

      It’s hypocrisy. Garron Helm has done nothing wrong, and has not even committed a crime.

      I think the Nationalist reaction to this should be – -among other things – to find out where District Judge Andrew Saw lives and peaceably and lawfully amount a protest outside his home (and workplace, if he is in private practice). I would be more than happy to confront him on his drive – non-violently and non-threateningly of course, and all within the law, but I can be very ‘persuasive’ in such situations and I can guarantee that the District Judge will not forget the encounter – and crucially, he will have it in mind the next time he is faced with a ‘racial offender’.

      Same for the prosecutor. Same for the Chief Constable.

      But I offer that as an example only. I am not planning to take such action. This is merely to illustrate the type of direct action that is required – and what is currently lacking. And that would only be the start.

      To hell with appropriateness. We are supposed to be dissidents. We’re not organising an afternoon tea party. These people need to be made to fear us.


      • I suppose at this point I should make some kind of Directorial comment.

        The Libertarian Alliance believes that there should be no restraint on any speech on any public issue. We defend the right to give offence. However, this discussion seems to be moving in a direction that may be best continued somewhere else. Our only rule is that nothing should be said here that may get us into trouble. The Blogmaster and I are family men, and this fact places natural limits to our courage in the face of an increasingly sinister police state. I do therefore ask that our primary rule should be respected.

        • You are right. This is a blog for discussion of libertarian ideas and we must respect that. It certainly wasn’t my intention to impinge on your hospitality. I began as someone who just reads this blog and doesn’t comment and I will now return to that posture. Any further comment on the specifics would be superfluous anyway.

          I would depart with the observation that I grew up in a country in which speech was free, within reason. I now, somehow, live in a country in which speech is not free. How did such an incredible thing happen. I think partly because we let it happen. We didn’t stand up and say ‘Enough!’

      • Thanks John, I think the main area in which we disagree is not particularly over the matter of “appropriateness” (or even what was being implied by Mr Helm)……but in fact the methodology of approach to the situation we face.

        I can understand a gravitation towards ‘direct action’ (albeit non violent), particularly in alternative to a flawed and ineffectual method of party politics, but although I cannot rhyme off any particular examples, I think we really have to think much more cleverly at how to bring these kinds of people and their positions (both ideologically and job wise) down.

        As I tried to explain in my comment above, we know what is likely to happen as a result of these spasmodic and random ‘challenges’ to the establishment and, particularly, those of a certain heritage.

        It may be satisfying to ‘sock it to them’ and be seen to be ‘doing something’ other than sit at a computer or ‘vote’, but we know that as individuals and small groups we can be picked off and crushed like flies.

        Shami Chakrabati of Liberty will not be on TV rallying to our aid, nor will most other such groups or any section of the state or media.

        I suppose I see it all a bit on the same lines as those who, say, storm mosques to make a point about Islamification, or petition and stand with placards outside sites earmarked to be mosques. That is ‘direct action’ that tries to make a point and gets the blood flowing.

        Showing opposition is important, I realise that, and I can only commend those who do actually get out there to try and do something…… (I used to be a little bit active, but in recent years, as I have got older I have to admit I have really stepped back and now only tend to fund ventures aimed as securing a future for whites in Britain).

        ……but the sad fact seems to be that, the next day, that mosque that was stormed will carry on as before, the new mosque being picketed will be granted approval – if not this time, then next time planning permission goes in. There is a sense of futility about it all because the underlying problems are not being dealt with, only the ‘coal faces’ in singular cases.

        There is nothing wrong with being dissidents – and I realise that we need young, energised people to become a vanguard of building an alternative future to that which we seem to be heading down…..but lets say that the judge in the Helm case was challenged, would anything change? Would he change his views? Would the courts alter their opinions on people who are challenging them?

        Has this challenge of this woman in Liverpool altered the course of what she is doing and what her cohorts are generally doing? I just do not believe that it has. It will be business as usual for them, only now them hoisting another head on to their collection of spikes and frightening more people off with it.

        I wish I had the answers, but sadly I acknowledge I don’t. I do hope you understand where I am coming from though. Dissent is great…..but generating long lasting change has to be better than micro-outbursts in individualist cases.

        I don’t know how to rid the establishment of people antagonistic to white people and the continuance of indigenous Britons in Britain, but whether it is forcing them to step down for sordid acts that they may be involved in, corruption, or otherwise making it very difficult for them to actually progress with their plans and policies…. I would suspect it would give a much longer lasting dent than a twitter attack, doorstepping somebody, or whatever.

        • Sorry Sean, I was typing the above whilst you replied to John.

          I appreciate that the topic is at risk of both getting derailed and out of hand for this website – and providing I am not in a position where I am forced to defend myself, I will refrain from further discussing wider aspects of what might be going on around the edges of this topic.

          The Libertarian Alliance is good enough to tolerate alternative views and to come to the defence of people it does not agree with, so I respect your decision when you say you would rather not open up a larger can of worms here than is necessary.

          The issue is primarily the locking up of a man for expressing his opinions and political beliefs, whether they be right or wrong. I think it should be kept to this if at all possible.

    • According to the judge I mentioned above, there is “there’s no place in British society for people” who hold any dissenting views against the orthodoxies of the state, particularly “racist” or “anti-Semitic” views, which have to be the most taboo of all.

      What about if you are against homosexual marriage, or against encouraging single motherhood? I suppose there will be “no place” for them and their “bigoted hate” either in the future I bet…. so you’d all better self-censor yourselves (and not ever dare challenge the liberal orthodoxies) otherwise the police might come knocking and you can have your job prospects, wealth and family destroyed.

      You can mutter such sentiments to close friends and family you trust not to dobb you in, providing there is no evidence that you said anything and providing that you look over both shoulders before speaking.

      Social media is certainly a bad idea, as would be mentioning it openly in, say, a works’ cafeteria to colleagues you trust not to go nuts. God forbid somebody actually overhears your views and your private conversation.

      So you’d better stick to discussing a new car, lawn mower, the last holiday, celebrities and so on instead – and not give any critical thought or expression to what is happening at all. Far too risky.

      All concepts and language needed to oppose the orthodoxies must be drummed out of people’s heads and vocabulary removed so that people cannot even think things though to conclusions in their own minds without getting bogged down and confused about what is troubling them.

      What they intend to do with these people that there is apparently “is no place in society” for, I do not really know.

      If there is “no place” for them at all, then I guess in the future they will have to be ‘disappeared’, maybe under the sod, or maybe sent to another country? This is because “people are entitled” to not be insulted or offended…. and that many people work hard and tirelessly to promote the agendas of the liberal left established order and globalism. Criticising their efforts and actions is clearly wicked.

  7. My very first line covered freedom of speech.

    As for the post attacking “Militaristic” “Ancestor Worship” with its attack on World War II (NOT just World War One) – put on this site on the very day of the attack on the Canadian national War Memorial.

    Dr Sean Gabb not only put that vile post on this site – he wrote a little supportive introduction to it (talking about his war hero relatives – whom the post then spat upon).

    Or course Dr Gabb has a right to act in this vile way (I fully accept that) – just as I have a right (indeed a duty) to point out that Dr Gabb is total and absolute scum for acting in this way.

    People have a right (for example) to verbally, or in writing, take the side of Nazi Germany in relation to World War II (I remind people that the “militaristic ancestor worship” post was NOT just about World War One) – and other people have a right (indeed a duty) to point out the fact that they are scum for doing so.

  8. Pffft. All you did was bash him and make sure everyone on the planet knows how wonderful you Libertarians are and that you disagree with his ideology. You’re losers.

Leave a Reply