by Chan Walrus | Aug 21, 2021 | Essays
In this essay I will go through the Social Justice Warriors explaining their specialised caste within their warped ideologies and provide insight into how to confront and deal with certain types of SJW. The best advice in the world is to ignore their existence. In order to live a happy and healthy life, it’s always best to avoid any form of conflict with people. If that is your chosen path, then you are far more sensible than me. You can skip this essay, but it will always be there if one finds you, and if you have any feelings or opinions at all about anything, you never know when an SJW can strike.
Before we begin, there are genuinely good people in the world, who believe they are helping others by talking on social media. Many of them actively try and promote good ideas and genuinely try to help people. These are not SJWs. These are good human beings and will not get involved in aggressively victimising people. The people we are looking at in this chapter are vindictive, hateful and narcissistic people who use a shield of faux morality in order to attack others, to make themselves look good and cause psychological harm to a person.
So first of all: What is a Social Justice Warrior?
This is someone who promotes or expresses socially progressive views. Their main focus is equality of economic, political, social, sexual rights and opportunities, they also sometimes bring equity into their divisive politics. They take to social media, usually with a distinct lack of knowledge about the subjects they engage in more so to raise their own personal reputation than actually helping anyone, in a disgusting display of self aggrandizing and pseudo moral superiority. The majority of people who fit the term tend to be self-serving, narcissistic and with a general feeling of self importance that borders on the belligerent. Their stance is aggressively authoritarian and exceedingly vicious.
The Social Justice Warrior will generally share memes and articles in support of their chosen ideologies, attacking and attempting to eradicate anyone they see as being socially regressive. They are quick to use words like Racist, Nazi, Alt Right, Far Right, Misogynist, Homophobe and anything else that will quickly raise attention and armies against you. These blanket terminologies are great because they will draw in anyone who is politically aligned against these blanket ideologies and enable them to strike fast and incapacitate an inexperienced debater, often by unleashing a swarm of torrential hate against them. They can cost you friendships easily so they need to be shut down quickly and aggressively as possible.
The problem with SJWs is not what they believe in, if indeed they do genuinely believe it, but that they actively go out looking for a rumble, they are armed to the teeth and will generally attack anyone they can with little to no reason to do it other than self grandeurization, moral superiority and trying to ruin people’s lives. Their actions are malevolent, rather than helpful, as their focus is to use the ideologies they claim to support to attack, belittle and humiliate others.
Their goal is to find a Racist Homophobic Right Wing Nazi (that could be you, with no evidence, and at any point) and cut off their head publicly so they can wave it around and cheer: “Look, I slew a monster!” They are aggressive and use badly worded, poorly thought out strawmans and arguments – usually with little to no evidence – to try and harm anyone they don’t personally like much, or see as being moderately conservative. Sometimes, they even go for people who support their own ideologies, turning them into the enemy for little reason other than not liking or not understanding that person.
Basically the SJWs are the lowest form of scum looking to serve the heads of their old friends on silver platters so they can gain praise from peers that would happily turn on them in turn if it gave them greater social leverage.
The SJW is similar to a spider, though not quite as lethal. Their usual aim is to lure their prey into a battleground of their choice (so they have the advantage of being ‘informed’) rather than fighting their victims on their own turf, as challenging you where friends can help you, or in areas where you are informed is not good. If they draw you into their web, then it is easy for their friends to mob you and take you down. You will notice this when they tag in a tag team partner, usually because they can’t handle the argument alone.
You may have noticed people launching attacks on your ideology. “This ideology is bad.” “This is typical behaviour for people of this ideology.” “People who believe this do this reprehensible thing/are racist/want children to starve, etc.” If you are like me, this will not stand and you will find yourself in a massive online fracas.
Misinformation is rife throughout the internet, and sometimes you feel the incontrovertible need to argue against something that is simply not true. These attacks feel personal because they are. They are a targeted attack on YOU – not to highlight areas of social justice a person supports, but they are the actions of a predator looking for prey. It is best to ignore this and save yourself grief. Sadly this chapter is for people like me who will strike back, even if fighting these people is a foolish act. I should really know better by now…
Another way they draw in victims is by sharing specialised media in a way that provokes conflict. The media is rarely completely accurate, with most things having a political spin. I have found articles from the Guardian and Another Angry Voice, (whom I suspect is secretly an alt right troll, milking gullible ‘lefties’ of their hard earned sheckles,) particularly enticing.
Opinionated media is generally pretty vile as usually it is a moralistic piece that basically goads potential victims, in much the same way as similar posts you may have seen have triggered something deep within your soul. Just because someone has the right to post an opinion on a website or in a newspaper does not mean that opinion is right. This falls dangerously into the category of the argument from authority and often appears, in theory, to have more power than a direct personal statement, as news and well known websites are respected by the majority of normal people. If authority is always right, then Stalin was right, Hitler was right and so was Charles Manson, and heaven forbid, CNN. It’s tempting to respond to inaccurate opinionated articles, especially if they attack your beliefs personally. Avoid it for a happier life. The people sharing them are sharing to attack you and to look good, not because they care about the issues. Virtue signalling for likes. It’s quite sad really… If the amount of people who wanted issues fixed worked together, they could fix the problems through unity, but as we see, they would rather fight their brothers and sisters, drive away friends and then blame a lack of universal action by social gaps they caused rather than trying to bridge…
You also have, what I like to call: Questing Knights, who are somewhat a different breed. They usually come from a small army or ‘clan’ of SJWs who work together to hunt their prey. These knights know only the chivalry of the backstab and lynch mob as they generally only attack friends or friends of friends. They will attack you at the core on issues you are talking about, twisting the narrative of something you say in a way that makes you look bad and they, in turn, look good.
The best way to deal with this is to explain that they are misinformed publicly and ask them not to jump to conclusions about things that they don’t understand. They misrepresent on purpose and it should be pointed out and deflected, because any response other than a deflection will unleash a hornet’s nest of abuse, comments and summoning of the clan. They are bullying, cowardly pack animals and generally cruel people, and their behaviour should be watched. If you are attacked like this often by certain friends, you’re better off not knowing them, as they clearly don’t know you.
Types of Social Justice Warrior
In this section I will go into the types of SJW I have had the extreme misfortune to encounter, along with ways of defeating them in arguments or dealing with their nonsense and propaganda. The names and classifications are as much a joke as a sad reflection of what they actually are. I believe inherently that labels are bad, but sometimes they can be accurate.
The Lemonbrain
Our incontrovertibly pickled Lemonbrain is typically bitter and set in their ways. The Lemonbrain likes to start arguments often associated with the things that they pretend to care about and champion most. They are often incapable of thinking outside the box, and they are generally so bitter and cynical that changing their mind falls just short of a miracle. They have a thick skin, but you can break through it with a little work.
Lemonbrains are hard opponents to fight because usually they will only stick to one area they know well. They have tough skin, like the lemon, and their thoughts are just as acidic. They often feel misplaced in an extremely oppressive world, and usually attack political ideologies to deal with personal life frustrations.
When arguing with the Lemonbrain, you will often find that they have a reasonable amount of arguments backed up by solid ‘facts’ from whatever political journals they read. They are generally not stupid and have experience in arguing their points. They are tenacious and will often attack ideologies using blanket statements to try and deflect any argument you present and will often be quick to associate you with evil to gain allies quickly.
It is unlikely you will be able to change the mind of the Lemonbrain, so confrontation is generally a waste of your time. The only problem is if the Lemonbrain is gathering Lemon Cultists around them and launching personal attacks against individuals, spreading their toxic lemony bitterness and creating problems within communities, damaging reputations and ganging up on people, bullying them into submission.
These groups of Lemon Cultists tend to grow quickly and massage each other’s egos, constantly supporting each other’s statements, making arguments very complicated and hard.
The solution to fighting a group of these vile creatures is to pick out a weak Cultist who lacks the ability to think for themself, call them out by name and respond only to them. You make the weakest member of the Lemon Cult their mouthpiece. The others will try and help, so just ignore them. Pluck the squealing lemon from it’s herd and ask it for evidence, usually it will be supplied by others, but you can ignore them.
Make them fight and don’t let them leave. This sounds cruel and it is, but these Cultists make their fun out of hunting prey, and mass bully people into leaving social media, and potentially even into suicide as we have seen on many occasions. They are remorseless individuals who don’t care about the people they hurt and live only for self grandeurization and the fickle respect of their cult leader and friends.
On their own the Lemonbrain is generally toxic, though well practiced in their chosen field. Usually it is not worth an argument, but if you have to, the key is to find a common ground on a moral level. Look at the ideology they support, and show how your ideology supports it. Most of the time this will be ignored and you will be called a troll, however there is usually a way to prove that their opinion is wrong pretty easily in the arguments they provide. If they link articles, give them a little time and read them, then ask how the article is relevant or address things within the article showing how they reflect your views, if possible. You can also point out that the article is propaganda, misinformation or incorrect if it is. This will usually result in a win. That is, if that’s the intended goal.
Overall I wouldn’t recommend arguing with the Lemonbrain as it is a titanic waste of time. Only engage if they are actively bullying others. Point out that they are bullying people and say they are being unfair or misrepresenting someone and disregard their evidence as being insubstantial. Lemonbrains hate being the bad guy as it pickles their ideology and makes them question themselves.
Glorytrolls
Glorytrolls are aggressive and barbaric sociopaths that invade people’s posts on social media in the hope of showing the world how fantastic they are as people. Vain, narcissistic and petty, they use a variety of cruel devices to achieve their goals. The Glorytroll looks to wound their opponent’s ideology and uses a variety of different techniques to make their opponent look bad and them look morally superior.
These people use a very sinister cocktail of attacks to achieve their goals, demonising the poster’s ideology and attacking them personally, using blanket statements, lying and gaslighting in order to make a person seem horrible. They often accuse people of things that aren’t true, followed by the reason it makes a person immoral as an opener to their arguments. This is used to turn friends against each other and make out that the Glorytroll is a force for good, and the poster is evil.
They are narcissistic, hateful people who use their warped vision of morality to justify their actions. These are the same kinds of people that victim blame, and they attack remorselessly, changing topics if they are proven wrong on any subject, ignoring any evidence as fake, or politically biased. They like to take photos of their arguments to share with friends and gain allies against their enemies.
As with all SJWs, it’s pointless arguing against a Glorytroll. Usually any evidence they have is under-researched, misinformed, or opinion posts. They are well practised in changing the topic of conversation to attack in every way possible distracting you from being able to hold one argument. The best method of dealing with these people is a good old fashioned block. Friends and people who know you will know what you really stand for. People who don’t are just toxic, and will wound your relationships with those people who know you for their own sick pleasure.
Tag Team Textwarriors
Every once in a while you will find yourself arguing against a particularly curdled Lemonbrain that is sadly unable to think or fight for itself, terrified, it squawks to the void for assistance using the @ key and a friend’s name to summon their ally to the battle. The Tag Team Textwarrior is a seasoned pro at fighting for all things Justice online but most likely has never actually done anything to help anyone in the physical world. These people are dangerous and usually use dirty tricks like abusing moral concepts to argue with you.
There is one rule to follow when dealing with this kind of e-vermin. Ignore them! Block them or ignore the things they say, nothing saddens the Textwarrior like being ignored. Continue to respond to anyone else in the discussion and completely ignore anything being said by a summoned ally. It’s effective and leads to extreme outbursts of rage in most cases. By never responding to anything they personally say, you remove their power by not acknowledging them. Don’t respect an opponent that doesn’t respect or know you.
Silent Supports
The Silent Support is a particularly nasty version of the Social Justice Warrior. These are people who cannot be reasoned with because they don’t directly engage in the battle. Their role is simple: Sit on the sidelines like brain dead gargoyles firing likes at the comments of anyone that they agree with. It is very easy to deal with the silent support. There are two options available that will lead to maximum effectiveness in your arguments.
1: Contact the person directly in a private message, try to ascertain what their actual opinion is. Most of the time they don’t know what they are talking about and will flake if challenged. Explain that you are being misrepresented or that your opponent does not know what they are talking about and provide evidence… or you could take the easy route.
2: Block them. Blocking is a great way to reduce an enemy’s support count to zero, if they can’t see what you are writing they can’t realistically support the enemy or respond to anything you write, and liking mindless spam gets boring fast. Whilst it doesn’t always work, as they can still stick around, you will reduce a lot of your opponent’s support by blocking the crowd of trolls and making the person look like they’re screaming at thin air. Glorious.
Chaplains:
The Chaplain is well-meaning and usually tries to break up fights, rather than allowing them to go on. They usually end up being hated by both parties involved in the argument and any parties that happen to see the argument, not through any fault of their own but just through their yearning for peace. Very often the Chaplain is a Voice of Reason and the voice of sensibility and should really be listened to by both parties. They are usually ignored and attacked by everyone. They will usually end up alienating all of their friends and sadly become hated for trying to help out in a horrible situation.
You should never turn on a Chaplain or attack them; it only makes you look like a horrible person and that will be used against you. Moreover, you should openly support their ideas towards peace. Sending them a message agreeing that peace would be better, but that you need to fight for what is right can turn a Chaplain into a powerful ally in battle. If you are aiming for peace but your opponent is pushing for war, the Chaplain will often side with you and keep trying to de-escalate the situation.
The Arsenal of the SJW:
The SJW has a series of weapons it uses to harm others. These are some of the ones I have come across along with a few ways of handling them.
The Bait
I have discussed earlier some of the ways the SJW will try to lure you into their spider’s web. Usually they poke, prod and goad by calling out specific ideologies, or try to throw a twist into your conversation that purposefully misrepresents you. They may say: “You believe this, so you must believe that”, or they may try and gaslight the people around you by throwing purposeful misrepresentations of your character into the mix. An example was that someone called me a Trump supporter around the time of the 2020 elections to gain favour with the demographic of my friends who don’t like Trump. I however was much more so aligned with the Libertarian party which I had actively worked with overseas through one of the companies I work with.
This person used a previous statement I had made to try and prove their point, which whilst relatively meaningless got some negative reactions from friends who hadn’t kept up with me politically. This is very dangerous, and should be called out publicly as soon as possible. “Just because I made this statement does not mean that I have this other belief.” Is a great way to handle misrepresentation. “If you would like to discuss this further, please get your facts right.” Is a nice aggressive follow up. It reduces their power and makes you appear stronger, whilst making them seem ill informed. Above all else, you don’t ever want to be misrepresented by anyone.
Blanket Statements
I have mentioned these earlier as one of the goading tactics people use, and they are a really nasty weapon. “People of this ideology are all bad, or all believe this or all want that.” We can step back a little as well and say that they can accuse you of being right wing, homophobic, mysoginistic, a Nazi or a Trump supporter, as though that represents your argument. You can actually be all of these things, and they can still be wrong about your argument.
A blanket statement completely ignores any points you make within your argument, or ultimately labels it in such a way that it’s dismissible outright. It’s a lazy way to fight effortlessly as it avoids the responsibility of having to formulate a counter argument. The only way to argue against this is to ask them to directly address your points and call them out on being evasive, not responding to your argument, purposefully misrepresenting you, or not understanding your argument. It’s messy but it tends to work as people like to have the last word, especially the aggressive SJW variety. You can point out that people are using blanket statements and explain what they are and why they are being used to beat back opponents nicely. That is, if anyone has the brain cells to listen to you.
Projection of Aggression
Have you ever been baited into an argument with someone who has been talking in an aggressive and injurious way about a subject you feel close to heart? Often their opinions are maladjusted and lack any understanding and you just couldn’t let it go? Your retaliation may well be called out as aggressive.
Projection is especially sinister because it makes you seem like the bad guy when in fact you’re not. you are not the person who made the original statement. You are not the person who’s got the wrong opinion, and yes you actually have a right to be upset if somebody says something wrong about something you believe in, so projection of aggression is very very disturbing.
Let’s say someone says: “All conservatives are bad.” Or my favorite, “Never trust a Tory.” This is aggressive towards conservatives. If I respond by saying, “That’s not correct!” This is marked out as an act of aggression. “How dare you challenge me, you brute!” Comes the reply, the offender projecting their own aggressive stance on you. They take no responsibility for their original statement that was provocational, or the fact they’ve hurt your feelings.
The way to handle this is to say: “I am responding to your inaccurate statement that doesn’t represent my views. This statement is aggressive and untrue for these reasons.” Usually you will be met with abuse, but at least you point the finger back at them, revealing who the aggressor truly is. The important thing is letting everyone reading it know that you are the one being attacked, and that you are only defending yourself. It is the other person who is the aggressor.
Changing the Subject
You’ve scored a point, and it can’t be beaten, so your opponent switches tactics. They will try and drag you into a battlefield they are more comfortable with, usually related. As Mark Twain says, “an idiot will drag you to their level and beat you with experience.”
I sometimes give in and argue in the new battlefield, win enough of them and you will win the war, and usually people who argue like this will only have so many battlefields in the Inception of Incompetence their arguments can become, however the best advice I can give is to say: “This is irrelevant, as we are talking about the subject we are talking about, not about this.” The opponent will usually try to drag you into their new battlefield a few times. The best way to handle this is to play to the narcissist within the SJW mind and say: “If you can’t even argue about what we are talking about, you are simply not worth my time. We can move onto less important matters later.” This will usually trigger vitriol within your opponent and force them to stay on topic.
Attacking/Belittling Your Achievements
Let’s say you’ve made some accomplishments in your life. I’m a composer, actor, film maker and I ran my own company. I am now terrible at making music, a trash actor, my films suck, and my company now has bad reviews from someone I didn’t work with. I’m also incredibly ugly, and believe it or not I’m going bald! (Something I’m well aware of!)
It starts with an attack on your achievements. Usually this comes from a lack of achievement from the person who attacks you. This brings you down to being human, rather than the overarching demigod that you actually are, and as Dutch said in Predator: “If it bleeds, we can kill it.” Then you just get insults afterwards.
The best response is to say: “I know, how is this relevant to our conversation?” This very much annoys people. They hate it when you don’t care about their opinion. It’s their aim to hurt you. If you don’t let it show, and don’t rise to it, you will be fine.
Emotional Blackmail
“We are supposed to be friends!” “I thought you were my friend!” “I thought I could trust you!” Or my favourite: “I thought you were a good person!” Are quite commonly used by people attempting to assert emotional and psychological control over you. It’s particularly malignant. “I thought you were a good person!” Or words to that effect are particularly nasty as it implies you are actually a bad person and it’s a secret jab at you, also implying they are good and wouldn’t normally associate with a bad person like you. These people really are sick. This is emotional blackmail, designed to make you look bad and make observers hate you.
The best way to fight this is to say: “You drew me in by attacking me directly/indirectly, you misrepresented me/my beliefs/my friends, why are you doing this? I thought we were friends too…” This reality check will usually work because sometimes bringing people down to ground is necessary. Not everyone is purposefully aggressive and sometimes it can lead to peace. At other times it can lead to you being blocked and smeared. Lovely stuff. That’s not a friend you will miss.
Demeaning, Name Calling and Demonisation
How often have you found yourself called an idiot, a moron or attacked for being ugly? I get this a lot from people, it’s one of the many advantages of being an idiotic ugly moron. Simply your enemies in this scenario don’t have an argument to use against you. They will revert to toxicity and blanket statements calling you alt right, Tory scum, a terrorist, pathetic, little, Nazi etc. I usually ask these people to try and remain on topic and not snarl at me like some sort of beast, but a kinder approach is to ignore it and try and get them to focus on the argument.
Spelling Mistakes and Grammar
If they point out spelling mistakes and grammar, you’ve already won. I like to ask people if they could kindly address my points rather than trying to distract from their inability to argue against them. Hold these people to account for their own weaknesses.
War is Pointless
At the end of the day, there is only one thing to realise and this is that war is absolutely pointless and fighting these people is a waste of time. If, like me, you feel inevitably drawn into these involuntary conflicts with these people, maybe this will help, but the best technique is always to ignore these people and walk away. It’ll lead to a happier, more successful life.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 21, 2021 | Essays
The left wing of politics looks towards a state of social equality and egalitarianism, as is commonly referenced in popular media. Whilst currently we live in a system that is dependent on multiple hierarchies of power, from employment to government, to social status, support of what we have established traditionally within our society and having these social hierarchies and respecting them is closer to being right wing. I have come to realise that most Social Justice Warriors are far right authoritarian radicals, due to their alignment and behaviours.
The vast majority of Social Justice Warriors accept the system we live in, though they have an intolerance for the powers that be, and are hugely critical of the people they see in power. Rather than picking up the slack where needed to make the world a better place, they prefer to congregate in a vast authoritarian hashtag army for whatever is currently trending and demand the government helps people over, accepting their lower status within the hierarchy and offsetting the responsibility of helping those less fortunate than themselves to ‘other’ more ‘privileged’ people.
Responsibility is always an interesting idea. A group of people demanding higher taxes so the government can answer every problem they have with the world shows an incredible lack of personal responsibility, and what’s more shows a distinct lack of caring when it comes to how society is run. In an egalitarian society, we would ideally all share the responsibility as a community. The outright abandonment of personal responsibility to make people’s lives better in favour of blaming other powers like the government, and expecting them to kowtow to demands that they perform the actions all of us are personally capable of is not a left wing school of thought. It shows a distinct lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a higher power, and is frankly unacceptable.
Barry Clark, a well regarded professor of economics wrote that the left wing “claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.” This I thoroughly believe, and yet I see the SJW come into battle with a distinct lack of respect for their opponent, armed with hate, unjustified labelling, blanket statements, authoritarian cruelty and the motivation to dominate someone into submission, dehumanizing them and trying to establish a moral superiority over them. They use the far right policies of oppression, political violence and attempt to force and bully people into submission trying to assimilate them into their beliefs or bully them off of social media, “Cleansing” the enemy, so to speak.
Based upon their savage and brutal actions and the disgusting way they attack others on social media, I believe that these people do not undertake the ideology of a peaceful and cooperative respectful equality. Instead, a draconian regime of authoritarian social hierarchy seems desirable to them. They use labels and blanket statements to engage in war with Conservatives or people who classify themselves as “Right Wing” in order to dominate them, rather than try and find out what their personal ideas are. Their stance is one of aggression and they belittle and ignore any proof or argument presented against them.
They use a shield based around a faux-morality, in which they support groups that they see as ‘inferior’. This is usually the result of a narcissistic urge to self grandeurise, with people saying: “I recognise these people who are struggling, and help and support them.” This makes them look morally ‘good’ on social media. Despite the fact it’s easy to hashtag that you care about a political cause or even post about it often on Social Media, even put links on your website etc or write about it, unless you are supporting the cause in the field, you are doing very little to further it. Very few SJWs honestly support causes as evidenced by a distinct lack of deeds and actions, instead using them for personal political grandstanding.
When we look to the idea of equality that the left wishes to have, what we see from the SJW in raising armies against their enemies, treating them with utter disrespect and hatred, and attempting to socially humiliate people to prove their moral superiority is definitely far right. They do this because they believe that utter domination of a person will raise their social status whilst lowering their enemy. This is clearly right wing behaviour, and we are talking about authoritarian right – the very people they claim, hypocritically, to hate.
The radical witch hunting of anyone who does not fit the thought pattern required to be a ‘desirable person’ has created an atmosphere of fear on social media. Using the book of morality, groups of SJWs go hunting ruthlessly and blitzkrieg any enemy of their flavour of the month moral crusade they can find. Due to the way they carry out this predatory behaviour, it is reasonable to suspect that the motivation behind their actions is dishonourable, dishonest and corrupt. It is not respectful, polite and in many cases could be considered inhuman.
Their logic is insanely flawed to the point where they believe that anyone who they label to be an undesirable doesn’t support their chosen moral stance, regardless of any argument or protest which is quickly brushed aside. They use straw man arguments and misrepresentation to single out victims and bring allies to help them, demonizing their opponents using trigger words and blanket statements to attack and humiliate a person into submission through hateful barrages of abuse and twisted logic. There is usually no reasoning with them. Their position and behaviour is so aggressive one can only call them radicals.
As it stands, I must be frank. It is one thing to be ‘outraged’ and ‘upset’ by things. To talk about them online, as though your opinion actually makes a difference is fine as well… To change profile pictures to show you support a cause and to hashtag and share articles about something. This is fine. But this isn’t what the SJW does. The SJW uses things as a weapon of war, to run their enemies down and gain political social power. George Floyd was a human being. He had a dubious history, but his death was unnecessary. As soon as the SJWs found out that the man had a past, they stopped parading him around like a hero and moved on to the next person they could use to attack others. As they got outraged and upset about Harambe, about Cecil the Lion, furiously posting that they will never forgive or forget… Most of them have forgotten, and found another weapon to use. Petty people, looking for a target to vent their hatred and frustrations on without a care for the results of their actions, and people wonder why suicide rates among young people are so high…
Whatever weapon is used can be replaced when it falls out of favour, which means that most of this emotion worth ruining lives, dividing friendships and treating people like garbage over is not even genuine. It’s part of a fanatical and divisive weapon used to attack people under a flag of faux morality. This faux morality is used as a method of politically oppressing others from an area of relative safety. This falls more into far right extremism than other ideologies.
Economically, the left prefer the idea of a decentralized economy, prioritising social ownership and local control rather than allowing for state/government run systems or private control. Interestingly enough the right wing libertarians also in some cases have a similar ideology. It is interesting to note that whilst the idea of the liberal left would be supportive of people who are disadvantaged in society, rather than using their society to help fund support for people through charities, the SJW vehemently demands the government support and help people who are disadvantaged. In the UK, this is something the government generally does to a reasonable, if imperfect standard.
Putting the government in a place where they have to be responsible for helping the people the SJW sees as disadvantaged is an acceptance and reliance on a preferable hierarchy, and looking to it as the desirable answer to a problem, rather than getting together as an egalitarian community to work together to fix a problem. This is a right wing solution to a left wing problem, a problem people care so little about that they make noise about it, and precious little else – which leads me to believe that they do not honestly care about the problem and merely use it for social grandstanding.
It is also interesting to note that the SJW delights in the shutting down of their enemies financial assets. This has occurred on a number of occasions including the banks closing Donald Trump’s bank accounts following the Capitol Hill riots. People expressed glee at the situation, enjoying the fact that people that had the power to take away Trump’s financial access had done so. So rather than accepting the idea of equal banking, they were happy for an authoritarian move forced upon someone they did not like. This would not constitute the idea of equality in terms of banking, more so an acceptance and relying on the hierarchical power of banks. Also worryingly to note, it could be done to anyone for whatever reason, a rather disturbing situation to be honest.
This was also prevalent in the shutting down of Trump across the leading social media platforms at the time. The SJWs were absolutely delighted at the way powerful sources were able to shut down the then President of the United States and applauded and even praised the platforms for these actions. This is another indication that they enjoy the insidious abuse of power over others which would align them far right. A person cannot equally represent themselves and must be suppressed by a dominant force.
Ultimately we have to face one simple fact. Anyone who tries to oppress others for having a different belief system, to dominate them and humiliate them, and prove some kind of hierarchical superiority over others, to dehumanise people and quell their freedom of speech cannot be considered left wing at all. These people, these SJWs are of the right wing authoritarian crowd, pushing a dark agenda that does more damage ultimately than healing anything.
If we are to live in a better world, we should be trying to accept each other and treat each other with respect and human decency, not trying to dominate people with blanket statements and cruelty. I want to believe in a world where people are free to have their beliefs as long as they don’t hurt others. I believe in a world where the poor are supported and protected by governments, because I see too little evidence of society trying to provide for the homeless, the disabled, the unemployed and the needy. I realise that it is only by having the right wing structural hierarchy that these people will be safe.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 19, 2021 | Essays
I hate you, because of the colour of your skin, because of your political beliefs, sexual identity, height, weight, and because you are reading this essay. You disgust me for all of these reasons and you should be ashamed of yourself.
None of that statement was fair, and yet every day, people are judged not for who they are as individuals, but for labels that are placed upon them. It is horrible when people do that. We are all, each our own individual selves. Not the colour of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation or food preferences.
It’s very easy to label people, I myself do it all the time, and it is likely that you too do it, even if you do not really recognise it within your normal day to day life. I have been labelled as many things, and oftentimes, I do not fit the blanket statement that covers those things. This is without doubt infuriatingly annoying.
Are You How You Appear?
An example of my being labelled and despised for it would be my political ideology. I see myself as a conservative. I do not support the conservative party of the UK. Because of the things I have said being maligned, sometimes purposefully and wilfully by others for their own political means, this has been used as a weapon to turn people who do not like the conservative party against me. Because I am conservative, I like the conservatives, they say. Well, no, I like to have a conservative ideology, but I might well think the entire party are a bunch of corrupt weasels. Something these people most likely believe themselves.
I am right wing in that I believe in the inevitabilities of social hierarchies, and what’s more I think they are necessary. We can see this in governments, the idea of democracy, the fact that most people would rather happily work for an employer who will pay them less than they themselves earn.
I started my own business, and so do many others, but it is a rare thing where people are paid the same as their boss… if you run a business, do you take home equal wages to those who work for you? It is unlikely. I think it is nice we have a right wing structure that helps pay benefits in this country and supports the unemployed, the disabled and the people others refuse to help.
Are these reasons to hate me? Of course! Because I am right wing, I am a fascist, socialist, racist, far right nazi with the urge to destroy society and everyone within it. All I yearn for is to watch the world burn… – Or so people would have others believe. This of course, is not true. I can be a belligerent asshole at times though.
The left wing, according to every definition I have read, supports social equality and the idea that people are all equal morally and in terms of worth. It is in competition with the ideas of natural hierarchy, and I see it as being incredibly dangerous. This is because I see no evidence that anyone aspires for true social equality because most that claim to engage in conflict with those that value social hierarchy, and you can bet your last dollar safely that they sure as hell won’t respect the opinions of others who have a different world view. Social equality also means social responsibility and most of those who claim to be left wing in their posts and arguments do little to support the needy, graciously relying on the right wing societal structures that help them so they don’t have to, whilst attacking them consistently.
The issue is the muddiness of the water in the way both doctrines are perceived by the majority of people that espouse them. The majority of people on the vocal left will demean the right, for example, and claim moral superiority to them. This is an act of social hierarchy and would more typically fit the right ideology, which means that doing this is very hypocritical and not the kind of action one would expect of the left, at least according to its definition. I could comfortably say that most of the people who vocally assume their identity is left wing, or use the terminology to preach social justice are on the political right. Usually much further along than me. The ones who want to change the world and alter the thought patterns of others and dominate through authoritarian means are often the far right they fear so much. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
But what about the social justice we fight for? you might say… I shall quote the great Thomas Sowell: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for.
Let’s work out a mathematical equation:
Take the amount of money you give to charity per month, supporting anything from friends to organizations.
Then take the amount you spend on yourself for luxuries, new shoes, socks, holidays, wine, meals out, takeaways, tattoos, hair dye, hair gel, caramel lattes, or sweets and treats from the shops. Things you don’t need to survive.
Which of these numbers is ultimately greater? In most cases, it will be the second one. I have several vices myself. I am an avid lover of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper. Now if I take the amount I drink per month, I’m looking at about £80.00 – £90.00 which I’m not spending on helping other people. I don’t really have many other vices. Overall they equate to around £125.00 per month according to my workings out.
This is less than I give to helping others and supporting charities. I work on average around 60-70 hours a week, sometimes doing as many as 80 hours. I support organizations like Greenpeace, the PDSA and similar charities. Outside of this, I provide free services for small businesses, and spend hours supporting them and helping them grow for no financial gain. I write music for people’s films and ask nothing in return, not because my music is without value, but because I want people to be able to use it for anything they like. I have worked on taking down the websites of white supremacists who incited violence against people of colour and who doxed them. Some of the money that I get in ad revenue on this site will be going to charity, so by reading this, and enduring the ads, I would like to thank you for helping me help people.
Does this mean I’m a good person? Not really. These are just some of the actions that I take that most would associate with the left wing. I support charities because it is the right thing to do, and help businesses and film makers because I know how hard it is to start out in these areas. I help fight racism where it exists because I believe that we as a species should not fight each other based around petty differences.
Morality… Let’s Pretend.
Let’s look at things morally. I’ll start with a horrifying statement: “I do not care about the homeless.” Do I give money to the homeless? Absolutely! I also give recommendations for them to contact Emmaus, or advice if they want it. But do I actually care? No. I’ve never asked a homeless person to stay with me or tried to directly help them or try to personally fix anything in their life. That would be the action of someone who truly cared. So, with this in mind, I cannot pretend I truly care. Making a big racket about how I care all over social media would be pretty ridiculous if it is simply not the case. But I see this every day. “I’ve given a homeless person this! Look at me, I’m a good person.” Is it really you who has helped the person or has the homeless person helped you gain social favour.
Every day, I see people who screamed Black Lives Matter when George Floyd died, yet not only did they not care about the death of David Dorn, but they were quick to drop Floyd the moment it was discovered he had a criminal past. He no longer fit the role that was needed, and quickly more names were brought forth that people could believe in and have something to be outraged about. I am still upset that George Floyd was murdered, regardless of who he was before it happened. He was still a human being, and it angers me how quickly people swept him under the rug.
When George Floyd was murdered, I was upset to learn a police officer had taken the life of someone. It didn’t make a difference to me what colour his skin was, nor, as I later found out, that he had been a criminal. What upset me was the unjust killing of someone at the hands of someone who should have been there as a protector.
The people who were quick to abandon George Floyd and cheer for the riots in the United States showed not a shred of care for David Dorn who lost his life in them, or the others who died. They endorsed the riots and supported them on social media, caring not a hoot for the lives the riots destroyed. Businesses of people of many different nationalities and skin colours utterly destroyed in sheer acts of incomprehensible hatred. So many people were part of it. So many people died because of it. So many people kept cheering through the bloodshed and had the gall to claim that these riots were peaceful protests.
What does this mean?
It’s simple. George Floyd’s life was something to post about, something to get angry about, a reason to scream and argue and shout. Learning more about him, people no longer considered him a martyr, that would be unsafe. So they didn’t really care about him, his family, the situation or anything else. They looked for more “black” people who had been killed by police. They found Breonna Taylor. They used her for their own self grandeurization on social media as they had with George Floyd.
Hate is Easy, Love is Hard
It’s very easy to be angry and it’s very easy to hate. To hate me for being a conservative, to hate the policeman that killed George Floyd for what he did, to hate George Floyd for being a criminal. For hating him because of his colour or his gender, for anything.
When someone says: This person is a “Label” it’s easy to think of the label as being the only thing that person can be. There are people I dislike because of the labels they have marred themselves with. As a father I am very opposed to pedophilia, as I think most sane people are. But in the normal context of day to day life, if you learn someone has a specific label, it doesn’t mean they fit the mould.
If someone has a belief, they can also be wrong and learn later on in life that they were wrong. I used to be a communist, believe it or not. Many might have hated me for that, but hatred only creates a bad reaction which can further spur someone down a dark path. It’s only by showing compassion to people and trying to show a different way of life that we can ever really find out what lies beneath a label.
In care work, we are taught to see the person first. This is part of dementia training and I think it is a very valuable lesson to teach. You see a person, they might be your friend, someone you’ve known for years, and they have a different thought. Something you might be opposed to. It doesn’t change who they are, and it is something that should be discussed with them. The next time you see someone with a different world view, try to understand where they are coming from. It’s only by trying to understand and being on the level with people that we can ever teach them and build a better world.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 18, 2021 | Essays
There has long been a war between the social media giants of our times and conservative thoughts and values resulting in rampant censorship, abuse and a fascist assault on people’s liberties. Over time people have become increasingly frustrated with their conversations being shut down and their beliefs trampled on in places which purport to have no clear political bias.
One well known digital encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, has long had a series of values that are spurious at best, as we can see with it’s treatment of Gab and Parler, which have both been misrepresented and maligned on the platform, and currently hold misinformation on protected pages. So now, I think it’s fitting to use Wikipedia as the tool with which to judge the social media platforms they actively support and allow to thrive, rather than the ones they malign. I think we all know which ones I am talking about.
Let’s start off with two terms:
Wikipedia (2021) refers to Government as: “The system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state.”
A state can be classified as a polity, which in turn is classified as any group of people who have a collective identity who are organized by some form of institutionalised social relations, with a capacity to mobilise resources. A polity can be a corporate board, and hence, a social media company in itself is a form of Government over it’s domain and controls the rules within it’s society.
Wikipedia (2021) refers to Dehumanization as: “the denial of full humanness in others and the cruelty and suffering that accompanies it. A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and treatment of other persons as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings. In this definition every act of thought that regards a person as “less than” human is dehumanization.”
Dehumanization is common on modern social media platforms, it is a crime committed by the people on social media who deride and oppress others, and by the platforms themselves which not only support this behaviour but allow it to thrive through an incompetent and sometimes lazily automated system.
Dehumanization is regarded as a Crime against Humanity. This crime against humanity on social media is not held in check, it is part of a controlling fascistic agenda, put in place to persecute people who are guilty of wrongthink. To label them as a dissenter. To deplatform them and force them into exile from their family and friends through indoctrination, through a clear agenda to subjugate people and to destroy those with different beliefs and ideologies.
Social media platforms as of the time I am writing this have too much power, and commit acts of atrocity against people who have done nothing to deserve it and condone misrepresenting and mistreatment of people on their platforms using a combination of twisted logic, “fact checking” which is provided by companies with a political agenda, and refusing to be responsive to issues on the platforms.
People on social media also commit these acts of atrocity. I speak of course about the ‘noble’ SJW who is happy to use any number of blanket terms to condemn anyone with a slightly conservative mindset… Or more disturbingly, anyone who says anything that they can purposefully misconstrue for their sadistic attacks and purely narcissistic agenda. The use of blanket terms used to victimise people: Homophobe, Racist, Islamophobe, Nazi, Far-Right, etc, has become commonplace. People flock to those words to persecute someone, regardless of any form of proof that a person is guilty of any crime, looking to abuse and assault other human beings that may have done nothing wrong.
If you end up being called these words, there is nothing you can do to argue, no words you say, no proof you bring will be listened to, as the mob attacks mindlessly. It’s only desire is to reduce a human being to emotional rubble. This is all done in the name of the greater good, after all, you are no longer human. You are scum. If you think you are safe just because you believe in truth, justice and the same things the SJW purports to believe, you are wrong. At any time, anything you have ever said can be purposefully taken out of context, purposefully misconstrued and maliciously used against you.
So why would people who claim to be for equality and justice dehumanize anyone? Simple. They are trying to establish a moral and social dominance over you within the social hierarchy. They do not attempt to listen to you, or afford you any opportunity to have equal say or thought. They are not really interested in equality at all, they are merely interested in looking good socially. Not only this, but they are eager to witch hunt and character assassinate people in order to further their own sense of self importance, and care not a jot if they misrepresent someone. The word “sorry” is alien to them, as is confessing to making a mistake. Such is their narcissism, they cannot even see that they have made a mistake.
It is interesting how much the SJW relies upon and even calls for the established hierarchy of the platform for assistance, and uses arguments from authority citing politically biased news sources without respecting equality of response. It’s highly authoritarian and far-right in its approach.
There is a much contested quote “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” So certain social media platforms are contextually in accord with this quote. They came wrapped in the words of people claiming to want to bring people together and looking for truth, justice and all things wonderful. Instead they bring domination by fact checkers that write their own facts and distort the truth on a regular basis, by allowing and creating division in society, and pushing political power and agenda any way they see fit.
It is easy to dehumanize anyone reading this, and believe me, I thank you for reading this. All I have to do is tell you you are a white supremacist, and that’s argument over. I don’t need to argue with you anymore because you are nothing more than an enemy of truth, justice and equality. You should feel ashamed, and I have the right to say whatever I like about you, to shame you and abuse you in whatever way I see fit.
This is how the radical right wing sociopaths that claim to be left wing think. No evidence presented, no capitulation, no apology is enough for the crime against humanity you never committed. But what do they do? They strip you of your right to be equally heard, they take from you your voice, your equality, your rights as a human being to stand up and say: “This isn’t who I am.” You are maligned, dragged through the dirt and stamped underfoot, and you may have done nothing to deserve it.
This behaviour is radical, dangerous, and it destroys lives, and pushes innocent human beings to suicide, and with suicide rates climbing in a world increasingly enraptured by the heady embrace of social media, we can only wonder when this madness is going to end.
When people are abused by the far-right SJW, they could be completely innocent of any and all actions they are accused of, yet friends, family and colleagues may turn against them as they might think that the SJW has some knowledge of that person they do not. Human beings who have done nothing wrong have been shunned out of society, and branded with hateful labels, surrounded by a cloud of hate, for things they never said, did, stood for, or thought.
Is it any wonder that people under such an oppressive doctrine of hate are easily radicalised and taught to hate?
We now live in a world where conservatives are terrified to post their real opinions and feelings on social media, not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they know they will fall victim to the terrifying hate crusade, led by sociopathic far right SJWs seeking to demonize them. The social media platforms are also happy to shut down people, with posts ‘disappearing’ and ban hammers being handed out regularly by the powers that be, whenever it is called for.
There is an oppressive atmosphere online created by a stifling of freedom and the suppression of anything that does not fit the narrative. This is endorsed, supported and nurtured by tyrannical groups of people who classify themselves as being the enemies of evil and by this disassociation with evil, they are, at least in their opinion, good. Evil is anyone or anything they deem to be evil, for whatever reason they wish. They can pluck these reasons, and present them with no evidence and still cause catastrophic damage that can ruin an innocent person’s life.
They play a very simple game which is often referred to as “association fallacy” it goes something like this. “You are this, therefore, you believe this.” This is incredibly ignorant and a very stupid form of argument. Even in social groups wherein a large number of people do share similar beliefs, it is never a good thing to assume that a person believes something, even if it is common within the group. It’s dangerous and can cause catastrophic harm. Try asking two filmmakers to agree on camera presets and remember they both fall under the blanket term of filmmaker.
The SJW tends to appeal to emotional stimuli using a combination of trigger words to dehumanize their opponent. They use guilt by association to lower an opponent’s social status, and honour by association (with justice!) to raise their social status. This is the hierarchy game which they crave, and the main reason that it’s easier to associate them with the far right than the left which they claim so often to be, as they spare their opponent no equal footing, honour or quarter.
Now we can look at absolutely any field or area in the whole of human history, and it is very hard, if not impossible to find two people who have exactly the same opinion about everything. We see arguments and debates in government, the sciences, and in all walks of life from acting performance techniques to anime, and there are disagreements and arguments about just about everything.
Guilt by association is a muddy water, and a reprehensible way to treat other people. They might even hold values you do not like or respect, but it doesn’t mean that your assumption another person feels or thinks a certain way is correct. It is also important to note that just because someone may have reprehensible views, that doesn’t make them wrong on certain topics, which means that if someone has something genuinely useful to say, despite not liking them, it can be good to listen.
Because I am a conservative, many people assume that this means I support the Conservative party of the United Kingdom, which I currently don’t. The truth of the matter is that I prefer them to the opposition who I see as being people who would systematically destroy this country and force it into a financial hell due to mismanagement of economics. I would vote for the conservatives as a tactical vote to help protect people from Labour. So why would I be against the Labour party, the party of opposition?
What some people see as “free transport” and “free school meals” will not be paid for by the government, but by the poorest in society due to the way the opposition currently wants to increase minimum wage, corporation tax and taxes on the rich, all of which have historically been bad for people on the lower rungs of society, like myself and my family and friends. With humans being replaced by machines in the workforce and having their work requirements expanded as their colleagues are let go, they will react in shock as they experience this, as every society has when it has experienced this.
What I see from the Labour party is a concentrated effort to apply unrealistic financial pressure to the lower classes, so they develop a reliance on the government with “free transport” and “free school meals” and they see the government as a caring lifeline trying to fix a problem they blame on the economic policies of their conservative enemies.
It baffles me to the point of exasperation that no one can be bothered to do any form of research, and happily accept the words of the people who would financially and politically benefit most from Labour being in power. It is also quite amusing to note that in a world in which the Labour Party would be in power would be pandering to desirable hierarchy and opting out of self sufficiency which is more conservative in its approach.
So what economic policies am I talking about? Increasing the minimum wage is a tax on the employers – so prices rise, workers are made redundant, replaced by machines where possible and have reduced benefits. Generally work requirements are increased as well so their performance at their job has to improve. Etc. This is also an issue with increasing corporation tax and taxing the rich who own companies. You will pay for those “free things.” More than you will for being self sufficient. Glittering trinkets, praised by shills, but worth a lot less than what you lose.
I think wanting to protect people in society, especially the disabled and people on benefits and low wages who are struggling is a very human thing to do. I also think most people want people on benefits and low wages to have happier lives. I just think a lot of people do not understand economics and would rather attribute the majority success of the last conservative landslide election to idiocy and racism. Something that also baffles me especially considering the witch hunts of our last election.
I find the majority of arguments against conservatives hold little water and usually result in the same things: Boris Johnson says silly things and looks like a haystack. Michael Gove looks like a cuttlefish. Theresa May is haunted by those fields of wheat. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a relic from the times of Queen Victoria. All of these are just personal insults because people do not like these people, and they just want to be nasty to them. I have seen a lot of humanity from all of these people, who have been cruelly maligned on social media, and often in the news.
So why is this important? This is a form of dehumanization. “Tory Scum! Tory Scum! Never Trust a Tory! Tory bastards! Every Tory a lying scumbag! Fuck the Tories. Look at this Tory in power, look at what a clown they are!” A collection of people, angry, frustrated with their lives, tearing at people out of sheer fury. Absolute hate. Consider for a moment that the majority of people in this country voted for the Conservatives in the last election. All these people are silent, having to listen to this abuse, ringing out.
The one or two people who walk into the trap of responding and trying to bring facts to the table are dehumanized, stripped of any right to respond and are screamed and jeered off of social media by people who frankly in most cases have the intelligence and mental processing powers of a butternut. I realise the disservice I am doing to the butternut here, but I am merely being facetious. It was amusing to note that most people who are pro Labour and anti Tory seem to love the EU, but blame the Tories for issues caused by the EU’s laws. Reasoning with them is like arguing with a brick wall.
These people who dehumanize others claim to be victims of people in power. They accept people in power are dominant over them in the social hierarchy of society. Their answer is not to try and bring things up with others in a positive way but to tear people apart like a shoal of piranhas, sinking their teeth into an innocent victim. They wish for power over others, and it is incredibly desirable to them. So much so that they cannot be said to be true believers in equality.
It is interesting to note that whilst the true left believe in equality and respectfully allow their opponents a platform as equals, these far right SJW radicals oppress their enemies into silence through abuse, dehumanization and relentless mocking, and see deplatforming of individuals as something great. George Orwell said: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” If stamping on others, dominating, controlling their lives, social profiles and banking, subjugating them and forcing them out of your perfect society because of labels you put on them, then maybe, just maybe you’re not the good person you claim to be. Maybe you’re a predatory SJW.
One thing to note is that there’s also an opposite side to the spectrum. People may like things not normally associated with them, their styles, ideologies or beliefs. A personal example: I do not like rap, I generally detest it as a musical form. Most people would assume that this means that I do not like all rap, and utterly reject the genre. This is incorrect. I rather enjoy a song called Stan by Eminem, who I respect as a lyrical genius, despite the fact I don’t enjoy most of his music. I also really liked Tonight’s Hero by Futurecop, (the version with Lyrics.) But overall, I dislike the genre.
In general, it is not good to reduce anyone to a stereotype as it strips a person of their individuality and dignity. For me to say these things about SJWs may be hypocritical and indeed, my opinions on SJWs are that they tend to be horrible or at least incontrovertibly misguided people. It does not stop me trying my best to talk to them in as human a way as possible and to respond as well as I can to their insane allegations and abuse. I try to listen and respond and that is my own failing as a human being. What I have learned from years of talking to these people is that there is no reasoning with them. The things we try and do in the name of universal brotherhood and friendship…
by Chan Walrus | Aug 18, 2021 | Essays
Mirriam Webster (2020) defines a Bigot as: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.)
I am a bigot. I am highly intolerant of bullies, narcissists, thugs, racists, murderers, paedophiles, and many other people who try to tear society apart. I think that most people are bigots, even if they would not normally associate themselves with the word. Yet this word has been used for a long time especially in political arguments in a mostly very hypocritical way.
The problem is not that they use it, but more so with the way people use the word bigot. They are usually using it to refer to a bigot, or someone they assume is a bigot, in a negative way, and use it as a method to make people hate them via the words association with negative things such as bullying, racism and hate. This for obvious reasons can be an incredible problem.
The issue is simple. Most of the time the person using the word bigot is a bigot themselves because they personally hate the person they’re arguing against – or at least have some sincere intolerance to that person’s beliefs. So we enter into the whole problem of labels and how they are manipulated to hurt people.
Human beings are a species, regardless of how we look or our backgrounds. We are all similar beings with usually very similar characteristics. This is generally how I look at us. I try to avoid labels as they are incredibly harmful and a destructive force in our society. Despite this, I label myself as a moderate right conservative due to my beliefs that I fit these categories politically, which to the intolerant ‘lefties’ makes me scum. This is because they have different meanings for the labels of conservative and right wing. Their association being that the right is evil and conservatives are uncaring despite neither political stance meaning anything of the sort.
My interpretation of conservatism is keeping things traditional, which I see as being cultural. This means I also respect other cultures for their beliefs, traditions and ideals as long as they do not negatively impact anyone’s life. I believe in keeping the economy strong so that the poorer people in society can afford food, rather than increasing certain taxes which would inevitably lead to the ruining of lives and the benefit system here in the UK. (Minimum wage, sugar tax, VAT, Income tax, corporation tax, and taxes upon the rich.) I am also in favour of free enterprise, allowing private businesses to flourish, and not having everything owned by the government which I see as highly oppressive and incompetent or society which is incapable of functioning without a government as we see in situations like CHAZ 2020.
My interpretation of why I classify myself as moderate right wing is that I find social hierarchies normal, and in many cases desirable in terms of the way society is structured. This is an opinion held by most people who are right wing, and most people who supposedly see themselves as left wing are actually moderate right wing, they just have an altogether different interpretation of what right wing is. I like the fact we have a government that provides, because I see little in what people do to provide for each other outside of that, with people choosing to talk rather than act in the majority of cases. Human beings as a species are inherently selfish, so it’s a humanitarian thing to have a government that helps support people who have trouble finding the support from family and friends or even from the society around them.
I think when it comes to warfare it’s a good idea to have an army in which there is one leading officer, rather than have an uncontrollable rabble, and I think that considering most people either build companies in which they are paid more as the boss, or work for companies which keep them fed at a lower salary than the boss, I think that this is not an undesirable solution to life in our civilised society.
I personally believe that these are good things and I think most people would say that they are good. If you are more in favour of this than an egalitarian society, where social hierarchy is opposed, in which everyone is completely equal and you have to support your society and vice versa, then you are not an evil person, but you are likely to be on the right wing. I do not know many people who are left wing, but I know a lot of people who are right wing, most of the time far right, that consistently say they are left wing. This is weird, toxic and I would probably say is delusional behaviour at times.
It has been written that the politics of the far right are oppressive, politically violent, and force assimilation into their ideologies. You may have noticed the far right wearing the mask of the ‘left wing’ on social media platforms trying to force political agendas on people, attacking people who don’t want to be involved in conflict, and trying to smear them, gaslight them, and emotionally blackmail them. These people consider themselves left wing because:
1: They fight for ‘equality.’
2: They fight for ‘justice.’
3: They fight against ‘tyranny.’
4: They hate a ‘reprehensible public figure’ who represents an enemy ideology.
5: They idealize a ‘public figure’, who represents the power of ‘good’.
6: They support a cause that they see as ‘disadvantaged.’
7: The media told them they are ‘left wing.’
But wait a minute! I think equality in some ways is good! I think justice should happen, I don’t like tyranny and I might also dislike reprehensible public figures, or like other public figures. I might also support causes which I see as disadvantaged. I don’t care for the media’s take. They change their opinions more often than I change my underwear – sometimes more often than that. They also rarely apologise when they are wrong… So what’s the problem?
It’s how people have been taught to see me and my ilk, so this is what they think:
Conservatives are all evil. They hate poor people. They hate people of other races. They only care about making money. They are homophobic and just all around bad apples. All Conservatives clearly support the Conservative party because they share the same name.
The Right Wing means far right, alt right, white supremacist, ultra evil. Baby eaters and people who throw kittens into rivers in sacks. We all sold our souls to the devil and regularly go to Nazi parties.
These labels are extremely disturbing considering that right wing, alt right and far right have very different meanings. I have found that the majority of people who tend to refer to themselves as left wing are actually far right radicals, looking to establish themselves above others in a social hierarchy of their own making. They wish for moral superiority, to be regarded in high esteem by their peers, and to lower the public standing of their opponents, knocking them down the social ladder. They do not treat their opponents with equal respect, and generally seek to demonize them. They use the guise of ‘being the good guys’ because it allows them to sleep at night, and makes them untouchable through a shield of pseudo morality.
On one hand the radicals preach about yearning for equality, but they begin by segregating people into groups. Rather than looking at our species as a whole, it’s easier to classify people by race, religion, gender or other characteristics. Identity politics is incredibly destructive. Of course then they are in the ideal position to be superior to these oppressed peoples. Another example of how they find the hierarchies within society to be valuable, using them to tactically manoeuvre. How kind it is of them, from their great and lofty heights to preach that everyone should be nice to whichever group they currently ‘support’. Let me be clear on this: The support they show for others changes at the drop of a hat, and changes with the tide.
With this in mind, it is easy to see how someone can become delusional to the point where they will happily attack a perceived enemy because they have come to see themselves as being the good guys in a war against hate. The problem is that most of the time they attack the perceived enemy with little to no justification, based around their own delusional opinion of who that person is.
In most cases, the perceived enemy has done no wrong, but the radicals are happy to attack regardless. They do so using a variety of sinistar methods, and in a vicious and public way. It’s one of the reasons many Conservatives tend to keep their mouths shut on social media, because of the fear these ‘far right radicals’ have pushed on them.
The radicals, after all, are the forces of their self defined ‘good’, so therefore anyone who they perceive as an enemy, or a threat to their ideology is personally marked as ‘evil’. This means any action, no matter how hostile, cruel or sadistic utilised against what they perceive as an evil enemy is justified, and not only that, expected. They use this standing point and mark out their moral high ground, and accuse anyone who does not follow their delusional doctrine of being ‘insert label here’, and proceed to punish them, even if they are innocent. The Salem witch trials never ended, they just changed form.
A campaign of brutal attacks on social media by narcissistic SJWs against a perceived enemy can be a horrifying thing to watch. A huge gang of thugs picking on a lone person, none of them listening to anything that person is saying, taunting, jeering, and tearing a person apart using blanket statements, abuse and just generally being sadistically cruel to them. There are two goals, break the person emotionally, or make their chosen victim capitulate to the new ideology. How authoritarian and far right can you get? This is not the actions of an inclusive egalitarian group, but an oppressive assault on someone. I do not use the word lightly, as assaults can be physical and psychological and both can have catastrophic results.
Few things sadden me more than people posting videos on social media of people being swarmed on the streets by gangs of angry howling thugs and being forced to kneel and beg for forgiveness for a crime they most likely never committed. During the BLM protests, seeing video of people crying and begging for forgiveness for slavery as people shoved, punched, kicked and spat on them opened my eyes to the evil behind these actions. What happened to equality, respect, and goodness? Swept away by domination and hatred. No kindness, honour or dignity afforded for the ‘scum’ who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. A gross display of man’s inhumanity to man. These people might have done nothing wrong, they even may have supported this ideology. But it doesn’t matter to the mob.
This is not the way to do things. It only harms the cause, if the cause is truly justice. People forced to do anything against their will or being threatened into it does not make them happy followers of the new ideology. It makes them resentful. Resentful people who speak out against the actions of these SJWs or their ideologies are muted, barred and sometimes removed from social media as anything they say can be flagged up as hate speech. This only reinforces the belief in the SJWs mind that they are on the side of good and the other person is evil. It also builds the resentment in their victims. It’s also easy for a team of SJW friends to flag a person’s posts or account for hate speech, and the automated platform to just deplatform that person due to the number of reports going in.
So where does this lead people? Underground. With nowhere else to go, people find small groups of similar people. These groups are usually directly opposed to the ideologies that the victims were forced to capitulate to. With no one to argue against ideas within these new groups and constant support from other social exiles, we end up with a dangerous situation in which human beings become radicalised themselves. It is only then that things get worse and worse to the point where finally they take action against others. Often causing them emotional or physical harm. In a world in which freedom of speech isn’t stifled by oppressive social media politics, this doesn’t happen in the same way, as people generally keep each other in check, whilst being able to be around their friends and families in a safe environment.
Taking a look from outside, it is not dissimilar to the social media platforms taking on the role of Nazi Germany. We have seen a lot of taking over of platforms such as Instagram and WhatsApp, which is a matter of antitrust, but also in the deplatforming of free speech platforms such as Parler and Gab. These platforms were labelled as alt-right and accused of everything from being the reasons people committed murders to the capitol hill riots. (Something a different platform that didn’t fit the free speech narrative was actually more guilty of, and remained up and functioning as a platform… How disturbing.)
One group of social media platforms and tech entities is controlling the market with one singular agenda. Taking over and destroying their opponents, to expand the lebensraum of account space for social refugees and keep them in the right political mindset, under their control. The SJWs are their Gestapo, attacking and eliminating thought criminals, or forcing them to convert and pledge allegiance to the leadership. If you think people are your friends, just say a few things that would put you outside of your comfort zone, like: “I’m right wing.” or “I voted Conservative.” Watch how your friends treat you. It’s like being swarmed by an army of fire ants. I do not honestly recommend this path, you will most likely not like the results.
The takeover and domination of tech entities and social media with one political agenda is a little disturbing if you ask me. But surely people who are for social justice, equality and all the other good stuff wouldn’t be like that would they? Indoctrination of people is easy. Identity politics makes it a very simple process. It’s easy to see a person who is suffering, to feel sympathy and guilt and want to help. It’s human. Identity politics gives a plethora of reasons people can be oppressed, and anyone, for any reason can be an oppressor.
The problem is the media have trained people like attack dogs to go for their interpretation of who the bad guys are. They can decide at any time who is a hero and who is a villain. You are some kind of phobe or ist somewhere, and they will find it, even if it isn’t true. There will be no sympathy or mercy for the bad guys, and it’s easy to be a bad guy. You just have to say anything that can be misconstrued, and it’s easy to be misconstrued on the internet.
It’s also easy for malevolent people to turn anyone into an enemy by simple manipulation of their statements, or by finding another way to make people into enemies. “White silence is violence.” Means anyone who doesn’t speak up and speak out is an enemy. It forces people to bow down and surrender themselves, even if they already agree in principle. This causes resentment, which in turn leads to small groups forming outside of the radar of social media, and, unchecked, can grow malignant and radical. A problem caused by actions taken… in the name of justice of course.
It is easy to do using the process of labelling anything that one sees as unclean or evil with any of a huge list of terms which will ultimately raise an army of people against a person with very little effort.
Here are some examples: If someone says…
“Blue Lives Matterl or “All Lives Matter”, they are racist.
“I don’t agree with Pride”, they are homophobic, transphobic, etc.
“Radical Islam can be dangerous”, they are Islamophobic.
“The Guardian sucks”, they are a Daily Mail Reader (shudder)
These are a few examples, so I should go into detail.
Blue Lives Matter was a movement started following the revenge killing of two police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. It seeks to consider the murder of police officers due to their status as police officers a hate crime, which it clearly is. It is seen as a movement that is ‘anti-black’ by people who call the movement racist, despite the fact that this is ludicrous. For example, it was people who supported Blue Lives Matter who recognised the death of David Dorn, something the Black Lives Matter movement failed to do as he didn’t fit their political narrative, sparking a huge amount of anger in the process. David Dorn was a retired African-American police officer who died interrupting a burglary during the BLM riots, and is someone I see as a hero.
All Lives Matter has been criticised as it lacks a specific focus on the inferior ‘Black Lives’ that the superior ‘white’ man (the SJW) feels the need to protect. I find it very odd that a statement so inclusive and pro-equality could be seen as racist. It is my interpretation that we are all brothers and sisters of the human race, so why single anyone out?
It is interesting to note that people who speak out against All Lives Matter do not seem to classify ‘Black Lives’ as part of the all encompassing All. They try to separate ‘Black’ from the rest of the human race, which is in my eyes an incredibly racist sentiment. It’s dehumanising and a revolting thing to do. At Dallas 2016, members of ALM and BLM embraced as they met. They talked about breaking down walls and how they were brothers and sisters.
Pride is an interesting one. Quite a few of my gay friends absolutely hate it for several reasons and I have had to defend them on social media against the most disgusting accusations. Pride is corporate, and has been for a long time. It’s gone from helping people to being a giant corporate cash cow, where people are taken out and celebrated, so everyone can buy a load of rainbow merchandise, then thrown back into the closet for another year. It’s exploitative of the LGBTQ community and allies and whilst it is absolutely a good thing to celebrate, I think the community should be celebrated all year round instead of the Pride event just being used to exploit people for cash then shunting them away from society for the rest of the year.
Radical Islam can be dangerous. It is a hard thing for me to say as a Sufi, but it is true. As a doctrine, I have seen the words of the Quran being used as much for evil as for good, in many cases being twisted for sinister purposes. The great Imam of Peace, Mohammad Tawhidi has done much to fight against radical Islam. As I accept the law and rules of the country I reside in, I expect my fellow Muslims to do so. There have been some people saying that Islamophobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about it.
Whilst many would say that a lot of people, myself included, that many Muslims here in the UK are accepting of the culture here, and I would agree, looking to the east, I do not find a strong tolerance there for LGBTQ community. Strangely enough Muslims are among the many groups SJWs will surge to protect as well as the LBGTQ. Pick a side guys. I personally, as an ally, think our LGBTQ Community should be protected by radical Islam by recognising that it is dangerous, and taking steps to ensure that it is not unleashed on the LGBTQ community.
The Guardian does suck. It was founded on the back of exploitation within the slave trade by a cotton merchant called John Edward Taylor, who it is well worth researching. The Guardian is a political soapbox and has a highly political agenda, utilising a very one sided view of the world, and is every bit as bad as the Daily Mail. If you read either, there’s a good chance you are indoctrinated to hate the other. Both papers are worth avoiding.
The problem with labels is that they are a part of structure and establishment and ultimately are a device used to divide and reduce someone’s status to a level lower than them, something which the left, which favour equality would not attempt to do. The far right authoritarians do not have a problem playing identity politics as it allows them to create their own twisted social hierarchies.
If you are a “Label” then I am morally superior to you.
If you are a “Label” you should be ashamed.
If you are a “Label” you are a terrible person.
If you are a “Label” you should kill yourself.
If you are a “Label” you are scum.
If you are a “Label” you are worthless.
You are any label that an SJW may wish. Right Winger, Trump Supporter, Nazi, White Supremecist, the list goes on. Try replacing these words with Limey, Spic, Honkey, Nigger. These are bad words, and if you are reading this correctly, you should be noticing the problems inherent within this kind of rationale, along with the similarities in the jingoistic and fanatical hatred held by the people who use these labels as weapons.
When a conversation starts online, there is no hierarchy. There are just two or more people talking about things, possibly supporting ideas, or possibly arguing, but there is no level of control or domination. This is the conversation in its most equal stage.
In a conversation between people who truly value equality and respect, it is always interesting to note that there is no attempt to morally blackmail, dominate, or demonise anyone. The people involved in the conversation or debate listen to each other, accept the things the other person has to say, and put forwards their own evidence, thoughts and opinions which are respected and listened to.
In a conversation with the average far right radicalised SJW, it becomes a battle to the death of insults, shaming, demonization, emotional blackmail, hate, and anything the SJW can use to dominate an opponent. They call in friends, they bring their little armies of fascist trolls. Mostly they are all misinformed, and mostly they are incorrect, and the majority of them have little to no understanding of anything other than the ideology of dominating an opponent. This is an establishment of hierarchy, a hierarchy that is desirable to the SJW and it is something they do every day. It is a far right act, and it is not acceptable.
Wikipedia (2021) has a protected page status meaning it cannot be edited by trolls, definines the Far Right thusly: “Far right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.”
What we see from the SJWs in almost every circumstances is bringing oppression, political violence in the way they utilise labels and bring allies to humiliate and emotionally assault others, forced violence in videos where people are attacked, (punch a Nazi is a fun thing when you define what a Nazi is based on little to no evidence!) forced assimilation of people oppressed into capitulation to follow the new ideologis.
Ethnic cleansing, well ethnic is another term for different racial or cultural groups, so cleanse the conservatives, and cleanse the opposition as their cultures are different (and clearly evil, defined, of course by us!) The media has recently talked about re-education camps for conservatives. Please, just execute us already. Genocide hasn’t happened, but there is currently a social purge of conservatives online, we have seen this in the deplatforming of undesirables who speak out against corruption like Mike Lindell, a violation of his right to free speech, enacted not by a corporation but by a political narrative. This is because conservatives and people of the right wing are inferior in the opinion of the deluded SJW. So much for equality, right?
This of course is because, as Wikipedia says, of the enemy’s perceived threat to the SJW’s delusional ideology. The SJW sets the rules for the battle so they can engage with any opponent at any time. What we see is blitzkrieg after blitzkrieg on social media, as they move to take anyone down, striking in groups to subjugate anyone they wish. The only thing they have equal is their responsibility to the lives they purposefully ruin, and they take no responsibility for their actions.
They use a combination of labels, blanket statements and fear to dominate opponents. A label like ‘Trump supporter’ was one that was used on me recently. This was following a statement I made which said that maybe America would look back and miss “Orange Man”. I have a lot of respect for Donald Trump, and I think if you cannot name one good thing about the man, you do not know enough about what he has actually done to have an opinion that he is the abominable monster he is portrayed as by the mass media.
For context, I want to express that I was on the side of the Libertarians at this point and supporting their campaigns in Tennessee. Donald Trump is a Republican and Biden a Democrat. The Libertarian leadership I supported was Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen who had nothing to do with Trump. Many of my statements on Social Media had been in support of the Libertarians.
The label of ‘Trump supporter’ garnered some support against me, which I quickly quashed by contacting the person who liked the attacker’s statement, asking why they believed it and providing evidence this person was wrong and I was being maliciously attacked.
I find it quite disturbing when far right radicals take to social media and put out blanket statements attacking ideologies as well. A while back, someone posted a disgusting comment linking an article based upon a racist attack and said that behaviour was typical of people who were ‘Tories’ ie, supporters of the conservative party in the UK.
I engaged them in a debate that was frankly rather awful and was demonized and referred to by many different unpleasantries. I provided a large plethora of information expressing why my political views were correct and how the conservative party was helping to support low income families, only to be ignored, gaslit and abused. It was a great experience as it revealed a far right sociopath among my friendship circle.
Let us go back to the statement: “White Silence is violence.” I have seen this uttered by many people on social media all of whom have condemned Donald Trump as being a ‘Racist.’ Donald Trump has disavowed and condemned racism and racist groups over 35 times to my knowledge. This tends to come from the First Presidential debate streamed live on 30th of September 2020, where he was asked, yet again, as he is always asked to condemn White Supremacists and similar groups. The full debate can be watched online, yet this particular moment was quote mined and purposefully misinterpreted by the media who focused on it and used it to condemn him as a white supremacist. It didn’t matter that he had previously disavowed such groups, but despite the fact that he says “Sure.” when asked if he’d condemn it, this was cut from the media broadcasts that they quote mined to him arguing against his opponent flustered, making him look bad.
Even though Trump had done a lot for african-americans, had extremely good approval ratings, had a fantastic track record and was growing african-american support of the Republican party, many people shared these quote mined clips and continue to see Trump as a racist. They cannot be bothered to go and watch debates and are happy to sit there and propagate what I see is a grossly unjust assassination of character. The issue here is that people do not want to listen to a ‘racist’ and don’t want to have their opinion changed. Trump is clearly not a racist, as anyone who actually knows anything about him would know.
This reflects also back to me, as I was accused of being a Trump supporter. That meant that I, through association, could be referred to as ‘racist’ which has been the case on several occasions. This has allowed several SJWs to attack me despite the fact I never voted for Trump, as a British citizen, that would be hard. But not only this, I had been very much in the idea of supporting the Libertarians and was involved in working with them remotely in Tennessee, so actually Trump was my enemy, as was Joe Biden.
Identity politics is a dangerous arena. As soon as you have a label, you can be attacked. It is important to note that just because a million people share the same label, each one of them is an individual, and I am in accord with Martin Luther King Jr, that people should be judged by the content of their character. He was a great man, and is someone well worth listening to. No matter what our labels, we are all human, until we behave like a reprehensible moron and start attacking others for our own vile pleasure.
by Chan Walrus | Jul 29, 2021 | Politics
It is my opinion that the Government is using coercion in order to try and assert the effects of a law coming into play before such a time as legislation has been altered in order to make such a new law legal. They are doing this, I believe, and pushing this idea that the law will come into play so hard because There is quite a good chance that it will not. Currently as far as I am aware, it is illegal to actually enforce a vaccine that has endless possibilities of providing future health risks on people as a mandatory procedure. As the government cannot ensure the law will come into play, it is trying to echo the idea loud and proud in an effort to get as many people vaccinated as possible. This does not mean of course that they will ever have the power to force emergency medical procedures on people.
At the moment all of the vaccines approved for use in emergency are being used in the UK before such a time as we know the long term health risks of these vaccines, and as such there can be no informed consent when people agree to accept them, which ultimately becomes tort of battery if information given to people during this crisis turns out to be false and they accept medical procedures without knowing the full risks. The government has provided legal protections for vaccine companies. This makes me question their safety, as if a product is truly safe, why would protections be needed?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html
Enforcing Medical Procedures and the Law
Until a law is passed in the UK enforcing people to accept vaccinations, which would mean removing people’s protections and rights, no vaccination can be mandatory against the will of an individual. This is why the mandatory vaccines are being pushed as an idea. It does not mean that the laws will be overturned and it does not mean that vaccinations will become mandatory. Until such a law is passed in the UK, it is merely spoken word and intention and bears absolutely no weight in a court of law against current laws in place to protect individuals from this. I will go into detail on these protections soon.
Care Staff
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/covid-jabs-to-become-mandatory-for-care-home-staff-in-england
Care Companies are currently very keen to ensure that these emergency approved vaccines are used on staff before such a time as the planned law comes into effect. The planned mandate is allegedly coming into effect in October, but until that time has come, and the laws currently protecting people from this are removed or altered, I would recommend holding out and not taking the vaccines if you do not want them. There is a 16 week grace period as mentioned in many news outlets in which we can all have our enforced authoritarian jabs if it comes down to it – if, and only if such a law comes into effect.
Care companies should not tell staff the laws are coming into effect. They should say that the government intends to bring in laws. They may suggest that their staff consider taking vaccines, but not compel it until it is law.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/577842
A petition was launched to try and protect Carer rights. The government’s response was interesting:
“The requirement will not apply to : (i) family and friends visiting a care home resident, including essential care givers (ii) any person providing emergency assistance and any member of the emergency services in execution of their duties (iii) any person providing urgent maintenance assistance (iv) any person providing end of life care or bereavement support, or (v) to any person under the age of 18. Visits from family and friends are vital to ensuring people living in care homes have a good quality of life and maintain a positive wellbeing.”
As Family and Friends, Essential Care Givers, Persons Providing Emergency Assistance, Maintenance crews, End of Life Carers/Bereavement Support and Persons under 18 visit care homes on a daily basis, and most of these, interact with residents at the care home on a daily basis, I can only get from this that the health and well-being of residents does not factor in logically, as all of these unvaccinated people who enter care homes daily and in significant numbers would be a massive health risk, probably more so than carers who are trained in infection control.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/everyone-working-in-care-homes-to-be-fully-vaccinated-under-new-law-to-protect-residents
Additionally anyone with a medical exemption is also allowed to get by without the vaccine. (More on this later as we can self certify so this isn’t even an issue.) My reasoning is simple. If the health and well-being of residents matters, either everyone interacting with them has to be forced into vaccinations or no one does. There can be no middle ground on this.
Before we continue we need to look into Coercion. Coercion is: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone doing something they have a legal right to do.
So for example, any organisation threatening disciplinary action, unspecified meetings or punishments if their staff do not comply with being vaccinated before such a time as they would be enforced by law would be guilty of coercion. A breach or article 3 of human rights.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-3-freedom-torture-and-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment
Coercion and the intimidatory factors of the threat of punishment upon failure to comply would classify as intimidation – under torture and it would be a breach of human rights. It would reflect abominably upon any organisation attempting to utilise the propaganda of a law that is not yet in effect to influence people into getting an unwanted emergency medical procedure. This could be for religious reasons, because of fear of the potential health risks or just because a person wouldn’t want it, even if they are afraid of needles.
As it stands, the law in the UK: Public Health Act, Control of Disease 1984 protects people’s rights and freedoms in regards to not enforcing invasive medical treatments, as the government cannot apply such pressures to the population. Hence the coercion and constant propaganda. Also why it’s not been signed into law already.
Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment. “ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment. You can read more about these here.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22
Defence against Vaccinations – Informed Consent
In terms of a medical exemption for vaccines, In 2015 the Supreme Court recognised at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire 2015 UKSC 11.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf
In 2001, EWCA Civ 1545, Supreme Court President Lady Justice Hale confirmed that enforced medical procedures without informed consent may be sued in the ordinary way for the common law tort of battery.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1545.html
Informed consent is defined within Montgomery v Lanarkshire is as follows:
1: That the patient is given sufficient information to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
As there is no information as to the long term effects of these vaccines and they are still approved for use only on the grounds of medical emergency. Sufficient information on long term effects does not exist.
2: Sufficient information means informing the patient of other treatments and forms of testing.
3: That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical risks of taking the medical information and the material risks of declining it.
As no long term information is available, this would not be informed consent.
If future information came to light after the patient gave consent, and there is a breach of informed consent, this would be classified as tort of battery and the medication would be unlawful.
The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent based on the ancient tort of battery is valid in all 16 Commonwealth realms and the Republic of Ireland and USA as far as I know.
COVID passports recognise self certified free and informed consent under the phrase on the government website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass
“If you have a medical reason which means you cannot be vaccinated or tested, you may be asked to self-declare this medical exemption.” A declaration like this can be countersigned by a solicitor if necessary. Doctors cannot do this because it is unlawful for them to interfere in free consent. I know this isn’t my usual comedic stuff, but I hope it helps.
