WHY I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SNOOPER'S CHARTER OR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

In Saturday's Sun newspaper, Jeremy Clarkson, a motoring journalist who has been elevated to hero status and low-cultural icon beause he has mouthed a few mild utterances in favour of civic nationalism and, it must be said, due to his wit, humour and televisual acumen, used the fullness of his column inches to make a serious point about the legislation being brought in by the British government to curb freedom of speech and expression. This act has been called the "Snooper's Charter", although its real name is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

 

Clarkson was concerned with the effect this would have on the freedom of the press, because if a newspaper reports a story about a minister, or anyone else, the person named can sue the newspaper, and even if the court finds in favour of the newspaper, the newspaper still has to pay the person named's costs. This, he suggests, will put government officials beyond criticism and take away our freedoms:

"[T]he keystone of freedom is a press that is completely and utterly free from any sort of government interference."

He was keen to distance himself from the idea that he was just defending his paymasters, because that is exactly what he was doing. The keystone of freedom is not the freedom of the press; it is the freedom of the ordinary man, woman or child to express what they want without government interference. In Britain, we have not had that freedom for some considerable time. The press has had little to say about this. Equally, it was rather telling that Clarkson had nothing to say about any of the other questionable aspects of the bill, such as the freedom for the government to hack into ordinary people's computers and other communications devices.

 

We know from past experience that these increased powers, which are in any case merely extensions of existing state power, that these powers will be used to persecute objectors to the government's neo-Marxist anti-White project. We know this because even people posting politically incorrect tweets like Liam Stacey in 2012 and Daniel Shepstone in 2014 have been convicted of thoughtcrimes, the former having received a prison sentence and was convicted by a judge in a trial without a jury. And the media roundly cheered their convictions. Thus, the media whining now about freedom of expression is utter hypocrisy.

 

I am, however, not a champion of freedom of speech. As a Rightist, my commitment is to Truth. Given my way, the press would be forced to report the Truth and would face prosecution if they strayed from their duty. At the moment, they are free to lie and do so with alarming frequency, so much so that Alt Righters have revived an old German word for them: Lügenpresse. The National Union of Journalists gives these ethical guidelines for journalists:

A journalist:

1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.

2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.

3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.

4. Differentiates between fact and opinion.

5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.

6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.

7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.

8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.

9. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.

10. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.

11. A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.

12. Avoids plagiarism.

This all seems very reasonable, doesn't it? But what if Points 1 and 2 come into conflict with Point 9? Actually, this has already happened. When Asian, largely Muslim, paedophile rings targetted and raped White girls as young as twelve en masse for over fifteen years, the media refused point blank to report it. They thus censored the Truth as both Veritas and Aletheia (but not in a Heideggerean sense). Marlene Guest of the British National Party campaigned tirelessly to bring the horror to light, to make the newspapers do their job, but Points 1 and 2 were in conflict with Point 9 and Point 9 trumps everything, including Truth.

 

Yet even when there is no conflict, the print media has lied repeatedly. I remember when the Daily Mail ran a story prior to the 2010 general election that then leader of the BNP Nick Griffin, a man I have little time for, had two rottweilers called Anne and Frank. It was a complete fabrication, a lie to further the Leftist political agenda of the Lügenpresse. The entire of the print and TV media also continually fabricated polls in the run-up to the Brexit referendum, having predicted a clear win for the "remainers". "Leavers" were depicted as "racist" parochial little Englanders, White males over the age of forty, alone and bitter at the world, while "remainers" were vibrant, diverse, young and well-educated. I would agree with the latter adjective, in the sense of well-trained. In fact, the majority of young people didn't vote at all - between 64% and 75% depending on how the age group is defined. 

 

This dishonesty can be seen throughout the Western media and particularly in the BBC in Britain and CNN in the USA, which was derided as the Clinton News Network during the recent presidential elections. It is amusing that CNN have been decrying so-called "fake news" coming from the new burgeoning online media when they have completely fabricated a story about Russia undermining the US presidential election. There is, of course, never any mention of Israel's very real influence on the elections, proven by both candidates' obligation to speak at AIPAC.

This is why, when Jeremy Clarkson talks about the unreliability of online media in relation to the printed word, his assertions become risible. I personally welcome the decline and fall of the newspaper industry and if this law furthers its demise, so much the better. "Don't believe everything you read in the papers" the saying goes - and yet people do. They have manipulated the minds of their readership into a post-Marxian false consciousness the likes of which Marx's successor (((Herbert Marcuse))) advocated:

[T]he efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)--it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media.

Marcuse, like all Marxists, uses the notion of a false consciousness dishonestly, for they wish to create a false consciousness, in other words a consciousness turned against the traditional Occidental one, which we now see exhibited by the post-modern university campus social justice warrior, and which will be and now is hegemonic in the mainstream media. So no, the "Snooper's Charter" in Britain does not bother me at all.

 

Even when it comes to the increase in powers to further state surveillance, I do not so much as bad an eyelid. The fact is the government has spied on its populace in any case. In 2008, the government spied on 500,000 people living in Britain by accessing their phones, e-mail accounts and letters. All this new act is doing is making it obvious to everyone and therefore I welcome it - although, interestingly, a few days ago on 21st December, the European Court of Justice ruled that mass surveillance by a government was unlawful, which is an interesting development. If the European Court of Justice comes into conflict with the government over this, it will further expose the British government's trajectory towards Leftist totalitarianism.

 

Did I say Leftist totalitarianism? Aren't the Conservatives in power? Well, the Conservative Party is in power, but conserving the present society means they are inherently Leftist. The current leader is Theresa May, who in 2002 referred to the Conservative Party as the "Nasty Party", meaning the last vestiges of traditionalism within the party. In addition, the Investigatory Powers Act was supervised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose chairman is none other than arch-Leftist Harriet Harman, who had links to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s and 1980s through her position as Legal Officer of the Extreme-Left pressure group the National Council for Civil Liberties:

She has steadfastly refused to admit wrongdoing in allowing PIE to use the NCCL as a platform to lobby for a reduction of the age of sexual consent to ten. Remember the children being raped by Muslim gangs? It is hardly surprising when we have paedophiles and their enablers in parliament. The new legislation is designed to deter investigative jounalism that would expose the Cyril Smiths, Leon Brittans and Greville Janners of this world. Yet, ironically, the mainstream media, who are part of the same Leftist ruling clique, only report such stories when they can no longer be contained and then work to limit the damage done to the ruling clique in the public perception, and thus, if the new legislation kills off the current mainstream media and forces people online, more and more of people will fing us there....waiting.