Tommy Robinson has only been out of jail since Wednesday and in that time seems to have appeared on every media outlet known to man. That ought to ring alarm bells in anyone who hasn't been converted to the Church of Latter-Day Tommy. Why would there be a media frenzy over Robinson and a complete blackout on Jeremy Bedford-Turner? Both were termed politically 'far right' on their imprisonment, yet it seems one is certainly more acceptable than the other. While extreme leftist news outlets entertain Robinson even as they demonise him, Fox News presents Robinson as a martyr, and Tommy - good old Tommy, that down-to-earth likeable working-class cheeky chappy - has been more than obliging in playing the role he was groomed to play.
Tommy has had a story to tell to all his army of Tommytards, who will lap it up without a moments scepticism or critical thinking, pumped as it is unfiltered through the Zionist alternative media. He likened prison to Guantanamo Bay, which is interesting as I do not believe he has ever visited Guantanamo Bay. In any case, is that not where Muslim terrorists and insurgents are imprisoned? Is Tommy simultaneously critiquing the treatment of the Muslim terrorists he purports to loath? The overwrought horror stories come flowing from his mouth like James Herbert on an acid trip: on Tucker Carlson Tonight, he described having to keep his window closed because of being spat at and having excrement thrown at him. He claimed to have only had a tin of tuna and a piece of fruit a day. He has, apparently, lost 40lbs.
This ought to strike everyone with any sense as complete fabrication, but we live now in a society where lying has become an accepted norm. Everything public figures say are simultaneously believed and disbelieved with simultaneous dispassion and religious fervour. This is the legacy of Holocaustianity, which, as I discussed in my video on the concentration camp at Mühldorf, relies in its mythic narrative upon a suspension of belief. Robinson's lies are easy to see through, because he has a habit of contradicting himself. He has claimed that he was deliberately put in danger by being transferred to a prison with a high Muslim population. He has also claimed that he was put in solitary confinement. Which is it then? Were you in danger or in solitary confinement, Tommy? While it is true that violent Muslim gangs do essentially run the British prisons, you cannot come into contact with them if you are in solitary confinement. But we are told "It's anudda Shoah!"
And again one has to ask during all this, what is not being talked about? The young girls being raped by Muslim immigrants who have been aided and abetted in entering Britain by powerful Jewish and Leftist lobby groups have conveniently been completely forgotten. All the while, the appeals procedure is costing the taxpayer a small fortune that could easily have been avoided if Robinson had done something worthwhile, like holding a demonstration in a place where the authorities were not prosecuting Muslim rapists, instead of jeopardising a case where the state was prosecuting them. As regards the case itself, one sees the perverse logic of Tommytards when addressing the morality of what Robinson did versus the morality of the state. We know the state is unjust as a general rule, but this does not excuse what Robinson did. Let me be clear on this by addressing a comment I had on Julie Lake's article from May:
"Strange, but in the Milly Dowler case two newspapers reported
information which was not allowed to be revealed in court because it was
so prejudicial to the defendant, before the jury had considered a
second kidnapping charge against Levi Bellfield.
The rest of the trial WAS ACTUALLY ABANDONED and THE JURY DISMISSED because of the PREJUDICIAL REPORTING.
And Bellfield got let off that charge.
Did the reporters get the maximum two years?
Or the editors?!
Did they even get 13 months?!?!
Did they even get 10, or even 3 months?!
In the UK sentences almost never run consecutively, as Robinson's do, they are almost always concurrent.
In
fact, in the UK hardened seriously violent criminals usually get
Saturday afternoon detention, community service, suspended sentence
after suspended sentence, never activated, despite breaches, before they
end up in jail.
So, typically, the journalists (and editors) got zero months, and zero days.
Their
employers got a £10,000 fine, nothing for a major international
newspaper, the editor of one probably spends more a year on lunch
expenses!
Regardless of what you think of Robinson, or what he did, that puts his "crime" in perspective, and his treatment even more so.
Furthermore, he was not allowed his own legal team, who were sidetracked and sidelined.
His
court appointed barrister can't have had more than a few minutes to
prepare his "defence", while the judge and CPS must have been working on
their prosecution all morning.
And yet the crown has just
postponed Robinson's appeal because they haven't had time, with the
whole CPS available to them, as well as the judge and prosecutor from
the original hearing, and their preparatory work for that hearing, to
prepare their case?!
So why do they need weeks (months?!) to argue the same case they prosecuted him with?!?!
Then again, "The law governing contempt of court is vast"
This
is a Rule of Law (look it up, it doesn't mean what most people think it
means!) and Justice issue, which everyone who believes in freedom and
liberty should be supporting Robinson on, regardless of personal views
about him and his politics.
He was speaking out for the girls in
his home town, and other working class communities (black, brown and
white) and when they came for him, over and over again, no one spoke up
for him.
When they finally come for you, who will be left to speak up for you?!?!
Jeremy Bonnington-Jagworth"
Well, Mr Bonnington-Jagworth, let us ignore the emotive bullshit and get down to the facts you mention about the Milly Dowler case, or rather the Levi Bellfield case, which was for a charge of kidnapping further to the murder of Milly Dowler. You are correct in that the reporters who prejudiced the case were not imprisoned. This, however, does not make Tommy Robinson innocent, but the state guilty of not prosecuting those journalists. Thus the question has to be asked: why were you campaigning for Robinson's release and not for the imprisonment of those journalists? You people are perverse! Let me remind you: our focus should be on protecting our children from abuse and anyone who compromises that needs to be punished harshly.
I'm glad you made this entry. It has been depressing how many who should know better are falling for this manufactured tale. Some are sort of nodding and winking and hoping it will work in our favor anyway while knowing it is nonsense. I think this is a mistake if there's no true Right large scale effort to co-opt it (there has been none) and instead only hoping it will land in our laps by magic. Even worse are those on the right who are helping hype this up thinking if they cover it in added hyperbole and fake outrage of atrocity we'll get sympathy in turn, despite the fact that this character is openly opposed to views of the Right or pretty much anyone sympathetic to this blog nationalists of any sort (other than one key group, perhaps).
The goal of this is to suppress a true and natural response and the growth of natural leadership from it. They have spent billions and generations on psychological studies. They know that pressures in nature cause responses in turn and so they are allowing both a controlled release and also directing things in a way that can be managed. Most crucially though this will prevent any real natural response and leader from coming to the fore as everyone assumes that it is already taken care of. If several people at the scene of an accident tell you they've already called the emergency services you won't do it yourself to report the same thing again. If you have the choice of sacrificing and putting the effort to be a leader or compete with other leadership or spend leisure time with the family knowing that there are people who have it in their capable hands instead already you'll do the obviously more comfortable choice. This is what I suspect the main goal of this is.
I'm glad you made this entry. It has been depressing how many who should know better are falling for this manufactured tale. Some are sort of nodding and winking and hoping it will work in our favor anyway while knowing it is nonsense. I think this is a mistake if there's no true Right large scale effort to co-opt it (there has been none) and instead only hoping it will land in our laps by magic. Even worse are those on the right who are helping hype this up thinking if they cover it in added hyperbole and fake outrage of atrocity we'll get sympathy in turn, despite the fact that this character is openly opposed to views of the Right or pretty much anyone sympathetic to this blog nationalists of any sort (other than one key group, perhaps).
ReplyDeleteThe goal of this is to suppress a true and natural response and the growth of natural leadership from it. They have spent billions and generations on psychological studies. They know that pressures in nature cause responses in turn and so they are allowing both a controlled release and also directing things in a way that can be managed. Most crucially though this will prevent any real natural response and leader from coming to the fore as everyone assumes that it is already taken care of. If several people at the scene of an accident tell you they've already called the emergency services you won't do it yourself to report the same thing again. If you have the choice of sacrificing and putting the effort to be a leader or compete with other leadership or spend leisure time with the family knowing that there are people who have it in their capable hands instead already you'll do the obviously more comfortable choice. This is what I suspect the main goal of this is.