Tory party chairman Brandon Lewis, a man who has developed relentless lying into an art form, announced that a Tory social media army will be unleashed.
Taking inspiration from Russian bot farms and from the MAGA mob, a mix of nasty young brats and bitter old gits will regurgitate Tory lies and misdirections. Smirk-filled provocation, personal abuse and melodramatic fake reactions will be the tone of their online engagement.
Clearly, the main purpose of the Tory social media army is to distract people away from intelligent debate. The Tories cannot compete on facts or on clarity of political vision. They have nothing but the same lies repeated over and over accompanied by petulance. The Tory social media strategy is the industrialisation of the dead cat tactic.
Some of the members of this army of insincere voices will be paid for their work.
How to deal with the Tory social media army Given how comfortable Brandon Lewis feels about lying, it is possible that the social media army won’t exist at all; perhaps, they have just cloned ridiculous troll James Cleverly. New initiatives that claim to seek to spark Tory support are declared every week and inevitable flaccidity ensues. However, just in case some hapless prats are engaged in online combat on behalf of the Tories, the (obvious) response to their operations is to
Ignore deliberate childish provocation that seeks an angry response
Don’t be distracted into circular and stupid non-debates
Make a note of lies and libellous comments for possible future use
The Tories, hampered by the growing negative consequences of their policies and by the continuing farce of their non-existent Brexit plans, have only mindless wacky wavy inflatable arm-flailing tubeman tactics to offer led by the trio of clowns Brandon Lewis, James Cleverly and Ben Bradley. Their cluelessness is very welcome.
Since 12th September 2015, professional centrists in British politics have pretended to support the need for a new centrist party. These plaintive cries have claimed to be voices of despair worried about the future of civilisation in Britain. The result of the EU referendum gave the wailers something to grasp onto as a convenient aim – to stop Brexit – but still their cries sounded empty and false.
Is there a need for a new “centrist” party? No, of course not. The Labour Party occupies the political spectrum spanning the middle-point and slightly leftward with a few outliers on the right in Progress, the SNP claims to be squeezed into a centre and, apparently, the Liberal Democrats still exist. There is not a large group of people who avoid voting until some magical centre party emerges like James Corden with an unnecessary bit part in a Hollywood movie. Simply, there is no public demand or interest in a new centrist party.
Has the centre succeeded in elections since September 2015? No, it has not. In the 2017 general election the SNP lost several seats (to both Labour and Tory), the Liberal Democrats remained a minor presence and a Corbyn-led Labour took seats from the Tories. In Northern Ireland the seats were divided in a binary way between DUP and Sinn Fein. So, no gains, only losses, for anyone claiming to be in the centre. Why vote for something that defines itself by what it isn’t?
Where or what is the centre? The centre of mass of two planets – for example, Earth and Mars – is an untethered point in the vacuum of space between the planets. A point has no mass or volume and it isn’t anywhere. It is defined by where it isn’t not where it is and by what it isn’t not by what it is.
Analogously, the centre of politics is equidistant between the two sides of the political spectrum: Socialism on the left and capitalism on the right; it is defined (mathematically) but consists of emptiness like the aforesaid point in space. It isn’t anywhere and it is defined by what it isn’t not by what it is. The centrist activists describe their anti-ideology as not the blatantly corrupt exploitation of the Tories and not Jeremy Corbyn’s tendency toward socialism. That is, they describe a null location.
Is centrism a con? Yes, of course it is. Visibly, it consists of nothing, but it does have a distinct purpose. Its purpose is to pretend to be the opposition to right-wing exploitative politics in order to distract attention from genuine opposition. Centrists want to prevent an effective challenge to the ideological conservative destruction of society because they do not disagree with such destruction. Centrists are useful tools for the conservatives: They occupy opposition time in parliament and in the media where they indulge in distraction pseudo-debates to reduce time available for real analysis and for dissection of conservative destruction and, at elections, the centrists steal votes for their false opposition. The doors for conservatism and centrism lead to the same pit.
Who are the centrists’ heroes? There are no examples of centrists in power anywhere in the world because the centrists’ depiction of centrism doesn’t exist. However, as part of the intrinsic con, some politicians are described as centrist successes.
Thatcherite French president Emmanuel Macron conned his way to power via the invention of a “new” political party, En Marche – Onward. He has enacted policies that favour the financial elite includingmany attacks on workers’ rights and he has used racism as a tool of division –Macron on ‘civilisation’. Macron is this century’s Norman Tebbit. (N.B. At time of writing Norman Tebbit has yet to die – updates when necessary.)
Despite the clarity of Macron’s political position prior to his election and despite the subsequent screaming demonstrations of his intent as a puppet of the financial exploitative elite, the professional centrists have pretended to acclaim him as a centrist icon who must be emulated. The proponents of centrism have supported Macron because he is unambiguously a bog standard conservative and because he has concocted a fraudulent image of newness. He is an example of the politics the centrists support and an example of the confidence trickery they wish to use.
Professional sleight of hand squirrel pointer Chris Deerin of the New Statesman magazine has clumsily presented the centrist strategy of deception. In Deerin on Macronisationism he regurgitated a list of lies and misdirections about the centre and about Macron.
“With a gaping hole in the centre-ground of British politics, why not fill it?” asked Deerin. Yes, there is a gaping hole in the centre of politics as there always has been because the centre is not a thing. Some charlatans have taken dumps in the hole and claimed they can then see Eldorado but it remains a null location. An unfillable hole.
“Macron deliberately sought to unite centre-left and centre-right by going after the populists directly. By focusing on the hard-right Marine Le Pen and the hard-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon as his enemies, he opened up a large space in the centre which only he appeared able to fill. The En Marche!” Deerin exclaimed excitedly. Macron is firmly positioned as a right-wing Thatcherite conservative but Deerin restated the falsehood that Macron is in some imaginary centre. Deerin further exaggerated his blatantly dishonest depiction of the democratic political spectrum by describing a soft-left politician (Mélenchon) and an far-right extremist (Le Pen) as at similar distances from a false centre; that is, he repeated the dual con that a traditional left-of-centre socialist tendency is “far-left” and that the middle of the political spectrum is in the vicinity of Margaret Thatcher. “There are obvious candidates [for a new party] with profile on the centre-right: Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening and others.” So, according to Deerin, a few Tory MPs are in his imaginary centre.
Deerin listed what was intended as a sequence of facts supporting a need for a new centrist party. It was a list of embarrassing comments.
“There are several untested arguments for a new party” is blatantly false. The pointlessness of a non-party standing for nothing has been made clear often and the con trick of so-called centre parties has exposed itself often, most recently with the Liberal Democrats wilful enabling of Tory destruction from 2010 to 2015.
“Nature abhors a vacuum, and the centre must, one way or another, be represented.” Represent what, exactly? It is representative of nothing. It is the opposite of having a political opinion.
“For all the votes cast last year for Labour and the Tories, voters may not behave in the same way if presented with different options.” Labour does now have a different option and that is something the likes of Deerin are vehemently opposed to.
To add hilarity to the stupidity Deerin concludes his justification for a new party in the vacuum of the centre by applauding the SDP: “And then there’s the SDP’s success, rather than its failure.” Apparently, the SDP’s success is that “New Labour emerged in its intellectual wake.” That deduction is sheer fantasy. The SDP’s aim was to scupper Labour’s challenge to Thatcher’s Tories and to discourage Labour from moving leftward. The only political success that the SDP can claim is that it played a willing part in maintaining the destructive Tory government.
Deerin knows that Macron is a typical pit-dwelling conservative and that is precisely the politics that Deerin wants to see prevail.
The unfillable hole The professional marketing team for a new centrist party in Britain have a single objective: They want to prevent a left-wing party from being elected as a government. To achieve this aim, the charlatans describe conservatives as non-conservatives and they lie about the necessity of a political party that occupies a null position on the political spectrum.
The centre of the political spectrum is an unfillable hole because it has null dimensions; it has no width and it has no depth. To even describe it as having zero volume is an insult to Brahmagupta’s legacy.
Trained at wealth terrorists’ finishing school Eton, Boris Johnson is bereft of any concept of membership of society. He has been taught that vehement adherence to selfishness is the only oath to take in life. Equally, he was inculcated to be ignorant of any difference between truth and lies. His entire political life has focussed on enabling his acquirement of unearned wealth and assisting the financial gangsterism of like-minded enemies of humanity.
Prior to the respective campaigns to retain EU membership and to leave, Boris hawked his support to the highest bidder; the financial backers of Leave won. His support for exiting the EU is based solelyon that higher offer for his vocal and political support. Principles are anathema to Johnson.
A question that is periodically posed about Johnson asks if his apparent stupidity and woeful lack of knowledge is an act or a true representation of his vacancy. The latter option is true but it doesn’t matter if his buffoonery is an act or else an attempt to hide his ignorance because it achieves its aim of distraction and avoidance; the Johnson persona is a product of his training.
Today, Boris Johnson expelled flatus at a small gathering of titterers at right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange. The speech lacked any content because Johnson has no insight to offer, he is incapable of understanding analysis and he knows that there are no cohesive or truthful arguments to support his stance. Cod patriotism mixed with barely disguised snide comments at political opponents, within and without the Tory party, were delivered to a small fanclub. Empty soundbites jostled with pathetic nods to a fantasy of Britain trading successfully with the whole world after the EU exit.
He was deliberately anti-intellectual. Of course, he is incapable of being intellectual but his postured emphasis on blissful simplicity was an appeal to anywhere but the brain. Johnson’s strategy, honed at the aforesaid school, was to denigrate the natural human capacity to seek to learn, be informed and, thus, make good decisions in life; like all enablers of elite control, Johnson was taught that knowledge and analytical thought should be discouraged in the masses.
He performed as a club comic. If there existed a balanced media, Johnson’s speech would receive the ridicule and dismissal it deserved in a footnote at the end of a news bulletin or on page fifteen of a newspaper.
The Tories have been whining about ‘respect’ in politics. They are demanding that everyone respects the Tories.
That are two obvious problems with the Tories asking people to respect them.
1) The Tories respect no-one except a handful of financial gangsters for whom they work. 2) Everything the Tories do and say should elicit exactly the opposite of respect.
Tories have no respect for anyone For the Tories to be able to focus exclusivelyon increasing the unearned wealth of financial gangsters, they must be imbued exhaustively with utter contempt for humanity. Because they are unable to declare their true status as gimps of wealth terrorism, every presentation by the Tories of their intent and of their policies needs to be a fabrication; they have no choice. These fabrications must be omnipresent and ever-present.
Therefor, every day the Tories dodge every question put to them by other politicians and the media. The responses to such questions are either blatant unashamed lies or else laughable distractions, or both. This happens every time to every question. It is a deliberate policy; every Tory MP and every Tory spokesperson behaves evasively and dishonestly without deviation. The evasiveness and distractions include irrelevant comments, abuse and deceptive fake statistics. The deluge of fake statistics and made-up “facts” is relentless. Recent appointees in the Tory party – Ben Bradley, Brandon Lewis, Maria Caulfield and James Cleverly – were chosen because of their respective aptitudes for lying in large volume and constantly. The main Tory party social media accounts publish only lies, distractions and made-up statistics. This strategy is the only strategy that the Tories have.
The contempt that the Tories have for the people of Britain is displayed in their coordinated laughter when politicians from other parties are highlighting the cruel (and often fatal) consequences of vicious Tory policy. The Tories’ tactic is to laugh and giggle in the faces of people who are very ill or disabled or homeless or dead. The Tories wallow in their own abject lack of humanity. This laughter and contempt is repeated in the interactions the Tories have on social media. Disdain for the public, for the recipients of Tory cruelty, is a necessity for the Tory methodology.
The Tories have no respect for medical professionals, teachers, judges, police officers, soldiers, scientists, pensioners, children, the ill and infirm, anybody with a physical or mental disability, homeless people; it is everyone apart from a few tax-dodging wealth terrorists who keep the Tories’ hands laden with cash.
The Tories’ aversion to having respect for anyone is often expressed as hatred.
No Tory deserves any respect The Tories demand respect in one direction. But, not only do they have no respect for anyone, there is no Tory who deserves any respect at all.
The role of a Tory government is to hand public money to wealth terrorists. Every opportunity to enable this transfer of money is taken. Vital public services are used by the Tories as funnels to feed the ever-unsatiated appetites of international financial gangsters. It is a simple process: The Tories pretend to provide funding for a public service but most of the money is siphoned off by criminals who “own” fabricated private businesses. The public service remains under-funded and the tax-payers are fleeced. It is described as “privatisation” but Tory privatisation is theft and a scam.
Privatisation of management of social housing in Kensington in London was a tool to transfer public money (council tax) into the grubby hands of invented businesses; privatisation of NHS components provides a huge stream of unearned cash for (non-)suppliers of vital services, like Virgin; privatisation of security, including police, is a huge industry for contentless ephemeral international security pseudo-companies, like G4S; privatisation of welfare administration is a forest of free money trees for charlatans masquerading as businesses, like ATOS. In these examples, and thousands of others, public money is thrown into a pit full of thieving scum while people, for whom the service is supposed to exist, die. When a Tory sees someone in need of assistance the only thought the Tory has is how can the financial gangsters make money of the person’s predicament.
Not only is death a consequence of Tory ideology but it also, often, the aim. The multi-trillion dollar arms industry succeeds financially only if people are getting killed. The Tories are eager brokers and enablers for the arms industry and they don’t mind with whom they deal. Kurdish civilians in Syria being blown up by Turkish bombs and Yemeni civilians being blown up by Saudi bombs are victims of deals organised and funded by Theresa May. Death and destruction means more arms purchased, with public money. British soldiers are sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to fight in wars about oil or imperialist control; when they return injured they are ignored by the Tories and some die homeless.
The Tories are vile enemies of society and enemies of humanity. They are gimps of wealth terrorists who use government as a tool to fleece the public. They have no interest in the health or welfare of the public. For the Tories, people are either fodder to enhance financial gangsters’ profits or else just in the way. The Tories are thieves, relentless liars and willing exponents of social murder.
The Tories demand respect. It is forced respect based on threats. The Tories are promoting two inter-connected campaigns against “fake news” and “intimidation of public figures.” Both campaigns are intrinsically dishonest; both have been created to create false groundwork for censorship of oppositional political activism. The Tories are threatening social media businesses if the latter don’t censor anti-Tory political activism and the Tories are threatening activists with removal of the right-to-vote if they don’t kiss Tory backsides.
No-one with any personal integrity should respect a Tory. Anyone who believes they are social members of the human race should have no respect at all for a Tory. They deserve the exact opposite of respect, always, and as forcibly as possible.
Today, Theresa May delivered a speech that she claimed was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of women first being given the right to vote in Britain.
She used the speech as an opportunity to continue to promote the Tories’ attacks on free speech and the Tories’ restrictions on the right to campaign against Tory policies.
The Tories are seeking to severely restrict online activism. Taking inspiration from China and Turkey, the Tories’ intent is to censor political activism online. This censorship is to be enacted under the guise of tackling ‘fake news.’
May said in today’s speech that social media is being “exploited and abused, often anonymously” and is “toxifying” public debate. What May didn’t mention were the constant daily lies, distractions, abuse and slander in the mainstream media; she also didn’t mention that Tory social media accounts, many of which are anonymous, such as this septet: Tory twitter accounts, are full of lies, abuse and libel. She didn’t mention thatTory Bratboys James Cleverly, Brandon Lewis and Ben Bradley had been appointed by the Tory party specifically to be abusive, provocative and to lie relentlessly.
Her target is left-wing activism online. She knows that such activism has been successful. It has exposed Tory intent and the consequences of Tory policies. The only response the Tories have to the success of online left-wing activism is to try to shut it down with censorship. The Tories’ attempt to define all left-wing online activism as ‘fake news’ has been going on for over a year:Tory campaign against ‘fake news’.
In her speech May said the Government will launch a consultation to make intimidating parliamentary candidates and campaigners an offence under electoral law, with the loss of the right-to-vote as a possible consequence. The intent to enact this disgusting attack on the right-to-vote was the reason Theresa May asked Lord Bew to concoct a review and report on ‘intimidation of MPs.’ Under instruction from May, the agenda-drivenBew Report was created with the specific purpose of creating false groundwork for the Tories to propose a law restricting the right-to-vote. The report depicts social media activism as an evil to be crushed while totally exonerating mainstream media for any blame or wrongdoing:Analysis of Bew Report.
Many Tories MPs presented “evidence” to be used in the Bew report. Their “evidence” was easily exposed as agenda-driven nonsense: Intimidation of politicians?
The Tories’ intentions are clear: More censorship of oppositional voices. The Tories are losing all battles of ideas because they have no ideas, and they have no control over independent left-wing news sites and activists, so their only option is censorship.
Theresa May praised the suffragettes but May is not their political descendant. May is a child of Joe McCarthy.
The incident at a Jacob Rees-Mogg speech (1) at University of the West of England is being used by the Tories as an opportunity to press ahead with their plans to censor political opposition. Tory party chairman Brandon Lewis elucidated the con trickon the BBC’s Politics showon Sunday (4th Feb.) and the Tory party gave the media a taste of a Theresa May speech on ‘intimidation of MPs,’ to be delivered tomorrow (6th Feb.).
It is clear that the Tories’ plan is to use the law to stifle and censor left-wing opposition. David Cameron’s Tories created thegagging law to prevent charities, during election campaigns, from disclosing the effects of Tory policy. The current government intends to take this censorship further.
The Tories want no criticism of themselves, their statements, their policies and the devastating effects of their policies but, beyond the compliant mainstream media, the Tories are being exposed, easily, as gimps of financial gangsters; their destruction of civil society is being described clearly and relentlessly. They intend to stop this scrutiny.
The Tories have two flanks to their attack on the freedom to criticise and expose.
1. Fake News: The government intends to censor online criticism of their actions under the pretext of tackling ‘fake news.’ Taking inspiration from China and Turkey, the main thrust of the Tory attack is to put pressure upon social media companies to coerce them into agreeing to censorship. The Tories have no plans to address the constant lies that adorn the front pages of most of the newspapers. It is a targetted attack on social media because that is where most written opposition to the Tories exists.
2. ‘Intimidation of MPs’: The Tories have been whining about ‘intimidation’ since the 2017 general election because they know that the criticism is effective. Some of their complaints have been laughable but all have been sinister. Theresa May asked Lord Bew – a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society’s ‘Statement of Principles’ – to concoct a review and report into ‘intimidation of public figures.’ The review was designed to reach the conclusion that May desired and the report was written to highlight what the Tories feared and to gloss over what the Tories didn’t fear.
Notes (1) The violence at the Jacob Rees-Mogg speech came from one of his supporters, Paul Townsley, who punched a woman without provocation. Townsley has been exposed by the Skwawkbox news site wearing a NAZI uniform:Jacob Rees-Mogg supporter in NAZI uniform.
Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Tories are keeping quiet about the identity of the Rees-Mogg supporter who attacked a woman at a speech yesterday evening. Today, Tory chairman Brandon Lewis has been trying to provoke a response to the incident that ignores the assault and libels Momentum.
This tactic from Lewis included sending a message to media and political personalities to try to coerce them into following his dishonest narrative.
The lies in his message are:
Brandon Lewis claimed the protesters were from Momentum. He knows that to be a false statement because the anarchist group to whom the protesters are affiliated have already claimed ownership of the protest.
Brandon Lewis claimed the protesters were violent. He knows that to be a false statement because all video and photographic evidence of the incident show the violence of a Rees-Mogg supporter and none from the protesters.
Brandon Lewis deliberately failed to mention the violence against a woman by one of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s supporters, a thug who is known to Rees-Mogg.
Tory chairman Brandon Lewis has, unsurprisingly, no interest in factual accuracy. He has been appointed to the role of chairman because he has a knack for persistent, relentless lies. That is his only skill.
Yesterday evening that good friend of the violent and racist far-right, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, spoke at University of the West of England Law Society. During the meeting one of his supporters punched a woman in an unprovoked attack. A video clip that shows the Rees-Mogg supporter attacking a woman is here:Rees-Mogg supporter’s punch.
Media coverage and accounts by fellow Tory MPs of the event have purposefully chosen to avoid mentioning that one of Rees-Mogg’s supporters attacked a woman. Their focus has been on the people protesting (peacefully) against far-right rabble-rouser and enabler of wealth terrorism Rees-Mogg.
The president of the University of the West of England Law Society Callum Tucker has invested a lot of time since Rees-Mogg’s appearance in conversing with right-wing professional trolls (Staines, Oakenshott, etc.) to try to paint an inaccurate account of the incident while simultaneously ignoring the assault. Tucker will know the identity of the puncher. After the assault Tucker had a smiling photo taken with Rees-Mogg.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a charlatan, a professional liar and a financial gangster. His fanbase is full of racist thugs. Sadly, it is not surprising that one such thug attacked a woman on behalf of Rees-Mogg and it is not surprising that fellow Tories and RW media have ignored the assault.
Kardashian family versus Windsor family: Which is worse?
The members of the Kardashian/Jenner family in the US have no validity to their fame. One of them was introduced to the world of undeserved fame by heiress Paris Hilton and the rest tagged on. Every member of the family is talentless, witless, dull and has no contribution to make to the betterment of society. The intent of their self-publicity is to give their fans false dreams and false illusions and in return these fans make the Kardashians into millionaires.
The members of the Windsor family in the UK have no validity to their fame. Centuries ago their ancestors acquired wealth, land and power via violence, robbery and corruption and subsequent generations have clung onto the wealth, land and power at the expense of the people of Britain and of the former British empire. Every member of the family is talentless, witless, dull and has no contribution to make to the betterment of society. The intent of their self-publicity is to give their fans false dreams and false illusions and in return these fans make the Windsors into millionaires.
All financial contributions made to the Kardashians by their fans are optional. Fans choose to watch the TV shows, attend events and buy the clothes and accessories, or they choose not to. No-one is forced to make any payment to the family members. The family hawks itself as a product and the people decide whether or not to pay for the pleasure of enjoying this product.
The British people have no choice but to pay for the Windsors. They pay via taxation, via rent on royal land and properties and via the consequences of the management of the billions of royal shares in various dubious companies many of which are in tax havens. Everybody pays, continuously, for the Windsors whether they are fans or not. The family hawks itself as a product and the people cannot avoid handing over their money.
Both families are the antithesis of the advancement of human intellect. The fanbases of both families are weak people who want to be distracted by rictuses, pouts and bad dress sense.
The huge difference is that the US family ask for money whereas the British family demands it without any option to refuse. Thus, the Kardashians are less objectionable than the Windsors.