CRIMINALS CONTROL THE POLICE WITH ‘HATE SPEECH’ LAWS

One sided reportage is form of deception – a scam.

Share! Share! Share!

There have been stories, in the media, of segregation, and confrontation by police, but no plausible explanations for either. Should the privilege of media blackout be granted to criminals of certain minority groups? Should there be a media blackout of crimes, especially violent crimes, committed by certain ethnic minorities and religious groups?

At one time, a design flaw was found in the Ford Pinto, causing it to be labeled ‘the car with the exploding gas tank’. Should the public have been informed of this? Such reporting could cause a negative stereotype of Ford’s staff. What if Ford’s
staff had a demonstration calling any reportage of this “hate speech”? Wouldn’t it be better to simply allow people to burn to death, instead of solving the problem?

The first hate speech law, that I noticed, was passed in the UK. There was a lot of hype, calling police racists because young men of a certain ethnicity were being stopped and searched more than others. Some publications were giving the other side of the story, pointing out that the police had their reasons and were making the UK safer. In the fall of 1985, there was a demonstration, down London’s Fleet Street, the street of journalists, calling for restrictions on freedom of expression. What is surprising is the speed at which the government responded. The Public Order Act of 1986, which restricted criticism of certain protected groups, effectively granted criminals the ability to control the media, hence the police, judges and politicians, with one-sided propaganda. To this day, Britain is known for its two-tiered, politically correct policing.

Now why would the government grant such power to criminals so quickly? What did they have to gain from it? Spreading one sided stories about a particular group was a divide and rule tactic. It can cause many of the young men in a particular group to become hostile and scary. When the public get scared, they want protection. This is wonderful for the ruling class as they can pass more laws, build more prisons and have more cameras. Furthermore, they can have the public pay for this.

Why do those who call themselves liberals cater to bullies and repress freedom of expression? Why is constructive criticism cancelled? How can we all get along without freedom of speech? Why would anybody, with a practical and useful philosophy, object – in any way – to constructive criticism?

Some say that wokeism is a ploy to allow criminals to control police, journalists and politicians. Some say it is a form of ‘divide and rule’ as it encourages hatred and violence, which lead to fear hence a desire for protection, hence an excuse for passing more laws and building more prisons, hence more power for the ruling class. Much of it appears to be endorsed and encouraged by the ruling class – who are safe in their gated communities. In case you didn’t know, it’s not just politicians who rule but also big businesses and media men.

I’ve been to 86 countries in my life. Being woke did not make me popular with non-whites. I was woke when I was young, due to propaganda and a sheltered, rural lifestyle – and I expressed woke views. However I found I got along better after I’d been to the cities, seen the actual reality of what I’d been taught by school and media and adopted more practical views. Expressing woke views causes one to be seen as false and two-faced as the woke might claim to be anti-racist while expressing highly racist concepts like ‘historic liability’ or might be just plain naive – as I was. Some find wokeism patronizing too. I get more respect, from everyone, by expressing sensible, realistic, anti-woke views. As I do here.