John Ward February 28, 2021 Uncategorized
OPINION: the hitches in Peter Hitchens’ self-exculpation
Peter Hitchens is growing a beard. Maybe he’s trying to hide behind it. Certainly, in his latest piece for the Mail on Sunday, Hitchens tries very hard to hide behind the rationale for his decision to have the Covid19 jab. But for a man in his position (as a high-profile fighter for freedom) it’s nothing more than a bunch of flimsy excuses, hurriedly cobbled-together to explain his unwillingness to walk and talk at the same time.
Let me start with the holes in his not entirely bullet-proof string vest of philosophical defence.
Followed the link from yesterday’s excellent article John.
“andic on February 28, 2021 at 4:57 pm
“You don’t stop fighting when you are tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired”
I watched the excellent Mrs Caldicot’s Cabbage war film adapted from Dr Vernon Colemans
novel of the same name.
I decided to wade into the editing of Dr Coleman’s Wikipedia article there as I felt that as wikipedia is the 5th largest web site by page views,( (4th) English Speaking )), that this was a part of the gorilla that is a particular weak spot.
Wikipedia is policed by human editors, there are bots but its mainly fairly manically busy individual editors ruling the roost.
Vernon suggests amputation in his Drs Note.
How Wikipedia is Used as a Weapon
My own view is that Wikipedia represents the single biggest gap in the Narrative Maginot Line.
Google, Facebook and Twitter being centrally controlled represent the pass of Thermopylae
and 300 spartan algorithms can control the flow of information more or less according to the tastes, whims and will of
Chat With Ranjan , Tyranny of the Nerds, #ObjectiveKhunts, Grub Street
Wikipedia on the other hand is open sourced and and its perceived weaknesses are in fact the strength for organised
citizens wishing to make their point and contribution show up within the outer layers of the public opinion onion.
The strength of the Open Source , distributed internet does not lie in Blockchain but in end to end encryption. Not to get too Pointy headed about it that is why I decided Wiki Ballot was the solution to Personal Destiny Control. The problem is the steep learning curve for using the mark up language.
Here’s the Good news , with Homeatix we are developing a collaborative design and finance dash-board , layers of editing privileges will be built into the dash board based upon distributed subsidiary Nodes, The Nodes representing a 3 dimensional semantic dynamic hierarchy, roughly bumper stickers this translates to Your House your rules, Or an English mans Node is his castle. Akin to Wiki Editor Home and Talk Pages, or indeed WIki Ballot talk pages.
Our Dash board at the Single Home level will have WIX/Weebly like drag and drop functionality which being intuitive will be less daunting and get away from the competence problems inherent in Wikipedia editing , which is used to bamboozle un welcome newcomers.
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 24, 2021
Hartlepool By Election. Needed.
Finally on Peter Hitchens, He certainly has kept digging which is odd.
Peter Hitchens , Dan Hodges and David Icke walk into a Bar, Hitchens Says your Round, #Matchfixers don’t pay, Hodges says Not my round #GateKeepers don’t buy, David Icke says Well I guess that leaves the #GoalKeeper.
90's 'Alex' cartoon from Independent, loosely based on my move from Lehman's to Natwest in '93. Resigned when boss was in NYC to avoid that 'meeting'. Next day 'you're on 10.30 Concorde to NYC'. Boss wanted to talk me out of it. Wish he tried even harder. Natwest was a nightmare! pic.twitter.com/JfJz52sKW6
— Paul Carlier (@Carlier_J87) March 24, 2021
This is a post in the UK Column members area from Mike Robinson, On why UK column continue to engage at Youtube and Twitter facebook et al.
The same thing apples to wikipedia but its effectiveness is less prone to successful suppression , the Vernon Coleman example I have given explains why.
It is very clear that @colesdav is very motivated to get everyone off the major social media platforms and onto alternative platforms like Gab.
I even had an email from someone recently saying ‘I was going to join you as a member, but I won’t while you are on Youtube’.
I want to explain why this is a bad idea.
- Where the audience is
Twitter is where a very major part of our audience is. Taking UKC as an example, who are we producing our content for:
– you, our members; with a view to you using the content we provide in your own campaigning
– the general public; with a view to exposing them to material the corporate media isn’t
– politicians / NGOs / think tanks; with a view to challenging their narratives
Why would we move to Gab under these circumstances? Are the general public there? Politicians? NGOs?
No, we go where we can have the most impact. Gab is full of people who are, to a large degree, already engaged in this information war on our side of the argument. Why would we preach to the converted?
- Balkanisation of the web
In the early days of the internet, the equivalent of social media was Usenet. Everyone was chatting in their silos. Then came web based forums, and everyone was chatting in their silos.
9/11 happened, and we had forums for Judy Wood believers, others for Judy Wood unbelievers, others for architects and engineers fans, others for Mike Ruppert fans, and never any cross-pollination of ideas. Real echo chambers.
Then came Web 2.0, and for the first time, ubiquitous platforms like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter, and for the first time, the 9/11 campaigner could talk directly to the politician, and the solar scientist to the CO2 emitter. Journalists, politicians, academics and scientists could be challenged directly.
The drive to regulate the internet is a drive to re-balkanise. And everyone calling for us all to abandon the big platforms are doing the job of those behind the calls for regulation by voluntarily jumping into what are basically ‘protest pens’.
- Censorship and public utilities
We don’t solve this problem by self-censoring. Jumping into Gab and other alternative platforms is self-censoring.
We have to resist the moves by the big platforms to establish themselves as nations, with laws. We have to demand that these are now equivalent to public utilities and if there is to be regulation, it is on the basis that they remain open to all. Everyone. Bar none.
We have to fight for this principle, and voluntarily walking away is not the way to do that.
- Which platforms?
Of course, although some have called for us to walk away, @colesdav wasn’t. But which platforms do we mirror on?
For example, we were encouraged to stream on dlive.tv. So we started doing that. The first three streams attracted around 50 followers per stream. We were clearly being seen on the platform.
Then came the message from the ‘dlive team’: we are marking your channel ‘X’ because of its controversial content.
For the next three live streams, we have 1, or 2, new followers per stream. They turned the tap off. Censored.
We aren’t streaming on dlive.tv any more.
This problem will not be solved by running away to the protest pens. We have to fight.
Over to you.
I had a long chat with ranjan of London Conversation yesterday covering the wikipedia article on Dr Vernon COleman but also Wiki Ballot , the Hartlepool by election, and the ideas behind open source computing.I will generate a subscript and make notes to various technical point I allude to, again I am doing this principally as it is necessary research for functionality for our Homeatics dash board.Not of course to miss out on the fact that I wish to live at liberty and value free speech and a free press is a key to that the 4th Estate is presently something of a rickety old lean to drunken affair.
CHAMPAGNE SOCIALISTS FOR CORBYN.August 9, 2016 rogerglewis
Pass lawsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
in South Africa
Precursors (before 1948)
Malan to Verwoerd (1948–66)
Vorster to Botha (1966–90)
† No new legislation introduced, rather
the existing legislation named was amended.
In South Africa, pass laws were a form of internal passport system designed to segregate the population, manage urbanization, and allocate migrant labor. Also known as the natives’ law, pass laws severely limited the movements of not only black African citizens, but other people as well by requiring them to carry passbooks when outside their homelands or designated areas. Before the 1950s, this legislation largely applied to African men, and attempts to apply it to women in the 1910s and 1950s were met with significant protests. Pass laws were one of the dominant features of the country’s apartheid system until it was effectively ended in 1986.
List of people subject to banning orders under apartheidFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
This list of people subject to banning orders under apartheid lists a selection of people subject to a “banning order” by the apartheid-era South African government. Banning was a repressive and extrajudicial measure used by the South African apartheid regime (1948–1994) against its political opponents. The legislative authority for banning orders was firstly the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, which defined virtually all opposition to apartheid as “Communism”, which was superseded by the Internal Security Act, 1982. The régime ceased to deploy bannings and lifted all remaining banning orders in 1990, in the run-up to the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994.
A banning order entailed restrictions on where the banned person could live and who they could have contact with, required that they report weekly to a police station, and proscribed them from travelling outside a specific magisterial district. The banned person was prohibited from attending meetings of any kind, speaking in public, or publishing or distributing any written material. It proscribed broadcasters and the press from broadcasting, publishing or reporting the banned person’s words. It thus mixed elements of internal exile, suppression orders and censorship. The prohibition on attending meetings meant that the banned person could not be with more than one other person at a time. The banned person was forbidden all contact with other banned persons and was forbidden to engage in any political activity. The penalty for violating a banning order was up to five years in prison.
1 Some people subject to banning orders
2 See also
4 Further reading
Banned personsHoly Roman Empire
The Imperial ban was a form of outlawry in the Holy Roman Empire. At different times, it could be declared by the Holy Roman Emperor, by courts including the League of the Holy Court (German: Vehmgericht, pronounced [féːmgəʀɪχt]) and the Reichskammergericht, or by the Imperial Diet. People under Imperial ban lost all their rights and possessions, and anyone had the right to rob, injure or kill such persons without legal consequences. The Imperial ban automatically followed the excommunication of a person, and extended to anyone offering help to a person under the imperial ban.
Under apartheid in South Africa
See also: List of people subject to banning orders under apartheid
During the apartheid régime in South Africa, the National Party government issued banning orders to individuals seen to be threats to its power — often black politicians or organizations — these banning orders acted as suppression orders. Individuals or organisations and critical medias banned by the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950 (which effectively defined “Communism” as opposition to the government) could not communicate with more than one person at any time unless at home (thus preventing them from engaging in political activities), travel to outside a specific magisterial district without government approval. The order had mostly domestic effect with versatile legal formative effects. These were for example: local or supra-regional residence restrictions, the prohibition of public expression of opinion, prohibition of printed publications and prohibition of citation in journalistic or scientific contexts the writings of the affecting persons or the participation of gatherings. Measures of this kind could also be applied to groups of people, organisations (for example the Defence Aid Fund for Southern Africa, 1966) and institutions (for example the Christian Institute, 1977). There were several laws that legalised such actions (Riotous Assemblies Act – 1914 and later 1956, Unlawful Organisations Act – 1960, Suppression of Communism Amendment Act – 1967, Internal Security Act – 1976, 1982, 1986). The General Law Amendment Act, No. 76 of 1962 empowered the Minister of Justice to publish the banned persons in the Government Gazette. Helen Suzman, a liberal member of the South African parliament, defended the right of free assembly and freedom of expression for all citizens in 1986 and pointed to the growing confrontation between the black population and the police.
The banishment of persons, i.e. expulsion from their place of residence, was practised in smaller numbers. Between 1948 and 1967, this affected 156 people. After 1972, this measure was only applied sporadically.
Existing publications may be banned, and new publications prohibited from discussing certain topics or taking certain viewpoints. Censorship is the enacting and enforcing of such bans.
Both Adam and Richard are friends of Mine, Adam and I went to school together, and features in this poem I wrote
Ashley Drake.& AdamTickell
There was a general Knowledge Competition
5th year All hormones and teenaged insecurities
I didn´t enter and Adam still carried that condom
held it hoping to light a the candle he carried for Gillian Jacobs.
Ashley Won , Subject Welsh Rugby History.You had to be in it to win it I reasoned.
Adam and Ashley two intellectuals , friends at school
Tony Gawe didn´t go to Upper Sixth his family needed him to get a job.
Richard and I had Lunch at the Ivy in Winchester last time I visited the UK, Perhaps I should add a section in the article about the Hampshire Community Bank?
there is a link to here
Werner is founding director and chairman of Local First Community Interest Company, which promotes the establishment of not-for-profit local community banks, modelled on the successful German local co-operative, Raiffeisen and Sparkasse savings banks that have enabled German small firms to become top exporters and job creators in Germany.
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 25, 2021
https://t.co/uiDBTVL0jH @GrubStreetJorno @adamtickell written for my old school freind Prof Adam Tickell. Peter, it's a musical allegory, #Activismandthefourthestate . @JoeBlob20 @financialeyes @Albion_Rover @TOADMEISTER @DPJHODGES @CLARKEMICAH @JULIAHB1 @IROMG
— Homeatix (@homeatix) March 25, 2021