One Man’s “Extremism” is Another Man’s Struggle for Liberty and Justice

I had occasion to visit a small NHS facility recently. It was a lovely, quiet unit, with only about a dozen or so patients, those patients living, prior to discharge, in several large “bays” and a few individual rooms. The unit was surrounded by flower gardens with small flowering trees and a few classical statues. Beyond that (out of sight) was a very small town (little more than a village) and the countryside of Southern England. If you have to go to a hospital, you could do worse. So why am I blogging about this?

While waiting to go in to see the patient in question, I perused the literature rack by the nursing station. One leaflet caught my eye. I have it before me as I write. Under the NHS logo and the name of the NHS foundation trust running the unit at the strategic level, the title:


[the words contained within a shield device; with two hands –dark blue and light blue (the old KGB colour..ironic) and perhaps (?) representing white and non-white– clasped]. The leaflet was then sub-headed:

Preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism

Inside the leaflet:

What is Prevent? Prevent is part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy; aiming to prevent people of all ages from being radicalised and drawn into terrorism.

The leaflet continues:

What kind of extremism does Prevent aim to deal with? It aims to deal with all forms of extremism; for example far right extremism, animal rights extremism and religious extremism.

So we see that “terrorism” has already been conflated with or replaced by “extremism”, an even less easily-defined idea. Moreover, we see that Islamist terrorism, the only kind actually posing even a slight threat to public order in the UK, is not mentioned by name (no doubt that would be called “Islamophobic”…) and only coyly implied, sub nom “religious extremism”. No doubt the Jewish Zionist fanatics, who go in their hundreds to be trained by the Israelis in Israel, are not considered “extremists”, “terrorists” etc. No, they just go to an alien society to be trained in the use of weapons and in the techniques of killing with bare hands (oh, and of course, how to “bring down” British MPs thought not to be pro-Israel or pro-Jew…).

Who are these “extremists” in pole position in the Prevent leaflet? Ah, yes, the “far right” (also left undefined, presumably social nationalists, those who hate mass immigration and the trashing of the UK by certain groups and types) as well as those who hate the cruelties inflicted on the animal kingdom by some humans and by human society; but let us now return to the leaflet:

What are some of the possible signs of radicalisation?

  • you may notice changes in the person’s behaviour or mood;
  • the person’s appearance may change and they may spend excess [sic] time on the internet;
  • the person may start to express extreme political or radical views;
  • the person may become withdrawn or have a change in their circle of friends.

So now we have travelled from “terrorism” and even “extremism” to people who have or may have merely “radical” points of view about, say, the disastrous effect that mass immigration has had on the UK, or about the exploitation and cultural contamination carried out by Jew-Zionists, or even about animal welfare.

The leaflet then asks what the reader might do should he or she actually suspect that another person has changed lifestyle or perhaps have acquired “radical” views:

  • NOTICE: Be aware of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation, any change in behaviour or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs an individual may have. [this section of the leaflet also contains the iconic alien-looking “all-seeing eye” motif…]
  • CHECK: If possible and appropriate check out any concerns with the individual…your line manager and the [NHS] safeguarding team. [this section of the leaflet contains a motif of a magnifying glass with a little humanoid figure inside the lens…]
  • SHARE: You need to share your concerns with the [NHS] safeguarding team. They can advise you on any relevant partner agencies who will need to be contacted. [note “will need to be contacted” not “may need”…presumably police, MI5 etc].

The leaflet then goes on to list telephone numbers and internet contact details, before ending with these dystopian remarks, which would not have been out of place in an early 1970s BBC Play For Today, or perhaps George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:

What happens to my referral? [“my referral”, note, not “my denunciation”, “my informing”, my accusation” etc…]. Prevent referrals are shared with the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) or [name of city] SPA (single point of access) depending on where the individual lives. Referrals are then screened for acceptance in to the channel process.

What is channel?

Channel is a multi-agency process whereby professionals and partner agencies can share resources and expertise. The aim of channel is to work with the individual to reduce risk. If your referral is accepted into the channel process you may also be asked to attend the channel meetings to share relevant information as part of effective multi-agency working.

I have sometimes been accused of being, inter alia, a “grammar Nazi”, and am, of course, (also) appalled by the poor English displayed in the leaflet. I have no idea by whom the leaflet was written. Perhaps the Home Office and MI5 are now less likely to recruit graduates from Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps the near-illiteracy shown is just a function of the UK’s sliding educational standards. The main impression given, though, is that of a police state operation which would be recognizable to an official of Stalin’s Russia or any similar society. The saving grace is probably that it is not (though I am guessing) very efficient.

Indeed, shorn of the millennial “nudge”-government, fake “sharing caring” and armchair psychology nonsense, the leaflet could be seen simply as a method of recruiting agents…

Finally, think about where this leaflet was found– not in a prison, a government office, nor even in a university library, but in a normal NHS clinical environment in the heart of the South of England…


Addendum, 25 January 2019

Addendum, 4 February 2019





What Italy is now telling us

Italy has just held its 18th national election since the present republic was established in 1948. The results have appalled the EU/ZOG/NWO System but have given hope to many both inside and outside Italy.

The Results

The coalition headed by Lega [“The League”, formerly The Northern League], anti-EU, anti-Euro currency, anti-mass immigration, got 37% of the popular vote and (under Italy’s partly-proportional, partly-First Past The Post electoral system) 265 seats in the Chamber of Deputies). 265 seats out of 630. Lega got a plurality (125) of the coalition’s seats, most of the rest being taken by Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.

The Five Star Movement, with less direct but not dissimilar policies (anti-EU, Eurosceptic, broadly anti-mass immigration etc), got 227 seats on a popular vote of just under 33%.

Most of the rest of the 630 seats (122) were taken by the “Centre-Left Coalition”, and most of those seats (112) were taken by the Partito Democratico [“Democratic Party”], i.e. System social-democrats.

Thus we see that the insurgent parties, with an anti-EU, anti-mass immigration outlook, have 492 seats out of 630. Similar results were recorded in the Senate. In terms of popular vote, the winners got about 70% of votes cast. By any standards, a landslide, albeit for a general outlook rather than for one party or one coalition of parties.,_2018

The Reaction of the System

The Italian President, unwilling to approve an anti-Euro politician as Finance Minister, now appoints someone who is not even a politician to be Prime Minister until fresh elections are called next year! The person “appointed” is a former IMF economist, i.e. another NWO/ZOG EU drone.

The reaction of the leader of the Five Star Movement:

“Why don’t we just say that in this country it’s pointless that we vote, as the ratings agencies, financial lobbies decide the governments?”…

Italy is the fourth-biggest state in the EU, both in terms of population and economy. The EU would fall to pieces without it, especially if the UK really leaves, at present still an open question.


Here we see, again, the conspiratorial basis and mechanism of the EU, below all the “human rights” stuff, below all the financial subsidy sleight-of-hand. Wrong vote? Hold another one and another, until the “right” result is obtained. Wrong views? “Holocaust” “denial” laws backed up by the “European Arrest Warrant” system will correct that outburst of free expression…

Relevance to the UK

In the UK, we see that the clear though not huge majority to leave the EU is being undermined heavily now. The army of self-congratulatory “Remain” whiners on Twitter etc are backed by secret monies on a vast scale, by UK civil servants unwilling to do their jobs, by System MPs burrowing away to make Brexit effective in name only. The Italian situation reflects the same EU ZOG/NWO conspiracy at core; the same has happened in the past in Portugal, Ireland, Austria etc. If the “wrong” people get elected, measures are taken to get rid of them one way or another, from scandals “appearing” suddenly, to elections rigged, even to “car crash” deaths. Look at Catalonia. Another example.


Social-national political parties must exist (none do in the UK at present; there is no credible and effective one at least), but ordinary political activity may not be enough on its own.

Social Media and Political Influence

I was recently “suspended” (in reality, probably expelled) from Twitter. The “usual suspects” (Jew-Zionist provocateurs) were to blame, but that is another story (and the guilty will be suitably punished in due course, no doubt). This event has led me to reassess whether Twitter is even useful for someone from a political-influence standpoint.

At first, it seems to be a non-question: of course Twitter spreads influence. After all, most MPs have a Twitter account, along with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. However, those Twitter accounts (and the myriad showbusiness ones with millions of Twitter “followers”) are only followed and (sometimes) read because the people running the accounts are of note in the “real world” outside Twitter.

I acquired my Twitter account in 2010 but only started to tweet regularly in 2011 or 2012. My follower count increased steadily from zero to, at peak, just under 3,000, falling back at time of “suspension” to about 2,800. What struck me in the last months was that my follower count had plateaued, oscillating between 2,700 and 2,800. I began to suspect that my total of followers was being artificially limited. Others, with far more followers, have started to tweet, as did I until my expulsion, along the same lines. Anne Marie Waters for one.

Another Twitter tactic has been stealth censorship, sub nom “shadowbanning”, both of tweets and replies. I found (by accident) time and again, that Twitter had not notified me of replies, often supportive ones. The Jew-Zionist fix is well and truly in, and not only on Twitter; Facebook is said to be worse. When the UK Government (ZOG) talks about working with Internet platforms to reduce “extremism”, this is what they mean– censorship and banning.

One consequence of spending time tweeting is that you are not doing something offline or elsewhere online. Thus we see much tweeting, Facebook posting etc by social-nationalists, the “Alt-Right” and others, but less and less real political activity. That does affect System parties too, but less so, because they already have organizations, MPs, MEPs etc.

My conclusion from all this is that, while tweeting etc is useful in terms of raising consciousness and bridging gulfs, it cannot be a substitute for real-world political, social and military action.