Why (and How) We Must Resist “Eve’s Law”
Iain Davis
As usual, the state propagandists at The Guardian—who evidently despise investigative journalism—have produced standard government PR spin to promote the emerging UK dictatorship. In this case, off the back of the appalling injustice committed at Richard D. Hall’s trial, The Guardian is supporting a proposed law which, if enacted, will destroy the independent media.
The envisaged “Eve’s Law”—nominally advocated by Martin Hibbert, the claimant in Hall’s kangaroo court hearing—presents no threat to The Guardian. It will censor only independent investigative journalists who question power. The subject is of no concern to The Guardian, a bastion of the legacy media.
The Guardian’s stated mission is to “change the world” and “build hope.” The essential duty of the news media—namely, to act as a public check on the branches of government—was long ago abandoned by the legacy media and is now anathema to them. The legacy media unquestioningly serves the public-private partnership we call “the state.” Certainly, The Guardian is no exception.
The alleged Manchester Arena bombing occurred on 22nd May 2017. Although nearly eight years have passed, the incident is viewed by the UK government as the most important UK “terrorist attack” of the 21st century. It is the event the UK state continues to exploit to supposedly justify some of its most dictatorial legislation. Widespread public belief in the Manchester story remains crucial to government plans.
In December 2024, the Home Office employed social media influencer Max Balegde—a so-called “Manchester Arena bombing survivor”—to promote the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Apparently, Balegde is helping the UK government “inform the public about the ways they are being made safer.” Named after purported Manchester victim Martyn Hett, the implications of the bill, also known as “Martyn’s Law,” are horrific.
Martyn’s Law was a central theme of the King Charles’ 2024 opening of parliament speech. It mandates that for events attended by more than 800 people, enhanced “invacuation”—entry—security will be imposed. This will include, but is not limited to, “comprehensive security systems,” “searching and screening individuals,” and behaviour monitoring.
But the bill goes even further than that. As noted by legal experts, the scope of Martyn’s Law is so wide that it will affect every business with a building occupancy capacity of 100 people. It even applies to such mundane premises as supermarkets!
Claire Burrows, a partner at the independent law firm Brabners, has noted:
Martyn’s Law is set to affect thousands of businesses across a wide range of sectors. [. . .] [B]usinesses operating across retail, hospitality, health, education and sport will be affected. [. . .] Failure to comply with the requirements look set to result in the regulator being able to issue compliance notices and have powers to issue a financial penalty of the higher of £18m or 5% of worldwide revenue for continued non-compliance. [. . .] [D]uty holders should begin to develop a good security culture by considering proportionate measures to enhance the experience of visitors at public places, without impacting on accessibility or personal freedoms.
Martyn’s Law is accompanied by the UK government’s push to roll out biometric digital ID via its so-called “trust framework.” The state’s allegedly “robust” digital ID system has been developed based upon its Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Consequently, the state claims that subsequent biometric ID technologies, such as facial recognition and iris scanning entry systems, will protect “the privacy of citizens.”
It is not hard to see how the bill’s authors aim to assuage Burrows’ concerns about potentially restricted access to services and the possible detrimental impact on “personal freedoms.” Indeed, claims of improving access and protecting freedoms are hardwired into their sales pitch on biometric digital ID.
The “trust framework” will supposedly “protect privacy, boost security, and enable greater accessibility.” Of course, this is pure propaganda. “Inclusion” will only be offered to compliant citizens. For everyone else—those of us vicariously identified as undesirable—biometric digital ID will deliver exclusion.
The UK government commitment to roll out biometric digital ID is commensurate with UN SDG 16.9, which promises to create systems that will hoover up the data from all “interoperable” digital ID products—such as biometric entry “security systems”—and store that data in a global, centrally controlled database. Though we have nothing to worry about, because SDG 16.9 compatible products and systems will, we are told, protect our privacy.
Digital biometric ID will also be needed to “onboard” banking services through which we will access the planned digital monetary system.
In addition, it is clearly proposed that we will need digital ID to use the internet. Ofcom, the online regulator empowered by the UK Online Safety Act (OSA), demands that social media companies introduce “age verification” for all users. Such verification will require us to submit our biometric digital ID.
The digital ID ambitions of the UK state are limitless:
To prove who you are across the economy today, you have to use a patchwork of paperwork from the government and the private sector. Proving your age in the supermarket. Opening a bank account. Buying a house. These processes are complicated, time-consuming and expensive. [. . .] There is a better way to check that someone is who they say they are. We call this “digital identity”. [. . .] Using a digital identity will be completely voluntary, [. . .] you’ll be able to choose from a range of digital identity and attribute providers. [. . .] The provider will do the hard work of proving that you are who you say you are.
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?
You simply hand over all your personal data to a global public-private partnership (G3P) and they will decide if you are who you say you are. Providing the G3P are satisfied that you have met their stipulated requirements, with your biometric digital ID linked to every aspect of your life, the G3P will “authorise” you to enter a supermarket, go to a gig or use your own “programmable” money—which the G3P will program.
Via your “digital identity” everything you do, everywhere you go, every purchase you make, every opinion you express online will be monitored, recorded and analysed by the G3P. If you step out of line, you can be punished by AI-controlled algorithms. Effectively biometric digital ID will create a digital gulag. What’s not to like?
Using biometric digital ID will, of course, be entirely voluntary. You will be free to reject it as long as you don’t need to work, pay bills, buy food, travel, or access your community’s services in any way. You can be a social outcast and live life as a poverty-stricken, homeless hermit if you want. It’s your decision.
We are all acutely familiar with this Hobson’s choice. It is a ubiquitous deceit employed by the state and its partners.
Exploiting Manchester
To get the biometric digital ID ball rolling, “Martyn’s Law”—a direct consequence of the Manchester Arena narrative—will inevitably corral more of us into accepting state surveillance. Given the implied duty to protect nearly all public spaces, digital ID will be an entry requirement everywhere, if the state gets its way.
The evidence clearly indicates that there was no bomb. This suggests that any victims who appear to have been harmed could not have been harmed by the shrapnel bomb said to have been detonated by Salman Abedi. There is certainly no evidence that Salman Abedi killed himself. For one thing, his body was clearly not lying where the state claims it was found.
Perhaps this explains why Max Balegde was chosen to front the Martyn’s Law propaganda. There were fifty-nine survivors listed as having been inside the City Room when the “bomb” allegedly exploded. Yet the state didn’t ask—or perhaps couldn’t convince—any of those so-called survivors to step forward to present this PR campaign. Instead, the state chose “TikTok megastar” Max, who wasn’t anywhere near the alleged bomb.
The Manchester bang is alleged to have occurred in the City Room (foyer) of the Manchester Arena. The City Room is located outside of the main arena (auditorium) on the South West corner of the complex and is separated from the main arena by a wide concourse that circumferences the auditorium.
According to Balegde, he and his little sister were at the opposite end of the Arena when the bang occurred. Like many others in the Arena that night, Max said he was injured in the stampede from the auditorium. Having fled the Arena in comparative safety, Max reports that he had no idea what happened. He adamantly maintains, however, that his little sister saw a terrorist attack. Obviously, that is not true.
His little sister was probably terrified after being caught up in the stampede, as were thousands of others. But neither she nor Max could have seen any evidence of a bomb or a terrorist attack—only of panic caused by a loud bang. Max states that he doesn’t know anyone who reportedly died or was injured by a bomb.
This is not to downplay the trauma Max and his sister experienced. We know that the stampede began in the Arena just nine seconds after the bang was heard. As others, such as Jordan Kenney, attested, the scene and events at the Manchester Arena were petrifying. Many people were injured in the stampede.
But Max did not witness a terrorist attack. Everyone who was not in the City Room at the time thought there was a bomb. That’s because they were caught up in a frightening emergency situation and were later told—primarily by the legacy media—that it was caused by a terrorist attack.
Max makes this point abundantly clear:
[W]e’re trying to get home the radio’s on and like it took us probably like two or three hours to get home. Like half an hour by half an hour, they’re giving more and more updates like, you know, incident has happened at the Manchester Arena, potential Terror threat at the Manchester Arena, definite terror attack and like two people confirmed dead, three people confirmed dead. And we were just like, just could not believe it.
The independent journalist Richard D. Hall was the first named journalist to report the evidence showing there was no bomb. He was subsequently successfully sued for harassment by Manchester Arena victim Martin Hibbert. Hall is currently appealing the judgment.
During the trial it emerged that Mr Hibbert was motivated, in part, to sue Hall because, according to the prosecution, Hall had exposed his daughter Eve to public scrutiny and the family did not want Eve to be known as “that girl from the Arena.” Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with his concern for the privacy of his daughter that the first thing Martin Hibbert did, following the ruling, was announce his campaign to lobby for a law—expressly linked to the purported Manchester Arena attack—to be publicly named after his daughter.
“Eve’s Law” may be what Martin Hibbert wants, but he is not alone in that desire. He is clearly being supported by the state to bring it to fruition. Prior to the trial, the legacy media reported:
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has spoken to Martin about the potential for a new law that better protects survivors from harassment and conspiracy theories.
I have stressed this point about “conspiracy theories” many times before. But, to reiterate, the working scientific definition of “conspiracy theory”—found in the academic work of Professor Neil Levy—reads as follows:
[A]n explanation that conflicts with the account advanced by the relevant epistemic authorities.
Continuing the definition: These “epistemic authorities” are:
[. . .] the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists
As far as the state is concerned, a “conspiracy theory” is anything that questions the official account or the preferred state narrative. Or, put more bluntly, a “conspiracy theory” is any explanation that questions power.
Given his testimony at Hall’s trial, it is implausible to suggest that Martin Hibbert is alone capable of mounting a serious campaign to lobby for national government legislation. He is clearly heavily backed by the state or elements within the state.
Eve’s Law appears to have been a planned outcome of the Manchester Attack. Just a year after the Manchester event, in 2018, the Kerslake Report into the response to the terrorist attack was sharply critical of the way the “media” treated the “victims” and bereaved families:
The Panel was shocked and dismayed by the accounts of the families of their experiences with some of the media. [. . .] To have experienced such intrusive and overbearing behaviour at a time of such enormous vulnerability seemed to us to be completely and utterly unacceptable. [. . .] Most participants who commented on their experience of the media in the attack aftermath were negative. People talked about feeling ‘hounded’ and ‘bombarded’. [. . .] Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
The alleged basis for Eve’s Law was clearly outlined, by the state, in 2018, long before any lawsuit was filed against Hall. All of this reportedly “intrusive and overbearing behaviour” was exhibited by members of the legacy media. No legacy media journalists has ever been sued for harassment by any Manchester Arena victim. Martin Hibbert is the face of a publicity drive attempting to justify a censorship law aimed squarely at the independent media.
In short, Eve’s Law is yet another direct and seemingly intentional consequence of the extremely dubious Manchester Attack.
In the article referenced above, the state stenographers at The Guardian reported:
Hibbert is planning to campaign for a new criminal offence protecting victims of crime or tragedies from harassment by conspiracy theorists, which he wants to be known as Eve’s Law after his daughter. He also plans to establish a star chamber of pro-bono barristers who would represent these victims on a no-win, no-fee basis, as he said legal fees were preventing people from suing those hounding them online.
Initially, Martin Hibbert was said to be seeking a law to stop conspiracy theorists questioning the purported victims of terror attacks. Now, it seems those ambitions have extended to halting the questioning of statements offered by anyone who purports to be the victim of a crime or a public tragedy. Mission creep is already underway.
We can be certain that the legacy media won’t dispute the public-private state’s narratives. The only people who will are those labelled conspiracy theorists. Among their ranks are every independent media journalist and outlet.
If Eve’s Law is enacted as proposed, it will be virtually impossible for any independent media journalist or outlet to question power. If they do, any alleged “victim” will be funded by the state to sue the offending investigative journalist for harassment—not under existing legislation but under Eve’s Law.
Questioning power will be punishable and a prohibitively expensive litigious act. State narratives will effectively be protected in UK law, and the British public will be forced to rely upon the legacy media—called by the UN the “gatekeepers of news and information”—for their tightly restricted window on the world.
For all intents and purposes, informed democratic debate will practically cease in the UK.
Setting a case precedent to underpin the push for Eve’s Law was blatantly a key aspect of the ruling issued against Hall. Karen Steyn—who describes herself a “High Court judge”—said, in her written judgment:
In Sube, Warby J observed [. . .] that “nothing short of a conscious or negligent abuse of media freedom will justify a finding of harassment”. This approach is not limited to journalism emanating from the mainstream press. [. . .] [I]t “extends to citizen journalism of the type engaged in by bloggers.” [. . .] It is common ground that it applies to Mr Hall’s publications.
Indeed, it did apply to Hall’s publications. This was possible only because the journalists’ “standard defence”—under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), which Martin Hibbert relied upon in Hall’s case—was denied to him.
Under normal circumstances, an honest journalist could rely upon PHA s.1(3)(a) and provide evidence showing he was conducting an investigation with the intention of “preventing or detecting crime.” Moreover, under PHA s.1(3)(a), that same honest journalist could further demonstrate “that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of [their] course of conduct was reasonable.” If satisfied, the court would reject the harassment claim. Hall was not permitted to offer this defence.
Before finding against Hall, the High Court first issued a “summary judgment” ruling that all the evidence—of the kind any investigative journalist accused of harassment would otherwise rely upon—was inadmissible in his case. Steyn leaned heavily on the summary judgment, describing the entirety of Hall’s evidence “absurd and fantastical.”
The High Court did not consider any of the observable physical evidence Hall presented in his defence. Instead, Richard H. Davison, who issued the summary judgment on behalf of the state, indicated that he had seen some of it but then simply dismissed it out of hand without allowing any of it to be examined in court.
By decree—summary judgment—the High Court would not accept that real, observable physical evidence constituted any kind of evidence at all. Essentially, the High Court found in favour of Martin Hibbert before the trial began.
The ignored evidence, presented by Hall, included video footage of the bomb scene called the Barr footage. Analysis of the Barr footage shows, among other things, that there was no structural damage inside the City Room after the alleged bombing nor were there any injuries consistent with the bombing described by the state.
Yet, despite the evidence presented by Hall being described as “absurd and fantastical,” it is not so meaningless that the state’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit hasn’t gone to the lengths of ordering video hosting platforms to block the public’s access to it.
If the Barr footage shows the bomb scene and is therefore possibly deemed “too graphic” for public scrutiny, why wasn’t it at least submitted into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry—the official Manchester Arena inquiry? Why weren’t key witnesses such as Mr Barr, who filmed the scene, asked to testify at the Inquiry?
If it is just “absurd” nonsense, as the High Court proclaims, and does not amount to evidence worthy of examination, why does the UK Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit need to ban it? The Barr footage cannot be both completely irrelevant and highly sensitive for the British state at the same time.
Time To Wake Up
The threat to independent media could not be more pressing. If Eve’s Law is enacted, only the independent media’s questioning of power will be subject to it.
In the extremely unlikely event that a legacy media journalist is ever prosecuted for harassment by a “victim,” that will be under the Protection from Harassment Act, so he or she will be able to rely upon the journalist’s previously described standard defence. But, since all independent media journalists are labelled “conspiracy theorists” by the state, they will be prosecuted under Eve’s Law.
As such, any other independent media journalist like Hall or independent media outlet will not be allowed to offer a reasonable defence. It is possible that the UK state’s courts will rule any evidence cited by the independent media as inadmissible by summary judgment. Assuming Eve’s Law progresses as planned, it is perhaps more likely that any evidence brought forth by conspiracy theorists will be automatically ruled inadmissible by virtue of being legally declared a “conspiracy theory” under Eve’s Law.
The entire construct of the state’s proposed censorship regime is based on a core presupposition: Conspiracy theorists are dangerous subversives who don’t have any evidence to back up any of their “fantastical” claims.
This presupposition has already allegedly been demonstrated in the High Court by the utter travesty of justice served against Hall. If we let the state maintain its deception, we can wave goodbye to independent journalism. If Eve’s Law is enacted, dictatorship will ultimately result.
The obvious course of action, still barely open to every genuine British independent media journalists and outlet, is to report the observable physical evidence that the state refuses to acknowledge and is clearly desperate to hide. The Barr footage, the Bickerstaff video, and the police chatter recordings need to be reported by every independent media worth their salt and hosted on websites as widely as possible but preferably on more censorship-resistant platforms.
Doing so would demonstrate that so-called conspiracy theorists are not fringe lunatics. In reality, they are just ordinary people who ask legitimate, rational questions of the authorities.
Even if the evidence presented by Hall does not convince everyone or even many, that evidence nonetheless demonstrates that those highlighting it, including Hall, are logical people exercising their supposed democratic rights. If the evidence was known by the wider public, the judgment would be exposed for the lawfare it is. The state’s whole constructed edifice—allegedly justifying Eve’s Law—would collapse.
Yet, remarkably, some of the leading UK independent media outlets and journalists do not consider the evidence reported by Hall “important.”
On this issue, it is time for the asleep members of the independent media to wake up. They should understand that the official Manchester account is absolutely central to the state’s planned attack on independent journalism. In this regard, Manchester is not just another terrorist attack.
If the major UK independent media outlets don’t come together and oppose Eve’s Law then, once it is enacted, independent journalists won’t be able to question state narratives.
The legacy media has completely failed in its public duty. Eve’s Law is intended to ensure that the independent media, likewise, will never again serve the public interest.
Iain Davis is an independent journalist a researcher from the UK. You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. You can claim a free copy of his new book “The Manchester Attack” by subscribing to his newsletter.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Glad Iain has finally grown a pair of balls and called UKC and Richie Allen
out who only today had a person on calling it as real as snow.
Iconic and Icke have called it as real!!! nothing said about RDH hell he has gone through, whilst the rest of em all in tandem(nothing suspect about that) have said NOTHING.
Big up for mentioning it and OG.
Types like Richard D. Hall (and Alex Jones) are very easy to bring down once they start to deny the existence of actual victims in any atrocity. It’s the trump card of the Establishment.
You only need to shift people into the realm where everyone is a ‘crisis actor’ and then their downfall is a foregone conclusion (along with any gullible followers).
Similar examples would be the advocation of the complete non-existence of viruses during Covid, or the “no planes on 9-11” theory (and presumably no towers given their eventual replacement with the current visible taller NY building) and/or the “all wars are fake” mantra accompanying Ukraine (which is presumably looking for a 19th Century style ‘War & Peace’ line-up of troops with clubs, maces, cannons to justify actual war in a 21st Century where drones have never been invented).
None of these newer theories would ever have had any traction in the early days of the 9-11 *truth* movement (as it was then termed). They would have been complete anathema. Hence their ultimate purpose can only be to discredit any ‘alternative’ theories of historical events
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/01/08/elder-rape-is-a-strength/
Brooke Shields shows us today how to successfully promote a book by coming out through downright “shocking experiences”:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/08/entertainment/brooke-shields-says-surgeon-threw-in-bonus-during-labia-surgery/
No. 1 topic of conversation today is her (missing) labia. A (Jewish?) doctor is said to have not only minimized them, as agreed, but also cosmetically narrowed her vagina as a bonus at the expense of the house, so to speak. This can only be interpreted as a humanistic act of charity.
“Shields did not speak to anyone about the procedure afterwards, not even her husband, screenwriter Chris Henchy, to whom she has been married since 2001 and has two children.” An astonishingly revealing statement indeed.
Sounds anything but familiarity. Above all, it proves that Mr. Henchy has no knowledge of his wife’s genitalia, nor can he be the owner of an excessively large penis. But perhaps none of this makes any difference because there has been no intimacy between them for years anyway.
Another factor that has received little attention to date may play a role in this statement: Since more than half of Americans have been circumcised since childhood like Jews, their glans is completely insensitive to all external stimuli due to the lack of a “muzzle cover”.
Who gives a shit ?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(No one els has contacted me yet.)
I rise you.
Angelina Jolie got her inside taken out.
she did not have cancer but wanted to stop it happening JUST IN CASE
Anyone for Skripal ?
MI5 & MI6 I would think, for whom they were valuable assets
The British and French have had a long history of conflict, characterized by rivalry and enmity. Their relationship dates back to the early Middle Ages and includes numerous significant conflicts, such as the Hundred Years’ War, which established a deep-seated animosity between the two nations. This war began as a feud over feudal rights but evolved into a national struggle that shaped the identities of both countries.
Throughout the centuries, Britain and France often found themselves on opposing sides in various wars, including the Seven Years’ War and the Napoleonic Wars. The competition for colonial dominance further fueled their rivalry, particularly during the age of imperialism when both nations sought to expand their empires across Africa and Asia.
Despite their bitter enmity, relations began to improve in the 19th century, culminating in the Entente Cordiale in 1904, which marked a significant shift towards cooperation. However, underlying tensions remained, especially during World War II when Britain and France faced complex challenges, including the German occupation of France.
The historical enmity between Britain and France is thus marked by a series of conflicts that laid the groundwork for a complicated relationship, oscillating between rivalry and cooperation. This dynamic continues to influence perceptions and interactions between the two nations today.
The French also have a complex historical connection to the Germanic tribes, particularly the Franks, from whom the name “France” is derived. The Franks were a Germanic tribe that settled in what is now France during the early Middle Ages. They played a significant role in the formation of the early French state, especially under King Clovis I, who united various Frankish kingdoms and converted to Christianity.
Despite their Germanic roots, the French language evolved from Vulgar Latin, which was spoken in Gaul before the arrival of the Franks. The influence of the Franks on the language was limited, primarily contributing vocabulary related to warfare and some place names. As a result, while the French people have genetic ties to Germanic tribes, their cultural and linguistic identity developed significantly through Roman influence and subsequent historical events.
Over time, France and Germany became embroiled in a series of conflicts that solidified their positions as rivals. This enmity was fueled by territorial disputes, nationalistic sentiments, and competition for dominance in Europe. The historical animosity between these nations has been marked by wars and political strife, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries.
So French are of “Germanic blood” but possess a Latin culture that has been superimposed over time. The name “France” itself derives from the Franks, a Germanic tribe that settled in the region during the early Middle Ages. However, the cultural and linguistic identity of the French people has been significantly shaped by Roman influence, particularly through the adoption of Latin following the Roman conquest of Gaul.
The Franks, despite their Germanic origins, adopted the language of the conquered Galloromanes, which led to the development of Old French as a Latin dialect. This process illustrates how language is closely tied to culture; thus, while the French share genetic connections with Germanic tribes, their cultural identity is predominantly Latin due to the historical dominance of Roman civilization in the region.
Over time, France became a melting pot of various cultures and influences, including Celtic and later Germanic elements. The mixing of these different heritages has contributed to a unique French identity that is often described as gallo-romanic. Historical events, such as the French Revolution, further diluted the remnants of Germanic aristocratic lineage, leading to a more homogenized cultural identity.
The relationship between the Germanic peoples and the Romans was complex and shaped by various historical factors. While the Romans established control over parts of what is now Germany, the Germanic tribes did not adopt Latin as their primary language for several reasons.
Firstly, the Germanic tribes had a strong sense of cultural identity and social structure that was distinct from Roman culture. They maintained their own languages, traditions, and customs, which were integral to their identities. Additionally, the geographical factors played a significant role; the regions inhabited by the Germanic tribes were often remote and less integrated into the Roman Empire compared to areas like Gaul (modern-day France). This geographical separation contributed to the preservation of their languages.
Although Latin became the dominant language in many parts of the empire, it primarily influenced local elites and urban populations. The rural Germanic tribes remained largely unaffected by Romanization, especially in terms of language. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Latin evolved into various Romance languages in regions where it was dominant. In contrast, the Germanic languages continued to develop independently, leading to distinct linguistic traditions.
Furthermore, historical context played a crucial role; the Germanic tribes frequently resisted Roman expansion and influence. Military conflicts and invasions further solidified their linguistic and cultural separateness from Roman traditions. In summary, while there was interaction between the Germanic peoples and the Romans, the former maintained their linguistic identity due to cultural pride, geographical factors, and resistance to Romanization, resulting in the development of distinct Germanic languages that evolved independently from Latin.
The figure of Joan of Arc has transcended her historical existence to become a symbol steeped in myth and legend. Often portrayed as a divine warrior, she embodies the archetype of a hero who rises from humble beginnings to lead her nation against oppression. This transformation from a simple peasant girl to a military leader is shrouded in narratives that emphasize her ethereal visions and unwavering faith, creating an almost otherworldly persona.
Over time, the complexities of her life have been simplified into a singular narrative that highlights her as a beacon of hope and courage during a tumultuous period. This mythologization serves not only to inspire but also to reflect the cultural and national identity of France. However, the layers of myth surrounding her story invite skepticism regarding the extent to which her image has been crafted or manipulated for various agendas.
The comparison between Joan of Arc and the Children’s Crusades reveals intriguing parallels. Both phenomena were characterized by a blend of religious fervor, youthful naivety, and political manipulation. They shared unrealistic goals, adult exploitation, and a tragic misunderstanding of reality. Joan of Arc, like the Children’s Crusades, was co-opted by religious and political actors for their own agendas. These historical events demonstrate how easily people, especially the young, can be instrumentalized for larger causes.
In a modern context, one might draw parallels to the rise of Greta Thunberg as a climate activist. While Thunberg has undoubtedly raised awareness about climate change, questions arise about the extent of her influence and the forces behind her rapid rise to prominence. Unlike Joan of Arc, who faced dire consequences for her actions, Thunberg operates in a different era with its own set of challenges and support systems.
However, skeptics might question whether Thunberg’s prominence is entirely organic or if there are wealthy backers orchestrating her global platform. The “Greta effect” on social media and her ability to mobilize supporters while also facing backlash bears some resemblance to historical figures who became symbols of their causes. Yet, the modern media landscape and the potential for behind-the-scenes influence add layers of complexity to her story that weren’t present in Joan of Arc’s time.
https://substack.com/@eurosiberia/p-154355529
Flick Colby, an influential dancer and choreographer, was born into a family with a strong academic background, particularly in the field of German studies. Her father, Thomas E. Colby, was a Professor of German at Hamilton College in New York. This connection to academia may have fostered an appreciation for culture and the arts within her family, possibly influencing her career trajectory.
Later in life, Colby married George Bahlke, a professor of literature at the same college where her father taught. This connection further emphasizes a familial link to academia and the German language, although specific details about any direct ties to Germany itself remain unclear. The coincidence of her marrying someone with a Germanic name shortly before her death adds an intriguing layer to her personal narrative.
The video features a performance by Colby and her dance group Pan’s People, who were renowned for their appearances on the BBC show Top of the Pops during the 1970s. Colby, a talented choreographer, founded Pan’s People and created numerous dance routines that complemented the music of contemporary hits. The concept behind these performances was to visually enhance the music and provide an engaging experience for viewers.
In an era when music television was emerging, the combination of dance and music was revolutionary. Colby often had only a few hours to develop choreography, showcasing her creativity and adaptability. The performances by Pan’s People were not just entertainment; they played a significant role in establishing dance as a central element in music videos and live performances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Colby
Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has created notable music pieces that center around the theme of Joan of Arc, particularly through their songs “Joan of Arc” and “Maid of Orleans (The Waltz Joan of Arc).” Both tracks reflect the band’s fascination with historical figures and themes, particularly those related to religion and heroism.
“Maid of Orleans” was released on January 15, 1982, as part of their album Architecture & Morality. The song was inspired by the 550th anniversary of Joan of Arc’s death and features a distinctive melody played on a Mellotron, specifically utilizing its “3 Violins” sound, which gives it a unique sound reminiscent of a bagpipe.
The track is characterized by its waltz-like 6/8 time signature and includes electronic sounds that were added later during production. It became OMD’s most successful single, topping charts in several countries, including Germany, where it was the best-selling single of the year.
The music video for “Maid of Orleans,” directed by Steve Barron, features actress Julia Tobin and was filmed at picturesque locations like Brimham Rocks and Fountains Abbey. The visual representation complements the song’s themes, evoking a sense of historical reverence and emotional depth.
In addition to “Maid of Orleans,” OMD also released “Joan of Arc,” which further explores the narrative surrounding this iconic historical figure. The juxtaposition of these two songs highlights the band’s artistic approach to storytelling through music, blending historical context with contemporary pop sensibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Barron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tobin
AI answers my quuestions (part 2):
Kissinger, who fled Germany in 1938, often reflected on the implications of his Jewish identity in a world marked by antisemitism. He expressed a desire to distance himself from the historical baggage of being Jewish in post-war Germany, emphasizing a pragmatic approach to foreign policy that sometimes seemed to downplay Jewish concerns.
This perspective was evident in his controversial statements regarding Jewish issues, particularly during the Vietnam War and his dealings with Israel. Schmidt, who also had Jewish ancestry, navigated similar complexities. His tenure as Chancellor saw significant developments in German-Israeli relations, but he also faced criticism for his pragmatic approach to Middle Eastern politics, which sometimes put him at odds with pro-Israel sentiments.
Their friendship was characterized by mutual respect and intellectual exchange, but it also reflected the broader tensions within the Jewish community regarding identity and political alignment. Both men grappled with their pasts while engaging in realpolitik, navigating the challenges of their heritage while influencing global affairs.
Kissinger made several controversial statements regarding Jewish people and their concerns, which have been interpreted as antisemitic by some. Notably, in a recorded conversation with President Nixon in March 1973, he remarked that “the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” and added, “If they put Jews in gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe it’s a humanitarian concern”.
Additionally, Kissinger expressed disdain for American Jews, describing them as “selfish” and “obnoxious,” indicating that he found their concerns to be bothersome.
In another instance, he quipped to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a pro-Israel advocate, whether he wanted to convert to Judaism, stating, “We are conducting foreign policy here. This is not a synagogue”.
Kissinger’s relationship with his Jewish identity was complex. He once stated, “If I were not born a Jew, I would be an antisemite,” and provocatively suggested that “a people that has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong”.
These comments have led to significant criticism from various Jewish groups and individuals who felt that Kissinger distanced himself from his heritage and the collective suffering of Jews throughout history.
Scholl-Latour was critical of Kissinger’s foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding the Vietnam War, where he reported extensively. He often expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of U.S. interventions, contrasting with Kissinger’s pragmatic approach.
Scholl-Latour was critical of the Vietnam War, having experienced its brutal realities firsthand. His time as a journalist in Vietnam allowed him to witness the consequences of the conflict, which he later articulated through his writings. He predicted the eventual failure of American forces in Vietnam, a stance that almost cost him his job due to the prevailing pro-war sentiment at the time.
In various interviews and writings, Scholl-Latour expressed skepticism about U.S. military interventions, not only in Vietnam but also in Afghanistan and Iraq. He criticized the simplistic demonization of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them instead as popular resistance movements. His experiences in Vietnam deeply influenced his perspective on Western foreign policy and military strategies.
Scholl-Latour’s insights were shaped by his earlier experiences as a soldier during the French Indochina War, where he witnessed the horrors of war and its dehumanizing effects. His critical stance on the Vietnam War reflects a broader skepticism towards imperialistic military interventions, emphasizing the need for understanding complex cultural and historical contexts rather than resorting to military solutions.
Bruno Kreisky, the Jewish Chancellor of Austria, had a pragmatic approach to immigration issues, shaped by his own experiences as a refugee during the Nazi regime. He famously stated, “If you send me back now, you are delivering me to the people I just escaped from.” This reflects his deep understanding of the plight of refugees and immigrants.
Kreisky’s policies were characterized by a balance between compassion and practicality. He recognized the importance of asylum rights and advocated for a liberal immigration policy, yet he was also aware of the challenges posed by large influxes of migrants. In contemporary discussions, it is suggested that Kreisky would have approached the refugee crisis with a combination of firm border policies and a humanitarian response, emphasizing solidarity without compromising national stability.
His legacy continues to influence debates on immigration in Austria, where some argue that his vision for an inclusive society contrasts sharply with more recent restrictive measures. Kreisky’s own history as a “Mischling” under Nazi laws and his subsequent flight from persecution informed his commitment to human rights and asylum, making him a significant figure in discussions about immigration policy in Austria today.
Both quotes by Peter Scholl-Latour:
“I do not fear the strength of Islam, but the weakness of the West. Christianity has already partially abdicated. It no longer has a binding moral doctrine, no dogmas. This is also what Muslims find contemptible about the West.”
“Whoever takes in half of Kolkata does not help Kolkata, but becomes Kolkata himself.”
AI answers my questions:
Norbert Bolz argues that consumerism represents a powerful civilizational force capable of neutralizing religious fundamentalism. He sees the global market, entertainment, science, and technology as “anti-apocalyptic riders” that can gradually dissolve rigid cultural barriers. In his perspective, Western liberal values possess an inherent transformative power that will ultimately prevail against conservative Islamic structures.
Drawing from Peter Scholl-Latour’s provocative insights about cultural migration, Bolz suggests that societies importing large populations cannot simply “help” those populations, but will fundamentally transform themselves. He believes that economic integration and consumer culture create more effective assimilation mechanisms than political programs or humanitarian rhetoric.
Bolz’s core thesis maintains that while Islam presents a significant challenge to Western liberal order, the universal language of consumption, individual opportunity, and market dynamics will ultimately prove more compelling than religious dogma. He sees this not as cultural conquest, but as a subtle, almost evolutionary process where economic rationality gradually undermines traditional religious worldviews.
Btw., Scholl-Latour once remarked on public tv that today’s neo-Nazis, due to their lack of intellectual and moral rigor, would not have been accepted into the SS. He emphasized that the original SS members possessed a certain discipline and ideology that modern neo-Nazis lack. This statement reflects his critical view of the contemporary far-right movement, suggesting it is less serious and coherent than historical Nazi ideology.
His background is notable; he was born to a Jewish mother and classified as a “Mischling” under Nazi racial laws, which subjected him to persecution during that era. He fled to France, joined the French army, and fought in the Indochina War. His experiences in Vietnam profoundly shaped his views on politics and culture, particularly regarding the Arab world, with which he maintained a strong affinity throughout his career as a journalist and author.
Helmut Schmidt, the former Chancellor of Germany, made controversial statements regarding Turkish immigrants during his time in office. He expressed concerns about the integration of Turkish immigrants, suggesting that they came from a very different culture compared to other immigrant groups in Germany. Schmidt’s views reflected a broader sentiment during the 1980s, where he indicated that Germany was not an immigration country and that the influx of Turkish immigrants posed significant challenges.
Schmidt, who was of partial Jewish descent—classified as a “quarter Jew” due to his father’s background—had a complex relationship with issues of identity and integration. His family kept this heritage secret during the Nazi era, as it could have jeopardized their safety. This background may have influenced his perspectives on multiculturalism and immigration.
In public discussions, Schmidt often emphasized that a multicultural society was difficult to reconcile with democracy, suggesting that such societies could only function under strong authoritative governance. His remarks sparked criticism from various quarters, particularly from those advocating for a more inclusive approach to immigration and integration in Germany.
The relationship between Henry Kissinger and Helmut Schmidt did indeed involve discussions about their Jewish heritage, particularly given their backgrounds as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Both men shared a bond shaped by their experiences in totalitarian regimes, which influenced their perspectives on politics and international relations.
https://www.livemint.com/news/trends/indians-own-more-property-in-london-than-englishmen-themselves-netizens-take-a-karma-jibe-at-britain-11735792656451.html
https://x.com/zenoc_oshits/status/1872680311081033765
Nature normally endeavors to avoid a direct collision of different, mutually exclusive elements as far as possible. However, “globalized” world domination has no regard for the laws of nature, as it is said to be governed exclusively by “universal human rights”. These human rights naturally include the right to enrich oneself economically from the world’s population to an enormous extent.
Now there is this famous book by Huntington called “Clash of Civilizations”. However, for politically correct reasons, it contains no references to racial-ethnic collusions and conflicts. One either assumes, “color-blind” and averse to any sociological knowledge, that these races and ethnic groups do not exist at all, or one simply denies and conceals them out of dishonest, low motives and sentiments, which can be judged as a betrayal of humanity.
For as Western societies have long since discovered, these borders and frontlines, which collide with each other almost permanently and ignite like continental plates and tectonic eruptions through maximum friction, now run directly within the Western sphere of life. States within states, also known as “parralel societies”, are emerging. They are spreading more and more and displacing the native indigenous population (White Flight).
The foreign settlers and land grabbers lured in by globalism through push and pull factors like a never-switched-off “sh*t magnet” are not willing to sacrifice their own traditional norms and cultural values to Western liberalism and progressivism. Of course, it is highly “politically incorrect” to talk about “sh*thole countries” in a polemically pointed way, as Trump does, e.g. with regard to regions such as Haiti or Bangladesh, but if you look at the conditions there, you cannot come to any other conclusion.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/switzerland/swiss-burqa-ban/
https://www.ndtv.com/feature/dubai-police-react-after-tourists-film-burqa-clad-woman-at-restaurant-7413237
It’s what the Nazi’s called salamitaktik, incremental implementation. All of the crap that is being forced upon Humanity is being done in this stealth manor to get away with slow motion fascism. Boiling the frog. We get it. The digital ID crap is so fraught with fraud and incompetence, it’s hard to believe anyone can take it as any kind of solution.
“you’ll be able to choose from a range of digital identity and attribute providers. [. . .] The provider will do the hard work of proving that you are who you say you are.”
1) This public-private-partnership (privatized fascism) would result in each of us having no identity, no personal sovereignty of any kind. And dependent on a “provider”? Do YOU trust any “provider”? NO! Like: the creation of money is the creation of debt, the creation of an external “identity” is the elimination of self.
2) And when your “identity” is hacked and used by another who is in essence, then,with a you, you have been disappeared. The ID, with a mistake or whatever, could do this. The “provider” could do this. The gov’t could do this. A criminal could do this. But you cannot. You have been made a powerless dog-collared serf. Restoring yourself, just like proving the fraudulent charges on your bank or credit card, becomes a bureaucratic nightmare that will destroy lives.
Our access to the truth, the ability to make purposeful personal decisions, and to act as a self-sufficient individual with agency, is being cauterized.
What can we do?
1) Start message bombing all the authorities that surround you, pointing out what they are doing that is evil and what they should be doing to create good for the bottom 95%.
2) Withdraw, as much as possible, monetary and physical participation with their evil and tell them you are doing so because you do not consent to. No matter how loony it may seem to them or even you.
The time to be politely vague is over and it is time to be bluntly direct, without equivocation. Be intelligently polite with family, friends and coworkers. NOT THEM. And you know who they are.
IMHO.
The bolding of text is no longer working.
and why should anyone have to prove we are who we say we are simply to enter a supermarket or public building?
you know, if you work for a large organization, governmental or private, you probably are forced to make use of all sorts of horrible so-called BUSINESS SOLUTIONS from “providers” that upper management has selected, in a completely nontransparent fashion, to complete your daily tasks on the job, no matter how frustratingly inefficient they are
whenever I deal with customer service reps over the phone the inevitable refrain is “please wait, my system is having trouble”
ah, the upper management furnace..
It takes only one of those false flags and hoaxes to be publicly exposed, for all the terrorism narrative to start crumbling down.
Why not the other independent honest journalism organizations jump in to contribute in the case, like amicus curie, or amplifying massively this one proven farce?
The same should have been done in the Alex Jones Sandy Hook trial, but instead all the independent media while defending Jones, at the same time would parrot that in the Sandy hook case he was equivocated. Even himself apologised. Why? He was right and it is easily proven. Suspicious in Jones case, shameful laziness of the alternative media.
for disseminating opinions that hurt the feelings of some people in Connecticut, the penalty is hundreds of millions
for accidentally blowing civilians to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much did the US military pay per casualty? if it was even 10 thousand dollars I’d be very surprised
So in effect the plan set in place before the bang relied on some alt media journalist carrying out ‘surveillance’ / ‘harassment’ of the purported victims in order to justify the extreme measures brought in via ‘Eve’s law’? I don’t believe Richard D Hall was set up by them (not so sure about Alex Jones with his Sandy Hook exposure though). But what would they have done if no-one had attempted to expose it? Is it the case that false flag events and psy ops are becoming more blatant and more ridiculous in order to ensure that someone will call it out and take the rap to allow the introduction of these draconian measures? I’m thinking the narwhal tusk defence during the London Bridge attack in 2019 and so many stories during Covid with the jab for a kebab type of nonsense. No one in the mainstream media even seemed to find such things worthy of note, so people like Mr Hall are not only exposing the deceptive nature of the events but also the complicity and the failures of the msm to investigate or report anything contrary to the accepted version. I’ve followed Mr Hall for many years and believe that he is a supremely thorough and diligent reporter on a very wide range of questionable events. But why was he allowed for so many years to say what he said in exposing the truth behind the lies? I am an optimist and a hopium addict so I’m still clinging to the belief that this exposure is necessary to stop people sleep-walking into the future you envisage here and move us closer to the end of a corrupt system that lies about everything. It’s a more optimistic view but it gets me through these dark days. Thank you, Iain, for your brilliant investigative journalism and your continued support of the beleaguered Mr Hall and let’s hope the truth will out and the truth-tellers will get the recognition they deserve.
“absurd and fantastical” should go right into the masthead of the Graud as their new mission statement, it certainly better describes their content than some bollocks about how they “build hope”
You wouldn’t want a house built by them, then.
I saw the video put up on YT within seconds of the ‘Bang.’ There was no explosion and no casualties. People, including Abedi just lay down on the floor.
We have to make a stand somewhere, sometime.
Tangent: the US “victims’ rights” movement that began in the late 1970s prompted the practice of naming ostensibly remedial legislation in honor of victims; to save space and words, just do a search for “Megan’s Law”, enacted in 1994.
This movement presented itself as a long-overdue reform of jurisprudence and due process that was increasingly criticized as favoring defendants, i.e. criminal types, over victims. Thus, the New! Improved! approach adopted the marketing gimmick of “personalizing” victims by honoring them with legislative titles, in order to confirm that the majestic Law no longer ignored or ruthlessly diminished them.
Even before I understood that the nominally well-meaning movement to give victims higher status was a slippery slope to pathological lawfare, I considered this practice misguided at best. Self-serving Elected Misrepresentatives enthusiastically adopted it as benign demagoguery; it spawned the ritual of the proud sponsor(s) holding a press conference with the victim du jour‘s family and survivors, thus demonstrating that the Misrepresentative is a compassionate politician who truly cares about victims.
The traditional or legacy model of jurisprudence based on disinterested, impartial, and impersonal scrutiny of facts and evidence was deemed to be “part of the problem”. To me, it seemed like a wrongheaded legislative version of “hard cases make bad law”.
In trials, “hard cases make bad law” means that when a court tries to resolve a particularly difficult or extreme case, it may be inclined to apply the law in a way that creates a poor precedent for future cases– potentially distorting the letter of the law to achieve a desired outcome in that specific situation, rather than applying the law consistently across different scenarios.
The practice of personalizing laws struck me as similar to getting “vanity plates” for one’s motor vehicle. I don’t know if other countries do this, but in the US vehicle owners can request a license plate with unique customized letters and numbers, usually paying an extra fee.
So instead of, say “FYP664“, you might choose “GOLF NUT” or somesuch.
I don’t trust laws that, to promote political theater, come equipped with flashy vanity titles. 😡 ⚖️
Yep. Vanity plates are a thing in Australia too.
I can think of many better ways to spend a few hundred dollars.
About
“Jana G. Pruden is an award-winning feature writer at The Globe and Mail in Canada, and the host and co-creator of the hit narrative podcast series, In Her Defence and In Her Defence: 50th Street. Jana is a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta.
Jana’s longform and narrative writing has been recognized internationally, including with multiple awards and citations from the National Newspaper Awards, the Canadian Association of Journalists, and the Canadian Journalism Foundation. Her writing has also appeared on Longform and Longreads, and in magazines such as The Walrus and Reader’s Digest.
Jana is the former crime bureau chief of the Edmonton Journal, and previously worked at the Regina Leader-Post, the Medicine Hat News, the Prairie Post and the Interlake Spectator. She is also a sessional journalism instructor at MacEwan University and a presenter at Pandemic University Pop-Up School of Writing.
A frequent presenter on issues related to journalism, nonfiction writing, and crime reporting, Jana delivered the 2020 Minifie Lecture at the University of Regina’s School of Journalism. That lecture, entitled Give Me Rewrite: Drafting a New Future for Journalism, can be watched on video here, or read here.
Her Lougheed College Lecture, The Misery Beat: The Ethics of Reporting on Crime and Human Suffering, can be found here. It is also available in print from Hingston & Olson.
Photos of Jana on this site are by Amber Bracken.
Contact Jana by email at [email protected], follow her on Bluesky @janapruden.bsky.social, X @jana_pruden, connect on LinkedIn or read her work in The Globe and Mail.
In June of 2023 Jana G. Prudent published Hitting Zero. Yes, 2023.
Hitting Zero
Jana G. Pruden | The Globe and Mail | June 2, 2023,
“Jana G. Pruden spent three days observing the Canadian Cheer National Championships in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and discovered that cheerleading no longer takes place on the sidelines. For some, it’s become the ultimate in team sport, requiring dedication, rigorous training, and a fairly high pain tolerance to excel.”
Read the story
Tagged: Cheer, Cheerleading, Jana G. Pruden, The Globe and Mail
https://longreads.com/2023/06/07/hitting-zero/
“To continue reading this article you must be a globeandmail.com subscriber. Become one now.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-cheerleading-competition-national-championships/?src=longreads
I have not read ‘Hitting Zero for my own personal reasons; however, you may read this important article of 2023 at the following address.
Featured Stories
Hitting Zero: Three days inside the bouncy, sparkly, girl-powered, extremely hard-core world of competitive cheer
“Continue reading this story, and see its full multimedia treatment, in the Globe and Mail”
https://www.janapruden.ca/stories/
Bibi & Tina – Cheerleader Song mit LYRICS zum Mitsingen
The best that “Anglo-German” culture currently has to offer: Bibi & Tina are stirring up the world in an Anglo-Americanized way, but not without the significant involvement of the indispensable Negro-Boyz!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibi_and_Tina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfie_Donnelly
The creator of this left-liberal machination, herself a “product” of her honorless mother’s occupational begetter and kinda Astrid Lindgren cartoon (see “Pippi Longstocking”), is furious that the former East Germany considers her anti-capitalist attitude to be antiquated (nowadays expressed in “Germany” in Denglish as “outdated”).
After all, she speaks out against “wokeness” and “cancel culture”, which requires heroic courage these days! I am also in favor of replacing the Negro boyz with Hitler boys: full agreement! https://www.krone.at/3457129
Salman Abedi blew himself into bits.
But his bank card survived (it was found near a PLANT)
https://postimg.cc/8JBpp6rt
Trivia question how many 9/11 hijackers passports were recovered
Answer 4
More fun trivia. One of those passports was supposedly found on the ground by then Police Commisioner Bernard Kerik. He went onto become minister of the interior in occupied Iraq under Paul Bremer. He then got sent to federal prison for tax fraud before being pardoned by Trump.
“Its a small club and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin
Not only that, but the blast occurred just a couple of weeks before the the UK general election – an election that the US intelligence agencies couldn’t let Corbyn win because of his opposition to their NATO empire-building racket.
Iain Davis finally having a exorcism and smelling salts 15 years to late to the party.
But hey at least youve nearly waking up.
words from Iain from his own blog. WHY DOES OG NOT PRINT THIS..?.
https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-controlled-controlled-opposition-014
I wrote the articles and made the video in an attempt to encourage the larger independent media organisations to report the Manchester evidence. I am delighted to say some have responded favourably—watch this space. I used the coverage of UK Column to illustrate my point precisely because they have extensively covered the Hall case but have not, for whatever reason, reported the Manchester evidence.
It was not my intention to attack UK Column nor any other independent media outlet. I hoped to offer a rationale to support my plea to report the evidence to a wider audience. Unfortunately, it is evident from the response of Brian Gerrish—representing UK Column—that the UK column team were angered by it.
I was disappointed by the response and I fully accept that it is not for me to dictate UK Column’s, nor any media outlets editorial decisions. I was not attempting to do so but I can understand why UK Column perceived it that way.
In a discussion with Brian Gerrish I noted that UK Column were extremely resistant to discussing the evidence. Having accepted that I failed to convince them to report it, and as UK Column informed me they found the evidence reported by myself—building on the evidence initially reported by Hall—unconvincing, I tried to understand why UK Column thought the evidence unconvincing.
I could not debate Brian Gerrish about the evidence as he was unwilling to discuss it. It was as if the evidence was immaterial to UK Column’s decision. This seemed to me to have parallels with the legacy media and High Court refusals to acknowledge the existence of the Manchester hoax evidence.
me: It is ok Iain I except your apology that UK Column is in fact a state sponsored shill network faking as it indy and have always been.
U.K Column funded by Sheila Butler, the daughter of Earl and the niece to Lord Kitchener who also bank rolled the BNP party.
U.K shillum (U.k Column (Uk collide with the government)
I ‘fund’ UK Column too. £5 a month. Do you know who my great-uncle is? No. Neither do I. He certainly has no affect on my decision making. Kind of irrelevant really isn’t? I am a supporter of Iain Davis’s work and I also like a lot of what UK Column does and of course RDH. I don’t agree with everything but they say but that’s to be expected. I’d be interested – in a way – to know your thoughts on what happened in Manchester BSM. Personally I’m with RDH and ID. It was a hoaxed false-flag.
Getting nonsense news from an Naval intelligence outfit and GCHQ is like scoring drugs from the police then crying when they bust you.
In your case your paying for your own enslavement.
I often find the “shill” argument reductive. It usually presents what I consider a false assumed dichotomy between the absolute truth teller and the Establishment controlled opposition propagandist. This leads those who bang on about shills to frequently call people or organisations “shills” simply because they don’t agree with them, or because the accused shill doesn’t report the stories the critic insists they must to demonstrate they are not “shills” to the critics satisfactions. Hence my “controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop” articles.
I do not agree with UK Column on numerous issues. I did try to encourage them and other leading independent media outlets to report the Manchester evidence. Rick Munn, Gareth Icke, Sonia Poulton and the OffGuardian have all reported the evidence or allowed me to use their platforms to present it. Ickonic responded favourably to my appeal.
I made this plea because, in my view, The Manchester narrative, and the ruling in Hall’s case, underpins the state’s proposed legislative attack on the independent media. In particular, having failed to convince UKC to report the evidence, I tried to engage UKC to explain to me why they thought the Manchester evidence I cite was unconvincing.
I do not suggest that UK Column are shills or controlled opposition simply because we have another difference of opinion. To paraphrase: I have not “woken up” and joined your party.
In the last 5 days on OG.
Dr Todd sold the Truckers Convoy in Canada as real as it gets.
Then
Martin Hanson argued that New Zealand, together with many other nominally ‘democratic’ countries, is fascist. Doesn’t mention any other countries only New Zealand.
Then the Christianity Chris mas is real meme.
Then the editor praises Trump the Peacemaker BIG AND LOUD and now
U.K column Iain opening statement is: the state propagandists at The Guardian—who evidently despise investigative journalism !!
State Propagandists also have a alternative media division.
Yes they do. We’d be fools to think otherwise, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.
A great piece Iain , and what a thankless task it must be, thanks for Your courage and dedication …and defense of Freedom it is truly inspirational … Terrifying times indeed .. your no frills or theatrical black pill bullshit matter of fact prose is all the more effective … Much love to You, and Kit and Catte and all your readers
Appreciated. Many thanks.
We Love You Iain, Maybe i’m just Sentimental i feel Love for Many Alt Media Ghosts I’ll never Know ,commenters too Y’all make Me feel I’m not alone or Insane!
To Jenner:
THE CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, REGISTRATION PROCESS, use of TITLED ALL CAP NAMES.
To Anyone who receives a police charge or court notification.
If you receive a charge or notification accept their claim and contract on condition they alter your name from MR JOE BLOGGS to Joe Bloggs. They will threaten and harass but they cannot see their claim through. Jenner is either a gullible fool or a state troll.
To find the truth, ask your bank for full disclosure of why your account is i.e., MR JOE BLOGGS, as you believe that name is not yours. Check BETA COMPANIES HOUSE and ask why all full/sur/names are in all caps and likewise the DVLA and passport office. If you are buying a car or a house make sure that the registration documents do not have your titled all caps name and you keep the original and send them a certified copy. Ask for full disclosure into legalese used in land titles and demand everything in plain-simple-English.
Also, ensure all documents have their names clearly written to allow a fraud counterclaim.
This one tool can eliminate 95% of our concerns highlighted daily by OFF G.
It is disgusting that your peddle your snake oil here, it has already cost many litigants in our Freedom movement their court cases.
AFAIK, no case for jab injury or death, for example, is being pled anywhere in the Anglosphere using your delusional twaddle.
“can eliminate 95%”: as usual, you people conceal all the legal rulings and judges’ comments against your BS that have existed now for years.
From the link I provided before:
” Pseudolaw arguments are almost always rejected as baseless or frivolous. They almost always lead to unfavourable results for the claimant, including additional penalties, fines, and contempt of court. As Hobbs, Young and McIntyre have noted, these tactics also waste significant court resources. In addition to having legal implications, individuals who attempt to use pseudolaw often face worsening financial implications. While many who use pseudolaw may be attempting to avoid debts or tax obligations, adopting pseudolaw can lead to additional legal actions from tax authorities, fines, or asset seizure. While pseudolaw may be promoted as a way of controlling one’s financial assets, it typically has the complete opposite effect.”
There are interesting parallels between this and the Skripal poisoning. The official version of the latter case is utterly absurd and unbelievable, but not one single mainstream news outlet has ever questioned a word of it.
Ps Silent peaceful mass revolt , and refusal to participate , which will entail Self Sacrifice looks like our only hope .. how to defy logistical coordination problems due to mass surveillence is something to ponder … Religious and Political sectarianisms must be set aside .. a sobering set of issues, our cartelised criminal adversaries , are closing in , its do or die!
Begging your pardon Paul that wasnt a reply to Your comment , merely ineptitude on My Part!
thank you – Yes.
First mass general strike
– then mass coordinated refusal to pay the debt, specifically a 3 month pause on mortgage payments
then finally, tax revolt
Meanwhile, in preparation we form decentralized community resource and food center hubs to help others through the disruption transition
and yes, critically – a complete elimination of ideological/political “othering”
race and culture wars are always manufactured
class war always the real thing
always has been
mucch love
Rueben,great ideas the thorny bit is the Coordination , older Samizdat techniques must I think become common currency … During Convid i received hand written Notes sfrom dissidents in the local Area … Outlining the scamdemic… So Word of mouth ,letterboxing etc are options but its going to be hard.. i made dvds of video data by Doctors and scientists and sent them to Local Doctors … Effective or not i have no idea….. Its going to be tough… We need more people on our side…the fact that Goverments everywhere are ramping up repressive Anti so called dis info measures proves We are a threat they want to Wipe out!…. Love rigbt back at You Reuben !
Reuben cheers i sent a longer reply but its pending!..0x
The best accounts and theories I’ve read about the Skripal case were on former ambassador Craig Murray’s blog. He outlined exactly what was wrong about the official narrative and it was truly absurd. He must have riled a few feathers as his excellent reporting of the later Alex Salmond case put him in jail.
Yes, Craig Murray gave an excellent 10 point rebuttal of the official version, but the most exhaustive analysis was undertakes by Rob Slane, but unfortunately his blog is no longer available online.
I believe that hibbert was not “harrassed” enough but paid handsomely by the bbc (spring springs to mind) to start the legal action. Not sure that he would be able to enter a pub anymore without a helmet
Where is British ‘elite’ Just-us for 250,000+ young underclass white native girls?
On ~ the level of Afghanistan today.
Indian Outcast girls are doing way, way better.
Where is Amnesty International?
Where are the Feminists?
Where are the Left workers reps?
Nowhere because this same elite is waste deep into this mass pedophile scam themselves. If only they where just wankers!
Another good example is Craig Murray: he wrote nothing on this subject as his favorite Muslims are systematic culprits.
Not to downplay the situation you’re talking about, but you’ve really got a hard-on for Muslims, man. Could it be you are jewish? You wouldn’t be hasbara would you?
Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t follow any religion, least of all the irrational and outdated Abrahamic ones.
So should the racist child rape wave in the UK now be investigated?
waist deep
Yes, but it’s so convenient.
this law can easily be made unenforceable if enough people ignore it they cant lock everybody up
Seems appropriate:
Isn’t it amazing? I remember listening to this song when it came out in the sixties. I was quite young but it really struck a chord (excuse the pun).
Of course, I have heard it several times over the years, most recently this summer on a trip to visit childhood friends from the sixties, and each time I hear it I think “He could be singing about today.”
The more things change…..
Rodriguez – This Is Not a Song, It’s an Outburst: Or, the Establishment Blues
https://youtu.be/lJyawB1E78M?si=YMR_77Cr8E5mRloH
A REAL songwriter, as opposed to most of the sludge that has been served up as songs over the last fifty years.
RIP Rodriguez.
Sorry, but that song does not technically qualify as “songwriting.” It’s just one note and blabbermouth words.
IYO.
Nope. Absolute fact.
See? They are all in it.
George Carlin was wrong. This song and video clearly shows “its a Club”, the Cabal or whatever we call it include the sheeple.
The Elite, The Sheeple, The Mult-iBillionaires, The Royals, are all it it together….in a Club!
George Carlin never said anything risky. He was always within the approved range of acceptable opinion. This will happen with comedians. They never want to lose half their audience.