Friday 26th of April 2024

stiff competition for the most vile person on the planet.....

The White Renegade of the Year is not the person who is the most anti-white. It’s not the person who is the most destructive. He is the person who could — or should —have done the most good, but instead did the most harm. This year’s winner is Boris Johnson, former British prime minister and former leader of the Conservative Party. Though he lost power in September 2022, 2023 could be his comeback, if only because other Conservative leaders are even more unpopular. He has so thoroughly wrecked his party that it may still need even him. This paradox sums up his career.

 

BY 

 

Boris Johnson had the potential for greatness. You want to like him. He is an excellent writer and speaker and has a roguish charm that gives him an authenticity that so many politicians lack. It’s not just because of his blonde hair that so many compare him to Donald Trump. Other than Nigel Farage, it was Boris Johnson who delivered victory in the Brexit referendum. His closing speech was magnificent.

Unfortunately, like President Donald Trump, Boris Johnson betrayed those who believed in him. Unlike Donald Trump, Boris Johnson can’t blame saboteurs within his own government and party, a ferociously hostile media, political inexperience, or Big Tech censorship. Whatever Donald Trump’s failings, our former president faced obstacles he never imagined when he descended the escalator in 2015. The New York businessman who bragged about his ability to beat the sharks in Manhattan’s real estate market was — somehow — too naïve. Boris Johnson has no excuses. He sabotaged himself out of sheer self-indulgence.

It’s difficult to overstate Boris Johnson’s potential in 2019. By putting himself at the head of the Brexit movement, he did what was almost impossible: He redefined the governing Conservative Party without destroying it. He managed to make a nation’s rulers look like populist outsiders. Though he didn’t take over the Conservatives immediately after Brexit, he was by far the most charismatic and interesting of the Tories. When he took charge, patriots had many reasons for hope.

In December 2019, Mr. Johnson led the Conservatives to an overwhelming victory in a general election that promised a political realignment. He smashed Labour’s “Red Wall” in northern England, humiliating socialist Jeremy Corbyn by making his party look completely out of touch with the English working class.

Matthew Goodwin, co-author of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, suggested “Johnsonism” might be the key to victories for center-right parties around the world: “Boris Johnson and his team have grasped the new unwritten law of politics which is you really need to lean a little bit left on economics and a little bit right on culture and identity to unlock lots of territory, lots of seats you didn’t previously have.” Andrew Sullivan wrote: “The political sweet spot in the next few years will be a combination of left-economics and a celebration of the nation-state.”

For example, Prime Minister Johnson promised that the Conservatives would fully fund the National Health Service, robbing the Left of one its key issues. Improving the NHS would be a potent way to show the British people that “taking back control” of their finances from the EU had practical benefits. For American conservatives wedded to “limited government,” a right-wing that defends the welfare state is heresy. Yet it’s tactics like this that keep conservatives in power in Poland and Hungary. Prime Minister Johnson had the potential to secure Conservative rule in England for the indefinite future while quelling separatist tendencies in Scotland.

Mr. Johnson had plenty of time to show what he could do. Even by 2021, when it was clear that he was making a mess of things, a northeastern English constituency that had never, ever voted Conservative blew Labour away in a by-election. “With a historic majority, at the helm of the country during its greatest moment of political change since Suez,” recalled Aris Roussinos in Unherd, “Johnson had the potential to lead a radical reformist government and arrest the nation’s seemingly endless decline.” Mr. Johnson failed, but Mr. Roussinos excuses him: “forces of inertia and dysfunction were too great.”

No. It was Boris Johnson’s fault. His personal and political choices were so stupid that one wonders if he has a psychological need for self-sabotage. Leaders of great nations can’t indulge neuroses. He’s like a murderer who wants to be caught, but his victim was England itself.

When mediocre “elites” act as if they are exempt from the rules they force on everyone else, populists will strike. However, a populist leader can’t survive hypocrisy, either. Whatever one may think about COVID-19 vaccines and lockdowns, by early 2021, Boris Johnson’s government looked like it was sailing serenely through the crisis. Unfortunately for him, proof emerged that he and his friends had been drinking and partying while he was telling the rest of the country to stay home and sacrifice for the good of all.

Even the late Queen Elizabeth II had to mourn her husband Prince Philip alonebecause of COVID-19 restrictions. Boris Johnson acted as if he didn’t need to obeyrules that bound the sovereign herself. He also lied about those rowdy parties. Mr. Johnson thus became the first Prime Minister to be found guilty of breaking the law while in office. It may seem a small offence, but no patriotic leader can put himself above the people he claims to lead or ask them to do things he won’t, especially when the Queen is doing her duty. It doesn’t help that Mr. Johnson lied again when he said he didn’t know about allegations of sexual misconduct by a party official, Chris Pincher. “Partygate” and the Chris Pincher lies brought Mr. Johnson down. When people who have been burned by the political establishment for decades put their trust in you, you certainly can’t betray it.

For white advocates, the far more important failures lie in immigration. Though it was not the sole cause, opposition to mass immigration was an important reason why so many Britons defied the political establishment and voted to leave the European Union. Boris Johnson himself accused then-prime minister (and Conservative leader) David Cameron of betraying voters by not cutting immigration. “It is deeply corrosive of popular trust in democracy that every year UK politicians tell the public that they can cut immigration to the tens of thousands — and then find that they miss their targets of hundreds of thousands,” he said in May 2016. In 2019, after Brexit, Boris Johnson and the Conservatives ran and won the election on a strong anti-immigration platform. Immigration then increased.

According to Labour insider Andrew Neather, leftists engineered more immigration to change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” What was Boris Johnson’s excuse? Immigration fell in 2020, though this was because of COVID-19 and Brexit. However, it then surged. From 2019 to May 2022, visas issued to Indians surged by 164 percent, Pakistanis by 255 percent, and Nigerians by 415 percent. Under Boris Johnson, immigration policy was arguably worse than it was under Tony Blair.

That’s legal immigration. As of May this year, at least 9,000 “migrants” were known to have crossed the English channel since the beginning of 2022. No one knows how many more arrived undetected. One of the problems facing the British is a housing crisis, which makes it very hard to start a family. John Derbyshire wrote in July 2022 why patriots should say “good riddance” to Boris Johnson:

I’ve been telling you about the swelling floods of Third World opportunists crossing the English Channel illegally from France in boats supplied by organized syndicates of smugglers. Boris Johnson never showed the least concern about this. It was two and a half years before his government took any action on it at all; and then the action was a mere gesture that everyone knew would have no practical effect.

In 2020, the first year of Johnson’s prime ministership, the population of the U.K.increased by 356,000. In the second year, 2021, it increased another 321,000. For 2022 there looks to be another 291,000 increase.

Migration Watch, the main immigration-monitoring organization over there, tells us that for England and Wales, 350,000 a year was the average annual increase from 2011 to 2021.

The U.K., especially England, is bursting at the seams. In 2020 almost ten million U.K. residents had been born abroad — more than one in seven. Population density in England is now 1,114 per square mile. That is almost twice the figure for Germany (588), and nearly four times the density of France (303).

 

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/ghood/white-renegade-of-the-year-2022/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.... 

 

GUS AWARDS THE MEDAL TO VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. HE'S A SHOE IN. BORIS IS AN AMATEUR IN TERMS OF LYING AND CREATING HAVOC THAT WILL HAVE REPERCUSSIONS FOR YEARS TO COME.... WE'RE LUCKY THAT PUTIN WILL DO HIS UTMOST TO GET RID OF HIM POLITICALLY SPEAKING, THOUGH AS THE TIME GOES BY, VOLODYMYR'S ANTICS WILL START TO IRK THE AMERICAN EMPIRE AND ITS LACKEYS...

 

lies about lies of lies passing as truths......

RUSSIAN OFFICIALS PUSHED the lies first.

Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine, a Russian defense ministry spokesperson resuscitated debunked claims about a U.S.-funded bioweapons program in the region, accusing Ukrainian labs of experimenting with bat coronaviruses in an attempt to spark “the covert spread of deadliest pathogens.”

Disinformation is an old Russian government tactic. But this time Russia had help. Within days, Chinese officials and media outlets had picked up the lies and were amplifying and expanding on the biolabs yarn. The Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times created two splashy spreads, one sourced in part to Sputnik News, the other featuring a quote from Russian President Vladimir Putin. “What is the U.S. hiding in the biolabs discovered in Ukraine?” it screamed. 

“China jumped on the biolabs conspiracy theory,” said Katja Drinhausen, an analyst with the Mercator Institute of China Studies in Berlin. Chinese officials and media outlets had spent the preceding months pushing the notion that the pandemic might have originated in a lab accident outside China. “It was like, here’s the perfect conspiracy theory coming out of Russia to support our ‘everywhere but China’ main talking point of the last year,” she said.

Since the war broke out in February, experts have been struck by a convergence in Russian and Chinese media narratives. While some of the convergence was likely happenstance, occurring when storylines aided both governments’ goals, documents found in a trove of hacked emails from Russia state broadcaster VGTRK show that China and Russia have pledged to join forces in media content by inking cooperation agreements at the ministerial level.

 

READ MORE:

https://theintercept.com/2022/12/30/russia-china-news-media-agreement/?

 

THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION IS HIGHLY SUSPECT... IT IS DEDICATED TO COUNTER ALL INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE BIDEN/BLINKEN/ZIONIST/EMPIRE NARRATIVE....

ITS MOTTO IS:

To know the truth, let heaven fall and the world perish

 

IT'S LIKE AN AMERICAN-EMPIRE-LOVER VIKILEAKS....

 

ONE OF ITS "SPECIAL" INVESTIGATIONS IS:

Release: Hunter Biden emails (3.6 GB) 2022-05-21 12:56:15

DDoSecrets identifies signs of altered or implanted emails in the dataset distributed by Trump allies. We are mirroring the data with significant warnings...

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO:

FROM GLENN GREENWALD (WHO QUIT THE INTERCEPT FOR NOT PUBLISHING HIS ARTICLE THAT EXPOSED THE BIDENS)

...

As we have previously reported, each time legislation is proposed in the U.S. Congress to rein in Big Tech's monopolistic powers, those who rise most vocally in opposition are operatives of the U.S. Security State. As we reported in April, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials issued a letter condemning attempts to legislatively weaken Big Tech by explicitly arguing that its censorship powers are crucial to the goals of U.S. foreign policy, especially when it comes to Russia. In other words, the CIA and Pentagon want and need Big Tech to ban any dissent to U.S. Government foreign policy. When it came to the war in Ukraine, Big Tech obeyed immediately. As Vox reported in early March, less than two weeks after Russia invaded, Big Tech had “sided” with the U.S. Government by engaging in all sorts of censorship demanded by U.S. foreign policy goals — a move which Vox predictably and explicitly applauded (let us never lose site of how twisted it is for self-proclaimed “journalists” to cheer government-directed corporate censorship). As Vox wrote:

 

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Big Tech has finally taken a side….One by one, Google, Meta, TikTok, and every other consumer tech company have sided with Ukraine in some way….But now that the tech giants have acknowledged that they do indeed have lines they won’t cross — in this case, a deadly incursion that raises the specter of nuclear war — the companies will be asked to explain why they’re okay with other compromises, in, say, Turkey or other authoritarian states. Those will be uncomfortable discussions, but that’s not a bad thing: Even neutrality is a stance, and it’s worth asking if you’re picking it because it’s moral, or simply convenient for your brand of capitalism.

 

Reports are legion of Big Tech censoring dissent on the war in Ukraine from the start of the invasion. And the EU enacted one of the most chilling censorship laws in years: it made it illegal for any platform to allow Russian-state media, including RT and Sputnik, to be heard, even if the owners and managers of those platforms wish to air them; the new EU laws and regulations also require search engines such as Google to banish any Russian-state media from search results. 

So having our video that was critical of Zelensky banned by an American Big Tech platform would be unsurprising (even though the video did not really criticize Zelensky as much as it showed how Western media outlets used to criticize him before the war began and then stopped doing so). But it made no sense that a Chinese-owned platform would remove that video.

But when we began investigating how TikTok's censorship regime functions and, more importantly, who controls it, this all started to become much clearer. While the Chinese government clearly has no interest in banning criticisms of Zelensky, the U.S. Government most certainly does. The bizarre hero's welcome given to Zelensky by leaders of both parties when he appeared in Washington last week was a testament to how devoted the U.S. Government is to venerating the Ukrainian leader and fortifying the mythologies and hagiographies surrounding him. 

In fact, the primary point of our Monday night monologue was that criticisms of Zelensky went from being widespread in Western media prior to the invasion to banned and prohibited after the invasion. And within hours, TikTok — whose censorship decisions are now heavily influenced if not outright controlled by the U.S. Security State — came along and provided the clearest and most compelling example proving that statement true: it banned our video based on the crime of airing criticisms of Zelensky.

What is newsworthy — and alarming — is not the specific removal of a video excerpt from our news program. It is common for AI programs or low-level moderators to err in their censorship decisions; perhaps it will be reversed on appeal. 

But what is most certainly notable is that the U.S. national security state has leveraged threats to ban TikTok from the U.S. entirely into concessions that they, rather than TikTok's Chinese owners, will now make “content moderation” decisions for the platform, thus leaving TikTok now in the same bucket along with Google, Meta and Apple as massive companies subject to the censorship directives of the U.S. Government (whether Twitter remains in that group will be determined by future decisions of its new owner Elon Musk, though if the Twitter Files revealed anything, it is that Twitter's censorship decisions had, prior to Musk's acquisition, largely been driven by those same U.S. security agencies).

The irony here cannot be avoided. For years, U.S. Government officials and their media allies denounced the Russian, Chinese and Iranian governments for conditioning the presence of American Big Tech firms in their country on the willingness of those firms to censor content deemed dangerous by those governments. And now, without much debate, the U.S. Government has imposed similar censorship demands on TikTok. As a result, content that conflicts with the agenda of the U.S. Security State is clearly imperiled not only on Google, Meta and Apple platforms but also now on one of the fastest-growing social media platforms on the planet.

 

READ MORE:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/reflecting-new-us-control-of-tiktoks

 

IT APPEARS THAT THE "Distributed Denial of Secrets" IS A WELL-DISGUISED CROCK..... MAY IT PERISHES IN HELL.....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....