What is Thought-Crime?

⚠️ Warning:

This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised

George Orwell introduced the concept of the “Thought Police” in his dystopian novel 1984. Those who have taken the time to read any of his material may presume that his ideas of thought-policing via complete, external surveillance is far far-fetched. However, thought policing is not just possible, there are many ways of achieving it. Each would invariably lead to a different type of revolution as a direct consequence.
Now, when we attempt to surveil thoughts, most would resort to methods that are already available to us. Social media, for example, or service providers such as Google. No new gadgets must be invented. The elite does not need to provide their newly found henchmen to with pre-patented technology that is not currently available to the public. If this served some higher purpose, the public would reluctantly learn to adapt to a new status quo [that includes total surveillance of every inch of their lives]. Who would disagree with a digital cavity search under the guise of justice, unless they have something to hide? As we are adults here, we have the maturity to admit that there is personal information we would prefer not share, even if it means lying to keep the information from getting out. Few are willing to share anything, which is why authorities tend to get the extra large anal probe at the sight of hesitation. [For what it is worth, this may seem more intrusive, but it is better than ‘good, old-fashioned police brutality‘. Though suspected offenders still suffer extreme beatings, there were also incidences when an offender was thrown into a cell with an HIV-positive inmate for them be deliberately infected through rape. This treatment was typically reserved for heinous crimes, like pedophilia.]

Contrary to popular belief, the human race could easily become used to total surveillance. In fact, many would welcome the idea, if it were implemented correctly. On the surface, it would be a simple exchange of liberty for a greater sense of security, like any other. However, one cannot sacrifice ones freedom without giving away ones power. We might be glad to be rid of the responsibility, but we have this a persistent penchant for accumulating power to exert it over others…

Do We Live In An Era of Constant Surveillance?

When Scotland Yard instated a special unit, designed to tackle hate-crime, they were jokingly named the thought police. By now, there is a growing body of evidence that their job is no laughing matter. They, along with each law enforcement officer, is ordered to get with the program, face unemployment or suffer incarceration for speaking against the globalist’ agenda. Another utopian ideal has become a dystopian reality, turning the police into unquestioning servants prepared to engage in violence by the way of service once more before they will face their biggest transformation in recorded history. While their enforcement of blasphemy laws [disguised as hate speech] is a blatant waste, it is also an abuse of authority. Their ability to safeguard the mainstream public is compromised by the sad truth that they have to prioritise laws, which stroke bruised egos rather than save lives.
We may not believe mass migration is changing our societies for the worse, but when we cannot voice our doubts, then we are not as free as we are led to believe. Most already treat constant surveillance as a part of modern life. We benefit from CCTV on our streets, as it can aid in the capture as well as prosecution of petty offenders. We save time when companies [such as Apple, Google etc.] monitor our usage of their services in order to target us with ads tailored to our every need or want. Deep down, it makes us feel a little safer to know someone is always watching…But, deep down in our heart of hearts, we know [on an instinctive level] that those people do not always serve our best interest. We know, yet we do nothing, because there is still a chance that they might…

Each time, technology takes a step forward, backwards or sideways, we move with it. We are changed by it, especially when we have never known anything else. The millennial and following generations are evidence of this. When we have forgotten what it is like to live without TV, computers or mobile phones, we have become dependent on them. In fact, a recent study showed that we check our phones every 12 minutes on average. With each check, we post, google or respond to something. In turn, most of what we do, write or say via our mobiles is recorded by the various service providers. Beyond that, the microphone and camera remains active, even when it is not used. However, anything gathered [when it is not used] is generally inadmissible in court with minor exceptions.

What we do on a daily basis is how we spend our lives. How many of our activities are monitored is debatable, but it mainly varies according to which country we reside in. For example, Britain had more CCTV can any other country. Although it is a known fact that the number of cameras in No-Go Zones has been substantially reduced, the effects of this on surrounding areas are kept even quieter. The cycle usually is as follows: CCTV is vandalised while other crimes are committed, the police investigates, the CCTV is repaired within a set time-period. Now, when CCTV is repeatedly damaged up to or beyond the point of repair, the situation now ends one of three ways: [1] those responsible hide in wait to attack the repair-crew, then attack the police and expand the No-Zone to that point. [2] law enforcement anticipates an attack but does not have enough manpower to keep the area from becoming a No-Go Zone. [3] the police arrives in full force, a small gorilla war ensues until the attackers withdraw as to not lose the entire No-Go Zone and will try again next week. This is a pattern that can be found in every No-Go Zone across Europe. In their case, CCTV surveillance serves little purpose, except to build a trap in order to re-establish control. Apart from alternative news sources, very little is reported on the subject as a result of wide-spread censorship.

As parts of the U.K. and Europe are becoming no-go areas with a slow, but consistent expansion rate, law enforcement may only operate outside these areas. These ‘communities’ have their own justice system, in which crimes are not reported to the authorities. Residents tend to report offences to trusted members, who will then act in response. When these cases are uncovered, they are very hard to prove due to the lack of CCTV footage and/or other physical evidence. The residents in these neighbourhoods rarely speak to the authorities after they have been the victim of a crime, they say even less when they are not directly involved.

In truth, we are under some form of surveillance most of the time, even inside our homes. This is not new information, nor is it a reason to lose our heads. It just means that our paranoia is not groundless. Hence, we should be aware of what can happen when the justice system takes an undemocratic turn by targeting those who hold unorthodox views that do not physically harm anyone. Many still argue that hate [in itself] is not a crime and should not be treated as such, while acting on feelings of intense dislike/prejudice should be. But, the moment we began to prosecute those who acted by voicing their true feelings [or pulling stupid pranks without inflicting bodily injuries], we endangered their lives. As more are arrested for hate-crimes, the system attempts to draw attention away from the fact that almost all of them died in radicalised prisons. If Tommy Robinson had not been such a public figure, he would have suffered the same fate. Instead, they placed him in solitary confinement and probably poisoned his food. Interestingly, those lucky few, who survive their prison term, often emerge with chronic and/or terminal diseases for which they have no explanation other than that they were deliberately infected.

The purpose of the law is the preservation of life. When we imprison those speaking out of term for the same amount of time as we would sex offenders, then it is evidently a crime to hate. However, there is a difference between what the accused have actually done and what they are accused of. For instance, when the leaders of Britain First were convicted of ‘religiously aggravated harassment’, they merely acted on their right not to believe, to blaspheme and to question the Islam. This is not an isolated case. Here’s another example: When Tommy Robinson was incarcerated without trial for ‘contempt of court’ after filming suspects involved in a criminal trial and broadcasting the footage. During his own trial, he was informed by the ruling judge that the freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
– Human Rights Act 1998

So far, freedom of speech is not directly against the law. Conversely, the expression of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, disability, nationality [incl. citizenship], ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden by law. In other words, it is illegal to discriminate based on the characteristics listed above. The current interpretation of hate speech, which legally favours one set of religious beliefs over another, is a perversion of justice. As long as any statement is just hurtful, it does not warrant an arrest or even the persecution of those involved. Once we begin to incite violence [for example, by calling for the gassing of Muslims], then there are going to be consequences. After all, it is against the law to incite religious hatred and/or inflict physical injuries.

In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, religious hatred means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. This act describes the acts intended to stir up racial hate, ranging from threatening behaviour [incl. speech, written material etc.] to the power to enter and search the premises of a person, suspected to be in possession of written material or recordings. Please read more here.

Is There Legitimate Concern We Could Be Wrongfully Arrested?

Well, yes always, but within reason. People are arrested for crimes they did not commit every day. They are also prosecuted for illegal acts, which should have been decriminalised decades ago [such as growing hemp or cannabis for personal use]. Meanwhile, sex offenders of non-European origin are rarely incarcerated, except when the the legal system cannot ignore the evidence provided.
Contrary to popular opinion, the law is a fluid construct. We think of its history as blood-soaked, when it represents the exact opposite. We use the Geneva Convention as a means to control the likely damage inflicted during war and prevent unnecessary suffering, but the conflict continues for economic as well as ideological reasons. We have not yet attempted to remodel the Geneva Convention to outlaw armed conflict on similar grounds. Firstly, it is futile at our current state of development. Secondly, there is simply too much profit to be made and power to be gained through war. It drives technological advancement, inflates prices and decides the politics of tomorrow. However, the same can be said about the continued effort to revoke civil gun rights. Despite the irony that anti-firearm lobbyists ensure their bodyguards carry multiple weapons, their job is to undermine our ability to protect ourselves and each other. If those rights are removed, firearms do not simply disappear. Their price on the black market soars, leaving a power vacuum on the open market for new non-lethal weaponry like patented stun guns. In other words, when we ban transportable goods, they just become harder to access without the right contacts. Statistically, they become more accessible to ex-offenders with the increased risk of using them for criminal purposes, but less accessible to the average person who would use them for self-defence. When we censor specific content online, it simply moves to a more heavily encrypted region of the dark web. The risk of exposure is limited by restricting access to the banned content. When we censor specific content in the media [incl. newspapers], we typically prohibit the expression of corresponding views at the same time. Without omni-present surveillance, this kind of censorship is much harder to uphold offline. There are no laws in Europe that restrict the freedom of speech, when there is no intent to commit an illegal acts. Put differently, there are no laws against ‘hate speech’ yet. The worst that social media platforms can do is deny that person access to their site for a period of time. However, the interpretation of certain laws are changing…

Antisemitic acts are still illegal when they are so defined by the law [for example, denial of the Holocaust], despite Labours dubious new definition of the term. Although no criminal charges have been filed against Corbyn and the like, they continue to commit hate crimes in the public eye. There have been multiple instances of attacks [incl. threats] against the Jewish people by Islamic extremists, but little action has been taken. Needless to mention, the new definition further undermines this rampant form of antisemitism. Yet, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the only faiths affected by this new brand of illiberal ‘liberalism’. Spiritual practices that do not receive the same legal protection as official religions, such as Shamanism, have also been subject to prejudice…
By legitimising Sharia Law, we are legitimising more than hate crimes. We are legitimising child marriage, pedophilia, rape as well as domestic violence. Sharia [in its current form] basically spells the end for the rights of women and the LGBT community. These laws do not exist to protect Allah or the Arabic people as a whole. They exist to protect the fragile egos of the Imams and ensure that they maintain control over their followers without offering them the option to leave the Islamic faith [via apostasy laws].

In any eventuality, there is a crack in the foundation of our global community, we are more reachable than ever before in recorded history, but we have never been further apart from each other as a race. As stated in my book, our ancestors have fought bled and died for the liberties that we enjoy today. We may fail to understand how important those traditional values were to them, but nature is a cold, hard place involved in a constant struggle for survival. Those outdated values worked for thousands of years, we must ask ourselves is it truly wise to abandon them now? In the end, all we have is each other. By being easily offended and refusing to acknowledge the fears of another person, we are destroying each other along with ourselves. All freedom comes at the cost of eternal vigilance, no matter the era. We could spend over a thousand years fighting for the ultimate system to monitor, intervene and prosecute offenders around the globe. We could even perfect preventive measures, eradicating crime altogether. However, any system can crumble in less than a day…
We must not rely on a system to protect us. We do not live in a ‘systematic’ universe. [Mathematically, the multiverse is more of a non-system, due to its underlying nature. A holomovement. There but not there.] We cannot understand how to live with each other, if we do not understand the nature of existence. If there could be a system to satisfy all, then we are probably living it right now. When everybody wins, everyone loses. There is no governing system that does not benefit one over the other. Those governed lack the skills, education and experience of those they govern, vice versa. Equally, there can be no ultimate surveillance, especially when it restricts our freedom even further. We, as individuals, are a part of a larger whole. We are connected to each other and this planet. Everything is connected, regardless how much we attempt to deny the scientific evidence. Somewhere in the future, our hurt, anger, hatred and/or hypersensitivity will have come and gone. It lasts for a blink of an eye. This may be hard to imagine in the here and now, but the Truth is limitless. It cannot be captured, contained or suppressed. It is perhaps of the freest there is. Although we may feel intense emotions about what is happening across Europe, to act on these feelings on a whim can have a stiff price. Be kind, but assertive. Debates do not need to devolve into Hitler comparisons from liberals or genocide on Arabs from conservatives. In the words of James Allen, “It is the silent and conquering thought forces which bring all things into manifestation.” Although we must not delude ourselves, the likelihood of civil unrest across Britain and the continent is incredibly high. Unfortunately, prison is an incentive for us to be more mindful with what we think, say or type. It is also a reason for us to be more diplomatic or more constructive. Why yell, threaten or swear when a calm statement of the facts is all that is required? It comes with no custodial sentence. More so, it embodies the very purpose of free expression [liberation from ignorance]. We are ignorant of them and they are ignorant of us. Our problem is a dual- edged sword. We may only resolve them by exercising our rights within the parameters of the law. We may only take non-violent action, but we still have rights…and if we do not use them, we may lose them, because we were intimidated, too anti-social or scared to say what we truly think. Our thoughts become who we are. They are a force in themselves that helps us analyse, interpret and shape the world around us. In truth, they are free, but truth comes at the cost of self-restraint. Like our words, we should choose our thoughts wisely. We should only think or say as much as is necessary. The absolute truth is, if anything, patient but concise. Whatever we may believe, it will always reveal itself…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s