Horsefaced Old Bitch is Back, Demanding a Total Shutdown of Free Speech!

Andrew Anglin
April 5, 2023

You thought this cunt would disappear after she got voted out?

Not likely!

She is like a lingering disease!

Like all women, she will nag and nag and nag until her dying breath!

Reuters:

> Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will help tackle violent
> extremism online and will also be on the board of an environmental prize
> set up by Prince William as she looks ahead to a life after politics.
>
> Ardern stepped down as prime minister in January saying she had "no more
> in the tank" to lead the country and would also not seek re-election to
> parliament. She is due to give her final speech in parliament on
> Wednesday.
>
> Ardern, who became the youngest female leader in the world when she won
> power in 2017 at the age of 37, will serve as an unpaid special envoy for
> the Christchurch Call, an initiative she co-founded in 2019 to bring
> together countries and technology companies to combat extremism, the
> government said.

That just means mass censorship of people who disagree with the government.

This is so ridiculous, that they just keep coming up with new euphemisms and
apparently there is some group of people that is fooled by it.

Anything they say about "extremism" or "violence" or "hate speech" or any of
these other buzzwords always means silencing people who disagree with them.
Period.

> Attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand's second-largest city,
> in March 2019 killed 51 people dead and wounded 40. The white supremacist
> gunman who carried out the assault live-streamed part of it on Facebook.
>
> "The Christchurch Call is a foreign policy priority for the government and
> Jacinda Ardern is uniquely placed to keep pushing forward with the goal of
> eliminating violent extremist content online," her replacement as prime
> minister, Chris Hipkins, said in a statement.
>
> "Terrorist and violent extremist content online is a global issue, but for
> many in New Zealand it is also very personal."

With regards to Brenton Tarrant, they were never able to point to any
"violent" or "extremist" content that caused him to do that shooting.
Basically, he just decided that this would be the best way to deal with the
race replacement issue. I obviously disagree, but it is what it is - he's
just a person who made a decision.

Anti-Social People Will Do Anti-Social Things

In order to stop that from happening, you would have to make it illegal for
people to talk about the fact that whites are being replaced in their own
countries - and that is in fact exactly what they're saying: if the things
the government is doing make people angry, no one should be legally allowed
to talk about what the government is doing (unless they say it is good).

Of course, an f-to-m just shot up a Christian school because she thought
there was a "genocide" happening against trannies. No one is going to say
this shouldn't be allowed, which proves that this is not actually about
silencing any speech that could potentially lead to violence, but rather
silencing criticism of the government.

Of course, "any speech that could lead to violence" would be meaningless,
even if you included the tranny stuff. The guy who killed John Lennon was
"radicalized" by the "extremism" in the Jew novel "The Catcher in the Rye."
In fact, that book is linked to several other high profile shootings.

So what are you going to do? Ban novels?

People who do mass shootings have personal problems. They are anti-social.
It has nothing to do with whatever content they are reading. If they take
that as "inspiration," they would have taken something else as inspiration
instead. Yes, anti-social people are typically drawn to the far-right or the
far-left, but again - The Catcher in the Rye (an extremely anti-social
Jewish novel) is out there if people don't hit on some political thing.

Censorship Makes It Worse

With the right-wing shootings, you often do have real issues involved,
however. It is still going to be down to personal problems that someone goes
and does a mass shooting of strangers, but there are real social problems
you could deal with to try and lessen these events.

Ironically, the vast majority of the right-wing shootings have happened
after this program of mass censorship began. You could certainly argue that
if someone is already unstable, and they start reading about problems
happening in the world and then find that it is de facto illegal for them to
speak publicly about their grievances, that this is going to drastically
increase the likelihood of a violent outburst.

Certainly, less speech is not going to lead to less violence - the entire
purpose of free speech is to give people an outlet to voice their concerns
instead of resorting to violence. If people feel they can speak freely and
have their voices heard, they are much less likely to feel there is no hope
and the only way to be heard is by committing a large scale atrocity.

On some level, I'm sure that the people pushing for speech restrictions know
that this will increase the likelihood of political violence. Then, more
violence allows them to do more speech restriction.

And Another Thing...

The majority of these acts of large scale violence - against strangers -
happen in America. At least the non-Islamic ones happen in America.

And many of them are very suspicious. Apparently, you have to pay the Jews
billions of dollars if you question it, but the fact is, there are a lot of
questions about Sandy Hook.

You can watch this documentary for a summary of some of those questions.

You can go on down the list. With the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, the FBI had
been repeatedly warned that the kid had guns and was planning a shooting and
they refused to act or even investigate, leading many to believe they wanted
it to happen. You also had crisis actors at that school.

There are also a lot of suspicious things about many of the right-wing
shooters. With the guy who shot up the black supermarket in Buffalo, it was
more or less confirmed that the whole thing was arranged by the FBI. It came
out that he had a federal agent in his Discord, and that the agent knew he
was going to do the attack before it happened. In his "manifesto," he also
described someone grooming him for the shooting. Many people believe it to
be likely that the federal agent and the groomer are the same person.
Regardless, the story was dropped from the media like a hot potato as soon
as it was revealed that there was a fed involved.

Conclusion

However you slice it, silencing freedom of speech does nothing to reduce
violence, and it in fact likely increases this kind of violence.

The people in power want to silence criticism of their agenda. That's all
that is really happening here. It's pretty straightforward.

Here is the News <news@here.anon> wrote in
news:u0lbig$kfpo$1@news.mixmin.net:

> Horsefaced Old Bitch is Back, Demanding a Total Shutdown of Free
> Speech!
>
> Andrew Anglin
> April 5, 2023
>
> You thought this cunt would disappear after she got voted out?
>
> Not likely!
>
> She is like a lingering disease!
>
> Like all women, she will nag and nag and nag until her dying breath!
>
> Reuters:
>
>> Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will help tackle
>> violent extremism online and will also be on the board of an
>> environmental prize set up by Prince William as she looks ahead to a
>> life after politics.
>>
>> Ardern stepped down as prime minister in January saying she had "no
>> more in the tank" to lead the country and would also not seek
>> re-election to parliament. She is due to give her final speech in
>> parliament on Wednesday.
>>
>> Ardern, who became the youngest female leader in the world when she
>> won power in 2017 at the age of 37, will serve as an unpaid special
>> envoy for the Christchurch Call, an initiative she co-founded in 2019
>> to bring together countries and technology companies to combat
>> extremism, the government said.
>
> That just means mass censorship of people who disagree with the
> government.
>
> This is so ridiculous, that they just keep coming up with new
> euphemisms and apparently there is some group of people that is fooled
> by it.
>
> Anything they say about "extremism" or "violence" or "hate speech" or
> any of these other buzzwords always means silencing people who
> disagree with them. Period.
>
>> Attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand's second-largest
>> city, in March 2019 killed 51 people dead and wounded 40. The white
>> supremacist gunman who carried out the assault live-streamed part of
>> it on Facebook.
>>
>> "The Christchurch Call is a foreign policy priority for the
>> government and Jacinda Ardern is uniquely placed to keep pushing
>> forward with the goal of eliminating violent extremist content
>> online," her replacement as prime minister, Chris Hipkins, said in a
>> statement.
>>
>> "Terrorist and violent extremist content online is a global issue,
>> but for many in New Zealand it is also very personal."
>
> With regards to Brenton Tarrant, they were never able to point to any
> "violent" or "extremist" content that caused him to do that shooting.
> Basically, he just decided that this would be the best way to deal
> with the race replacement issue. I obviously disagree, but it is what
> it is - he's just a person who made a decision.
>
> Anti-Social People Will Do Anti-Social Things
>
> In order to stop that from happening, you would have to make it
> illegal for people to talk about the fact that whites are being
> replaced in their own countries - and that is in fact exactly what
> they're saying: if the things the government is doing make people
> angry, no one should be legally allowed to talk about what the
> government is doing (unless they say it is good).
>
> Of course, an f-to-m just shot up a Christian school because she
> thought there was a "genocide" happening against trannies. No one is
> going to say this shouldn't be allowed, which proves that this is not
> actually about silencing any speech that could potentially lead to
> violence, but rather silencing criticism of the government.
>
> Of course, "any speech that could lead to violence" would be
> meaningless, even if you included the tranny stuff. The guy who killed
> John Lennon was "radicalized" by the "extremism" in the Jew novel "The
> Catcher in the Rye." In fact, that book is linked to several other
> high profile shootings.
>
> So what are you going to do? Ban novels?
>
> People who do mass shootings have personal problems. They are
> anti-social. It has nothing to do with whatever content they are
> reading. If they take that as "inspiration," they would have taken
> something else as inspiration instead. Yes, anti-social people are
> typically drawn to the far-right or the far-left, but again - The
> Catcher in the Rye (an extremely anti-social Jewish novel) is out
> there if people don't hit on some political thing.
>
> Censorship Makes It Worse
>
> With the right-wing shootings, you often do have real issues involved,
> however. It is still going to be down to personal problems that
> someone goes and does a mass shooting of strangers, but there are real
> social problems you could deal with to try and lessen these events.
>
> Ironically, the vast majority of the right-wing shootings have
> happened after this program of mass censorship began. You could
> certainly argue that if someone is already unstable, and they start
> reading about problems happening in the world and then find that it is
> de facto illegal for them to speak publicly about their grievances,
> that this is going to drastically increase the likelihood of a violent
> outburst.
>
> Certainly, less speech is not going to lead to less violence - the
> entire purpose of free speech is to give people an outlet to voice
> their concerns instead of resorting to violence. If people feel they
> can speak freely and have their voices heard, they are much less
> likely to feel there is no hope and the only way to be heard is by
> committing a large scale atrocity.
>
> On some level, I'm sure that the people pushing for speech
> restrictions know that this will increase the likelihood of political
> violence. Then, more violence allows them to do more speech
> restriction.
>
> And Another Thing...
>
> The majority of these acts of large scale violence - against strangers
> - happen in America. At least the non-Islamic ones happen in America.
>
> And many of them are very suspicious. Apparently, you have to pay the
> Jews billions of dollars if you question it, but the fact is, there
> are a lot of questions about Sandy Hook.
>
> You can watch this documentary for a summary of some of those
> questions.
>
> You can go on down the list. With the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, the
> FBI had been repeatedly warned that the kid had guns and was planning
> a shooting and they refused to act or even investigate, leading many
> to believe they wanted it to happen. You also had crisis actors at
> that school.
>
> There are also a lot of suspicious things about many of the right-wing
> shooters. With the guy who shot up the black supermarket in Buffalo,
> it was more or less confirmed that the whole thing was arranged by the
> FBI. It came out that he had a federal agent in his Discord, and that
> the agent knew he was going to do the attack before it happened. In
> his "manifesto," he also described someone grooming him for the
> shooting. Many people believe it to be likely that the federal agent
> and the groomer are the same person. Regardless, the story was dropped
> from the media like a hot potato as soon as it was revealed that there
> was a fed involved.
>
> Conclusion
>
> However you slice it, silencing freedom of speech does nothing to
> reduce violence, and it in fact likely increases this kind of
> violence.
>
> The people in power want to silence criticism of their agenda. That's
> all that is really happening here. It's pretty straightforward.

That is exactly why they went after Trump in the USA. He dared speak out
against the likes of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Biden and that
cock climbing cunt Kamala Harris.

General Milley, he who is owned by the Chinese, should have been hung from
the top of the Washington Monument for his treason.

On 06/04/2023 at 08:44, Steele Dossier wrote:
> Here is the News <news@here.anon> wrote in
> news:u0lbig$kfpo$1@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> Horsefaced Old Bitch is Back, Demanding a Total Shutdown of Free
>> Speech!
>>
>> Andrew Anglin
>> April 5, 2023
>>
>> You thought this cunt would disappear after she got voted out?
>>
>> Not likely!
>>
>> She is like a lingering disease!
>>
>> Like all women, she will nag and nag and nag until her dying breath!
>>
>> Reuters:
>>
>>> Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will help tackle
>>> violent extremism online and will also be on the board of an
>>> environmental prize set up by Prince William as she looks ahead to a
>>> life after politics.
>>>
>>> Ardern stepped down as prime minister in January saying she had "no
>>> more in the tank" to lead the country and would also not seek
>>> re-election to parliament. She is due to give her final speech in
>>> parliament on Wednesday.
>>>
>>> Ardern, who became the youngest female leader in the world when she
>>> won power in 2017 at the age of 37, will serve as an unpaid special
>>> envoy for the Christchurch Call, an initiative she co-founded in 2019
>>> to bring together countries and technology companies to combat
>>> extremism, the government said.
>>
>> That just means mass censorship of people who disagree with the
>> government.
>>
>> This is so ridiculous, that they just keep coming up with new
>> euphemisms and apparently there is some group of people that is fooled
>> by it.
>>
>> Anything they say about "extremism" or "violence" or "hate speech" or
>> any of these other buzzwords always means silencing people who
>> disagree with them. Period.
>>
>>> Attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand's second-largest
>>> city, in March 2019 killed 51 people dead and wounded 40. The white
>>> supremacist gunman who carried out the assault live-streamed part of
>>> it on Facebook.
>>>
>>> "The Christchurch Call is a foreign policy priority for the
>>> government and Jacinda Ardern is uniquely placed to keep pushing
>>> forward with the goal of eliminating violent extremist content
>>> online," her replacement as prime minister, Chris Hipkins, said in a
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> "Terrorist and violent extremist content online is a global issue,
>>> but for many in New Zealand it is also very personal."
>>
>> With regards to Brenton Tarrant, they were never able to point to any
>> "violent" or "extremist" content that caused him to do that shooting.
>> Basically, he just decided that this would be the best way to deal
>> with the race replacement issue. I obviously disagree, but it is what
>> it is - he's just a person who made a decision.
>>
>> Anti-Social People Will Do Anti-Social Things
>>
>> In order to stop that from happening, you would have to make it
>> illegal for people to talk about the fact that whites are being
>> replaced in their own countries - and that is in fact exactly what
>> they're saying: if the things the government is doing make people
>> angry, no one should be legally allowed to talk about what the
>> government is doing (unless they say it is good).
>>
>> Of course, an f-to-m just shot up a Christian school because she
>> thought there was a "genocide" happening against trannies. No one is
>> going to say this shouldn't be allowed, which proves that this is not
>> actually about silencing any speech that could potentially lead to
>> violence, but rather silencing criticism of the government.
>>
>> Of course, "any speech that could lead to violence" would be
>> meaningless, even if you included the tranny stuff. The guy who killed
>> John Lennon was "radicalized" by the "extremism" in the Jew novel "The
>> Catcher in the Rye." In fact, that book is linked to several other
>> high profile shootings.
>>
>> So what are you going to do? Ban novels?
>>
>> People who do mass shootings have personal problems. They are
>> anti-social. It has nothing to do with whatever content they are
>> reading. If they take that as "inspiration," they would have taken
>> something else as inspiration instead. Yes, anti-social people are
>> typically drawn to the far-right or the far-left, but again - The
>> Catcher in the Rye (an extremely anti-social Jewish novel) is out
>> there if people don't hit on some political thing.
>>
>> Censorship Makes It Worse
>>
>> With the right-wing shootings, you often do have real issues involved,
>> however. It is still going to be down to personal problems that
>> someone goes and does a mass shooting of strangers, but there are real
>> social problems you could deal with to try and lessen these events.
>>
>> Ironically, the vast majority of the right-wing shootings have
>> happened after this program of mass censorship began. You could
>> certainly argue that if someone is already unstable, and they start
>> reading about problems happening in the world and then find that it is
>> de facto illegal for them to speak publicly about their grievances,
>> that this is going to drastically increase the likelihood of a violent
>> outburst.
>>
>> Certainly, less speech is not going to lead to less violence - the
>> entire purpose of free speech is to give people an outlet to voice
>> their concerns instead of resorting to violence. If people feel they
>> can speak freely and have their voices heard, they are much less
>> likely to feel there is no hope and the only way to be heard is by
>> committing a large scale atrocity.
>>
>> On some level, I'm sure that the people pushing for speech
>> restrictions know that this will increase the likelihood of political
>> violence. Then, more violence allows them to do more speech
>> restriction.
>>
>> And Another Thing...
>>
>> The majority of these acts of large scale violence - against strangers
>> - happen in America. At least the non-Islamic ones happen in America.
>>
>> And many of them are very suspicious. Apparently, you have to pay the
>> Jews billions of dollars if you question it, but the fact is, there
>> are a lot of questions about Sandy Hook.
>>
>> You can watch this documentary for a summary of some of those
>> questions.
>>
>> You can go on down the list. With the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, the
>> FBI had been repeatedly warned that the kid had guns and was planning
>> a shooting and they refused to act or even investigate, leading many
>> to believe they wanted it to happen. You also had crisis actors at
>> that school.
>>
>> There are also a lot of suspicious things about many of the right-wing
>> shooters. With the guy who shot up the black supermarket in Buffalo,
>> it was more or less confirmed that the whole thing was arranged by the
>> FBI. It came out that he had a federal agent in his Discord, and that
>> the agent knew he was going to do the attack before it happened. In
>> his "manifesto," he also described someone grooming him for the
>> shooting. Many people believe it to be likely that the federal agent
>> and the groomer are the same person. Regardless, the story was dropped
>> from the media like a hot potato as soon as it was revealed that there
>> was a fed involved.
>>
>> Conclusion
>>
>> However you slice it, silencing freedom of speech does nothing to
>> reduce violence, and it in fact likely increases this kind of
>> violence.
>>
>> The people in power want to silence criticism of their agenda. That's
>> all that is really happening here. It's pretty straightforward.
>
> That is exactly why they went after Trump in the USA. He dared speak out
> against the likes of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Biden and that
> cock climbing cunt Kamala Harris.
>
> General Milley, he who is owned by the Chinese, should have been hung from
> the top of the Washington Monument for his treason.
>

Have you ever thought about signing up for anger management sessions?

--
Wilf

On 2023-04-06 03:44, Steele Dossier wrote:
<BS snipped>

I really can't wait for Trump to be charged for Georgia interference and
the Jan 6 insurrection + documents case for dessert. The NY case is not
all that hot.

On 4/6/2023 9:11 AM, PBAJ wrote:
> On 2023-04-06 03:44, Steele Dossier wrote:
> <BS snipped>
>
> I really can't wait for Trump to be charged for Georgia interference and
> the Jan 6 insurrection + documents case for dessert.  The NY case is not
> all that hot.
>

Don't forget about the special counsel and the documents. He's the only
person who's ever had classified documents. Who cares if he was
President. Ha!

p.s. those cases are all just as bad.