Comments by "JAMES WHITELEY" (@jameswhiteley6843) on "Justice Secretary warns leadership contenders: lurch right and we split" video.

Being right-wing is now the counter culture and the left are the puritans who censor their opponents. That's about to change.
9
@uk4caster learn the lessons of history from the communist revolutions before and after the 1930's. There would be no fascism if it weren't for communism.
4
The Tory Party has surrendered this country more to the EU than Labour ever could. I hope both parties never get into power again.
4
@cinderball1135 absolutely. If a group of people of a particular race and religion are causing problems in the country they should be criticised. Criticism doesn't mean advocating violence. Again, individuals are responsible for their own actions. Again, as I pointed out in my previous tweet, speech that threatens harms should be limited. If you have a group of people in your country actively trying to undermine your nation and you're unable to criticise them what do you do? Do you sit back and allow them to continue? What kind of behavour is that? Being able to speak freely without being arrested? Absolutely. That's called living in a free-society where you don't get arrested because somebody chooses to be offended. Newton offended a lot of people when he said he believed the earth wasn't flat. Should he have been arrested for the offence he caused? Mr "I wouldn't even rape you" has been smeared by the dishonest media and you, being the lazy sheep that you are, believes everything you're told by them rather than actually looking into the context. Laws can be changed and repealed and when the right win we'll allow people to speak freely.
2
@cinderball1135 classical liberals, libertarians, conservatives and nationalists.
1
@cinderball1135 yes.
1
@johncresswell-plant2913 I'd argue that most of Parliament is mentally disabled.
1
@cinderball1135 exactly, classical liberals, libertarian, conservatives and nationalist accounts are shut down. Whereas accounts for known militant far-left organisations and the Muslim Brotherhood are still up. There are speech laws in place that allow white people to be criticised, but not any other group. Could you imagine what would happen if you told Jewish people they have Jewish privilege? Whereas white people are openly criticised in most MSM outlets.
1
@cinderball1135 what exactly are those TOS? It seems quite subjective dependent on poltical opinions and skin colour. I can name numerous accounts where they say how much they hate white people and they wish white males would die. In what capacity do I sound like I don't have a problem with censorship? Where have I suggested that I oppose people speaking freely?
1
@cinderball1135 no you wanted it to mean that. I believe in open debates not censorship. Usually when people are censored they fight back. The right is growing throughout the Western world and no amount of censorship is going to change that. Where has Carl advocated rape? Do you actually watch his videos or has your opinion been shaped by the MSM narrative? Who's threatened to murder a politician? Due to inaccurate MSM smears, people have attacked Carl. But I guess it's okay if it's the MSM telling the lies right? Ash Sakar (communist) joked about expropriating Alan Sugar, I see her account is still in use and she's still given plenty of airtime. How many left-wing speakers have had to have their events or university speeches cancelled due to right-wing activists and protesters?
1
@cinderball1135 when did he do that? Again, have you actually watched his videos and context he made his jokes or have you seen highly edited snippets from the media? Be honest. What buzzwords have I used so far? I'm not left-wing, I don't use the terms fascist, racist, bigot to smear my opponents when I'm losing an argument. Sure I will tell you exactly what I want. I want ordinary people to be able to speak freely without censorship and being smeared. I want open debates on the issues which are a major concern to millions of people in this country. One of the primary concerns is immigration and people are concerned with what they believe to be the Islamisation of the UK. By 2066, White British are expected to be an ethnic minority and by 2050 Muslims are expected to make up almost 20% of the population. This is a massive concern to many millions of people and should be debated fairly by people from across the political spectrum. When Enoch Powell made his 1968 speech 74% of the public agreed with his speech, the political class did not. Ultimately I would like strict immigration reforms and ways to repatriate people (if this is what the majority of the public want). I thought I answered your question when I said I believe in open debates? I've already made myself clear that I believe in free-speech, which is to mean free-speech for all people. I'm yet to find any opponent speakers who have been censored.
1
@cinderball1135 and I have already answered twice. I support free-speech for all. You cannot have free-speech. Has my point registered yet? Do you believe in free-speech?
1
@radjew so nearly 400,000 subscribers on Youtube and around the same amount on Twitter (before he was banned) isn't popular? Twitter also had a habit of doctoring his following. I remember having to re-follow him even though I'd never un-followed him.
1
@cinderball1135 absolutely. Provocative and thought provoking speech is great. Who get's to define what is hate speech? When posting crime statistics and demographics most likely to commit crimes, that should be allowed under freedom of information. Stating their is only two genders should not result in losing your job or having a knock on your door by the police. It's down to the individual if they chose to hate. You don't need the state to decide that. What I do not agree with is people not being allowed to speak the truth about certain topics. Advocating violence, slander and giving personal information is against the law. I would prefer our free-speech legislation be the same as that of America. Where you are allowed to speak your mind and stand up for what you believe in, speech for fraud, defamation or force should have limits.
1
@cinderball1135 yes it is. Under the law, hate-speech can be determined by what somebody deems to be offensive. Exactly, you're beginning to understand. Saying there is only two genders can get you arrested as a 'hate incident'. Burning a Grenfell effigy isn't in good taste, but managed to get people charged. So under those hate-speech laws you're not allowed to criticise Islam, communism, or abhorrent cultural practices such as FGM? Again, you've not actually bothered to watch any of his videos to understand the context. He did laugh about raping Jess Phillips. Do you propose that people be arrested for making jokes? How exactly does hurt feelings cause harm? However has humanity survived for so long? Surely that's down to the individual who has chosen out of their own free-will to rape somebody? Either way, we're never going to agree so I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time speaking to a leftist who believes in censorship and doesn't bother to actually watch the videos of the man they're condemning.
1
@UCqwS5vzzOEpF8npCGk-76bA well clearly a lot of people do like what he has to say as he has nearly a million followers. Jeremy Corbyn has a huge following and I think the man is an absolute buffoon. I don't need the state or Silicon Valley to tell me who I can and cannot listen to. Has there been a consensus on whether his speech is considered hate-speech? Who's the state to decide if it's hate-speech or not? There should be no hate-speech laws at all as they do is censor people with concerns from expressing themselves. Yeah, that's what it's all about. Not believing in free-speech and liberty at all. You imbecile.
1
@cinderball1135 when somebody commits a crime you first find out the motive. When you look at crime statistics and you find minority groups massively over-represented in violent crime you come to the conclusion that this group of people we have allowed into our country are causing a lot of problems for the native majority. But not everybody is treated the same under the eyes of the law are they? Take Suleman Maknojioa for example, he was a teacher who sexual assaulted a pupil aged 11, but was spared jail because his wife doesn't speak English. Take Rezzas Abdullah who was spared jail after spitting in a babies face and said white people shouldn't breed. He was told to seek psychiatric help instead of going to jail, despite other cases of racist harassment. Whereas a man who left a bacon sandwich outside a mosque was given a year in jail and was killed in jail by Muslim inmates. Yet POC are massively over-represented for violent crime. But you're not allowed to say that because it's a hate-crime. Instead the PC police will do nothing to tackle the issue and our once safe neighbourhoods turn into ghettos. Why? Was the media honest about Iraq? Was the media honest about the Covington Catholic School kids in the US. The media isn't truthful.
1