A NEW TYPE OF AI

 

Matt Hancock was notoriously the UK Government’s Health Secretary during the Covid pandemic, which has been nick-named in some quarters as a ‘plandemic’. After working with Hancock on his account of the period of lockdown and vaccination, journalist Isabel Oakeshott has just released tens of thousands of messages between Hancock and his colleagues on WhatsApp – which is apparently where government policy is now enacted rather than the more traditional bicameral stages of debate and discussion – to The Daily Telegraph. Oakeshott has chosen shrewdly. The Telegraph used to be conservative – it was once dubbed the Torygraph – and exactly the same can now be said of the Conservative Party.

Within the media bubble of the British press, fighting has broken out. Some journalists have questioned Oakeshott’s journalistic integrity (which sounds like an oxymoron to me) while others have praised her for acting in the interest of the British people, or the ‘public interest’, as it is traditionally known. Information released and deemed as ‘in the public interest’ always unnerves politicians because it is a certainty that it is information they wanted to keep from the public at all costs.

Two points are of interest. Firstly, the Leftist media – aka. The media – in Britain have started a classic deflection campaign, attacking Oakeshott over the fact she will have released the messages for money. She is a working journalist, what would anyone expect? That she works pro bono? The odious Cathy Newman works for Times Radio and was famously humiliated by Dr. Jordan Peterson. The only interview with Oakeshott – and I watched many of them -  that she hung up on was with Newman, and is instructive. The likes of the BBC and C4 are less concerned with the fact that the government lied to its people, and wanted to ‘scare the pants off them’ with a new variant, than they are with the fact that someone has exposed the lockdown for what it was. Western governments are desperate for more control over an increasingly troublesome populace, and the media are their provisional wing.

But what is more interesting is that Hancock is exemplary of the new political class. All anecdotal evidence indicates that Hancock was less concerned with ruined businesses, mental illness in children along with the stunting of their education, the vulnerable, care homes, and the rest of the tawdry inventory of governmental neglect, and far more interested in the fact that Covid might propel him further up the career ladder.

The new political class, across the West, is a new variant in and of itself, but it is a personality variant. Hancock is a type of AI, but the hardware is cellular and biological. The phenotype is quasi-autistic, lacking in conscience, and addicted to deception and subterfuge. We can only shudder to think what the genotype might be.

THE STATE OF THE POLICE

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the British police force

 

The term ‘police state’ is thrown around casually as though we were all being truncheoned and tear-gassed on our way to work. For some, not being able to park their car, having to be reasonably quiet after the hours of darkness, or not being allowed to ride their bicycle, or skateboard, or electric scooter on the pavement (or sidewalk) is proof absolute that the police state is here.

The truth, of course, is not so much that physical policing is taking on a ruder and more arrogant manner – although that is happening - but that it is speech and, by extension, thought that is now being policed as a priority, and not those events we grew up to think of as crimes and therefore criminal. This perspective is, at last, finding its way into regular discourse, but this does not mean the physical aspect of policing does not present a new threat, at least in the United Kingdom.

There have been calls by leading police officers for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to cede their core function to rank-and-file police officers. This would mean that not only would the police have – as they do now – powers of arrest and detention of a suspect before they enter the judicial system and are possibly imprisoned, they would also take on the added power of being able to decide who is to be prosecuted by the Crown. (The legal system in Britain, in this respect as in all others, is effectively ‘federal’. Counties are not judicially autonomous as are American states).

This is being proposed, of course, as a technocratic move to ease the administrative backlog of the CPS. It is nothing of the sort. Firstly, it is the latest phase of a transfer of power from the world’s oldest-established judicial system to a bunch of corrupt, violent, arrogant, untutored and illiterate thugs and rapists, increasingly drawn from the non-white population. Check the British media if you doubt me. On a local level, this will lead to prosecution by vendetta. Say the wrong thing to a cop, and you will find evidence planted in your apartment by the same police officer who can decide whether your case should go to court. It will.

Secondly, this move would allow the technocrats to manipulate the law at ground level, and in sync with the prevailing globalist, Bezmenovite edicts. Assisted by legislation, you won’t want to be caught on video at an anti-immigration rally, or perhaps coming out of church. Again, the police may be visiting you in a way they would not if your house had merely been burgled.

Britain, and the founder of the police force, Sir Robert Peel, was effectively where policing began. Now, it may be its graveyard. It is not so much the police state that should concern the British, but the state of the police.