Most of the UK population wouldn't mind a bit of tyranny and silencing, depending on how it's presented. Most -- in how few otherwise, care to shout about future dangers and unwanted consequences.

Yet, as long as people consider, it's "my kind of tyranny" and for the good of all -- of course -- and, so it goes. "Who knows about tomorrow eh?"

It's the Niemöller poem, that always or should, ring prescient bells:

'First, they came for... /and I did not speak out—/Because I was not a.../Then they came for...'

On a protective appeal, our -- '... /'? Named Islamic extremists. Or Nazis, and always-extremist. Who gets lobbed into the label might depend on the user's bias. Broaden the net and catch a few more and 'think' keep 'em down.

Get 'tough on hate', especially if it's not our bag of being nasty. 'Them' -- we're told, are this or that. Forget already covered by laws around inciting violence and certain direct verbal intimidation.

All prove too tempting, not to push the boundaries when losing ground in public discourse.

Anyway: "They're on the war-path and coming to get us". The crucial push and vote winner and 'prevent terrorism'. How much breaks down if it wasn't said sub-groups of Islam or Nationalism coming and doing 'acts of terror'?

Shock and outrageous horror. Who might be conducting the western-based attacks?

Here's the twist:

Aside from decades of "holocaust denying" lockdown, the latest up-the-censor started over 'Nice'.

Pulse through to Nice in the Summer of '16 is when the new phase began. Less recognised and first of now many, thrown off YouTube. Something I wrote about. (Too long and all over the shop to re-read all-through but sum up who and what happened). It's where our contemporary alarm about censorship begun:

'Peekay Truth Shut Down.'

'There's a 'word'. Whom Paul Craig Roberts wrote as; 'The person who prepared this — is a bit crude in his language, but his point is nevertheless sound'.'

The period ended and a new day, to watch ya YouTube mouth was upon us by Las Vegas, October '17. Through to final testing and certainty that limitations were in force with Parkland February '18.

To even mention ...the place name. Or, re-post a witness on T.V. etc -- without commentary, no less.

Nothing more preposterous than the paranoid-looking lengths. What seems to be keeping cats in the bag. OK, nothing in there, so why the fuss?

Who again and... 'can I get a witness' for the encouragement to ask/question:

Paul Craig Roberts: who 'asked readers if they can identify Parkland obituaries. His update speaks to this. The latest so ridiculous.'

(From truthscoop.net/cover-to-cover).

Apart from pushing-on previous Truthscoop, the point is this: Suppose... there's disinformation about these 'events' and this by the establishment/complicit, hands and mouths. If so, now we see the clever planning.

The justification for all-sorts because of terror attacks. The banning of sceptical enquiry, due to intimidation upon those implicated and suggest-lying. They claim/or are 'harassed' and so, must stop the talk about.

Problem/reaction/solution.

Sandy Hook revitalises, rethink 9/11 type, chattering. Builds up online without restriction. Until at the height of activity, when the spectaculars seem most preposterous -- ban 'em.

All the while go back to Sandy Hook and blame research and investigators for harassment. Now implied, cause for the latest and parent of a child involved, committing suicide.

The surveying facts are 'post-Nice' broadcasts were, by and large, cut off talking Sandy Hook. Anyway, no one much cared anymore. You got it or didn't. Threshold reached. Evangelism not exploding.

Still, we hear suggestions there's a rabid bunch of direct-on families involved intimidators. Makes no sense. Sure, could be exceptions but who would bother and why?

Plus, how would those given assume extra-support to remain anonymous? Aren't personal details unavailable? If it's suggested residents of Newtown are doing it..? But then -- without looking it up -- didn't I hear they all relocated?

As for terror, for real or what? Easy-test and strength of position: Willingness to have a civil and open debate?

Accepted, there's of course, they died -vs- of course, they didn't -- and will not discuss otherwise brigades.

The reliable position is to stand polite and open, want your day in court, or in the public domain. Ask for cross-examination?

Who can argue, with that?

Lawsuits and MSM directed Sandy Hook revitalisation takes potential fakery to new levels. Cops need 'our cooperation' and make illegal and unavailable info-online. All that dares, anyone thinks twice about.

Next move is stopping 'individuals of concern' through their movement of travel.

Comes down to 'not in my backyard' and so 'doesn't matter to me' kind of thinking. Keep 'em out and keep it off the computers.

Job Done.

Mollycoddled by mainstream into the hip and fashionable join-up and the anti-hate chorus. Always the beggers for gulags. A desperate underneath-it, nation reaching out, in hope for establishment responsibility.

Rather and rolling in like the fog and closing darkness. A similar illustration and quote for the title of Kirkpatrick 's piece and; 'The lamps are going out...'

Where in harrowing prescience writes;

What is now most telling is the open advocacy by MSM operatives to de-platform political opponents and shut down opposing media. Journalists are no longer the great defender of “free speech,” but its greatest enemies.

As free speech is criminalized all over Europe, one must ask whether the “free world” even exists in any real sense.

That'll do. Labour not over these posts.

Seeing the debates becoming ever-more entrenched by those who should know better. No good. Put your case and ignore detractors, I say. As for talking-up for 'distressed parents' etc.

What might this bring eh?

Cut the lights on all but... This what. Lights for what's reasonable and all -- or no one.

What will turn the bus to Babylon around?

Oh my.