I have frequently espoused the view that we have been subjected to a mass dumbing down (or should it up dumbing up, given it is on the increase?) by way of our various levels of mis-education at the hands of the governmental indoctrination centres (aka schools, colleges and universities), organised religion, the lying mass media and a criminally fraudulent ‘health‘ service which is in the business of shooting various poisons into mankind from the cradle to the grave.
In this sense, there is nothing to be gained from the collectivised ranks of the cognitively dumb and when we do enter its confines, we find ourselves ensnared in a mental construct that may appear infantile in the extreme.
To succinctly illustrate the point, let’s consider how so very few know the Law, aka the Golden Rule:
To the critical thinker, the mass of people may be better termed ‘sheeple‘ for they are so firmly ensconsed n the gross material construct, the dense but false materiality of this realm, that they are, quite literally, incapable of genuine thought and insight.
One of the greatest mistakes one can make in this realm is to believe that everyone is thinking and acting on the same level as oneself and that, consequently, ‘we’ are capable of reaching an intelligent consensus.
The truth is plainly stated: there is no such thing as equality, only difference – we are each of ‘different gravy’.
By way of illustration, let’s consider the recent matter of Joey Barton:
“Former Footballer Joey Barton Convicted of Grossly Offensive X Posts
Last updated 2 hours ago
A jury at Liverpool Crown Court convicted former footballer Joey Barton, 43, on six counts of sending grossly offensive electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003, targeting broadcaster Jeremy Vine and pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward via posts on X from January to March 2024.
The offensive content included superimposing Aluko’s and Ward’s faces on serial killers’ images and accusing Vine of pedophilia using slang, which the court deemed intended to cause distress.
Released on bail, Barton faces sentencing on December 8, while victims reported significant emotional and professional harm from the harassment.
This story is a summary of posts on X and may evolve over time. Grok can make mistakes, verify its outputs.”
In what is best described as a playground spat between two fully-grown boys that has escalated into some kind of verbal jousting spectacle, with the school wimp, milking his role as victim, becoming emotionally upset at the linguistic content directed towards him. Joey Barton, the apparent tormentor, has been, according to the headline,
“convicted of sending grossly offensive electronic communications under the Communications Act.”
The first question is what does “Grossly Offensive” actually mean?
According to the statutory text,
“Definition of ‘Grossly Offensive’ under the Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003), specifically Section 127(1)(a), criminalises the sending (or causing to be sent) of a message via a public electronic communications network that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The full relevant text reads:
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent. This provision does not provide a statutory definition of “grossly offensive.”
Instead, it is treated as an ordinary English word, to be interpreted and applied on a case-by-case basis, considering the content and context of the message. The term sets a high threshold: mere offensiveness, bad taste, or even shock value is insufficient; the message must exceed what is tolerable in an open and just multi-racial society.”
So, going by the legislation itself, we can immediately see a number of anomalies.
Firstly, for a crime to have taken place, there has to be a victim who has suffered harm or loss as a consequence of the actions of the accused.
“Barton, 43, compared Aluko and Ward to the serial killer couple Fred and Rose West, and called Vine a “bike nonce” in posts sent between January and March 2024.”
However, the jury did convict Barton over a post in which he said ITV pundit Aluko was
“only there to tick boxes”.
“All off the back of the [Black Lives Matter]/George Floyd nonsense,” he added.
Barton was cleared of writing that Ward and Aluko were the
“Fred and Rose West of football commentary” after an FA Cup tie in January 2024 between Crystal Palace and Everton.
But the former Fleetwood and Bristol Rovers manager was convicted of a count relating to another post in which he superimposed their faces onto a photograph of the serial killers.
He was also convicted over posts suggesting Vine had visited “Epstein island” – a reference to the paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein – and one saying: “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999.”
In his closing speech to the jury of seven men and five women, prosecutor Peter Wright KC said Barton had crossed the line “by some considerable margin” beyond what is tolerable in society.
He said Barton was not “the victim here” and called the footballer: “A little bully who takes pleasure sitting there with his phone in his hand and then posting these slurs.”
Source: BBC*
Dumb does as dumb does.
When Joey Barton used the expression ‘Bike Nonce’ in a post on the censored social media platform, X about the BBC lackey Jeremy Vine, he was being fatuous on the simple basis that the phrase is demonstrably meaningless:
nonce(n.)
in phrase for the nonce (Middle English for þe naness, c. 1200) “for a special occasion, for a particular purpose,” a misdivision (see N for other examples) of for þan anes “for the once,” in reference to a particular occasion or purpose, the þan being an altered form of the Middle English dative definite article þam (see the).
The phrase was used from early 14c. as an empty filler in metrical composition. Source: Etymonline
There is also this definition from ‘wiktionary’:
nonce (plural nonces)
The one or single occasion; the present reason or purpose (now only in for the nonce).
That will do for the nonce, but we’ll need a better answer for the long term.
(lexicography) A nonce word.
I had thought that the term was a nonce, but it seems as if it’s been picked up by other authors.
(cryptography) A value constructed so as to be unique to a particular message in a stream, in order to prevent replay attacks. Source
The word bike is familiar to us all,
bike(n.)
1882, American English, shortened and altered form of bicycle (n.). As a verb by 1895. Related: Biked; biking.
Therefore, “bike nonce” literally means,
‘Bike for the once’
Had Joey Barton been given decent ‘legal advice’, then he could have argued that the expression is, quite literally, meaningless and that, consequently, Jeremy’s claim should have been dismissed by the court as frivolous.
However, Barton apparently took it a stage further,
He was also convicted over posts suggesting Vine had visited “Epstein island” – a reference to the paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein – and one saying: “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999.”
To imply, without evidence to support the claim, that someone is a pedarast is, self-evidently, a wrong-doing.
This is what, most likely, tipped the jury against him.
That said, given the absurd state of the criminal UK government’s ‘justice’ system, it is reasonable to suggest that the matter should have gone nowhere near a court of ‘law’ as there are far more important issues to be tried than whether Vine suffered emotional harm or loss as a consequence of the entire childish episode.
Of course, these are strange times and due to the absurdities of its void legislation, the agencies of control have been attempting, for some time now, to equate an emotional reaction to a social media post with ‘harm and loss’. The result of which is that the woefully incompetent ‘police forces’ now deploy teams to go and arrest/question individuals who have written or shown something that another is claiming caused them emotional harm or loss, which is invariably conflated with distress, with said cops frequently citing two other nonsensical expressions, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Anti-Semitism’ as the basis for the action.
In other instances, the bovine cops may claim someone is ‘transphobic’ of ‘homophobic’. All of which would suggest it is high time the cops, just like the 650 traitors in Parliament, ditched their uniforms and donned red noses and clown costumes instead:
It therefore follows that when it is boiled down to its logical and linguistical essence, Jeremy Vine’s claim is a nonsense for it is founded on the nonsense of Barton’s ill-judged jest.
Readers of a certain vintage may well be reminded of Brass Eye’s satirical and visionary episode in which the expression ‘Nonce Sense’ is used to fool Phil Collins, Gary Lineker and Bernard Manning into taking part in what they wrongly believe is a documentary exposing paedophiles:
It is interesting to note how, as is always the case, it is the lawyers who ‘represent’ the parties who gain most from such moronic matters.
The whole episode, to any right thinking individual, is puerile but should we be surprised when we are in a digital panopticon for the collective mind? Are we not in a realm of the dumb?
In the light of which (and it may well be unprecedented), Jeremy Vine and Joey Barton stand together as this week’s joint recipients of the Great British Bell End Award (GBBE), which is also, linguistically speaking, a nonsensical expression.
Will Vine come after me, claiming that he has been mortally wounded by this gentle spot of lampooning?
After all, he has become something of a serial victim – he also filed a claim against Alex Bellfield citing the latter’s use of ‘hurtful’ words against him. To say Vine is thin-skinned is to put it mildly. Some might suggest that he is but another example of a mangina.
If there is one thing that Jeremy Wine represents it is that he is simply a creature of his time, namely an epoch of withering liberalism that invariably leads to the rise of more effete men. When I was a boy, one such as Wine might be called ‘a big girl’s blouse’ but they were relatively scarce. Now, they are everywhere. Of course, just as everything in this divine simulation is, it is but a temporary state of affairs as tough times create tough men: the pendulum will swing back. It always does.
In any event, he is certainly very keen on exploiting the ‘legal’ system for pecuniary gain over imaginary slights against his effete and supercilious personality.
Two Wings on the Same Dumb Bird
I’m rarely impressed with mouthy footballers but willing to acknowledge genuine intelligence and wit when I see it but it’s always relative and by that low bar, Barley can parley more articulately than most. However, he does have a history of being unable to control his emotions. One example which springs to mind is when he stuck a cigar in a fellow player’s eye. The following is a list of the various incidents when he has evidently reacted in an emotional way to whatever the occasion was. The immediate thing that stands out is that, according to the list, he has not gone more than 3 years without some kind of ‘episode’. 11 episodes in 21 years is a psychological pattern and it doesn’t take a psychiatric quack to point out that Barton is unable to control his emotions at certain moments:
That, at least to me, puts him in the mangina class of modern male, alongside Wine. If Barley is one end of the rope, Wine is the other. They sit there as a pair of frayed knots who unravel under the slightest degree of provocation. Easily twisted, soon untied, they surely deserve each other, just like all those who tie the knot to become Mr and Mrs. Fred and Wilma Flintstone, like Salt and Pepper or Cheese and Onion, theirs is a match made in this crazed heaven-hell. They stand unique in their mangina qualities, so irresistibly drawn to each other that a cigarette paper could not come between them and since they are inseparable, they are the unworthy joint winners of this week’s GBBE.
* Disclaimer: the BBC has protected numerous pederasts down the years – Harris, Hall, Hugh Edwards and Savile, to name but five – and this fact must be taken into consideration when assessing the reliability of anything that comes from its dark orifices. A fine example being the once-laudable current affairs programme, Panorama, which has recently been found guilty of splicing Trump’s January 2020 speech to falsely suggest that he was inciting a riot at Washington D.C. and for which the trumpster is filing a damages claim for $1 billion.
__________________________________
Should any reader/listener be willing and able to show their appreciation of my essays and discourses, please feel free to tip me a few quid via the BuyMeACoffee button and/or taking out a paid subscription at my Substack page.
