| Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for moreTHE THRESHOLD: ANTI-SEMITISM, GOVERNMENT CONTROL, AND THE UNPERSONNathan SykesMay 3 READ IN APP ON APRIL 23 this year, I checked my bank account almost superstitiously. I’m used to spotting small sums missing—usually from forgotten subscriptions I claw back with heated outrage. But this time my savings were wiped clean of $160. Everything gone except $5. I scanned the transactions and saw an ATM withdrawal. I’d made only one all year.I rang the bank. Their complaints process immediately questioned my competence: “Are you sure you didn’t withdraw it yourself?” Convenient, isn’t it? Hand your details to thieves and they wash their hands of any refund duty. I told the bored male voice on the line to check the ATM camera—my face wouldn’t be on it. He located the offence at 5:30 pm that afternoon. Someone had used my physical card and PIN. Trouble was, I still had the card in my pocket.This confirmed it wasn’t cyber fraud but old-school card skimming. I named the exact machine. The sceptical operator wearily noted the details but refused to promise they’d refund the money. When I asked if they’d notify police—since this was clearly part of a larger racket—he said banks treat these as private “disputes” and rarely involve cops. Because I “only” lost $160, it wasn’t a priority.Fuck that. Breaking my strict rule of never contacting the police for anything ever, I did so to get it on record and use as leverage against the bank. They sounded more engaged at first, but the moment I gave my name they seemed to recognise me. Funny, that. Whether it affected what followed, I can’t say.The next day I flooded the bank with the police event number and repeated demands. Suddenly an SMS arrived: full refund coming, allow up to fifteen days for their “investigation.” Then came the police response a few days later: “Thank you for reporting this matter to the NSW Police Force. I have reviewed it and it does not meet the threshold for investigation by the PAC. Please inquire with your financial institution for possible funds recovery.”My reply: “It’s worth reflecting, isn’t it, that once the theft of a loaf of bread was enough to earn transportation to this country. Nowadays you can empty someone’s account during a financial crisis and face police inaction. What exactly are you there for? I doubt I was the only victim, yet your apathy doesn’t surprise me. In my experience, that’s the standard reception for complaints. Is it just me, or is this policy? Rhetorical question. I knew the answer before I started.Yours in glorious indifference.”My point? I had hit a “threshold” where certain crimes become permissible. And let’s be blunt—without hesitation I knew the nationality of those behind the scam. Almost certainly Romanians, or more accurately, Gypsy crime syndicates that dispatch operatives down under to drain accounts before vanishing back to Gypo-land, long before the cops bother stirring. They have a notorious track record of this in Australia.So where does this tolerance for stealing a citizen’s entire savings come from—modest though they are—especially during an economic squeeze created by this government’s mass immigration policies and other measures? This was blatant theft. Yet right now, the interim report from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion signals the rise of something far darker: the criminalisation of wrong-think, turning it into one of the most detestable offences a well-funded state agency can pin on you in the name of “social cohesion.”The report contains fourteen recommendations. Five are completely blacked out—ordinary Australians aren’t even permitted to see them. The visible ones are littered with ominous phrases like “social cohesion” and “manifestations of antisemitism.” Notice they avoid clear terms like “crime” or “act,” preferring the vague catch-all “manifestations.” That could mean anything. Combined with calls for ASIO and other agencies to gain extra powers, it leaves the definition entirely up to them. A symbol, a phrase, a gesture—whatever they decide. Criticism of Zionism’s atrocities will almost certainly qualify as one.Ironically, one flagged concern is “foreign influence” threatening cohesion. Yet the whole multicultural experiment is itself a foreign-driven project. Strip away the excuses and the real muscle is government control. This is the fulfilment of their long war on online free speech. Criticism of the government, of mass immigration, of their policies, or of individual ruling-class figures could easily be labelled a “manifestation” against cohesion.And so, we move toward the final product of the December report: the legal creation of the unperson. As one already, I know exactly how it feels. You exist outside the protection of Australian law—deplatformed, unemployable, your name fed through a reputation shredder. Meanwhile another breed of predator flourishes: journalists who despise your views, freelance antifascist thugs, and pro-government zealots who pursue ideological payback against anyone who “manifests.” I’ve tasted that selective justice in our rotten legal system twice already.Yet steal a decent sum and you get a slap on the wrist if it doesn’t hit their precious investigation threshold. Everything comes down to thresholds now. And we have reached the one where multicultural dogma, elite power, and authoritarian control finally converge. |
Tag Archives: Zionism
Backlash: Starbucks takes a beating after plan to hire 10,000 Syrian refugees backfires
A recent poll on YouGov BrandIndex is showing a negative correlation between Starbuck’s brand perception before and after they announced a plan to hire refugees, and it should be cause for alarm for the coffee giant.
On January 29, 2017, Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz announced that the company would implement a five-year plan to hire 10,000 refugees worldwide. The stance was in protest against President Donald Trump’s then travel ban on refugees from certain countries already outlined by the Obama administration. The announcement caused outrage and concern among many Starbucks customers, some of whom called for a boycott. People all over the country took to social media to express just how upset they were about the announcement.
The biggest issue raised among people that weighed in was that an American company was being so quick to come to the aide of refugees, but it felt as if American citizens, particularly veterans, were being ignored. Ultimately, Starbucks felt the pressure and issued a second statement to explain to America’s military veterans that the company also had a plan to employ them.
If Starbucks thought this would blow over, they were sadly mistaken. Since the January announcement, consumer perception levels have fallen by two-thirds as measured by YouGov BrandIndex’s Buzz score. The perception tracker measures if respondents have “heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative.” The recent responses show only 24 percent of consumers polled saying they would consider patronizing Starbucks, while two days before the announcement, the results were at 30 percent, the highest proportion in almost a year.
YouGov conducts surveys of about 4,800 people each week day as a representation of the U.S. population, and they say that there’s reason to believe the backlash will impact the chain’s bottom line. (RELATED: Get all the news Google is trying to hide at Censored.news)
It appears Schulz has not learned his lesson that mixing liberal political agendas and coffee does not work out well, or perhaps he is just too cocky to care. Who can forget the failed “Race Together” stunt where Starbucks encouraged its baristas to write the phrase on cups for customers to start a discussion on race? And there was the uproar caused when Starbucks stripped all Christmas themed images from their cups to “promote inclusiveness” back in 2015.
Whether or not this decline in positive public opinion or potential loss of revenue will affect Schulz’s refugee hiring plan remains to be seen. Most of us know the best way to get action out of a company is to hit them where it hurts – their bottom line – and that appears to be happening right now.
Sources: