>collaborated

m8 lol

Not the verb I would pick

bc it's inaccurate lol

I disagree with the Greg Johnson take on Tommy.

BritBongs don't disobey their masters often. When they have a reason to awaken the Saxon you don't stop it

If you break laws on reporting on ongoing trials, it gives the judge an excuse to nullify the trial for prejudicing the jury and set the suspects free. You can disagree with the law, but, the fact remains, that he was well aware that the law existed and he was well aware that it would increase the gang's chance of going free.

He assisted them in a literal sense.

The occupied-UK kritarchy was never going to seriously punish the groomers.

collaborating, your word, implies that he worked with them in order to ensure that the grooming gangs would get their mistrial. that is a heavy accusation to levy against a man you don't know.

unless of course you have a behind-the-scenes in with Tommy and know that he wanted to ensure that the grooming gangs would go free to rape more English children, which would be something that the dissident right at large would need to know

Justice vs preventing it from happening again. Tough choice imo

@Wood-Ape - OK/MN It's not like people haven't been convicted in similar cases in the past. Softer punishments than they should have gotten, but still harder than if the trial got nullified.

no one is denying that he acted foolishly. I am aggressively denying that he established relations with the grooming gang in order to "collaborate" with them to secure their mistrial, unless of course someone has evidence that he has done so.

I like Steve McNallen's take he did on Red Ice
https://youtu.be/MjAYoJRVA20

@Sam Southern - TN lol are people actually trying to sell that line?

I'm not saying that he established relations with them, I'm saying that his actions objectively benefitted them

no, you said he collaborated with them

which necessitates a relationship

again, unless you or someone else has evidence that he collaborated with them, that's a heavy accusation backed by nothing.

It's an accusation backed by the fact that he knowingly took action that was beneficial to them. From a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter if personally talked to them or not, because it would have had the same outcome.

It's undeniable that his actions decreased their chance of conviction, and it's undeniable that he knew what he was doing.

😑

an independent action, that everyone agrees was stupid, is incredibly different from "collaboration"

you chose a poor word that had implications you apparently didn't consider. everyone agrees he acted foolishly in a way that harmed himself and the case. switch to the second phrasing, and it's actually an accurate statement

Not everyone thinks it was stupid considering that people constantly defend him

Okay how about this

He took actions that had the same effect as collaborating

It was stupid, but again, Free Tommy was bigger than him.

Collaborating with them would necessitate that he is intentionally working with the enemy to undermine both English Nationalism and White people. That has ramifications that far outscope one court case

A tommy-free protest against grooming gangs SHOULD have risen. But didn't. It never did. You work with what you have

Do you think that Tommy is working with Muslims and other nonWhite groups to undermine the English and White people as a whole? Or do you think that he did something stupid?

I think Tommy is legit but he’s also Jewish.

Like if you see his old stuff I don’t think he is some plant or controlled opposition

But he is Jewish sooo

...

Like Stephen Miller and Loony Loomer the absolute Mad Lass.

Heebs can be used.

Lmao. Tommy the Jewish Muslim collaborator

Neither. He wasn't just stupid, he knew exactly what he was doing. But he (probably) wasn't sitting there and going "haha I'm gonna undermine white nationalism". The truth is somewhere in between.

The reason I used the word "collaborated" is because the way I understand the word, if two parties take mutually beneficial actions, they're "collaborating". In this case, the grooming gangs gave him publicity, and he gave them a chance to get their trials nullified.

Now, if your understanding of the word "collaborate" is that it necessitates a verbal agreement, then, I agree, they didn't. @Sam Southern - TN

@Wood-Ape - OK/MN lmao no, it should not have risen

What he did objectively decreased the victims chances of getting justice. Even the pro-Tommy crowd concedes that.

Why do you think it's okay to decrease rape victims chances of getting justice?

I don’t buy that.@Jacob

Don't buy what?

"Justice"