GIRL COMMUNISM: Did the Woke Deep State Hack the Journalist who Exposed the Hidden Details of the Southport Massacre?

Charlie Bentley-Astor is a 26-year-old journalist from Eastbourne, a once thriving seaside town now scarred by migrant hotels. I've twice interviewed her on The Jolly Heretic. I arranged the second of these interviews in order to find out more about her intrepid investigation into the cover-up surrounding the Rwandan child murderer Axel Rudakubana and his enigmatic family. In January, Charlie live-tweeted from his sentencing, revealing the, up to that point, suppressed horrific details of the Southport stabbings in a series of tweets that soon accrued 50 million views. As a consequence, it seems, someone in the British Stasi hacked her account, deleted the tweets and had her taken off Twitter where she had amassed 70,000 followers. Charlie has been a victim of what I call "Girl Communism." How has this come about?

In November last year, Daffron Williams was sentenced to two years in prison by a judge at Cardiff Crown Court for Facebook posts. In the heated wake of the Southport Massacre, the ex-soldier, from Tonypandy, had written: "Civil war is here. The only thing missing is bullets; that's the next step." This punitive sentence was handed down to this 41-year-old sufferer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke. If you had told someone, in 1984, that forty years hence there would be a judge called "Tracey," they would have laughed so much that it hurt. Not only was Tracey the ultimate "bimbo" name, but it is a woman's name, and there were very few female judges in 1984. In fact, other than the Prime Minister, there were very few women in positions of influence at all.

In 1984, Britain was still ruled by men who had fought in World War II; who had defended the British Empire. It was also the year that the essentially pro-Soviet Union National Union of Mineworkers witnessed their insurrection against British democracy be comprehensively defeated. And it was pre-Gorbachev; pre-Glasnost. It was a time when dissidents in the Soviet Union were likely to face serious physical consequences, including death.

But this isn't how Girl Communism works. Sure, it has many points in common with the ideology of the USSR. Communism involves an extreme focus on the moral foundations of Harm Avoidance and Equality and a resentful suppression of anything associated with "tradition," as this is associated with other people having power: Ethnic in-group loyalty, obedience to traditional authority and traditional notions of the sacred are all anathema. Wealthy, power-hungry people virtue-signal their way to the top by pretending to care about "Equality" and "Harm Avoidance" and identifying with an out-group; the workers. And, as with Animal Farm, they soon become just as unfair and repressive as the farmers. But they are men, they fear a fair fight to a much lesser extent than do women, they are happy to be clear that they are in power, and they are prepared to kill their opponents. In a sense, you know where you are with them.

It doesn't work like this with Girl Communism, where you combine a cultural focus on "equality" with women, like Tracey, occupying numerous positions of power. After all, women are not evolved to create large coalition armies and fight to the death. As Joyce Benenson has explained in her seminal book Warriors and Worriers, women are adapted to nurture babies and to live in polygamous mating systems in which they create strongly bonded cliques, with other wives of the dominant male, to alloparent each other's children.

Physical harm is repellent, because women are physically weak and have offspring who are reliant on them. Relationships must be of complete equality, because trust must be so high when it comes to other people looking after your babies. Thus, any status-play must be covert and even something you're not consciously aware of doing; meaning you'll bag the best chap without consciously realising how. You must come across as not being "mean" to other women, to women you don't trust, lest rumours about your "meanness" are spread. However, you may bitch about a woman whom you see as a "threat" to your place in the clique behind her back, with members of your clique. You do not fight your enemy, your competitor for the high status male, for you so fear injury. Instead, you gossip, you spread rumours, you spread lies, you manipulate and guilt-trip, you exclude from the parties; you participate in mind games.

This brings us back to what has happened to Charlie Bentley-Astor. Even as she was tweeting information from the trial, the Merseyside Police Twitter Account, which is surely run by a woman, manipulatively and dishonestly announced that the parents of the victims had asked that the details of the stabbings not be shared and they were saying this because it had come to their attention that the details were being shared on Twitter. This was clearly aimed at Charlie, as nobody else was sharing these details. It was also a lie. The parents were in court and did not have internet access. How could they have known what was happening on Twitter, let alone contacted the police? Merseyside Police were intimidating and emotionally blackmailing Charlie because they feared the social consequences of the full details becoming widely known, mindful of the riots the previous summer.

Charlie did not remove her tweets so had, in effect, revealed herself to be a dissident; a person who was not prepared to cooperate with Girl Communism. In fact, she had previously made this clear by infiltrating Woke student groups at Cambridge University, where she had studied, and publicly criticising the Trans Movement, of which, as a de-transitioner, she has, in my view at least, been a victim. Accordingly, the Girl Communist Regime needed to punish her and break her morale. They did this via intimidating mind games.

A few days after her reporting, Charlie was sent a Twitter login code on her phone. This was odd, as she was logged into Twitter at the time. She refreshed her page and, suddenly, she was logged out and her password didn't work. In other words, her Twitter account had been hacked. Charlie then noticed that the Southport Trial timeline that she had made, and which had 50 million views, had been unpinned and though the header tweet was not deleted, all of the subsequent 87 tweets, including those detailing the full horrors of the stabbings, had been removed. Nothing else had been changed.

The deleted posts from Charlie’s account. Source: https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1904485411134615970

Charlie immediately contacted Twitter, explained what had happened and sent clear proof that she was whom she said she was, including a photo of her holding her own photo identification, her bank details and much else. She requested they give her back control of her account. It took an astonishing 25 days for Twitter to respond to this "Premium User." They would routinely tell her that they couldn't verify who she was and that she should create a new account. Naturally, she didn't want to do that and she claims to have had "back-and-forths like this well over . . . 75 times." Eventually, Charlie created a new account but, obviously, Twitter could see her IP address and banned her for, well, impersonating herself.

On 24th March, myself and a number of other friends of hers tweeted about this insanity. Charlie awoke on 25th March to find that her original account, not the "impersonation of herself," had been dramatically restored to her, with an apology for having had "problems with hacking." Why did this take so long? Charlie was contacted by Elon's secretary and told he was interested in her research on the Southport Massacre, but that was three weeks ago. Could Twitter, at a relatively low level, be infiltrated by a left-wing spy? It seems likely. Elon is, after all, hostile to the Girl Communist Regime.

But, that aside, how could they have hacked her account, especially when she makes a point of never using public WiFi? Someone, presumably in the secret services or related groups such as Hope Not Hate, must have been remotely watching her phone screen. How else could they have obtained the verification code?

Charlie has been attacked by the Girl Communist Stasi. If you do something which is a problem for the Girl Communist Deep State (that won't even admit it's in power) they will not take you away and shoot you or put you in a Gulag, they will, like girls, play mind games with you in the hope that, being a girl like them, you will get scared and despondent. But, of course, Charlie's treatment makes the issue that she has researched so sedulously all the more pressing: Why is the Girl Communist Regime so secretive and worried about Charlie looking into the details of what took place in Southport?

---

For more based-science analysis of society and politics, become a subscriber at JollyHeretic.com!

---

Did you miss the last Dutton’s Digest? Click below:

SHOCKING: Tiny Indian Women Make Bad Police Officers!