Britain is on a dark path. Everyone I speak to in the UK - friends and family, are miserable. I don’t just mean they’ve had a bad day, I mean they are really fed up and despairing with everything in their lives. Many of my friends are making plans to leave the country for good - some have already booked their flights and bought their long-term visas for elsewhere abroad.
Others cannot relocate because their businesses cannot operate remotely, and they are tied up with mortgages and other commitments.The cost of living is soaring with energy bills, property rent, and food becoming unaffordable, forcing people to choose between staying warm or being fed. Public services are breaking down, and crime rates are increasing as poverty worsens.
SOVIET BRITAIN
Starmer is openly hostile towards the British people. Who are his true masters? What is his true ideology? Perhaps we can speculate on that another time.
Today we will focus on news, legislative moves, the expansionism of the UK police state and inverting definitions to suit agendas.
The term counter-revolutionary is applied to any act committed with the intention of overthrowing, undermining or weakening the authority of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Soviets, and of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government founded on the constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic […]
ENGLISH TRANSLATION PDF:
First Soviet Criminal Code – Seventeen Moments In Soviet History
Now compare how this is echoed with the UK government’s updated definition of ‘extremism’ in 2024, specifically ‘aim 2’:
Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.
Made famous by George Orwell’s novel 1984, the slogan 2+2=5 is used to represent the absurdity of political falsehoods and lying propaganda. But it wasn’t a figment of Orwell’s imagination. In fact, the author was referencing an actual propaganda campaign from Stalin’s Russia, which Orwell was highly critical of.
For Stalin, 2+2=5 was a rallying cry, boasting that the goals of the first five-year plan had been achieved ahead of schedule in only four years. Meant to rapidly modernize the Soviet economy between 1928 and 1932, the first five-plan had indeed collectivized farmland and created heavy industry throughout the country. But like most things Stalin related, there was a sizable body count. The collectivization of agriculture, for example, triggered a famine in which millions died, while industrial workers were harshly punished for failing to reach an ever-increasing set of quotas associated with the plan. Still, propaganda posters were churned out just the same, proclaiming success regardless of the numbers.
Today, circumstances may have changed, but political falsehoods live on. Orwell’s work is being re-read like never before and Stalin is once again admired by the Russian state. As for 2+2=5, it feels like the slogan is only one press conference, one tweet, or TV interview away from resurfacing – from being proudly shouted at anyone within earshot. It’s something George Orwell understood very well and a phenomenon that we’ll have plenty of time to think about.
The UK’s Online Safety Acthas slowly gained ground since its introduction in the classical guise of “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”
The UK already had existing laws to protect children from online predators, but nevertheless this was the narrative to have the public rally behind the trojan horse legislation, which could and would then be twisted into a broader interpretation extending to all aspects of public discourse.
The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online. It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them more responsible for their users’ safety on their platforms. The Act will give providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear.
The strongest protections in the Act have been designed for children. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise.
The Act will also protect adult users, ensuring that major platforms will need to be more transparent about which kinds of potentially harmful content they allow, and give people more control over the types of content they want to see.
Duties about illegal content – the illegal content duties are now in effect, and as of 17 March Ofcom can now enforce against the regime. In-scope service providers must have now completed their assessments of the risk of illegal content appearing on their service; the deadline to do so was 16 March. The illegal harms codes of practice were approved by Parliament after being laid on 16 December 2024. On the same day in December, Ofcom published its illegal content risk assessment guidance and its policy statement about protecting people from illegal harms online
The criminal offences introduced by the Act came into effect on 31 January 2024. These offences cover:
encouraging or assisting serious self-harm
cyberflashing
sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm
threatening communications
intimate image abuse
epilepsy trolling
These new offences apply directly to the individuals sending them, and convictions have already been made under the cyberflashing and threatening communications offences.
Note the language used per the broadly interpretable theme I eluded to earlier. The ramifications are such that independent media platforms and / or social media platforms could be held liable for comments made that could be deemed to be ‘sending false information’ or inciting X,Y,Z. It also extends to the material world, whereby a pub chosen by a group to host an event (organised online or via chat app messenger) discussing a ‘peaceful protest’ could see the pub owners held liable for the spoken comments and actions of those patrons.
This will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
Ergo, the responsibility of exposure to ‘harm’ is shifted from the individual to the broadcaster entity or platform hosting the comments of members.
The way Ofcom is funded also means the organisation is incentivised to crackdown on dissidents, making it particularly lucrative for the body to act as censor-in-chief:
Examples of recent fines we’ve issued include: a £10.5m fine for O2 for over-charging its customers; a £5.6m fine for Royal Mail for missing delivery targets; and a £1.5m fine for Sepura for a breach of competition law.
The biggest fine we’ve levied was in 2018, when we issued Royal Mail with a £50m financial penalty for breaking competition law.
Any income received through issuing fines is passed directly to HM Treasury and does not contribute to Ofcom’s running costs.
TWO TIER SENTENCING
Let us close with this unbelievable legislation that almost passed until it was emergency blocked last minute after fierce backlash from the public:
The Sentencing Council of England And Wales, a non-departmental public body (faceless bureaucracy) which determines the guidelines for court punishments of convicted offenders, has recently made controversial changes and ignited a firestorm among the native British populace.
The council has announced that special exceptions in sentencing will be made for ethnic minority offenders (the majority of violent crime in Britain) and religious minority offenders, as well as female offenders. In other words, everyone except white males will enjoy reduced sentencing, creating a two tier justice system that targets white men for harsher treatment.
[…]
Conservative shadow justice minister Robert Jenrick
has called the guidance "two-tier justice" and "blatant bias" against Christians and straight white men, as he said it would make "a custodial sentence less likely for those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community".
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood claim they oppose the policy change and will take action to pass legislation against it. However, such a process could take many months and both Starmer and Mahmood have expressed favoritism for migrants and Muslim groups in the past. Their "opposition" could be purely theatrical and few Brits believe that they will actually make an effort to block the Sentencing Council's two-tier system.
I see all these moves by Starmer and the regime as intended to goad and provoke a kinetic reaction on the streets, to incite protests (or maybe just cause them with agent provocateurs?) - which would feed the agenda further by justifying - in the eyes of the statists - more authoritarianism and crackdowns on whomever they persuade the populace they need ‘protecting’ from for ‘their own safety’.
Dark Times.
May the Brits see through the propaganda, not be divided and set against each other by race - which is exactly what the powers that should not be desire.
If the United Kingdom is to be truly united, the people need to stand together like they did against the government response and interventionism to the fake Covid ‘pandemic’.
Since the horrific reported attacks in Southport, UK, whereby a ‘17 year old male’ went on a stabbing spree at a “Taylor-swift dance class” - protests have erupted nationwide. The attack has provoked a strong emotional response from the British public, with tensions exceeding breaking point. We have the right to question everything. We can be damn sure …
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. Any support is greatly appreciated. If you are in a position to donate a virtual coffee or crypto, it would mean the world of difference. Paid subscribers can comment on articles, videos, and podcasts, and also receive a monthly subscriber newsletter.
Email: nicholas.creed@protonmail.com with information and newsworthy stories for open source intelligence gathering to support this Substack, thank you.
Thank you very much for a wide-ranging report and analysis of the situation in the UK.
Of course, demoralisation is an effective disempowering tool much favoured by the controllers – and, as you note, it’s working. Not surprising since there have been few, if any, morale-boosting reminders of the enviable and inspiring values we used to practise and hold dear.
Perhaps I can just add a couple of thoughts. The absence of visible policing, allowing crime to proliferate or, even when the police are present, proving themselves to be inept, is, I believe, deliberate. Such deteriorating situations encourage the public to demand solutions that will inevitably lead to more surveillance. And surveillance is exactly what the technocrats desire. The same game is being played out in various shops where the security guards are under orders not to detain shoplifters. The public are furious. The answer will be more surveillance cameras.
It seems that a fundamental lesson from history – rulers do not necessarily have our best interests at heart – is never learned.
Unfortunately the British people trusted Government and thought they would act in the interest of the citizens.
I quote:
"Human history, especially that of the civilized world, reveals that the vast majority of people have always exhibited a strong tendency to readily rely on the ruling or formal authorities (or bodies of authority) for guidance and entities to place their trust into, despite that this trust has consistently and reliably been undermined by the reigning authorities –and thus, has largely been unjustified– throughout the ages."- Taken from Rolf Hefti. This was written about by psychologist Arthur Janov in 2015.
Thank you very much for a wide-ranging report and analysis of the situation in the UK.
Of course, demoralisation is an effective disempowering tool much favoured by the controllers – and, as you note, it’s working. Not surprising since there have been few, if any, morale-boosting reminders of the enviable and inspiring values we used to practise and hold dear.
Perhaps I can just add a couple of thoughts. The absence of visible policing, allowing crime to proliferate or, even when the police are present, proving themselves to be inept, is, I believe, deliberate. Such deteriorating situations encourage the public to demand solutions that will inevitably lead to more surveillance. And surveillance is exactly what the technocrats desire. The same game is being played out in various shops where the security guards are under orders not to detain shoplifters. The public are furious. The answer will be more surveillance cameras.
It seems that a fundamental lesson from history – rulers do not necessarily have our best interests at heart – is never learned.
Unfortunately the British people trusted Government and thought they would act in the interest of the citizens.
I quote:
"Human history, especially that of the civilized world, reveals that the vast majority of people have always exhibited a strong tendency to readily rely on the ruling or formal authorities (or bodies of authority) for guidance and entities to place their trust into, despite that this trust has consistently and reliably been undermined by the reigning authorities –and thus, has largely been unjustified– throughout the ages."- Taken from Rolf Hefti. This was written about by psychologist Arthur Janov in 2015.