“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
—Statue of George Orwell & quotation from his classic work, Animal Farm, erected in the building which houses the BBC in London in 2017.
There is a popular internet meme going around. It references the still frame from a British comedy sketch in which two naive Nazis wonder aloud:
“Are we the baddies?”
The conservative humour site Twitchy reposts it whenever the U.K. government treats Orwell’s 1984 like an instruction manual. Today, this joke is everywhere, as the Western world watches the nation which us brought free speech descend into abject tyranny.
Today’s British officials do not suffer dissent or value free speech; nor do they like it when ordinary citizens dare to criticize their own government. For these reasons, the authoritarians across the pond caution their domestic serfs: “Think before you post.” Explicit in this ominous threat is the promise that the Crown Prosecutor will come after anyone, anywhere, for ‘inciting hatred’ online. What is “hatred”? Why, that is naturally for bureaucrats to decide and for lowly commoners to find out—all too late! In a bit of cowardly arm-twisting meant both to encourage community snitching and to terrify concerned family members, Big Brother underscores its warning thusly:
“Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”
After all, the state’s thought police would hate for something bad to happen to someone you love—so do not force them to be ‘the baddies’—OK?
What on earth has happened to the home of the Magna Carta? Did MI5 destroy that document in a clandestine purge? Years ago, the current Royal Family fop, Prince Harry, got into trouble for dressing up as a Nazi at a costume ball. The public were aghast that a Royal could be so daft as to trivialize the fascist thugs who nearly destroyed Europe. In hindsight, Harry may have been ahead of the curve. The threat of fascism is not buried in British past; it is rather choking her future. England is now a nation of Starmer Troopers.
Government apparatchiks are blocking foreign I.P. addresses from accessing the U.K. police website. Apparently, the Brits have gotten their knickers in an Oliver Twist over outsiders using words that are now banned there. So the powers that be scream at their I.T. Boffins to shut down the internet, and the tech slaves do their best to comply. Surely some North Korean with a secret window to the outside world is shaking their head in disgust. In the span of 75 years, the English went from “Keep Calm & Carry On” to “your Facebook post hurt my feelings”.
It is hard to believe that British police officers actually visit homes now to arrest people for ‘Facebook Crimes.’ Such offenders are not trafficking in drugs, weapons, or human chattel. They are instead accused of sharing online messages—often comedic ones—commenting upon their country’s dangerous migrant problem. Native Brits are upset that foreign nationals are committing crimes, and domestic police are employing precious resources to incarcerate concerned citizens. Violent crime is fine; but denouncing it or its source obviously is not. This is truly surreal.
In the wake of Britain’s renewed war on words, a popular video from a few years ago is trending again. In it, a couple of condescending lady coppers detain an elderly Englishman. When asked why he is under arrest, one of the just-following-orders Bobbies replies:
“Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post, and that is why you are being arrested.”
It turns out that the unsuspecting old fellow once forwarded an image of the Trans flag in the shape of a Nazi swastika. Adding insult to injury, an acquaintance who decided to record this interchange was later arrested for obstruction of a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duty.
Is satire officially dead in the land that gave us Swift’s A Modest Proposal? Three centuries ago, a giant of English literature published his legendary pamphlet describing how Ireland could ameliorate poverty by butchering her own children and then selling body parts to the wealthy English as food. It was a scathing indictment of England’s economic exploitation of the Irish. Today, a British citizen is arrested for daring to describe “transgenderism” as an oppressive ideology. The difference is that the modern English state does not value the free speech that John Milton wrote of in his seminal 1651 tract, Aeropagitica:
The state no longer countenances any dissent or the very speech which needs protection, i.e. that which might offend. It instead arrests those merely expressing opinions deemed ‘offensive’ by the state.
Ever since a Rwandan immigrant went on a recent child-killing spree, Keir Starmer has threatened to use a ‘standing army’ of police to crack down on public protest. The director of public prosecutions for England and Wales warns that sharing information online about resulting protests may constitute a criminal offence if it includes “insulting or abusive” content “likely to stir up racial hatred.” Evidently, specialized police officers are “scouring social media” in search of violations. If only U.K. police worked half as assiduously to stop violent crime as they do to censor words that make migrants uncomfortable.
It seems obvious that a Prime Minister and his lead prosecutors ought to care more about punishing those who murder children than than about imprisoning citizens who want to protect children from being slaughtered.
What about creating a ‘standing army’ of police officers to hunt down pedophiles and child murderers? Does that seem like unreasonable public policy?
One thing that we know for certain is that we are all being watched. Among various secret agencies monitoring online communications in Britain, the National Security Online Information Team—formerly the Counter Disinformation Unit used to stifle Covid dissent — is searching for ‘problematic’ speech. Although British censors claim to be ‘protecting’ citizens from ‘hateful’ words and ‘disinformation’, their job is essentially to target independent thinkers; those who express opinions at odds with official state orthodoxy. As Sir Starmer puts it:
In other words, only those people who parrot U.K. authorities are afforded “freedom of speech”. This right to mimic our masters makes us anything but free.
Right now, the U.K. is barrelling toward totalitarianism. Brits have taken to the streets to denounce their country’s criminally dangerous open borders. If these outraged citizens had been members of Antifa, the media would have compassionately framed their actions as ‘mostly peaceful protests’, deserving of praise. Instead, because public fury is directed at one of globalism’s sacred cows—mass migration—angry parents are being condemned for fomenting ‘violent riots’. Protecting children from serial killers and sexual predators, it seems, is politically incorrect. According to the leftist establishment, the problem is not that open border immigration policies lead to marked increases in violent crime and social unrest; but rather that everyday citizens have had the temerity to register their public displeasure.
In reply, newly elected PM Starmer just announced a two-pronged (read two-tiered) solution to silence public dissent: (1) increased social media censorship; and (2) widespread implementation of facial recognition technology to bolster already ubiquitous surveillance. This exercise in raw tyranny follows Big Brother’s favourite playbook. First, the state manufactures a problem that harms people. Next, authorities pretend that such problem does not exist. Eventually, we are forced to take matters into our own hands to address the problem—and finally, the government uses public outrage as a pretext for expanding its own security powers through surrender of individual liberty.
Just as in the U.S. and Canada, there is broad public support in Britain to secure its borders and control immigration. Just as it is here, both sides of the British uniparty have ignored populist concerns and instead allowed the country to become flooded with illegal aliens who either cannot or refuse to assimilate into Western society. After violent crime and community conflicts inevitably arose, UK authorities were more prepared to ban knives than to admit endangering the British public. Now that Brits are pushing back against their own government’s criminal enterprise, their WEF Marxist PM has chosen to use the crisis to justify increased mass surveillance and prohibition of free speech. Undoubtedly, somewhere on a white board in a deep state dungeon, this blueprint for erecting a dystopian new world order has been mapped out by a faceless man in a white suit, stroking his cat. In the result, government officials have the blood of the innocent on their hands.
Such ruling-class treachery is hardly novel. Similar schemes for erasing God-given freedoms and expanding government power abound. For instance, the classic welfare gambit familiar to Canadians: move jobs overseas; tax and regulate citizens into poverty; buy the votes of impoverished citizens desperate for handouts; and then keep the public dependant upon the state’s continued largesse.
There is also the central bank funny money gambit: give a tiny cabal of filthy rich bankers power to print money at will; fund extravagant state programs with loans from the money- printing bankers; artificially inflate the value of stock market assets while devaluing meagre savings of the working poor; prop up unnatural economic bubbles with government interventions; transfer all real property from the poorest to the wealthiest; leave the masses to constantly borrow from exploiting creditors; wait for the economy to crash like a house of cards; and then force all of the desperate peasants into a system with central bank digital currencies that supervises their transactions in real time.
Then there is the Armageddon gambit: indoctrinate citizens with the false message that fossil fuels are killing the planet; heavily regulate all market activity to secure public safety from the fake catastrophe; tax people for using unapproved forms of energy; launder windfall profits to green energy cronies; and then strictly monitor everyone’s imaginary carbon footprint from the cradle to the grave.
There is the WWIII gambit: promise Russia that NATO has no intention to threaten its borders; spend the next three decades expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders; blame the predictable Russian response on its Stalinesque desire to re-conquer Europe; provide the European Commission with an excuse to erase national borders and build a pan-European army; and then give Western nations an opportunity to send able-bodied young men off to fight before they can focus upon the mess happening back home.
Finally, there is the global health emergency gambit: invest tax dollars in hazardous biological weapon programs developing deadly pathogens; wait until one of those pathogens escapes and kills millions; isolate people in their homes as you seize control over markets and communications; mandate the use of experimental drugs providing windfall profits to pharmaceutical pirates; and then institute medical passports to track us all for life.
Cause a problem, exploit it, and then leave citizens worse off than they would have otherwise been if the government did not exist—lather, rinse, repeat.
At some point, we must accept that our governments are only gentler versions of the one- party dictatorships ruling China, North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. If you are a persecuted member of Germany’s conservative AFD party, an incarcerated Coutts or J6 protestor awaiting trial or sentencing, or an on-line meme maker convicted of hate speech in the U.K., the West’s rhetorical cheerleading for ‘democracy’ over ‘authoritarianism’ is a distinction without a difference. Tyranny feels just as oppressive, regardless of which government has its boot on your neck.
At the risk of offending those indoctrinated to worship the state as a force for good, here is the uncensored truth: the state is not your friend!
Big Brother cares not for your safety or security. Espionage agencies do not consider whether their shadowy schemes lead to your untimely death. Central bank gangsters are oblivious to whether you lose your life savings in one of their financial bubbles. Big Pharma is indifferent to the risk of your being injured or killed by one of their ‘vaccines’, and their friends in government have granted them immunity from your lawsuits. Defence industry executives selling weapons to both sides of every conflict care not how many die from their wares. Politicians eager to replace you with foreign nationals do not care if you are the next casualty of mass migration.
The state values two things: what you can give them today; and what you can give them tomorrow. Monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy, democracy, republic—the form of government makes no difference at all. In every political organization, the insatiable appetite for wealth and power remains supreme.
Once we free ourselves from the delusion that the government is here to help, it is much easier to make sense of its despicable behaviour. Think of government as a ruthless conqueror interested only in taking everything you own. From its perspective, you will remain silent while it rummages through your possessions, considers whether your children are useful slaves, and weighs whether to let you and your family continue breathing. You must do as it dictates. You will keep only what it does not take as tax. You must obey its chosen ‘experts’. Put simply: you must worship the state if you want to live.
Through this dystopian lens, the West’s descent into totalitarianism makes perfect sense. Our governments do not value free speech, free markets, self-determination, or global peace.
Why would they? Such lofty ideals only detract from their own dominance. Conversely, censorship, regulation, bureaucracy, mass migration, pandemics and constant war provide the state with everything it needs to rule in perpetuity—which is precisely the point.
It is thus predictable that the state’s pat response to any dissent is to censor the citizenry and to label them “conspiracy theorists.”
But the key questions linger. Is 3rd world immigration to Europe a covert operation to bring about the end of Western civilization, including free speech, parliamentarianism, and the Rule of Law? And is there a sinister master plan to erase Christianity and put Islam in its place?
We may prefer to assume that such conspiracy theories are mock allegations intended for negation by ridicule. During the Cold War, it was a favourite pastime of left-wing intellectuals—convinced that the future belonged to the progressive avant-grade (and the Soviet or Chinese empires)—to mock those who warned against communist totalitarianism. The latter were accused of McCarthyism and portrayed as half-witted reactionaries succumbing to the so-called ‘Red Scare’.
Since then, we learned that the suspicion of widespread communist infiltration of the ‘open society’—as defined by the Austrian born philosopher Karl Popper—was well founded. It affected daily priorities in the art world, education system, and civil service. The ridicule, typically exercised with an air of intellectual superiority, was intended to suppress opposition to totalitarianism; to silence the voices of freedom. Those already in league with foreign communist parties would feign idealist naivety and righteous indignation. Cynical at heart, they knew all too well how intensive—if not extensive—the subversive work of breaking down the open society really was.
Aliens have been flooding Western Europe since the end of WWII. Providing the human material of enormous population movements, transforming that corner of the continent beyond recognition, they have arrived in waves. Originally, they derived from European colonies in the process of gaining political independence. Some arrivals from Africa and Asia were simply due to postcolonial privileges bestowed on former subjects. Whatever the prospect of cultural integration, people from the most distant places in the world were graciously offered naturalization as part of a large-scale social experiment.
Other arrivals from overseas reflected postcolonial conflicts between ethically defined rival population groups that were ethnically defined. Victims of deep-rooted tribalistic sentiments, economic favouritism, and violent persecution had to seek refuge with the former colonial rulers. Gradually, however, immigration assumed other forms.
In the 1960’s, villagers from disadvantaged parts of Anatolia were imported by governments across Western Europe to perform unskilled industrial tasks. The economy was booming at the time, the demand for labour correspondingly urgent. The arrival of foreign job seekers brought the second wave of mass immigrants, naively labeled ‘guest workers’. As implied by this title, they were meant to return to their country of origin once they had saved enough money to pursue their dreams back home.
However, the West fell into its own ‘tolerance trap’. With imprudent optimism as a hallmark, the politicians of the time failed to realize the long-term consequences of their decisions. Instead of heading home, Anatolian workers brought their large families over. Permitted by laws liberalized to meet the temporary needs of the industry, they applied for ‘family reunifications’, etc.
If not exactly encouraged by Western governments, alien communities—so-called ‘enclaves’—became bridgeheads for a fast-growing diaspora. Mostly inhabited by 3rd world migrants with an intolerant view of faith and freedoms, their appearance marked the joint entry into a ‘transitional society’; an unstable historical entity characterized by a dying Christianity, the eventual defeat of revolutionary and totalitarian ideologies such as socialism and Islamism, and resulting social upheaval.
Unlike the tyrannical governments of Arab oil states, where Asians are hired on the terms of domestic slaves, Europeans have proved unable to dispose of their ‘guest workers’ at will. Once settled in Europe, aliens enjoy the same rights as indigenous Europeans. So, they have come to stay. The same is true in the U.S. and Canada.
A third wave of migrants reached Western Europe in the 1980s. Not only the former colonial powers, but also Western countries in general, were apparently expected to compensate the developing countries for the alleged injustices of the past (racism, colonialism, etc.) by accepting anyone claiming ‘asylum’ at the border. A demonstration of political penance and guilt, this gesture was specific to the West.
Muammar Gaddafi—the epitome of a sly, capricious tyrant—once prophesied that Europe, the ancient stronghold of Christianity and the refuge for Christians persecuted in the Middle- East and Africa, would eventually be conquered by Muslims; not through tanks, but via baby carriages. In a speech given in Timbuktu on 10 April 2006, he said:
“We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without military conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That is another fifty million Muslims. There will be a hundred million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the European Union. Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America.”
Time is certainly on the side of the Islamists, and they they know it. Imams all over Europe, speaking with a double tongue, as has become their historical privilege, routinely congratulate each other on the so-called ‘opening’ or conquest of their host countries. They assume the traditional role of victim in the public debate, where they count on the fanatical support of the ‘progressive elite’. They solemnly assure the loyalty of the congregation to society. They instruct their fellow believers on the weakness and imminent downfall of the West—in Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi. Meanwhile, the Starmer and Trudeau governments prepare to criminalize ‘Islamaphobia.’
The growing minority of migrants eventually become a democratically competent majority, taking over neighbourhoods and entire cities—constituting an irresistible power base. Many of those dedicated to the expansion of a foreign dominion, including those posing as civil rights activists with a religious twist, campaigning against social injustice and racial discrimination. They do not hesitate to incite general envy and distrust. Division in society is their ultimate means to gain control. Thriving on conflict and chaos, they behave as real conspirators.
This alien conspiracy is however secondary to a broader agenda. There is a deeper conspiracy far more alarming, dangerous, and evil. Revolving around the willingness of European progressives like Starmer, Macron, and others to ruthlessly sacrifice their own homelands for the sake of power. This the primary one. The nature of its scheme goes well beyond naivety. It involves powerful politicians and decision-makers.
After the general election and regime change in May of 1997, the leadership of the British New Labour Party—emboldened by its landslide victory and ready to make long-term plans for success—decided to open the floodgates eager 3rd world migrants. This changed the composition and political disposition of the electorate forever. Central party advisor Andrew Neather later revealed that this fateful policy, kept hidden from the British public for obvious reasons, had been explicitly devised to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”
In other words, the objective was strategic: to alter the ethnic make-up of Great Britain. These leftist leaders expected infinite popular alien support for the party in exchange. Such was the treacherous and indeed traitorous calculation. Since then, Lord Mandelson, former Secretary of State for Business, made the following sinful confession:
“In 2004, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work; we were sending out search parties.”
Selling out your own nation to remain in power!
And so the Anglophone cradle of Western Civilization that gave us Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens, a high-trust society that took centuries to build, is being dismantled before our eyes. On the other side, anarchy awaits. There are no words to describe this devastation—we are left speechless.
