How We Can Resist The UK Dictatorship – Part 1
Iain Davis
Recently, the deputy PM and justice secretary, David Lammy, announced that the UK government is planning to scrap jury trials for all but suspected murder, manslaughter and rape cases. The push-back has been considerable, but we are supposed to believe that the only place where resistance has any meaningful chance of success is in parliament.
This is not true, and over this and the next article we’ll consider why it isn’t. In doing so, we will hopefully develop a collective understanding of what the UK dictatorship is and how we can work together to resist it using the Rule of Law.
Seeing as “democracy” means governance exercised through the Rule of Law administered by the people through jury-led trials, the UK government’s attempt to scrap jury trials is wholly anti-democratic. That said, the so-called “representative democracy” we currently endure is not democracy, so it is naive to expect it to be democratic. Anti-democratic policies are entirely in keeping with “representative democracy.”
Democracy has nothing to do with electing anyone to any kind of political office or any other position of claimed authority. In a democracy, authority is wielded equally by each and every sovereign individual—every single one of us—through jury-led trials with the power to annul legislation. There is no higher earthly authority in a democracy than a sovereign individual restoring justice through a jury-led trial.
Representative democracy (RD) is not the best sociopolitical system in an imperfect world, as we are constantly educated to believe. Democracy, for example, could be much better.
RD is, however, supposedly founded upon a set of democratic rights. These include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and the right of petition—the right to hold government to account. These are commonly viewed as “legal” or “human” rights and, therefore, are not real rights at all.
Such legislative faux-rights are behavioural permits granted, or rescinded, by the RD governments which claim mythical authority. Lammy’s recent assertion that he has the divine power to limit jury trials is just the latest travesty in a very long history of governments completely ignoring purported “democratic rights.” It is unrealistic to expect anything else while we allow the RD legal system to persist.
Elections create the alleged basis for political authority to be exerted by the winning gang in an RD system. But this is just an Establishment pretense to supposedly legitimise RD. For example, approximately 82% of the British electorate did not elect the current Labour government but it claims the power to rule us regardless.
Despite the fact that far fewer than 1 in 5 of us wanted Keir Starmer’s Labour government to nominally govern, it won 64% of parliamentary seats and has a commanding majority. According to the propagandists, Labour’s pathetic lack of public support constituted a “landslide victory” and we are expected to recognise the current government’s “clear mandate to rule.”
An RD electoral mandate is defined as “a strong and clear message from the citizenry endorsing the winner’s programme and giving the in-party the policy-making resources to enact it.” Given that approximately 17.5% of voters “elected” Starmer’s Labour government, its claim to have a “clear mandate” is patently absurd. This is not to suggest that had 70% of the population elected Labour their claimed authority would be any more plausible—we’ll discuss why not in Part 2. It is only to observe that, according to supposed RD principles, the current government has no credible mandate.
In truth, in an RD system, this absence of the public’s consent to be governed makes no difference whatsoever. The so-called “social contract” is meaningless.
In any event, what we call “representative” government is not what most of us think it is. From the viewpoint of political science, nearly every professed democratic government is actually a functional oligarchy. Our government is not in charge.
Here in the UK we live in the UK branch—a kind of franchise—of the global public-private partnership (G3P), an international network controlled and engineered by oligarchs. The “UK state” is one among many G3P regional bureaucracies that we call nations. The Kakistocrats—the government—get their marching order from the G3P they serve.
[click to enlarge]
Empowering Kakistocrats to promote the interests of global corporations is what “representative” democratic government is all about. Endemic corruption and injustice is allowed to flourish and a venal dictatorship is the inevitable outcome. This is not hyperbole.
The relentless construction of a UK “public-private” state, ostensibly in the hands of what Lord Hailsham called an “elective dictatorship,” is enshrined in the British legal system. This averred reality is contrary to the Rule of Law.
There is a difference between the Rule of Law and the legal system. We’ll explore this distinction in Part 2. For now, we’ll just bear in mind that legal does not necessarily equate to lawful.
We can use the British Rule of Law, underpinned by the British constitution, to hold the government to account. But we have a major problem and we need to be realistic about it. Again, we’ll explore that specific problem, and discuss possible solutions, in Part 2.
Before we do, let’s just consider the UK government’s inexorable march towards dictatorship, just to take a few examples in the 21st century. You will note this is not a party political agenda. Labour, Tory and Coalition governments have consistently represented the G3P—rather than us—and have all contributed to establishing a legislative framework for dictatorship in the UK, on behalf of the G3P. You can vote for whichever political party you like, but you can never change the government in an RD system.
In 2003, the Stevens inquiry report revealed the UK state’s involvement in what can only be described as false flag terrorism in Northern Ireland. Killing its own citizens—subjects—is standard fare for “representative” governments.
In response, the UK government hastily forced through the 2005 Inquiries Act to end any possibility of a real independent inquiry—such as Stevens’—ever happening again. Since then, with total government control of misnamed independent inquiries, they have either been nothing but extremely expensive PR stunts for the official G3P-state narrative, or damage limitation cover ups.
As a result of the Inquiries Act 2005, there is no alternative “legal” route to independent public scrutiny of the British government. We could lawfully convene Grand Juries to hold the UK G3P-state to account but, as usual, the government pretends such lawful remedies don’t exist. This denial of our real rights—which we’ll define in Part 2—is contrary to the Rule of Law.
Less than a week after Public Health England—now the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)—downgraded Covid-19 from a High-Consequence Impact Disease—due to its “low overall mortality”—the UK Government verbally asserted that the country was in a crisis. The government sidestepped the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA), intended for just such an alleged emergency. By not invoking the CCA, a purported global pandemic was never officially declared a “state of emergency.” Legally speaking, there was no pandemic in the UK.
Instead, MPs passed the alternative Coronavirus Act 2020 without a vote. It was fast-tracked through parliament in just four sitting days. At more than 340 pages, it had obviously been prepared at least months, if not years prior to its supposed “emergency” enactment. There was no opportunity for MPs or peers to scrutinise it in any depth, if at all. Not that it matters, because our representatives didn’t vote on it anyway.
Our so-called politicians did nothing to serve their constituents and allowed the executive branch of the UK Government to snatch extraordinary power. The Coronavirus Act allowed the Government to detain people without trial and to section people in mental health institutions with extrajudicial ease; it extended mass surveillance powers and the retention of biometric data and it created the crime of being ill—”spreading infectious diseases.” The Government seized the power to halt legal gatherings, including protests, whenever it chose and it removed all the safeguards surrounding NHS care assessments and death registration. This was contrary to the Rule of Law.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 was a pre-written Enabling Act and the UK government— under the Tories at the time—exploited an alleged crisis to seize dictatorial powers. Such State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) are also standard practice for RD governments. While most of The Coronavirus Act provisions have now been rolled-back, as we shall see, the construction of a UK dictatorship has continued unabated. The next time a so-called crisis is declared, additional tyrannies will automatically be imposed using the same strategy.
As reasonably suspected by the former succession lawyer and researchers, Substack blogger and activist Clare Wills Harrison:
They’s probably got stacks of these kind of things [pre-prepared Enabling Acts] and they just put the name on when they need it.
During the pseudopandemic, members of the public provided detailed evidence suggesting serious crimes relating to vaccine harms, malfeasance in office, institutional corruption, and other potential criminal offences. The evidence clearly suggests that, at the highest level, UK police forces were instructed not to investigate these crimes or even, in some instances, record the reported criminality. There was apparent systematic oppression, two-tier policing, and the widespread dereliction of duty by the police. Obviously, if true, this was wholly contrary to the Rule of Law.
In 2021 the UK government enacted the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act (CHIS Act). This allows “agents” of the state to commit crime with virtual impunity if they claim they are trying to prevent a “worse crime.” Agents working for the police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, any intelligence agency, HMRC, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Environment Agency, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Food Standards Agency, and the Gambling Commission have effectively been given carte blanche to commit any crime in the UK against British citizens. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC Act) stymied our lawful right to protest against the government by re-framing “annoyance and inconvenience” as “serious harm.” This misuse of language and vague, often inexplicable and illogical, misinterpretations of words is a typical legalese tactic deployed by dictatorships. It effectively enables the UK G3P-state’s enforcement officers—the police—to deny a protesters’ rights based upon subjective interpretations of causing a “nuisance” or “disruption.” Thus the G3P-state insists it has to the authority to render lawful protests invisible, unheard and ultimately pointless. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.
Nowhere is this mealy-mouthed legal technique used to more dictatorial effect than in the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). The OSA established Ofcom as the UK’s independent regulator to oversee our use of the internet and social media. Ofcom is not remotely independent, either from the UK government or the mainstream (legacy) media (MSM).
Ofcom is “directly accountable” to UK Parliament. It is funded by many of the multinational media corporations it currently regulates, and it is “sponsored” by the UK Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), among other government agencies and departments. It is a bound representative of the UK G3P-state. Claiming it is “independent” of that state is preposterous.
The passing of the OSA gives us a clear example of how a G3P-states, like the UK, operate.
During the pseudopandemic the World Health Organisation (WHO)—a specialised agency of the United Nations (UN)—identified what it called the parallel “infodemic.” This alleged problem amounted to people, the world over, questioning the official pandemic narrative. The WHO proclaimed that any such public scrutiny of its pronouncements constituted “fake news” and that this “threat” was on a par with a reportedly lethal global pandemic:
[W]e’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.
Since 1998, the UN has openly conceded that it is a global public-private partnership (G3P). Indeed, as it is primarily a project of the Rockefellers and other private sector oligarchs, it always has been.
The reason for the UN’s panic became apparent when it published its 2022 report describing what it called “information pollution”:
Access to quality information plays a critical role in public trust, democracy, peace and social cohesion. [. . .] As information becomes more accessible, it also becomes more open to influences from non-traditional actors in the infosphere — in most contexts anyone can create and disseminate information. As a consequence, the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news — established media and government institutions — are struggling to compete with this new reality.
The role of the MSM and government is to act as “gatekeepers of information and news” for the G3P. We are the “non-traditional actors” who have been using the internet to “create and disseminate information” undermining the interests of the G3P. As we increasingly question the gatekeepers, the UN—and governments around the world—are terrified that we won’t “trust” their authoritarian orders and, consequently, won’t obey their diktats: non-compliance.
As a result, legislation almost identical to the OSA, is simultaneously being enforced globally. The objective is to censor the “non-traditional actors”—especially the genuine independent media—and protect the MSM who are the G3P’s propagandist “gatekeepers.”
Unsurprisingly therefore, MSM news outlets and other official gatekeepers are exempt from the strictures of the OSA. The UK G3P-state coddles its gatekeeping MSM because it has total control of it. Censorship of us, and protection of the MSM, which the OSA farcically refers to as the “independent media,” is precisely what the OSA is designed to achieve.
The OSA is the legal enforcement of a G3P policy initiative. The UK government is simply following instructions.
As required by the OSA, Ofcom has produced its definition of alleged “illegal content” that the Big Tech firms are required—under the OSA via Ofcom—to censor. This brings us to another common legal deception used by the G3P-state.
We can call this deceit domestic lawfare:
[U]sing legal measures or their potential utilisation as strategic tools in political or ideological disputes within a nation. [. . .] Such measures may include lawsuits, investigations, and other legal mechanisms aimed at eradicating, intimidating, penalising, or undermining rivals to achieve specific political or policy objectives. This practice can be identified as domestic lawfare by prioritising legal technicalities over substantive matters. Its impact is of particular concern, as it is employed to suppress dissenting voices and curtail essential liberties, such as freedom of speech.
Domestic lawfare commonly succeeds in the UK through misdirection. For example, few of us would argue with most of Ofcom’s “Codes of practice.” Of course, children should not have access to pornography. What responsible parent, or caregiver, would allow a child under their protection to watch porn? Most of us would also probably agree that terrorists should be deterred from using the internet to radicalise impressionable people, though there is no evidence that any such online radicalisation actually occurs.
Ofcom is keen to stress that paedophiles should not be able to use social media to groom children with impunity. Yet child grooming is already illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
There would be no impunity if paedophile networks were actually investigated and the existing law was properly enforced. In terms of child protection, the OSA adds absolutely nothing to legislation that is already on the statute books. But then, reportedly safeguarding children is just the gatekeeper’s propaganda narrative to convince us to accept the end of online free speech and freedom of expression in the UK. We are being attacked through the G3P-state’s use of domestic lawfare.
Lurking within Ofcom’s seemingly reasonable regulations is a draconian online dictatorship. For a start, the current encroachment of the OSA is liable to expand through secondary legislation—alleged “law” that is not made by parliament and cannot be amended by MPs.
Under the OSA, Ofcom—the independent regulator—draws up the “regulations” that social media corporations and search engines are compelled to obey—not that they are opposed to the idea. The executive’s Secretary of State makes this determination via secondary legislation. None of our supposed “representative” MPs can do anything other than eventually agree to adopt whatever the executive demands. That is assuming they even read the secondary legislation, which is unlikely.
The House of Lords has at least recognised the threat posed by the increasing use of secondary legislation to centralise executive power within the Cabinet Office. So far, this has made no difference at all to any UK government: the G3P-state rolls on. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.
Ofcom stipulates what constitutes “illegal content” for the purposes of the OSA. This includes any online communication we make supposedly “with the intention of having an interference effect.” Where an “interference effect” is defined as any communication:
affecting the exercise by any person of their public functions; [. . .] interfering with whether, or how, any person makes use of services provided in the exercise of public functions; interfering with whether, or how, any person (other than in the exercise of a public function) participates in relevant political processes or makes political decisions; interfering with whether, or how, any person (other than in the exercise of a public function) participates in legal processes under the law of the United Kingdom; or prejudicing the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
And where “public function” means:
[Any act] exercisable in the United Kingdom, or; exercisable in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom by a person acting for or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
So forget about questioning any officer or official of the G3P-state or the political establishment online in the UK. If they are hopelessly corrupt and you point to the evidence exposing the fact, under the OSA, the government will work with its private sector partners to censor and potentially prosecute you for daring to question its claimed “authority.”
This tyrannical edict is not even the product of secondary legislation. It is “tertiary” or “quasi” legislation which means “rules or regulations that are created by entities other than the primary or secondary legislative bodies,” i.e., not parliament but Ofcom, at the behest of the Secretary of State. This is contrary to the Rule of Law.
Clearly, we are not permitted to question anything that “prejudices”—meaning expresses perceived bias against or causes harm or loss to—the “safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” But what are these interests and safety concerns?
“National security” is certainly very important for judging OSA tertiary offences. Commensurate with s.14(5) of the National Security Act 2023, we are liable to censorship—and possible prosecution don’t forget—if we stray into causing the heinous “interference effect” by criticising the “public function” of any officer “under the Crown,” such as MPs. Especially if we have the gall to question:
[. . .] an election or referendum in the United Kingdom, the proceedings of a local authority, the proceedings of a UK registered political party, or the activities of an informal group consisting of or including members of one or both of Houses of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, or Senedd Cymru.
In short, as stated by Ofcom’s inappropriately named “code of conduct,” any interference effect we recklessly heap on the RD system or the people who say they have the right to rule us, which essentially has the effect of questioning “political decision,” is well-and-truly liable for censorship under the OSA. Do you really think this legislation is intended to protect children?
To date, the effect of the OSA has not been to improve child safeguarding. This is unsurprising because the UN, the G3P’s favoured global governance authority driving the global censorship agenda, presents a clear threat to children across the world. Instead, the OSA has been used to censor people showing lawful protest footage, censor those questioning illegal immigration, and, completely contrary to the gatekeepers claims, censor MPs actually trying to expose paedophile gangs.
Rather than invest resources in beefing up investigations into online offences against children, thanks to the new offence of “sending false communication”—Section 179 of the OSA—specialist police units have been established to monitor our speech online. This isn’t new but rather the legal expansion of the online surveillance of our speech conducted by the British military on behalf of the G3P during the alleged pandemic.
What we have explored here is just the tip of a very dictatorial iceberg empowered and emboldened by the OSA. Needless to say, the OSA is evidently contrary to the Rule of Law.
Though there are an estimated 12,000 arrests every year in the UK for saying the wrong thing, successful prosecutions have actually declined. The highly publicised arrests are designed to serve more as a warning. Don’t say or post the wrong thing or you can expect the jackboots at your door. Most of these arrests have been under existing legislation, but with the addition of the OSA, the UK is rapidly becoming a highly censored G3P-state dictatorship.
The Data Use and Access Act 2025, combined with the Digital Identity Attributes Trust Framework (DIATF), again exploits the secondary legislation trick. The Act provides statutory authority to the DIATF creating G3P-state authorised credentials for the introduction of digital identity in the UK. Via secondary legislation, the UK G3P-state has written itself a blank cheque to expand its digital identity powers and bring in more private sector partners.
The deception is so pervasive that when the government introduced the digital ID debate to the British public it appeared to deliberately mislead the people about the nature of digital identity, deceptively claiming the so-called BritCard was digital ID. As usual, its gatekeeper propagandists have been dispatched to deny the truth and trick us into accepting the technocratic dark state the G3P so desperately wants to install.
Despite the fact that the Kakistocrats misrepresented the digital ID concept to the British people, our anger and rejection of it was overwhelming. Politicians formed cross-party opposition groups to stand against BritCard, as if defeating BritCard alone—through the political process—will make any difference to the G3P-state’s seizure and doubtless oppressive use of our private personal data.
Under the proposed Crime and Policing Bill, the biometric data of approximately fifty-five million British driving license holders will almost certainly be used to create our digital identities, whether we agree to them or not. The UK G3P-state serves the interests of multinational corporations—its private sector “partners”—like Palantir and Oracle, not the British people.
Now, useful idiot Kakistocrats, serving their G3P masters, are boldly announcing that we, the British people, have no right to a trial by jury. As we’ll see in Part 2, this is yet another example of pernicious domestic lawfare.
We need to be very clear about what is happening in the UK. The British G3P-state has already established the framework for a UK dictatorship. It wants us to agree that it has the authority to deny our rights, to commit crimes against us, to ignore our constitution, to end our privacy and surveil us at all times, to incarcerate us—absent any lawful due process—as and when it pleases, and to control our lives by strangling our individual sovereignty in its despotic technological grip.
It does not have the authority to inflict this dictatorship on us, and it never did.
Regrettably, the broader population is so mired in propaganda and lies, so accustomed to tyrannical diktat, so cudgelled into passive acceptance, and so conditioned to expect convenience in return, that the majority will, in all likelihood, meekly submit to subjugation. The inconvenience and hardship necessary for real non-compliance is just too arduous for most to even contemplate.
For those of us who recognise the UK G3P-state dictatorship that is fast approaching, non-compliance is our only realistic short-term option. The alternative is to voluntarily embrace our own and our children’s slavery, not under whips wielded by Kakistocrats like Lammy, but under the harsh programmable code of the G3P’s techno-fascist AI algorithms.
But while non-compliance is our immediate, essential defence, the G3P-state is weak and holed below the waterline. It is reliant upon propaganda, coercion and the use of force because it is frail. We do have a constitutional Rule of Law and the UK G3P-state’s only strategy is to ignore it because it knows we are sovereign. Its claimed authority is an illusion based on nothing but lies.
If we are going to continue to suffer RD Kakistocracy, we can, and we must, lawfully force the Kakistocrats to honour our Rule of Law and our lawful, codified constitution. This won’t be easy because the British Establishment’s Kakistocracy is embedded, brutal and utterly duplicitous. We have to overcome endemic institutionalised corruption and fundamental sociopolitical problems first.
That said, if we collectively act lawfully and conduct ourselves with “an open hand” we can exercise our authority—defined in our constitution—to finally end the UK G3P-state’s baseless “legal” pretensions and, thereafter, live in justice and peace.
We will discuss how we can hopefully achieve this in Part 2.
Iain Davis is an independent journalist a researcher from the UK. You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. You can claim a free copy of his new book “The Manchester Attack” by subscribing to his newsletter.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
This is a very good discussion. For me, I don’t think there is any answer to the question of the title — “How We Can Resist The UK Dictatorship?” Tyrannies, which are growing in all of the nations of the West, have only ever been resisted or overthrown by revolution, mostly violent ones. The French brought out the guillotine in 1789 to free themselves from the oligarchs who tyrannized over them.
The sad truth is that “democracy” was always only a phase in the history of the West. We are now living in the end of the “Age of Democracy.” This Age began in the collapse of the Middle Ages and the rise of rationalism which replaced the authority of the church and the state. This was also the age of the Enlightenment when the concept of rights inhering in individuals was created. We are now at the end of this phase, and it looks like we are returning to an Age of Authoritarianism — although it will be different from the Middle Ages. There won’t be kings or lords, but there will be corporations and AI controlling every inch of everyone’s life.
I don’t have any hope for the West. It is on a path to self-annihilation. But there is great hope in the rest of the world. Asia, including Russia, still has a democratic principle of commitment to people. All the talk now is about Trump’s “National Security Strategy of the US” and the parallel “British National Security Doctrine.” Neither of these Doctrines have anything to say about people. They are all about the security and the power of The State — State Imperialism The State must be preserved, even if all the people die.
In contrast, the Russian “National Security Strategy of Russia” is all about the well-being of people. There are many references to this foundational principle of democracy. For example, paragraphs 29 and 30:
“29. The State socio-economic policy implemented in the Russian Federation is aimed at ensuring a decent life and free human development, creating conditions for the health of citizens, increasing life expectancy, reducing mortality, improving housing conditions and increasing opportunities for quality education.
30. Particular attention is paid to the support of the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood, the disabled and the elderly, the upbringing of children, their comprehensive spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical development. Conditions for a decent life of the older generation are being actively formed. Rising birth rates are becoming a prerequisite for increasing the population of Russia. “
There is a huge difference between a government committed to The State and a government committed to People. China is also committed to its people. In the West, the people can just be damned. China and Russia have seen the improvement in the lives of people at levels just not imaginable in the West.
I stopped believing in democracy in the UK with Brexit, Johnson’s fake landslide in 2019, and then covid. Parliament is basically the PR operation of the real rulers, alongside the mainstream media. It’s hard to really care about the end of some jury trials, as in practice I doubt they counted for much in the first place.
Juries by their very nature consist of those who are happy to be on “the list” – of the socially integrated. If you opt out of public lists in the interests of basic human privacy or for whatever other reason, then it’s very unlikely that you’ll ever be asked to appear on any Jury. This in itself creates a social bias.
In addition, there are those ways in which potential Jury candidates are simply rejected as failing to meet criteria of ‘unbiassedness’. Hence the candidate list is further whittled down until it nears the Jury most likely to rule in your favour.
“12 Angry Men” did try to sing the virtues of the jury system. The lone crusader winning his way over the wayward 11. Which made a good movie.
In reality though, most Jury members would still be more likely to want to get the whole thing over with and on to the baseball game or the next episode of the latest Netflix series, than deliberate over the minutiae of an individual’s case.
Any surrender of judgement to other humans is flawed, whether they be 12 or 1.
When I was a student Id was expected in all the main bars and clubs at the weekend
especially in the cities.
Then close the bar and make some more sports clubs and music centres where youth can learn to play. No more use for scans.
“One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
“When a law is unjust, it is only right to disobey.” Gandhi
thanks for this excellent synopsis of the alarming state of affairs that we find ourselves in these days
the term “global public private partnership” is a very apt description of what people often struggle to define, resorting to vaguer epithets like “Establishment”, “TPTB”, etc
I have trouble only with the assertion that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that “children should not have access to po rnography”
obviously the censorship laws discussed here, as is clearly demonstrated, are being applied to a wide range of communication completely outside the range of what might reasonably be considered pornograp hic
but the boundaries of that category are essentially impossible to define objectively and even if a societal consensus exists about them, it seems intolerably arrogant to impose that majority belief on those who have other ideas by force of law
the other part of the equation is the idea that the state ought to restrict access to content, information, representations of a certain nature, based on age
chronological age is not a reliable marker of maturity and the notion that an individual instantly passes from one moral category to another when the clock strikes 12 at midnight on his or her birthday is patently absurd
even with a perfectly accurate measure of adulthood, assuming such a measure were to make sense even as a hypothetical construct, it’s still a long leap to make to the idea that a faceless remote central authority, and not the parents of a young individual, or simply the internal personal judgment of that individual, in voluntary consultation with parents, mentors or other advisors, should decide what is and what is not appropriate for the mind of him or her
Meanwhile in USA under Trump and the promises of Q.
But these issues kept a large horde of investigators and lawyers employed for a long time.
We are governed by tyrants they won’t leave by the ballot box…
What is the difference between a democracy and an oligarchy? Time.
The Fraudian showing they learnt nothing from 2020-2022 (except how to double down):
https://dumptheguardian.com/society/2025/dec/10/health-nhs-chiefs-flu-symptoms-must-wear-facemasks
The whole point is to normalise wearing masks is what we do when there’s an unprecedented flu alert (aka winter). It’s not working round here.
Precisely, they have learned nothing zero 0:
Peter Gøtzsche, Danish physician, professor emeritus, and co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration—from which he was expelled for his denunciations against the pharmaceutical industry.
“Patients pay with their lives, as drugs are the leading cause of death. Why are the worst crimes on earth not stopped?” he asks.
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pandemic-revealed-the-most-cowardly-society-of-all-time/
A very precise, thorough well researched article.
Iain your colleagues in the independent” side of alternative
have links to state.
‘In it’s pure form, fascism is the sum total of the irrational reactions
of the average human character [structure]’
‘Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated “Little Man” who
craves authority and rebels against it at the same time.’
The Mass Psychology of Fascism (Preface) – Dr Wilhelm Reich…
This quotation and Reich’s work in general may describe a few fascists who were “little men” or boys like Bill Gates or Alex Karp (CEO of Palantir). But there are many more who are megalomaniacs — that is people who think they are a real genius and therefore have a right to rule over and bully the rest of the population. This group would include Trump and his fellow in genocide, Netanyahu. They are convinced that they have a god given right to rule the masses and make them suffer.
With all this neo crap coming out of post Brexit London it becomes clear that EU Brussels was not the only source of 1984 BS: my eyes are on Washington, New York and Paris too. Brussels looks more like an aggressive franchise now.
Follow the money and you’ll see that Trump has some to stand out but not nearly enough to run this Show, hopefully enough to ruin it.
The Beauty and the Beast are located where? https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-entity_search/1595090/1213266820/orig .
Using Trump as a red flag for the Woke bulls and cows can be useful in continuing to undermine the Atlantic cabal: we need a second ‘Armageddon’ of Atlantis, just less destructive, to keep other cultures viable on this planet.
Even better is to have the CIA go down together with its globalist counterpart the CCP, King Kong with Godzilla.
Most people I speak with are pleased with the government’s plan to control what they say. I guess it’s not a big problem because none of them have much to say that’s interesting, anyway.
After covid I gave up caring about the rights of my fellow citizens. Most of them would have had me executed for not getting vaccinated. At this point it’s every man for himself and the fact the average imbecile is happy stroll into the political abattoir, while staring at the football results on their phone, makes it easier for the rest of us to side-step the trap.
Indeed.
95% of humanity are gullible, guilty, self-centred, stupid, evil a-holes.
The off-g readership is better, but not much.
What if they’re your family ?
I can tell you it’s not easy.
Many here don’t seem to care. Which is exactly what tptb want.
‘If you are unvaccinated YOU are the problem! Nobody in UK are safe until everybody are safe’: https://youtu.be/zI3yU5Z2adI .
What if the laws are made to induce harm, can we still say we want to “ if we collectively act lawfully?” When people refused to accept the shots in the arm during the plandemic they lost their jobs and income to maintain their roof over their heads and put food on the table. That’s how quickly non-compliance can become a check-mate for many.
The easist ways to cut expenditure on old useless eaters has been the flu and pneumococcus jabs. This weakens resistance to flu. Poor treatment of flu/pneumonia follows. These have been routine for decades. Also, assisted euthanasia has been or is being legalised. As a longer-term measure, the covid jab made many mothers sterile, besides killing many fetuses/newborn.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-223-million-person-study
Will leave out the killer jabs given to babies and children for now.
Yes, we must stop vaccinating. Dementia and Alzheimers have also been linked to the flu jabs (the mercury in the thimerosal?) and others.
STUDY: Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
The single largest vaccine–dementia study ever conducted (n=13.3 million) finds risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after flu and pneumococcal shots.
NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
DEC 08, 2025
The single largest and most rigorous study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia — spanning 13.3 million UK adults — has uncovered a deeply troubling pattern: those who received common adult vaccines faced a significantly higher risk of both dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
From The Hypostasis of the Archons- Nag Hammadi books
Ok what can I do? We are both bored now.
He’s right of course.
Brilliant movie. Saw it in New York in my twenties.
Who knew.
‘If only everyone wasnt so bloody concerned about their Health, we
wouldnt be in this bloody mess ! It’s everyone’s bloody incessant concern
about their Health upon which the Bio-Security State is being erected.
The west is obsessed with Health !!’
…….
Such concerns about Health (aka – Hygiene) were integral to NAZI ideology –
too…
A single judge to rule on every verdict is one step away from AI running the judicial show.
Icke would call it, totalitarian tip toe.
The noose tightens. Makes me wonder how anyone can foresee the effects of any ‘law’ given the melange of oblique information swirling around people’s heads these days; a symptom of their own design.
You lie admin. You are not “pre modding me” you are censoring me like that which complain about in regards X. You complain about being limited in reach and do the same. Lol
A self admitted Canadian coward. Is disgusting. A weak pathetic excuse of a man. A judas.
Lay off the booze man. And no, I really don’t care what you think of me. Anything more like this is being binned. Say something interesting and/or useful by all means, you’re very welcome, but this isn’t your playground to have exhibitionist, teenage paddies. That’s actually rather vampiric of you. And honestly, I’m just so sick of all the boring, petty ill-feeling toward me and this site. I work pretty consistently to let everyone have a say here, despite how extreme many people’s views are and the disgusting things they say sometimes, and in response they tell me I’m a tyrant and should be fired because I don’t let them post with impunity. They’d cancel me from offg without any sense of irony lol. Honestly, the worst sin is stupidity, followed closely by unoriginality. Look man, leave this place if you don’t like it. By all means! Or, if you’re billeted here and can’t leave, just try to be a bit classy and don’t vent your ennui at me. We both got a job to do. Peace bro. A2
Todd Hayen couldn’t have quit because of this pathetic nonentity. I reckon Todd must have just wanted to stop anyway.
Cured has a stockpile of resentment or a bee in his bonnet.
Either way he’s ignorable,
You are not cured. Pess off.
“Resist it using Rule of Law.” I know you have to type that, but, uhhhh….not about to agree to fight by the rules set down by an attacker who clearly operates by no rules. You have been attacked. Attacks happened all the time on the schoolyard when I was a kid. The correct response to an attack is this: 1. face it 2. win.
Emphasizing “Rule of Law”, when everyone knows the last time the “law” mattered to them was in the days when Marcus Junius Brutus was in the senate, and I’m talking about the one who chased out Tarquin, not the one who shivved Caesar.
Emphasizing “Rule of Law” like that sounds like, “master, uh, begging your pardon, lord, its just that, uh…” Of course the answer is no after all that. It has to be, because when you accept it you’ll be even more punked and broken. Don’t even type it.
Lots of high schoolers refuse to do any schoolwork at all, and they still graduate. That’s a revolt, right there.
An interesting and thoughtful article but it does suffer from one common flaw. The UK is not the United States so the notion that the government has to obey the law and indeed can commit crimes, malfeasance and the like is completely wrong, as is a reference to a British Constitution. These thing may exist as an understanding and may even have been written down but there’s still nothing like the US Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights (the Amendments to the Constitution) in the UK. You’re still effectively running on the Divine Right of Kings, albeit tempered by modern pragmatism (you don’t want to make it too obvious, do you?). There is no notion of the government needing permission to govern from the people and certainly no idea that government’s power is limited to only those powers it has been granted by the people.
Obviously the picture I’m painting is a bit rosy. Government in the US has always been a fight between those wanting ‘proper’ (authoritarian?) government and those who don’t want to be bothered by it. Traditionally the courts have been used to manage this balance but these days with SCOTUS apparently “bought and paid for” we’re giving our system the Mother Of All Stress Tests. But regardless of how perverted things get the principle of what the Founders were driving at was sound and our present troubles are merely a warning for people not to take democracy for granted (and not just by scrawling an ‘X’ on a bit of paper every five years to select your choice of Uniparty candidate).
(FWIW — My opinion is that democracy died finally in the UK the day that the central government abruptly dissolved the GLC and appointed ideologically conforming ‘commissioners’ in its stead. Anyone remember this?)
I hope you will read Part 2 with interest because there is a chasm between what the UK state says about the constitution and the rule of law, and the truth. That said, I agree that the UK state has no intention whatsoever of honouring either the rule of law or even legality for that matter. So banging on about the constitution is pretty pointless unless we are going to hold them to it.
But this is anarchy, from their side. It is in historic situations like these that Ludwig XVI got his head chopped off. “I am the State”, what an arrogant clown.
.
Let us hope we dont get that far.
We already were! I am The Science. – Fauci
and “Follow The Science.”
Its gets worse.
A visitor will also have to use a U.S. government supplied app and pay some US$ 40 for the privilege. European visitors will have to break their countries data protection laws to provide family member data.
The most egregious request though is for social media data. The proposal says:
U.S. Custom and Border Protection is already collecting social media data from H-1b visa applicants:
It is likely that the same requirement will be introduced for ESTA applicants.
CBP has yet to introduce a mandatory public strip-search on entry. One wonders why they are holding back on that.
Every single potential tourist should decide not to travel, then. Pay $40 to collect ridiculous amounts of information?
No just go somewhere else and let US tourism die.
What’s to see?
Wall to wall junk food stores, ugly Walmart stores, crumbling infrastructure, obesity victims, loud voices, poverty riddled back streets, glitzy overcrowded ‘fun parks’, militarised police forces, gridlocked freeways, a giant hole in the ground with a dead river running through and a big waterfall.
Vermont in the fall. PA Dutch barns and farms and markets and rolling hills. Huntingdon Beach when the surf’s up. Humboldt County. The Kansas sky in tornado season. Southern cooking. DelFest. The Appalachian Trail. North Beach. Loisaida. The Maine Coast. Chicago Blues. The High Sierras. Jackson Hole. Maryland Crab Houses. Texas Hill Country. Mardi Gras. Key West. To name but a few.
I’m sure they’re all very purty, but is there a bloke nearby with a military grade weapon and a psychotic condition?
And I don’t mean the local armed, locked and loaded cops.
Well, you’ll wanna be careful just where you go, of course. Many states have extensive regulations on weapons, but that’s no guarantee. As for the psychotic, we do our best here to heavily medicate anyone deemed a problem, although those drugs can and do produce their own little side effects, some of them that do indeed increase violent tendencies. One does not need a gun in that instance, although many would have you believe one is necessary and that violence without one never happens here.
If one simply follows a stereotype of US states, since there are so many of those to choose from, it will be up to the traveler to choose which one they want to visit. It may not turn out in the expected manner though, and every once in a while a stereotype of just how bad the people are in any given place will be blown out of the water, as some just simply refuse to fit the conventional mold. Damn them.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in TX packs heat to go to the store. Not everyone in CA is a surfer or pot smoker, or even a starry-eyed naive city dwelling blue haired bleeding-heart liberal/”commie.” There are also significant areas of the highly educated in most states, even in the ones not stereotypically known for an educated populace, and if you stick to the bigger cities, you’d never know there are rural people outside those areas that aren’t all ignorant white hooded rubes. Everyone in the US isn’t necessarily a big sports fan either, so be prepared that some may not even know much about professional sports at all, and that population does seem to be increasing here as I’m sure the ratings for the NFL etc. will show.
But do be aware, there are areas even in those big civilized cities that actually need a bigger police presence, as it isn’t only cops there who are locked and loaded. Even in states with heavy regulations there are actual criminal elements that do not abide by those and alas, never will.
Any visitor here will want to abide by conventional wisdom – don’t walk around with your head in the phone looking lost on the street, take care to have some sort of local guidance on areas best avoided at night, and for heaven’s sake if you see large groups acting in a loud, obnoxious, or drunken manner just remove yourself from that area as quickly and unobtrusively as possible, unless you’d like to join them and get in on some real American debauchery. That behavior, of course, is not unique to the US, but at least according to stereotype, it does seem to flourish here, particularly in areas with underfunded and understaffed law enforcement.
Then there is always the chance of stumbling upon a riot or flash mob, which could either be dangerous or a hell of a lot of fun depending on just which American behavior you’d like to experience. Careful there though, the natives do sometimes lose all control and could miss their target whilst hurling that Molotov cocktail at the cops. Should you be injured, I’m sure an ambulance will be quickly summoned by some member of the mob, or maybe even by one of those psychotic cops. The wait time on that could go longer than expected depending on any additional local activities, so best to be prepared as well as possible for that, or just avoid the mob should you choose not to take that risk.
All that said, many Americans do love an Australian accent, so be prepared for many offers to buy you a drink should you be in a location where that is possible. You may indeed get more of those offers in smaller cities or towns, as many of those people can be a lot friendlier than those in large cities, but your mileage may vary. And of course, it is best if you don’t tell the Americans how shitty their country is, or how much they are hated by the rest of the world. Many won’t bat an eye on that and will heartily agree with you, but some will not. And in today’s ugly political environment, that could at the very least get you thrown out of a bar. And that behavior isn’t uniquely American either.
Thank you for your comprehensive response Lizzy.
I get where you’re coming from.
I don’t hate or fear USians (I use that term because the USA is only part of the American continent) but I am wary of some of them.
Here in aUStralia we have been swamped by USian culture since the 1950s. Sometimes it feels overwhelming.
We have plenty of loud mouth hooligans here as well, but they’re not usually armed to their teeth with high powered weapons.
Our next door neighbour hails from South Dakota. She moved here about forty years ago. She doesn’t regret leaving.
Hope you and yours have a pleasant Christmas.
PS. I drive a USian built car and love my Gibson guitar.
You Folks know how to build good stuff.
It’s the land of the free. You are free to shoot up drugs, assault/rob/shoot someone, beg, live under a tarp on the sidewalk (until evicted), spend winter behind bars (after a minor crime). If you can think big, you get the chance to visit foreign lands and kill or torture the residents.
Godspeed
Thanks Iain – an absolutely stonking article that covers a plethora of bases that need covering – the Western world – including Britain is moving in an ever increasing authoritarian direction – corporations now run the world – and so called governments are complicit in letting them take control – we are fed propaganda and lies as who is to blame for our declining living standards, and as you rightly say bodies such as OfCom and OfGem etc are in reality captured bodies – in essence its the establishment talking to itself – but trying to fool the masses into believing, that they are independent and can make a difference.
The G3P were touted at Agenda 21 which quickly evolved into Agenda 2030 – now the G3P have a strong grip in every country in the West and beyond, and are weel served buy the Bank of International Settlements, itself a mystery, its gotten to the stage that only widespread revolutions can make any real difference as they are now far too many gatekeepers to try and bypass, and even if you exposed a small cog in the machine – it wouldn’t be enough to make a difference overall.
The MSM can never be trusted to expose the truth on the G3P or what governments are really up to and who they really serve – that’s why they fear the alternative media and their bloggers – they create more and more so called laws to try and prosecutes these people in order to shut them up.
The future looks bleak – unless the masses learn to mobilise – but sadly they are still too many sheep out there – and just as many co-opted complicits – who aid an abet in our slow but almost certain subjugation – there are also just as many folk who would never act, incase they lost their jobs and couldn’t pay the bills – these people have been captured as well.
Info on the G3P
via Agenda 2030.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Agenda_2030
You can vote for whichever political party you like, but you can never change the government in an RD system.
Reminds me of the line in the Eagles song; Hotel California from their eponymous Album. “You can check out anytime you like, but you can leave. Welcome to the Hotel California, such a lovely place.”
Great article Iain, I learnt a lot there, so thanks. Looking forward to pt 2.
“You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.” Fixed.
But human invention and creativity can make a lot to get around it: https://maryanngebauer.substack.com/p/parallel-mike-navigating-the-financial .
When you’ve been around kids for a while you’ll notice they show no interest in
sex-porn. They scratch their heads wondering why Adults find such interesting…
This much is implicitly acknowledged by the Australian government… At least
twice it stated the reason social media companies are required to check digital
ID is to prevent* 13 to 16 year olds from accessing sex-porn sites (* the govts
messaging emphasises ‘children’, and uses ‘protect’ when it means ‘prevent’.)
The young are not as innocent as adults self-deceivingly think, and they’re not
stupid, either. Adults have forgotten being children…
Absolutely. On the contrary children begin to think their parents or these adults are slimy, but ok this is the thing adults do, but when we grow up we will not!
I remember when I was 17 year old teenager hardly knowing what sex was, working on a building site with craftsmen. One day one of them told he was 40 years old, had become impotent, he was drinking coffee with 50% milk in it and 4 spoonful sucker in it. Uarrkk.
I promised myself never ending up like that. Children and youngsters are not stupid.
After the trans-gender insanity, I think they want to protect the rights of pedophines.
“Tonight, I discuss the attack on the bedrock of the English legal system – the right to trial by jury. Jury trials are now under threat as the Justice Secretary David Lammy has proposed to remove them for all but the most serious cases – but who was really behind this proposal? Find out why this is being done and how this will affect political dissidents.”
https://rumble.com/v72ltx0-england-to-abolish-jury-trials.html
Imagine you are a young white Christian male living in a society that is hostile to you solely because of your ethnic background, a society that is determined to replace you with foreign ethnicities, cultures, religions, and languages and to make your earthly existence disappear.
But because this society is hostile towards you, it has instilled this pathological condition in you from the outset as “normal” through sophisticated, continuous indoctrination that does not allow any alternative views to be considered legitimate.
Then your name could be Will Bower, who, out of youthful openness, impartiality, and naivety, dares to expose himself to absolute evil: a fellow countryman fighting for his collective survival. Does this sound like satire, a bad joke? It is the fake reality of the clown world we have arrived in.
Spot on – an excellent analysis.
The $uiturd$ had two choices in early 2020:
Watch the economies of their war hungry, ruthless Empires collapse, or declare a pandemic.
They voted with their pockets.
Thanks.
Never leave !