The Loss of Our Liberty
"The world you describe
[the grey world, the new Dark Age] is easy to visualise by anyone
who has read beyond the corporate media. That world is all too real
for those the state tramples on but which is all but ignored by the
media. Is it any wonder that those who consider themselves to be
'mainstream' simply cannot see what is right in front of their
noses? We [in the West] seem to have forgotten what 'liberty' means,
and as a result, we've lost it" / "It's the old 'hide a book in a
library' trick. Everything is in plain sight so nobody suspects a
thing. Then there's the 24/7 imposed pace of life. Workers are
expected to always be available, always have that phone on them and
answer within seconds. There is no free time to think abut anything
so they rely on 'experts' who can now just make up any old c**p and
the drones accept it. Not because they're stupid ... but because
they don't have the time to think. When they have a bit of free
time, there are all the circuses on TV..." [comments at
"After 13 years of
Labour party rule [the British police] have become highly
politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by
the political Left rather than what the community expects of them.
They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime
wherever possible - preferring instead to harass normal decent
people for minor infractions - particularly offences against
political correctness. They are an excellent example of the
destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling" [source].
"As for PC (not Police
Constable, the other one) Plod's performance in this whole sickening
case, they're just the BBC in uniform"
"Years of indoctrination
by the liberal left have produced policemen with no sense of duty to
protect the most vulnerable in society. Politically Correct police
chiefs have no morals, no decency, no empathy. They are now driven
by the fear of being labelled racist, apparently a far worse crime
than racist gang paedophilia. ... The British police are now more
than just a disgrace, they are a stain on the history of this
"...And then there's the
bit about how Mr Mitchell 'said' he was the Chief Whip. Said? How
could this officer not have known? When I worked at the House of
Commons, in another age, the wise, calm, helpful constables who
staffed the place made it their business to know by sight the name
of every single MP, 630 or more, within a week of a General
Election. If I were in charge of the police guarding Downing Street,
I would get rid of any constable working there who could not
identify by sight and without hesitation every member of the
Cabinet. This episode will, I hope, rebound hard on those who seem
to me to have abused their positions to make trouble for a Minister.
They should remember who employs them, and who pays their wages.
They are not paid to leak such matters to the papers. This is
lawless personal spite, not law enforcement. If they really thought
the law had been broken, then they should have arrested Mr Mitchell.
Our police force has gone badly wrong and it's time it laid down its
guns, sold its helicopters, removed its baseball caps and stompy
boots, and went back to patrolling on foot - and on bikes. That's my
'policy'" [Pater Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 30 September 2012].
"Personally, I hope that
the judge is not too hard on Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn,
who seems to have rung up the papers in a moment of madness, and now
faces prison for doing so. If this is enough to get a police officer
locked up, then who shall escape? DCI Casburn was quite rightly
appalled by the ridiculous celebrity-worship of the modern police.
She saw how her colleagues were pathetically excited about meeting
the actress Sienna Miller, to discuss her problems with phone
hacking. These cases are so much more interesting and urgent than a
bugled pensioner, or a persecuted and lonely family such as the late
Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francesca, whose miseries were
ignored by police until Mrs Pilkington killed herself and her
daughter in a blazing car"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 13
"The dim 'police'
officer who was so exasperated with Suzanne Dow's pleas for help
that he emailed a colleague 'you just can't win with some people,
can you?' is widely condemned. But he was only doing his job as it
is now understood in the Land of Human Rights, in which the police
are a sort of UN peacekeeping force mediating between victim and
'offender', not taking sides or being 'judgmental'. That would never
do. Why, if we were judgmental, we might grasp just what a cesspool
we have made out of our country, and do something about it"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 3 February 2013].
"Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe,
the beleaguered Commissioner of the Met, is utterly misguided to
think the law should be changed to allow positive discrimination and
the recruitment of more ethnic minority [police] officer. The public
will have even less respect for the police if they think some
officers are only in ht e job because of a politically correct
appointment system" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 05 April
The Crown Prosecution
"The main purpose of the
Crown Prosecution Service is to save money by pretending that crime
and disorder are not as bad as they really are. That is why it is
almost impossible to get it to prosecute anyone, unless you have
clear, high-definition film of the crime actually being committed.
Burglary? Why bother? Here's a crime number, if you can still get
insurance in your postcode. Car theft? Happens all the time.
Probably your fault. Assault? How about a caution? Drugs? Well,
Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, reckons that it isn't
news anymore that he smoked dope. So why would we trouble ourselves
over that? In which case, why on earth did the CPS think it was
worth spending heaps of our money on prosecuting Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury
after a bizarre and faintly comical scuffle in Tesco, in which
nobody was hurt? Could it be because her accuser was a Muslim who
alleged she was a 'racist'? But now that a jury has thrown out this
ludicrous case after 15 minutes of deliberation (God bless them),
will anyone in the CPS be disciplined?
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on
Sunday, 08 July 2012].
Crime and (In)Justice
"Yet again newspapers
refer to a lawless murder as an 'execution'. Please stop doing this.
An execution is a just punishment for a heinous crime, and if we
still had them, we'd have fewer murders and less violence in
general" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 September 2012].
"A judge refused to jail
a repeat-offending paedophile who downloaded hardcore images of
children, as he was worried Mark Martin would have a 'hard time' in
prison. Not half as hard as the poor children forced to perform
these hideous acts to satisfy the perverted needs of men like him"
[Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 6 April 2013].
"Politicians who know
the case for capital punishment is unanswerable will often wriggle
out of supporting it by a trick. They will ask anxiously: 'What
about hanging an innocent person by mistake? How could we have that
on our conscience?' Leave aside the fact that every murder
victim is innocent, and that many now dead would be alive if we
still executed heinous murderers. Note that nearly once a year, an
innocent person is killed by a convicted murderer given a 'life'
sentence but freed to kill again. The latest such horror is the
death of Graham Buck, a valorous and noble man who went to the aid
of a neighbour. That neighbour was being attacked by Ian McLoughlin.
McLoughlin, now back in prison, will, with a bit of luck, stay there
until he is no danger to anyone. But you might ask why he was free,
or even alive. In 1984, a court somehow ruled that it was
'manslaughter' after McLoughlin killed Len Delgatty, smashing his
skull seven times with a hammer, cramming his body upside down into
a cupboard and ransacking the house for money. He was out of prison
in five years. The judge pretended to sentence him to serve ten.
Even that was reduced to eight years on appeal. Can these judges
sleep? Three years after his release, he was sent to prison for
'life' for stabbing Peter Halls to death. Then some genius allowed
him out on day release, so freeing him to murder Mr Buck. Innocent
deaths all over the place. And I promise there will be more. But
none of them causes our compassionate, conscience-stricken
politicians to regret their abolition of the gallows, or reconsider
it. Funny, that" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 27 October
"Once again, noisy
promises to give us the freedom to defend our homes against burglars
has been watered down. If the law protected us better, this problem
would not arise. But with 633,000 burglaries a year - 29% involving
violence - the police and the courts are failing the public. It is
no good complaining householders and shopkeepers are 'taking the law
into their own hands'. Whose is the law in the first place? If the
state will not enforce it why should we not do so in our own
defence?" [Daily Mail Comment, 28 April 2013].
"The Royal Marine who
shot dead a wounded Taliban prisoner pleaded for anonymity to
protect his family from revenge terrorist attacks. This request was
denied by our most senior judge, Lord Thomas. He ruled that to
conceal the identity of the decorated war hero Sergeant Blackman
would undermine the principles of open justice. Yes, that's the same
'open justice' that secretly removed an unborn child from its
mother's womb. What shameful double standards"
Daily Mail, 07 December 2013].
"A jury (God bless it)
has taken 20 minutes to acquit a man who defended himself against a
violent burglar - a case that should never have been brought to
court in a civilised country. The Innocent man, ... had previously
lost equipment worth £25,000 to thieves, crimes a proper police
force would have prevented. He faced prison if convicted. The
thieves... were fined £75. Did the jury know something the
Government and the police don't know - or wont admit - about modern
Britain? I suspect they did. No wonder juries are being quietly
abolished" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 26 January 2014].
"One of the strongest
arguments for hanging heinous murderers is that it is more humane
than locking them up until they die. ... Now I read that a Belgian
serial killer, Frank van den Bleeken, has won the 'right to die'
under that country's laws which I suspect we will soon adopt. I
don't think he'll be the last. I find this quite funny. Modern
liberals lack the moral courage to defend the gentle with strong
laws, so won't directly kill even the worst criminals. But the
ludicrous twaddle of 'Human Rights', with which they try to replace
Christian morals, allows them to euthanise the people they won't
execute" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 21 September 2014].
The Court of 'Protection'
"Wanda Maddocks was
sentenced by a secret court to six weeks in prison, without even
legal representation to defend her. Now we discover her brother Ivan
suffered a similar injustice and was given a two-month suspended
sentence. They were punished by the Court of Protection, which
settles the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for
themselves. Her and her brother's crimes were to take their elderly
father, who suffered from dementia, out of his council-designated
care home, as they were both fearful of the care he was getting. He
later died there. What a crazy world when the human rights of
villains such as Abu Qatada are more sacred than those of two
children simply trying to protect their dad"
Daily Mail, 27 April 2013].
"The Court of Protection
was set up in 2007 as a product of one of Labour's most contentious
laws. The court, which was introduced by the Mental Capacity Act,
can force people to stay in care homes or hospitals. It decided who
controls the money of people who can no longer handle their own
affairs and judges have the power to make life-or-death rulings
about withdrawing treatment. At first, ministers said the Court of
Protection should hear cases in public. But since autumn 2007 the
court has operated in routine and almost total secrecy. Earlier this
year the Daily Mail exposed the case of Wanda Maddocks, who was
secretly imprisoned for five months for repeatedly trying to release
her father from a care home. After the Maddocks affair, judges ruled
that no one should be jailed without being named or having details
of their offence published"
[Daily Mail, 03 December 2013].
"Mr Justice Mostyn is
the judge who, in the secret Court of Protection, allowed doctors to
perform a Caesarean on a mother without her knowledge or consent,
then immediately remove her child for adoption. Now he's ruled that
a Bangladeshi woman who tried to murder her own child can remain in
the UK on the grounds that sending her back to her country would
violate her human right to a family life. What kind of warped
country do we live in when a mother who has never threatened her
child can be denied any rights, while one who tried to slaughter
hers is given life-long access?"
[Amanda Platell, Daily Mail,
28 December 2013].
Security and Surveillance
"Security was made for
man, not man for security. The point of all these searches, gates,
checks, X-rays and stupid questions is - we are told - to keep us
safe. So why is it that the people in charge of these systems act as
if they were prison warders processing us for a ten-year
sentence?..." [Peter Hitches, Mail on Sunday, 30 September
"Seen in Sainsbury's, a
small yellow notice warning that 'for the safety and security of our
colleagues and customers, audio may be monitored and recorded'. We
knew they were watching. Now they're listening too. Who would have
thought that Big Brother would come into being among the yoghurt and
the biscuits?" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 08 December
UK Govt's Snooping Bill 2016
Repeal the New Surveillance Laws (Investigatory Powers Act)
(23 November 2017)
"A bill allowing UK intelligence
agencies and police unprecedented levels of power regarding the
surveillance of UK citizens [sic] has recently passed ... With this
bill, they will be able to hack, read and store any information from
any citizen's [sic] computer or phone, without even the requirement
of proof that the citizen [sic] is up to no good. This essentially
entitles them to free [rein] of your files, whether you're a
law-abiding citizen [sic] or not..."
"This new 'Law' is
nothing more than government sponsored terrorism against the host
population... It will be used and abused by government agencies
throughout the land in their attempt to force the host population to
adhere to their political narrative or face arrest and imprisonment.
We fought two World wars and countless other wars to keep these
islands free from tyranny only to find that by stealth and deceit
our very own government has become the greatest tyrant of them all.
The red line between liberty and tyranny has been crossed with this
piece of draconian legislation... it will do nothing to deter
terrorists, it will merely categorise honest and outspoken lovers of
freedom as terrorists" [comments at
"Angela Merkel will be delighted. This pernicious piece of
legislation was the only proposal Theresa May genuinely pursued as
Home Secretary, and failing, has successfully introduced as PM. The
repression of the British people rather than appropriate and prompt
action to remove the terrorist threat. You may snoop on me any time
you wish, Theresa May, in the confidence that eavesdroppers always
hear ill of themselves" / "Hope the officials are not
too sensitive, some of the stuff I've said about them may cause them
some hurt feelings" [comments at
"Didn't MPs demand
exemptions from this bill? If so, what do they have to hide that the
general public cannot?" / "Treason,
paedophilia, fraud, bribery, subversion. I'm sure there are more"
/ "We now live in a Police state... But politicians are
excluded... what a surprise"
"What this mean is that
ordinary people who have no interest in terrorism or crime will be
spied upon, while the real criminals will no doubt find ways to
evade detection" / "Take away guns from law
abiding citizens to penalise the criminals who will circumvent said
law - because they're criminals and therefore don't abide by it.
Snoop on law abiding citizens to penalise the criminals who will
circumvent said law - because they're criminals and therefore don't
abide by it. Quality logic on the part of these people"
"This is clearly another
attempt by our ever so progressive government to lock people us if
they criticise the Kalergi plan" /
"Deliberate irresponsibility and dismissing of Brexit and the
British people's safety, through letting in countless obvious
criminals/terrorists., yet they say this is to keep us 'safe'. It's
not. This is outright enabling of further cruelty [and] injustice,
and especially trying to make us all afraid to be who we are and
speak out the truth. Disgusted doesn't cover it" /
"The development of a surveillance state and militarised police
patrolling towns and cities on motorbikes looking to neutralise
people that are acting 'suspiciously'. All because of one group -
Muslims. Still there will be sheep drivelling on about diversity
being our strength" / "The Home Office
claims:- 'The law gives authorities the powers they need to disrupt
terrorist attacks in a digital age'. The Maria Office claims:-
'The simple act of banning all Muslims from the UK would adequately
disrupt terrorist attacks in any age - digital or otherwise!'"
"I see Shameless Shami
didn't object" / "We have a human right to
privacy, how can they get away with denying us this?" /
"Because... 'Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than
that good men should look on and do nothing.' John Stuart Mill"
/ "and don't you just hate it when you hear the old
flannel 'if you got nowt to hide' nonsense! It's not about
that, it's about having freedom of [conscience] to express yourself
as you desire without thinking big stupid brother is watching and
listening to your every moment of your waking life" /
"Obama has been doing this to us in the U.S. We only found out
when Snowdon, now in Russia, for asylum, told us" / "the only people to be under surveillance will be those with the
wrong political views. George Orwell just hit 10,000 RPMs" / "Anyone who doesn't [toe] the establishment line will
become a target" / "The march to 1984
continues" [comments at
"The real issue behind
all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to
the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being
prosecuted for 'hate speech' offenses - the state does not want the
substance of what he says to [be] aired in an open courtroom and
discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of
infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current
case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive
tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state. So here's
the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British
counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies -
Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the
guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts.
Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the
problem has been solved" [source].
"[W]e still don't know
the circumstances of his death - can you imagine if this had been a
member of an ethnic minority group who had died - MSM would have
been all over it. I still feel extremely angry about his particular
case, we should not allow Kevin Crehan to be forgotten"
"Kevin Crehan put a
bacon sandwich outside a mosque, or 'attacked' a mosque, as one MSM
article phrased it. He went to prison for one year. He only served
six months. Not, as you might be excused for thinking, because you
automatically halve any sentence a British judge hands down, but
because he was found dead in a heavily Islamic jail. There has never
been a satisfactory reason given. The death sentence in Britain
technically disappeared in 1966. Except it didn't"
"'Detective James Payne
... called the assault 'truly shocking'. Well yes, it's not quite in
the same league as shrapnel bombs and beheadings, but it's up
there..." / "Muslims murdering people every day with
bombings/beheadings/acid/etc and this guy goes to jail for bacon?"
/ "What's truly shocking is that this is the modern day
response to this invasion by savages. Bacon?" / "He may
be an ignoramus who deserves to [be] punished for harassment. But
bacon isn't a suicide bombing at a concert full of teenage girls"
"After the murder of
Kevin Crehan, imprisoned for a similar 'offence', I hope [the
alternative media] will monitor Alex's welfare while inside" /
"In effect it's a death sentence and a message to anyone who has the
audacity to stand up against the Islamisation of Europe" /
"The sentence is disproportional to the man's bad behaviour and yes,
could end up as being a death sentence"
"These aren't just
crimes... they are heresy against the progressivist 'religion'. They
must therefore be punished with the fires of hell, or the libtard
equivalent, i.e. disproportionate prison time. Know your enemy"
/ "Most people want to reject the current political and
economic policies. The police, most courts, the state machine, the
government machine itself will crush the citizen [sic] until they
have nothing left in the face of increasingly hostile external
pressure" [comments at
Enemies of the State
The following is an extended extract from the
The Trial of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
"In fully-fledged Police
States where the Law, Civil or Criminal, is whatever the ruling
Junta says it is there is no right of access to fair and impartial
legal processes. There is only a perverted form of 'justice'
designed for and used in the public show trials of 'Enemies of the
"The principle control
mechanisms of such State entities really are simple and
straightforward - physical brutality, including torture,
arbitrary incarceration and summary execution - and the
concealment thereof is generally and with deliberate intent quite
minimal - universal public knowledge thereof serves to frighten and
intimidate the subject population so that it submits to and obeys
the diktats of the ruling entity, thus precluding protest or
"However in embryonic,
quasi-Police States, such as are now in the latter stages of their
gestation all across the West - particularly within that
inappropriately named behemoth, the European Union - lip service
still has to be paid to the remnants of the original, idealised
concept of one Rule of Law for all. Up to now this lip service,
whilst being nothing more than comforting noises designed to conceal
a real and different intent, has been paid quite subtly so that in
general its common purpose (no pun intended) has slipped below the
conceptual radar of the body politic.
"Now, fortunately, in
one revealing moment this intent has, perhaps out of a hubris
generated by the past successes of its implementers, stumbled into
the open, its methodology glaringly exposed. In this demonstration
of its reality we saw how 'Political Correctness', together with the
latter's bastard spawn, 'Islamophobia' and 'Racism', rides roughshod
over our ancient rights and freedoms on a deceptive tide of faux
self-righteousness. Now many more of us have at last awoken to the
deep and abiding threat posed by this, 'The New World Order
Project', as it approaches its apogee.
"But, still, at least
for the moment, the Iron Fist of the ruling elite continues to
strike - mostly whilst covered with its ever-thinning velvet glove
of dissimulating legality. Thus, the Junta's apparatchiks and
enforcers must, at least when exposed to public scrutiny, be seen to
function within the existing legal framework of the State, within
the power-limiting - and to them annoying - constraints of its
statutes. Those statutes oblige them to impartially and openly serve
the commonality as a whole without fear or favour, rather than from
behind a veil of smoke and mirrors. And they failed this day because
they had tried to cross what became a bridge too far for them - a
bridge that was at last properly defended.
"Hence, on the morning
on the 14th of April, 2016, during the trial of Mr. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
and the consequent public exposure therein of the series [of] events
leading up to his prosecution (or, as his Counsel, Mr. Richard
Kovalevsky, QC, so eloquently put it, 'This preposterous
persecution!') we were given a short but definitive peek behind the
veil and were able to cast our eyes upon the draconian future so
long planned for us in the venal corridors of power.
"It was there that day
that the establishment's long exercised practice of first
ridiculing, then demonising, and then destroying those who would
protest or resist their social re-engineering was clearly seen in
all of the gruesome reality of its final phase."
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.