“But there's no England now” is a famous lyric composed by songwriter and Kinks band member Dave Davies. One might wonder if he was aware of a certain irony, or if the connection was actually intended. So the song with this lyric was released in 1984, which is also the title of a famous George Orwell novel set in England, and sadly, what Britain is becoming. In other words, it clearly shows that we are becoming a dystopian country where the police punish. People who oppose the regime's ideology and de facto land confiscation are on the table.
Watch your tongue, subject.
Consider a series of stories from just last week. First is the plight of Alison Pearson, a columnist who writes for the Daily Mail and other newspapers. Mr Pearson, 64, has been under investigation by Essex Police for about a year. Her trespassing?
She sent out a tweet in 2023, but it was quickly deleted.
The Telegraph has the following article:
It started when Mr Pearson reposted a video showing two men holding flags on a street in the UK, flanked by a group of police officers.
The original author suggested that police had “picked a side” amid heightened tensions over the crackdown on protests in the Gaza Strip, just weeks after the October 7 massacre.
Mr Pearson, who shared the image, was furious.
“Well, they are,” she wrote. “On Saturday I was invited to have a photo taken with some lovely peaceful British friends in Israel, but the police refused. Look at this bunch of people smiling with the Jew haters.” Tweet below)
But what she didn't realize was that the video was from Manchester and the flag had nothing to do with the Middle East. Instead, it was held by supporters of the Pakistani political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.
aftermath
As mentioned above, Pearson deleted the tweet as soon as he became aware of the misinformation. However, that's not the point. If she is guilty of defaming the Pakistani party, they can sue her for defamation (much easier to prove in the UK). Instead, the tweet is being investigated as both a possible “Non-Criminal Hate Incident'' (NCHI) and a possible violation of the Malicious Communications Act. Essex Police then announced they were investigating Pearson under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
Oh, and all the while this is happening in Britain – the police are nowhere to be found.
Of course, this journalist is not the first Briton to suffer from the country's Orwellian “hate speech” laws. (Note: Hate speech laws do not criminalize hate; they criminalize what the regime hates.) But in her case, fellow journalist Rachel Johnson is a good example, and some prominent People are rallying to her defense.
“The government is having a paralyzing effect on discourse,” Mr Johnson warned. “We must remember that we are not Eastern Europe under communist regimes.”
No, Rachel, you're not. You are in Western Europe under neo-communist control.
“That’s a man, baby”? Austin Power is obsolete
Next up is an anonymous 17-year-old British girl who was suspended for six games by the Football League. Her crime, as reported by the Telegraph, was asking a “bearded” transgender protester: “'Are you a man?'” There are only four things you need to agree on. (Video below.) Questioning authority is for free people, and Britons should never mistake themselves for that.
The good news is that the girl is being defended by the civil rights organization Free Speech Coalition. Please note that this organization is also supported by Alison Pearson.
Property rights? Not for “greedy” farmers
A few years ago, Dutch farmers were targeted by onerous Greentopian “emissions targets” that threatened their livelihoods. American Thinker (AT) magazine wrote that Britain could do better than the Netherlands and should encourage “British citizens to study more of Karl Marx and the history of communism.” The Guardian newspaper approvingly reported:
500,000 people die each year. Inheritance tax relief reforms for farmland proposed in the Budget will allow around 500 people who have inherited land worth more than £2 million (or £3 million if they were married to the deceased) to join the rest of society and reduce their inheritance tax. Tax will be levied. Bequests — The tax rate is halved, but the exemption is expanded and payments must be made over 10 years.
“What a generous government,” AT wrote back. “Fine people just for owning land, but then give them 10 years to pay off their debts!”
Ah, but the Guardian didn't end up being the guardian of the pseudo-elite. The paper also states:
Land hoarding, which has continued since the introduction of the bump by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, has steadily pushed up land prices and farmers' rents, but some large estates have been forced to sell their land parcels. Because of this, it will finally be checked. Instead of being able to own it forever, like we did before 1984 before the world collapsed, we have to pay inheritance tax.
Taxation for relaxation?
However, the principles of inheritance tax are problematic. In other words, the resources in question have already been taxed during the lifetimes of the people who worked for them. And will taxes be imposed again?
We are working with publisher Steve Forbes on this matter. While running for president, he once said, “No breathing, no taxation.''
And is that really all there is to land worth £2m? In fact, it's nothing compared to what King Charles and his family own, which is exempt from inheritance tax. And how much do they own? Per AT:
King Charles III is the world's largest landowner, with the “royal family” collectively owning “more than 6.6 billion acres of land around the world,” which equates to “one-sixth of the Earth's surface.” .
I also verified this. In fact, the royal family owns 37 times more land than the “world's runner-up Catholic church,” Big Think reports.
So, shouldn't we tax the royal family? A better idea is that instead of lobbying to tax more people, we should advocate for the complete abolition of inheritance tax.
read between the lines
So what is actually going on? As AT writes, this
It's not about the distribution of wealth from the most privileged to the least fortunate, but rather using the “grievance wounds” (remember Saul Alinsky's strategy) of angry useful idiots as a means to It is about the distribution of wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy.
As you may remember, one of the most explicit themes of the Communist Manifesto is that communist revolution “can only be achieved through a despotic invasion of property rights.” That is the reason for Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Che. Both Guevara and Fidel Castro came after private property, especially the peasantry – the peasantry feeds the people, and controlling the food supply means controlling the population.
But what's interesting is that statisticians never complain about the amount of resources the government controls. And why do we do that? Just as business owners try to grow their businesses and soccer officials try to grow their soccer leagues, statisticians try to grow their states.
This trend is steadily growing in the UK, where legal freedoms are shrinking. Of course, these two are closely related.
