The Boomers' Postmodern Legacy Must Be Destroyed

As of today, the UK parliament is considering possibly the worst piece of legislation it has ever conceived: the preposterous "conversion therapy" ban. After WWII, Britain was bankrupt from the effect of fighting two world conflicts. In the thirty years afterwards, it lost seventy territories. We can now see the disastrous effects of ongoing generations' ideas, and it only ever gets worse.

This degeneracy has to be arrested now. Arch demon Michael Gove warns in the Telegraph today the "young people" will "give up on democracy" if they cannot find housing. They have already given up on the degenerative "progress" their parents have encouraged. As Rishi Sunak campaigns, he has no conception their party, their reality, and their worldview, is over. It's all over.

Short of shutting down immigration, dissolving most taxes, outlawing Islam and China, abolishing the TV license fee and "Net Zero", and banning gender theory, there is no hope for any political party in the UK. It's over. Publishing is over; TV is over; cash is over; the Civil Service is over. The people of the UK have already decided over a decade ago they want nothing to do with the political class's ideas.

The kids have worked out there is no plan.

Klaus Schwab devotee and WEF student Tony Blair made a category one error: he believed, and declared, globalisation was "inevitable" and could not be avoided. His 90s doctrine was based on the idea it could only be accepted and managed.

Blair’s recognition of the importance of technological forces set to transform politics and society was a refreshing change from our usual dull political debates. But it was on global economics where he was perhaps at his most profound. Echoing other speeches, he once again observed that “globalisation is a force of nature, not a policy: it is a fact”.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/tony-blair-right-globalisation-fact-not-choice

He was catastrophically wrong. And history will be unkind. It was not a "fact", because Western countries are based on the idea 51% of the population decides what happens, not a small vanguard of ideologues.

Voters in almost every Western country have completed rejected it. In France, they riot. In the UK, it prompted Brexit. In the US, it created Trump. The chain reaction of the EU's folly goes on and on. The populist so-called working class want nothing to do with it at all. They despise it.

On the surface, it made sense; like all sophistry appears to. China's ascent to WTO membership, and its dominance over the means of production (manufacturing), perhaps made 2+2 equal four. Like all the WEF's calculations, it seemed concrete and infallible. But that's the trouble with infallible predictions; if it's too good to be true, it is. Government by social theory is folly.

Capitalism won, because communism collapsed. Surely there must be a middle way?

The "Third Way' idea loved by Blair and Clinton was for combining market economy with social justice principles; a middle ground between traditional social democracy (with its strong emphasis on government intervention and welfare state) and neoliberalism (which favors free market and limited government role).

The core idea was to promote economic growth through market mechanisms, while also ensuring that the benefits of growth are distributed fairly across society. It relied on private sector entrepreneurship as a driver of economic development but emphasised the need for government to intervene in areas where the market fails to address social inequities or provide essential public services.

It didn't work.

Nations and people are not reducible to their economic parts, as Marx was rebuked about over a century ago. They are held together with ancient sentimental bonds, with traditions and practices favouring their local areas and demography.

The Timeline: An Overview Of The Crime Scene

British politics is a battle between the supposedly traditionalist right-wing Conservatives (Tories) of the Gentry and Trotskyist socialist Labour of the working class. At the end of World War II, conservative Churchill was thrown out and replaced by the most socialist government in English history, led by Clement Atlee. It expanded the welfare state, oversaw the independence of India, and created the National Health System (NHS). He served two terms.

They were thrown out in 1951 when Churchill was re-elected in 1951. The Conservatives stayed in power until 1964, when Labour took power again during the Swinging Sixties for six years until 1970 under Harold Wilson.

Wilson was thrown out, like Atlee, for conservatives Edward Heath. Heath's government last only four years, and Labour took over again til the end of the decade as the country collapsed.

Thatcher rescued the disaster in 1979 and Conservatives ruled until Tony's Blair's victory in 199 7 for the Labour party again. "New Labour" ran the show for 12 years until 2009.

The Conservatives were back in power with David Cameron until now, with a succession of idiots.

1946-1951: Labour
1951-1964: Conservative
1964-1970: Labour
1970-1974: Conservative
1974-1979: Labour
1979-1997: Conservative
1997-2009: Labour
2009-now: Conservative

It's important to know who is to blame for these events. These people are a revolving carousel of stage-show morons who do the will of the Civil Service.

The Silent were born from 1928 to 1945. The Boomers were born from 1946 to 1964.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

Legislative decline: 100+ to 30 laws per year

It's a basic question. The business of politicians is making laws, so how many laws have they made. It's surprisingly difficult to find out, but you can count them.

Since 1945, the UK has passed around 6,573 laws. 4428 of those were general public acts, 2130 were local acts, and 16 were private/personal.

More laws do not equal better governance, better prosperity, or better quality of life. Often those who govern least, govern best. Many laws are simply caretaking laws organising finance.

Coincidentally....

What we can see is a gradual decline in the productivity of Parliament. Up until the 1980s, the building was producing, on average, over 100 laws a year. By the 1990s, it had halved. This was compounded by devolution, entering the EU political union, and handing over social contract laws to the European Court of Human Rights in 1998. Our politicians outsourced lawmaking to Brussels and the regional capitals. They made stupid ones instead.

The worst year on record was 2005, when only 25 laws were made. There is a myth Blair flooded the country with new laws, but it's not factual. Atlee and Wilson were the worst.

Browse the laws by year for yourself at (examples):

Here's the underlying CSV data:

Party,Year,Total Acts,General Acts,Local Acts,Personal Acts
LAB,1946,140,87,51,2
LAB,1947,115,68,47,0
LAB,1948,129,77,52,0
LAB,1949,160,103,57,0
LAB,1950,119,50,69,0
CON,1951,116,75,41,0
CON,1952,128,73,55,0
CON,1953,102,61,41,0
CON,1954,131,74,55,2
CON,1955,86,51,34,1
CON,1956,149,81,67,1
CON,1957,113,67,45,1
CON,1958,123,76,47,0
CON,1959,119,72,47,0
CON,1960,119,66,53,0
CON,1961,113,65,48,0
CON,1962,112,60,52,0
CON,1963,98,59,38,1
LAB,1964,141,98,43,0
LAB,1965,130,83,47,0
LAB,1966,93,52,41,0
LAB,1967,133,91,42,0
LAB,1968,121,77,44,0
LAB,1969,127,65,62,0
LAB,1970,143,58,85,0
CON,1971,154,81,73,0
CON,1972,134,80,53,1
CON,1973,105,69,36,0
LAB,1974,95,58,37,0
LAB,1975,120,83,36,1
LAB,1976,124,86,36,0
LAB,1977,76,53,26,0
LAB,1978,80,59,21,0
CON,1979,84,60,24,0
CON,1980,112,68,43,1
CON,1981,107,72,35,0
CON,1982,86,57,27,2
CON,1983,79,60,19,0
CON,1984,94,62,32,0
CON,1985,125,76,48,1
CON,1986,94,68,26,0
CON,1987,88,57,29,2
CON,1988,89,55,34,0
CON,1989,65,46,19,0
CON,1990,78,46,32,0
CON,1991,92,69,23,0
CON,1992,82,61,21,0
CON,1993,70,52,18,0
CON,1994,57,41,16,0
CON,1995,65,54,11,0
CON,1996,76,63,13,0
LAB,1997,73,69,4,0
LAB,1998,54,49,5,0
LAB,1999,39,35,4,0
LAB,2000,53,45,8,0
LAB,2001,30,25,5,0
LAB,2002,50,44,6,0
LAB,2003,50,45,5,0
LAB,2004,44,38,6,0
LAB,2005,24,24,0,0
LAB,2006,59,55,4,0
LAB,2007,34,31,3,0
LAB,2008,36,33,3,0
LAB,2009,28,27,1,0
CON,2010,46,41,5,0
CON,2011,25,25,0,0
CON,2012,25,23,2,0
CON,2013,40,33,7,0
CON,2014,32,30,2,0
CON,2015,37,37,0,0
CON,2016,27,25,2,0
CON,2017,37,35,2,0
CON,2018,37,34,3,0
CON,2019,31,31,0,0
CON,2020,29,29,0,0
CON,2021,35,35,0,0
CON,2022,50,48,2,0
CON,2023,57,57,0,0

Dissolution of empire: 70 children flee the nest

Finding the amount of countries which declared independence from the UK is more difficult than you realise. Namibia, for example, came out of South Africa. Borders merge and break.

But we can roughly say the British Empire was at its height in the mid-1920s after territory gains made in WWI, and ended in 1997 with the handover of Hong Kong to China. It is the only empire to outlaw slavery and to dissolve itself voluntarily.

Things started to go very badly after WWII when the country was bankrupt and a series of hostile US presidents smelt weakness. Roosevelt, in particular, was known for his anti-colonial views. The Lend-Lease Act and the Marshall Plan were the core of American leverage.

During the Suez Crisis of 1956, the U.S. pressured Britain economically by threatening to sell off its holdings of British government debt, leading to a financial crisis in the UK and forcing a withdrawal from Egypt. This event marked a significant decline in Britain's global power and an implicit acknowledgment of the need to accelerate decolonization.

What we can see is the period of decolonisation, from 1954 to 1990, was dominated by Conservative leadership of Britain, peaking in the early 60s. It was exemplified by the appalling treatment of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) under Thatcher.

The U.S. sought to prevent newly independent countries from aligning with communism and the Soviet bloc - natural allies of British socialists. Supporting decolonisation was seen as a way to gain favor and influence within these nations, and gain access to their markets. The U.S. often pressured European powers, including the UK, to grant independence to colonies, partly to counter Soviet propaganda that exploited anti-colonial sentiments.

What a disaster than turned out to be. They went communist anyway.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

Raw data:

Year,Colonies Lost
1946,1
1947,2
1948,3
1949,1
1950,0
1951,1
1952,0
1953,0
1954,0
1955,1
1956,1
1957,2
1958,1
1959,0
1960,3
1961,5
1962,3
1963,6
1964,3
1965,2
1966,4
1967,1
1968,3
1969,0
1970,3
1971,3
1972,1
1973,1
1974,1
1975,0
1976,1
1977,0
1978,3
1979,3
1980,2
1981,2
1982,2
1983,1
1984,1
1985,0
1986,1
1987,0
1988,1
1989,0
1990,0
1991,0
1992,0
1993,0
1994,0
1995,0
1996,0
1997,1

Education: The Stupefaction of a Nation

It doesn't matter where you're from, education is a tender, sensitive subject. There's no downside to educating people. The more you educate, the more prosperity arises. Originally, the Church was responsible for education, and there were only 9 major schools in England reported on as part of the Clarendon Commission (1861–1864): Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby, Shrewsbury, Westminster, and Winchester, St Paul's and Merchant Taylors.

These are important to know as British culture (Victorianism, Empire etc) has always been transmitted through expensive private schools.

The Elementary Education Act 1870 (Forster Act) marked the beginning of state involvement in education in England and Wales, establishing school boards to build and manage schools in areas where provision was inadequate. The Education Act 1880 made school attendance compulsory for children aged 5 to 10, later extended to 12.

The Education Act 1902 (Balfour Act) established a system of local education authorities (LEAs), marking a significant step towards a more unified and structured education system. It also expanded secondary education. The Education Act 1918 (Fisher Act) raised the school leaving age to 14 and sought to broaden the curriculum.

The Education Act 1944 (Butler Act) established the modern structure of education in England and Wales, introducing free and compulsory primary and secondary education up to age 15 (later raised). It created the tripartite system: grammar schools, secondary technical schools, and secondary modern schools.

Labour's agitprop that aptitude == class. Completely, utterly wrong.

Grammar schools are state secondary schools which select students on the basis of ability. Students have to pass an exam when they are 11 — called the 11-plus — to be admitted. The 1944 act enforced a division between primary and secondary schools, and further divided secondary schools into two main categories: grammar schools and secondary moderns. Students who passed the 11-plus went to grammar schools, while students who failed the 11-plus went to secondary moderns.

Then, Harold Wilson and the socialist gang happened. They believed the tripartite system needed to be more "equal".

The Labour Government encouraged local education authorities (LEAs, or councils, really) to submit plans for "comprehensive education", which would not select pupils based on academic ability at the age of 11. This was facilitated by Circular 10/65 issued by the Department of Education and Science in 1965, which invited them to plan for a move to comprehensive education.

Soviet circular 10/65: https://education-uk.org/documents/des/circular10-65.html

The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced major changes including the National Curriculum, standardised testing, and greater autonomy for schools from councils. General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (O-level) exams were replaced by the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) exams.

The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 established funding councils for higher education. The Education Act 1996 consolidated previous legislation, covering all aspects from school administration to special educational needs.

Eventually, in 1998 Tony Blair's government - the same one demanding 50% of kids go to university - put an outright ban on new grammar schools being created (he claims he didn't). There are currently only about 163 grammar schools left in England, out of around 3,000 state secondary schools, with around 167,000 pupils between them.

Mao, Che, Mugabe etc were all radicalised at university. Do we really need all these?

More university students, less academic or technical progress. Square that.

Socialist education ideas destroyed the academic life of Britain by not only attempting to "equalise" what nature refused to create equal, but refusing to even recognise it. This disaster was recently elucidated by Peter Hitchens in his book "A Revolution Betrayed":

Hitchens argues that in trying to bring about an educational system which is egalitarian, the politicians have created a system which is the exact opposite. And what's more, it is a system riddled with anomalies - Sixth Form Colleges select pupils on ability at the age of 15, which rules out any child who does not have major educational backing from home (heavy involvement by working parents or private tutors, for example) and academies also are selective, though they pretend not to be.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/revolution-betrayed-9781399400084/

Where Are The Nuclear Power Stations?

The nuclear reactor was invented by the UK in the 40s. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government announced a long-term nuclear power program in response to the 1979 oil crisis and industrial disputes. In the 1980s, it proposed building a nuclear power station every year for a decade.

An extremely sensible plan. The French have 58. They take 20 years to switch on.

You can see the map here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7486caed915d0e8bf19019/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf and you can watch the UK's energy usage in real-time: https://grid.iamkate.com/; the country typically uses about 30GW, of which 3.7GW (13%) is from nuclear.

Endless successions of prime ministers have promised them. Hinkley Point C in Somerset received permission in 1990. It's $7B over budget at $30B, and the consultation took a decade.

No thanks, in part, due to the environmental nuttiness around "Net Zero" and the preposterous Climate Change Act 2008. And no other policy illuminates politicians' total inability to do basic arithmetic like asking them how much of the national grid could be powered by solar panels and wind farms.

Full history: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/appendices/nuclear-development-in-the-united-kingdom.aspx

Money Printer Go Brrr: Inflation and GDP

We all know the problem with GDP-go-up and endlessly printing money to generate fake prosperity. The UK was on the Gold Standard until 1931, after it had virtually collapsed because of the troubles after WWI. Politicians are not economists, and Chuchill's price-fixing of bullion in this era was catastrophic.

If you had £100 in 1945, it was the same as £5,205 in 2023.

After leaving the gold standard, the pound became a floating currency, and its value was determined by market forces rather than a fixed gold parity.

Discussions on post-war economic planning culminated in the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944. Representatives from 44 Allied nations, including the UK, participated. It established a new international monetary system, creating the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to oversee global financial stability and development.

All major currencies were pegged to the US dollar, which was convertible to gold at a fixed rate. Because the US kept all the gold countries stored there during WWII, and they all owed her a lot of money. The US became a superpower financially, as well as militarily.

For the UK, participating in the Bretton Woods system meant committing to a fixed exchange rate for the pound against the dollar, which helped stabilize the currency but also imposed constraints on domestic economic policy.

It also suffering the inflation of the US dollar. Which is harrowing when you look at the numbers - although not as bad as EUR. The worst years on record were 1974-1977, which saw economic horror.

Richard Nixon untethered the US petrodollar from gold in 1971, allowing the US to print unlimited dollars. Which, along with "Modern Monetary Theory" (MMT) is responsible for all the problems we see today.

More: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Inflation comes from one thing, and one thing alone: printing too much money and increasing the supply. It is controlled by making money expensive to borrow (raising interest rates), therefore decreasing its supply.

The raw data:

Party,Year,Pound Value,Inflation
LAB,1946,103.05,3.05%
LAB,1947,110.31,7.04%
LAB,1948,118.7,7.61%
LAB,1949,122.14,2.89%
LAB,1950,125.95,3.13%
CON,1951,137.4,9.09%
CON,1952,150,9.17%
CON,1953,154.58,3.05%
CON,1954,157.63,1.98%
CON,1955,164.5,4.36%
CON,1956,172.9,5.10%
CON,1957,179.01,3.53%
CON,1958,184.73,3.20%
CON,1959,185.5,0.41%
CON,1960,187.4,1.03%
CON,1961,193.89,3.46%
CON,1962,202.29,4.33%
CON,1963,206.11,1.89%
LAB,1964,212.98,3.33%
LAB,1965,222.9,4.66%
LAB,1966,231.68,3.94%
LAB,1967,237.79,2.64%
LAB,1968,248.85,4.65%
LAB,1969,262.21,5.37%
LAB,1970,279.01,6.40%
CON,1971,305.34,9.44%
CON,1972,327.1,7.13%
CON,1973,356.87,9.10%
LAB,1974,414.12,16.04%
LAB,1975,514.5,24.24%
LAB,1976,599.62,16.54%
LAB,1977,694.66,15.85%
LAB,1978,752.29,8.30%
CON,1979,853.05,13.39%
CON,1980,"1,006.49",17.99%
CON,1981,"1,125.95",11.87%
CON,1982,"1,222.90",8.61%
CON,1983,"1,279.01",4.59%
CON,1984,"1,342.75",4.98%
CON,1985,"1,424.43",6.08%
CON,1986,"1,472.90",3.40%
CON,1987,"1,534.35",4.17%
CON,1988,"1,609.54",4.90%
CON,1989,"1,734.73",7.78%
CON,1990,"1,898.85",9.46%
CON,1991,"2,010.31",5.87%
CON,1992,"2,085.50",3.74%
CON,1993,"2,118.70",1.59%
CON,1994,"2,169.85",2.41%
CON,1995,"2,245.04",3.47%
CON,1996,"2,299.24",2.41%
LAB,1997,"2,371.37",3.14%
LAB,1998,"2,452.67",3.43%
LAB,1999,"2,490.46",1.54%
LAB,2000,"2,564.12",2.96%
LAB,2001,"2,609.54",1.77%
LAB,2002,"2,653.05",1.67%
LAB,2003,"2,729.77",2.89%
LAB,2004,"2,811.07",2.98%
LAB,2005,"2,890.46",2.82%
LAB,2006,"2,982.82",3.20%
LAB,2007,"3,110.69",4.29%
LAB,2008,"3,234.73",3.99%
LAB,2009,"3,217.56",-0.53%
CON,2010,"3,366.03",4.61%
CON,2011,"3,541.22",5.20%
CON,2012,"3,654.96",3.21%
CON,2013,"3,766.03",3.04%
CON,2014,"3,854.96",2.36%
CON,2015,"3,893.13",0.99%
CON,2016,"3,960.69",1.74%
CON,2017,"4,102.67",3.58%
CON,2018,"4,213.44",2.70%
CON,2019,"4,318.78",2.50%
CON,2020,"4,396.52",1.80%
CON,2021,"4,506.06",2.49%
CON,2022,"4,862.04",7.90%
CON,2023,"5,205.89",7.07%

A landslide of taxes to pay for welfare

Taxes in the UK were never higher than during WWII, when income tax was 99.25% and the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system was introduced. It seems insane to us now, but they really did it. The problem is "progressive" taxation, with its varying tiers: it takes away the incentive to build wealth. Being taxed 40% on your income is a disgrace.

Tax, spend. Then spend, tax. Zero productivity or progress.

The list of theft and shame

In 1946, Atlee's government massively raised National Insurance to pay for the new healthcare system. On top, the TV Licence Tax was instituted to pay for TV broadcasting and the BBC.
In 1965, Wilson's high-spending government invented Capital Gains Tax, and Corporation Tax. In 1966, he came up with Selective Employment Tax (SET).
Income tax was at 71% in 1971. Value Added Tax (VAT) was created in 1973, and Capital Transfer Tax followed in 1974. Income tax was raised to 83%.
Thatcher reduced income tax to 60% in 1980, then 40% in 1989. But she re-created Inheritance Tax in 1986.
The High Street was destroyed by Business Rates (property taxes) in 1990, which were followed by Council Tax (Poll Tax) in 1993 to pay for local authority spending. 1994 saw an Air Passenger Levy and Insurance Premium Tax. By 1996 there was a Landfill Tax and a commission setting a Minimum Wage.
In 2001, we had a Climate Change Levy, then a Stamp Duty Land Tax.
And lately they've been at it again, finding things to tax. In 2010, income tax brackets went up to 50% again (then down to 45%). In 2015, the Diverted Profits Tax attempted to deal with laundering, followed by the Sugary Drink Tax in 2018.

Social Democracy: how to destroy your country's economy

Tax is not complicated. Where there is lots of tax and regulation, businesses avoid it. Where there is little of either, they invest. Places with low tax and low regulation grow exponentially without help and bring massive prosperity. Churchill put it best: trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket trying to pull yourself up by the handles.

All of these need to be abolished.

The UK has always been a tolerant, liberal nation with a philosophy of "live and let live", as embodied by the legal system and leaders such as Gladstone. But the last few decades have been a bottomless pit of moral permissiveness.

Since the Sixties' Britain's social "progress" has been measured informally in how much sexual moral degeneracy people are willing to tolerate. The more disgusting and abhorrent the practice, the more "progressive" we are as a nation.

Sexual derangement

In 1959, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 codified a "public interest" defence for obscenity, which defined the sale of pornography. Wilson's socialist government decriminalised both abortion and homosexuality in 1967. In 1980, sex education was encouraged in schools, and was mandatory under the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The ban on teaching about homosexuality (Section 28) in schools was lifted in 2000 after the age of consent for sodomy was lowered to 18 in 1994, then again to 16 in 2001 via grotesque abuses of European law. In 2005, sex changes were petitionable.

Before the introduction of the contraceptive pill around 1958, the number of abortions in the UK - legal or illegal - numbered in the hundreds. By the Sixties, it was in the hundreds of thousands: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html . Abortion technically still remains illegal in the UK; the Abortion Act 1967 merely provided a legal defence for doctors.

The last four decades have seen increasing permissiveness towards behaviours which have always been seen as deeply immoral.

Refusing to apply the remedy

In the 18th century, people could be executed for committing more than 200 crimes, including non-violent offences. Wilson's socialist government, under the influence of a Romanian immigrant minister (Sydney Silverman), "paused" the death penalty in 1965 for 5 years via a private member's bill. Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans were the last people to be executed in the UK, on August 13, 1964.

Previously, criminals avoided bringing guns to robberies, because it would get you the rope.

Crime in London soared. The suspension was made permanent in 1969. Two years before, the Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the division between felonies and misdemeanours.

Tony Blair's "Third Way" made it officially illegal in 1999 to sync up with the European Court of Human Rights. The House of Commons held a vote during each subsequent parliament until 1997 to restore the death penalty. Since 1965, public support for the death penalty has been consistently over 60%. Which should tell you all you need to know about what British politicians think of their voters.

Dismissal of marriage

Disagreement was allowed as a reason for divorce in 1969 under Wilson. In 2004, so-called civil partnerships gave way to gay adoption in 2009, then full counterfeit gay marriage in 2010. By 2020, no-fault divorce had been passed.

Taking on UN drug policies

What is barely known is Britain had the most successful drug policy on Earth. The Rolleston Committee Report was followed by "a period of nearly forty years of tranquillity" in Britain, known as the Rolleston Era (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleston_Committee). Drug addiction was managed by doctors.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 codified international globalist UN policy about drugs we never needed, and failed so badly, it required the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to ban everything outright.

Speech: Not If It Includes Hurty Words

Britain has always been the home of free speech and its greater bulwark defence. This tradition has been shot, knifed, gutted, and eroded endlessly by interest groups determined to gain immunity for weird behaviours.

There is no such thing as "hate speech", and no government has jurisdiction over speech. It is a Soviet invention.

And by "hate crime", they mean "non-crime hate incidents".

Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use "threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour", or to "display any written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting, that causes, or is likely to cause, another person 'harassment, alarm or distress' with the intent to stir up hatred on the basis of".... race, religion, or sexual orientation (amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it an offence to send an "indecent, offensive, or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person".

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to "send through a public electronic communications network a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character".

It also created Ofcom, the "media regulator", or the "government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom." Its purpose is to "promote competition and protect the public from harmful or offensive material."

Sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 make it an offence to "encourage" terrorism, including the "making of statements that glorify terrorist acts", which could be understood by some members of the public as encouragement to commit terrorist acts. It also includes provisions against the dissemination of "terrorist publications".

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits "discrimination, harassment, and victimization" in the workplace and wider society, based on various protected characteristics, including race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment.

Since 2014, UK police have tracked "non-crime hate incidents". You guessed it - it came from the social sciences' invasion vector. The College of Policing — a quasi-governmental organization tasked with issuing guidance to police officers — released the wide-ranging and influential “Hate Crime Operational Guidance.”

Under the 2014 guidelines, police are required to log any NCHI brought to them by a member of the public — no questions asked. The guidance states, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”

https://www.thefire.org/news/uk-polices-speech-chilling-practice-tracking-non-crime-hate-incidents

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires universities and colleges to "prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism".

The Digital Economy Act 2017 (Part 3) introduced age verification for accessing pornography online.

And finally the complete insanity of the Online Safety Act 2023, which demands social media platforms, search engines, and other digital service providers identify, remove, or limit access to "harmful" content, and "lawful but harmful" speech. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites.

And the trouble with the tyranny from all these silly laws? They are subjective. They rely on the "victim" to testify how they were "harmed".

These laws were intended to deal with poison pen letters, graffiti, and obscene phone calls. All of them have been routinely abused by LGBT groups and lunatics to demand harassment and censorship of critics, and need to be repealed.

Self-Defence: Labour Banning Resistance

Self-defence is a basic right which transcends and pre-dates any government, which is why the US Second Amendment codifies it. But guns are scary in the wrong hands, true.

The problem with guns is they allow you to oppose your government with force. They are a source of power. Socialists hate them. In most countries where socialism has taken hold, you will see the banning of guns. Giving them back to people also the first thing the anti-socialists do.

The effect of endless legislation about guns in the UK is you are:

Allowed to use a weapon in self-defence, but...
Not allowed to carry a weapon for self-defence.

The United Kingdom has one of the most stringent firearms control systems in the world, despise having 1.6M guns for sport, hunting, and pest control. In 2022, 6,369 firearm offences were reported in the UK.

ONS crime data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2022/#offences-involving-firearms

It was Harold Wilson's socialist Labour government who instituted "gun control" licensing in Britain in 1968. It was Tony Blair's "Third Way" Labour government who permanently engrained the loss over his decade in power.

This coincided with the establishment of the "Health & Safety" regime in 1974.

Firearms Act 1968: the foundational piece of legislation governing the use and possession of firearms in the UK. It established the basic framework for firearms control, including licensing requirements, categories of prohibited firearms, and regulations for firearm dealers.
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Introduced in response to the Hungerford massacre, this Act tightened controls on semi-automatic firearms and pump-action rifles, increased the restrictions on shotguns, and introduced new offences.
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997: Following the Dunblane school massacre, this Act effectively banned the private ownership of handguns (except .22 calibre single-shot weapons, which were later banned by the 1997 Amendment Act).
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: This Act extended the provisions of the 1988 and earlier 1997 amendments, completing the ban on private ownership of handguns in mainland Britain.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006: Aimed at further reducing gun crime and violence, this Act increased the age limits for purchasing or possessing air weapons and imitation firearms, required more stringent record-keeping by dealers, and introduced new offenses related to manufacturing, selling, or modifying imitation firearms.
Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2010: These regulations further amended the Firearms Act 1968 by changing the way firearm certificates are issued and renewed, among other technical changes.
Policing and Crime Act 2017: This Act made further amendments to the Firearms Acts, including new provisions for antique firearms and expanding the definition of "firearm" to close loopholes that had been exploited by criminals.
Offensive Weapons Act 2019: While primarily focused on controlling knives and corrosive substances, this Act also includes provisions related to firearms, such as banning certain rapid-firing rifles and bump stocks.

Interestingly, the socialist government of the 1970s also licensed exotic animals, for little to no reason. It was relatively easy for individuals to purchase and keep exotic pets, including big cats, without any specific legal requirements or oversight. The introduction of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act1976 made it significantly more difficult to own big cats, requiring owners to demonstrate that they had suitable facilities, that the animal's welfare would be adequately provided for, and that public safety would not be compromised.

The "we don't need firearms" argument is fine until... you find out you need them. Because the police are too far away, the police are useless, the police are corrupt, or the police are arresting you for anti-LGBT memes. Moreover, you have a right to bear in a weapon in self-defence no government may legislate away.

All of these laws need reform and the right to bear a weapon restored.

The idea of the "Social Contract" is simple: because the world is a dangerous place, you give up a little of your freedom, and the government keeps you safe.

Much can be said about the relationship between citizen and government in the UK, but several key timeline entries are crucial to understand.

Council housing and planning permission

Socialist housing. What's not to love?

After World War II, the UK faced a significant housing crisis, exacerbated by the bombing that destroyed or damaged a large portion of housing stock. There was an urgent need to provide affordable housing quickly and efficiently to accommodate the booming population and those displaced by the war. High-rise tower blocks and Brutalist buildings, often constructed from concrete, were relatively inexpensive to build and maintain.

Influenced by Le Corbusier and the principles of the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM), these architects and urban planners saw high-rise buildings and the use of raw concrete (béton brut, from which "Brutalism" derives its name) as ways to create new urban environments that were efficient, egalitarian, and forward-looking. Communist, in a word.

Harold Wilson's changes to housing policy during 1966 shifted management to local council authorities, and started a jihad of council home construction. This disastrous campaign uglified the country.

In 1990, the Conservatives introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), which created the modern "planning permission" system. This disastrous bureaucracy put the state in charge of what could be done with your property.

1975: State pensions, price controls, immigration

Socialist policy at work.

During the 1970s, the UK government aimed to improve the living standards of retired individuals through adjustments to state pensions. Inflation, however, eroded the real value of these pensions, leading to demands for pensions to be regularly adjusted to keep pace with the cost of living. A disaster which still haunts us today.

Rent controls were implemented as a way to protect tenants from rapid increases in housing costs, especially in a period marked by high inflation. It discouraged investment in the private rental sector, leading to a decline in the quality and quantity of available rental housing. A disaster politicians still call for today.

In response to soaring inflation, the UK government introduced price controls on essential goods and services to try to curb the cost of living increases. It distorted market mechanisms, leading to shortages and reduced incentives for production. A disaster politicians still call for today.

The earlier part of the 70s also saw the Caribbean Windrush generation and the arrival of East African Asians, particularly from Uganda. It took the 1971 Immigration Act to significantly reduce primary immigration by introducing a work permit system and ending the automatic right to settle in the UK for Commonwealth citizens. A disaster politicians have been repeating now for 20 years.

CCTV and mass telecoms surveillance

Where do you begin with Orwell's nightmare?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) outlined the legal framework for surveillance and interception of communications by public bodies, including law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The "emergency" Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) required telecommunications operators to retain communications data for up to 12 months and allowed access to this data by law enforcement.
The "Snooper’s Charter" Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) expanded bulk collection of communications data, hacking into computers and devices (equipment interference), and the retention of internet browsing records.

All of these naturally need to be repealed.

And where do you start with the government deciding it can "lock down" its citizens?

Endless crusades about rights and discrimination

If there is one thing Boomers never shut up about, it's their campaigns for "rights" and the false god of Equality. What they don't mention is the more you mention these things, the more it tears at the social fabric and agitates the groups in question.

During the Sixties, it was all about the socialists and their embrace of women and black voters. Fair enough, you might say.

Race Relations Act 1965: Introduced to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race in public places.
Race Relations Act 1968: Extended protections against racial discrimination in employment, housing, and commercial services.
Equal Pay Act 1970: Required equal pay for men and women doing the same work, work rated as equivalent, or work of equal value.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975: Made it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on their sex or marital status in employment, education, and the provision of goods and services.
Race Relations Act 1976: Further extended anti-discrimination protections and established the Commission for Racial Equality to enforce the legislation.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Aimed to end discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, provision of goods and services, education, and transport.

But after 2000, the socialist "Third Way" politicians went a little mad.

Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Expanded the scope of the 1976 Act, including public authorities in its remit and requiring them to promote racial equality.
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Prohibited discrimination in employment and vocational training based on religion or belief.
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003: Made discrimination against individuals based on their "sexual orientation" illegal in the workplace and vocational training.
Gender Recognition Act 2004: Gave trans people legal recognition in their "acquired gender".
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006: Prohibited discrimination based on age in the areas of employment and vocational training.
Equality Act 2006: Established the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and extended protections against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, and services based on religion or belief.
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007: Extended protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation to the provision of goods, facilities, services, and education.

Leading to the 2nd Constitution, and Britain's completion as a Franco-Germanic social contract state...

Equality Act 2010: Consolidated previous anti-discrimination laws and protections, including gender reassignment, under one comprehensive law. This Act protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Did we really need all of that?

Europe: The Anti-American Empire

The project to build a federal Europe has been ongoing since the late 60s. By 1972, a referendum had led to the European Communities Act 1972 and the accession of the United Kingdom as a member state to the three European Communities (EC) – the European Economic Community (EEC, the 'Common Market'), European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and the European Coal and Steel Community.

It also imported Community Law (later European Union Law), along with its acquis communautaire, its treaties, regulations, directives, decisions, the Community Customs Union, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (FCP) together with judgments of the European Court of Justice into UK law.

The trouble is Britain is an ancient land of traditions, and NOT a social contract state like France or Germany with "positive rights" from the state.

By 1993, after the USSR had collapsed, John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty to incorporate the UK with "ever closer political union" and single currency within the new federal Europe (EU). No vote was allowed. It was sneaked in.

During 1997, Tony Blair had announced globalisation was "inevitable" and re-orientated the entire British state around mass immigration. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled, and the UK population was boosted by more than 2.2 million. The population of the island went from 45M to 70M in less than 20 years: the highest influx ever recorded in the country's history.

Under Blair’s Labour government, Britain’s economic immigration policy went from a highly restrictive approach to one of the most expansive in Europe, as I examined in new research. Work permit criteria were relaxed, the number of international students was doubled, the government expanded existing low and high-skilled migrant worker schemes and launched new ones and, from 2005, initiated a new points-based immigration system. Overshadowing these important reforms was the 2004 decision to allow citizens of eight countries that were about to join the EU the immediate right to work in Britain. This decision alone resulted in one of the largest migration flows in Britain’s peacetime history.

Put into historical context, Labour’s reforms were an unprecedented policy reversal. With 2.5m foreign-born workers added to the population since 1997 and net migration averaging 200,000 per year between 1997 and 2010 – five times higher than under the previous administration government of 1990-1996 – immigration under Labour quite literally changed the face of Britain.

"How New Labour made Britain into a migration state"
https://theconversation.com/how-new-labour-made-britain-into-a-migration-state-85472
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

A year later 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 codified the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, and placed the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) above Parliament for the first time ever in British history. The country lost ultimate control of its own lawmaking and arbitration, because UK citizens could appeal their cases to a higher body. It became a Franco-German-style social contract nation with "positive state rights" and a "supreme court".

Macmillan left Edward Heath to take matters forward, and Heath, along with Douglas Hurd, arranged — according to the Monnet papers — for the Tory Party to become a (secret) corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe.

"How a secretive elite created the EU to build a world government"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12018877/The-truth-how-a-secretive-elite-created-the-EU-to-build-a-world-government.html

A year later in 1999, Chancellor Gordon Brown sold off 60% of the country's gold reserves on the open market - when gold was at its lowest historical price, after giving the market advanced knowledge.

There are 10 major laws which cover this debacle:

European Communities Act 1972: This was the pivotal act that enabled the UK to join the EEC in 1973. It provided for the incorporation of EEC law into UK law, ensuring that European law took precedence over domestic law in areas covered by EEC competence.
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986: This act amended the 1972 Act to incorporate the changes brought about by the Single European Act, which aimed to create a single market within the EEC.
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993: Through this legislation, the UK ratified the Maastricht Treaty, which led to the creation of the European Union and expanded the powers of the EEC, including the establishment of the European Monetary Union.
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998: This act made provisions for the UK's ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, which amended and reformed the EU, including changes to immigration, asylum, and judicial cooperation.
European Communities (Amendment) Act 2002: This act was passed to ratify the Nice Treaty, which reformed the institutional structure of the EU to accommodate new member states.
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008: This act ratified the Lisbon Treaty, which reformed the EU's constitutional basis, enhancing the powers of the European Parliament and changing the voting mechanisms within the EU Council.
European Union Referendum Act 2015: This act provided for the holding of a referendum on the UK's membership in the EU, which took place on June 23, 2016, and resulted in a vote to leave the EU.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017: This short act authorized the Prime Minister to notify the European Council of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU, triggering Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Often referred to as the "Great Repeal Act," this legislation repealed the European Communities Act 1972 and brought EU law into UK law to ensure continuity after Brexit. It also gave powers to amend, repeal, or replace this retained EU law.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020: This act ratified the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU, setting the terms for the UK's departure from the EU, which officially took place on January 31, 2020.

Treaties, treaties, and more treaties. Conveniently bypassing any form of democratic consent.

The Military: Where Do You Begin?

From the woke invasion of their "education" and personnel departments, who is going to die for Ukraine or the Global American Empire (GAE)?

The true horror of this really becomes apparent with the Navy. In 1939, the British Navy had 1,400 ships, including 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines. The service currently has 32,000 people, 81 ships, and 160 planes.

The US navy has 337,000 people, 299 ships, and 4012 planes. China is forecast to have 435 ships by 2030

The story is no better over in the Army or the RAF.

For a thoroughly depressing read: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-decline-of-the-uk-armed-forces-in-charts-2015-2

The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published in 2021, outlined the UK's vision for a "Global Britain". What a joke.

Our situation, right now, for a population of 70M, is dire:

As of July 1, 2023, the British Armed Forces have a total strength of 185,980 personnel. This includes 140,300 UK Regulars, 4,140 Gurkhas, 33,210 Volunteer Reserves, and 8,330 "Other Personnel".
Army: 77,540
RAF: 32,180
Navy: 26,330
Marines: 6,510
213 tanks
564 RAF fixed-wing planes (137 Typhoons)

The Healthcare System: Where Do You Begin?

The NHS was conceived with good intentions after the 1942 Beveridge cross-party report by a lunatic Welsh ideologue (Aneurin Bevan) who was intent on destroying the class system and hated the Tories.

Britain infamously, is "a healthcare system with a country attached", where the NHS is the "closest we have to a national religion".

It does not scale. Mass immigration and the insanity of Covid broke it irrevocably now the population is almost doubled to over 70M. Not to mention - old people need more care. The people who were 20 in 1950 are now 94 years old. The Gen Z population is smaller than the Milennials, and the subsequent generation isn't the same or bigger than its predecessor, like Gen X.

The NHS experiment is over. It needs to be replaced with a Singapore-style system and taken out of the hands of politicians.

"Conversion": Stupider Than "Hate Speech"

Which brings us to 2024. Politicians are debating "conversion therapy".

She was thrown out. But here Burt is again, working for Stonewall.

Endless attempts have been made to outlaw the mysterious fantasy of "conversion therapy". The wording of this (private member's bill) law, by Liberal Democrat, secular humanist, Baroness Lorely Jane Burt of Solihull, - written by Stonewall - is so outrageously stupid, it has to break records.

In this Act, “conversion therapy” is any practice aimed at a person or group
of people which demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or
gender identity is inherently preferable to another, and which has the intended purpose of attempting to—

(a) change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or
(b) suppress a person’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Text of the bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/53023/documents/4013

Any practice? Since when is "assumption" the Mens Rea (guilty mind) behind a criminal offence?

There is no such thing as "sexual orientation". Nor is there any such thing as "gender identity". And there are no purveyors of this "practice" in the UK. These social science "constructs" are unfalsifiable, imaginary fiction.

Naturally, it will not be illegal to "convert" people into homosexual behaviour. That will presumably be encouraged as an act of "authenticity". The Bill will be a one way street, codifying myth into law. This sin is rapacious beyond belief. It is pure evil.

Their targets are a) Christians, and b) schools. They want criticism of sexual degeneracy criminalised so it can be practiced without opposition. The idea this is being discussed under a "conservative" government is extraordinary. But perhaps better than under a Labour government, where it would be assured a majority.

This useful idiot Baroness was booted in 2014, then made a peer of an invented land. Which is fitting, given the nonsense she is trying to codify as British law. She needs to be expelled from public life.

Stonewall has to be shut down and banned. These lunatics are inside MI6.

"It has all the characteristics of something written on the back of a beer mat after an unruly discussion in a pub." – Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Are these people really this incompetent? Are they really debating ephemeral minutiae from interest groups during the worst cost-of-living crises on record, as the world balkanises into multiple spiralling conflicts?

Who Was The Worst?

Does it matter? The history of modern Britain is one decade after another of chronic incompetence.

Attlee's invention of the welfare state and handover of India;
Anthony Eden's catastrophic cowardice over the Suez Crisis in the 50s, triggering decolonisation;
Harold Wilson's social degeneracy and destruction of the British education system in the 60s;
Callahan's ruinous inflation and runaway financial collapse during the 70s;
Thatcher's destruction of the North's traditional industries and her betrayal of Rhodesia in the 80s;
John Major's selling out of the country as a vassal state of Federal Europe during the 90s;
Brown and Blair's mass immigration and surveillance to implement globalisation and "social constract" republicanism during the 2000s;
Cameron's useless climate taxes and gay marriage;
Johnson and May's Brexit betrayals, lockdown and "Net Zero" idiocy;
etc etc

But if you absolutely had to pick two, it would be Wilson and Blair; two socialist Labour leaders who did more intentional damage to the country during their 10-year-ish terms than any others.

At some point, we need to burn these people as traitors. And hang their pictures in a Traitor's Hall. The British people feel far more strongly about the decline of their country and the folly of their political class than anyone realises.

How Do We Get Out Of This Death Spiral?

The Boomers' legacy must die. And to do that, one problem must be confronted. There is no way of voting ourselves out of it.

The Civil Service must be abolished and replaced.

They are the underpinning obstructionists behind the curtain of the nation's decline and embrace of the EU.

We have much, much to do. But among them:

Day one: the Civil Service MUST be abolished and replaced;
There must be an independent public commission dealing with political incompetence since WWII, which can punish those responsible;
Devolved parliaments must be abolished, or decentralisation widened to neutralise their extremism;
The two-party system must be reformed to allow smaller parties in;
The government must be constitutionally restrained from making any laws which interfere with free speech, any form of "lockdown", or instituting mass surveillance;
The government must be constitutionally restrained from putting any piece of the country under the authority of a foreign organisation (e.g. EU, IMF, UN etc) ever again;
The City of London must be constrained by law from interfering with political parties or government;
All legislation which has attempted to transform the UK into a Franco-Germanic "social contract" republic (e.g. the "Equality" act) must be repealed and abolished;
Non-spousal immigration, the spread of Islam, and non-birthright naturalisation must be ended;
The welfare system has to end, or be radically transformed into an emergency-only rescue protocol. We cannot pay for it.
All ties to the UN and EU must be broken, completely, to restore Parliamentary sovereignty;
The size of the state must be reduced by a minimum of 50% and almost all taxes abolished (it does not need to be "paid for" is there is no state needing the money);
"Progressive taxation" must be abolished entirely and replaced with a $100k threshold;
The Armed Forces must be rebuilt;
Firearms rights must be restored under a Swiss-style model with national service;
Environmentalist laws must be removed and 10 new nuclear power stations must be commissioned;
A re-developed version of the Tripartite education system must be restored, which completely bans sex education, LGBT groups, or political indoctrination under 18;
The NHS must be replaced by a Singapore-style system;
Grotesque medical practices - abortion, sex changes, surrogacy, assiated suicide, euthanasia, etc - must be banned;
Government must be separated from money creation, and currency separated from the US dollar;
Social life must be re-centred around marriage and children, with an end to counterfeit "partnerships" and easy divorce;
The death penalty must be reinstated for murder, treason, rape, and child sexual abuse.
After 110M dead and endless immiseration, Marxian ideologies must recognised as failed experiments and finally be completely outlawed;
The Rolleston Era must be restored to deal with the effect of technology on drug manufacturing.
Brutalist architecture and tower blocks must be banned and progressively dismantled as part of a fundamental beautification of the country and reform of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990).

We could do this all in a day.

The Great Reform Act of 1832 did. Post-WWII governments were passing 150+ laws a year. What has been done, can be undone. But healing will take time.

These might seem radical, but it's been 70 years of this horror. Our country isn't on fire, it's on life support from decades of decline and neglect by idiots with no ideas. The bill is becoming due and we are at an inflection point where people are happy with a dictator or a fascist Red Guard, as long as they fix it. We can't go down that road, so we have the rock, and the hard place.

Is there any choice any more? The clock has run out.

"Third Way" Social Democracy: A Disaster