Merry Christmas to one and all.
Enjoy the festive frivolities with family and friends, it comes but once a year make so the best of this time of reflection. Be grateful for everyone that makes your life and the world a better place.
If you're looking for volunteer help, I'm available.
Restore Britain's two-part policy paper. A roadmap back to Britain.
Restores two-part policy paper. A roadmap back to Britain.
Restore Britain has recently released their report which details how the illegal immigration problem may be remedied. The intent of the paper is to fill in the detail of what a successful deportation agenda looks like. Essentially, as the paper suggests, this means the abolishing of the asylum system. The aim is to remove every illegal migrant in the UK via a mixed system approach, one that creates a hostile environment, encouraging voluntary returns and, if necessary, forced deportations. Most people viewing the current farce that is illegal immigration understand, the British legal system has been weaponized for political lawfare, particularly but not exclusively to aid unsustainable levels of immigration. This threat will be eliminated by advanced legislation listed and enabled under what Restore has aptly named the Great Clarification Act. The Act will give parliament the flexibility and power to supersede and set aside unpopular and destructive rulings by the Judiciary. As most of us are aware, the ECHR is employed as the barrier to gaining control of our borders. Meaning either burning this paper barrier or ignoring it. The ECHR is a single fragment of the broader architecture of external treaties and internal legislation that are the mechanics limiting national sovereignty over our borders. Restore Britain’s new paper is presented as the most comprehensive policy paper ever designed in aid of removing all those who have no right to be in the UK. The Report is quite a lengthy read and as any author on Substack knows this is generally something that limits how many will read those lengthier articles. Hence this abridged version, a 15 minute read condensing the full report, approximately 2-5hrs dependent on reading speed and purpose.
The purpose of this article is to provide further exposure and to generate interest by presenting tasters from the report, with the added hope that it illustrates a broader understanding of the task at hand and encourages patriots to read the full report. Additionally, to let citizens know you are not alone and there are many intelligent and highly motivated Brits working tirelessly to save our nation from its descent into a country of nowhere people in a nowhere land. Furthermore, that all is not lost and the opportunity for realignment is in your grasp.
Contemporarily British society is suffering from an advanced case, simultaneously, of institutional dysfunctionality, and society in general witnessing an unnecessary increase in social pathologies, much of which can be placed at the door of legal and illegal immigration. The most relevant aspects of the Report provide a general understanding of what must be achieved if Britain is to remain a functional, prosperous and harmonious society. This all hinges on whether an incoming government has the fortitude to embark on a program of radical change. For all patriots, this report gifts you the informational ammunition in which you can deploy to pressure any future government, in this case Reform UK. There is a valid concern among patriots that Reform UK may be too squeamish to implement the full host of measures that will set our nation on its journey back to Britain. Therefore, you as patriots must loan Reform UK your courage to aim high, with your support and equally, a relentless noncompromising pressure.
If the public mandate exists and Parliament chooses to act, the path is clear.
Rupert Lowe
Generalised description of strategy
Among other things e-visas will be employed as the only valid proof required for employment of non-British citizens, with strict audits on gig economy platforms where illegal workers thrive. Further suggestions entail an end to safe surgeries, status proof will be required, and upfront charges will be levied for non-emergency care. Currently those without immigration status, or proof of address, are able to register for primary care services in so called safe surgeries. This has the potential to put an end to health tourism. Bank accounts will be closed without valid status. Remittance taxes will be used to coerce uncooperative governments that refuse to take back their citizens. Thousands of new staff will be employed for immigration enforcement, including veterans and police. This will be funded by asset seizures, fines, and higher visa fees. Detention centers will be expanded in both number and capacity. There will be a retrospective voiding of asylum status for anyone who has entered our country illegally. Visa bans, aid cuts, and tariffs will be employed against countries who are uncooperative. The hope is to assemble a coalition of western nations, serving as a combined and robust diplomatic pressure on nations like Nigeria, India, and Pakistan. The cost of the 5-year plan will be in the tens of billions, with the above measures to be offset by taxes on remittances, reduced public spending and fixed penalty notices.
Legal obstacles
At Restore Britain, we note with alarm that our ability to defend our own borders against unarmed invasion confronts serious barriers in the form of domestic laws and international agreements. In Part I, we call for the removal of these obstacles as a prerequisite to restoring national sovereignty. We view such laws as mechanisms that can and must be changed in the interests of the British people. Our proposals assume a government with the political will and the majority in Parliament to pass major reforms needed to achieve these aims. Relieve the state from any duty to support asylum seekers, end to hotel supported accommodation. Time consuming immigration tribunals and the end of the equality Act (2010)
Restore Britain aims to repeal all references to rules and principles of UK legislation relating to the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, particularly sections of legislation that allow asylum claims after safe travel. Here Restore sets the stage for the wider context in that all claims will be rejected other than those of our closest neighbors, meaning there would be an embargo on anyone not from the European continent.
The longer-term aim is that those claiming asylum would be limited to applying for asylum on their continent of origin via international agreement. With the added benefit, this will create an incentive for leaders on each continent to maintain regional stability. So far so good. I think it’s not too presumptuous to suggest many would agree.
Legislation that will see specific sections repealed.
The weight of legislation allowing the courts to grant asylum is extensive, and wide ranging. It is almost as if successive legislatures have incrementally added sections to make the process fireproof in favour of illegal migrants and mass migration in general, legal, or illegal.
Here is a quote from the report by no other than Tony Blair, that demonstrates the duplicitous nature of the architects of our current woes, who had the cheek to offer this piece of wisdom in his autobiography, A journey: My Political Life: “The presumption was plainly false; most asylum claims were not genuine. Disproving them, however, was almost impossible...
The combination of the courts, with their liberal instinct; the European Convention on Human Rights, with its absolutist attitude to the prospect of returning someone to an unsafe community and the U.N. Convention of Refugees, with its context firmly that of 1930s Germany, meant that, in practice, once someone got into Britain and claimed asylum, it was the Devil’s own job to return them.” Yes, and our Tony was the devil’s apprentice as we all know. Lets rub the rights nose in immigration.
Below is the extensive list of home-grown legislation that must be repealed when the citadel of traitors sitting in our very own Westminster Parliament is routed.
Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) section 95, section 22, and regulation 5 to be repealed obliterating its obligatory effect.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) repeal part 2 and 5: provision of asylum accommodation centers and housing is taken out and Immigration tribunals and respect of “Protection and Human Rights Claims, falls to the sword taken to the ECHR.
UK Borders Act (2007) repeal section 33 that overrides automatic deportation of foreign criminals.
Borders, Citizenship, and Immigration Act (2009) repeal section 5 that forces the Home secretary to consider the best interests of dependents of asylum claimants.
The Equality Act (2010) repeal in its entirety: the Equality Act mandates the active pursuit of egalitarian goals across the public sector, including as a matter of government policy. It does so by prohibiting both “direct” and “indirect” discrimination against people with so-called “protected characteristics.” To be replaced with a simple non-discrimination duty as proposed by the New Culture Forum.
Illegal Migration Act (2023) repeal section 12. With the suggestion to overturn all four Hardial Singh principles. These principles create an obstacle to mass deportations. Meaning repeal of section 3a 3b, and 4.
The above is the archipelago of home-grown legislation that must be repealed if we are to put an end to mass migration. The report goes on to argue that international obligations, for example, those in the UN Refugee Convention, only apply to the extent they are written into domestic law.
Quote: though not incorporated wholesale into our domestic law, the United Nations Refugee Convention (UNRC) of 1951 finds its essential principles reflected in all sorts of legislation from the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act (1993) to the Nationality and Borders Act (2022). It is through our courts, interpreting and applying these principles, that the UNRC assumes legal force within Britain. Our continued adherence to it lies at the foundation of our current asylum system. Yet with each passing day, the evidence mounts that this no longer serves the interests of the nation, nor the demands of the time.
This article is now 5 minutes out from its threshold where I believe most readers will switch off, so in this knowledge, I leave a few snapshots and hooks below taken from the report.
ECHR
With the will and majority in parliament there will be a withdrawal from ECHR and the HRA will be repealed. Albeit from the tone in the report, Restore anticipates some tension forming around the Belfast agreement but nothing unassailable. Small fragments of case law from the ECHR will be retained to ensure peace in Ireland. There may be diplomatic issues but in terms of legal issues, less so. The details of how this may be approached are listed in section IV of the Report, p.33. The report suggests in the event any precedent is abused, parliament will hold the ace card via the Clarification Act and can smite down any aberrant judicial rulings by majority vote. Extract below:
This legal reasoning forms the basis for their conclusion: “UK withdrawal from the ECHR would not constitute a breach of the Belfast Agreement.”51. The second paper was co-authored by the Prosperity Institute by Suella Braverman and Guy Dampier. They equally maintain, for much the same reason, that the Belfast Agreement (BA) “need not pose an obstacle to ECHR withdrawal.”52 Now, it may not breach the BA, but this is no guarantee that any future decision to withdraw from the ECHR and/or repeal the HRA will not give rise to non-legal problems in need of careful handling. Political difficulties and legal impossibilities are not the same thing. What we have on our hands here is an example of the former, not the latter.
Windsor Framework
The Windsor framework and EU relations are mentioned, although from Restores’ point of view the issues will be minor, arguing there is always the possibility to make adjustments that are more up to date. Judicial activism will be neutered by the Clarification Act. With additional reforms regarding criteria of judicial review and powers for removal of biased judges. The above is essential for the logistics of the next phase of mass deportations.
“While the substance of the rights in existence before withdrawal [from the EU] and underpinned by EU law must be retained in Northern Ireland, there is no obligation to retain specific EU measures themselves, but article 2 [of the Windsor Framework] obliges the UK to achieve the functionally equivalent result: it has some discretion (within limits) over how to achieve that result.
Paralysing any system of effective border enforcement (p.27 section II of Report).
In short, whereas the influence of the UNRC forces us to treat bogus asylum claims seriously, the ECHR and the HRA prevent us in various ways from removing illegals who try their luck. Much of what the ECHR does, as Cummings says, takes the form of an unquantifiable chilling effect. Given the ever-present threat of judicial challenge, existing human rights law does not only shoot down government decisions in mid-air but dissuades many acts of political daring before they can even get off the ground.
ECHR-Related Obstacles
Extract: As Dominic Cummings reports of his time in government, the obstacles to border control are not operational, but legal: “I went through the boats in great detail in 2020 with both a) the military and b) the best lawyers inside and outside government and the conclusion was absolutely clear: operationally stopping the boats is very simple and could be done in days but Cabinet Office (CO) legal advice endorsed by external experts is that the PM cannot do this simple thing lawfully because the courts will stop him, by employing the HRA/ECHR. (In simple terms if the PM tried to order the Navy to stop the boats in a serious way, the courts would state that the PM’s orders are unlawful under the HRA therefore the Navy cannot execute them and the Cabinet Secretary would tell the PM that he cannot insist on his orders being obeyed as, in extremis, both the PM and officers could be arrested for contempt. The core operational and political problem of ‘stop the boats’ could be solved by simple primary legislation explicitly whacking the HRA, though the broader issue of the Strasbourg court and other international law angles requires deeper action. I won’t go into the details of this here.)” p.26
Hence, both ECHR and HRA must go.
UK-EU TCA
“To point out that Brussels may exercise this freedom in shock at a future British withdrawal from the ECHR and/or repeal of the HRA is no more alarming than to point out that they may do so for any other reason.” p.45
United Nations Refugee Convention (UNRC)
Suella Braverman was the first mainstream politician in Britain to draw attention to the disruptive effects of UNRC-based law as it operates today. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in 2023, she argued that it is “incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the Refugee Convention and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit for our modern age or in need of reform.” We take the view that it is in need of serious reform, if not radical overhaul.
As we hinted in parts of Section I, every binding reference to the UNRC or its principles that lawyers are able to identify in our domestic law – along with similar references to other relevant ‘non-refoulement’ treaties such as the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – should be repealed.
Reform UK have suggested that the UNRC should be disapplied in Britain’s domestic law for a period of five years. However, it would be more in Britain’s interest, as we (Restore Britain) suggest, to repeal every trace of the UNRC in our law altogether.
After all, we are not at the beginning but at least halfway through a reckless demographic experiment.
Living instrument
Lord Jonathan Sumption argues that this permission structure has conferred upon the ECtHR a more or less unbridled “power to review the whole range of [Britain’s] domestic law.”34 Their adventurous decisions have been made less in line with evolving circumstances, such as the development of new technologies, and more in line with evolving values. This may sound harmless, but in a free and self-governing society any changes in our values will tend to find their way into law over time regardless of any pronouncement handed down by judges. The problem with the living instrument doctrine is that it empowers a small judicial oligarchy to make such decisions for us.
As Finnis writes elsewhere,
“The ‘living instrument’ method ensures that much of the time, the Court is instead interpreting not text or agreement, but ‘attitudes’, that is, opinions (not least prejudices and ideologies, ‘memes’ and ‘tropes’) that have emerged since the Convention was adopted and won favour among transnational elites and a majority of the Court.”35 p.28
So far as is possible, judges should be prohibited from such methods of interpretation by a new law – much along the lines of a British Sovereignty Act, defended in detail by Douglas Carswell – ordering all judges to form their conclusions solely on the basis of common law precedent and parliamentary statutes, the latter of which under our suggestion would of course include some small remaining sliver of ECHR case law. P. 40
Judicial oligarchy is no better for bossing us around at home than from abroad. Parliament must reassert its sovereignty.
HRA
HRA-based judicial decisions at home on a discerning basis under our Great Clarification Act (again, see Section VI). To shirk our duties under a self-binding treaty such as the ECHR may grate against the natural sense of fair play in the British character, but it would be justified and no doubt popular if Strasbourg continues to get in the way of mass deportations. If a future government has full confidence in its ability to deal with the Northern Ireland- and EU-related fallout, ideally along the lines we suggest in Section IV and Section V, they should leave the ECHR and repeal the HRA. Alongside such actions, an information war must be waged. Cummings has recently suggested as much, calling for classified information about the ways in which our human rights legislation is abused even by terrorists to be made public: “Terrorists literally being hunted from cave to cave in Afghanistan by JSOC (US classified special forces) have used satellite phones to procure London barristers to bring legal cases against the MoD [Ministry of Defence] for ‘human rights’ abuses and won secret payouts of millions while on the run. Such grotesque cases are classified by the Cabinet Office to stop MPs knowing what the ECHR actually does, and close to zero MPs are informed of such lunatic dynamics. (Hence my advice to Sunak to declassify the ECHR/HRA effects on security, take them out of red STRAP files and publish them.)”43 p.32
Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act
The purpose of Carswell’s Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act would give full power to the Lord Chancellor to relieve senior judges of their office if they are thought to have displayed a persistent record of putting their own personal prejudices before the clear meaning of legal texts. Britain’s legal system is fast falling into discredit among an otherwise instinctively law-loving British people. By forcing judges to keep their focus on statute, this reform would help to restore faith in our judiciary.p.50
Further aspects discussed in more detail are Right to work (RtW, housing HMOs (RtR), healthcare-GP surgeries-Safe surgeries (no proof of address required) banking and finance (legal residency)
Final thoughts
Remember that feeling, that sense of excitement, you had as a child when your granny opened her biscuit tin, well that’s the feeling I had on reading this report and writing this article. I was spoiled for choice and limited by selection. To say the above touched the surface of the report would be gross insult to the authors. However, it provides a flavour of the contents. A great deal of work has been carried out in anticipation of a British government (read real) in waiting. One that will lead us back to Britain, where we reclaim our democracy, our national sovereignty, and self-rule. It is understandable that on viewing the contents there will be some misgivings due to the radical nature of the reforms. This must be equalled by the knowledge that all of the obstacles that serve our current dilemma were put in place by those whose vision for the future is not with Britain but with IGOs and supranational entities, aligned and enforced by a post national ideology and economic blackmail. These are the agents who have strangled our democracy, deformed liberalism, diluted national sovereignty and diminished British identity at every opportunity. Keeping this in mind, any squeamishness to radical reform can be put aside, and rather be viewed as a righteous mission. One that places British interests at the heart of the nation.
Charles Chevalier- Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Link to the Full report provided below for those who are not faint of heart.
For the more intrepid reader, prerequisites and sound arguments for Restores propositions are provided in the full report relating to potential courses of action for not only interested parties as in the British public at large but a future government.
Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics>
Most local residents of Liberal Democrat-run South Cambridgeshire District Council, who were interviewed regarding how they perceived council services, stated, they had witnessed a noticeable drop in public services both in quality and timeliness. Additionally, a senior manager was caught doctoring an efficiency and productivity report. Local Government Secretary Steve Reed said there had been a decline in performance in the council's housing service and he asked how the local authority would "mitigate" this.
Dystopian novels: Instruction manuals for the ruling classes.
I was sitting in my kitchen the other day drinking my morning coffee contemplating the current state and likely trajectory of the western world and how it resembles an ever more fictional realm. The thought occurred to me, am I living in a science fiction dystopian novel manifested by science fiction buffs or is my imagination having a dominant moment? In the Immediacy of this thought, I wondered how much science fiction novels of the past bore influence on the future. Just taking a cursory look around at our world informs us that indeed science fiction must surely bear some influence, and complimentary predictive power born in the imagination of science fiction authors. When we consider the political trajectory after the Great War, technological advancement, and formula of our present social melee, particularly for those of us that enjoy the genre, then it is confirmed. I laughed to myself, thinking it is merely anecdotal, albeit compelling, until I thought a bit more, and recalled the themes and ideas magically come to life in the many Sci-Fi books I’ve read and set about to find contemporary examples that I wouldn’t have to crowbar into my playful theory. And if this theory has any substance, then those at the top of the food chain in terms of who decides what course society is set and how the socio-political environment unfolds must consist of a mixture of hard-core non-fiction communism consumers mediated by science fiction fans. It seems the fiction of yesteryear often becomes the blueprint for today. Speculative fiction has an uncanny knack of translating human imagination as a social prophecy. Not only do authors predict technological advances but foresee the socio-political and psychological consequences of adopting the technology.
The obvious and most quoted work is Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1948 describing a tightly screwed fear-driven life in the Dystopian world of Oceania, experienced by our protagonist Winston Smith, and controlled by the Party. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four spotlights the consequential threads of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive collectivisation in modifying social behaviours. Oceania’s political system is known as Ingsoc, aka English socialism and was intended by Orwell as a parody of the Fabian Society. While our protagonist feels the walls closing around him, Winston holds an at times fatalistic view of his circumstances yet is contradicted by his primal resistance against the stifling of his autonomy, a secret compulsion he must keep close to his chest in fear his wrong think will be discovered by Big Brother necessitating a visit from the Thought Police. Oceania is a totalitarian world dominated by the themes of language simplicity applied to control thought, reinforced by psychological menacing and accompanied by the threat of physical violence to manipulate behaviour, infused with the Party maintaining a tight grip on knowledge of history, even going so far as revisionism to contain a grip on the present.
The central technology of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the inescapable all-seeing two-way Telescreen of Big brother, the dictatorial leader of Oceania and controller of the “Thought Police.” Winston’s growing sense of fatalism is driven by a pressing paranoia. A state of mind brought about under the strain of Big Brothers control, instinctively knowing when writing, “Down with Big Brother,” in his diary he will be found out. His weakness gnaws at him constantly, a deep-seated resentment of the regime, one where his primal resistance betrays his fear and a crushing sense of quiet inevitability. It is only a matter of time before he is betrayed by O’ Brien, his supervisor in the Ministry of Truth.
I am confident many of us today can relate to Winston’s fear both in the workplace for wrong think and being betrayed by a colleague or writing something down on social media, or even as a Journalists (Tommy Robinson and others) that may have strayed from the party line, we should expect a visit from the Thought Police.” No doubt informed/reported by one of our own to Big Brothers Ministry of Truth or in our paradigm Keir Starmers Prevent Program-National Online Information Team (NSOIT). Complimented by our modern “Telescreen” the Counter Disinformation Data Platforms (CDDP) newly developed thought police AI system. On the other side of the Atlantic we have the NSA Prism program monitoring smart devices and facial recognition software, mirroring Oceania’s telescreen.
Newspeak, in 1984 is self-evident in the contemporary period as the simplification of language or political correctness, as we all know it, narrowing thought and undesirable expressions of freedom and individuality. It is a method of limiting critical thinking bounded by language extracted from ideological frameworks. Think of words like inclusion, diversity, and equity, sacralized words that Ingsoc or modern progressives would have you believe have no positive opposing merit and to think otherwise is wrong think that will be punished by social penalties of cancelling or ostracism. Think gender critical views or topics of ethno-demographic replacement and you get the picture. This is fortified by speech crime legislation as felt by our living protagonists under threat by the omniscient “Thought Police.” Craig Houston, Pete North, Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, and George Galloway are recent high-profile real time examples, and many more besides who for lack of exposure fall under the public radar. Memory holing under the radar civil liberty violations has become an art form.
The memory hole is another interesting concept coined by Orwell, easily conscripted to our current era, meaning inconvenient facts not aligning with government propaganda are destroyed by the ironically named Ministry of Truth. We know that big tech has a penchant for washing away inconvenient details of political or corporate actors. Memory holing is a daily occurrence, historical monuments are torn down, there is a concerted effort to rewrite history for a dumbed down population who take ethnically corrupted period dramas as credible historical accounts, books are rewritten playing to so-called progressive sensibilities in terms of race and gender and statements by public figures are scrubbed from the internet.
At the opposite end but complimenting memory holing, Oceania residents are required to indulge in a daily, ”Two Minutes of Hate.” A film is shown presenting the “Partys,” antagonist Emanual Goldstein and his followers as the enemy of the state. Ironically, our protagonist Winston discovers Emanual Goldsteins Brotherhood manifesto was written by party members, hinting at the rule of divide and conquer by creating an existential enemy. Oceania’s people are expected to vent their loathing for this perceived enemy and hail their allegiance to the party. Where have we seen this before? Let us begin with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) where the Party machinery of the Democrats decried Trump as an existential threat to the country, stigmatising his supporters as deplorables, and racists, while casting numerous other dehumanizing and delegitimizing word spells. We watched, as in the year running up to the election of 2016 a massive campaign of two-minute hate that went on all day, every day, until Trump was elected and then continued unabated for a further four years. In the UK we witness a similar effort by the UK Uniparty holding daily, “two-minute hate” festivals for mindless morons to vent their hate against Nigel Farage. Indeed the recent Labour Party Conference was a full three days of two-minute hate against Reform UK. With David Lammy Stooping so low as to associate Farage with the Hitler youth movement. We see it in Europe employed against Marine le Penn, Alice Wedel, and Geert Wilders. Perhaps the vilest manifestation of two-minute hate was served on Charlie kirk, then perceived as an existential threat and murdered by a mindless automaton of the Party faithful (Democrats). Conversely in the UK we see two-minute hate against non-politicians like Tommy Robinson, labelling them as existential threats. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say Tommy Robinson has had more two-minute hate pushed his way than any other activist in the last twenty years. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon could just as easily and been warranted to have adopted the name of our protagonist, Winston Smith. The scope for comparison of Orwell’s work to the contemporary period is as broad as it is long. It is a testament to his foresight and imagination informed by his era’s understanding of political and social organization and psychological methods of manipulation, showing that really, some things only change superficially, even with technological advancement, a central mass that has been there since prehistory reaches out to entangle society to a particular way of forming our world.
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four serves as a hauntingly prescient reflection of our contemporary world, where the dystopian themes of totalitarianism, surveillance, and psychological manipulation resonate with disturbing clarity. From the all-seeing telescreens foreshadowing modern surveillance systems like the NSA’s Prism program and the UK’s AI Counter Disinformation Data Platform, to the speech chilling parallels of Newspeak in today’s politically correct language that stifles dissent, Orwell’s vision captures the mechanisms of control that persist in new guises. The memory hole, erasing inconvenient truths, finds its facsimile in the rewriting of history and the digital scrubbing of dissenting voices, while the daily Two Minutes Hate lives on in the orchestrated vilification of figures like Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, or Donald Trump, rallying collective outrage to reinforce ideological conformity. These parallels suggest that science fiction, far from being mere fantasy, acts as a prophetic lens, illuminating the socio-political and psychological consequences of unchecked power and technological advancement. Orwell’s work sends a signal from the past as a reminder, that the forces shaping our world, whether driven by ideology, technology, or combining both, require vigilance and scrutiny, lest we find ourselves, like Winston Smith, trapped in a reality where autonomy is sacrificed, and truth becomes a casualty of control.
References
Shadow dragon (2025) Social Media Monitoring for Government: Tools, Best Practices, Use Cases - ShadowDragon.io
Digital ID: A Route to Serfdom.
Digital ID. What does it mean? What is the bigger picture, and who benefits?
Digital Identification (DI) has been sitting in the waiting room for some time. Probably longer than most of us now wait in a GP surgery, and it’s now looking ever more likely that the current fifth column Labour party is about to make DI mandatory. The selling points are still as weak as they ever were. The current implausible logic is to use DIs in tackling the issue of mass migration. In 2002, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett of the Blair government introduced the idea through a consultation paper listed as "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud." Note the word entitlement. This is an ambiguous word, hinting at the darker aspect of DI’s. This was an evolution of voluntary identity cards floated during the Major premiership of the 1990s. However, the 2002 proposal under the Blair premiership marked a significant move away from voluntary paper-based ID to a digital biometric-based system. After 9/11, given the hysteria that swept through the Western world, and among all the up-scaled security measures and laws that were created, the idea of identity cards gained traction, resulting in a new piece of legislation as the Identity Cards Act 2006. Later in 2011, the Act was repealed by the Conservative government, citing concerns about the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and to roll back state intrusion.
The initial overarching reasons for DI were to prevent fraud and identity theft, with the aim of disrupting organised crime and terrorist networks. Today, the selling point is to control who can enter the country and to identify those who should not be in the country. How then does that impact those who embark on a dinghy trip across the channel, one may ask. No coherent answer is provided. For those who arrive legally, passports have been the mainstay form of ID in the UK for almost 500 years. The Privy Council, which advises the monarch, granted passports from at least 1540, with the first photographic passport issued in 1915. And with most countries around the world issuing passports after the First World War. The latest version of UK biometric passports was issued in 2006. In their most recent interviews on the purpose of DIs, both Mike Tap and Shabana Mahmood of the Labour Party said it will help to stop those who do not have an ID from working. Missing the obvious flaws in their reasoning, in that no one can gain legitimate employment without a passport or a national insurance number. In the informal economy, it will make no difference, as it is mostly cash in hand. Adding to this is the fact that those who work illegally in the delivery driver/Uber Eats et al. sector are using legitimate vendor IDs rented to them for a commission. There is no need for DIs, as with all current forms of ID, for example, passports, drivers' licences, birth certificates, and national insurance numbers, most people can function in society without much difficulty. The only good reason for DIs is twofold: financial motivation for big tech and financial services corporations, and, as many commentators now suggest, to facilitate a full control surveillance state interlinked with Artificial intelligence. This essay will explore who benefits, the risks, and the dangers. Ultimately, the essay posits that digital identification is a step towards full-spectrum socio-economic and socio-political control that threatens to unravel the last strands of Western democratic governance.
Who benefits.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change(TBI) United Nations (UN) and the World Economic forum (WEF) combined are the driving force behind DIs, they have the most to benefit in terms of intersecting interests of financial profit and ideologically to serve as a control mechanism in a world-wide control grid acting as a neoliberal feeding ground for transnational corporations (TNCs). The UN, the TBI, and the WEF have each actively promoted digital identity systems as tools for enhancing governance, economic inclusion, and sustainable development (read full socio-economic and political control).
The United Nations
While there is little evidence of a single, formal tripartite initiative specifically focused on digital IDs, their combined efforts overlap through shared ideological alignments, for example, advancing the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), mutual endorsements of principles like those from the World Bank's Identification for Development (ID4D), and indirect collaborations via partnerships with entities like the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Gates Foundation. These organizations frame digital IDs as foundational to "digital public infrastructure" (DPI), which includes interoperable systems for identity verification, payments, and data exchange.
The 50-in-5 campaign sets the stage for the creation of an interlinked network of control attributes, including digital payments, ID, and data exchange systems, to aid the rapid progression of the UN’s sustainable development goals, for example, net zero/climate change/smart 15-minute cities. Tim Hinchcliffe, editor of the tech blog, The Sociable, suggests, DPI is a mechanism for surveillance and control linking digital ID, central bank digital currency (CBDC), vaccine passports, and carbon footprint tracking data, setting the stage for 15-minute smart cities, future lockdowns, and social credit systems.
What’s more, the UN has positioned digital IDs as essential for global inclusion and achieving the SDGs, particularly SDG 16.9 (legal identity for all by 2030). Through the UNDP, it launched the "50-in-5" initiative in November 2023, aiming to help 50 countries build safe, inclusive DPI, including digital IDs by 2028.
Forgive my scepticism. When I see the words essential, inclusion, and safe, it usually means I should take a closer look. Gerry Glazner a California based attorney captures my thoughts in this response to the 50-5 initiative he gave to The Defender, a children's health defence news publication in 2023“the 50-in-5 campaign is “a totalitarian nightmare” an “Orwellian” initiative aiming to predate on small countries harnessing them with the chains of digital ID, digital wallets, lawmaking and digital voting systems among other things.” “For political reasons, U.N. types like Gates cannot openly plan ‘one world government,’ so they use different phrases like ‘global partnership’ and ‘Agenda 2030.’”
These systems are all interconnected, providing access to personal data, ultimately to be employed in manipulating markets (control of food and other essentials), spending habits (what you can and can’t buy), social behaviours (what you can and can’t do), and potentially elections (who rules).In advocating for Digital ID systems, the UN states, we aim to provide convenient access to a wide range of financial services, including bank accounts, payments, and remittances, irrespective of location, while promoting participation in the global economy. You should ask yourself who gains convenient access to your data, financial capacity, spending behaviours, and bank accounts.
The Gates Foundation donated £200 million to expand global Digital Public Infrastructure to UNICEF in 2022, a precursor to a wider move towards a $1.27 billion investment plan for health and development in support of the SDG goals by 2030. If we are to take anything from the pseudo-pandemic of 2020, it must be that Bill Gates is a predatory philanthro-capitalist, considering his wealth grew by 31%, from $98 billion to $137 billion in twenty months, leaving chaos in its wake. His motives are less than pure, and his conscience is, well, he has none. Lesley McGoey, professor of sociology at the University of Essex, criticises Gates in the Current Affairs magazine of Politics and Culture, stating, it is outlandish to assume that Mr. Gates, chief monopolist, was somehow going to be a defender of the rights of the poor, and someone who could close the global inequality gaps. In reality, he was really at the forefront of helping to perpetuate inequality through his approach to labour contracts and through his approach to patent protections.
She goes on to say, “Gates is not the hero he claims to be when he would say things like, ‘We’re going to give our money voluntarily, and that’s going to make a difference.” In reality, he was really just calling for band-aid solutions. And even though he paid a lot of lip service to the idea that billionaires should pay higher taxes, whenever there’s been a concrete proposal on the table for trying to find a mechanism for doing so, he never comes out truly in favour of any real overhauling of a system that’s so geared to protecting the interests of someone like him and militating against the interests of workers. So, there’s a kind of amnesia or strategic ignorance on the part of leftists and even new critical actors like Anand Giridharadas.
The UK Climate Change Committee recommendations to the government are that meat consumption should be reduced by 25-30% before 2040. Dairy consumption should fall by 20% in the same period (by 2040). And the number of Cattle and Sheep should decrease by 27% to reduce emissions, aligning with UN development. Gates has major investment strategies interconnected with the above ideological positions relating to climate change and net zero. DIs will play a central role in achieving these goals.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
The Tony Blair Institute (TBI) advocates for digital IDs as a cornerstone of modern governance, arguing they enable proactive public services, reduce administrative burdens, combat fraud, and support priorities like migration control and crime reduction. The TBI has published guides explaining digital IDs, for example, citing successes in Estonia, Sweden, and India. and advises governments on implementation, through its Trade Worldwide Information Network (TWIN) platform for digital trade in Africa. Blair personally promotes them in speeches and media, calling for widespread adoption to make governments "faster, cheaper, and more effective," with estimates of £2 billion in annual UK savings.
The TBI claims success in Sweden, India, and Estonia. However, what is the reality? Digital ID is linked with cashless transactions, and in due course, to be enmeshed with CBDCs. Currently, Sweden has adopted a particularly aggressive move towards the “cashless society.” A term coined in Edward Bellamy’s (1888) utopian novel Looking Backward: 2000–1887. Predictions estimate that Sweden may be completely cashless by 2030. CBDCs, s will evolve from the dust of cashless societies, but who controls transactions, access, and blockchains, and what are the safeguards that will encourage democratic governance? These are highly relevant questions with implications that threaten civil liberties, fundamental human rights, and ultimately democracy in the West. In terms of national security, Sweden is a basket case with bombings every week of the year, and with crime spiralling out of control, and as quickly as technological safeguards are put in place, criminals and terrorist groups develop new methods of circumventing these measures. Currently, Sweden is one of the most digitally interconnected societies in the world. Sweden has seen a 144% rise in ransomed cybercrime. A digitised world is nothing more than the proverbial can of worms. It presents more problems than it mitigates. Here is a document detailing the vast architecture of digital legislation in Sweden that has evolved and is chasing its tail as it attempts to contain security and digital integrity incidents. Security incidents are an act that causes actual negative influence on the accessibility, authenticity, and confidentiality of an electronic communications network or service, whereas an integrity incident is an incident that causes an unintentional or unlawful destruction of, disclosure of, or access to data. State actors are another story with deeper and more malign implications.
India has embraced DI with over a million users, but with modern systems come security threats, more so than older analogue systems. These threats circle concerns of cybersecurity threats, data breaches, and identity theft, among the many vulnerabilities mired in the new technologies of biometrics and Blockchain. The India Aadhar initiative is a unique identification number linking demographic, biometric, financial, and real-time behavioural information to a 12-digit number unique to individual citizens.
The Aadhaar digital ID scheme has faced significant criticism due to its inherent failures and real dangers to privacy and national security. It centralises sensitive biometric and demographic data, making it a prime target for mass surveillance and cyberattacks. There have been numerous documented leaks and breaches, exposing millions of Indians to identity theft and fraud. Critics argue that it facilitates state overreach, eroding individual freedoms and enabling authoritarian control. Furthermore, the system has failed to deliver its promised benefits efficiently, with exclusion errors denying essential services to vulnerable populations. The mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, tax filings, and telecommunications further exacerbates these risks, creating a single point of failure that compromises both personal and financial security. References to these issues are extensively covered in reports by legal services India, Centre for Internet and Society, as well as analyses by privacy advocates like Usha Ramanathan and organizations like the Internet Freedom Foundation.
Risk mitigation is far more complex and wide-ranging than current analogue systems of ready cash, paper ID, and physical safeguards. While the old systems have their unique vulnerabilities, for example, counterfeit cash, fake/physical ID fraud, and stolen identities, the new tech has far more vulnerabilities, with the potential for broad scope criminal enterprises on a much larger scale. Digitization in India has impacted education and healthcare, with the adoption of e learning platforms, telemedicine, and digital health records. These advancements aim to make services more accessible and efficient. But are they more effective, efficient, and secure than old systems? I think not. This is all before we consider concerns of social organisation and control. In a fully loaded digital society, citizens will be held hostage with a gun aimed at their heads by central banks, the state, and malevolent governments. Financial independence will be a thing of the past, travel will become a privilege, not a right, and health and education will be at your master's behest. Who decides where and what you spend, who can travel and to where, and who lives or dies, and what indoctrination program is offered in the national curriculum? It is then not difficult to see why particular actors are so deeply invested in the new technologies, with greater reach and with more effective mechanisms to contain dissent to ideological positions. And in terms of a social credit system, it will place limitations via carbon credits on travel, nutrition, and heating via net-zero narratives. There will be substantial financial enrichment for predatory capitalists, like Bill Gates, for example, in lab-grown meat, insect food, and vaccines with control over the food supply and health system. India and Sweden is learning that with the new era of increased interconnectivity in the digital sphere, it doesn’t come without its problems, particularly concerning digital identity. It is not the success story the TBI suggests, and the early signs indicate an overarching system of population control. Bringing me to our third major player in the push towards full-spectrum DID, the WEF. Remember, you will own nothing and be happy.
World Economic Forum
Davos is where our predatory corporate capitalists congregate to make their plans against us. This is not hyperbole. Davos attendees are linked to state socialists. I know this view may appear to be conflating two odd bedfellows. However, this is the kind of cushy corporate socialism that Robert F Kennedy describes as the merger between state and corporate power. A partnership he suggests is turning the USA into a corporate kleptocracy, AKA a theivocracy. While this term differs from plutocracy, is nonetheless led by plutocrats (rule by a small elite). The kleptocrats serve this elite; these are governments and corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) misapplying political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern. Most often misappropriating state/ government funds at the expense of the wider population, see USAID DOGE. We see this in almost every Western country, and while the most obvious thefts are the backhanders from lobbyists and corporations, a more indirect but often interconnected example is the taxpayer funds gifted to the NGO industrial complex. At arm's length organisations that are often working toward the corporate goals of those who visit Davos, for example, Mark Irwin and Anthony Kirby, ex and current CEOs of SERCO, respectively. SERCO is the corporate entity profiting from the current mass migration in the UK across many sectors, a few examples include hotels, catering, clothing, and detention. Davos is where the Kleptocrats go to meet the plutocrats. Before I drift off on a tangent, I’ll reel myself back in to focus on the WEF and its promotion of DIs.
The WEF frames digital IDs as key to an "inclusive digital economy," publishing reports like "Reimagining Digital ID" (2023) and "A Blueprint for Digital Identity" (2016), which provide frameworks for decentralized, user-controlled systems to expand access and reduce costs. In 2023, the WEF released its report Reimagining Digital ID, advocating for a decentralised digital identification, claiming that efforts were already underway to create DIs at scale, offering technical, policy, governance, and implementation recommendations. The big selling points of the report are inclusivity, privacy, autonomy, improved access, control, enhanced efficiency, and effectiveness. Decentralized IDs (DIDs) are sold as digital identity systems that shift control of personal data from centralized authorities, like governments or corporations, directly to individuals. In the context described by the WEF report, DIDs enable users to manage their own identity credentials, for instance, proof of age, qualifications, or residence issued by trusted entities (issuers), without relying on a single intermediary. Users can selectively share these credentials with service providers, enhancing privacy and autonomy. This all sounds very philanthropic, egalitarian, and cost-effective, with an underlying will for secure and safe systems of identification, until you take a deeper look into the potential motivations and benefits for WEF partners (kleptocracy and plutocrats).
The risk of DIDs is extensive and will rely on emerging technologies like blockchain and cryptographic protocols, which have unknown vulnerabilities and scalable issues. Imagine an entire system is brought down by cyberattacks in conjunction with terrorist attacks on data hubs. In terms of individual liabilities, managing private keys presents issues of loss or theft that may result in irreversible identity compromise with no central authority to intervene. Additionally, these types of systems rely on issuers being legitimate and accurate. If malicious or incompetent issuers proliferate, the credibility of the entire ecosystem erodes, presenting a broad range of issues for everyone in the system. There are further issues relating to a standard/universal system. Meaning competing DID systems may fail to work together, limiting utility and adoption. Not to mention the many privacy issues where DIDs may be exploited by bad actors or governments for tracking, and if implementation is flawed or coerced, for example, mandatory biometric links. Bill Gates’s Microsoft system is already prompting users for biometric verification attributes. Currently, these are voluntary but via function creep will inevitably be coerced as mandatory for accessibility to programme applications, for example, Word, Excel, etc.
In terms of benefits, the WEF partners, particularly big tech and financial institutions, gain streamlined access to reliable consumer data without the liability of storing it centrally. DID systems can reduce fraud, although they open doors to digital fraud. Also, DID simplifies KYC (Know Your Customer) processes and enables hyper-personalized marketing, all while shifting data management burdens and risks onto users. Governments and global institutions can then use DID to create a standardized, interoperable digital identity framework. This allows for more efficient social governance (social credit system), taxation, regulation, and surveillance, masked as “convenience” and “security.” For example, linking health credentials, financial behaviour, and social activity through DID creates a comprehensive digital footprint accessible to authorities. The obvious motivation behind DIDs is their integration with a social credit-style system, where “good behaviour”, for example, carbon footprint compliance, where subscription to approved narratives is rewarded, and dissent is penalized through restricted access to services. DIDs are easily weaponised to exclude “undesirables” from financial systems, healthcare, travel, or even social platforms based on curated criteria, for instance, unvaccinated status, “wrongthink” online, or dissident affiliations. This is digital redlining with a friendly face. The Canadian trucker protest is an early signal of things to come, where protestors’ bank accounts were frozen and seized by authorities. Analytics, of advertising and sales, will be employed to aggregate data for sale to third parties, even in decentralised systems, meaning privacy claims supposedly part of the DID ethos are a red herring. Additionally. Though DID is touted as decentralised, most often it will rely on a small group of issuers and validators, for instance, governments and corporations, who ultimately will wield the power to revoke credentials or alter rules. Meaning a centralised control grid disguised as user autonomy.
The WEF’s push for decentralized ID is not about empowering individuals; it’s about constructing a scalable, efficient system of digital governance that benefits globalist elites while pacifying the public with illusions of choice and privacy. The risks of authoritarian misuse, corporate exploitation, and social engineering far outweigh the marketed benefits.
A story of two dangerous agents tweaking the world governance superstructure.
When players like Tony Blair and Bill Gates are advocating for any particular product or service, this should be a red flag, considering Blair started an illegal war in Iraq and Bill Gates is responsible for hundreds of thousands of vaccine deaths in multiple countries across the world. Both have one thing in common. They both rely on misinformation to serve their aims. One of Tony Blair’s favourite talking points on DIDs and digital infrastructure is to have data on who has been vaccinated and who has not. Indeed, he emphasised this at last year's WEF meeting at Davos, claiming we must have this type of infrastructure for health care purposes and also for future pandemics, where multiple shots will be required. He echoes Bill Gates, who just can’t help himself in his enthusiasm, describing getting that shot into babies' arms. In light of the high-pitched irrational reactions elicited around the hysteria during the COVID pseudo-pandemic over a fairly innocuous virus and the resulting turn away from democratic principles and features, and the following civil liberties violations, this must surely be a warning to everyone. One that suggests that DI’s will make it far easier for malevolent authorities to target people who do not wish to be vaccinated by experimental technologies and far easier to persecute anyone who may be sceptical as to the motivations, safety, and efficacy of said technologies and their advocates. New evidence on the covid 19 experimental tech tells a multifaceted story of failure. One of almost zero efficacy, heightened safety concerns, and potentially malign motivations of pharmaceutical companies (long term health liabilities) and political institutions of the state, (reduced pension liabilities) leading to mass murder, horrific injuries and continuing deaths that are the fall out of a toxic vaccine alongside the radioactive impact in terms of its socio-psychological effects on western populations, particularly children. Who knows how long the half-life of the radioactive measures during the COVID-19 era will radiate into the future?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the push for mandatory Digital ID systems represents far more than a simple upgrade to bureaucratic efficiency; it is the cornerstone of a sweeping globalist agenda aimed at erasing individual liberty and national sovereignty. This essay has demonstrated that the stated justifications for Digital ID, from controlling migration to preventing fraud, are transparently weak and logically flawed. The real architects of this system, including the Tony Blair Institute, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum, are not motivated by public interest but by a desire to consolidate control and profit from data monetisation in lockstep towards a totalitarian vision of society.
Digital ID is the gateway to a fully integrated control grid: it paves the way for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), social credit systems, carbon footprint tracking, and the eventual elimination of financial privacy and physical autonomy. The examples of Sweden and India, touted as success stories, indicate instead a rise in cyber vulnerabilities, crime, and state overreach, evidencing that these systems empower authorities rather than protect citizens.
Ultimately, Digital ID benefits globalist elites, predatory capitalists, and authoritarian governments, and not the ordinary person. It threatens to enslave populations under the guise of convenience, safety, and inclusion, enabling unprecedented surveillance, behaviour modification, and exclusion of dissenters. The COVID-19 era was a mere dress rehearsal; Digital ID would make these tyrannical measures permanent and inescapable.
True freedom depends on decentralised, tangible forms of identity and exchange in cash, passports, and personal autonomy, and not digitised chains disguised as progress. The fight against Digital ID is a fight for the soul of Western civilization itself. Think Hunger Games and commercial access zones, and London is already there. Think smart cities imagined by Orwell, where facial recognition surveys your every move. Think of the state’s boot on your neck and society anaesthetised by a brave new world, where no one is brave. Think of all these things and know that Digital identification is not a small step for man but a giant leap of mankind towards enslavement.
A final thought: When you hear of a bad idea, don’t be strategic about it, call it for what it is.
If progression looks like regression, label it as such. If it looks, sounds, feels, and smells harmful, it generally is.
References
CEB (2024) UN Digital ID. UN systems chief executive board for coordination. Available at: UN Digital ID | United Nations - CEB [Accessed 6 September 2025].
Centre for Internet and Society (2018) Aadhaar Data Breaches: Available at: UIDAI admits 210 government websites made Aadhaar details public — Centre for Internet and Society [Accessed 9 September 2025].
Current Affairs, 2022) Current Affairs magazine Politics and Culture. Available at: How Bill Gates Makes the World Worse Off [Accessed 5 September 2025].
Conservative Party, (2010) Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement. Available at:
Digwatch (2023) Digital watch: UN pushes for global digital ID system to boost financial inclusion. Available at: UN pushes for global digital ID system to boost financial inclusion | Digital Watch Observatory
Drèze, J., Khalid, N., Khera, R. and Somanchi, A., (2017) Aadhaar and food security in Jharkhand: Pain without gain?. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.50-5.
Identity Cards Act 2006 - Wikipedia politics.co.uk, (2010) ID cards by the backdoor? Available at:
[Accessed 6 September 2025].
Internet Freedom Foundation (2019) Aadhaar: Internet Freedom Foundation flags risks of disenfranchisement in Aadhaar-EPIC linkage push. Available at: IFF Warns Aadhaar-Voter ID Linking Could Threaten India’s Democratic Process - Frontline
Larsson, A., (2025) The Digital Economy in Sweden: A Lodestar or a Cautionary Tale?. ASEAN Digital Community 2045 Global Insights, p.1.
Legal Services India (2025) Understanding Adhaar data breach: Causes, consequences and future safeguards. Available at: Understanding the Aadhaar Data Breach: Causes, Consequences, and Future Safeguards
Nevradakis, M., (2023) The Defender, children's health protection: UN Launches Gates Funded Global ID Program as Experts warn of Totalitarian Nightmare. Available at: UN Launches Gates-Funded Global Digital ID Program as Experts Warn of ‘Totalitarian Nightmare’ • Children's Health Defense
Ramanathan, U., 2010. A unique identity bill. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.10-14.
Reimagining Digital ID (2023) Reimagining digital ID. Available at: WEF_Reimagining_Digital_ID_2023.pdf [Accessed 5 September 2025]
UK Home Office (2023) A history of UK passports. Available at: A history of the UK passport – Home Office in the media [Accessed 7 September 2025].
UNEC (2016) The Sustainable Development Goals and its Adaptation at the Regional and Country Level Capacity Development Workshop on SDG Indicators Geneva, November 2-4, 2016. Available at: Slide 1
United Nations (2025) Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Available at: Goal 16 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Agar, J. (2003) The Government Machine: A Revolutionary History of the Computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eubanks, V. (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Schwab, K. and Malleret, T. (2020) COVID-19: The Great Reset. Geneva: Agent Publishing.
World Economic Forum (2020) The Global Social Mobility Report 20. Available at: Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf [Accessed 8 September 2025].
.
World Economic Forum (2022) Advancing Digital Agency: The Role of Data Intermediaries. Available at:Advancing Digital Agency: The Power of Data Intermediaries | World Economic Forum [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
Electronic Frontier Foundation (n.d.). Digital Identity. Available at: Digital Identity | Electronic Frontier Foundation (Accessed: 8 September 2025).
Schneier, B. (2023) Schneier on Security. Available at: Schneier on Security - Schneier on Security [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
Dystopian novels: Instruction manuals for the ruling classes.
I was sitting in my kitchen the other day drinking my morning coffee contemplating the current state and likely trajectory of the western world and how it resembles an ever more fictional realm. The thought occurred to me, am I living in a science fiction dystopian novel manifested by science fiction buffs or is my imagination having a dominant moment? In the Immediacy of this thought, I wondered how much science fiction novels of the past bore influence on the future. Just taking a cursory look around at our world informs us that indeed science fiction must surely bear some influence, and complimentary predictive power born in the imagination of science fiction authors. When we consider the political trajectory after the Great War, technological advancement, and formula of our present social melee, particularly for those of us that enjoy the genre, then it is confirmed. I laughed to myself, thinking it is merely anecdotal, albeit compelling, until I thought a bit more, and recalled the themes and ideas magically come to life in the many Sci-Fi books I’ve read and set about to find contemporary examples that I wouldn’t have to crowbar into my playful theory. And if this theory has any substance, then those at the top of the food chain in terms of who decides what course society is set and how the socio-political environment unfolds must consist of a mixture of hard-core non-fiction communism consumers mediated by science fiction fans. It seems the fiction of yesteryear often becomes the blueprint for today. Speculative fiction has an uncanny knack of translating human imagination as a social prophecy. Not only do authors predict technological advances but foresee the socio-political and psychological consequences of adopting the technology.
The obvious and most quoted work is Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1948 describing a tightly screwed fear-driven life in the Dystopian world of Oceania, experienced by our protagonist Winston Smith, and controlled by the Party. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four spotlights the consequential threads of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive collectivisation in modifying social behaviours. Oceania’s political system is known as Ingsoc, aka English socialism and was intended by Orwell as a parody of the Fabian Society. While our protagonist feels the walls closing around him, Winston holds an at times fatalistic view of his circumstances yet is contradicted by his primal resistance against the stifling of his autonomy, a secret compulsion he must keep close to his chest in fear his wrong think will be discovered by Big Brother necessitating a visit from the Thought Police. Oceania is a totalitarian world dominated by the themes of language simplicity applied to control thought, reinforced by psychological menacing and accompanied by the threat of physical violence to manipulate behaviour, infused with the Party maintaining a tight grip on knowledge of history, even going so far as revisionism to contain a grip on the present.
The central technology of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the inescapable all-seeing two-way Telescreen of Big brother, the dictatorial leader of Oceania and controller of the “Thought Police.” Winston’s growing sense of fatalism is driven by a pressing paranoia. A state of mind brought about under the strain of Big Brothers control, instinctively knowing when writing, “Down with Big Brother,” in his diary he will be found out. His weakness gnaws at him constantly, a deep-seated resentment of the regime, one where his primal resistance betrays his fear and a crushing sense of quiet inevitability. It is only a matter of time before he is betrayed by O’ Brien, his supervisor in the Ministry of Truth.
I am confident many of us today can relate to Winston’s fear both in the workplace for wrong think and being betrayed by a colleague or writing something down on social media, or even as a Journalists (Tommy Robinson and others) that may have strayed from the party line, we should expect a visit from the Thought Police.” No doubt informed/reported by one of our own to Big Brothers Ministry of Truth or in our paradigm Keir Starmers Prevent Program-National Online Information Team (NSOIT). Complimented by our modern “Telescreen” the Counter Disinformation Data Platforms (CDDP) newly developed thought police AI system. On the other side of the Atlantic we have the NSA Prism program monitoring smart devices and facial recognition software, mirroring Oceania’s telescreen.
Newspeak, in 1984 is self-evident in the contemporary period as the simplification of language or political correctness, as we all know it, narrowing thought and undesirable expressions of freedom and individuality. It is a method of limiting critical thinking bounded by language extracted from ideological frameworks. Think of words like inclusion, diversity, and equity, sacralized words that Ingsoc or modern progressives would have you believe have no positive opposing merit and to think otherwise is wrong think that will be punished by social penalties of cancelling or ostracism. Think gender critical views or topics of ethno-demographic replacement and you get the picture. This is fortified by speech crime legislation as felt by our living protagonists under threat by the omniscient “Thought Police.” Craig Houston, Pete North, Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, and George Galloway are recent high-profile real time examples, and many more besides who for lack of exposure fall under the public radar. Memory holing under the radar civil liberty violations has become an art form.
The memory hole is another interesting concept coined by Orwell, easily conscripted to our current era, meaning inconvenient facts not aligning with government propaganda are destroyed by the ironically named Ministry of Truth. We know that big tech has a penchant for washing away inconvenient details of political or corporate actors. Memory holing is a daily occurrence, historical monuments are torn down, there is a concerted effort to rewrite history for a dumbed down population who take ethnically corrupted period dramas as credible historical accounts, books are rewritten playing to so-called progressive sensibilities in terms of race and gender and statements by public figures are scrubbed from the internet.
At the opposite end but complimenting memory holing, Oceania residents are required to indulge in a daily, ”Two Minutes of Hate.” A film is shown presenting the “Partys,” antagonist Emanual Goldstein and his followers as the enemy of the state. Ironically, our protagonist Winston discovers Emanual Goldsteins Brotherhood manifesto was written by party members, hinting at the rule of divide and conquer by creating an existential enemy. Oceania’s people are expected to vent their loathing for this perceived enemy and hail their allegiance to the party. Where have we seen this before? Let us begin with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) where the Party machinery of the Democrats decried Trump as an existential threat to the country, stigmatising his supporters as deplorables, and racists, while casting numerous other dehumanizing and delegitimizing word spells. We watched, as in the year running up to the election of 2016 a massive campaign of two-minute hate that went on all day, every day, until Trump was elected and then continued unabated for a further four years. In the UK we witness a similar effort by the UK Uniparty holding daily, “two-minute hate” festivals for mindless morons to vent their hate against Nigel Farage. Indeed the recent Labour Party Conference was a full three days of two-minute hate against Reform UK. With David Lammy Stooping so low as to associate Farage with the Hitler youth movement. We see it in Europe employed against Marine le Penn, Alice Wedel, and Geert Wilders. Perhaps the vilest manifestation of two-minute hate was served on Charlie kirk, then perceived as an existential threat and murdered by a mindless automaton of the Party faithful (Democrats). Conversely in the UK we see two-minute hate against non-politicians like Tommy Robinson, labelling them as existential threats. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say Tommy Robinson has had more two-minute hate pushed his way than any other activist in the last twenty years. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon could just as easily and been warranted to have adopted the name of our protagonist, Winston Smith. The scope for comparison of Orwell’s work to the contemporary period is as broad as it is long. It is a testament to his foresight and imagination informed by his era’s understanding of political and social organization and psychological methods of manipulation, showing that really, some things only change superficially, even with technological advancement, a central mass that has been there since prehistory reaches out to entangle society to a particular way of forming our world.
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four serves as a hauntingly prescient reflection of our contemporary world, where the dystopian themes of totalitarianism, surveillance, and psychological manipulation resonate with disturbing clarity. From the all-seeing telescreens foreshadowing modern surveillance systems like the NSA’s Prism program and the UK’s AI Counter Disinformation Data Platform, to the speech chilling parallels of Newspeak in today’s politically correct language that stifles dissent, Orwell’s vision captures the mechanisms of control that persist in new guises. The memory hole, erasing inconvenient truths, finds its facsimile in the rewriting of history and the digital scrubbing of dissenting voices, while the daily Two Minutes Hate lives on in the orchestrated vilification of figures like Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, or Donald Trump, rallying collective outrage to reinforce ideological conformity. These parallels suggest that science fiction, far from being mere fantasy, acts as a prophetic lens, illuminating the socio-political and psychological consequences of unchecked power and technological advancement. Orwell’s work sends a signal from the past as a reminder, that the forces shaping our world, whether driven by ideology, technology, or combining both, require vigilance and scrutiny, lest we find ourselves, like Winston Smith, trapped in a reality where autonomy is sacrificed, and truth becomes a casualty of control.
References
Shadow dragon (2025) Social Media Monitoring for Government: Tools, Best Practices, Use Cases - ShadowDragon.io
Charles Chevalier has liked your post Lib warrior.