The U.K.’s Members of Parliament returned from their summer holidays last week to give the final nod to the Energy Bill 2023. It is a leviathan piece of legislation in every sense of the word. It is 427 pages long. It has 15 parts and 330 separate provisions (many of which have lots of sub-provisions), not to mention another supplementary 22 schedules. Its full title alone consists of 130 words. It covers everything from the licensing of carbon dioxide storage to hydrogen grid trials to offshore energy production. And in every aspect it aggrandises the power of the State and gives sweeping executive authority to Government ministers. As law-making, it is a travesty. As policy, it is inexcusable. As an illustration of the indefensible way in which Western societies are coming to be governed, however, it is exemplary.
Explaining the substantive content of the Bill in full would take a long time, and it is not my intention to do that here. (There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the complexity of the Act and its consequent opacity to the lay reader and sheer unwieldiness for the commentator is deliberate. But that’s a subject for another post.)
Instead I wish to highlight some key features, and explicate what the Bill tells us about how we are currently governed and are likely to be governed in the future. I will also elucidate the negative consequences of this governing style. To achieve this, I’m afraid that I will have to touch upon a subject which even most legal philosophers think of as arid and sterile, namely the morality of law. But before doing this, let’s back up and sketch out the changing nature of law in modernity.
From Rules to Regulation
Once upon a time, law could be thought of as primarily consisting of rules that are applied to facts. Bob intends to kill, and kills, Graham; he has committed murder. Sarah’s contract with Chris was entered into on the basis of a misrepresentation, and therefore the contract can be rescinded. Etcetera. This is how laypeople still tend to think of law, and it is how law students are still generally taught: ‘thinking like a lawyer’ means being able to approach a set of facts concerning a dispute, and apply legal rules to determine the likely legal outcome.
Rules, of course, still exist, are still created, and are still applied. But the fashion, really ever since the birth of the administrative state in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been to deploy law in a more regulatory way. Legislatures legislate, not primarily to make rules for ordinary people to follow, but to delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts (or politicians advised by such agencies and experts) to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; to issue guidance and recommendations; to publish codes of conduct; to give and revoke licences; and so on as and when they see fit – often with a very wide discretion.
Roger Brownsword, an eminent legal scholar, gives us a useful shorthand for understanding this change, describing it as the transition from “Law 1.0” to “Law 2.0”. It represents, in essence, a move away from law understood chiefly as comprising rules per se, to law understood as policy. Legislation is not created simply to order the conduct of otherwise free citizens. It is created in order to give effect to governmental purposes. It is used not to make clear rules, but to delegate the authority necessary to effect desired changes of some kind within the economy or society, usually to the state’s ever-growing administrative bureaucracy (but also to private companies).
This is a plausible way of describing the history of legal developments over the past century and a half or so. And it has been frequently observed by people concerned with such matters that modern governance is a matter of – as Foucault put it – “tactics rather than laws”:
[Modern governance] is not a matter of imposing law on men, but of the disposition of things, that is to say, employing tactics rather than laws… I think this marks an important break… the end of government [is] to be sought in the perfection, maximisation or intensification of the processes it directs, and the instruments of government will become diverse tactics rather than laws.
The medieval concept of the sovereign as the upholder of the law (and, indeed, of good governance itself as being a matter simply of upholding the law), has thus gradually eroded over the course of modernity such that we are in the position in which we now find ourselves, with law simply being a tool to help the state manage society. It is not that laws are no longer made – legislation is still enacted and enforced – it is just that the point of legislation is no longer merely to make rules but to achieve purposes. And this very frequently means that legislation essentially delegates executive power to technicians, managers and what are inevitably referred to as ‘stakeholders’.
The Energy Bill 2023 is in many respects an example par excellence of the ‘Law 2.0’ mode of governance. To take one example, Part 5 of the Bill will when enacted create something called the Independent System Operator and Planner, a legal person (“likely a company“), which will do all sorts of vaguely-defined but important things, like “co-ordinating and directing the flow of electricity onto and over transmission systems”, “carrying out strategic planning and forecasting in connection with… the conveyance or supply of electricity [and] the conveyance and supply of gas”, “providing advice or information” to Government ministers, and so on. And the Bill also mandates that it shall do these things in view of three requirements: to achieve Net Zero, to secure energy supply, and to promote economy and efficiency. In other words, the Bill creates an independent entity (“likely a company”, remember, meaning it will have limited liability) with sweeping powers and wide discretion to regulate electricity and gas supplies as it sees fit in line with certain objectives.
The Emergence of Law 3.0
You will be with me so far. And if this kind of thing was all that the Energy Bill 2023 did, it would not be particularly noteworthy. It would simply be another depressing example of the way in which decisions of the most profound political importance are nowadays determined not by our elected legislatures, but by a penumbra of technical ‘experts’ and managers, acting either directly (through agencies and regulatory bodies) or through ‘advising’ Government ministers who then issue rules accordingly.
But this is not all that the Energy Bill 2023 does, and here we come to a fresher development in the relationship between law and the state. Importantly, Brownsword has recently been suggesting that we are rapidly advancing into the next iteration of law – Law 3.0 – in which law becomes essentially self-executing through technology and, indeed, the very exercise of subjecting human conduct to rules becomes subsumed by technological management. Here, the creation of rules itself will become seen as archaic, with technology providing us with better – more efficient, more rational, more effective – forms of justice than those available to the flawed system of law which we currently respect. The end result (the apotheosis of Law 3.0, as it were), will be the merging of technology with law, such that the requirement for rules to exist will disappear and human conduct will be more or less entirely managed by technology.
The example Brownsword uses – and it is an example used almost everywhere in the literature on this topic – is that of golf carts. We are invited to imagine the following scenario: a golf club buys in a new fleet of golf carts for members to use. But members keep driving them on the greens. The golf club could make it a rule for members not to drive on the greens, but, of course, there is no guarantee that such a rule would be complied with. Would it not be better, those referring to this scenario typically suggest, if there could be a technological solution instead? Would it not be better if the golf club just bought golf carts which, through the awesome power of digital tech, automatically stop working if they are about to go on the greens? Would that not be more efficient, and would it not achieve a more perfect result than simply making a rule?
The golf cart example is often invoked, one suspects, because it seems so benign. Who could object, the implication seems to be, to such a neat solution? Nobody would be harmed by golf carts which simply can’t be driven onto the greens. And everybody would benefit because there would be 100% achievement of the desired end. What would be the problem with this?
As is so often the case when blithe, abstract reasoning of this kind meets the real world, however, and we start to think about the implications in detail, the idea of law’s final union with technological management is revealed to be a genuinely terrifying prospect. This is because it will have two inevitable sets of consequences.
From Golf Carts to Energy Smart Appliances
The first set of consequences is bad enough, and will be obvious to anybody who has been paying attention. We already inhabit a scenario in which legislatures chiefly govern by authorising administrative agencies, regulative bodies, quangos, licensing authorities and so on to issue decrees and edicts as they see fit or to advise Government ministers to do likewise. Now imagine that said administrative agencies, etc., can make such decrees and edicts self-executing through technology, thus rendering non-compliance not simply illegal but impossible.
The tyrannical implications of such a mode of governance are so obvious that it really ought to go without saying. Golf carts are one thing, but given that our future seems to be populated almost exclusively by ‘internet of things’-connected ‘smart’ artefacts (fridges, cars, mobile phones, TVs, watches, even doors), and given the apparent lack of any principled limit on the purview of government in modernity, things begin to look increasingly dystopian when the implications of Law 3.0 are properly thought through.
And sure enough, sections of the Energy Bill 2023 give one pause when considered in the light of all this discussion about the union of technological management and law. Consider, for example, Part 9 of the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about something called “energy smart appliances and load control” (with this type of regulation being referred to as an “energy smart regulation”).
What is an “energy smart appliance”? Well, it’s “an appliance which is capable of adjusting the immediate or future flow of electricity into or out of itself or another appliance in response to a load control signal” (clause 234 (2)). What’s a “load control signal”? It means “a digital communication sent via a relevant electronic communications network to an energy smart appliance for the purpose of causing or otherwise facilitating such an adjustment [i.e. to the immediate or future flow of electricity]” (clause 234 (4)).
What does this Part of the Act therefore seem to entail? Well, without going into vast detail, it seems to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the sending of load control signals to energy smart appliances (which do things like “refrigeration”, “cleaning tableware”, “washing or drying textiles”, and “heating”) in order to adjust the flow of electricity to them, and to control who has a licence to send such signals. Yes, if you’re keeping up: this appears to create the legal infrastructure to permit the Secretary of State (advised, of course, by the ‘experts’) to issue regulations concerning the flow of electricity into fridges, dishwashers, washing machines, and so on, and to delegate the issuing of load control signals themselves to approved licensees – presumably utility companies.
The explanatory notes to the Bill suggest this will be done to “help consumers save money on their energy bills” by “shift[ing] electricity usage to times when it is beneficial for the energy system” and thus “smart[ly] and flexib[ly]… control consumption”. Sceptics may wonder if this is the only reason why it will be done – and will also have their eyes unavoidably drawn to clause 237 (5) of the Bill, which will “allow enforcement authorities to impose requirements by written notice on persons to… make appliances compliant with energy smart regulations” (i.e., to ensure that their dishwashers, washing machines, etc. can receive load control signals). These sceptics may, if they are capable of parsing modern Parliamentary drafting, also have their eyes drawn to to clause 235 (4) (c) and clause 236 (3) of the Bill, which seem to give the Secretary of State the power to ban the sale of non-smart appliances.
Why would the Secretary of State need to ban the sale of non-smart appliances if their only purpose was to “help consumers save money on their energy bills”? Why would he or she need to require people to make sure their appliances are “energy smart”? I won’t insult your intelligence by spelling it out, but I don’t think “helping consumers save money on their energy bills” is the end of the story.
Setting aside the substance of the Bill itself, what I wish to emphasise here is its character. If Parliament wished to legislate in order to control energy consumption through clear rules (“each household may only use X number of kWH of electricity per day”) that might be authoritarian, but at least it would be clear – and at least it would then be subject to open debate. But that would be to govern through the creation of quaint old Law 1.0. We’re now in the era of Law 3.0, and we don’t even see rules of general application appearing at all. Instead we see legislation delegating authority to a Government minister to appoint licensees to issue “load control signals” to “smart appliances” on a “smart and flexible” basis in order to control energy consumption. The law, in other words, will self-execute through the technology itself, and non-compliance will become impossible – because our machines themselves will simply respond to the load control signals which they are sent. (And because we will have to use such machines, because the sale of others will be banned; ironically, we see here a vestigial role for Law 1.0 after all.)
The substantive purpose of the legislation is not really the issue here. You may agree entirely with the goal of reducing carbon emissions and you may agree with the goal of achieving ‘Net Zero’ by 2050. I reiterate: the problem is the indefensible way in which all of this is being realised – surreptitiously, and through what is effectively executive power wielded by unaccountable managers deploying technological methods which cannot be gainsaid and which are designed to achieve 100% compliance through making non-compliance physically impossible.
Law’s Inner Morality
This is just the first negative consequence of the deployment of ‘Law 3.0’, though. The second is, to my eye, worse, and it concerns the effects of all of this on human subjectivity and indeed on our capacity to act ethically in the first place. To explicate this, we need to turn briefly to the subject of what the legal philosopher Lon Fuller, writing in the 1960s, called ‘the “inner morality” of law.
Fuller, like many postwar legal theorists, was interested in the phenomenon of law exercised within the context of totalitarian regimes. The curious thing about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was that, for all that they were brutal dictatorships, they still had the trappings of functioning legal systems: constitutions, courts, judges, advocates and all the rest. This raised a vexed question. We normally think of ‘the rule of law’ as a good thing. But Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, while appearing to have legal systems, hardly resembled the kinds of states that we think of when ‘the rule of law’ is mentioned. How, then, does one distinguish between societies which are governed by the rule of law from societies which are governed by purported legal systems but which are in fact oppressive and authoritarian?
Fuller’s answer was that law had an “inner morality” – which was distinct from matters of “external morality” (such as whether a given law had a morally right or wrong outcome). He asked us first to consider eight ways in which a lawmaker could “fail to make law”. These were:
- Producing no rules at all or making only ad hoc decisions
- Failing to make rules public
- Using retroactive rules
- Producing unclear rules
- Producing contradictory rules
- Producing rules with which it is impossible to comply
- Changing rules too often
- Deciding cases in such a way that outcomes bear no relation to the rules
Failing to make law, in these terms, was a violation of law’s inner morality, and a legal system which regularly and consistently failed to make law in any or all of these ways was therefore not to be thought of as comprising laws at all, but something else. And since legal systems in autocratic and totalitarian regimes very often violate law’s inner morality in these ways, this is why we are qualified to distinguish their purported laws from those which prevail in states where law’s inner morality is generally upheld.
Why did this matter so much, though? What’s so good about being governed by legal systems which have rules, where the rules are public, where they do not apply retrospectively, where they are clear, where they are not contradictory, etc.?
Here is one of those occasions in which it is beneficial simply to quote the man himself, in a passage of prose which ought to be reproduced as the compulsory PC desktop background of every legislator in every democracy in the world:
[Legal morality] cannot be neutral in its view of man himself. To embark on the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules involves of necessity a commitment to the view that man is, or can become, a responsible agent, capable of understanding and following rules, and answerable for his defaults.Every departure from the principles of law’s inner morality is an affront to man’s dignity as a responsible agent. To judge his actions by unpublished or retrospective laws, or to order him to do an act that is impossible, is to convey to him your indifference to his powers of self-determination.
Governing human conduct by rules, in other words, is to treat the people who are subject to the rules as conscious, free-willed, sensible agents who are capable of understanding the world around them and accepting responsibility for their decisions. We are capable of knowing, for instance, the speed limit on a given stretch of road, and we are also capable of making the decision to go faster in full awareness that there may be negative consequences of doing so – which we accept. The speed limit does not compel us: we can choose to abide by it, or not. And this, most crucially of all, means that we have moral agency. We can choose to do right or wrong.
Fuller would not have put it in these terms, but he would therefore have agreed with Foucault’s observation that “freedom is the ontological condition of ethics”. Acting ethically requires the freedom to choose. If one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. One is simply robotically doing what one is told, and one is in moral terms therefore indistinguishable from a robot. It seems tautologous to point out that this denudes us of one of the central characteristics – perhaps the central characteristic – of humanity: the capacity to choose to act morally, or not.
Law 3.0 was a development which Fuller could not really have foreseen. And it therefore introduces a ninth way of failing to make law to his list: one can fail to make law by making it impossible not to comply, through the deployment of technology. And in its way, this is the worst affront to the dignity of man out of them all, because it destroys the very conditions of moral agency. I reiterate: if one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. The Energy Bill 2023 is therefore not only bad law because it is unclear, because it mostly delegates authority to make ad hoc decisions rather than rules, and so on. It is bad law because it seeks to automate compliance.
I would say that this has the effect of putting the subjects of the law into the position of children, but this would be to underplay the affront considerably. Children’s conduct (provided they have good parents) is subject to rules which are clear and understandable and with which they have the choice to comply, and children – as any parent knows – are masterful negotiators, adept at carving out exceptions to rules as required. Really, it puts the subjects of the law more into the position of rats in a Skinner Box, and here Fuller was prescient in warning us that once the inner morality of law is routinely violated, social order would have to be enforced through other, behavioural means: “Instead of telling men to be good, we [will] condition them to be good”, and instead of “judg[ing] a man, we [will] act upon him”. The mode of lawmaking which the Energy Bill 2023 exemplifies is one in which our legislators create the conditions for us to be simply acted upon.
We are not going to like where that leads. Having our energy consumption governed through ad hoc micromanagement of the electricity flow to our compulsorily purchased energy smart appliances on a moment to moment basis is dystopian enough. I invite you, though, to consider the other areas of life – both public and private – which are currently likely being eyed up by our legislators for the Law 3.0 treatment. It’s not about, and never has been about, mere golf carts on greens. It is about the fusion of law and technology in every sphere of our lives, and everything that will entail.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. This article first appeared on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I see #TwoTierKeir is trending, shortened to 2TK.
Prediction: Within 6 months, 2TKQ+ or 2TKTQ+ will be in use as a moniker.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/pact-future-planetary-technocracy-global-crises-global-corporatocracy/5864483
Note for all – I was timed out before I could finish editing this piece so I had to start again.
To the downticker – go and take your medication.
The bit just below the DT headline…
“amid speculation of a far-right rally”. These f*ckn people have to give an excuse for Muslim attacks on whites, but no mention ever of the three little girls slaughtered by an immigrant animal to defend the actions of white rioters. I could not hate MSM and the government more.
Quite clearly, Rudakubana is not an immigrant, whatever else he may be.
I don’t give a flying f*ck what the state-approved official definition of an immigrant is. If a child of immigrants refuses to integrate into a society, and then slaughters 3 children, they’re an immigrant. They’re certainly not part of the indigenous population. Call them whatever you want, your silly little semantics completely miss the point, so you need to update your database. I can’t believe I’ve been successfully goaded, and actually reacted to, AI.
Nobody gives a ‘flying f*ck’ what some random punter on the interweb, most particularly not you, thinks of much at all.
The fact remains that someone born in this country and educated in this country is most certainly not an immigrant.
So, out of morbid curiosity – and to test the bounds of your Google-gathered robotic intelligence – what definition does your algorithm give to describe the child of immigrants that rejects their adopted culture and slaughters three little girls as they pretend to be Taylor Swift? This one will test your machine learning capabilities because it throws emotion into the mix.
Drop the silliness. You are making yourself look ridiculous.
Rudakubana is a first generation British citizen and child murderer.
He will receive his just deserts.
“He will receive his just deserts” …..oh no he will not..
Kept warm and fed for the rest of his miserable life
He should have been shot dead at the scene
What he will receive will, no doubt, be a great deal worse than that.
👍 👍 👍
Ok I wouldn’t normally interact but if pedantry is at play here technically he is classed as a first generation immigrant, as they like to class themselves.
I know I’m opening myself to rants here but
“Nobody gives a ‘flying f*ck’ what some random punter on the interweb, most particularly not you, thinks of much at all.”
I certainly do as that’s why I support DS so that I can give a FF to what others say, even you.
Well done 👏
If you wish to ‘interact’ it would be more useful, someone might actually give a FF, if you stuck to the facts:
You are a British citizen if you were both:
Here we go. Yes indeed to be accurate they are classed as British by us. I did clarify though that, as many I have spoken to, they also class themselves as ‘first gen immigrant’ as I stated in my response.
Gosh you’re angry today!
All concerned please note: the case will turn up in a Crown Court in due course, and we should find out more about it then. However, the last time I came across a case of stabbing to death of someone locally was when the culprit turned out to be a local English guy who happened to be a paranoid schizophrenic, who owned his own house. Charged with murder, but ended up being guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and detained indefinitely in Broadmoor.
There was a fair bit of media reaction etc, and an element of “something must be done” – like ideas of closing footpaths etc (where the attack occurred), but all that noticeably happened was that the local council installed loads more cameras to spy on the general public, or at least to improve security.
What we can observe is that whatever the underlying cause of the Southport crime was, it has been hijacked to justify all sorts of other problems.
”What we can observe is that whatever the underlying cause of the Southport crime was, it has been hijacked to justify all sorts of other problems.“
Exactly, well put.
Given the magnitude of this, and there have been no leaks to quell the disturbance, I see two possible explanations. 1) there is an anti-english element to the attack 2) the elites are using it to deliberately sow division. The lack of any kind of leaked information will give us the answer in due course.
There is a great deal to be angry about, particularly those who try and label British perpetrators as ‘immigrants’; not useful and likely to exacerbate rather unsavoury sentiments.
Whatever caused this murderer to commit his unspeakably barbaric slaughter had nothing to do with his parents country of origin.
Perhaps some British citizens may label themselves as ‘first generation immigrants’. I have never heard that, myself. But this is, in any case, not relevant. As far as the British Crown is concerned, they are British citizens. The vast majority of them are proud to call themselves British citizens and not a few are descended from family members who fought for this country. The British Armed Forces still have many outstanding members whose parents, families, were born overseas.
I don’t very often agree with your perspective but in this case I cannot fault your logic.
Many well known and accepted British people are “first generation immigrants”. For example, immediately after the war there was an influx of Jews formerly from Germany who have settled here and produced children who have become a respected part of the British establishment.
During the 1970s there was an influx of East African Asians, the children of whom have become well known establishment figures, Priti Patel is perhaps the highest profile one.
Are people trying to claim that these are not really British because they are only first generation immigrants?
Probably some people claim they’re not British, the same as some people look at the race or colour of the skin to claim someone is not British. Utterly ridiculous. Those you have stated above are useful contributing members of society, who whilst holding on to their religious beliefs to which I have no problem, usually integrate into our society. No one seeking refuge here from legitimate danger should be turned away if we are their last recourse. Unfortunately there are many who wish to turn this country into a replica of the place they purportedly ‘flee’ from whilst contributing nothing but live of the government’s freely given generosity with our tax money. It is a crime to enter a country illegally, something successive governments choose to overlook. Sure the government has been lax with legal immigration but not to clamp down on illegal immigration is a catastrophic failure.
You, with your unreasonable common sense!
There we go. Thanks state-approved Google search algorithm. Rolls off the tongue. Now define ‘settled’ – you know, just for some robotic fun. Like I’ve said before, I’m either communicating directly with a bot, or with a teenager using AI. Last post – pointless talking to silicon.
Look it up.
Just because some idiot let the rats into the chicken coop, and they start breeding as rats are wont to do, that doesn’t mean that their offspring are chickens. They’re still rats, and they’re still likely to steal the grain and attack your flock.
Have you ever worked with Africans?
Not a Chakrabarti fan, but at least she has got this in the Grauniad: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/07/big-tech-disorder-riots-surveillance-live-facial-recognition
The argument frequently offered by the left concerns the issue of some POC faces and false positives. It seems to me that a more fundamental problem with its blanket usage for the left is that it is incompatible with the wearing of niqabs etc.
Christopher Hitchens vs Keir Starmer already gone.
I can still see it?
Good ! I heard a while back that Khant will soon be PM 😳
Has it gone ! I saw it & my eyes & ears are still bleeding 🤯
https://www.globalresearch.ca/pact-future-planetary-technocracy-global-crises-global-corporatocracy/5864483
“There are barely two months left until the big UN meeting Summit of the Future (September 22-23) where the “Pact for the Future” is to be signed by world leaders (heads of government and state). The pact, which essentially constitutes a blueprint for a global technocracy to manage global risks on behalf of the global corporatocracy, is now being finalised for completion by early August.”
A long and uncomfortable read which outlines where the world is heading. Topics covered include the likelihood of another Scamdemic before Christmas, the theft of the commons, a potential financial crash, World War and the push for One World Government.
With all the above as background it is easy to see why Kneel is acting as he is. As nothing more than a lowly District Manager in the One World Government hierarchy it is essential that he provides at least a run-through of how control can be asserted and maintained. The civil disobedience playing out in our towns and cities is manna from heaven for him and no doubt his agents will be behind much of it. Lockdowns in some form look inevitable. This will be a re-run of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. No wonder he was keen to empty prisons while insisting on two tier policing.
It looks grim.
‘Global research’ is run by a ‘nutty Canadian Professor’.
It is potentially a bit more sinister than that (follow the money).
Research from Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, a program examining abuse in information technologies, found links tying Global Research to Russian military intelligence agency operations. The 2019 study, commissioned by a U.S. Senate intelligence committee, analyzed online content that Facebook attributed to the spy agency commonly known as the GRU.
Some of Globalresearch’s greatest hits:
Footnotes
[1] Globalresearch – RationalWiki
[2] http:// http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-us-used-nukes-on-iraq-afghanistan-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-tora-bora-expert/27972
[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/genocide-denial-in-rwanda-questioning-the-official-view-of-history/5410169
[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-srebrenica-a-hoax-eye-witness-account-of-a-former-united-nations-military-observer-in-bosnia/731
[5] http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-a-land-of-human-achievement-love-and-joy/5344960
[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca/depopulation-vaccine-in-kenya-and-beyond/5413445
[7] http://www.globalresearch.ca/fluoride-killing-us-softly/5360397
[8] http://www.globalresearch.ca/poison-is-treatment-the-campaign-to-fluoridate-america/31568
Oh yes….and ‘chemtrails’ are being used for ‘geoengineering…….
😉
Referencing ‘Global Research’ is just plain dotty, very much like the retired Canadian Academic who runs it..
‘Research from Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, a program examining abuse in information technologies, found links tying Global Research to Russian military intelligence agency operations. The 2019 study, commissioned by a U.S. Senate intelligence committee, analyzed online content that Facebook attributed to the spy agency commonly known as the GRU.
Based on the research, the State Department said Global Research published or reposted articles by at least seven authors using aliases — or “sock puppet personas,” according to the Stanford report — to hide their ties to the GRU. The content remains accessible on the website.’
https://off-guardian.org/2024/08/06/the-peoples-court-of-new-normal-germany-part-two/
C J Hopkins outlining his up coming trial in Germany on charges of thought crime.
“If you’re an American (or a Brit, or Australian, or whatever), and you’re thinking this is just a story about Germany, or the EU … well, I’m sorry, but it isn’t. My case is just one of countless examples of the criminalization of dissent that is happening throughout the West. A lot of Americans don’t realize it, but freedom of speech is protected in the German constitution.”
The “criminalisation of dissent.”
What exactly is Kneel up to? Ah yes, “the “criminalisation of dissent.” The parallels are obvious.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75nn9dr0rvo
And presumably the CPS have lots of evidence of social media influencers instigating “far right” riots from abroad.
Is that not code for Tommy Robinson? He’s a social media influencer, he’s abroad, he’s an active member of the defunct EDL, and if he says “Don’t riot” it’s a secret signal to riot. That’s worth an international arrest warrant before his holiday finishes and he flies home, in any prosecutor’s book.
I assume sceptics will recognise the irony in my comment – this is how everyone from Starmer to Farage is reacting… but not Elon Musk or Glenn Beck.
Your two downticks may show otherwise
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13714153/Standing-army-6-000-police-officers-ready-deployed-trouble-hotspots-far-right-thugs-warned-face-10-years-jail-riots-ministers-plan-courts-sitting-night-500-extra-prison-pla
Is this “standing army” of police made up of Calais Yatch Club members by any chance?
Where is this “standing army” located given that it must be able to react at a moments notice?
Full on Nazi then.
It’s a good point. It’s either a bluff or something deeply more sinister. I was pondering yesterday about how the Muslim hordes coordinated and amassed so quickly; there’s obviously the fact they gather in quite tightly knit, self-isolated, communities, but then another, all too obvious, thought came to me – mosques. We’ve got a thousand+ buildings which can act as terrorist/radical Islam offices sat in plain sight throughout the UK. An acceptable home for a different culture to plot against the inhabitants of their adopted country/culture. Now you import a few million more Muslims, shoehorn a few agent provocateurs at senior levels within the mosques and… voila! You have an Army. An Army that is so motivated by religious beliefs that they think a murderous death is entry to heaven, and whose radicalisation and organisation makes them twice the size they actually are. Just a thought.
More than a thought ! however if they are being used as a weapon how will they be quelled if they get the upper hand , 🤔
Is TTK / 2TK also advocating a ‘standing army’ to protect our beaches / lands from the usurpers who daily invade our shores? Thought not.
Where are they amassed – easy, in the
barracksnumerous hotels and HMO’s, paid for by the ever-suffering taxpayers.Wasn’t TTK planning on releasing 20,000 inmates from prison soon? That’ll create space – and more beside – for the wrongly labelled terrorists AKA ‘Enough is Enough’ anguished people to be accommodated.
Yes
It’s very possible
“The physics of Net Zero”
This article assumes we are trying to make the UK both Net-Zero and self sufficient but as far as I can see that is not what is happening. We seem intent on making the UK net-zero and totally dependent on Chinese and Asian technology.
With electric cars (EVs) the policy seems destined to destroy the UK and European motor industry and open the door to cheap Chinese EVs only suitable for local utility travel.
With windmills and solar panels, where are they made? and do the people making them having any great aim of going net-zero?
At which point one has to ask if the UK’s Net-Zero policy is not simply a nihilistic, dismal, destructive policy of despair, decline and immiseration? And if the answer to that question is yes, then who is behind this policy? why are they doing it? and why are so few people trying to stop it?
I largely agree with your comment.
The answer to your last para is to be found in the Global Research article which I have posted.
The Chinese have insufficient Oil/Gas, so EVs, powered by coal-fired power stations, is a sensible solution, for them.
But if they could persuade the West to adopt the same technology, even though we have the fuel, it would be a security bonus, for them, of course. And JSO activity would be another.
Not sure about the Chinese EVs but I heard recently of a farmer who phoned John Deere to complain about his new tractor packing up and demand a technician turn out immediately to sort it out… only to discover that his last direct debit had failed, for some reason, so they’d simply turned it off from the factory until he paid up.
Years ago I saw maps showing us as a district of Europe !
We are also dependant on other countries for fertilisers and only 40% sufficient in food.
We soon won’t produce our own cement ,steel or oil.
All the media and politicians and police are “stoking” the riots. Whilst no one is forgetting the lunatic who went on a mass stabbing that culminated in three little girls dying horrifically, the media and politicians and police constantly covering up for wrongdoers, regardless of their religion, race, actual sex, is adding fuel to the flames. By qualifying each time there is a crime that it’s ’mental illness’ ‘the assailant is unknown’ (unless they’re white or English) ‘a woman raped the girl’ or in this case, ‘in response to far right’ it lets the perpetrators off the hook for their crimes and allows retaliation by supporters of the wrongdoing, of which there are many. There are many good and decent people that live in this country who feel they are ignored, derided and scorned, if we’re going to calm everyone honest discussions need to be had, sadly I don’t see that happening in the near future.
On this, it seems to me that established power in this country likes to present itself as moderate and centrist but in reality it has now become the main promoter of extreme ideology, namely radical liberalism.
They now shove extreme LGBT ideology down our throats, mass immigration which brings in people who ironically are the least tolerant of liberalism, extreme climate policies.
There is literally nothing moderate about what the establishment promotes these days. They think that speaking calmly and with a solemn admonishing tone makes them sensible. But their words and policies are very extreme.
The result is what we have now. A few angry people ready to take to the streets and the vast majority sitting quietly at home feeling confused and hectored.
War has been declared on the UK,s indigenous peoples , they want us whimpering in the corner sucking our thumbs !
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west/
An excellent and learned article which sets the case that Civil War is now inevitable.
This is a very interesting reference. Thank you.
This seems to make a great deal of sense right now:
‘Over the last thirty years the West has preoccupied itself thanklessly in an expeditionary capacity in the invertebrate civil wars of others—generally counterproductively but sometimes just fruitlessly. During that time, it has developed not just in the military but also in the quasi-NGO sector a certain capacity for thinking about ‘root causes’ of conflict as well some fluency with operations in seriously divided societies that have been deranged by endemic internal war. It is past time to turn the mirror on ourselves.’
The Future of War is Civil War, David Betz
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/646
Performing my usual daily 20 sec scan of the above headlines shows most (with a couple of honorable exceptions) of our media journos are hopelessly out of their depth in reading the signs of the times, cause and effect.
Out of date, out of touch.
Be very picky choosing your morning media dashboard.
I am in complete agreement.
Has anyone seen any figures for the numbers of “rioters” in each incident?
Usually with public disorders we are regaled by estimates of the numbers, however I don’t recall figures for rioters, except when it comes to total arrests from all separate incidents.
I suspect these are comparatively small occurrences, not on the scale of other recent “non far right” ones, but are being conflated to make a political point and to make them look more menacing than they really are.
In terms of active participants, most reports I have seen involve groups of young men hanging round apparently aimlessly, with one or two activists at the front goading the police rather than encouraging others to make massed advances.
In the case of the attack on the migrant hotel, it seemed that the police were standing against a wall, dressed in full riot gear, watching the break-in rather than attempting to stop it.
In today’s DT, behind a paywall, we have the news, expected ever since 2007, that the Laws of Physics cannot be repealed:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/07/power-chiefs-fear-net-zero-blackouts-in-london
I’m relieved, as people in my village thought I was upsetting the status quo, when we had a professor stating the opposite!
“Pubgoer attacked by masked men ‘left with lacerated liver’”
“A man attacked by a masked mob outside a pub in Birmingham has revealed that he has suffered a torn liver and is ‘not interested’ in any apologies.
Sean McDonagh, 51, was punched and kicked in front of The Clumsy Swan pub after hundreds of men – many waving Palestinian flags – had gathered on Monday night to keep the Muslim community safe from a rumoured far-Right rally.
When the anticipated protest in Bordesley Green failed to materialise, a large group – some armed and many with their faces covered – started attacking the pub in nearby Yardley, believing that EDL members were drinking in there.”
NONE OF THE ARMED MUSLIM GANG WERE ARRESTED.
“When the elites loved rioting” – From the London riots to BLM, liberals and leftists have spent far too long celebrating street violence as virtuous, writes Tim Black in Spiked.
Well done to Tim Black for telling the truth.
Almighty God has finally awakened the Righteous Wrath of the British People.
A good news underground cable report: https://eandt.theiet.org/2024/08/05/national-grid-turns-south-londons-ps1bn-electricity-superhighway
“Christopher Hitchens 2009 vs Keir Starmer 2004”
Thanks to Richard Eldred for including this powerful video.
“Armchair thug is first to be convicted for riot Facebook posts”
Leeds working man faces prison term for Facebook posts.
In contrast, here is a photo of the grinning Jordanian let off scot-free after harassing female joggers and assaulting a female police officer:
Jordanian asylum seeker, 27, who assaulted a police officer after drunkenly pestering female joggers is spared community service due to ‘health and safety issues’ | Daily Mail Online