Britain Is Now a Totalitarian State
Britain Is Now a Totalitarian State
pjmedia.com
We can safely declare, without exaggeration or hyperbole, that Britain is now a totalitarian state. The ruling machine may not yet have the absolute control that Stalin did, but it's not for lack of trying. The British government's hysterical Chicken Little response to online support for this past week's rioting is proof enough for anyone paying attention that it attaches no value whatsoever to Western principles like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Here's a video of an elderly man being arrested in his home for "improper use" of social media for "some comments that [he] made" on his Facebook page. The two Stasi thugs masquerading as police officers are doing the dirty work for a government that, not too long ago, declared that "just following orders" was not an excuse for human rights violations. And yet...
This is where Britain is now, and if there's a definition for it other than "totalitarian," I'm open for suggestions.
The British government's push to criminalize all speech and thought that runs counter to state ideology didn't just begin this past week. In February 2019, a street preacher was arrested in Enfield for preaching Christianity in a Muslim neighborhood. In February 2021, two men were arrested in south London for distributing flyers critical of COVID vaccines. In March 2023, a woman was arrested in Birmingham for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.
But Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, who thinks criticism of mass immigration equates "hate" and "terrorism," had no qualms about letting a pro-Hamas rally march through London after the 10/7 attacks last year, and on Armistice Day no less.
The dictatorial drive being pursued by the British ruling class doesn't fall neatly into a category that Hannah Arendt would recognize as totalitarian. This is because none of the typical totalitarian movements (communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, and Islamism) are suicidal in nature. Meaning, each of these movements attempts to use the state to strengthen the ideology, or to use the ideology to strengthen the state.
But the British totalitarian state is different. Its goal is to weaken the British state by strengthening the ideology. What defines the parameters of that ideology is anyone's guess, as I doubt even its proponents could clearly explain it for inquiring minds. It seems to be a contradictory mix of pseudo-Marxism, nanny statism, multiculturalism grounded in misplaced guilt, and the managed decline of both national regeneration and national will that is the inevitable result of each of the preceding factors.
In other words, we now have a new totalitarianism with a new ideology, one based not on class, race, nation, or religion. Or rather, at least not its own. It's more of an ideological vacuum, nihilistic in nature, and its goal is the intentional dissolution of itself.
Hitler wasn't an Austrian who believed in Jewish supremacy. Stalin wasn't a proletariat who believed in the rule of the bourgeoisie. Mussolini wasn't an Italian who believed in Albanian empire. But the British Left, like all Western Leftists, thinks its own civilization unworthy of existence, and is now harnessing the power of the state to destroy it. They're mad they lost the Great Game, and they want to kill the victor out of spite. They don't care which "group" or "class" arises from the ashes, so long as it's not anything you'd recognize as British.
The British rioters have been deemed "far-right" by the state apparatus, and you know what that means. It means the state will be relentless and ruthless in tracking down every single one of them and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of whatever arbitrary interpretation is used to stretch and twist the law this particular week. Their crime is not rioting. Their crime is running afoul of state ideology. The J6 defendants could offer them some legal advice.
Riots far more destructive and murderous occur on the regular by coordinated elements that an honest media would accurately describe as "far-left" or "Islamist," but instead are described by our palace eunuchs as "mostly peaceful." Had the British rioters waved a Palestinian flag or two, Kamala Harris could start a fund to bail them out.
Much like Stalin dispatching Trotsky in Mexico, or a Moroccan gutting Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, the totalitarian mindset is nothing if not global in outlook. You might not be interested British virtue signaling, but British virtue signaling is interested in you. Hence, we have Elon Musk, an American citizen on American soil under the protection of the American Bill of Rights, being threatened with prosecution by UK authorities for posting opinions on the social feed of his own company.
And what horrific crimes did Elon commit that raise the specter of a possible extradition request? According to that insufferable socialist rag, the U.K. Independent, he "launched a tirade" on his platform X against Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
ELON LAUNCHED A TIRADE!!!
But that's not all. He used his platform to "...attack Sir Keir personally..."
ELON MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK!!!
"...as he appeared to fan the flames of discontent..."
ELON FANNED THE FLAMES!!!
...in an "apparently unprovoked attack on Starmer and the UK government"...
FIRST A PERSONAL ATTACK, NOW AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK!!!
As far as "unprovoked attacks" go, there seem to be a lot of them going around in the West nowadays, don't there? Any number of British girls, French priests, Dutch artists, and Florida gays could attest to that. Odd that the only "unprovoked attack" that British authorities are concerned about is the one that was entirely verbal and completely harmless.
Politico reports that Musk "could be summoned for a grilling by British MPs" for his "abusive" messages.
SUMMONED FOR A GRILLING!!! Elon must be chewing his fingernails down to the nubs.
Two Labour MPs are demanding that Elon appear before Parliament to answer for his behavior. Um...Mr. Musk could buy your island if he wanted to. And judging by how effortlessly it's already going to Muslim immigrants with no tangible gain, the going price is evidently pretty cheap.
But lest you mistake their threats to Musk as just some high visibility posturing, the Brits took pains to clarify that they mean you too. British government prosecutor Stephen Parkinson threatened social media influencers overseas for "playing a role in the violent disorder," yapping that they "must know that they are not safe and there is nowhere to hide." Continuing, he said, "Some people are abroad. That doesn't mean they're safe." He continued that "we would certainly consider extradition" if he deemed British law had been broken.
The aforementioned Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News that if you post commentary online that doesn't comply with British law, they'll seek your arrest whether your are in England or "further afield online." When asked to clarify as to whether this means the British will seek arrest from citizens in other countries, he responded, "Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law."
You refuse to protect your own grade school girls from getting raped by the hundreds by organized gangs of Pakistani Muslims in your own country that even Al-Jazeera opposed, but you'll come after me for criticizing it online or on the other side of the planet? Are you incapable of shame? Are you that tiny of a man? You sniveling, bootlicking, banal, insipid cog in the machine.
Not like I'm worried you'll ever show up to haul me off to gaol. That's right, Sir Mark Rowley, your bluff is being called by Commoner C.A. Skeet. Put down your tea and come get me, you wanker. Where would you wanna meet up? Lexington? Concord? Yorktown?
You wanna see riots? Try stealing an American citizen off American soil for exercising hi/her First Amendment rights. Then you'll see riots. Good luck making it back to the airport. As you well know, we also have other amendments...
And therein lies the problem with an insecure, timid totalitarianism that has no respect for itself. Nobody else will respect it either. The classical totalitarian systems exerted their will through sheer brute force. Their ideological justifications were simply fodder for the Western press, as everybody except the Western press understood.
But the idea that Britain could force a sovereign nation to extradite one of their own for an action that was completely legal in that nation would be comical if it wasn't so arrogant. Britain couldn't coerce Fiji to give someone up, and they think it's gonna happen in America?
Keir, Rowley, and their ilk want the fear and trembling that the likes of Mao and Castro were able to instill, but they lack the stature, the ability, and the confidence. Rowley in particular comes across not as a strongman to be feared, but as a playground brat throwing a tantrum because nobody was cowed by his bullying attempts, while the older, bigger kids snicker.
Or Jimminy Cricket huffing and puffing and wagging his finger at Lampwick.
Or Sir Robin bravely running away.
Gosh, there are just so many metaphors.
So Britain has gone totalitarian, and in a convoluted way that leaves it a credible threat to nobody but itself. As Rick Moran pointed out on these pages, a majority of British subjects are apparently all on board with relinquishing free speech to their self-declared betters. And just think that their ancestors bequeathed us the Magna Carta, checked the expansion of the bloody French Revolution, and helped defeat the Third Reich. And now they're returning to the manor as willing serfs. The whole thing is just sad.
