UK Gov’t, Media & Courts: Coordinated Strategy to Tar & Silence Critics & Protestors as “Far Right”?

Help to support us by joining the New Culture Forum's membership scheme. Please see: https://www.patreon.com/NewCultureForum From only £3 per month you'll receive a range of perks and benefits, including exclusive content.

Two tier is taking his orders from the UN, WEF, WHO and of course DAVOS as are all left wing western politicians.
Imagine being complicit in selling out your own people and destroying your own culture for a pat on the head. His children will change their names, and in the future people will refer to any act of utter betrayal as "doing a Starmer" I really hope it's worth it two tier.

No use having a talking shop you need to stand up

If you thought, ' targeted individuals,' was paranoia, just wait.

Labour, by throwing around the label ‘far right’ is opening the door for genuine far right sectarianism down the line.

The justice system in this country now is a joke, when people can't get justice through civil means things don't end well.
I do hope the people in charge of the justice system understand the risk they are taking.

Brilliant as always…

With 5 years to push his policies / agendas on Britain , I doubt that Starmer cares what anyone thinks . His open preference for Davos over Parliament should tell us all where this is going . It's not just Starmer and Labour though . The Uni Party has been taking Britain down a globalist road for decades .

Digital ID cards are coming……. Just for our safety, just to help stop illegal immigration, to help the country…. Oh no just to control us

I think I'll take the old culture thanks. I prefer being an old-fashioned gentleman towards the ladies, a kind and gentle but firm father and a loving, caring husband. Thank God I no longer live in the UK.

GK Chesterton (The crimes of England): "The libel law [is] now used, not to crush lies about private life, but to crush truths about public life.". GK Chesterton (The superstition of divorce): "It is exceedingly characteristic of the dreary decades before the War that the forms of freedom in which they seemed to specialise were suicide and divorce. I am not at the moment pronouncing on the moral problem of either; I am merely noting, as signs of those times, those two true or false counsels of despair; the end of life and the end of love. Other forms of freedom were being increasingly curtailed. Freedom indeed was the one thing that progressives and conservatives alike contemned. Socialists were largely concerned to prevent strikes, by State arbitration; that is, by adding another rich man to give the casting vote between rich and poor. Even in claiming what they called the right to work they tacitly surrendered the right to leave off working. Tories were preaching conscription, not so much to defend the independence of England as to destroy the independence of Englishmen. Liberals, of course, were chiefly interested in eliminating liberty, especially touching beer and betting. It was wicked to fight, and unsafe even to argue; for citing any certain and contemporary fact might land one in a libel action. As all these doors were successfully shut in our faces along the chilly and cheerless corridor of progress (with its glazed tiles) the doors of death and divorce alone stood open, or rather opened wider and wider. … As we have already seen papers and public men to-day make a vast parade of the necessity of setting the poor man free to get a divorce. Now why are they so mortally anxious that he should be free to get a divorce, and not in the least anxious that he should be free to get anything else? … The answer is, I regret to say, that this social campaign, in most though by no means all of its most prominent campaigners, relies in this matter on a very smug and pestilent piece of chalk. There are some advocates of democratic divorce who are really advocates of general democratic freedom; but they are the exceptions; I might say, with all respect, that they are the dupes. The omnipresence of the thing in the press and in political society is due to a motive precisely opposite to the motive professed. The modern rulers, who are simply the rich men, are really quite consistent in their attitude to the poor man. It is the same spirit which takes away his children under the pretence of order, which takes away his wife under the pretence of liberty. That which wishes, in the words of the comic song, to break up the happy home, is primarily anxious not to break up the much more unhappy factory. Capitalism, of course, is at war with the family, for the same reason which has led to its being at war with the Trade Union. This indeed is the only sense in which it is true that capitalism is connected with individualism. Capitalism believes in collectivism for itself and individualism for its enemies. It desires its victims to be individuals, or (in other words) to be atoms. For the word atom, in its clearest meaning (which is none too clear) might be translated as "individual." If there be any bond, if there be any brotherhood, if there be any class loyalty or domestic discipline, by which the poor can help the poor, these emancipators will certainly strive to loosen that bond or lift that discipline in the most liberal fashion. If there be such a brotherhood, these individualists will redistribute it in the form of individuals; or in other words smash it to atoms.

The masters of modern plutocracy know what they are about. They are making no mistake; they can be cleared of the slander of inconsistency. A very profound and precise instinct has let them to single out the human household as the chief obstacle to their inhuman progress. Without the family we are helpless before the State, which in our modern case is the Servile State. To use a military metaphor, the family is the only formation in which the charge of the rich can be repulsed. It is a force that forms twos as soldiers form fours; and, in every peasant country, has stood in the square house or the square plot of land as infantry have stood in squares against cavalry. How this force operates this, and why, I will try to explain in the last of these articles. But it is when it is most nearly ridden down by the horsemen of pride and privilege, as in Poland or Ireland, when the battle grows most desperate and the hope most dark, that men begin to understand why that wild oath in its beginnings was flung beyond the bonds of the world; and what would seem as passing as a vision is made permanent as a vow."

Similar arguments can today be applied to the other things through which big finance attacks the family (abortion, gender, LGBT, pornography, muslim immigrants, …); see e.g. GK Chesterton (What's wrong with the world): "If a man, a woman and a child live together any more in free and sovereign households, these ancient relations will recur; and Hudge [fictional character representing the progressive politician] must put up with it. He can only avoid it by destroying the family, driving both sexes into sexless hives and hordes, and bringing up all children as the children of the state … But if these stern words must be addressed to Hudge, neither shall Gudge escape a somewhat severe admonition. For the plain truth to be told pretty sharply to the Tory is this, that if he wants the family to remain, if he wants to be strong enough to resist the rending forces of our essentially savage commerce, he must make some very big sacrifices and try to equalize property. … No, Gudge and his friends in the House of Lords and the Carlton Club must make up their minds on this matter, and that very quickly. If they are content to have England turned into a beehive and an ant-hill, decorated here and there with a few faded butterflies playing at an old game called domesticity in the intervals of the divorce court, then let them have their empire of insects; they will find plenty of Socialists who will give it to them. But if they want a domestic England, they must "shell out," as the phrase goes, to a vastly greater extent than any Radical politician has yet dared to suggest; they must endure burdens much heavier than the Budget and strokes much deadlier than the death duties; for the thing to be done is nothing more nor less than the distribution of the great fortunes and the great estates. We can now only avoid Socialism by a change as vast as Socialism. If we are to save property, we must distribute property, almost as sternly and sweepingly as did the French Revolution. If we are to preserve the family we must revolutionize the nation. … And now, as this book is drawing to a close, I will whisper in the reader's ear a horrible suspicion that has sometimes haunted me: the suspicion that Hudge and Gudge are secretly in partnership. That the quarrel they keep up in public is very much of a put-up job, and that the way in which they perpetually play into each other's hands is not an everlasting coincidence. Gudge, the plutocrat, wants an anarchic industrialism; Hudge, the idealist, provides him with lyric praises of anarchy. Gudge wants women-workers because they are cheaper; Hudge calls the woman's work "freedom to live her own life." Gudge wants steady and obedient workmen, Hudge preaches teetotalism– to workmen, not to Gudge–Gudge wants a tame and timid population who will never take arms against tyranny; Hudge proves from Tolstoi that nobody must take arms against anything. Gudge is naturally a healthy and well-washed gentleman; Hudge earnestly preaches the perfection of Gudge's washing to people who can't practice it. Above all, Gudge rules by a coarse and cruel system of sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil which is totally inconsistent with the free family and which is bound to destroy it; therefore Hudge, stretching out his arms to the universe with a prophetic smile, tells us that the family is something that we shall soon gloriously outgrow.".

There’s too much exaggeration used these days to bully, with no regard for nuance or humour & is used to silence people.

Starmer has implemented Islamic blasphemy law. Get him out of office. Vote Reform.

It is all about shutting down people that they disagree with.

Absolutely love this channel so glad there are still channels that speak there mind and feel so sorry for Nina she's a lovely person the country has gone mad common sense seems to be a thing of the past I will be joining 100%
A very intelligent look at what's happening ❤❤❤

The feds will always be the protector of the country,trust people they run away from the heath,while the police runs to it.

The prime minister needs to deal with causes of the unrest with the same vigour that he's decided to deal with the symptoms. At the moment it's the cart before the horse.

Sinister

Under the Labour regime I feel unable comment.