Anarcho-Tyranny in the U.K.

The state chooses not to control its borders, but arrests citizens for exercising free speech.

The British state arrests children for spicy tweets. It taxes their parents at an effective rate of 60% if they earn between £100,000 and £125,000. But it fails to secure its borders or deport illegal immigrants.

The British state spies on its people with more surveillance cameras per capita than any other state except China. But it ignores rampant welfare and immigration fraud, fails to investigate burglaries and street crime, and lets Britain’s high streets serve as money laundries for organized crime. It talks of “British values” while pursuing policies that balkanize society into a dystopia whose inhabitants call it “the Yookay.”

Plato called anarchy the “worst disorder of the state.” Nearly 50 years ago, John Lydon argued that tyranny was worse in the Sex Pistols’ “Anarchy in the U.K.” Today, Britain is the paradigm of a Hegelian folly combining the worst of both regimes. If Mr. Lydon got the band back together, they could record “Anarcho-Tyranny in the Yookay.”

The Free Speech Union reports that British police arrested 62,199 people in the past five years for speech-related offenses, including online posts. In the same period, the Home Office reports, more than 160,000 people have illegally entered Britain by crossing the English Channel in small boats organized by international trafficking syndicates.

“We’re not in control of this border,” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said on a podcast on Oct. 4. Ms. Mahmood added that she could “almost guarantee that every woman that’s in the north of France...”

ChatGPT Article Summary

Summary: “Anarcho-Tyranny in the U.K.” by Dominic Green

Dominic Green argues that Britain is experiencing “anarcho-tyranny,” a term coined by conservative writer Samuel Francis to describe a state that exercises excessive power over law-abiding citizens while failing to perform basic duties such as protecting public safety and controlling its borders.

Green contrasts two statistics: police reportedly arrested 62,199 people for speech-related offenses over five years, while more than 160,000 people illegally entered Britain by crossing the English Channel in small boats during the same period. He argues that authorities are more willing to restrict citizens’ speech and protests than to enforce immigration laws.

The author highlights the October 2026 protests in Gosport, where police imposed restrictions on demonstrations and expanded their powers after a boat carrying approximately 150 migrants arrived. Green portrays the extensive police response as an effort to control local residents exercising their right to protest, rather than addressing public concerns about immigration.

He also criticizes the government’s difficulties deporting migrants, citing international legal obligations, alleged crimes involving foreign nationals, and the public expense associated with accommodating asylum seekers. He connects these issues to broader concerns about surveillance, speech restrictions, welfare and immigration fraud, and inadequate responses to ordinary crime.

Green extends his argument beyond Britain, suggesting that similar imbalances between government coercion and public protection have appeared elsewhere in Western societies.

He acknowledges that Francis, who coined the term, was a white supremacist, but maintains that the concept can still help explain contemporary political developments.

Green’s central argument is that the British government is simultaneously becoming more restrictive toward its own citizens and less effective at enforcing borders and maintaining public order. He warns that this combination undermines democratic legitimacy, public confidence, and social stability.

But the people do not revolt.

Not yet, it's still early and people are comfortable. History tells us economic hardships need to come first.

Brutal Thirty-Years War coincided with an economic depression in Germany and Europe in the 1600s.

Brutal French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars coincided with an economic depression in France and Europe in the late 1700s.

Very brutal World War II coincided with an economic depression in Germany and Europe in the 1900s.

My prediction for these modern times: look for Japan's economic armageddon first, followed by the United States and Europe, and hell's fury is unleashed.

I suppose that I had thought to look to technology. I thought that the 20th Century was the century of Communism because advances in broadcast technology meant that reaching sufficient numbers of people with the Communist message became possible.

My thinking, now, is that broadcast was 20th century. The 21st century is targeted communication which targets the receiver. It is far more powerful. You and your neighbor can be watching what you think is the same show - and see different things.

England is still an island and is highly susceptible to this. Control of a distorted message makes what America is seeing, possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.