No such actual agreement actually exists. There is no contract between the government and the people that both parties have signed, stipulating the extent to which the state will preserve, protect and provide, in exchange for the people paying certain amounts of tax, with a defined division and limitation of powers on both parties.

Nevertheless, most people consent to the idea of the social contract, hoping that the government adheres to some unwritten understanding of limitations and impositions on the lives of the people of the nation, and agreeing to certain restrictions in exchange for protection and provision.

It is now obvious that government no longer upholds its side of the mythical agreement that it promotes. It does not protect, it does not provide, and it does not preserve. Indeed, it is actively destroying the fabric of our nation. In the UK, that began with the so-called ‘Conservative Party’ back in the seventies under Edward Heath, when he took Britain into the EU, brazenly undermining our national sovereignty. Britain has since nominally left the EU with Brexit, but the uniparty in power has continued to destroy our heritage, culture and sovereignty, signing the country up to Agenda 2030 and deliberately altering the country’s demographics with replacement migration. As well as the UK, similar processes have been initiated the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most European countries as well.

The state also promotes the concept that it has the sole right to the use of force, or violence, in order to maintain the peace. Before the Dunblane massacre in 1996, people in the UK had the right to bear arms to some extent, to defend themselves in the case of an attack against their person or their property. That is still the case in the USA with the Second Amendment, but that right has been removed in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all European countries. If I were an American, I would defend that right with the utmost strength.

Under the social contract, the government is supposed to protect the people, but in many cases the opposite is happening as policing and justice have become perverse and inverted. The government’s program of replacement migration has brought in millions of military-aged male migrants that are the cause of a surge in migrant crime, often acting violently against the native population.

The response of the state is to smear, cancel and sometimes imprison native citizens who point this out, while actively protecting the perpetrators of migrant crime under two-tier policing and two-tier justice.

The police do not just fail to protect the native population; they actually antagonise them and act against the best wishes of indigenous British people, who have been required to give up their arms under the auspices of the social contract. Under that ‘contract’ the state is supposed to protect everybody and keep the peace, but they do not. Instead, they inflame tensions and collapse the peace.

In terms of state provision, the social contract demands that people pay taxes to the government to provide public services and keep the country functioning properly. To this end, there are over ninety taxes in the UK that are payable to the government. Some of them are personal taxes; some of them are corporate taxes on businesses. Personal taxes include:

• Income Tax

• National Insurance

• Capital Gains Tax

• Dividend Tax

• VAT

• Fuel Duty

• Alcohol Duty

• Tobacco Duty

• Stamp Duty

• Insurance Premium Tax

• Plastic Packaging Tax

• Vehicle License

• TV License

• Council Tax

There is a concept called ‘Tax Freedom Day’, an idea under which everything you earn in a year before that day goes to the government, and only after then do you start working for yourself. This year Tax Freedom Day was 6^th June, meaning in effect that 156 out of every 365 days in the year are spent working for the government before you earn any money for yourself!

That money is supposed to provide excellent public services, but these are increasingly dysfunctional, falling into disrepair, while the state throws away billions of taxpayers’ money on foreign aid scams, net zero scams, escalating war, QUANGOs, migrant housing and welfare, and the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion complex.

In addition, the state is now actively attempting to kill people. The experimental injections rolled out in the Covid era were known to cause injuries and deaths but they were permitted and promoted anyway, against every single medical safety protocol that exists to prevent another thalidomide-style disaster from occurring. 5.5 billion people were injected around the world and the full extent of the long-term damage has not yet been seen.

Many uniparty MPs supported a recent drive to legalise euthanasia, whereby citizens could be legally murdered by a medic under a wide range of conditions, often without knowing about it. Parliamentary Bills was mercifully overturned in both England/Wales and Scotland before it became law, but the MAID medical murder program in Canada now kills over 16,000 people per year.

In the UK, ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ orders are routinely used in the NHS. These are repugnant. A doctor waves a piece of paper in front of a patient who is ill in hospital and thus not thinking properly, and says ‘sign here’. The patient signs it without realising what it means and is then constructively killed after having his or her organs harvested. Any pretence of a social contract in these cases has long gone.

With all the corruption taking place in our country and around the world, one can be forgiven for asking what the difference is between the government and an actual mafia organisation. Indeed, are they not just government gangsters?

The similarity between the government and mafia organisations is more than apparent. If you pay the mafia protection money, they leave you alone. If you don’t pay protection money, will they come and rough you up and burn down your house. With government gangsters, if you decide not to pay the tax demanded, the state will send bailiffs to take your car and your furniture, and sometimes your house as well. The state has given itself the power take money directly out of your bank account or to freeze your bank account until you pay what it says you owe. One may ask, what is the difference?

The mythical social contract is now dead, buried and gone. The state does not honour its side of what it says the contract is. Yet despite there being no actual agreement, they persist in using the language, asserting: “This is our social contract, so carry on paying your taxes. Shut up about replacement migration. You cannot arm yourselves. Let the police have 100% control of the use of force. You mustn’t ever question that, and you mustn’t ever challenge anything the police do. And if the police decide they’re not going to protect you, then you have no right to protect yourself.”

With the increasingly obvious duplicity of the state, the people are no longer prepared to tolerate a one-sided state of affairs that nobody has actually agreed to. Indeed, many have reached the point of exasperation, and are withdrawing passive consent to a non-existent ‘contract’.

Citizens are no longer willing to tolerate two-tier justice and an exorbitant taxation regime that funds corruption while public services are decimated. The only factor left undecided is how the uniparty that so disparages and disdains the people will be removed. The best way to do so is at the ballot box. A revolution would be more painful for all sides.

There are two fundamental principles at play in a discussion of this issue which are in tension with each other. These are defending our culture and heritage, and affirming our individual liberty and fundamental freedoms.

Clearly the burqa is an alien item of clothing. It is only worn by women in certain strict sects of Islam such as Wahhabism and Deobandism. Often, women are forced to wear the burqa under threat of punishment beatings or deprivation. This is the case under the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Sometimes, however, women wear a burqa by choice, being devout to what they perceive as the correct way to behave or to protect themselves from sexual advances.

The former is repugnant to our way of life, but the latter is not.

Our principle of individual liberty derives from our understanding of Common Law that has developed in England for over 1000 years. Under Common Law we understand that everything is permissible unless it is specifically prohibited because it causes harm, loss or injury to another living man or living woman. Choosing to wear an item of clothing, even if it is alien, does not cause harm, loss or injury.

Thus, in considering a burka ban we need to understand that although it is alien to our culture, individual liberty is a central facet of our culture under which choice of attire is the premise of the individual and not the premise of the state to prohibit.

A more nuanced approach is therefore necessary. A complete burqa ban would be contrary to individual liberty, but it is necessary for people to show their face in social situations where interaction is unavoidable. The main example of this is, of course, at work, including professional positions such as a teacher, a lecturer, a doctor, a nurse, a bank clerk, a railway station worker; indeed, most jobs require interaction with other people on some level. In these situations, it should be mandatory to show your face except for health and safety reasons.

It is also necessary to show your face if you are requested to do so by a police officer or if you are entering the country through passport control, for example. No special accommodation should be made in these situations for people who wants to conduct themselves in a manner which is alien to our social customs.

However, if someone is just walking down the street, sitting in the park or lying on a beach and they are not interacting with anybody else, then the principle of individual liberty means that choosing to wear a burqa in these situations should be permissible, even though it is alien.

So what legislation should be introduced concerning the burqa? The law should always be general and common to all, so any legislation concerning burqas needs be general, concerning face coverings as a whole, rather than a specific law targeting one item of clothing.

At present face coverings are banned in specific places at specific times on the basis of public order. However, a more general ban on face coverings would curtail individual liberty and in some circumstances would jeopardise health and safety.

A certain political party proposed a ban on face coverings in 2017, but it was so ill thought out that they tied themselves up in knots trying to justify it. Ultimately the policy fell under the ridicule of being forced to concede exceptions, such as helmets when riding a motorbike, balaclavas in cold weather, masks for surgeons, gas masks in chemical plants and protective clothing for beekeepers. Today, we may add to this list freedom-loving men and women who do not wish to be surveilled, monitored and recorded by facial recognition technology.

The best course of legislative action at the current time would be a compromise between upholding our customs and upholding individual liberty. Face coverings in general should be outlawed when working with other people (unless required for health and safety), by people accessing services in person, and in situations where a person’s face needs to be seen by an officer for security, but not for blanket facial recognition.

This is a compromise however, and there is no perfect solution to the issue without considering the underlying reason why the use of the burqa is increasing. The burqa is alien to our land and is a symptom of the program of replacement migration. Focussing on the symptom does not fix the root of the problem. The real issue is the replacement migration that has given rise to the issue of the burqa in the first place. Ultimately, it is replacement migration that needs to be halted and reversed, so that the symptom of the burqa disappears without needing to bring in legislation.

Any legislation concerning the issue, however, must be carefully considered so that it does not damage our fundamental freedoms or undermine Common Law.

Lynne M Taylor of the American Policy Centre joined Right Think to discuss WEF-aligned NGO ‘Democracy Without Borders’ plans for a Global Parliament based on the UN.

Democracy Without Borders has commissioned a survey promoting the idea that a Global Parliament is already popular, although people who are older, employed and live in rural areas are strongly against the idea.

There is also a ‘Global Citizenship Pledge’ that people can sign to declare themselves a ‘living individual stakeholder’ who is pledged to change their lifestyle to achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Lynne goes on to discuss how the Theory of Change is being used to nudge people in the direction that the globalist cabal would like without them knowing, and the Kirkpatrick Model which is a behavioural change model that has been used since the 1950s.

Lynne M Taylor’s other articles and videos can be seen at Common Core Diva.

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court in London ruled that Religious Education must no longer be exclusively Christian as it has been since schools in Northern Ireland began.

LGBTQQIAAPPP+ activists are attempting to subvert the curriculum with the WHO program of Comprehensive Sexuality Education. They want to undermine traditional family values, indoctrinate children into gender ideology and expose children to perverse materials that sexualise them in grossly age-inappropriate manners.

Lockdowns also caused huge disruption to education, with many children still suffering through delayed development of social skills and academic knowledge.

Panopticons are for prisons, not the general public.

In addition, ‘Minority Report’ style AI ‘predictive analysis’ is to be implemented as part of the planned total surveillance infrastructure. This, as always, is being promoted as a tool to keep people safe, but will be used to arrest people before they have even committed a crime.

Far from the ostensible aim of protecting innocent civilians, the beneficiaries are obvious: the globalist tech companies that would be paid billions to set up, maintain and run the systems, and identity groups that will use the technology to clamp down on the free speech of anyone they don’t like under the guise of equality, diversity and inclusion. This is the grotesque marriage of Cultural Marxism with Neo-Con Technocracy.

A dystopian police state is being created by the current Labour government in the UK, but there is no doubt that most different elements of the Labour/LibDem/Green/Con/Reform uni-party would do the same.

The envisaged totalitarian, anti-freedom, anti-privacy technology needs to be rejected and dismantled.

to speak about the Noahide Laws.

The Noahide Laws are virulently anti-Christian but couched in deceptive language. They were infused into education in the USA and the UK through Common Core and the National Curriculum respectively, in a deliberate strategy to change society by inverting values in children in schools. They have spread into law, politics, media and busineess and need to be understood, recognised and resisted.

The seven Noahide Laws are:

• Do not worship idols

• Do not blaspheme God

• Do not murder

• Do not commit sexual immorality

• Do not steal

• Do not eat flash from a living animal

• Establish courts of justice

Although the first five of them sound like the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th of the 10 Commandments in the Bible (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5), they are viewed through the prism of the Talmud, making them a tyrannical inversion of God’s loving commandments.

For example, all Christians are considered to break the first Noahide law to not worship idols, by worshipping Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and one of the Holy Trinity. The penalty is death by decapitation.

Implementation of the Noahide laws in full is thus genocidal against Christians and they need to be fully and absolutely resisted and rejected.

As well as being a grave threat to freedom and privacy, central banks and financial institutions want to tokenise financial transactions and move them onto a single unified ledger. This will allow them to create masses more debt but it won’t work without the mass adoption of Digital ID by the people.

Source: ONS

It is globally accepted that the TFR needed to sustain a population is 2.10. This is the replacement fertility rate. Thus the indigenous population of the UK is in precipitous decline, as is the case in most other Western countries.

This is increasingly being noticed and reported by so-called conservative commentators as a cause for alarm. What they omit however is that the UK has a Total Abortion Rate of 0.69.

The Total Abortion Rate (TAR) can be calculated simply by multiplying the TFR by the number of abortions / number of births for the year in question. Nearly one-third of pregnancies in the UK now end with the murder of an unborn child. Over 250,000 unborn babies are killed every year in the UK. This number is increasing year on year, and does not included babies killed by pills dispatched by post, first made legal under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and now ingrained in law by the Crime and Policing Act 2025.

Co-incidentally, the UK’s total fertility rate (1.41) and total abortion rate (0.69) add up to same as the replacement fertility rate (2.10). It is a strange phenomenon that many so-called conservative commentators are loathe to mention or consider this simple fact, choosing to focus instead on the panoply of women’s rights issues as the cause of native population decline, rather than the right to life of unborn children.

It is clear that abortion is the main and most important factor in the decline of the native British population in the UK. If there were no abortions, the indigenous population would be stable and would not be in decline.

Notwithstanding this, the UK population as a whole has continued to increase, but only due to ever increasing replacement migration. Net immigration to the UK reached 860,000 in 2023 before falling back in 2024. The majority of migrants now come to the UK from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and China. In addition to mass abortion, replacement migration is reducing the percentage of the indigenous population so much that white British are projected to be a minority of less than 50% by 2063.

To maintain the indigenous population, the UK needs to end replacement migration and stop killing one-third of its children.

Nick Ward of Gold Bullion Partners joined me to discuss why gold and silver have gone up so much this year.

Supplies, particularly of silver, are running out globally. Bullion banks have issued hundreds of paper contracts on each ounce of silver, and investors realise that the price suppression this has created is about to break. Central banks are also frantically stocking gold in anticipation of a much higher revaluation.

Gold Bullion Partners have produced a guide to buying gold tax-free, and can also discuss holding gold in a pension/SIPP.

Subscribe now