On the very first day of 2025, The Acorn warned that the British population was under attack from Keir Starmer’s regime, which even appeared to want them dead and was poisoning their food, freezing them to death, polluting their water, bombarding them with radiation, jabbing them to death and encouraging them to commit suicide.
Half way through the year we see no reason to change our minds!
For instance, the UK Parliament, which is under the control of the zio-imperialist mafia, has just approved the legalisation of “assisted suicide”, aka euthanasia for non-profitable units of human capital.
Commented blogger and former lawyer Clare Wills Harrison: “We are a failed nation whose NHS can’t even offer adequate care. Now it is to offer death as a service”.
One citizen journalist remarked: “No joke here. Keir Starmer is a psychopath and he is doing Aktion T4”.
This refers, of course, to what Wikipedia defines as “a campaign of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia which targeted people with disabilities and the mentally ill in Nazi Germany”.
If you doubt whether the “involuntary” element is relevant here, take a look at the chilling list of amendments to the bill that were rejected during its passage, as compiled by that same amateur sleuth, “eyuplovely”.
https://x.com/eyuplovely/status/1936788757727895645/photo/1
This shows that Parliament rejected amendments which would have ensured “doctors only discuss euthanasia if the patient explicitly requests it first”, would have insisted on “proof of non-coercion” and would have introduced the eminently sensible safeguard of allowing family or next of kin to challenge the state-sanctioned killing “if they suspect coercion”!
When you add to this the fact that MPs rejected the idea of excluding from the suicide scheme “those who might choose euthanasia due to financial hardship”, we are looking at something very dark and ugly indeed.
This all seems to be part of a convergence between ZIM’s pseudo-democratic fiefdoms and the openly totalitarian ones that it created and ran in the 20th century, such as Nazism and Soviet Communism.
Meanwhile, MPs have also voted to decriminalise abortion up to full-term pregnancy.
Ben Rubin of UK Column went online to say this was undeniably giving the green light to the killing of viable human beings – of children in fact.
Condemning the “hideous agenda” of what can only be described as a death cult, he declared: “These people are pure evil… We are ruled by soulless demons, psychopaths, who place no value whatsoever on human life”.
When tyranny is disguised as moral necessity
Satanic inversion is a key aspect of the brainwashing and gaslighting techniques used by the ruling criminocracy to control and manipulate us.
From its Commonwealth operation’s mendacious self-depiction as “a compelling force for good” to its US branch’s absurd claims to “defend democracy” across the world, its language is never far from the Orwellian satire of war being peace and slavery being freedom.
What has been less obvious to most of us is the way in which the system has been gradually manufacturing a highly complex totalitarian apparatus around its inverted notion of ethics.
Fortunately, the blogger known as Escapekey (whose work featured in The Acorn last year) has been on their case and explaining, in some depth, what they have been up to.
In a key June 2025 essay entitled ‘The Complete Architecture’, he says he has discovered “deliberate replication of governance mechanisms that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century”.
But, he adds: “The difference is scale and sophistication: where Hitler, Stalin, and Mao operated at national levels through crude political apparatus, this system operates globally through technical expertise and ethical mandate, making it far more insidious and potentially irreversible once fully activated”.
He says that in this globalist mechanism, “science” is positioned as the source rather than subject of ethical frameworks across all aspects of human experience.
Non-compliance with this false god of “science”, creator of all ethics, becomes literally unthinkable, with dissent and resistance appearing not just wrong, but immoral.
The “ethical” framing also gives enforcement bodies “moral” authority to destroy careers without legal process, he stresses.
And he notes we saw this in operation during Covid, when refusal to toe the line was represented as some kind of moral failure.
“Healthcare workers were fired during COVID-19 not for illegal activity, but for ‘ethics violations’ — questioning vaccine mandates, discussing alternative treatments, or prioritising individual patient assessment over standardised protocols”.
Likewise, he observes, scientists face “ethics reviews” for challenging the official climate narrative.
We might add that opposing the official pro-Israel line or the power of the transgender industry is also presented as “hate crime” and thus an ethical “offence”.
Escapekey writes: “Information control operates through the weaponisation of ‘fact-checking’, ‘content moderation’, and ‘media literacy’ frameworks.
“Alternative perspectives are eliminated not through overt censorship but through ethical frameworks that define dissent from expert consensus as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’“.
He explains that the model for all this is the “clearing house” one, first perfected in the British banking system – providing an obvious clue as to who is behind it!
This involves a deceptive veneer of decentralisation, while in fact power is controlled at the centre – such as “local” banks being subservient to clearing banks, which themselves are subservient to the central bank (the Bank of England).
He writes: “The pattern was methodically exported: the Federal Reserve replicated the British model in 1913, the Bank for International Settlements scaled it globally in 1930, and the same template now governs virtually every aspect of modern life”.
And he warns: “The systematic merger of law and ethics represents the completion of a governance model that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.
“Hitler’s dictum that ‘the total state must not know any difference between law and ethics’ was implemented through identical mechanisms under different guises across Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Fascist Italy — despite their supposed ideological differences.
“The pattern was consistent: undermine existing institutions, attack traditional sources of authority, create permanent crisis requiring expert management, replace legal frameworks with ethical mandates, eliminate dissent as moral failure rather than legitimate disagreement.
“The result was arbitrary rule disguised as moral necessity — exactly what we observe today at global scale”.
https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/06/30/the-acorn-104/
Electoral fraud: the illusion of democracy
With big elections looming up all over the place, I thought this would be a good moment to remind people of what a fraud they are, on many levels.
i. Captured parties.
It has become very obvious to very many people, particularly since Covid, that the main political parties everywhere are all controlled by the criminocracy. No politicians are allowed anywhere near power unless they are signed up to the whole agenda of totalitarian “sustainable development”, public-private “partnership”, pouring money into Ukraine and pretending that Israel is not carrying out mass murder in Gaza. Control of the political parties has been in place for a very long time indeed, not just by means of bribery and blackmail but also through infiltration by the public-funded “intelligence” services set up to serve the criminocrats’ interests. Even the smallest and most insignificant political group is targeted and it is only a matter of time before any new initiative, no matter how genuine, will be taken over. If it cannot be successfully turned in a direction that suits the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, it will be destroyed from the inside by bitter disputes and splits, playing on existing fault lines and personal weaknesses.
ii. Why parties anyway?
A month or two ago, some friends and I secured a meeting with our local deputé (member of parliament), who is in the main left-wing opposition party, La France insoumise, to ask him some questions. High on our list was the threat of the WHO treaty, giving unprecedented control to a global body in the case of a future “pandemic”. Since he hadn’t even heard of the issue, one of our group explained it all to him and then asked him whether he agreed with us, in principle, that this was a worrying prospect. He wouldn’t give a personal opinion, insisting that he was committed to a collective outlook and that, basically, he would have to go and find out what the party line was before he could answer. This raises the question of to what extent an MP belonging to a political party really represents the people who elected him, or whether he in fact represents the party whose line he defends and which is in turn controlled by other interests. What is the purpose of the party system if not to prevent representatives from speaking and voting from their own convictions, or in response to the views of their constituents?
iii. The problem with representation
A deeper problem here is that of representation itself. When a population accepts to be “represented” by a politician they are essentially handing him a blank cheque to act as he (or his party) sees fit. He is under no legal obligation to carry out the promises on which he got elected and, when some new issue arises, is not expected to return to his constituents to seek their opinion. This clearly does not amount to democracy. One of the big demands of the Gilets Jaunes here in France in 2018-19 was for citizens to have the right to call for a referendum on important issues, with the direct voice of the public thus taking precedence over the indirect filter of the controlled “representative”.
iv. The shaping of opinion
There are issues even with this notion of direct democracy, though. One of these is the way that public opinion is itself moulded by mass media that are owned by the same criminocrats who control the political parties and, thus, the elected representatives. Covid showed us how effectively the majority can be conned by constant full-spectrum propaganda. These techniques could equally be used to sway a referendum. At election times, “opinion polls” relayed by corporate media form part of the manipulation, their real aim being not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. If, for instance, a “problem” party was doing well and clearly had a chance of coming to power, the polls would announce instead that they had virtually no support and that people would do better to vote for one of the lesser-of-two-evils options. No real democracy seems possible without an independent media to properly inform the public.
v. Centralised society
A further barrier to democracy is the centralised nature of our societies – centralised nationally, transnationally (such as Europe) and globally. Power flows from the top downwards, not from the people upwards, as would be the case in an actual democracy. Agendas are imposed, institutionally, and elected representatives on any level can do very little to affect them, even if they wanted to. The prime example of this is the “development” and “economic growth” which is the motor of the criminocracy’s expanding wealth and power. The “need” for this has been written into the structure of our social organisation to the extent that public opposition to some new proposed monstrosity will always come up against a centrally-imposed brick wall. (For more on this, see this article). Real democracy would involve the localisation of decision-making, the end of global corporate imperialism and the restoration to communities everywhere of the right to shape their own destinies.
vi. A rigged game
Given everything I have been describing, do the criminocrats ever need to physically “fix” an election? I don’t know, but I am sure that if they felt the need, and had the ability, they would do so. We should not be so naïve as to imagine that they would simply stand back and watch, with a wistful shrug, if a population anywhere voted in a government that represented a genuine threat to their power and interests. If the worst comes to the worst, there is always the option of assassinating troublesome political leaders. Or of declaring yet another “emergency”, suspending elections and switching to the kind of direct authoritarian rule favoured in Nazi Germany or the USSR. At the end of the day, their “democracy” is merely a device with which to distract and control us and, while it has served their purposes well, they do not consider it indispensable.
https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/06/25/the-acorn-94/
Paul Cudenec
No comments:
Post a Comment