Reactionary Reading Law (@LawReading) offers a pleasant, but appropriately cautious review of my Oblivion Act (2026) proposal - which suggests rolling repeal of all legislation (and subordinate legislation) since 1900, with the burden on ministers & parliament to expressly retain it. His review of this proposal raises a key issue with it; lack of competency in government. I am in agreement that specialist sectors, Energy for one, would certainly need expertise not currently found within ministers or parliament at large. Comically, the weakness of having an inexperienced parliament presents the biggest problem to unravelling the sum of its past deeds. An inverted burden might be used for protected infrastructure & services, though, ministerial fiefdoms being what they are, there will be a fight to expand what is considered “essential” (in the manner Lockdown categorised labour/industries) if such a bill were enacted. The offering seeks to advance the conversation around wide-ranging repeals; the imagination of the reformer need not be a slave to caution (at least not entirely). You can read @LawReading’s review, here, for which I’m grateful; reactionaryreadinglaw.substa…

The Oblivion Act: A wide ‘Great Repeal Act’ It is a draft bill to force the permanant state to justify the laws it actually uses, and disposes en masse of the rest. A 'wide' approach to a 'Great Repeal Act', in which Parliament merely saves what law remains necessary, useful, and in the national interest. In @ReinersProject: reiners.org.uk/the-oblivion-…

When Lucy Powell MP introduced her members bill in 2018, seeking to ban private Facebook groups for political purposes, she relied on Hope Not Hate (HNH) to demonstrate harm & justify this measure. Her reliance on this organisation is recorded in Hansard, here: hansard.parliament.uk/common… More recently, in 2022, Hope Not Hate actively attempted to steer the Online Safety Act toward becoming a political censorship tool. It became one, and even @NadineDorries - who introduced the bill - suggests it now requires repeal. Hope Not Hate manufactures the ‘harm’ and the parliamentary Labour Party pushes for ‘solutions’ in the form of censorial state powers. This charity has worked in tandem with Labour for decades, smearing their opponents to assist campaigning. In June, their limited company arm produced campaign material for @andyburnham, distributed in the Makerfield by-election [enclosed, right]. In 2022, Hope Not Hate employee Lion Velleman gave evidence to parliament regarding the Online Safety Act; he named specific right leaning pundits who should be sanctioned and penalised by the bill, once implemented. Vellemen was convicted of child sexual offences early in 2026 [BBC’s report, enclosed left image], a fact HNH have been keen to hide. His comments are recorded in Hansard, here: hansard.parliament.uk/common…

A former Hope Not Hate director, and a current director, are now due to become key members of Burnham’s team in No.10. The only way a future government can meaningfully disable organisations like this, who delight in censorship and ruination, is by taking the legislative and regulatory tools which they wield against ordinary people away from them - this would also neutralise the activists to whom they outsource harm. That is what the @asi Freedom of Speech Bill does with aplomb, de-ranging their attacks, and rendering them meaningless (the full bill is linked below) The following extract is from my conversation on the subject of HNH, with @NewCultureForum

On anonymity as an essential protection against state fiat in Britain: The use of Anonymity/Pseudonymity is a requirement for legitimately free expression within Britain’s dystopian speech landscape. It has proven essential to advance the National conversation - and ‘anons’ from @maxtempers to @kunley_drukpa have been instrumental in this. There are tiers to Britain’s speech dystopia: The highest threshold being The criminal law, with which Ms Connolly was forcibly acquainted with by our state (in particular AG Richard Hermer, who personally signed off on the matter). Second, the regulatory/employment consequences. Third, attempts at social ‘cancellation’, doxxing, reputational destruction and functional defamation (dealt in by NGO’s like Hope Not Hate, et al). These teirs await all who speak frankly and with impact about the reality of 2026 Britain, and aim to contain any figures deemed a threat to the permanent-centrism of the Blairite regime. It stifles and prevents the necessary discussions on demography, for example, which our nation must have earnestly & openly - and fast. More generally, in digital anonymity, ordinary human passions play out naturally, it is the Englishman’s sole refuge from our social-engineering-prone state. Upwards of 15,000 people are convicted annually under a.4, 4a, 5 and Part III S.19 of the Public Order Act 1986 alone. These are all speech/expression offences, and these are palpably tyrannic numbers. They convicted Ms Connolly of the latter (s.19, which in prior years was seldom used). This was due to an advised plea of guilt - over a single tweet on an identifiable account. It has taken a leveraged buyout of Twitter (Now X) by @elonmusk in 2022 to even have this kind of expression in Britain. It stands as the only remaining functionally ‘social’ social media site. It is a grave error to allow some individuals’ speech as more worthy of freedom than others - that is precisely how the concept of hate speech arose and began to corrode our ability to speak in the first place. With that said, there remains an ironclad rule in Britain today - Connolly’s post alludes to it: “It’s not what you say, it’s who you say it as”

On HNH, and the exploitable weakness of the modern Englishman - his sheer squeamishness: The instinctual squeamishness of the British public is one of its key weaknesses, one it must overcome to survive. Hope not hate’s entire playbook is to exploit this part of his nature. If you create a smell around someone, baseless or not, the British will remember forever - irrespective of whether it is true. This is now reflected in our automated hiring and firing procedures, it is a feature of our hostile criminal speech law, regulatory law for the professionally qualified, and shapes how the entirety of Westminster and its associated associated press/policy outfits work & operate. From Restore to Policy Exchange , by way of Reform UK (@reformparty_uk ), New Culture Forum and the Prosperity Institute (@Prosperity_Inst). All have ostracised sensible, capable people due to HNH. Hope Not Hate does not need to explicitly harm anyone - the general terror & squeamishness of the ordinary man will do that for them. All they need is to provide the stink/a little libel. The British are a poor people (average median salary hovering around 30k GBP, laughable to the Anglosphere/US), thus, they have no response to such libel or quiet subterfuge in the courts - not that they would help, being squeamish also. Hope not hate rely on this, and will gladly call you everything from a fascist to a pedophile to ensure you are immobilised. It doesn’t need to be true to be effective in Britain, it just needs to come from an NGO to feel legitimate - even if that NGO is fundamentally illegitimate to those in the know. Besides the legislative solutions set out here Reiners.org.uk/bills , Britain must learn ignore this variety of nonsense. The ideal first move would’ve been dispose of this organisation through crowd funded group-litigation - however, we are a poor country, and have bad political sensibilities. The simpler, cheapest solution is as so: The Englishman must overcome his natural squeamishness - or perish.

From my interview with @Harry_pitt and @cfdownes_ for @NewCultureForum. Here we discuss the mode of operation of ‘Hope Not Hate’, who operate above the law & doxx, defame & are unwittingly uniting the British right against a common enemy. Watch here: youtu.be/PGNh8uG3z5s?si=QYDE…