Sorry to hog the Article space dear reader, but even my truly cynical gob was well and truly smacked when I read that British Government’s Prevent Program is seeking to criminalise patriotism, and has moved on from counter-terrorism to thought policing, in a move that one astute commenter, Lickylips I think, said could be a step towards charging pro-British patriotic demonstrators under anti-terrorism laws – a tactic already used against Tommy Robinson. So, I had to get cracking and write this. Am I over-reacting? Please let me know in the comments.
There was once a time, not so long ago, when the role of government in a liberal democracy was clear: protect the borders, enforce the law, and leave the private thoughts of citizens well alone. That ideal now lies in rubble, crushed under the weight of the British Establishment's insane multiculturalism, of which the Orwellian, intellectually bankrupt Prevent is a cornerstone.
What was once sold to the public as a necessary tool to combat genuine threats of violent terrorism has become, metastasised if you like, into something far darker, far more insidious and sinister: a full-frontal assault on free expression, national identity and, obvious to everyone other than the deranged denizens of the Globalist Establishment Bedlam, common sense itself.
The latest iteration of this State-sponsored madness now brands “cultural nationalism” and the belief that Western civilisation is under threat from mass immigration as indicators of “right-wing terrorist ideology.” Let that sink in a minute. In 2025 Britain, saying online that your country has a culture worth preserving, or that unlimited immigration might, just might, have undesirable consequences is enough to make you, in Prevent’s opinion, an extreme right-wing terrorist, placed in the same surveillance category as bomb-chucking jihadi fanatics.
This is not security policy, it is ideological warfare waged by a government against its own people.
Prevent was introduced in the mid-2000s with the ostensible aim of countering Islamic extremism. Fine. Reasonable people across the political spectrum could get behind that. But like all government programs, it grew. It expanded. It burrowed deeper, into schools, hospitals, and workplaces. It then transformed itself into a tool not for stopping bombs, but for policing opinions. From extremism to pre-extremism, from actual threats to vague indicators, the goalposts shifted and the net widened. (All unconstitutionally in my view.)
Now, a young student who expresses concerns about the erosion of British traditions or the overwhelming pace of demographic change could find themselves referred to authorities under Prevent protocols. A middle-aged woman who posts on Facebook about protecting British values might receive a visit from counter-extremism “experts.” This is not freedom. This is not protection. This is tyranny in a beige trench coat and not a jot different to the approach that made the Gestapo a name that will live in infamy.
We used to scoff at the idea of thought crime. Now it’s policy.
Let us speak plainly: there is a vast unbridgeable chasm between legitimate, heartfelt patriotism and the desire to preserve one’s culture, language, and traditions and violent extremism and terrorism. Prevent not only obliterates that distinction; it seeks to criminalise and suppress the former in an act very close to State Terrorism.
To the mandarins at the Home Office and their shadowy masters, quoting Churchill is cause for concern. Waving the Union Flag is inflammatory and raising legitimate questions about social cohesion, infrastructure strain, or cultural fragmentation is borderline terrorism.
This would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. While the British government worries about middle-aged conservatives quoting Roger Scruton, it turns a blind eye to grooming gangs, knife crime epidemics, and genuine radical networks, many of whom thrive in the very multicultural petri dish that Prevent not only dares not criticise, but actively promotes. The State has, in effect, declared the taxpaying, law-abiding, culturally-rooted British as a suspect class (a concept that explains the assault in the form of ever higher taxes).
But here’s the real ticking time bomb: the government refuses to define “extremism” in any meaningful or stable way. Instead, it relies on an ever-changing set of ideological buzzwords, leaving the definition of “dangerous beliefs” in the hands of bureaucrats, ideologues and activists like the Brown Shirts of Antifa and Hope Not Hate. Today it’s cultural nationalism. Tomorrow? Parental rights, opposition to drag shows for children, Christian traditionalism, criticism of lockdowns or net zero, take your pick.
This isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a vertical drop into totalitarianism. And if you think you’re immune because you state your opinions politely or preface them with disclaimers, think again. The State is no longer interested in what you do, it’s after what you believe.
One of the most chilling aspects of Prevent is the way it has colonised our beautiful language to delegitimise opposing worldviews. By using terms like “right-wing,” “extremism,” and “radicalisation” as catch-all smears, the State short-circuits debate. After all, who would want to defend – we have been trained not to - someone labelled as “far-right”? It’s a clever trick: frame all dissent as dangerous, and you never have to answer uncomfortable questions about the actual consequences of immigration, the disappearance of British cultural norms, or the transformation of cities into alien landscapes.
Let’s be clear: there’s nothing radical about believing that a nation has a culture. There’s nothing extremist about noticing that Britain in 2025 barely resembles Britain in 1985 and wondering aloud whether this was ever debated, voted on, or consented to. In fact, that’s the most moderate, reasonable, and rational response imaginable.
It is the State and those who run it who are the extremists . And they have proven that they are not averse to a spot of terrorism when it suits them.
Libertarians and freedom lovers have long warned that governments, once given extraordinary powers in the name of safety, rarely relinquish them. Prevent is a perfect case study. What began as an emergency measure to counter real threats has mutated into a permanent surveillance outfit, where beliefs are monitored, flagged, and potentially punished.
And where are the supposed defenders of civil liberties? Where are the MSM journalists, the free speech NGOs, the Human Rights Brigades? Mostly silent, because the targets are the wrong kind of people, who have the temerity to have different opinions and to think for themselves. If Prevent was classifying Black Lives Matter supporters or climate activists as pre-terrorist threats, the outrage would be nuclear and the fall out devastating. But because it’s right-wingers, ordinary British citizens (not all of whom are white) with conservative instincts, the press and the activist army yawns and turns away, or signals its approval.
This selective outrage exposes the deep rot in our institutions: it’s not about principles. It’s about power.
Perhaps the most Orwellian feature of the Prevent regime is its treatment of immigration. You can celebrate it, advocate for it, and campaign for open borders. All fine. You might get a knighthood. But question it? Fear its scale? Suggest that it might negatively affect national cohesion? You’re a potential extremist, terrorist even.
Never mind that many millions of Britons, almost certainly the majority of the population, hold precisely these views. Never mind that cultural identity is, in any other context, considered sacred. When Tibetans worry about Han migration, that’s cultural genocide. When British people worry about losing their own homeland, it’s “xenophobia.” One is a tragedy. The other? A case for State surveillance.
This asymmetry reveals the fundamental animus behind Prevent. It’s not about safety. It’s about ideological reprogramming.
Let us be brutally honest: Prevent, as it currently stands, is not only an affront to liberty, but a direct threat to the social fabric of Britain. It fosters suspicion between citizens. It tells teachers to spy on their students. It encourages employers to police the opinions of their staff. It chills open debate. It institutionalises paranoia.
And perhaps worst of all, it teaches an entire generation that loving one’s country is dangerous, and that wanting to preserve one’s culture is a crime.
We must not accept this.
We must not sit idly by while a malevolent, anti-British State dismantles centuries of hard-won liberties in the name of “protection.” Because once free speech is criminalised, once dissent becomes deviance, once patriotism becomes terrorism, what is left to protect?
It is time, nay past time, for Prevent to be abolished, root and branch. Not reformed. Not adjusted. Not “made more balanced.” Abolished. Write to your MP to demand it. Tell everyone about its sinister overreach and continue to oppose the Establishment’s multicultural dog’s dinner of a dogma.
Terrorism can be dealt with through law enforcement, not ideological inquisitions. We do not need a State program to tell us which thoughts are acceptable and which are dangerous. We do not need government minders in our classrooms, our offices, or our homes.
We need courage. We need open debate. We need a return to national sovereignty, cultural pride, and freedom of speech without State oversight. In fact, we need a much smaller, much more patriotically British government.
We need to remember who we are.
Because if the government truly believes that loving Britain makes one a threat, and it almost certainly does, then perhaps the real questions are: who’s betraying whom? And why