Written March 2025
Sigh. Another day, another huge pile of propaganda. And it’s a shame, really, because I actually did like the show. If you haven’t been under a rock for the last week, you will probably know that I’m talking about Adolescence, the Netflix show that dropped last week, and that predictably, the entire country is talking about. Of course, when something gets this level of traction, you can be sure it has not happened organically, no matter how good the quality of the production. There is always an agenda behind the hysteria, and Adolescence is no different.
I am, and have always been, a big fan of gritty British drama, and taken purely at that level, the show was good. Stephen Graham is a talented actor and writer, for sure. But seeing him gracing the sofa of BBC Breakfast, pontificating on the importance to humankind of this new drama, and expressing his hope that it be shown in parliament, just about boiled my piss. By their nature, actors and those in “the business” are a conceited bunch. But bestowing such importance on one’s own work is beyond the pale. Graham and his co-writer, Jack Thorne, in a huge contradiction, simultaneously gushed about their own genius, while showing mock-humility by insisting that they had no idea that the show would have “such an impact”. Yeah, right. As if this had not been planned, executed, and pushed for exactly that reason – to make just such an impact on the gullible public.
Yesterday, the show was indeed discussed in parliament, when Anneliese Midgley, MP for Knowsley, called on the PM himself to back a campaign to "counter toxic misogyny early", as she insisted the show "highlights online male radicalisation and violence against girls". Keir Starmer, a man who looks like he could not fight his way out of a paper bag, responded with predictable limpness, sharing that he and his family are glued to the show themselves (they’re just like us, you see), and that online radicalisation of young boys is indeed one of the most important topics of our time and on his agenda. Boom. There it is. The real reason that this show was created, and why it is being pushed so hard.
The sheer weight of the coverage this show has received should be an immediate flag, and it doesn’t take too many dots to connect what it is really being used for. The “online harms” bill, which began its phased rollout in 2023, ostensibly protects people from, well, online harms. However, despite the official narrative citing the bill’s purpose as the protection for children from sex offenders, and supposed online bullying, and protection of vulnerable people from terrorist radicalisation, the given definition of “online harm” is worryingly vague: “Online Harms: this is behaviour online which may hurt a person physically or emotionally. It could be harmful information that is posted online, or information sent to a person.” This wildly loose definition leaves the interpretation of “online harm” to those who implement the bill, and can therefore be applied to any number of scenarios at the behest of the authorities. Any situation where a person takes an alternative view to the government, for example, could be shut down under this definition. But one man’s “harm” is another’s “freedom”, and herein lies the danger.
Take, for example, a situation where an over-zealous PM, keen to please his WEF masters, decides that calling a bloke who dresses in frocks a “fella” is hurtful, “emotionally”, to blokes who wear frocks. Suppose I then see a bloke who wears frocks posting a photograph of himself online in the ladies’ changing rooms of a swimming pool, let’s say. Suppose then that I comment on said bloke’s post, something along the lines of “’excuse me, fella, get the f**k out of the ladies’”. Suppose then that said bloke calls the police, who decide that yes indeed, I have committed an act of “online harm” towards the bloke in a frock, and off to jail I go, for the heinous crime of telling the truth. You see how this goes.
Now let’s brainstorm another example. What if the over-zealous PM of our bloke-in-frock scenario decides he is going to implement another of the WEF bosses’ plans, one that involves the sabotage of the food supply chain, for an end result of forcibly imposing a kind of rationing system on the people. Over-zealous PM is instructed to do this by way of churning information out through the mainstream news networks, that the fault of the food supply chain breakdown lies with Russia, and that UK government are simply responding to a problem, and providing a solution. Those who do not buy over-zealous PM’s explanation do their own research and easily find that the official narrative is a provable lie, and share this information online. Cue, “online harm” and immediate shutdown of the truth teller.
And on it goes.
It is a sad but inescapable fact in these troubled times that unfortunately, we must never take anything pushed at us by a mainstream source at face value. We must decode, dissect and decipher the real reasons behind their promotion. And Adolescence, I’m sorry to say, is a rather blatant example of propaganda in action. Yes, it’s a well-made, well-acted, well-written piece of television. But I’m afraid it is also a loaded weapon, leading the gullible public, whooping, towards their own noose, unaware that they are cheering for the throttling of their freedom of speech. Parents countrywide will watch the hard-hitting show, and immediately panic: what if their mild-mannered little Timmy becomes a knife-addled maniac in the blink of an eye because “internet”? “Yes”, they will say, nodding sagely, “something must be done.” Job done. Now they will support a bill, of which they are clueless to the wider implications, but they will rest assured knowing that little Timmy won’t be stabbing anyone any time soon.
It is worth noting that Agents Graham & Thorne were responsible for another giant piece of propaganda, “Help”, a television film about deaths in care homes at the beginning of Covid, although obviously toeing the line of the official narrative. Not for these wet wipes to question why Murderous Matt Hancock ordered so much Midazolam, nor why thousands of elderly Covid (Flu) patients were shunted into the care homes in the first place, instead of being treated in hospital. No sir. These two serve their masters dutifully.
I, for one, will be glad when the Adolescence madness is over, and people return to talking about the £22billion black hole. Or the astronauts’ safe return from being trapped in space. Only joking, obviously. What I really want is to buy myself a cottage on a remote coastal clifftop, and never have to hear the masses parroting the next talking point that has been fed to them like obedient robots. I can but dream. What’s next, Klaus?
BEFORE YOU LEAVE! Please consider supporting my work, either with a one-off donation, a Patreon subscription, or by buying copies of the books which contain some of the most popular essays on the website. It has never been more important to support independent writers, who are writing what the mainstream media will not. Any amount is truly appreciated, and helps with the costs of keeping the website running. Just click the "Support Me" tab at the top of this page. Thank you!