Body Fascism and Facial Recognition: Partners in Crime
.jpg){kind=link}
Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.
Two seemingly unconnected events occurred in the past several weeks in UK law-making. However, seen in the context of increasing authoritarian disregard for human rights, and the ruling class’s insatiable appetite for behavioural control of the population, these events are very connected.
Body fascism in the 21st century
The first event heralded the return of the body fascists, re-energised after their stellar performance in smashing Overton windows during the covid psychological operation. Place the entire planet under house arrest and make their release conditional on agreeing to medical experimentation? The stuff of science fiction before 2020, but New Normal after 2021.
After successfully forcing the population to surrender their bodies to the medical establishment, how do the control freaks get their fix when they and the population have pandemic fatigue? They pass a law to stop people from putting things into their bodies. You must take the mRNA, but you mustn’t take the nicotine. Your body is not yours, and if you thought it was, the State has just sent you a memo to remind you that it belongs to the King, for he is about to press his Royal seal upon the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which bans tobacco sales to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
The ban is sinister for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who understands the inalienable right of every human to bodily autonomy. To understand the seriousness of what has been done from 2021 to now, we must look to the most extreme form of body fascism that has existed in history – slavery. The slave’s body was literally the property of his or her master, to be used as the master saw fit, and then discarded or sold at the master’s discretion. On a scale of 0 – 10, the degree of bodily autonomy that the slave had was zero.
Either you and you alone own your body, or you don’t. If you don’t, then someone else does, or at least has shares in it. And that makes you a slave.
Those who deny that mandated ‘vaccines’ or restrictions on tobacco usage, or any other drug for that matter, by adults are a form of slavery would probably base their denial on the severity of the bondage. To this I would say: you haven’t been forcibly carted off to work against your will on a plantation, but the fundamental right of bodily autonomy has been breached. The principle of a breach is not in question, but rather where that breach lies on the spectrum. And if you accept this breach on the grounds that it doesn’t affect you, then prepare for breaches that will cumulatively take us further and further up that slavery spectrum until we’re on a plantation of some kind. I think they’re calling it a ‘smart city’.
Make no mistake, if you are 17 years old (and four months) today, Westminster has just decreed that you are no longer free to decide what you can do with your body, even if your decision affects no-one except you. I will deal in a minute with the flawed argument that one’s decision to smoke might affect the NHS, since fascists always have an alibi, and the NHS has been invoked for this law. And they’re invoking the usual pretence to care about the health of Britain.
The breach of bodily autonomy is more than sufficient grounds to object to this law, and I could stop there. But let’s examine the arbitrary nature of the law. The law is so arbitrary that it is based on the date of your birth. If you were born before 2009, you can buy tobacco. If you were born after 2008, you can’t. There’s a name for laws that apply to some in the land but not others, and that name is discriminatory. So, aside from this being a violation of bodily autonomy, this is a discriminatory law based purely on age.
Discriminatory laws are both cowardly and divisive, and this one is no different. Recognising the fundamental evil inherent in this law, they knew it could never be enforceable if they imposed it on the entire population, so they decided to implement body fascism by stealth. Those not affected are in the majority. They have targeted a minority, not just in purely demographic terms, but also by the number of smokers within that demographic. But we should all protest because, well, first they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out because I was not a smoker…
It’s divisive for obvious reasons. The curtain twitchers will be delighting in a new snitching opportunity, and PC Plod, the intrepid crime buster who revels in arresting blind people for protesting genocide, can now approach smokers to ask for ID.
The Bill is also cowardly, because the legal age at which you can buy tobacco is 18, and this Bill has been directed at an entire cohort who will only be affected next year when they turn 18. They can’t object now, because they’re minors not legally allowed to smoke, and by the time they might wish to object, it’ll be too late – the law has passed. So, the cowards in Westminster have picked a fight, but only with a minority who aren’t yet at the age where they can defend themselves and revolt. Divide and rule.
It is also arbitrary because of what they have chosen to proscribe, and not to proscribe. If “eas[ing] long-term pressure on the National Health Service, and build[ing] a healthier Britain” are the alibis for this fascism, then what do they intend to do about junk food, alcohol, seed oils, glyphosate, microplastics, fluoride in the water, or any of the hundreds of other dietary intakes, voluntary and involuntary, that are causing “pressure on the National Health Service”, and generally making us unhealthier. Indeed what do they plan to do about iatrogenic harm caused by the healthcare service itself? While there don’t appear to be any definitive studies of iatrogenic harm in the UK, it is estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the US. The answer to these questions is of course – absolutely nothing.
More evidence of the arbitrary nature of this ban comes from an analysis done by Dr Philip McMillan of no fewer than 186 million NHS hospital admissions from 2016 to 2025. All age cohorts showed dramatic increases in liver disease ranging from a 94.7% increase for the 0 – 17 year-old age group, to 171.1% for the 60 – 64 year-old age group. Meanwhile, The Guardian reported in December 2025 that alcohol consumption in the UK is at its lowest since data collection began in 1990. One guess and no prizes as to where I’m going with this…
Children reporting a 94.7% increase in liver disease? Covid of course turned the entire Western world into the largest crime scene in history, and even Inspector Clouseau, had he been alive, would have felt obliged to add the ‘vaccines’ to the list of suspects when considering these horrific statistics. Based on a scientific analysis, and citing an 84% increase in the incidence of cardiac-related death in males 18 – 39 years old within 28 days of a covid jab, Florida’s Surgeon General actually did recommend against young males receiving covid ‘vaccines’.
Don’t hold your breath if you’re waiting for the control freaks in Westminster to instigate a study into whether ‘vaccines’ might be contributing to a 94% increase in NHS liver disease admissions for children.
The idea that these people care about your health is risible and insulting to our intelligence. How stupid would you have to be to accept being told how to live by people so lacking in imagination that they chose a career in which all they have to do is walk into a building to vote on legislation they haven’t read, because they are told which way to vote by their headmaster/mistress – the party leader. These are people whose jobs entail aggressively not thinking for themselves. These are people who never wanted to leave school, and are proverbially living in adult diapers at our expense. Not only do they get a thrill from being told what to do and think, but they derive equal pleasure from handing down the instructions they receive to the rest of us.
I think it’s fair to say that most people end up in hospital because they could have made a better choice about some aspect of their lifestyle or health. Hospitals are supposed to be a compassionate net for human error and frailty. They were not intended to cater primarily to the wise and healthy, who are now, and perhaps always have been, a minority of the population. This decision has not been made to “ease long-term pressure on the National Health Service”. The best way to ease pressure on the NHS while preserving human rights and dignity is more and better staff, more hospitals, and less bureaucracy.
Yet another sinister twist to this disgusting law is the extension of the ban to all nicotine products, which are defined as “any substance containing nicotine, which is intended to be delivered into the human body”. This would include nicotine gum, pouches, and patches.
Any substance taken in excess is likely to have negative effects, but nicotine per se is by no means a toxic or harmful substance. On the contrary, research now shows that it has cognitive healing, and anti-inflammatory effects. Next to tobacco, eggplant, or aubergine, contains the highest levels of nicotine. Nature has provided a cure for just about everything except death, and the covidian madness that decreed the only solution to a cold virus was a manmade synthetic ‘spike protein’ has rightly given the alternative health movement a shot in the arm. So just what the hell are they up to with this latest ban on nicotine for the commoners?
At any rate, if they succeed in enforcing this law, they will add numerous other arbitrary proscriptions in service of oligarchic control agendas, and inimical to our health. In a decade or so from now, you will not be permitted to put meat or dairy in your body, but you will have to put a certain number of bugs in your body, because… climate change, sustainability, the latest virus mania, saving the Blue Whale… you get the picture.
This deadly arrow is aimed at all of us. It just hasn’t hit yet. But it will, if we don’t stop it.
Live facial recognition
The second event was the announcement by the Metropolitan Police that facial recognition cameras will be rolled out across the country after a failed human rights challenge to its widespread use.
Online age verification has already begun and is ramping up. The scenario I mentioned above in which PC Plod delights in stopping smokers for ID is unlikely to happen. At least not in the short term. This is because the Bill appears to criminalise only the sale of tobacco and vaping products to those born after 2008. So it’s not clear to me whether someone banned from buying tobacco and nicotine products, but who is caught with them, can face charges. However, the Bill makes provision for a broad scope of enforcement action that includes “the taking of other measures intended to reduce the incidence of such offences.” It is also an offence under the Bill to buy tobacco on behalf of someone born after 2008.
Could such measures include the widespread use of facial recognition cameras? If so, and if you are one of those who can’t legally buy tobacco products anymore, what can the police do if they catch you smoking on their public spying cameras? I guess we’ll find out next year.
What is clear is that they’re thinking of new ways to condition us into accepting that our bodies belong to the State, and the digital panopticon just got much more invasive. They are watching us. Everywhere. The further we move on from 1984, the closer we get to it.
If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!
Comments are closed.