If you want an accurate insight into someone else's political beliefs, directly asking them is rarely the best way to ascertain it. Just as when those of a normiesque persuasion ask me what I write about and I say "oh, er, social issues...", people are not always entirely honest about what they believe politically, if they deduce they may receive an unfavourable response from the enquiring party.

We saw this phenomenon most clearly demonstrated in the UK in 2016 during Brexit campaigning, when - if cornered by rabid Remainer friends - many people would claim to be voting that way themselves, but in the privacy of the ballot box, made a different choice.

The shockwaves the subsequent result sent through certain sections of UK society were often punctuated with anguished cries of, "but I don't know how this could have happened! I don't know anyone who was voting Leave!" - it not having occurred to these people that actually they did, it's simply that their acquaintances weren't honest with them about it.

So, if you want to know where someone generally stands politically, don't ask them directly.

Ask them this instead:

"What was your childhood like?"

I mean, probably not the best strategy if you're going door-to-door canvassing (although at least it's more interesting than relentless questions about bloody potholes - so says a non-driver...), but in the appropriate environment - cosy pub, at least three pints in - this query can prove most revealing.

In general, the rule is (and yes, as for any rule, there are always exceptions): people who had happy childhoods have political beliefs more or less the same as their parents, albeit with some modern tweaks (i.e., there is some tension in the ranks between today's liberal Gen X parents and their liberal Gen Z offspring over transgenderism, and the perplexing panoply of potential pronouns), whilst people who did not, adopt the opposite political stance.

For example, people who came from unhappy conservative homes, with traditional religious parents, will often reject that model and become atheist (or at least less strictly religious) and more liberal themselves.

Equally, people from unhappy liberal homes, with parents who had more progressive and secular ideals, will not infrequently lean further to the right and into more traditional lifestyles as adults.

This is not simply down to contrarian "rebellion", the idea that all children instinctively reject their parents' beliefs, whatever they are (because not all children do: those from happy homes often don't, at least not as adults), but rather, it is because those who grew up in unhappy homes typically accredit this unhappiness to the beliefs of their parents, rather than to their unique dysfunctions as people, which would have manifested whatever their politics were.

For example, many of those raised within unhappy marriages decide it is the institution of marriage itself that is the problem, vowing never to commit to such an "obviously" toxic and oppressive arrangement themselves... rather than recognising it was actually the two specific people in the marriage that were the problem, not marriage itself.

I outline these examples of fairly predictable human psychology, because they are extremely pertinent in understanding why the eternal, infernal 'Adolescence' drama has become such a national talking point, and what this high-profile production is ultimately being used to achieve.

Unravelling the agenda of this omnipresent and now record-breaking show (it being the most-viewed UK Netflix offering ever) starts with asking one of the lead actors - the borderline "national treasure" (always a red flag, obviously), Stephen Graham - the exploratory political question:

What was his childhood like?

Of course, we all already know, because it's been a particular point of mass lampooning that the blond-haired, blue-eyed, decidedly white-skinned Graham claims to have experienced racist abuse as a child.

This, however, was not because he looks mixed-race (he acknowledges he doesn't) - but rather because his grandfather was Jamaican, and this was a widely known fact in the area in which he grew up.

Born in Kirkby in Liverpool in 1973, Graham would have been born into an overwhelmingly white environment, where having mixed ancestry was very rare, and so - even if one looked white, as he did - this would inevitably have attracted some cruel taunts and jibes from the other kids.

I mean, they're kids, aren't they? Anyone remotely "different" - ginger hair, glasses, too fat or too thin - will attract some mocking and taunting. While this can indeed be devastating to the targeted child at the time, I highly doubt that what Graham experienced was any worse than what millions of other kids go through.

But whilst it was unlikely to have been worse in scope or intensity, what it crucially was, was unique.

If he was being bullied for being fat or no good at sports, he could at least have looked around him and seen plenty of other children being targeted for the same reasons, and so not felt so singled out, but as a rare mixed-race child in an overwhelmingly white environment, his experience would have felt unique - and therefore, to him as a vulnerable and powerless kid, uniquely dangerous.

With the intensity and irrationality of early childhood emotions, he would have interpreted his experience as confirming the existence of a very menacing, very specific threat emanating from white people (and, in particular, from white working-class boys, who would have represented the overwhelming majority of his antagonists).

A threat that made his childhood feel deeply unsafe and frightening.

A threat which continued to profoundly haunt him well into adulthood (see his reaction to the This Is England script).

A threat about which something must be done.

And that is precisely why Mr. Graham now relentlessly performs in politicised agitprop demonising young, white, working-class males.

From starring as the sociopathic skinhead "Combo" in 2006's This is England (an experience which he said often left him 'crying his eyes out' because it would dig up painful nightmares of the racial abuse he suffered as a child), to featuring as "reformed" far-right racist, Matthew Collins, in 2022's The Walk In, Graham has now reached the apex of his career in coruscating white working-class boys with his turn in Adolescence, where he plays the father of a 13-year-old white boy who murders a classmate.

Adolescence is based on a true story, but in the real-life version of events, the assailant was black.

I watched Adolescence as soon as it came out, as I always watch the top trending offerings on Freudian mind-control weapon, Netflix, because they give us so many clues about where the agenda is going next (and so you don't have to...).

The first thing I thought, with a customary derisory snort (Netflix often elicits such things), is that the production team had managed to construct the least plausible family dynamics possible where it comes to producing a child murderer.

"Jamie Miller" comes from a stable, two-parent, working family, with happy parents who get along. The family is not dealing with abuse, addiction, poverty, or any other form of serious dysfunction (although there is a none-too-subtle suggestion that there might be a "genetic predisposition" towards violence, since we are told Stephen Graham's character once got annoyed and kicked the garden shed).

The chances of a family like that producing a violent teenage knife murderer are so infinitesimally small as to almost be non-existent.

So immediately, this "based on a true story" fictional TV show has destroyed any claims of authenticity, because children from stable, functional homes are simply not representative of the types of children who go on to murder each other, no matter how many Andrew Tate videos they watch (and believe me, I am no fan of Andrew Tate, more of whom later).

Certainly, teenage knife crime has become an increasing, and very serious, problem in this country - but if we wanted a genuinely socially responsible and accurate dramatic portrayal of childhood factors that can increase the chances of a teenager turning to fatal knife crime (which include poverty, abuse, parental criminality, gang involvement, and being taken into care), we would not be so powerfully focusing on white children from stable and functional backgrounds like "Jamie Miller's", because they are not the main protagonists of this phenomenon.

They were, however, the main protagonists in Stephen Graham's childhood taunting, and, therefore, they must be forevermore demonised, villainised, and ostracised, until Mr. Graham feels fully avenged and "safe".

Stephen Graham, therefore - like many people who don't properly resolve their childhood traumas - is stuck in arrested development, and projecting his unresolved traumas into places they don't belong.

However, unlike many people stuck in this stage, Stephen Graham possesses extraordinary power to use his unresolved traumas to severely detriment the rest of us.

His acting talents, combined with his particular childhood trauma, make him an exceptionally powerful asset to the elites in successfully advancing a number of their key, and most sinister agenda items.

We have discussed at this site many times the phenomenal power good actors wield over the perceptions of rest of the population, and this power is acutely magnified when they actually believe in the agendas they are pushing, because they have such a strong personal stake in them, as Stephen Graham so clearly does.

The fact that Graham appears white, but nevertheless experienced racist abuse as a child, equips him with the ability to deliver powerful anti-white polemics without attracting the inevitable "chip on his shoulder" criticism that a visibly mixed-race actor would receive, whilst few white working-class actors, especially proud Liverpudlians, would be prepared to throw their own under the bus quite as relentlessly as Graham has done.

The fanfare around Adolescence (which is very similar in tone to all the fawning hype over that other piece of fictional political agitprop, 'Breathtaking') has now escalated to such a degree that this make-believe story is going to be shown in parliament, and throughout the nation's schools, to stimulate a discussion about the issues raised, about which something must be done.

Needless to say, and with grim and tedious predictability, one of the things that must be done is the enaction of an internet clampdown, as the establishment is desperate to rein in the success of the internet in circulating previously censored ideas, and in connecting large numbers of anti-establishment people.

Yet the ruling classes know they would not get mass public support to restrict the internet merely based on the notion that "ideas we don't like are getting too much attention".

So to get the reaction they want, they've staged multiple, long-game psyops to frame the internet as exceptionally dangerous (especially to young white boys) by creating CIA assets like Andrew Tate. They have then made him extraordinarily famous, had him say a lot of stupid things, and thus, enabled the blaming of various real-life tragedies on Tate's "radicalising".

As I said about Tate from the start, he would never have been permitted to become so absurdly famous, with acres of international press coverage documenting his every move, were he not a completely owned and controlled asset there to fulfil an agenda, and, as we now see, here it is.

(Ironically, the stupendous success of Tate confirms that white working-class boys, who look up to him in their hordes, are not generally racist, as Tate himself is a mixed-race Muslim.)

What the nation is being coaxed to believe, with pretend storytelling like Adolescence, is that, left to their own devices, white working-class males are all potential neo-Nazi racist misogynist knife-wielding thugs, who must be strictly monitored and "educated" to avoid manifesting these dark tendencies, and that they are also - of course - conspiracy theorists.

After all - and as we learned so well during "Covid" - being a conspiracy theorist and a far-right extremist, apparently, go hand-in-hand, to the extent that the press and government not infrequently use one as a synonym for the other.

That is why, in the same timeframe that Adolescence is attempting to show how dangerous the internet can be in encouraging far-right beliefs and associated violence in white working-class males, the legacy press is purporting to prove how it can radicalise them through dangerous conspiracy theories, too.

Less than six months ago, Richard D. Hall - a white working-class male with a strong regional accent - was splashed all across the papers for his "dangerous conspiracy theorising" (the Daily Mail even branded him 'Britain's sickest man'), which - so a High Court judge ruled - led to him harassing vulnerable survivors of a tragedy (including a young schoolgirl, the same target demographic as "Jamie Miller" is seen to target in Adolescence).

Would Hall have been so vilified had he been black, a woman, or spoken in BBC English?

While we can't know for sure, it is of note, and I doubt incidental, that his personal characteristics fit so perfectly with the demonised class of the day, and can thus be seen in the minds of many to "confirm" the ever-growing prejudices that white working-class males are uniquely dangerous brutes.

They are prone to entertaining wild delusions that lead them to intimidate, harass, and ultimately even kill, the vulnerable.

Schoolgirls (even disabled ones in Hall's case), minorities, gays, Jews... None of these groups is safe with the crazed white working-class male around.

So we need rules and restrictions to contain them.

We need strict internet censorship to stop both their obsessions with evil misogynists like Andrew Tate, and their fixations on wild and dangerous conspiracy theories as perpetuated by the likes of Richard D. Hall (which may include his theories about Madeleine McCann, another poor vulnerable young white girl).

If you don't think so, you obviously don't care about poor innocent young girls being harassed and killed by maniacs, and you are therefore a monster.

That will be the line the media and government will go lockstep in pushing.

Of course, said media and government need fictional dramas and character actors (a category in which I include Graham, Tate, and Hall) to push such a perspective, because such a perspective is false.

White working-class males do not represent a unique threat to the safety of the average person in this country (of course, there are dangerous people in this demographic, as in any large group of people, but they are not dangerous because they are from this demographic).

They do, however, represent a unique threat to the safety of the ruthless ruling elites working to destroy our society.

Young, indigenous working-class men are the demographic group in any culture that possess the strength and skill to rise up against the invading predator class and remove them from power.

Therefore, the more that young, indigenous British men awaken to this fact and organise themselves - which the internet enables them to do increasingly effectively - the more of a threat to the invading predator class they become.

That's quite clearly why the proposed internet crackdown, and concurrent demonising of white working-class males, is happening now.

It's happening to neutralise the biggest obstacle and threat the ruling classes know they face in maintaining their power and advancing their agenda.

And, obviously, it's happening because Stephen Graham really is stuck in eternal adolescence...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.