I played that Charlie UK game from Prevent. You know, the one with Amelia where you get referred to Prevent/Channel if you agree with the goth succubus saying chud shit. The game emphasized it was all "voluntary" several times, which made me a bit suspect.

Email	Spoiler Image
Comment
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1770521733128.jpg (274.07 KB, 768x768, 1:1, 573634636363.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 03:35:33 No.322862

I played that Charlie UK game from Prevent. You know, the one with Amelia where you get referred to Prevent/Channel if you agree with the goth succubus saying chud shit. The game emphasized it was all "voluntary" several times, which made me a bit suspect. Seems like a weird thing to emphasize.

Then I did some reading on the Soviet system of crushing dissent at schools during the Brezhnev era, and compared it to the referral system they have in place in the UK for schools, and found it functioned basically the same. It even has the same name, and even repetitively called itself a voluntary referral.

Profilaktika (пpoфилaктикa) roughly translates to Prevent. The Brits were too fucking lazy to even use an original term. But just like Prevent in the UK, the Soviets for their kids had a "voluntary" referral system. Referrals were sent from the school, and the KGB would bring them in for a "voluntary" meeting. Except if you declined then another government department would come down and force an involuntary intervention. Often with a psychiatric angle I might add, you'd land a diagnosis of sluggish schizophrenia and they'd pill you into retardation. I went through a few of the websites associated with Prevent UK and they were emphasizing the association between political extremism and psychological deficiency (low self esteem, recent trauma, ect). So it seems to be converging on the psychiatric abuse as well, or at least has the potential to.

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 03:35:56 No.322863

File: 1770521756596-0.jpg (128 KB, 768x913, 768:913, 436265267246.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1770521756596-1.jpg (114.74 KB, 1204x714, 86:51, ezgif-41aab2ab6af4205e.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

In the UK today if you get a bit too spicy at school. The "Designated Safety Lead (DSL)" at a British school has the legal obligation to refer to you Prevent. The DSL was once just an administrator or a teacher that looked for signs of domestic abuse, bullying or other problems, but in 2016 their role got expanded to counter political extremism. Prevent is the organization that the DSL first comes down for a "voluntary" talk, except Prevent remains in communication with the DSL, who can at any time send the signal up to another government department for an involuntary intervention. Channel can also do the same. Either the police, mental health services or child welfare departments are the ones who call for an involuntary intervention. It's the same laws they use on people at risk of suicide or taking kids off their father because of domestic abuse. They lean into the respective government departments for the referral for extremism.

The surprising thing to find was that very little of the Eastern bloc system of crushing dissent even admitted it was there. Both prevent UK and Profilaktika give a voluntary face, and put at least two government departments of referrals between them and the guy who orders you hauled away.

And because the Lithuanian Soviet Republic's KGB archives are open source, and the Hoover institute hosts them, there's another angle I found out about. The Soviets were often referring to people for Profilaktika for complaining about replacement Russian migrants in Lithuania. A risk factor that could have people referred to Profilaktika is having a nostalgic parent that remembers the pre-soviet days and showing an interest in Lithuanian nationalism. Pretty much the same as how the Brits have the plurality of their Prevent referrals being because of far right chuds complaining about their replacement migrants.

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 03:37:30 No.322864

File: 1770521850673.jpg (56.23 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, 1770497499661762.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/wp664.2023.pdf

>In Andropov’s analysis, behind the decline in crimes committed lay an increase in crimes prevented. Andropov went on to show that the KGB was issuing preventive warnings to tens of thousands of people each year– and to claim that these warnings were remarkably effective. Out of the 120,000 that received such a warning between 1967 and 1974…

>Did the KGB think profilaktika would change minds? One strand of the literature suggests not. In the 1950s Alex Inkeles and Raymond Bauer interviewed thousands of Soviet emigrants about their experience of Soviet rule. They concluded (Inkeles et al., 1959, 283) that Soviet rulers understood perfectly that many of their citizens held grievances and would have disloyal thoughts. They did not expect inner loyalty. They were satisfied to “assure reliable behavior regardless of how the citizen might feel about the regime.” In the same spirit Harrison (2016, 157–159) conjectures that KGB profilaktika achieved its successes through fear rather than by re-education.

>Harrison (2016, 144–145) and Cohn (2018a) note the traces of a medicalized terminology in KGB documentation. The word profilaktika itself is borrowed from medical science. Among the goals of profilaktika set out in a 1964 resolution of the KGB collegium was “protection of Soviet citizens from bourgeois ideology” (Chebrikov et al. (1977, 584); see also Elkner (2009, 152)).

>n the same spirit, KGB reports frequently lamented the public expression of “unhealthy” ideas. To give an example, one subject of a preventive warning, “while in a café, made unhealthy remarks” on various topics, including “specifically in relation to persons of Russian nationality.”23 The problem of such cases was not that the subject’s beliefs or norms were incorrect. What mattered was the risk of contagion: the subject let them slip in front of an unprotected audience, on the street, in the classroom, or at work.

>What kinds of people did the KGB identify for profilaktika? This is shown in Figure 3 (more details provided in Table C-1 and Table C-2 in Appendix C). Starting from the late 1950s, relative to the population of Soviet Lithuania aged 15 and over, we see that profilaktika subjects were much more male, substantially younger, and substantially less well educated.29 They were nearly all of Lithuanian ethnicity (in other words, with Russians, Poles, and other ethnic minorities largely unrepresented among them).

>The strongest concern, one that increased over time, was not for the subject but for the subject’s influence on others. There was a strong trend to medicalization of the subject’s behavior as “unhealthy.”

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 03:39:18 No.322865

File: 1770521958421.jpg (37.01 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1770498942471057.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

https://www.hoover.org/research/you-have-been-warned

>What did the KGB do when it was shielding the Soviet state? In Lithuania, KGB resources were spent on surveillance, information gathering, and analysis. The information gathered was used in many ways, but one important application was profilaktika.

>The word profilaktika translates directly as “prophylaxis” or “prevention.” In medical science, prophylaxis means the prevention of disease. Soviet rulers correctly believed that their power was stabilized by mass conformity to a fixed set of “healthy” ideas and behaviors. The KGB saw oppositional ideas and behaviors as a disease that could be spread from person to person through contagion. They developed the technique of preventive warnings to isolate “unhealthy” expressions and prevent them from spreading.

>A contagion model of the spread of political ideas and national and cultural identities has some foundation in behavioral science. Human beings copy each other from birth. Examples around us powerfully influence how we dress, whether or not we use recreational drugs, the importance we place on the rule of law, whom we have sex with and why, how many children we have, which stocks we buy, which churches we attend, who gets our votes, and whether or not we attend political rallies. This makes it good sense for repressive regimes both to stay alert for “bad” examples, exemplified by dedicated enemies or traitors, and to watch carefully the wider circles of those who do not intend to be or follow enemies, but whose behavior can be changed by the infectious example of others.

>Many cases, like that of Algirdas Aulas, were of a more political character. The KGB was particularly interested in anyone who expressed nostalgia for “bourgeois Lithuania” (i.e., the independent state that had existed from 1918 to 1940), was indiscreet in letters to relatives abroad, or denigrated Soviet leaders or the Soviet way of life.

>Young people were a special problem. While some just wanted more fun than could be found in official youth clubs, others developed romantic feelings about political freedom and national identity. The KGB was continually treading on the heels of groups that discussed independent Lithuania, read nationalist poetry, or planned escapades involving leaflets and slogans. These were often students.

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 04:27:22 No.322866

They should make a game like this where the goal is to de-radicalize dangerous crabs to be peaceful volcel wizardchan users who accept their role in life.

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 06:33:18 No.322867

Wow a stupid game everyone make fun of? This is just like that time in the soviet union where they kill people!

Anonymage 02/08/26 (Sun) 06:53:47 No.322868

>>322867
It's like the time in the Soviet Union when they decided to stop killing people. This started in the Khrushchev era and became more refined and mellow during the Brezhnev era. The only two eastern bloc countries that didn't really rely too much on their respective Prevent systems were Romania and East Germany. East Germany leaned into Zersetzung (Decomposition/Disintegration), where they'd gaslight and abuse dissidents until they psychologically fell apart. Romania kept the Stalinist model and just had the Securitate turning up and threatening people directly.

It's not so much the game, it's more the other reading materials and propaganda for Prevent/Channel UK. There's an absurd emphasis on mental health and how it relates to political extremism. They like to imply that "radicalized" individuals are psychologically deficient in terms of self esteem, and they're just following a peer group to belong. They also link it to bullying and past traumatic experiences. It's pretty much the same way the Soviets framed it in that individuals are always influenced by an outside ideological contagion, although the mental health angle is a little different. I'd say the Soviet psychiatric abuse was a lot more sophisticated. The Soviets implied that "delusions of reform" were goo-goo gaa-gaa utopian thinking, and that the dissident suffered obsessive compulsive impulses that made him obsess over these utopian fantasies. They tied that to the obsessive thinking that is associated with early onset schizophrenia to imply that the dissident was going to further deteriorate into schizophrenia, and then forced a medical intervention that way.

The way this was revealed was westerners noticing that schizophrenia diagnoses in eastern bloc countries were significantly higher than everywhere else. The system was kept secret from the public until after the wall fell. Prevent referrals have been growing exponentially in number over the years, and in the UK it's 43% far right chuds getting done for being too spicy. Thinking immigration numbers are too high is considered a sign of political extremism in the UK now.