Who else supports flying our flags? I challenge the BBC narrative of it being "Racist" drive.google.com/file/d/1zPE…

Keir Starmer told JD Vance that "We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. In relation to free speech in the UK, I'm very proud of our history there" Yet now @Keir_Starmer seems to be encouraging the banning of 'some' speakers based on different political opinions @D_Tarczynski is a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament from Poland, a close NATO ally of the United Kingdom. He was invited to speak at the first ever British @CPAC - by a former Prime Minister - yet has been turned down "not for any security or credible security risk, but because his views on issues such as immigration, sovereignty and cultural change differ from those of your government." He was banned under the criteria "not conducive to the public good" Yet what it not conducive to the public good - is censorship, suffocating Free Speech and banning speakers that have different legal political opinions It is a disgrace and needs to stop. You can overturn this if you choose to...

On Bail. Man accused of raping a child was granted bail and used the opportunity to rape another child. Remember Lucy Connolly, a bereaved mother, was denied bail for a nasty, hastily deleted tweet. But Lucy was white and her name wasn’t Khan. Imagining bailing a rapist.

What is playing out now with the Belfast attack, with Henry Nowak, is a grand symphony of gaslighting & dishonesty that is almost too stomach-churning to watch We witnessed the same after Southport, with the rape gangs....and on & on They KNOW their mass migration ideology caused these atrocities. So they choose to deflect on to right-wing politicians, GB News and what they call the "far right". The public need to understand exactly how their game is played and the poisonous ideology that underpins it. The cycle is always the same: Fury erupts across Britain, driven not by public figures (as they claim), but by the atrocity itself. You know, the mad asylum seeker wielding a bloodied knife... Footage is shared on social media, watched with our own eyes. The pure unvarnished truth that the legacy media can't spin. Figures on the right respond with natural fury - indeed, rage - that the elite's callous disregard for reality and their fellow citizens has yet again unleashed carnage. But the media and the political class can't talk about that reality. They can't talk about the incident itself. Because they would have to admit it is thanks to them that such people - such murderers - have entered the country. The BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems & many Tories, too -- What THEY CHOOSE to talk about, what they WANT YOU TO THINK the real story is about, is the anger and the choice of words of those of us who are utterly appalled and outraged by the latest atrocity -- an atrocity THEY enabled. This is gaslighting propaganda of the most repellent and unforgivable kind. With Southport, the real story was apparently not the son of a Rwandan refugee committing one of the most heinous crimes in British history. No, the real story was Nigel Farage's reaction to that orgy of slaughter against little girls. When locals rioted, James O'Brien and others labelled it the 'Farage Riots'. The small number of rioters suddenly became the story, used to dismiss the concerns of ALL protestors. "Far-right thuggery", was how Keir Starmer referred to law-abiding mothers and pensioners. Anything to avoid talking about the crime itself and the ideology that brought its perpetrator into our country. And now we see the same playing out with the Belfast attack and the murder of Henry Nowak. Newsnight misleadingly quoted Nigel Farage as saying "white rage," a revealing and vile smear for which they have had to apologise yet again. In lockstep, the media and political class rapidly converged on their narrative: this was to be a story about Nigel Farage's naughty words. THIS is what has dominated their coverage. This is what they want to talk about in Parliament, in the TV studios, and in the press. Farage's naughty words. "Just how naughty were they? Should such bad words be tolerated? Should he be arrested?" "Do we need to apply yet more censorship to protect the public against his mean, hurty words?" These people are so far beneath contempt it is difficult to find words that do them justice. This is a story not about Nigel Farage or the right, but the deeply ingrained anti-British and anti-white ideology that is destroying this nation. This is an institutionally treasonous state, and Henry Novak and Stephen Ogilvie are its latest victims. That is the real story our political and media class are attempting to bury under a mountain of pearl-clutching theatrics, lies, and misdirection. They have blood on their hands. It's about time we said it. Clip from my monologue. 👇 Full monologue linked in the second post. 1/2

The “Conservatives” again!

Labour have appointed a new adviser at the Ministry of Justice. And she has extreme views. She called Henry Nowak's murder “useful” to the Right, and the public reaction to two-tier justice “dangerous”. This is someone who should be nowhere near our justice system. 🧵

Who else supports flying our flags? I challenge the BBC narrative of it being "Racist" drive.google.com/file/d/1zPE…

Just checking I’ve understood: Men underrepresented by 9 percentage points - good. Those from ethnic minorities underrepresented by 5 percentage points - unacceptable. What does any of this have to do with justice?! This obsession with group-based grievances is a poison.

Worst-ever Chancellor Rachel Thieves ( including Lamont) is briefing that Healey was suggesting schools and hospital budgets be cut to pay for defence. That’s crap. Abandon Net Zero ( estimated £15-30bn) and we’d have all the bombs and bullets required.

Oh wonderful, internet restrictions for the public during unrest. Like Iran.

UK GOVERNMENT SACKED ITS OWN BORDER WATCHDOG David Neal was the man the government hired to inspect UK borders and make sure they actually worked. He did exactly that. What he found was not good. He wrote it all up in official reports. The Home Office locked those reports in a drawer. When he finally went to a newspaper to warn the public that private planes were landing in the UK with almost nobody checking who was on them, the Home Secretary James Cleverly @JamesCleverly fired him. Here is what Neal actually found. At London City Airport, only 21% of flights flagged as high risk were checked by immigration officers. Not some of the time. As a yearly average. He said it was a scandal and dangerous for the country. The Home Office said he had the numbers wrong. Then they fired him. At the moment he was sacked, the @HomeOffice was holding back 15 of his finished inspection reports. Some had been sitting there for 18 months without being shown to the public. The agreed deadline for publishing them was eight weeks. Not one report met that deadline across his entire three years in the job. When they finally released 13 of the reports, they chose to do it on the same afternoon that a separate major inquiry published its findings... Draw your own conclusions. What was actually in those reports? Border control posts left with nobody manning them. Officers at e-passport gates described as distracted and without basic radios. The whole airport border operation rated as neither effective nor efficient. Neal told MPs directly: I have been sacked for doing my job. He also told @BBC the Home Office is dysfunctional and described senior officials rolling their eyes when he brought them his findings. He said the government contacted him three separate times warning him not to speak publicly about the unpublished reports. He had almost no other way to get the information out. The people who fired him for raising border security concerns were the same people who spent years promising the public they had taken back control of the borders. Sources: @BBCNews @guardian @DailyMail @CommonsHomeAffs

🚨Welcome to England… where we can’t fly our flag incase we upset migrants and those who hate us. Yes you read that correctly 🤡

As a Japanese, I can't wrap my head around what's happening in the UK. Hundreds of thousands of young girls raped by grooming gangs. Fathers who reported it got arrested. Citizens told to stay quiet. If this happened here in Japan, it would already be a civil war. Why isn't the British military staging a coup? What are they even doing? This makes absolutely no sense to us. Can any British person explain this madness?

A neighbour heard a girl scream and called the police. Officers found a 13-year-old at 3 a.m., clothing disrupted, in a house with a group of men who had given her vodka. The men were not questioned. The girl was arrested — for being drunk and disorderly. This is not a rumour. It is in the Jay Report, and it was put to South Yorkshire's chief constable in Parliament. Another case: a 12-year-old found in a car with a 22-year-old man who had indecent images of her on his phone. No action taken. The British state had handcuffs that night. It used them on the child. What does a justice system call itself when the victim gets a criminal record and the abuser keeps his taxi licence?

Why do these people keep pleading guilty? Everyone needs to know 3 things: 1. Do not talk to the police at all if arrested. 2. Do not trust a State provided duty solicitor who will tell you to plead guilty to get less time. 3. Never plead guilty - always demand a trial.

How is this any different to my angry tweet? I don’t advocate anyone be arrested for words. I’m a free speech absolutist. However I’m not down with the two tier society we find ourselves in. Neither are most and it’s fuelling people’s anger.

Bloody hell, I’ve been digging more into the government definition of 'Crisis' a bit more So... an unelected regulator is now operating within government where the meaning of “crisis” has become very stretched. The Cabinet Office Amber Book says an emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act covers serious damage to human welfare, the environment or UK security. (fair enough) But then it has added ... “For the purposes of this guidance, the terms emergency and crisis are used interchangeably.”... INTERCHANGEABLY? It also says an emergency/crisis can include situations that have not yet been harmful but have the potential to be (they do not define 'harmful' This guidance has not been voted for or debated So let me explain why thats so important. it means that almost any situation the government believes could become a problem can now be treated as a 'crisis'. And under that broad language, Ofcom has been able to write to platforms about civil unrest, crisis situations and how they will need to beef up moderation, it isnt just about removing illegal content. Anything could become a “crisis”, no one voted for the widening of the definition and no one had the opportunity to, because thats how government by guidance works.... hoping you won't even notice.

Agenda 2030 Or The Defence Of The Realm. Starmer Has Made His Choice. John Healey Has Resigned Over It. This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By lunchtime it knew why. The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation. Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere. In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick. Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions. The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do. Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published. Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign. In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

Celebrating England's 1100th Anniversary in 2027 crowdfunder.co.uk/p/birth-of…

I had to read this three times before I could believe it was real. Rotherham. A small town in northern England. For sixteen years, at least 1,400 children — some as young as eleven — were raped, gang-raped, and trafficked between cities by organized groups of men. Eleven years old. Petrol was poured on them so they would stay quiet. Their families were threatened with death. Photos were taken and used as blackmail. The police knew. The council knew. The social workers knew. For sixteen years, not one of them moved. Why? Because officers were afraid of being called racist if they acted on what they were seeing. That was the whole reason. While children were being sold, adults were protecting their own reputations. That is the moment something in you breaks. And here is the part that makes it worse. The TV networks did not report it. The papers did not chase it. When the journalist Andrew Norfolk finally broke the story, even he thought maybe 150 girls had been hurt. The real number was 1,400. He was staggered. This should have been the biggest story of the decade. It was not. The networks looked away. The advertisers preferred safer topics. The cover-up did not end when the report was published — it continued in the silence of every newsroom that refused to chase it. Then Elon Musk bought X. The advertisers fled. The press declared the platform finished. X almost did not survive. But it did. And on X, the names of those towns started trending. Rotherham. Telford. Rochdale. Oldham. Towns the country had been told to forget. Britain understands itself differently today. Not because the politicians confessed. Not because the broadcasters apologized. Because one platform refused to let it stay buried. X almost did not survive. 1,400 children almost stayed forgotten. That is worth saying out loud.

I don’t think that academics should do ‘hot takes’ on matters of the day. Their opinions are rarely better informed than anyone else’s and cloaking them in scholarly garb cheapens the principle of objectivity. With respect to what is occurring in Britain today, in my opinion a fundamental error right now is to let the churn of the daily ‘news’ cycle drive your analysis. The legacy media, the government, and the police have all forfeited any claim to credibility; they lie routinely, by omission and commission, and they are actively shaping the narrative to protect a failing political order. Strong-arming victims’ families, suppressing footage, and spinning every incident as isolated ‘far-right thuggery’ or random criminality is not journalism or policing, let alone governing—it is damage limitation for a system that has lost control of the streets and the story. Instead, fix your gaze on the structural factors. Demography, geography, economics, and the hollowing-out of institutional legitimacy matter far more than whatever grainy mobile-phone clip is being waved at us this week. Britain has imported, at scale and with minimal integration, populations whose cultural distance from the native majority is large and, in important respects, growing rather than shrinking. Parallel societies, concentrated in particular towns and cities, now possess the critical mass to sustain sustained low-level conflict and, when conditions align, more organised violence. The state’s monopoly on force is visibly fraying; its willingness to use what remains of that monopoly is selective and therefore delegitimising. Trust in the police, courts, and political class is in the basement and still falling. Economic stagnation and housing pressure sharpen every grievance. These are not transient conditions; they are the terrain on which coming events will play out. On the Belfast attacks specifically: the operators are clearly more security-conscious than has been the case with the migrant hotel and other protests over the last couple of years—masked, disciplined about visuals, limiting the evidential trail. Some attribute this to institutional memory of the Troubles. That may be part of it. But I suspect the more immediate and probable vector is simple tactical diffusion from the modern Left and anarchist playbook. Black Bloc methods, the utility of anonymity, the selective application of violence, the media choreography—these have been field-tested and refined for years in Europe and North America. The manuals are not secret and the examples are legion: Marighella’s Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla, the writings of the Red Army Faction, Alinsky’s organising principles stripped of the moralising, the operational literature of the Global Justice movement and Antifa networks. Remove the Marxist dialectical claptrap and you are left with cold, competent observations about how small, determined groups can punch above their weight against a larger but slower and more constrained opponent. Diffusion of those techniques was inevitable once the incentives aligned. You don't need an aged ex-IRA uncle to tell you how to do these things. The internet and a library card will do it. I am wary of firm day-to-day pronouncements precisely because reliable, on-the-ground reporting is so thin. I am not in Belfast, the journalistic desert in this country is real, nearly every dead-tree media and teevee pundit is a literal know nothing. What I will say with higher confidence on account of my reading of such conflicts elsewhere in the world is that certain escalatory dynamics are now highly probable: Police over-reaction that produces a martyr or martyrs, further radicalising elements on all sides. Targeted assassination of a judge, prominent politician, or influential voice. A spectacular, Christchurch-style mass killing when some individual or cell concludes that only dramatic, indiscriminate violence will break the equilibrium. Stabbings and gang rapes will continue at their grim baseline; they are already normalised enough that they barely shift the political dial. The deeper pattern is polarisation, erosion of restraint, and the slow emergence of organised ethnic and ideological blocs willing to use force to defend or advance their interests. All of that is in accordance with the rules of the game of identity politics, which were created by the *very same* people now most frantic about the perilous consequences of their own ideology. The centre is not holding because it has spent years delegitimising itself and disarming its natural supporters. Watch the structural trends—demographic momentum, institutional decay, the diffusion of effective small-group tactics, the collapse of shared reality—more than the latest headline. The news will keep lying. The underlying physics of the situation will not.