@mattg_303@patcondell An act of savagery being committed by a savage requires a savage response. The response does not make one a savage. A non response makes one an impotent waste of XY chromosomes.
Dan Hodges can’t quit Lucy Connolly’s deleted tweet, crude, angry, posted in the raw aftermath of Southport, and he treats it like the Second Coming of Mosley.
A mom with no record, quite understandably upset, was jailed for 31 months, appeals rejected, treated like shit, basically, from the top of government, we have learned. To Hodges this is peak justice, a righteous takedown of ‘dangerous speech’.
It’s a joke but not funny, straight out of the gross didactic playbook of the governing stratum which seeks neither to amuse nor inform but simply to instruct and browbeat. It’s stupid, low and dishonest, grossly obvious.
The problem for these hacks is that the actual terrorism apparatus grinds on in plain view while they plainly deliberately look away.
MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing track thousands of active subjects of interest right now, with tens of thousands more in the closed pile. Older snapshots put the total on the real terror watchlist at near 43,000, the overwhelming majority Islamist extremists.
Over 800 live investigations. Roughly 250 arrests a year on terrorism suspicions. Yet the entire prison population for these offences hovers around 250. Most names on the list are neither jailed, nor intensively watched, nor even consistently bothered. Resources are finite; priorities shift; files get closed. Serious indicators of intent to commit violence, and still the system mostly shrugs.
Connolly, a tweet: jail, no question, hardly punishment enough if I’m following Hodgesian logic correctly. Melia, stickers: jail…for stickers. Dankula jailed on account of his girlfriend’s nazi dog? Well, that just makes sense to an actual deranged mentality.
The comically apparent hypocrisy isn’t incompetence. We all know (or should know) the numbers because it’s not hidden, per se; it’s just studiedly not observed by the exact same people paid to observe things.
Hodges and his cohort simply aren’t in the threat-assessment business. They’re in the narrative-maintenance business. Stoke outrage over a housewife’s intemperate tweet, memory-hole the scale of the real, ideologically lopsided threat, and keep the approved script humming.
This is not journalism because they are not journalists in the conventionally understood sense of journalism. Not even. honest observers. They’re performers in a propaganda chorus.
When one woman gets the full weight of the state for a deleted post that no serious person considers an actually significant call for violence while 40,000 people a year on average for 20 years get a revolving door and polite euphemisms?
That’s not balance. That’s a racket. And the public at last is clocking it despite the best efforts of the media-government complex to confound and confuse them. Screw that.
Newspaper circulation is in freefall. Legacy media bleeds readers by the tens of thousands while X has become the public sphere. I might add the words for better or worse but for the moment I’m impressed by the better.
These narrative vampires are being exposed, forced onto the platform they despise chasing relevance, only to find they’re dragged into the sunlight they’ve long avoided. The exposure is glorious, and long overdue.
I've set up a totally free vpn node (east coast USA) and i'm building an app for anyone in the UK, who can't afford to buy a vpn, to connect.
Watch this space.
"Are you afraid of being treated like you treat minorities?"
Anti-White fiends constantly ask this question as though it's a rhetorical "own." As though it's a lights-out, mic-drop moment. As though calling us “afraid” is some genius-level reverse-psychology tactic that will make us embrace our extinction so as to not be perceived as weak - because this makes sense to someone who operates with the emotional capacity of a petulant elementary schooler and assumes that everyone else is on their same, severely underdeveloped level.
They ask why we object to the de-White-ification of our nations as though the answer isn't entirely obvious and entirely defensible.
They're not interested in the answer, of course, as they're only here to subvert and destroy - but let's answer nonetheless:
White people, as a majority, are the most hated and discriminated against people in America. Again: that's how we're treated as a majority. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority?
The overwhelming majority of interracial crime is committed by minorities against Whites. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority?
Whites are officially discriminated against in hiring and academic admissions. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority?
The majority of non-Whites do not support free speech or gun rights, two foundational principles of the American nation supported by the majority of White Americans. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority?
The broader political beliefs and voting patterns of the majority of non-Whites are at odds with those of the majority of White Americans. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority?
Latinos & Blacks are the largest non-White population blocks. Average lifetime US budget impact for:
Latino = negative -$588k
Black = negative -$751k
White = positive +$221k
Should we expect the US budget to improve once we're a minority?
Restate the question around places where Whites are already a minority:
Question: Why are White people so afraid of going to Detroit / Baltimore / DC / St Louis / Memphis / etc?
Answer: Because they don't want to die.
Latino males murder at three times the rate of White males, while Black males murder at eighteen times the rate of White males (2021 FBI numbers). Should we expect this to change once White people are a minority?
Minorities in America are the most well-treated, catered to, provided for, and glorified non-majority that has ever existed anywhere. For at least two generations, minorities in America have been the beneficiaries of unambiguous privilege over the White majority.
Whites are the most altruistic group. White people have, by far, the lowest in-group preference of any race. You can make your own value judgements of these traits, but the data bears these facts out. This results in the observable pattern of Whites treating non-Whites well, while non-Whites do not reciprocate (spare me the NAXALT, we're talking about broad social patterns).
So the answer to "does America treat minorities badly?" is an emphatic "no."
But what no one will say out loud is that minorities treat Whites - and America - poorly.
Even the most bleeding-heart Whites know this, which is why they don't move to non-White neighborhoods. Many minorities treat their own homogeneous areas so poorly that the minute one can afford to, they flee... to a Whiter area.
Before any of this, though, the real question is:
Why should any people be minoritized in their own nation?
There are a million reasons to reject it, but "because we don't want to" is enough.
No race embraces its own extinction.
The very notion is fundamentally insane.
@LasairDhearg That will soon be cleaned up. Absolute useful idiots. Happy to see their country destroyed as long as it’s not the ‘Brit’s’. Room temp IQ morons.
Sinn Fein’s position:
Burning flags or effigies is absolutely appalling & must not be tolerated.
The was no alternative to the IRA firebombing La Mon and burning human beings alive.
There are economies in the world which basically work: high income, sky-high social capital, world-class education, efficient services, low crime, high happiness, clean streets, functional everything. At least two of them, Hong Kong and Singapore, were British creations, back when we still had sane and competent politicians and bureaucrats instead of a captured civil service that ditched numeracy in the Treasury for diversity quotas.
That was the promise of Brexit: ditch the straitjacket, cut taxes, restore sovereignty, and become the Singapore of the Atlantic. Low tax, high trust, open but orderly, ambitious on the world stage. The so-called smart people sneered it was impossible, stupid, even dangerous. Instead they offered us Manchesterism.
WTF?
As if any sentient person on Earth wakes up thinking, “Yes, Manchester, that’s the glittering future I want for my children.” No one believes this. Not even the most committed Labourites in private. It’s garbage politics: the globalist endgame dressed up as progress, wheeling yet another mid-range, mid-competent, thoroughly biddable satrap onto the stage. It is genuinely humiliating. Brezhnev, for all his senility and stagnation, had more tangible accomplishments than Burnham.
Look at the record. Finances? Not healthy by any serious high-income standard. A £1 billion-plus budget now, yes, after central tweaks, but saddled with £1.6 billion in debt (up sharply), persistent gaps, heavy social care pressures, and reliance on reserves or central props.
Health? Life expectancy and healthy years lag the national average with grotesque deprivation gaps, higher preventable mortality, obesity, and services stretched to breaking.
Crime? Elevated violent and knife rates in known hotspots — Moss Side, Longsight, parts of Salford — creating patchwork safety: fine in the centre by day, avoid certain estates at night.
Youth? Rising NEETs and gang pipelines where opportunity died.
Native housing? Priced-out locals renting into middle age while home ownership slips away.
Happiness and life satisfaction? Dragged down by the lot of it, lower in the North West than in more cohesive places.
We invented better models once. Brexit was the chance to revive that competence and ambition. Instead, the “smart” people gave us Manchesterism: mid-tier outcomes, strained services, visible decay, and lectures on net zero while the basics creak.
It humiliates a nation that once exported order and prosperity. We could have been serious again. We still can if we reject this midwit self-fart sniffing managerialism and remember what we once built.