Seamus Conlan

Former meatbomb, cloudpuncher, and dropshort. Ex UN (no, I don't sell children), ex KPMG, former insurance drone, now embedded in the 4th Industrial Revolution.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter Have you not heard? As you are an independently successful cis-male, you are not longer black, but are now "white-adjacent". Only black mendicants, dependant on State munifecence are truly 'black' in the eyes of the equality warriors.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter Please reveal in due time if a kimono, a baseball bat, a dead fox, and a failed tax lawyer are involved!

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@WarRoomArchives There are some truly sick people in the world: sickos virtually masturbating to the death of soldiers in combat. Yes, Russian soldiers are the aggressors here, but they didn't choose to invade Ukraine: Putin did. Those treating an awful war like a spectator sport: do better.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter I have pine martens where I live: I often see them on evening walks: the ones near me are about the size of a large cat (domestic, not jungle or feldt!).

Stoats etc. are cute, utterly harmless to humans (unless a stupid person tries to pick one up), but can chew car wiring.

[Students For Liberty @sfliberty]

In July 1985, over a billion people watched Live Aid.

Months earlier, Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie had written "We Are the World." All of it was a response to a famine in Ethiopia.

Almost nobody remembers who actually caused the famine. 🧵

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@mcdermottkc_ @Selfridges I trust that you ate it with more panache than Ed Miliband!

[Rafe Heydel-Mankoo @RafHM]

Only idiots and Britain haters blame Churchill for the Bengal Famine

This myth only became popular in 2010 after a ridiculous book was published by a far-left journalist with no historical training

This is what REALLY happened:

1. A cyclone hit Bengal in 1942, destroying crops

2. They were already suffering from the worst rice brown spot epidemic on record

3. Normally in a famine grain would be imported from Burma, Malaya, Phillipines, Thailand etc. But WW2 ws raging and our Japanese enemy now controlled those areas

4. The Japanese had bombed Indian ports, which also destroyed grain

5. Shipping grain in was hugely dangerous because Japanese fleet was blockading the Bay of Bengal and sinking ships
Remember, the Axis powers were sinking one ship every day and had sunk around a million tons of shipping in 1942.

6. On top of that local Indian speculative traders were unforgivably HOARDING grain. With inflation rife, this was classic wartime speculation as they could make (and expected to make) much more money by hoarding rather than selling immediately.

7. Local government and administrators were slow to act and initially told the UK government there was enough grain in Bengal.
One can blame the democratically elected Government of Bengal, people like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (Minister of Civil Supplies for the newly formed Muslim League) and Sir John Herbert (the Governor of Bengal) for exacerbating conditions in the Bengal Famine. But not Churchill.

What did Churchill do? Everything he could.

Remember also, he was thousands of miles away in a different continent fighting the Second World War and preparing for D-Day.

Yet despite all his other commitments he worked hard to save the people of Bengal.

1. When the British government found out about the famine’s severity in August 1943, they authorised around 1 million tons of grain to be shipped to India between then and December 1944.

2. Churchill pushed Australia to send wheat

3. Churchill personally requested shipping assistance from U.S. President Roosevelt in April 1944 to transport it from Australia. Roosevelt declined, stating US ships were needed for the Pacific campaign and the upcoming D-Day operations.

4. Thanks to Churchill grain arrived from Iraq (barley), and Canada as well as Australia.

5. Crucially, Churchill was responsible for appointing the man who played such a pivotal role in stopping the Bengal Famine: Field Marshal Wavell. Wavell knew India and its people extremely well and was a magician of logistics. He drafted in the army to move food supplies and halted the famine.

Why are tax payers funding Helen Cammock's ignorant, anti-British propaganda at the @NPGLondon?

[Kosher @koshercockney]

F*cking hell 😂 gotta give it to the Israelis for laughing in the face of the ridiculous bullshit that’s thrown at them

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Posez-vous une seule question, et tout l'édifice s'effondre.

Pourquoi des causes qui n'ont, en apparence, rien à voir entre elles finissent-elles toujours par dire exactement la même chose, avec les mêmes mots, contre les mêmes gens?

Le droit des homosexuels n'a rien à voir avec le climat. Le climat n'a rien à voir avec la question raciale. La question raciale n'a rien à voir avec la théorie du genre. Quatre sujets distincts, quatre histoires, quatre publics, quatre champs d'expertise séparés.

Et pourtant. Prenez le porte-parole le plus visible de chacun de ces combats. Mettez les quatre dans une pièce. Vous obtenez quatre personnes qui votent pareil, qui méprisent les mêmes gens, qui emploient le même lexique (systémique, déconstruire, privilège, inclusif), et qui ne se contredisent jamais. Jamais.

Ce n'est pas une coïncidence. C'est une loi. Elle fonctionne en trois temps, et chacun se vérifie avec des chiffres.

Premier temps. Dans n'importe quel groupe, ce n'est jamais la majorité qui parle. C'est la frange la plus militante.

La masse vit sa vie. Le petit noyau le plus idéologisé s'empare du micro, parce que lui seul a le temps, l'argent et le fanatisme de le tenir. Ce n'est pas une intuition. L'étude Hidden Tribes (8 000 Américains interrogés) chiffre cette frange, les Progressive Activists, à 8% de la population. Un Américain sur douze. En face, une majorité épuisée de deux tiers qui n'a jamais demandé le micro et qui n'a jamais voté pour le porte-parole.

Robert Conquest avait formulé la mécanique dès les années 1960 : toute organisation qui n'est pas explicitement de droite finit, avec le temps, par devenir de gauche. Pas par complot. Par sélection naturelle. Le fanatique reste quand le modéré rentre chez lui.

Deuxième temps. Cette frange ne ressemble en rien à ceux qu'elle prétend représenter, et elle est plus radicale qu'eux.

Voici le chiffre qui devrait clore le débat. Le bloc militant le plus à gauche d'Amérique, celui qui parle au nom des minorités à longueur de journée, est composé à 67% de Blancs. Sept pour cent de Noirs (Pew, juin 2026). Le groupe le plus diplômé, le plus aisé, le plus connecté du pays. Ceux qui hurlent le plus fort au nom des opprimés sont, statistiquement, les plus privilégiés du tableau.

Et ils sont plus extrêmes que les concernés eux-mêmes. 71% des Blancs progressistes veulent couper le budget de la police. Les Noirs américains, eux, sont partagés (53% pour, 44% contre), et seulement 28% ont soutenu le slogan "defund the police". Les Hispaniques y étaient majoritairement opposés (57%). Le porte-parole autoproclamé était donc plus radical que la communauté au nom de laquelle il prétendait parler. Une étude (ANES) pousse jusqu'au vertige : les Blancs progressistes sont le seul groupe du pays à mieux noter les autres races que la leur.

Traduction. Un diplômé aisé a décidé de parler au nom de l'opprimé. Et l'opprimé n'est pas d'accord.

Et ces franges sortent toutes du même moule. Le même appareil universitaire (Foucault, Derrida, l'École de Francfort, dont j'ai raconté la généalogie). Le même écosystème de fondations, qui financent ouvertement, sur catalogue public, l'associatif militant de chaque cause. Le même séminaire, le même lexique, les mêmes formations. On ne produit pas vingt idéologies. On produit vingt antennes d'un seul émetteur.

Troisième temps. Une fois installée, la frange parle au nom de tous et écrase ceux qui, à l'intérieur du groupe, refusent de suivre.

L'homosexuel discret qui ne se reconnaît pas dans le mégaphone. Le Noir conservateur. La femme qui refuse qu'on efface le mot femme. Tous traités en traîtres. Parce que le premier ennemi du militant n'est jamais l'adversaire d'en face. C'est le modéré de son propre camp. Le modéré est le danger absolu : il prouve, par sa seule existence, que le mégaphone ment quand il dit parler au nom de tous.

Résultat. Vous croyez voir une mosaïque de combats pour les droits. Vous voyez en réalité un seul logiciel, installé sur des machines différentes.

La cause n'est jamais la cause. La cause est le costume.

Et celui qui porte le costume sert toujours le même propriétaire : l'idée que tout, absolument tout (la famille, la nation, le mérite, la norme, la frontière, la vérité elle-même) est une structure d'oppression à abattre. C'est la matrice marxiste, qui a simplement quitté l'usine pour l'identité. La lutte des classes ne fonctionnait plus (les ouvriers s'embourgeoisaient), alors on a multiplié les classes : une par minorité, une par cause, à l'infini. Un prolétariat de rechange, renouvelable indéfiniment.

Et voici le test qui ne trompe jamais, le seul qui compte. Une cause sincère accepte la contradiction en son sein. Un costume idéologique, non. Le jour où vous verrez le porte-parole d'une de ces causes défendre publiquement un dissident de son propre camp, contre son propre camp, vous saurez que c'était une vraie cause. Vous attendrez longtemps.

La bonne nouvelle, c'est que ce qui tient par un seul fil tombe par un seul fil. Une frange de 8% ne gouverne que tant que les 92% se taisent. Le jour où la majorité silencieuse de chaque groupe reprend son micro, l'émetteur se retrouve sans antennes. Il n'émet plus que dans le vide.

Ce micro, personne ne vous interdit de le reprendre.

Au travail.

[Hans Mahncke @HansMahncke]

This collective outcry by the left over Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire, which is misleading in the first place because virtually all of that wealth is tied up in stocks rather than sitting in a bank account, is another reminder, not that we needed one, that among those on the left who genuinely believe what they are saying, economic illiteracy is rampant.

Their entire worldview is framed by the zero sum game. If someone has a bigger piece of the pie, then someone else must have lost some pie. They simply cannot grasp the concept that Elon Musk singlehandedly made the pie a whole lot bigger for millions and millions of people. It just doesn't compute for them.

This also happens to be a damning indictment of the schools, universities, and media institutions the left dominates.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter Starmer, along with the Treasury and many of the Cabinet, despise the military. The concept of an officer corps (no matter how egalitarian) is anathema to them, as are the concepts of integrity and honour. Hermer made significant money chasing soldiers through the courts.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter The state of the current military is a joke, too bitter for words. The Army needs minimum +40 infantry battalions and 50 regiments of artillery in order to defend the interests of the UK and her allies, and meet the promises of its politicians. We have 32 and 14 respectively.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@QcWynter In this case, I suspect the junior would be asking himself how much it would cost in bribes to get his name removed from any records associated with the case: full removal, or just a few grand to misspell his name to elude the search engines?

[Peter Hague @peterrhague]

I need the government to lock up criminals, defend the nation, build infrastructure, collect the bins, and a few other services - basic research etc. I’m not an anarchist or anything.

What I don’t need from the government is moral instruction. I don’t need them to tell me how to raise my kids. I don’t need them to nudge me into better dietary choices. I certainly don’t need them hamfistedly backdooring my devices to check I’m not doing anything they don’t like.

GTFO of my life, thank you. You’re not smarter than me, you aren’t qualified to manage me, please leave me alone.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

WHAT WE GIVE ISRAEL

The standard US military aid package is $3.8 billion per year $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing plus $500 million for joint missile defense programs. Israel must spend most of this on US-made products and services, and by 2028 essentially all of it must be spent in America.

WHAT ISRAEL GIVES BACK

1. F-35 R&D Savings: 55 billion
Israel resolved multiple technical issues during the F-35’s early development, reducing US R&D costs by an estimated $55 billion and accelerating deployment timelines.  The total F-35 program cost was $55 billion in R&D Israel’s combat testing effectively saved the US from having to discover and fix those problems on their own dime.

2. Intelligence Value: equivalent to 5 CIAs (75 billion/year)

General George Keegan, former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence, stated that Israel’s intel value equals “5 CIAs” providing a 400% return on investment on the $3.8 billion aid package. One CIA budget runs approximately $15 billion.  Five times that equals roughly $75 billion worth of intelligence annually for $3.8 billion in aid.

3. Strategic Base Value: $15–20 billion/year

As stated by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt and General Alexander Haig, Israel is the largest US aircraft carrier that does not require US military personnel on board, cannot be sunk, and is deployed in a critical region sparing the US the need to manufacture, deploy, and maintain real aircraft carriers with ground divisions, which would cost the US $15–20 billion annually. 

4. F-35 Export Multiplier: $40 billion in sales, $173 billion backlog
Israel’s battle-tested performance and upgrades to the F-35 contribute to $40 billion in US exports and a $173 billion backlog for US industry.  Israel essentially serves as the world’s most credible advertisement for American weapons.

5. Jobs and Economic Output: 255,000 jobs, $72 billion annually
The F-35 economic engine alone supports 290,000 US employees and $72 billion in annual economic output.  Israeli stakeholders hold contracts with over 1,000 American companies across 48 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Why do people need to lie about this?

Because they have nefarious reasons.

There’s no other reason to lie about this stuff.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

Even Arab leaders admit it.

Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see.

Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective.

Ok, so let us set that aside.

Now watch this.

In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada.

Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance.

He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises.

The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978.

This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel.

When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias.

The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return.

This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today.

If you value the truth, please share.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@arusbridger Alan proving once again that he is a traitor.

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@mcdermottkc_ @TheCardingShed I was always viewed strangely by my soldiers: when the chefs made bacon sarnies, while they had great debates about ketchup or HP sauce, I always went for mayo with lettuce and tomato! I'm in bacon heaven in Hungary: it is all dry-cured and delicious!

[Seamus Conlan @SeamusConlan1]

@DrHelenFry Remembering my uncle Patrick, a Sgt in the RAMC, for being awarded a MiD for going into a downed glider and rescuing the injured from with, while under accurate German fire.

[Sean Hannigan. @seanhannigan100]

History of being occupied
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

History of revolt against occupiers
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

Brutal suppression
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

Forced population displacement
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

Global diaspora
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

Fought Britain for Independence
🇮🇱✔️
🇮🇪✔️

So why the fuck do we have Paddystinians in Ireland?