MyNotSoSilentProtest

@Glinner @AriDrennen More power to Riley Gains xx

@AriDrennen Oh shut the fuck up you bullying prick

No fifth place swimmer has ever been less silenced in the history of anything

@SamanthaTaghoy Thank you for calling it out - it's such bullshit crybully tactics, because people are now noticing and calling it what it is - dominance

“I’m scared!” Islamists cry… …while they firebomb ambulances, burn British flags, plant nail bombs at kids’ concerts, gang rape our little girls, behead a British soldier in broad daylight, assassinate an MP, chant “Death to Britain!” and blow up train stations.

@JohnCleese Not sure whether you're calling out the lovely Gad Saad or the deplorable London Mayor

Does this silly little man not understand that Islam is a very aggressive belief system, threatening death to anyone who does not convert to Islam The Buddhists, the Taoists, the Scottish Presbyterians, the Hindus and the Sikhs and the Confucians and the Catholics don't go around shouting about beheading people they disagree with Is this too much for your tiny little brain to take in ? Oh. The doorbell rang. The police I assume...

@grok @Hometime4You @Brian5_8_1899 @GadSaad And the Islamic barbarism, where does that fit with the Jewish overlap?

Judaism and Islam are both Abrahamic monotheistic religions sharing the same God (Yahweh/Allah), key prophets (Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.), and Jerusalem as a holy city. They overlap in scriptures (Quran reveres Torah stories), dietary laws (kosher/halal), circumcision, prayer, fasting, charity, and legal systems (Halakha/Sharia) guiding ethics and daily life. Islam was influenced by Judaism in structure and practice. They differ on prophets after Moses and final revelation, but aren't "totally different"—far more aligned than with non-Abrahamic faiths.

Indeed. Whenever Jews are attacked (typically by Muslims), it is important to redouble our efforts to fight against Islamophobia.

@Artemisfornow x.com/macmillancancer - if this is true, it sucks and I will be revisiting my monthly donation!

Huh? .. it’s reported that McMillan cancer advise that straight white citizens … will be treated as less worthy. They will prioritise access to its welfare advice for gay, transgender and ethnic minority cancer patients. You know what to do 💣

@ABridgen I think the planet itself will retaliate to all this geo-engineering

After a couple of sunny days and blue skies over North West Leicestershire the Geoengineering is back this evening. How is it where you are ?

@ABridgen Pretty much the same in West Yorkshire this afternoon

Is this the real reason Starmer couldn’t respond positively to President Trump’s request for support in the Straits of Hormuz ?

@ABridgen Very funny 😆🤣

@Keir_Starmer I support Nick Timothy

I’m proud of our tolerant and diverse country. I’m proud that in Trafalgar Square we celebrate all faiths. That’s British values. The comments from Nick Timothy are shameful. Kemi Badenoch should do the right thing and sack him.

@Radmore_farm x.com/i/grok/share/5…

Keep bovaer in the news because if we don’t, it’ll be slipped into farm feeds with no benefit to the consumer whatsoever

@claire_adams694 I have, but I wouldn't know where to go. I will stay and fight, but I'm not really sure how to do that either

There is a growing feeling this country is going in the wrong direction, with two-tier justice, rising sectarianism, illegal immigrants and a sense that British people’s rights are being pushed aside. Trust has broken down, and frustration is an all time high. Would you consider leaving the country?

Sparky, you've identified the two-headed nature of the threat precisely. The cultural Marxists provide the intellectual framework, the language of oppression and liberation, the institutional machinery of capture. The Islamist networks provide the demographic pressure, the street power, and the political bloc voting. Neither could achieve what they are achieving alone. Together they form exactly the coalition the pieces on this thread have been documenting. Your instinct about the religion is right but the distinction is worth making precisely, not to defend the indefensible but because precision is our strongest weapon. The problem is not Muslims broadly. There are British Muslims who want nothing to do with Khomeinist ideology, Islamist politics or the destruction of British heritage. The problem is political Islam, its networks, its funding, its institutional capture, and the left that enables and amplifies it. That distinction matters because it's accurate, because it's fair, and because it makes the argument considerably harder to dismiss. The moment the argument becomes about a religion rather than an ideology and its political expression, the accusation of racism lands and the conversation ends. Name the ideology. Name the networks. Name the institutions. That's where the power lies and that's where it needs to be confronted.

@TRobinsonNewEra Have you been checked out for an overactive thyroid recently?

I’m preparing for the most important presentation I’ve done to date & in the process I’ve kidnapped an American . Thanks for all the love america ❤️🇺🇸

@DominicFrisby Thank you

Incredible luck. But also - if you put yourself out there, luck happens. Here's the film. Watch it on the big screen if you can.

250 years ago this week Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations. He explained how prosperity actually happens. Smith was so obviously right about so many things, it amazes me that we still need to not only explain, but actually make the case for his ideas today. 🧵

@procurementfile Why redact a cost centre?

In 2025, Kirklees Council made 37,736 payments to 'Redacted' vendors totalling £319m.* Redacted payments include: £554k on ‘Persons Abroad’ £5.5m on ‘Trees for Climate’ £7.7m on ‘Bed & Breakfast’ £152m across 22k transactions have no category *at all* ; all detail is blank

The Manifesto Was the Alibi The Labour manifesto of 2024 was explicit. Britain would not rejoin the customs union. It would not rejoin the single market. There would be no return to freedom of movement. Voters were told this clearly, repeatedly, and in writing. They voted accordingly. That was the promise. Eighteen months later, Cabinet ministers are publicly calling for exactly that. David Lammy has pointed to the benefits of customs union arrangements. Wes Streeting has called for a deeper trading relationship with the EU. Peter Kyle, the Business Secretary, has said it would be crazy not to engage with the prospect of a customs union. These are not backbenchers freelancing. These are senior ministers, at the Cabinet table, arguing openly for the reversal of a commitment their party stood on at a general election. Ask yourself what that tells you about how seriously the commitment was made. Downing Street's response is instructive. Sources close to Keir Starmer did not say the ministers were wrong about the destination. They said they had not thought it through. The objection was tactical: move too fast, trigger freedom of movement, and the politics become unmanageable. The direction of travel was not disputed. Only the pace. That is the admission. Buried in a briefing designed to look like a rebuke is a concession: the government accepts the logic of deeper integration. It simply wants to manage the sequencing before the public understands what is being decided. This is not a debate about Europe. It's a question about whether the people who voted in 2024 were told the truth. The agrifood deal now being finalised illustrates the method. Ministers present it as a modest technical arrangement, a matter of reducing friction for exporters. What it actually involves is Britain operating under EU law, enforced by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, with British taxpayers funding the privilege and British ministers having no vote on the rules they are required to follow. That is not alignment. It's accession by another name. And if you doubt that the same logic will be applied sector by sector until the architecture is complete, consider that no one in government has yet explained where it stops. The economics do not justify it. Independent analysis from the Growth Commission and the Prosperity Institute reaches the same conclusion: rejoining costs more than it returns. The case being made in Cabinet, that integration means growth, is not supported by the modelling. It's an article of faith presented as an economic argument, and the public is being asked to pay for it without being told so. And the damage extends further still. Rejoining the customs union would require Britain to abandon its trade deal with India, exit the CPTPP, and unwind agreements with Australia and New Zealand. Those arrangements took years to negotiate and represent the most tangible gains from leaving. They would be surrendered not for a gain but for a loss, in exchange for re-entering a regulatory framework in which Britain has no seat, no vote, and no means of redress. That is the deal. It should be stated plainly, because the government will not state it at all. The Downing Street briefing made one thing plain. The complaint against Lammy, Kyle and Streeting was not that they were wrong. It was that they were saying openly what the government is doing quietly. The objection was to the candour, not the content. The manifesto said one thing. The negotiations are producing another. That is not a government managing a difficult policy. It's a government that made a promise it never intended to keep, and is now hoping the public will not notice until it's too late to matter. "David Lammy has pointed to the benefits of customs union arrangements. Wes Streeting has called for a deeper trading relationship with the EU"

A powerful scene in the Odyssey happens when Odysseus finally returns to Ithaca after twenty years of war and wandering. You would expect the story to end with celebration, with the hero coming home, the family reunited, and order restored. Homer does something far stranger. Odysseus arrives disguised as a beggar, because Athena warns him that the palace has been taken over by more than a hundred suitors who have been living there for years, eating his food, drinking his wine, and pressuring his wife Penelope to marry one of them. They believe Odysseus is dead and in their minds the kingdom is already theirs. So the king of Ithaca walks through his own halls dressed in rags while the men stealing his house sit comfortably at his tables. They mock him, throw scraps at him, and one of them even strikes him, and Odysseus takes it. That is the remarkable part, because the same man who blinded the Cyclops and survived twenty years of disasters now stands quietly while strangers insult him in his own home. Homer tells us his heart burns inside his chest and that he wants to attack them immediately, yet he restrains himself and waits. Instead of striking, Odysseus studies the room carefully. He counts the men, watches their habits, and quietly observes which servants remain loyal and which have betrayed him. The hero of the Odyssey does something most people cannot do, which is delay revenge until the moment is right. Eventually Penelope announces a contest and brings out Odysseus’ great bow, declaring that she will marry the man who can string it and shoot an arrow through twelve axe heads lined up in a row. One by one the suitors try and fail, because none of them can even bend the bow. Then the beggar asks for a turn. The suitors laugh at first, but the bow is eventually handed to him. Odysseus takes it in his hands and strings it effortlessly. Homer says the sound of the bowstring tightening rings through the hall like the note of a swallow. Then he places an arrow on the string and sends it cleanly through all twelve axe heads. In that moment the beggar disappears. Odysseus turns the bow toward the suitors and reveals who he is. What follows is one of the most brutal scenes in Greek literature. The doors are sealed and the suitors realize too late that they are trapped inside the hall. Odysseus, his son Telemachus, and two loyal servants begin killing them one by one. There is no escape, no mercy, and no negotiation. The men who spent years consuming another man’s house die inside it. It is a violent ending, but Homer wants you to understand something important. The real danger to Odysseus was never just the monsters and storms on the long journey home. It was the possibility that someone else might take his place while he was gone. When Odysseus finally returns, he reminds everyone in Ithaca of a simple truth: a man’s home is not truly his unless he is willing to fight for it.

Do we suddenly have more jail capacity, then? How about putting online purveyors of child abuse behind bars?

@GadSaad I've just been to a study group about threes!

Suicidal empathy is driven by progressive white women donning the same haircut.