Jump to content

Cap'n Mac's Pirate Republic!


Recommended Posts

On 5/12/2023 at 11:03 PM, Macnamara said:

 I was a little wary of Campbell for a while as I was expecting what i called 'operation wind-down' to begin after the jab roll outs where the government would have to go into damage limitation mode as the truth of the jab-harms came to light but he's upped his game and is making some pretty clear videos now to half a million people at a time so that's a some fairly hard hitting info going to a lot of people for example about the excess deaths.

UK stopping covid primary vaccinations


Link to comment
Share on other sites

trans-satanism.....the agenda behind it all starting to show its true colours:

Satan-loving trans artist Erik Carnell who designed items in Target's controversial 2023 Pride collection slams firm's decision to remove products in response to anti-LGBTQ backlash and reveals bosses have not been in touch

  • Erik's Target collection includes t-shirts and badges with pro LGBTQ+ messages
  • Target announced on Tuesday it is pulling some of its Pride month merchandise

By James Callery

Published: 10:53 BST, 25 May 2023 | Updated: 16:49 BST, 25 May 2023

A Satan-loving trans artist who designed items in Target's controversial 2023 Pride collection has slammed the firm's decision to remove its collection from many of its stores in response to an anti-LGBTQ backlash and has revealed that bosses have not been in touch.

Erik Carnell, who was commissioned to create some of the 2023 Pride items alongside other queer creators, claims he was not told that many of his designs would be taken off shelves or moved to the back of stores.

This action was taken following violent threats by right-wing extremists, who expressed anger at the store supporting Pride Month and LGBTQ+ lives.

They haven't tried to contact me once,' Erik told PinkNews.

'In terms of informing me what I can do with my product, I'm very, very, very low priority.'



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/8/2023 at 11:24 AM, Macnamara said:

The great 'vaccine' debate: Andrew Bridgen calmly lays down the facts to an angry and blustering jewish journalist:

Andrew Bridgen and Fraser Myers clash in fiery debate on Covid vaccine harms


That was a triumph! Extra grog rations for that man! They completely outmanoeuvred the BBC.

Darren Nesbit calmy lays down the facts to a blustering journalist who could only offer stock platitudes and opinions in response:

Marianna in Conspiracyland: *FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW* with Darren Nesbit Editor of The Light Paper


Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Land


I was watching one of Neil Oliver's recent clips in which he discussed how the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution brought prosperity but caused upheavals that have displaced people from the land. Yes we now have televisions and cheap lager but are those really a substitute for the land itself and our connection to it and to the plants and animals our forefathers raised and grew on it? I would argue not.


On one hand i have decried the unequal land ownership that exists in britain and particularly in scotland whilst dreaming of a world where most people could have a plot of land and a stake in their own food production much like they do in russia. However I'm also wary of governmental meddling and so i'm not sure exactly by which process the land becomes returned to the people. It's a tricky one.


In scotland we have a right to roam over the land as long as we don't damage property, walk right next to peoples homes or be in certain areas where certain yearly events take place such as shoots. We also have a right to wild camp, again with conditions, but the creation of a national park around loch lomond has created restrictions with the camping where certain areas can't be camped in and in the designated camping zones you have to book in advance which In a country of ever changing weather is not always practical. This weekend past the weather was good in the south but rubbish everywhere else. If you book a weekend somewhere and then it rains for two days then its going to be a washout and likely midgy to boot. So flexibility allows you to follow the sun except then you can't book until the last minute and may find all the places are booked out. The arguments for these developments are things like managing the rubbish some idiots leave behind but bins could be put out to deal with that. So really i suggest that what they are doing is whittling away at our freedoms.


After Neil's clip i've included an old clip of Tom Weir interviewing a guy way back before loch lomond was made into a national park and he makes the argument that government sticking its oar in actually works out even worse for people then having the land in the same private ownership that its been in for hundreds of years as those landlords don't tend to restrict access and his words are turning out to be prophetic. So it's not a straight forward issue however i do feel an answer exists.

Neil Oliver: ‘….if you control the land & the food production you control the people!’


Weir's Way Wind, Water and Fire Part 3


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2023 at 9:00 AM, Macnamara said:

The three comments below this story are spot on and outline the dangers of these changes to established systems especially in this politicised age where people are weaponising various things against each other for their own personal gains. We saw allegations of impropriety levelled against alec salmond by the clique of women that surround his political rival nicola sturgeon who is herself now under investigation for corruption.....so what the system is now doing is setting up a situation where an accusation can be made against someone and a complicit or pressured judge can then pull the trigger on that person.


They are removing the checks and balances to streamline that process which will leave the door open to more weaponisation of sexual politics such as was seen in the alec salmond case which got thrown out. It's going to get to a stage where men will not want to be alone around women in case a women takes a dislike to the man and makes a false accusation against him. Politics is an obvious area where this could be a common problem to remove political rivals but it could also be used in the work place to remove competitors to job posts or it could be used by women who drunkenly sleep with people and then regret it in the morning (see the whole college rape drama that followed the 'metoo' movement) or it could be used by disgruntled partners seeking to vindictively harm ex partners or gain advantageous access to children etc etc etc. It is only going to further drive a wedge between men and women which feeds into the elites depop agenda. 




Cangeroo courts are not justice! Juries are essential since the terrible "all men are guilty", "All women must be beleived" are simply not trusted by the public and especially juries! People must only be convicted on evidence not inuendo and one persons word against another with no evidence!


Frankly it sounds like the idea of being innocent until proven guilty in Scotland is being abolished for allegations of rape....


A trial by jury (our peers) is the base for our whole judicial system. It is everyone's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty to our peers. The law is there for the protection of the people, not as a tool for the functionaries to massage conviction rates!

'Not proven' verdict will be abolished for rape cases and defendants will face juryless trials amid sweeping justice reforms in Scotland

PETER HITCHENS: If rape cases are to be heard without juries, how long before we scrap them altogether - just like Hitler and the Bolsheviks did?

By Peter Hitchens for The Daily Mail

Published: 22:32 BST, 24 May 2023 | Updated: 08:51 BST, 25 May 2023

They're trying to get rid of juries again. This time the pretext is the low conviction rate in rape cases. Now no male person, and only approved women, can even discuss the topic of rape any more.

In the dogma which is rapidly taking over this country, all men are considered to be potential if not actual rapists.

Whatever I say on the subject, I will be accused of promoting 'rape culture'. So I shall not do so.

But look carefully at this passage from the Law Commission's new document on 'Evidence In Sexual Offence Prosecutions'. 

It speaks of a project which 'sits within a wider context of decades of work by campaigners, governments, parliaments, courts, police and many others that has . . . sought to improve justice outcomes for complainants of rape and serious sexual offences'.

Amid this verbal bindweed, the alert citizen will spot a great stinking blob of blatant prejudice.

When it says it wants to 'improve justice outcomes for complainants of rape and serious sexual offences', it means more convictions of people accused of these offences, not fewer of them.

But how does the Law Commission know that the conviction rate is not in fact correct? How does it know that the courts are acquitting guilty people? It doesn't.

What if juries are finding people not guilty because there is not enough evidence to convict them beyond reasonable doubt?

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been among the loudest voices complaining about the current state of affairs, declaring as long ago as 2012 that 'only 6 per cent of rape cases ever reach conviction'.

Actually, once a rape case reaches court, juries in England and Wales are more likely to convict than acquit a defendant, and this has been so for at least 15 years. 

A study by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London recently found that about 75 per cent of the rape cases that actually reach court result in a conviction.

As the organisation Full Fact pointed out long ago 'the 6 per cent of cases cited by Yvette Cooper describes the percentage of all the cases recorded by the police as a rape that end up with someone being convicted of rape'.

Many of these cases are dropped before they get to court, for many reasons.

Also there are more 'not guilty' pleas in rape cases than in trials of any other offence. Professor Thomas says: 'It's clear that there are serious problems with how rape complaints are handled by police and how long cases take to reach court.

'But juries are not responsible for this. They can only decide the cases put to them, and this research shows that if rape complainants can put their evidence to a jury, they have a good likelihood of securing a conviction.'

So the supposed problem with getting rape convictions, whether you agree with Yvette Cooper or not, really has very little to do with juries being misled by so-called 'myths' and so providing a very low conviction rate. Because they aren't, and they don't.

So you have to wonder what all the fuss is in fact about. Scotland's government also recently sought an 'experiment' in non-jury trials for rape, but lawyers torpedoed it by refusing to take part.

One objector, lawyer Murray Macara, observed: 'There is clearly a political dimension to this, to secure higher conviction rates. 

One way to do that is the use of single-judge trials.' So what is all this really about? 

Another Scottish lawyer, Ross Yuill, got it right, saying: 'Either the jury system works for all offences or it doesn't. There should be no distinction based on the types of cases being prosecuted.'

You may be sure that if we allow rape cases to be heard without juries, the cry will soon go up to get rid of juries in all kinds of other matters, until — in reality — the jury is dead.

There is something deep in all ruling elites which does not like jury trial, and that includes Britain, where the Home Office and the 'Ministry of Justice' must grind their teeth in private, wondering how on earth the Government ever gave away so much power.

Without juries, any trial is just a committee of state employees deciding how guilty the accused is, and how heavily he must be punished.

The role of defence lawyers is basically to plead for a softer sentence, rather than fight the charge. In most civil law systems, the defendant has to co-operate with the prosecution.

That is why a country with proper juries is thousands of times more free than a country without them. That is why it really is better that some guilty people go free, than that one innocent person is locked up in prison for years for a crime he did not do.

In countries without juries, the state can just put you in prison because it feels like it. It does not have to prove its case to any independent person. The whole nature of a country changes when it gets rid of juries.

True jury trial — an independent jury sitting alone, required in all contested criminal cases and whose verdict cannot be overturned by a higher court — is incredibly rare elsewhere in the world.

In my experience, most British people are amazed by how rare it is, when told. Democrats are complacent on the subject, and poor at defending this precious possession. 

Totalitarians and despots, by contrast, immediately recognise juries as their enemy and get rid of them.

The Russian Bolsheviks abolished them as soon as they came to power in 1917.

The last true juries in France were shut down by the Nazi occupation authorities in 1940. Even where juries survive, mostly in Anglosphere countries, the option of juryless trial is often available.

In the U.S., plea-bargaining has usurped juries in huge numbers of cases, where defendants choose a short sentence rather than risk a far heavier one if the jury convicts them. 

Only the very rich, able to afford a full-scale defence costing millions, can avoid this unpleasant dilemma.

Here, juries have already been badly undermined. On the excuse of being 'tough on crime', there have been repeated attempts to weaken them and other protections, and various 'reports' suggesting they are a nuisance and an obstacle.

The majority verdict, brought in by Roy Jenkins in 1967, makes it quite impossible for the scene portrayed in that fine film 12 Angry Men to take place in this country.

If one brave, obstinate juror holds out for the innocence of the accused, he can simply be overruled by the judge accepting a majority verdict.

The pretext for this change, supposed 'jury-nobbling', was never adequate. If such nobbling was taking place, then it should have been prosecuted and punished.

But the worrying truth is that jury trial has fewer and fewer defenders, and more and more enemies.

Without fierce resistance, it will simply be whittled away and we shall have, as so many other countries do, a strong state which can do what it likes with us.

And the chances are that it will be a Left-wing strong state, more likely to use its powers to enforce its dogmas and limit speech than it is to be hard on actual crime. Defend the jury while you can.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that as MASS immigration explodes across ireland the government is simultaneously outlawing what they vaguely label 'hate speech'. Well what if a person questions the legitimacy or sense of mass immigration? Would the communistic technocrats running ireland then deem that 'hate speech?' What if a person called them 'communistic technocrats' would that be deemed 'hate speech'? What if they said that the covid jabs were a bioweapon aimed at harming irish people who are then replaced by swathes of foreigners.....would that be deemed 'hate speech'?


surely pointing out the evil that others are doing isn't hateful? Surely its THEIR actions that people are calling out which are in fact hateful towards the irish and british people who have been bullied into lockdowns and mass jabbings whilst their countries are flooded with poor immigrant labour that is going to cause the entire system to buckle under the strain? Surely the ideologues behind all that are the ones guilty of hate and those pointing out what they are doing are merely guilty of astute observation...

Ireland On Verge Of Criminalizing Speech, Thought Crimes

Posted By: S.A. McCarthy via RealClearWire May 25, 2023

Ireland is rubber-stamping anti-free speech legislation that originated in Brussels. It is highly likely that this legislation will pass, criminalizing free speech and thought crimes with stiff fines and prison terms. Other European nations are sure to follow Ireland’s lead, and the UN is trying to push the U.S. into the same “woke” mode of censorship.


Censorship is a key element in any war/revolution and Technocrats around the world are manipulating governments to legislate and enforce their chosen narrative. Silencing the opposition is the goal. ⁃ TN Editor

Ireland is on the verge of passing the most aggressive hate crime law in the European Union, which includes the first legal protections in the EU for transgender individuals. Government officials say the bill offers necessary protections at a time when immigration is on the rise and traditional ideas about sex and gender are being challenged. 

Critics counter that the bill’s vague language could be used to enforce the increasingly progressive Irish government’s increasingly woke agenda and forcibly muzzle critics of unpopular government policies. 

The legislation, the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Act, underscores a divide between Ireland’s leaders and many of its people. The bill is making its way through Parliament, winning approval last month in the Dáil Éireann, Ireland’s lower chamber, by a vote of 110-14.  

But Irish citizens, in a 2019 consultation phase, overwhelmingly expressed a worry that the proposal was an unnecessary expansion of the country’s existing hate crimes law. Seventy-three percent of respondents took issue with the bill’s potential for encroachment on free speech and questioned what qualifies as “hate speech,” particularly asking who crafts that definition. Less than 25% of those polled approved of the legislation. 

Underscoring this divide, critics of the bill note that fewer than 50 cases have been brought since the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act was signed into law in 1989. A supporter of the proposed law, former Justice Minister Helen McEntee, has cited that same statistic as evidence of the existing law’s “ineffective” nature. 

The ongoing controversy opens a window into how quickly Ireland, which only legalized abortion in 2018, is moving from its long religious traditions at a time when leaders in other European countries and the United States are seeking to create laws that punish not just deeds but thoughts.  

Over the past 30 years or so, the Irish nation has become increasingly progressive. In 2015, the Emerald Isle legalized gay marriage, just two years after the progressive vanguard of France did the same. That same year, Ireland was ranked among the top 10 most LGBT-friendly nations in the world, and the present taoiseach (Ireland’s word for prime minister) Leo Varadkar is openly gay. The proposed law would expand the 1989 law’s purview by adding gender, sex, descent and disability to the list of protected categories, which already includes  race, color, nationality, religion (including “the absence of a religious conviction or belief”), national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, or disability. 

The bill treats not just public presentation or dissemination of material deemed hateful, but also private preparation or even storing of material deemed hateful, such as memes on your phone or books on your shelf. Individuals convicted on such charges face fines of up to €5,000 (about $5,400) and anywhere from six months to two years in prison. Furthermore, as McEntee noted, a conviction “will allow for the ‘hate criminal’ label to follow an offender in court, in garda [police] vetting, and so on… ” 

Paul Murphy, a member of the left-wing People Before Profit-Solidarity coalition, even warned the bill will legislate “the creation of a thought crime.” Conservative chairman of the Irish Freedom Party Michael Leahy told RealClearInvestigations that the bill “represents the most far-reaching and invasive attack against civil and religious liberty enacted in any Western democracy since the Second World War.”

In order to obtain a search warrant, all that’s needed is a police officer’s oath sworn before a judge that there “are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of, or relating to” hate speech may be in any given place. Police are empowered to confiscate any phone or laptop and demand passwords and encryption keys. Failure to hand over a phone, laptop, password, or encryption key will result in a €5,000 fine and up to one year in jail. 

The bill further features a section to include stiffer penalties for crimes found to be “aggravated by hatred.” Standard crimes will then carry increased penalties if a judge or jury determines the accused was harboring “hatred” for the alleged victim on account of a protected characteristic, even if that hatred was not the motivating factor behind the crime. In cases where a crime is “aggravated by hatred,” the court is commanded to “impose a sentence that is greater than that which would have been imposed in the absence of such a factor.” 

What Is Hate? 

When the Irish people were allowed to submit letters in response to the bill the bill in 2019, nearly three quarters of respondents argued that hate speech should only include credible threats or incitement to violence, according to an analysis published by Gript Media. 

Some respondents claimed further hate speech laws were an Orwellian response only fitting in totalitarian regimes. One respondent wrote, “Why can politicians not leave well enough alone? George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is not an instruction manual. It was a warning. … It seems to me that this proposed legislation is being written to give free reign to certain minority groups at the expense of the majority.” 

Despite the overwhelming majority of negative responses during the public consultation, and the low number of hate speech prosecutions needed, Ireland’s Justice Department cited the sheer volume of responses themselves as reason enough to proceed with the legislation. 

One of the fundamental questions surrounding the new legislation is what actually classifies as hate speech. Prominent legal scholar Gerard Casey, professor emeritus at University College Dublin, has sharply criticized the bill’s circular definition of hate, saying that “it manifestly fails, for no coherent attempt to define a term ‘X’ can include X in the proposed definition.” Citing the text of the bill itself, he continued: 

“We are told, ‘ “hatred” means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics.’ If this is meant as a definition, it fails utterly. But if not, where is a definition of hatred to be found in the Bill?” 

Although the proposed law is pending, Ireland’s national police force introduced a “diversity and integration strategy” in 2019 that embraced its vague definition of hate. The program’s foundational document explains a hate incident as any “incident which is perceived by any person to … be motivated by hostility or prejudice.” That is to say, hate incidents are any incidents in which an individual feels that he or she is hated, according to the new police definition. 

Under this definition, reports to police of hate crimes and hate incidents skyrocketed over the past two years, going from 24 reports in 2021 to 97 in 2022. Ireland’s isn’t the only law enforcement agency to craft its own pejorative definitions and labels independently of the legislature. In the U.K., for example, the government counter-terrorism program Prevent labelled classic British works of fiction (including J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” and John Milton’s “Paradise Lost)” as right-wing extremist material. Prevent was originally tasked with assessing threats posed by Islamic extremist terrorist organizations and was criticized for only 22% of its focus remaining on Islamic threats. 

In the United States, the FBI has relied on the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, which classifies “Christian identity” and “Radical Traditional Catholicism” as threats on a par with the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis. That list resulted in the FBI’s Richmond field office implementing a plan to spy on American Catholics who attend the pre-Vatican II form of the Mass — a plan which, according to both Mass-going Catholics and the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, was actually put into action. On the advice of the partisan SPLC, the FBI branded an entire swath of American Catholics “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists.” 

What Is Gender? 

In light of the rise of transgenderism, the question of gender in hate speech legislation has become an especially controversial. 

The text of the proposed bill defines gender as “the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.” 

Once again, Professor Casey questioned the bill’s terminology: “We are not told what gender is; what transgender is; what a gender other than male or female might be or how many of them there might be; and how any of the three listed gender items differ from or relate to one another.” 

Irish Sen. Michael McDowell also expressed worries over the bill’s definition of gender and wrote to the justice minister asking for clarification on some of the bill’s ambiguous or nebulous terminology. He asked, “Is transgender a gender for the purposes of Irish law?” He also noted that Ireland’s 2015 Gender Recognition Act, which allows for individuals to legally change their genders, follows a binary male/female structure, seemingly contradicting the new legislation’s inclusion of “a gender other than those of male and female.” 

Casey warns that the legislation’s vague terminology will be used to silence dissent, noting, “Transphobia, as a hate speech crime, pre-empts criticism of transgenderist ideology.” 

The government, in tandem with much of the national media, has promoted “transgenderist ideology.”  Earlier this year, Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman promoted lessons on transgenderism in elementary school classrooms. Varadkar backed O’Gorman’s proposal, as did President Michael Higgins. In 2020, O’Gorman also led an effort to permit minors to undergo transgender surgeries without parental consent. 

Beyond that, Christians who oppose the principles of the transgender movement on religious grounds have also fallen victim to claims of hatred and bigotry. Last year, Catholic priest Fr. Seán Sheehy delivered a homily reminding his parishioners of the Catholic Church’s long-held teachings on homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion. Although preaching Catholic theology in a Catholic church, Sheehy was labeled a hateful bigot by national media. National LGBT Federation board Director Adam Long said Sheehy’s homily was “repugnant,” adding, “Shrouding those deeply offensive comments in any kind of guise, be it religious or otherwise, doesn’t make it any more acceptable.” Even then-Deputy Prime Minister Varadkar commented on the homily, saying he felt singled out by Sheehy’s comments on homosexuality. 

Government-managed broadcaster RTÉ publicly demanded Sheehy apologize for his preaching. The priest responded, “My answer basically is that I’m giving the teaching of the scriptures and the Church regarding homosexual sexual relationships: that they’re sinful and that’s it. … Why would I apologize for the truth?” 

Also last year, schoolteacher Enoch Burke was jailed after refusing to call a student by they/them pronouns, citing his Christian faith. He was held in contempt of court and was placed in solitary confinement in Dublin’s Mountjoy Prison, where he was held for almost four months. Just days ago, Ireland’s High Court ruled that Burke’s employer was right to suspend him for upholding his Christian beliefs. 

Brussels, ‘Where Free Nations Go to Die’

Thus far, none of the major religious institutions in Ireland have made an official public statement on the legislation, though both Ireland’s Catholic Conference of Bishops and Ireland’s Presbyterian Church told RealClear they are “keeping the situation under review” and “watching this particular piece of legislation carefully.” 

The text of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill clarifies explicitly that it is derived from a 2008 European Union directive to implement more stringent hate speech laws. That directive states, “It is necessary to define a common criminal-law approach in the European Union to this phenomenon [hate speech] in order to ensure that the same behavior constitutes an offence in all Member States.” 

Irish Freedom Party founder and President Hermann Kelly explained in an interview, “It’s clear from the Irish bill … that the anti-free speech legislation originates in Brussels — the one-size-fits-all capital of Europe where free nations go to die.”



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ticking time-bomb

What the latest immigration numbers really mean

25 May 2023



And so there we have it. Despite all the talk of Britain “taking back control”, despite all the talk of lowering immigration, despite all the talk of reforming a national economy which is clearly broken, this morning it was revealed net migration into Britain has soared to a new and historically unprecedented record of 606,000 —meaning 606,000 more people entered the country than left.

Some of the numbers are truly staggering —like the fact 1.2 million people migrated into Britain last year, of which 925,000 came from outside Europe. Or the fact net migration has surged by another 118,000 people since 2021 alone, and has nearly doubled since before the Covid-19 pandemic. Or the fact the number of asylum-seekers who are arriving from outside Europe has surged to a new high of 76,000. Or the fact the number of people who are arriving on study-related visas since 2020 has rocketed by nearly 250,000. Or the fact the number of relatives of international students who are now also entering Britain has more than doubled in only two years.

There are a lot of arguments that could be made right now.

I could tell you that these numbers make a total mockery of the Conservative Party —that despite repeated promises in its last four manifestoes, net migration has now rocketed from 250,000 under David Cameron, in 2010, to more than 600,000 today.

I could tell you that much of this was stoked by Boris Johnson, the very man who promised to “bring overall numbers down” only to then liberalise the entire regime, even removing a requirement for firms to advertise jobs in Britain first and making it possible for overseas workers in some areas to be paid 20 per cent below the UK rate.

I could tell you that mass immigration is now clearly being used to prop up a failing system of higher education, that by flooding the market with international students and their relatives —many of whom do not attend the top universities or make a clear contribution to the economy— we’re preventing failing universities from going bust and removing any incentive for the sector to reform and invest in British kids.


I could tell you that despite the Tories trying to dress this up as leading Britain into a new era of “high-skilled” immigration it’s nothing of the sort —that we’re now just flooding the post-Brexit economy with even larger numbers of low-skilled workers who are often moving into jobs which pay less than the average national wage and so removing any reason for companies to invest in innovation and British workers.

I could tell you that despite all the promises over the last twenty years that mass immigration would open the door to higher growth and productivity the reality that confronts us today is quite different —it’s contributed to a low growth, stagnant, and unproductive economy built around cheap labour, consumption, and London.

I could tell you that despite what the experts said, the latest evidence on the labour market effects of mass immigration finds that while it’s had positive effects on the highest paid and typically graduate workers, it’s had negative effects on the lowest-paid and typically non-graduate workers, reducing their hourly wage while helping to prop up a broken economy that’s built around the new graduate elite


I could tell you that mass immigration is fanning the flames of Britain’s acute and escalating housing crisis —that while we built just over 200,000 homes last year new estimates suggest Britain will need to build at least 616,000 houses a year just to cope with the extra demand from migrants. Or that the foreign-born are far more likely than the British be crowding into an already overcrowded rental sector, driving up rents and putting further pressure on a market that’s already, visibly collapsing.


I could tell you that the claim, often heard in Westminster, that Brexit Britain is now attracting ‘the best and the brightest’ is undermined by the fact migrants are more likely than Brits to rely on social housing and that while British families are being forced to leave their homes and communities in London, 40 per cent of the rising number of Sub-Saharan Africans are now living in social housing in the capital.

I could tell you that contrary to all the talk, our post-Brexit immigration system is now rapidly being reshaped around the very non-European migrants who —unlike those from Europe— have been shown to be far more likely to bring net economic costs, largely because they have more children and rely more heavily on welfare benefits.

I could tell you that while after Brexit the British people were promised their left behind regions and communities would be ‘levelled-up’, so far this year we’ve spent more on housing asylum-seekers and illegal migrants —a total of £1.3 billion— than we’ve spent on ALL levelling-up funds in England’s North East, North West, and Yorkshire regions combined. We’ve spent more on managing the effects of this broken system than we’ve spent on levelling-up Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


I could even tell you not to trust the numbers you’re reading today, that because for twenty years the “experts” have told us one thing only to later discover it wasn’t true at all —like the time six million EU nationals applied for settled status when we were told only 3.5 million were in Britain, or the time officials in charge of counting the numbers failed to realise many migrants were flying into airports they were not even monitoring, or the fact that on a regular basis the migration numbers people are supposed to trust are routinely later revised upwards.

I could tell you all of that. I could also tell you —as I have before— that the system is completely and utterly broken and is no longer fit for purpose. I could tell you that despite what they say none of our leaders on the right or left have any intention whatsoever of bringing immigration down because their “expert” economic models are now based on the assumption that it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future, that like a drug addict Britain is now completely hooked on importing masses of cheap migrant labour to try and conceal the glaring problems in our national economy.

And I could tell you —because they have told me— that nobody in our ruling class is planning, seriously, for what all this means for our escalating housing crisis, our deteriorating schools, our collapsing National Health Service, our stagnant economy, our fraying social cohesion, our sense of national identity, and our ability to trust our fellow citizens, a crucial prerequisite to having a functioning and viable welfare state.

So let me tell you something else -let me tell you what I’m really worried about. I’m worried that we are now putting a ticking time bomb at the very heart of our politics and society —that by failing to learn a key lesson of the last decade, that people want less not more immigration, we are opening the door to something that will make the political chaos and division of the last decade look like a gentle stroll in the park.

You can already see the warning signs. Contrary to the new elite who routinely line-up on Twitter to tell you Britain is ‘liberalising’ and people no longer care about mass immigration, an issue they are themselves heavily invested in maintaining, the actual numbers on the ground tell a remarkably and radically different story.

Immigration is back to being the third most important issue for all voters and the second most important for conservatives. Eight in ten of all voters think the issue is being managed badly. Six in ten think it’s ‘too high’. More than half want it reduced. And only one in four people think, without any hesitation, that mass immigration has been good for Britain. The new elite might smother themselves in comfort blankets, proclaiming that what this means is people want more immigration, but they’re wrong.


And the more we play this silly game the less people trust the system. Public confidence in our leaders to deal with immigration has simply collapsed which is an incredibly dangerous place for any democracy to be. When, today, the British people are asked who they trust to deal with immigration only a small minority back one of the two main parties while a plurality say “none of them” or “I don’t know”.

The politics of immigration, in other words, is now returning with a vengeance largely because the new elite have failed, once again, to respect and recognise the fact that many people in the country do not share their strongly pro-immigration views. But it will also be different to what came before. Whereas in the 2010s immigration became fused with the European Union and provided a gateway to Brexit, from hereon, in the 2020s, it will increasingly be fused with a much wider array of issues -our housing crisis, our collapsing public services, our hollowed out economy, our environment, our spiralling welfare system, our glaringly out-of-touch political and cultural class.

Contrary to the hope many of us had that Brexit would pour water over the populist flames, that it would usher in a new generation of leaders who finally respected and grasped the fact most people do not want their country —their home— to be characterised and completely upended by relentless demographic and cultural churn and change, Brexit has instead pushed forward leaders who are now pouring gasoline over the flames, who are dangerously out of touch with the rest of the country and who are now rapidly pushing us all back toward the politics of division and chaos.

Just look elsewhere —at what’s unfolding in France, in Italy, in Sweden, in Spain, in Portugal, in Austria, in Germany, and America where Donald Trump and now Ron DeSantis are zooming in on the very same issue, joining the ongoing national populist revolt against a neglectful and self-serving elite. Britain, since Brexit, has become unusual for being one of the only Western democracies to have fended off this revolt. But the consistent and continual failure of our leaders to deliver on their promise by lowering the overall numbers and building an economy that actually works for the British people will not only guarantee that the Conservatives lose the next general election but is also putting a ticking time bomb at the very heart of our politics and society. The only question is when will it go off and who or what will detonate it.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mind Virus of the Affluent Woke Left

Noise-making radicals who live in mind-boggling affluence occupy a particularly conspicuous space on the woke Left and spew an especially noxious sort of invective.

May 25, 2023

Those who belong to the woke Left are held together by overlapping interests and shared passions. Not all wokesters support the same causes and certainly not with equal intensity. Thus, warriors against climate change like Karl Schwab and Bill Gates don’t often speak up for the sexual transitioning of children or call for allowing biological males claiming to be women to compete in female sports events. One can likewise read the racialist diatribes of Corey Bush, Ibram X. Kendi, or Al Sharpton without likely running into attacks on fossil fuels or gas stoves. The point is not that these allies never agree on anything. It is that their alliance is looser than some might imagine.

It also seems their collaboration is based mostly on what they loathe rather than what they like. Above all, these collaborators share a chief villain, whom all woke leftists can be counted on to hate, namely, a white male Christian, perhaps living in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s postal district and spewing politically incorrect speech, when he’s not reading the Bible or driving his gas-guzzling car.

It also seems necessary for all wokesters to have a large, intrusive state and ubiquitous surveillance agencies for keeping opposition in line. Equally useful, from their perspective, is a centralized educational system that requires compulsory attendance, except perhaps for designated victim groups, who may do as they like. We also supposedly need properly indoctrinated public educators to deal with all the “neo-Nazis,” or, as the Biden Administration classifies such types, “white nationalist terrorists.” While all elements of the woke Left seek to marginalize their shared enemies, some may also be eager to inflict violence on them. And they can do so while the media turn their collective back on the Left’s “peaceful protests.”

Miranda Devine provides us with a particularly revealing case study of a growing subspecies within this woke genus, the socially radical corporate capitalist. Devine focuses on Daniel Goldman, the usually nattily dressed and unfailingly politically correct representative of New York’s 10th Congressional District. According to his critic at the New York Post, Goldman is a “loathsome” example of “‘elite privilege,’ a blue-eyed son of Sidwell Friends, Stanford and Yale” with “entitlement oozing from every pore.”

It is hard for me not to retch as I read Devine’s description of “this heir to the Levi Strauss fortune,” who has become a smarmy defender of the Russiagate hoax, FBI abuses of power, and the New York City criminal class. When Julio Rosas, a senior writer for Townhall, testified before Congress about Black Lives Matter violence that he had witnessed personally and about which he wrote a book, Goldman pounced on him. Goldman scolded Rosas for stating Antifa was an “organization” and not just an idea, and he accused Rosas of inventing his accounts to discredit the FBI.

Goldman was also featured on TV, lacing into the mother of a black U.S. Army veteran who had been murdered in New York City. This happened after Goldman’s pal, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, had released a repeat offender who later committed the murder. According to Goldman, the congressional investigation of Bragg’s practice of putting dangerous, violent criminals back on the street without bail was preventing a respected D.A. from doing something much more important, namely prosecuting Trump for a “felony,” or whatever Bragg claims Trump did to Stormy Daniels, evidence for which doesn’t seem to exist. Like Bragg, Goldman has been an outspoken opponent of imposing bail on those who have been arrested for violent acts.

Goldman has also dramatically thrust himself into the battle against antisemitism, which he blames, like other forms of bigotry, on the “racist and xenophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump.” He also habitually laces his remarks about the Holocaust with predictable references to Trump. What is equally noticeable is his grotesque practice of associating anti-Jewish prejudice in the United States with just about anybody who happens to be on the political Right or who dares to criticize the radical Left.


Thus, Goldman tells us in garbled syntax: “We cannot accept continuing to allow for antisemitic tropes, such as George Soros backing prosecutors, which have just very clearly become a euphemism for an antisemitic trope.” Apparently, anyone who dares to notice Soros’ funding of Goldman’s friends is an impassioned antisemite. Naturally it would be inappropriate for Goldman to go after the far more obvious antisemites on the Left.

Miranda Devine’s target is the quintessential woke capitalist, who combines enormous personal privilege with seclusion from the mischief he sows and unbounded enthusiasm for woke causes. As a woke leftist Goldman quite indiscriminately lambasts conservatives as bigots without ever losing his sense of moral righteousness. Not surprisingly, he has built a political career as a Trump-hater, something that his friends in the media can fully appreciate. Woke capitalists like Goldman have the best of two worlds, as noise-making radicals who live in mind-boggling affluence.  Let’s lay off Soros! He may be the nicest of this group.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The World Health Organisation admits that the covid jabs can cause multiple sclerosis and autoimmune disorders:

Multiple sclerosis


The british heart foundation not sharing its data that would show the uptick in heart issues since the covid jabs:

Astonishing rise in atrial fibrillation says BHF


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2023 at 8:06 PM, Macnamara said:

More Than Half of Moms of Boys With Gender Dysphoria Have Their Own Psychological Issues, According to Resurfaced Report

Many of the women also have narcissistic personality disorder, researchers determined

Published: April 24, 2023
  |   By Adrian Norman

A study on gender dysphoria conducted in 1994 has resurfaced and is making waves over the conclusions it draws.

Researchers compared mothers of boys with gender identity disorder with mothers of “normal boys to determine whether differences in psychopathy and child-rearing attitudes and practices could be identified.”

According to the study, “mothers of boys with gender identity disorders had more symptoms of depression and more often met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)” than mothers of boys who don’t exhibit issues with their gender identity.

More than half (53 percent) of moms of boys with gender identity disorders had been diagnosed with depression or BPD, compared to just six percent of the control group. Additionally, 44 percent sought psychiatric help for depression at some point in their life.

Researchers found that mothers of sons with gender identity disorders are “extremely dependent on their sons for emotional sustenance,” exhibiting “boundary problems and difficulty separating from their sons.”

“It was also observed that many women had symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder,” the paper states.

The resurfaced paper could reignite debate over the degree to which gender identity disorders among youth are the result of social contagion, or other factors unrelated to a child’s own physiology or psychology, as the U.S. addresses the spike in gender-related psychoses.

Over the past few years, the number of young people who identify as transgender has doubled, according to research published by the University of California in 2022. Now, nearly one-in-five people who identify as transgender are aged 13 to 17.

The 1994 paper found that mothers of sons with gender identity disorders had “longstanding difficulties” with interpersonal relations, including issues with separation, depression, and the management of aggression.

“They describe themselves as compulsively seeking companionship, as prone to intense, emotionally stormy, angry relationships, and as having chronic and intense feelings of loneliness, emptiness, and depression,” researchers noted. “They tend to make excessive demands on people and feel entitled to do so.”

As a result of the findings, researchers called for additional studies to “shed light on the familial contribution” to gender identity disorders.



How can a baby know it is trans? The only way that a baby can be labelled as trans is if it has a narcissistic mother who fills in the form:

GP surgery asks parents if their BABY is trans: Outrage over 'insane' gender options on blanket patient registration form

  • The form from Woodgate Valley Health Centre in Birmingham was shared online
  • Social media users claimed the move was 'insane' and 'beyond out of control' 

By Emily Stearn, Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 14:18 BST, 30 May 2023

A GP surgery today faced fierce backlash over its registration form — which means parents are asked if their newborns are trans or non-binary. 

The practice in Birmingham also offers parents the choice of registering their baby's gender as 'other' or 'not stated'. 

Woodgate Valley Health Centre insisted the form is used by new patients of all ages wishing to register, not just newborns. 

MailOnline understands the form is not part of national NHS policy. 

Instead each surgery can decide to add extra gender options to their forms. 

Taking to Twitter, one woman attached a screenshot of the registration form a friend, who had recently given birth, was faced with. 

Under its gender options, the surgery offers 'male (including trans man)', 'female (including trans woman)', 'non-binary', 'other (not listed)' or 'not stated'.

The post sparked backlash among social media users, with one claiming 'that's insane'.

Another labelled the move 'beyond out of control'. 

A third user commented: 'How on earth can a baby express any opinion on their "gender identity"?' 

One account also slammed NHS England for 'disgraceful gaslighting'. They added: 'More gaslighting and nowhere for us women to have our own sex category.'


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camelot part 4

Mental Health: battleground of individualism v's collectivism


There are two schools of thought with mental health. One school of thought argues that mental health is down to genetics which leads to 'chemical imbalances in the brain' which then need to be corrected through the use of synthetic drugs which are applied on a trial and error basis until one is found which pacifies the patient.


The other school of thought is that mental health is related to anxiety and that if a person is anxious enough they can become neurotic and if they are very anxious they can become manic. Psychiatrists look at the behaviours of people and when those people exhibit certain clusters of behaviours the psychiatrists have given that cluster of behaviours a name for example such-and-such 'disorder' but there is no medical test to affirm the existence of that disorder; they can't for example take a blood test or an MRI scan that can identify the so called 'disorder'.


Now consider the common saying that a person is having 'sleepless nights' because they are concerned about something. Something is weighing on their mind and it disrupts their sleep. Maybe they can't get to sleep or maybe they wake up in the middle of the night worried. So we all know really that anxiety can then impact our wellbeing because lack of sleep can leave us feeling de-energised, de-motivated and can even lower a persons IQ by several points. A tired person is more prone to mistakes which then makes their day harder as they struggle to overcome not only the usual demands of life but also correcting the extra mistakes. All of this can create a downward spiralling effect.


In the political arena there are also two schools of thought. There is one school that believes in individual freedom and personal responsibility and in living by a moral code which respects the rights of others; sometimes those codes are codified into a 'constitution'. The other school of thought is the 'collectivist' mindset which believes that people should subsume their own will into the will of the collective and that is achieved by blindly obeying whatever directive is passed down from perceived authority figures.


In the last century we saw collectivist models such as nazism and communism lead to the death of millions so a reasonable person might consider that the debate is over and yet we see the collectivist mindset alive and well today in the west. For example during the covid psuedo-pandemic we saw the government tell the population that 'we are all in it together' and that we must all vaccinate ourselves and our children with new mRNA injections that had been created and rolled out in 8 months (vaccines usually take ten years to get to market). Those of the collectivist mindset, leapt to attention and marched off to their nearest government vaccination centre to receive the state sanctioned medical intervention whilst those of the individualist mindset said 'hold on, the official figures say that coronavirus has a 99.5% survivability rate, which is comparable to the flu and is only killing people over 80 years old who have co-morbidities. So I don't perceive this to be a sufficient threat for me to take a brand new and untried medical intervention.'


The individualists have proven to be pro-choice whilst the collectivists exhibited increasingly threatening and authoritarian overtones as they discussed the perceived need to lock up and even force vaccinate the 'refusniks' (a term from the collectivist soviet union).


So with all this in mind lets return to the mental health issue to examine how the two schools of thought there tie into the two schools of thought in the political realm. The collectivists favour the school of thought that there is some intrinsic flaw in the person that leads to a 'chemical imbalance in the brain' which must be corrected with drugs because this enables the system to drug a person and contain them without any self-examination of the underlying causes of their anxiety which could in turn lead to an examination of the system itself and its impact on the individual. This school of thought leads to individuals being drugged and contained within institutions so that they don't disrupt the wider collectivist machine and the other workers. If a person expresses dissent against the system they can be branded as 'crazy' and then contained within the psychiatric industrial complex. The soviets even created a system called 'socionics' to identify peoples personality types so that they could identify people more likely to critique the system so that they could be sent to gulags to avoid those people contaminating the rest of society with ideas of: individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and personal responsibility.


The individualist school on the other hand believes in taking personal responsibility so this school of thought is more inclined to look at an anxious person holistically in order to ask 'what is making them anxious?' This school of thought can lead to looking more expansively at all the factors that affect an individual and in turn can lead to a re-examination of the system itself because it may conclude that a repressive and authoritarian collectivist system is adverse to a person's wellbeing. For this reason the collectivists will always seek to limit the scope of examination of the wider issues by creating an 'overton window' of accepted discussion and its state propagandists on the TV and radio will be briefed to keep all discussion within that narrow band so that no problem can ever really be identified or resolved.


If a person is told things about reality that run contrary to their own inner conscience this creates an inner tension called 'cognitive dissonance'. A collectivist system such as the one outlined in Orwell's fictional work, '1984', about INGSOC (English socialism) may pass down dictates to the individual who may inwardly disagree with what they are being told but who will be under enormous pressure to comply and therefore this will create cognitive dissonance which as a form of anxiety may then, in turn, impact their physiology leading to ill mental and physical health. This is probably why when the Berlin wall came down people fled in one direction only: away from communism.


Today we see the British state moving away from its ancient common law traditions into a more collectivist model and as we go through that shift we are also seeing a decline in mental health. The people who uphold that system invariably wear uniforms to create an air of authority so that people obey them however those uniformed people will be affected by the dictates of the central authority controlling the collectivist system as much as the non-uniformed population (eg covid jab roll-outs) so it behooves them to consider their own individual conscience before acting. Inside the uniform is a human being, with a soul who can exercise personal responsibility. The uniform and the job title that goes with it are a soulless shell that has no conscience and acts purely as a vessel and conduit of the will of the central authority of the collectivist system. The Nuremburg trials, held after the second world war, decided that uniformed people could not argue as a defence that they were 'just following orders'; they are lawfully required to exercise their own conscience before acting and are then held personally responsible for their actions. This means that at some point all people in uniforms must decide between their inner conscience and the exercise of personal responsibility and the immoral and authoritarian dictates of centralised authority which will, inevitably, increasingly demand that they impinge on the individual freedoms and God given rights of individuals.


The increasingly collectivist British system meanwhile will surely follow the path of the soviet union and deem anyone exercising personal responsibility as somehow mentally defective so that they can other and demonise them to alienate them from the rest of society in order to contain them or neutralise them. Those who dissent will be branded 'domestic terrorists' or 'anti-vaxxers' or 'conspiracy theorists' or 'extremists' as a dog whistle to the rest of society to ignore and even persecute those people. However it is within those people that the human conscience can continue to shine through.

Edited by Macnamara
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epstein, weinstein, woody allen and now nick cohen.....what is it with these guys?

Larry David - on Weinstein and Jews

Guardian “Covered Up” MeToo Scandal Involving Pro-Lockdown, Pro-Vaccine Passport, Left-Wing Columnist

The former Observer columnist Nick Cohen, who attacked me numerous times during the pandemic for being a lockdown sceptic, has left the newspaper with a financial settlement following complaints of sexual harassment that spanned a period of 17 years. When he departed, he was praised by his bosses for his “incisive” and “brilliant” journalist – such as this piece entitled ‘It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated’ – with no mention of the seven women who claimed they were harassed by him both inside and outside the workplace. Guardian News and Media (GNM), which owns the Observer and the Guardian, has now been accused of a cover-up by the New York Times. The Telegraph has more.

Some of his alleged victims have accused GNM of failing to act on complaints they made to managers over a period of years.

For his part, Mr. Cohen has claimed that his downfall was the result of a bitter internal row over transgender rights that has opened a schism at the centre of The Guardian.

The fallout from the Cohen affair has also prompted recriminations at the Financial Times (FT), where an investigation by a prominent journalist into the goings-on at the Guardian was spiked by the business newspaper’s editor.

The claim has been made by the New York Times (NYT), which reported that Madison Marriage, an FT journalist, had investigated the Cohen affair and had on the record interviews with two named women and documentary evidence on others, but Roula Khalaf, the FT’s editor, chose not to publish it.

Sources told the NYT that Ms Khalaf said Mr. Cohen did not have a high enough profile in the business world to make him a story for the publication.

Both newspapers now risk allegations of hypocrisy after holding powerful men to account in their reporting of the MeToo movement.

The Guardian exposed allegations of sexual misconduct by Tim Westwood, a former radio DJ, in a joint investigation with BBC Three last year, and Ms Marriage won an award in 2018 for exposing the behaviour of the wealthy elite at men-only charity dinners known as The Presidents Club.

According to the NYT, which has spoken to several of the women allegedly targeted by Mr Cohen, The Guardian was less proactive when it came to investigating complaints against its own employees.

Lucy Siegle, a former Guardian journalist, told the NYT that she had made a complaint about Mr Cohen in 2018 for “groping her in the newsroom” in about 2001.

The NYT said Mr Cohen had grabbed her bottom, and that five other women had described similar encounters happening in pubs between 2008 and 2015. A seventh said that Mr Cohen had repeatedly offered to send her explicit photographs in 2018.

The NYT said Mr Cohen’s reputation was “widely known in the newsroom”, to the extent that some of his female colleagues used a different entrance to a pub near the office “to avoid being groped by him”.

Worth reading in full.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highlands Ablaze


large swathes of the scottish highlands have been burning on a scale i've never seen before. it's such a strange story. Something doesn't sit right with this. This piece in the Daily Mail blames wild campers which makes me nervous as i could see them using wildfires as an excuse to ban campfires, then camp stoves then wild camping altogether as part of their UN Agenda 2030 goals to get everyone off the land and packed into high density 'smart cities'.


Certainly the shooting estates carry out controlled burns of the heather to prevent growth coming through that could replace the ground cover of grouse and that in itself is a controversial practice but i've never heard of anything on this scale. Of course it could also tie into the whole 'green agenda' too as it could be blamed on 'climate change' so that they can justify taking further steps along their planned path to global dictatorship. It brings to mind this US military file on how to use chemtrailing to dry out forests and turn them into tinderboxes that can then be weaponised through fire (see clip below the DM story):

The monster wildfire: Graphic reveals how 7,400 hectares have burned in Highlands blaze with 22-mile long plume of smoke visible amid claims wild campers could be to blame

  • Fire crews are struggling to contain huge blaze in Cannich, Inverness-shire 
  • Flames spreading through forests and glens spanning several square miles 

By Bethan Sexton

Published: 09:14 BST, 1 June 2023 | Updated: 12:15 BST, 1 June 2023


Wildfires As A Weapon, US Military Exposed


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...