This week I was quite surprised to learn that friends of mine who are nowhere near as ‘terminally online’ as I am - and I’m quite strict with myself in that regard anyway - knew all about Amelia.
I believe that immigration to the UK in 2025 exceeded all immigration to the UK from 1066 to 2000.
The whole "we are a nation of immigrants", and "immigrants built Britain" bullshit is bullshit, and everybody knows it. Black British aristocrats in regency dramas like Bridgerton? Also bullshit. Ads that show most couples in Britain are mixed race? Whaddya know... more bullshit.
Bullshit is everywhere, including here in Australia, where blokes with blue eyes and freckles like me are being punished for the actions of immigrant Muslim terrorists.
The Australian "government" has introduced retrospective legislation, so that you can be jailed for saying or doing things that were legal when you said or did them. And the recent legislation also explicitly states that "procedural fairness" doesn't apply to it. So, legislation that quite explicitly announces that, yes, it is unfair, but fuck you, peasant.
There really is a lot of anger in the community. A huge amount of it. I really don't know where this will end, but it won't be a good place.
I just saw two vintage clips. One of a hero of the capitalist right, Milton Friedman, totally debunking
'our any immigration is a positive and diversity is a strength' myth in just a few sentences: basically immigration was a positive before the welfare state and is and must become a negative in any welfare state.
And the other one was of a hero of the centre and centre left, Helmut Schmidt, who is second to God for many of them in Germany, if not first. In an interview with a young Sandra Maischberger, he destroys immigration by Muslims to Europe in particular, mainly based upon their upbringing, which alone ensures that they simply can't blend into our societies.
If anyone censors or sues you because of your negative views on that, just refer to theese two clips and/or use the exact words of those two unassailable heros of theirs.
I know. It's inbecredilievable! It's luke a law thst says "You didn't wear seatbelts before we made seatbelt wearing compulsory, so off to the nick with you! ".
A law that has a clause that literally says "This law is unfair, and there's nothing you can do about it"
There's palpable anger among people who normally pay no attention to politics. The legal community is up in arms, and senior legal academics from the major law schools are postulating plausible scenarios where a government in power could use the legislation to ban and imprison the opposition.
Hopefully there will be high court challenges and it will be tossed. Hopefully.
This interesting piece has been deemed age-restricted content...So I am required to meet a standard so low that my 75 year-old knees do not permit me to reach...I refuse to prove my
maturity, because it requires registration linked to an electronic device...so, naturally, I shun
such devices...The State is oblivious of me regarding matters of (immense) importance, but demands to know my details regarding (relatively) trivial matters...
Substack, once again, over-interpreting the law. Something they claim they are not doing, but they're basically bowing to political pressure to restrict content that is political - which is *not* the main content of the law (although, obviously, that's how the UK government wanted it to be applied).
I'm actually in agreement with the substance, if not the implementation, of the law - which is to protect kids from material that is harmful - but that should NOT include political commentary.
It is a way, incidentally or accidentally, of identifying the adults...the dissenters...protecting legal minors has nothing to do with the "safety" promulgated by the fatuous title of the Act...
RR: ... but failing that I’d just settle for a bit of Amelia.
👍🙂 Certainly some nice genes there by the look of it. 😉🙂
But curious about the poster behind her -- "Remigration NOW"? As in deport the effen lot of them, mostly Muslims? As the late UK philosopher Anthony Flew once cogently put it in his review of Ibn Warraq’s "Why I'm Not a Muslim":
AF: 'Why I am not a Muslim' gives readers abundant excellent reasons for not becoming or remaining Muslims and also makes a compelling case for the conclusion that Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state. It thus provides further support for Mervyn Hiskett's more particular contentions about the threat to British traditions and values arising from our rapidly growing Muslim minority.
Some historical justifications for that "remigration" since "population transfers", of one sort or another, go back a long ways, 13th century BCE in fact:
Yes, I did umm and ahh a bit over whether I should crop the poster out of the pic, but decided to leave it in.
It's ambiguous certainly. I think *some* remigration is in order - but absolutely NOT some kind of blanket thing. I would not at all be in favour of some kind of blanket remigration - especially not one that is crudely based on something like religion or skin colour. It would be very wrong.
You look at that Wikipedia article on population transfer? In case you missed it, there were some 20 million people "transferred" in the 1947 partition of India -- Muslims to one side, Hindus to the other, more or less -- which the British were largely responsible for.
As Flew and Warraq suggested, Muslims generally don't play well with anyone. You may wish to read both the review and the book. Also my article on the topic in Canada's "The Post Millennial [TPM]"
TPM; Wiggins: Can Islam, Sharia and a Secular Democracy coincide [coexist]?
I had requested "coexist" for the title, but the editors there, in their wisdom ..., chose "coincide". I think the article strongly endorses the former term as the more relevant one, and favours answering the question in the negative.
I am no online gamer but back in the 80s was a paper and pen RPG gamer. Kids will always subvert the narrative, thank goodness. I was transported back to my “Price of Freedom”, days where America is invaded by Russia and you fight back. Our self generated characters included a gun runner for the IRA, a C&W star with a crystal meth distribution sideline, a Mafia trustafarian doll and a Jamaican jail breaker. Ah, nostalgia. Hope the kids are still at it.
Incidentally, we couldn’t cope with the cultural displacement so converted it to “Le prix de Fromage” which was the UK invaded by France. Those were the days!
Haha - I suppose we could imagine, since she's fictional, that Amelia possesses the wherewithal and strength to kick those scumbags in the nadgers in true Hollywood girlboss fashion.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and might be true, but I grow a little weary of "everything is controlled opposition" claims and so am somewhat sceptical. I think in this case, because memes and whether they 'take' or not is so unpredictable, I don't really see the hand of government in a manipulation of the 'opposition'.
I think the 'standard' story - some shitposter saw the training course and decided to play a bit which then ballooned - is a better fit to the facts.
I believe that immigration to the UK in 2025 exceeded all immigration to the UK from 1066 to 2000.
The whole "we are a nation of immigrants", and "immigrants built Britain" bullshit is bullshit, and everybody knows it. Black British aristocrats in regency dramas like Bridgerton? Also bullshit. Ads that show most couples in Britain are mixed race? Whaddya know... more bullshit.
Bullshit is everywhere, including here in Australia, where blokes with blue eyes and freckles like me are being punished for the actions of immigrant Muslim terrorists.
The Australian "government" has introduced retrospective legislation, so that you can be jailed for saying or doing things that were legal when you said or did them. And the recent legislation also explicitly states that "procedural fairness" doesn't apply to it. So, legislation that quite explicitly announces that, yes, it is unfair, but fuck you, peasant.
There really is a lot of anger in the community. A huge amount of it. I really don't know where this will end, but it won't be a good place.
I just saw two vintage clips. One of a hero of the capitalist right, Milton Friedman, totally debunking
'our any immigration is a positive and diversity is a strength' myth in just a few sentences: basically immigration was a positive before the welfare state and is and must become a negative in any welfare state.
And the other one was of a hero of the centre and centre left, Helmut Schmidt, who is second to God for many of them in Germany, if not first. In an interview with a young Sandra Maischberger, he destroys immigration by Muslims to Europe in particular, mainly based upon their upbringing, which alone ensures that they simply can't blend into our societies.
If anyone censors or sues you because of your negative views on that, just refer to theese two clips and/or use the exact words of those two unassailable heros of theirs.
Retrospective legislation? Come again?
Wow. Feckless bastards.
I know. It's inbecredilievable! It's luke a law thst says "You didn't wear seatbelts before we made seatbelt wearing compulsory, so off to the nick with you! ".
A law that has a clause that literally says "This law is unfair, and there's nothing you can do about it"
There's palpable anger among people who normally pay no attention to politics. The legal community is up in arms, and senior legal academics from the major law schools are postulating plausible scenarios where a government in power could use the legislation to ban and imprison the opposition.
Hopefully there will be high court challenges and it will be tossed. Hopefully.
This interesting piece has been deemed age-restricted content...So I am required to meet a standard so low that my 75 year-old knees do not permit me to reach...I refuse to prove my
maturity, because it requires registration linked to an electronic device...so, naturally, I shun
such devices...The State is oblivious of me regarding matters of (immense) importance, but demands to know my details regarding (relatively) trivial matters...
Interesting
Substack, once again, over-interpreting the law. Something they claim they are not doing, but they're basically bowing to political pressure to restrict content that is political - which is *not* the main content of the law (although, obviously, that's how the UK government wanted it to be applied).
I'm actually in agreement with the substance, if not the implementation, of the law - which is to protect kids from material that is harmful - but that should NOT include political commentary.
It is a way, incidentally or accidentally, of identifying the adults...the dissenters...protecting legal minors has nothing to do with the "safety" promulgated by the fatuous title of the Act...
Thank you for liking my comment...I have followed your very interesting content for a long time...
Thanks Neil - much appreciated
I'm waiting to see my first "Marry me Amelia" bumper sticker.
So wait, she's NOT real...?
The English language truly fails to express the depth of my disappointment and sorrow.
🤣
RR: ... but failing that I’d just settle for a bit of Amelia.
👍🙂 Certainly some nice genes there by the look of it. 😉🙂
But curious about the poster behind her -- "Remigration NOW"? As in deport the effen lot of them, mostly Muslims? As the late UK philosopher Anthony Flew once cogently put it in his review of Ibn Warraq’s "Why I'm Not a Muslim":
AF: 'Why I am not a Muslim' gives readers abundant excellent reasons for not becoming or remaining Muslims and also makes a compelling case for the conclusion that Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state. It thus provides further support for Mervyn Hiskett's more particular contentions about the threat to British traditions and values arising from our rapidly growing Muslim minority.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160529034626/http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tfst/chiv3.htm
Some historical justifications for that "remigration" since "population transfers", of one sort or another, go back a long ways, 13th century BCE in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer
Yes, I did umm and ahh a bit over whether I should crop the poster out of the pic, but decided to leave it in.
It's ambiguous certainly. I think *some* remigration is in order - but absolutely NOT some kind of blanket thing. I would not at all be in favour of some kind of blanket remigration - especially not one that is crudely based on something like religion or skin colour. It would be very wrong.
"wrong" seems a bit moot.
You look at that Wikipedia article on population transfer? In case you missed it, there were some 20 million people "transferred" in the 1947 partition of India -- Muslims to one side, Hindus to the other, more or less -- which the British were largely responsible for.
As Flew and Warraq suggested, Muslims generally don't play well with anyone. You may wish to read both the review and the book. Also my article on the topic in Canada's "The Post Millennial [TPM]"
TPM; Wiggins: Can Islam, Sharia and a Secular Democracy coincide [coexist]?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180405214735/https://www.thepostmillennial.com/islam-sharia-secular-democracy/
I had requested "coexist" for the title, but the editors there, in their wisdom ..., chose "coincide". I think the article strongly endorses the former term as the more relevant one, and favours answering the question in the negative.
I am no online gamer but back in the 80s was a paper and pen RPG gamer. Kids will always subvert the narrative, thank goodness. I was transported back to my “Price of Freedom”, days where America is invaded by Russia and you fight back. Our self generated characters included a gun runner for the IRA, a C&W star with a crystal meth distribution sideline, a Mafia trustafarian doll and a Jamaican jail breaker. Ah, nostalgia. Hope the kids are still at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Freedom_(role-playing_game)
Incidentally, we couldn’t cope with the cultural displacement so converted it to “Le prix de Fromage” which was the UK invaded by France. Those were the days!
Who is going to protect Amelia from the grooming/rape gangs? Not Starmer's government, for sure.
Haha - I suppose we could imagine, since she's fictional, that Amelia possesses the wherewithal and strength to kick those scumbags in the nadgers in true Hollywood girlboss fashion.
I know it was not written for this context, but it is much more applicable today, than when it was written:
"It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate."
I suppose this poem violates the thought-crime laws of the Yookay nowadays.
#enochpowellwasright, as the kids might say, had they known who he was or why he held that speech.
C'mon man, you're smarter than that. https://miri.substack.com/p/the-children-of-the-revolution-are?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6ys1n0&triedRedirect=true
But then, you drank the 'Israel just defends it right to exist' Kool-Aid as well.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and might be true, but I grow a little weary of "everything is controlled opposition" claims and so am somewhat sceptical. I think in this case, because memes and whether they 'take' or not is so unpredictable, I don't really see the hand of government in a manipulation of the 'opposition'.
I think the 'standard' story - some shitposter saw the training course and decided to play a bit which then ballooned - is a better fit to the facts.