17 minutes ago, sungod said:

I had 1500 rapists/ terrorists/thieves from small boat crossings move into a disused military base next to me.

No you didn't.

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I don't recall ever writing a single post about equivalence never mind the "many" you refer too. Is there a specific one that you remember ? Anyway to be honest Its pretty basic stuff , I could explain it in a single post and you'd soon get your head round it, Why do you feel embarrassed?

You can explain the principle of equivalence in a sentence?........That is impressive. I await with baited breath.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks for the offer, T2. It's a damn long read. I see where it's going but my ideas have developed beyond the ideas expressed in that substack. It might be useful and helpful for some but it's not for me.

Everyone has their views of that era. And every view is an interpretation based on individual beliefs. No two are the same. But interpretations they are in the end. I have my own. This is not the place to have that discussion, though.

Link has a PLAY button too so you can listen but nutshelled:

TLDR the joos pushed the ending of the Authoritarian (man with backbone) idea on gullible silents who let boomers become the degenerate <deleted> ups they bacame and are (eg Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden).

Summary of the article:
The author critiques the 1998 film Pleasantville as subversive Hollywood propaganda.
In the movie, modern teenagers enter a black-and-white 1950s sitcom town of traditional values and innocence.
Sexual experimentation and rebellion introduce colour, emotion, and “liberation,” while those who retain traditional values are portrayed as bigoted.
The story ends with the central family breaking up, presented as progressive and positive.
The author argues this reflected 1990s cultural messaging that celebrated sexual freedom, divorce, and non-traditional families as beneficial.

Thirty years later, the author claims extensive research shows the opposite:

children of divorce and single-parent homes face lasting disadvantages in health, education, relationships, and lifespan (with parental divorce sometimes more damaging than parental death).
Middle-aged adults raised in the divorce boom are now voicing their experiences of grief, parentification, and relational struggles.

The sexual revolution (easier divorce, contraception, abortion, etc., in the 1960s) is described as deliberately engineered social engineering—not a well-intentioned mistake—via media, propaganda (e.g., Kinsey, Cosmopolitan case studies, sitcoms), and legal changes, aimed at weakening the traditional family.
Atomisation of the nuclear family (was the real (divide & conquer) nuke bomb).

The author links this to broader elite goals of atomising society, increasing state control over child-rearing, and ultimately making child-raising a state responsibility (citing daycare expansion, school time, foster care, and Brave New World/Handmaid’s Tale themes).

Television is as a hypnotic tool of this programming.

Recent films (The Lie, Three Birthdays) and voices (e.g., Katy Faust) that criticise family breakdown and the sexual revolution are seen as a coordinated backlash.

The author suspects this shift is not genuine empathy but preparation to use the large body of research on harm to children to justify removing children from “damaging” (non-traditional/single-parent) homes under authoritarian or hard-right governments—especially amid fertility crises, cases like Lindsay Clancy, and figures like “Bonnie Blue.”

Surrogacy is strongly condemned as prioritising adult desires over children’s needs and linked to trauma and exploitation risks.

The piece claims disproportionate influence by certain elites (including references to Jewish overrepresentation in media and social engineering) in promoting these trends while Israel retains stronger traditional family patterns. It concludes with advice to younger people:

marry, stay married, have or adopt your own children, and avoid surrogacy or unconventional arrangements, both for children’s well-being and as potential protection against future state intervention.

Banger
https://miri.substack.com/p/the-kids-of-the-sexual-revolution

But I can undersatnd why the Doofus crew on here would rather argue about whether red is a better colour than blue, the technicalities of deflating a dinghy and wherther or not it's politiacally correct or brag about how their girl's different

Edited September 23Sep 23 by Tourist2

19 minutes ago, sungod said:

I had 1500 rapists/ terrorists/thieves from small boat crossings move into a disused military base next to me.

I feel for them.....moving next to you.

22 minutes ago, sungod said:

I had 1500 rapists/ terrorists/thieves ... move ... next to me.

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Oh my god that must be awful

Ideal prep for a one room set up in Pattaya!

1 hour ago, 23RD said:

Easy defence what was a French rescue worker doing aiding and abetting illegal immigration in UK territorial waters.

should be shot for that

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I got that. It seems this entire explanation is just a bit of backsliding because you skipped around the one and only point you replied to..

I do pay attention to nuance.

Why wait for more factual details. Seems to me your mind has already been made up. I think you're keeping your fingers crossed that the police will confirm the outcome you desire so perhaps you can come back here to gloat about being right.

I don't have my mind made up and I don't wish an outcome that makes me right. I just want the truth — whatever it happens to be. If Thomas did indeed seriously jeopardize someone's safety then he should pay the price. If the Frenchie was in no serious danger then this is overblown and Thomas shuld walk.

No, not necessarily. I was happy for him when he got enough donations to buy himself a little boat. Of course it was sad when it sank, and very strange as it sank in port, some might think he did it deliberately so he could beg for more money (which he did) but that would be wrong to assume.

He's free to sail around shouting at things all he wants, that is his right. It is not his right to interfere with another vessel.

It is clear what I saw. He approached a boat whilst shouting at it. A French rescue worker boarded the boat to secure it. Tommy decided that as well as shouting at the boat and the man he was also going to rupture the hull by slashing at it with a knife with that person on board. There's no other way to see it as that is what clearly happened. But let's see what the police enquiry concludes.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that's a completely different approach towards this incident than other folks who are pro-immigration and they're only interest is to railroad someone who is anti-immigration, truth be damned. Is that your approach to this? I dunno. I'm asking you.

Given this I kinda think I know what your approach is.

I don't think there is anyone who is pro illegal immigration. There is clearly a problem with small boats - there has been since Brexit (thanks again for that gift). The Tories didn't bother dealing with it. Labour have tried to tackle it and are showing results. I think everyone would like a solution to this and progress is being made. Regardless of what people like BarraMarra think this can not be done immediately overnight. Farage can say he'll put the navy to sea to drag the boats back to France, sink them, or whatever nonsense he comes out with. But he can't. He's just a foghorn with no substance, no plan, and if anything he likes the boats because it gives his party a reason to exist.

Where I disagree with the right wingers is in the method. I do not believe it is ok or acceptable for cosplaying yobbos to get masked and balaclava-ed up to intimidate people. I do not believe it is ok for a hypocritical knife wielding ex-drug dealing kidknapper to go sailing around like he's the king of the high seas, slashing at things, and intimidating rescue workers and the RNLI. I also don't think it's acceptable for violent Brummies to intimidate and threaten people who disagree with their childish flag shagging hanging antics. Or run them over and break their legs then drive off.

Violent ignorant knuckle draggers - the lot of them. And if you believe any single one of the leaders of these groups is "doing it for the wimmin and children" then you are very very gullible. A good percentage of them are wife beaters with violent criminal records. And they only care about your donations to fund their lifestyles.

Edited September 23Sep 23 by josephbloggs

8 hours ago, Palatus said:

I get your "can't understand" dilemma must be frustrating for you to figure things out, but crimes such as criminal damage to the dinghy

Are you actually serious? Has the owner lodged a formal complaint ?

8 hours ago, Palatus said:

endangering life at sea / endangering a rescue worker,

It was as flat as a millpond nobody'sl life was endangered even a non swimmer in a life jacket would have been perfectly safe

8 hours ago, Palatus said:

interference with a rescue operation

There was nobody being "rescued" nobody at all it was a perfect day for a crossing people have swum across in worse conditions there and back in one go

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Are you actually serious? Has the owner lodged a formal complaint ?

It was as flat as a millpond nobody'sl life was endangered even a non swimmer in a life jacket would have been perfectly safe

There was nobody being "rescued" nobody at all it was a perfect day for a crossing people have swum across in worse conditions there and back in one go

You have a very backward understanding of how the law works.

53 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

You can explain the principle of equivalence in a sentence?........That is impressive. I await with baited breath.

hardly worth me bothering really , why would I waste my time trying to explain anything to someone who either can't read very well or who doesn't know the difference between the words "post" and "sentence"

9 hours ago, Will B Good said:

I was surprised......but apparently the English language is a huge draw.....along with the free iPhones, 5* hotels, chauffeur driven cars, free health care and £9.90 a week.....obvs.

promises of easy sex with white women are also a draw

8 hours ago, sungod said:

We were told the RNLI are only called out to save lives, sea conditions are a mill pond, looks more like a taxi service to me.

3 RNLI boats to pick up people who don't need saving, total waste of money. You can see why some people may not want to donate their hard earned cash to them anymore.

Absolutely spot on It was as flat as a witches out there, that wasn't a rescue that was just a transfer of passengers from a shuttle service to the mother ship. What were those frenchies doing there anyway who were they? and why was he on the migrant boat ?

I don't believe that guy on the boat was a "rescue" worker at all If he was, how come he and his comrades hadn't "rescued" the illegals during their previous 33 hours of their "crossing from hell"

I reckon he's part of one of these illegal migrant aiding "charities" that help send the savages over to the UK those scumbags are as bad as the traffickers and the brits amongst them should be hung for treason

He was on that boat to bring it back to france to be reused The guy who slashed it should get a medal

10 hours ago, Will B Good said:

He has previously demonstrated he's pretty handy with a knife...........

He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty to an attempted kidnapping at knifepoint. He forced his way into a man's home on Hayling Island accusing him of stealing his drugs.

well at least you managed to get a joke out of it ,....... well nearly !

But my point is...Everytime this guy or tommy robinson gets a mention, somebody, not always the same person, but from a very small group of persistent offenders, just has to pop and say or rather "declare" "he's a convicted criminal" before listing his entire criminal record,some the offences from that long ago they wouldn't show up on a CRB check !

What do they hope to achieve with their painstaking research and revelatory outburst ? Those that already hate them know all about their criminal records as they also shout about it continually , and those that support the likes of these two really, really , don't care . In fact in some circles "doin a bit of time" is not seen as particularly negative

3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

promises of easy sex with white women are also a draw

You're not joking. Check this (govt sponsered?) <deleted>:

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Everytime this guy or tommy robinson gets a mention...

The guys not on our side - he's in it for the shekels - paid by the u know who's.

Think it through (second pic will help).

Do you understand what he is now???

3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

how come he and his comrades hadn't "rescued" the illegals during their previous 33 hours of their "crossing from hell"

33 hours huh?

It’s not that every single story with a 33 in it is a deliberate hoax.

It’s that the people who craft a lot of the big media events, false-flag theories, and narrative rolls know the symbolism, and they know a chunk of the audience will notice.

Leaving the number in is either a power move, a joke at dumb people's expense, or both.

The same way Hollywood and news cycles love recycling the same archetypes and dates.

It keeps the (masonically / freemason) initiated nodding and the rest of the room arguing about whether it’s real or just pattern-matching.

Bottom line:

33 isn’t random.

It’s one of the cleaner, most repeated calling cards from the higher-degree club.

Whether you buy the whole package or just notice the weird frequency is up to you.

Edited September 23Sep 23 by Tourist2

14 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

They'd been at sea for close to 36 hours on a rubber dinghy.

So what?

Since Monday 1,200 Invaders have entered the UK. At last our home Secretary has announced she will be asking the border force why they did not detect 2 boats landing on the beach nr Folkstone. This Government has lost the borders for all we know these small boats that went undetected could be Isis or Iraqui or even Hezbollah agents entering the UK. Our Government dosn't realise this is a security breach that could possibly target UK civilians what will it take ? Demonstratations are happening more and more as we do not see the boats stopping the UK people don't care about the dropping of arrivals they want Action now to stop them all and show us they are taking notice. If it carries on i believe people will hit the streets and demand the government calls a general Election now not next year.

1 minute ago, Keeenok Powell said:

So what?

Some protesters at Gosport were shouting " let them drown " and more questions are being asked as to why the RNLI are assisting border force vessels that have escorted illegals into the UK. Its gonna get worse.

7 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Link has a PLAY button too so you can listen but nutshelled:

TLDR the joos pushed the ending of the Authoritarian (man with backbone) idea on gullible silents who let boomers become the degenerate <deleted> ups they bacame and are (eg Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden).

Summary of the article:
The author critiques the 1998 film Pleasantville as subversive Hollywood propaganda.
In the movie, modern teenagers enter a black-and-white 1950s sitcom town of traditional values and innocence.
Sexual experimentation and rebellion introduce colour, emotion, and “liberation,” while those who retain traditional values are portrayed as bigoted.
The story ends with the central family breaking up, presented as progressive and positive.
The author argues this reflected 1990s cultural messaging that celebrated sexual freedom, divorce, and non-traditional families as beneficial.

Thirty years later, the author claims extensive research shows the opposite:

children of divorce and single-parent homes face lasting disadvantages in health, education, relationships, and lifespan (with parental divorce sometimes more damaging than parental death).
Middle-aged adults raised in the divorce boom are now voicing their experiences of grief, parentification, and relational struggles.

The sexual revolution (easier divorce, contraception, abortion, etc., in the 1960s) is described as deliberately engineered social engineering—not a well-intentioned mistake—via media, propaganda (e.g., Kinsey, Cosmopolitan case studies, sitcoms), and legal changes, aimed at weakening the traditional family.
Atomisation of the nuclear family (was the real (divide & conquer) nuke bomb).

The author links this to broader elite goals of atomising society, increasing state control over child-rearing, and ultimately making child-raising a state responsibility (citing daycare expansion, school time, foster care, and Brave New World/Handmaid’s Tale themes).

Television is as a hypnotic tool of this programming.

Recent films (The Lie, Three Birthdays) and voices (e.g., Katy Faust) that criticise family breakdown and the sexual revolution are seen as a coordinated backlash.

The author suspects this shift is not genuine empathy but preparation to use the large body of research on harm to children to justify removing children from “damaging” (non-traditional/single-parent) homes under authoritarian or hard-right governments—especially amid fertility crises, cases like Lindsay Clancy, and figures like “Bonnie Blue.”

Surrogacy is strongly condemned as prioritising adult desires over children’s needs and linked to trauma and exploitation risks.

The piece claims disproportionate influence by certain elites (including references to Jewish overrepresentation in media and social engineering) in promoting these trends while Israel retains stronger traditional family patterns. It concludes with advice to younger people:

marry, stay married, have or adopt your own children, and avoid surrogacy or unconventional arrangements, both for children’s well-being and as potential protection against future state intervention.

Banger
https://miri.substack.com/p/the-kids-of-the-sexual-revolution

But I can undersatnd why the Doofus crew on here would rather argue about whether red is a better colour than blue, the technicalities of deflating a dinghy and wherther or not it's politiacally correct or brag about how their girl's different

I saw the movie Pleasantville so I'm aware of the symbolism used. The substack takes all of that the dynamics

7 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Link has a PLAY button too so you can listen but nutshelled:

TLDR the joos pushed the ending of the Authoritarian (man with backbone) idea on gullible silents who let boomers become the degenerate <deleted> ups they bacame and are (eg Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden).

Summary of the article:
The author critiques the 1998 film Pleasantville as subversive Hollywood propaganda.
In the movie, modern teenagers enter a black-and-white 1950s sitcom town of traditional values and innocence.
Sexual experimentation and rebellion introduce colour, emotion, and “liberation,” while those who retain traditional values are portrayed as bigoted.
The story ends with the central family breaking up, presented as progressive and positive.
The author argues this reflected 1990s cultural messaging that celebrated sexual freedom, divorce, and non-traditional families as beneficial.

Thirty years later, the author claims extensive research shows the opposite:

children of divorce and single-parent homes face lasting disadvantages in health, education, relationships, and lifespan (with parental divorce sometimes more damaging than parental death).
Middle-aged adults raised in the divorce boom are now voicing their experiences of grief, parentification, and relational struggles.

The sexual revolution (easier divorce, contraception, abortion, etc., in the 1960s) is described as deliberately engineered social engineering—not a well-intentioned mistake—via media, propaganda (e.g., Kinsey, Cosmopolitan case studies, sitcoms), and legal changes, aimed at weakening the traditional family.
Atomisation of the nuclear family (was the real (divide & conquer) nuke bomb).

The author links this to broader elite goals of atomising society, increasing state control over child-rearing, and ultimately making child-raising a state responsibility (citing daycare expansion, school time, foster care, and Brave New World/Handmaid’s Tale themes).

Television is as a hypnotic tool of this programming.

Recent films (The Lie, Three Birthdays) and voices (e.g., Katy Faust) that criticise family breakdown and the sexual revolution are seen as a coordinated backlash.

The author suspects this shift is not genuine empathy but preparation to use the large body of research on harm to children to justify removing children from “damaging” (non-traditional/single-parent) homes under authoritarian or hard-right governments—especially amid fertility crises, cases like Lindsay Clancy, and figures like “Bonnie Blue.”

Surrogacy is strongly condemned as prioritising adult desires over children’s needs and linked to trauma and exploitation risks.

The piece claims disproportionate influence by certain elites (including references to Jewish overrepresentation in media and social engineering) in promoting these trends while Israel retains stronger traditional family patterns. It concludes with advice to younger people:

marry, stay married, have or adopt your own children, and avoid surrogacy or unconventional arrangements, both for children’s well-being and as potential protection against future state intervention.

Banger
https://miri.substack.com/p/the-kids-of-the-sexual-revolution

But I can undersatnd why the Doofus crew on here would rather argue about whether red is a better colour than blue, the technicalities of deflating a dinghy and wherther or not it's politiacally correct or brag about how their girl's different

There is a substantial body of legitimate observation underneath the article, but Miri builds a much larger causal and intentional explanation on top of those observations than the evidence presented can support. More fundamentally, she largely views people as objects being acted upon by external social forces, whereas I would reverse the direction of causality and put consciousness, beliefs, expectations and individual participation at the center.

The difference between my view and Miri's is therefore fundamental. She sees people primarily as victims of forces acting upon them; I see them as having agency and participating in the creation of their own reality. Once you start from that premise, the entire phenomenon she is describing takes on a very different — and, in my view, considerably more complex — meaning. What she sees as something done to people, I see as something people are also, consciously or unconsciously, participating in creating.

17 hours ago, Keeenok Powell said:

And people like you are a serious risk to our country.

You and the other dollopers who think like you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Can I ask you,”how do you shave in the morning?” Because you surely can’t look at yourself in the mirror.

I prefer to shave in my mirror because , frankly , yours is a bit ...cracked !

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Since Monday 1,200 Invaders have entered the UK. At last our home Secretary has announced she will be asking the border force why they did not detect 2 boats landing on the beach nr Folkstone. This Government has lost the borders for all we know these small boats that went undetected could be Isis or Iraqui or even Hezbollah agents entering the UK. Our Government dosn't realise this is a security breach that could possibly target UK civilians what will it take ? Demonstratations are happening more and more as we do not see the boats stopping the UK people don't care about the dropping of arrivals they want Action now to stop them all and show us they are taking notice. If it carries on i believe people will hit the streets and demand the government calls a general Election now not next year.

Make your mind up. You don't want them intercepted where they can be rounded up, brought ashore, processed, and put where we know they are. They should be left at sea.

Then if they are left at sea they make their own way to shore where they can disappear and no one knows where they are.

That is precisely why they are intercepted.

19 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Make your mind up. You don't want them intercepted where they can be rounded up, brought ashore, processed, and put where we know they are. They should be left at sea.

Then if they are left at sea they make their own way to shore where they can disappear and no one knows where they are.

That is precisely why they are intercepted.

Is that a question or an opinion? Either way it's nothing to do with the post that you 'replied' to.

Right-wingers now defending knife crime.

How the world turns.

5 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

The guys not on our side - he's in it for the shekels - paid by the u know who's.

Think it through (second pic will help).

Do you understand what he is now???

Who do you think you are fooling with your incendiary Goebbels level propaganda?

I do wonder why Asean Now offers you a platform for you to spew your false claims and lies.

57 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Is that a question or an opinion? Either way it's nothing to do with the post that you 'replied' to.

If you have been following BarraMarra's posts (and I don't blame you if you haven't) then it would make sense. Just pointing out the usual contradiction. Screeching when the first undetected boat landings in over a year occur, but previously screeching that we should not be intercepting them.

Can't have it both ways. As I said, there's a good reason why we intercept them - so they can be rounded up, processed, placed in facilities.

Got it now?

This is a political problem.

4 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

If it carries on i believe people will hit the streets and demand the government calls a general Election now not next year.

I take it that's your Plan B. Fortunately, that's not one of the legal ways to have a seated parliament dissolved and getting an early election. There's simply not the numbers able or even willing to "hit the streets" as you call it.

To succeed, one needs a no-confidence motion to be filed and supported by parliament in order to get an actual vote of no-confidence. That's Plan A. If there's no cross-party support for such a motion, it's a dead duck.

Before proceeding with Plan B, one must have exhausted all of the options available before adopting Plan A. There are many, many, many options yet to be exercised.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by NanLaew

10 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You have a very backward understanding of how the law works.

He's also has a pretty retarded view on safety at sea.