Kier ('I'd rather be in Davos") Starmer says it all! He's selling the UK down the river to hell (his bosses = The WEF). He needs removing from office. He, along with Gates's CORRUPT WHO (ex-World Health Organisation) owns the judiciary!
We, the people, will not accept the insanity of the WEF's Police State when we remain fit and healthy by refusing poisonous 'Experimental injections' that kill or simply curtail Life Expectancy!
Give me/us just one example of a legal case that involved Pfizer and injuries post-jab. I really hope you can prove me to be an unreasonable sceptic.
Keep fighting the cretins that think this oppression will be accepted by we, the masses!
Best Regards!
Unjabbed Mick. (UK). I'll live linger without evil medical intervention!
No chance that I could back-track 'cos there's so much B/S that we have to sift through every day.
My focus is usually on Big Pharma 'ZERO LIABILITY' and 'Excess Deaths', both of which are deliberately ignored by governments, media and those with the responsibility to investigate such concerning anomalies. And, believe it or not, I have 'got a life'.
My other diversions are, TV MMA and soccer, playing snooker, Karaoke and spending 3 months each year in our 'off-grid' island home in the Gulf of Mexico. As well as keeping our UK house and gardens in good order (DIY, gardening, maintenance, etc,.) Regards! Mick.
Undoubtedly correct about the Israeli angle. The Jewish elite in Britain is responsible for mass immigration into England, going back to the Windrush and then through the New Labour party of Miliband, Roche, Straw (all Jewish) that deliberately flooded the country. However, any discontent was discouraged for years, up until now... rather odd, no?
The problem with this analysis, though, is that there is indeed a simmering anger in the country for absolutely understandable reasons. We know from the Rotherham report (written by left wingers) that hundreds of thousands of children were abused by foreign males for decades. The government abetted this, the police 'lost' evidence.
It is simply ludicrous to expect a population to accept that. If Muslim males went into India and tried to act like that they would be instantly attacked. The Chinese wouldn't allow it, the Arabs, the Thais, etc. Russians beat the crap out of Arabs that were dumb enough to attack women in Murmansk. The government is likely to lose control over the population in the long run, no matter how much money and influence is thrown at the problem.
"The problem with this analysis, though, is that there is indeed a simmering anger in the country for absolutely understandable reasons."
The anger is misdirected, as said. Exploited, if you prefer.
The stabber, in this given case, is the given justification, but he isn't from the Islamic community. He's not even Arabic. And it didn't happen in Leeds, Manchester, or Liverpool; it happened in Cardiff.
The EDL are proxies for the IDF exploiting this as an opportunity to sow dissent between two crucial groups they're opposed to: pro-Palestinians (Muslims, "liberals"), and the British opposed to overseas wars and genocide ("Centrists", "Right-Leaning").
If the riots were 'genuine', you'd expect either the African or black communities to be attacked. But they're being very carefully avoided. So I don't buy the bullshit it is about migration policies (most of the migrants arrive in Southhampton, and those are typically from Morocco).
The Islamic community will see the attacks as being unjustified, given in this case they weren't the ones responsible for it, and will no doubt retaliate, which is precisely what the IDF are hoping to instigate so the two sides fight, also exposing actual dissenters willing to fight in the process (UK govt cherry picks arrests - hence the facial recognition bullshit).
A divided Britain embroiled in a small civil war can't interfere with Israel's wider war with either Iran, Lebanon or Gaza. Or expose the fact so much of the UK Parliament is beholden financially to foreign interests. In-fact, there was almost a point of unity between "left" and "right" on the issue of overseas genocide - something they don't want to happen.
In reality, if you were actually looking for change, the protests would be against the government that caused the issues in the first place, and their respective tyranny.
Once you change the government, you can change the policies. Can't vote your way out of tyranny.
Thoughts? Confusion. What was the message? You are writers? Journalists? Masters of the language? Publicists? And you start an essay with this warning:
"This will be an extremely intricate situation to navigate, so even if you don’t agree with a given point, bear with the article, because there’s a lot of hidden elements to unpack which may end up changing your mind on the wider context."
Oh... so I'm not reading an article, an essay, I'm 'navigating a situation' ?
wtf does that mean?
I suggest you take a course in simple English writing and learn to say what you mean up front.
I find it interesting someone whose Substack literally consists of short broken sentences with meaningless titles like "Ya Russkii", whom I'm guessing does not speak nor write English as a first language, would opt to offer some criticisms for better article writing, so I will respond in kind.
"What was the message?" - I'm impressed you read the article and didn't draw any conclusions or insights from it. I strongly suspect you just read the first line... then skipped the article to post an angry comment. There's some photographs if you're illiterate, some of which are pretty self-evident.
"You are writers? Journalists? Masters of the language? Publicists?" - no, this is The Daily Beagle. No profession specified nor required. No bragging or claims to greatness put forward.
" so I'm not reading an article, an essay, I'm 'navigating a situation' ?"
Perhaps this is a result of a translation issues between English and I presume Russian.
In English there's a concept known as context; the situation is what is being discussed in the article. The situation in the UK - the tyranny of Keir Starmer and the False Flag Protests (it's in the title, you... might wish to read it sometime). Most native English speakers would understand that is what it is referring to. You know, from the common phrase "we have a situation here"; which is an English idiom.
"wtf does that mean?" - it means the article writer themselves has to navigate the situation.
"I suggest you take a course in simple English writing" - I cannot help but notice your Substack is less successful and far less active than mine, so you'll understand if I reject the criticism.
"say what you mean up front." - oh yes, because smashing down the front doors is always the best solution when it comes to the inflamed situation of politics.
"This essay: 10/100." - you're supposed to reduce fractions in maths, so this should be 1/10. Although having seen how... unsuccessful your Substack is (and how bland the writing happens to be, yikes), I'll take it as a compliment.
Next time, read the title: it nearly always summarises the article. Cheers.
Good one. I suggest you leave it sit for perhaps a month and then re - read what you've written and see what you think of your style, your content, your attitude, your English, your manners.... The whole thing.
Give it a month. I'll be interested to know what you have to say then. That'll give me another data point I can use to get a fix on you. I currently have only two: the article (?) in question and this post. A third should allow for triangulation: a fix.
Personally, I think you're rattled by the criticism of Israel, and I think lacking any ability to critique the subject matter, you try to nitpick nothings over sentence structure, whilst trying to project a faux sense of superiority, that you simply don't have.
When I need advice from a Substack that is... less successful, I will give you a bell, but in the meantime, I strongly think maybe you should reflect on how your own manners come across.
I recognise a lot of people hate the first paragraph opener. This is typically not included in most articles, with a few exceptions, one of which is hot political commentary that could inflame or anger readers; the first paragraph then becomes the writer's call for calm.
For the already calm readers it is redundant, but people forget there's a lot of strong political opinions out there and I have to appeal to a broad selection. It's the same reason articles explain acronyms even if 99% of readers know it - new readers won't.
I think what I was on about really was lack of clarity, not excess. i.e. the classic teaching is to put at the head of an essay what you are going to talk about then do it. And in the body of an essay you head each chapter similarly. And within chapters paragraphs do the same thing.
This man (?) sets out by telling us we're looking at a riddle.
Since then I've had a couple of interactions with him as you can see and he (?) leaps to the ad hominem, as you can see.
I read 'hate when authors explain..' as referring to a dislike of having things spelled out too clearly for you. An 'excess' of explanation: you'd rather find out for yourself.
"the classic teaching is to put at the head of an essay what you are going to talk about then do it" - rote, formal, boring writing styles generically churned out by mass media is precisely why people read Substack.
"Since then I've had a couple of interactions with him as you can see and he (?) leaps to the ad hominem, as you can see."
Actually, criticising your own lack of writing ability isn't an ad hominem - it is a critique of your supposed expertise which you're attempting to exert. You come here trying to write, supposedly, suggestions, based on a single paragraph taken out of context, whilst having none of the experience, talent or qualifications that would lend *credibility* to your remarks.
If you can't handle the same criticisms sent back at you because it is an "ad hominem" and a "game", maybe you ought to reflect on your own writings.
He is a puppet of the zs the only thing these crazy delusional twats do is as they are told by their paymasters. Trouble is the paymaster has turned into a monster and the whole world can see it. But the puppets can mot admit it.
The picture of 6 year old Bebe King on the First Post site looks a bit off. The head is too big, it is the length of from the neck to the waistline and the facial features are of someone much older. Bushy eyebrows, jowly cheeks of someone overweight but the body is
Yes, that image appears to have the incorrect image size ratio (essentially they've squashed it on the horizontal to make it fit within their article boundaries). This can occur if somebody forgets to set a fixed ratio when rescaling the size of an image (I.E. they only resized it horizontally and did not also scale it vertically).
Many layers to this onion
Many onions in the sack.
Always a good read. ✓
Kier ('I'd rather be in Davos") Starmer says it all! He's selling the UK down the river to hell (his bosses = The WEF). He needs removing from office. He, along with Gates's CORRUPT WHO (ex-World Health Organisation) owns the judiciary!
We, the people, will not accept the insanity of the WEF's Police State when we remain fit and healthy by refusing poisonous 'Experimental injections' that kill or simply curtail Life Expectancy!
Give me/us just one example of a legal case that involved Pfizer and injuries post-jab. I really hope you can prove me to be an unreasonable sceptic.
Keep fighting the cretins that think this oppression will be accepted by we, the masses!
Best Regards!
Unjabbed Mick. (UK). I'll live linger without evil medical intervention!
Uh... did you reply to the wrong article/Substack?
"I'm dubious of your confidence tat the judiciary would dare to find Pfizer, et al, guilty of wrongdoing."
Pfizer isn't mentioned in this article.
Sorry, rushing to save the planet! I'll slow down a tad! Mick.
No worries (I've done that before too), I'd love to know what article you were replying to. Sounded interesting!
No chance that I could back-track 'cos there's so much B/S that we have to sift through every day.
My focus is usually on Big Pharma 'ZERO LIABILITY' and 'Excess Deaths', both of which are deliberately ignored by governments, media and those with the responsibility to investigate such concerning anomalies. And, believe it or not, I have 'got a life'.
My other diversions are, TV MMA and soccer, playing snooker, Karaoke and spending 3 months each year in our 'off-grid' island home in the Gulf of Mexico. As well as keeping our UK house and gardens in good order (DIY, gardening, maintenance, etc,.) Regards! Mick.
Maybe the writer is stating a point that needs to be made.
lol. Been there. Done that 🤣🤣
Undoubtedly correct about the Israeli angle. The Jewish elite in Britain is responsible for mass immigration into England, going back to the Windrush and then through the New Labour party of Miliband, Roche, Straw (all Jewish) that deliberately flooded the country. However, any discontent was discouraged for years, up until now... rather odd, no?
The problem with this analysis, though, is that there is indeed a simmering anger in the country for absolutely understandable reasons. We know from the Rotherham report (written by left wingers) that hundreds of thousands of children were abused by foreign males for decades. The government abetted this, the police 'lost' evidence.
It is simply ludicrous to expect a population to accept that. If Muslim males went into India and tried to act like that they would be instantly attacked. The Chinese wouldn't allow it, the Arabs, the Thais, etc. Russians beat the crap out of Arabs that were dumb enough to attack women in Murmansk. The government is likely to lose control over the population in the long run, no matter how much money and influence is thrown at the problem.
"The problem with this analysis, though, is that there is indeed a simmering anger in the country for absolutely understandable reasons."
The anger is misdirected, as said. Exploited, if you prefer.
The stabber, in this given case, is the given justification, but he isn't from the Islamic community. He's not even Arabic. And it didn't happen in Leeds, Manchester, or Liverpool; it happened in Cardiff.
The EDL are proxies for the IDF exploiting this as an opportunity to sow dissent between two crucial groups they're opposed to: pro-Palestinians (Muslims, "liberals"), and the British opposed to overseas wars and genocide ("Centrists", "Right-Leaning").
If the riots were 'genuine', you'd expect either the African or black communities to be attacked. But they're being very carefully avoided. So I don't buy the bullshit it is about migration policies (most of the migrants arrive in Southhampton, and those are typically from Morocco).
The Islamic community will see the attacks as being unjustified, given in this case they weren't the ones responsible for it, and will no doubt retaliate, which is precisely what the IDF are hoping to instigate so the two sides fight, also exposing actual dissenters willing to fight in the process (UK govt cherry picks arrests - hence the facial recognition bullshit).
A divided Britain embroiled in a small civil war can't interfere with Israel's wider war with either Iran, Lebanon or Gaza. Or expose the fact so much of the UK Parliament is beholden financially to foreign interests. In-fact, there was almost a point of unity between "left" and "right" on the issue of overseas genocide - something they don't want to happen.
In reality, if you were actually looking for change, the protests would be against the government that caused the issues in the first place, and their respective tyranny.
Once you change the government, you can change the policies. Can't vote your way out of tyranny.
Good connections pointed out that I hadn’t known previously..
That sounds like a fair analysis to me.
I’ve noticed that the big right wing channels are all definitely pro Israel.
Mayher Tousi for example.
Brilliant analysis!
Outstanding analysis 👍.
Thoughts? Confusion. What was the message? You are writers? Journalists? Masters of the language? Publicists? And you start an essay with this warning:
"This will be an extremely intricate situation to navigate, so even if you don’t agree with a given point, bear with the article, because there’s a lot of hidden elements to unpack which may end up changing your mind on the wider context."
Oh... so I'm not reading an article, an essay, I'm 'navigating a situation' ?
wtf does that mean?
I suggest you take a course in simple English writing and learn to say what you mean up front.
This essay: 10/100.
I find it interesting someone whose Substack literally consists of short broken sentences with meaningless titles like "Ya Russkii", whom I'm guessing does not speak nor write English as a first language, would opt to offer some criticisms for better article writing, so I will respond in kind.
"What was the message?" - I'm impressed you read the article and didn't draw any conclusions or insights from it. I strongly suspect you just read the first line... then skipped the article to post an angry comment. There's some photographs if you're illiterate, some of which are pretty self-evident.
"You are writers? Journalists? Masters of the language? Publicists?" - no, this is The Daily Beagle. No profession specified nor required. No bragging or claims to greatness put forward.
" so I'm not reading an article, an essay, I'm 'navigating a situation' ?"
Perhaps this is a result of a translation issues between English and I presume Russian.
In English there's a concept known as context; the situation is what is being discussed in the article. The situation in the UK - the tyranny of Keir Starmer and the False Flag Protests (it's in the title, you... might wish to read it sometime). Most native English speakers would understand that is what it is referring to. You know, from the common phrase "we have a situation here"; which is an English idiom.
"wtf does that mean?" - it means the article writer themselves has to navigate the situation.
"I suggest you take a course in simple English writing" - I cannot help but notice your Substack is less successful and far less active than mine, so you'll understand if I reject the criticism.
"say what you mean up front." - oh yes, because smashing down the front doors is always the best solution when it comes to the inflamed situation of politics.
"This essay: 10/100." - you're supposed to reduce fractions in maths, so this should be 1/10. Although having seen how... unsuccessful your Substack is (and how bland the writing happens to be, yikes), I'll take it as a compliment.
Next time, read the title: it nearly always summarises the article. Cheers.
Good one. I suggest you leave it sit for perhaps a month and then re - read what you've written and see what you think of your style, your content, your attitude, your English, your manners.... The whole thing.
Give it a month. I'll be interested to know what you have to say then. That'll give me another data point I can use to get a fix on you. I currently have only two: the article (?) in question and this post. A third should allow for triangulation: a fix.
Personally, I think you're rattled by the criticism of Israel, and I think lacking any ability to critique the subject matter, you try to nitpick nothings over sentence structure, whilst trying to project a faux sense of superiority, that you simply don't have.
When I need advice from a Substack that is... less successful, I will give you a bell, but in the meantime, I strongly think maybe you should reflect on how your own manners come across.
I kind of hate when authors explain before the jump right in, too!
However, knock out the paragraph that you hate and the rest is gold.
98/100
I recognise a lot of people hate the first paragraph opener. This is typically not included in most articles, with a few exceptions, one of which is hot political commentary that could inflame or anger readers; the first paragraph then becomes the writer's call for calm.
For the already calm readers it is redundant, but people forget there's a lot of strong political opinions out there and I have to appeal to a broad selection. It's the same reason articles explain acronyms even if 99% of readers know it - new readers won't.
I think what I was on about really was lack of clarity, not excess. i.e. the classic teaching is to put at the head of an essay what you are going to talk about then do it. And in the body of an essay you head each chapter similarly. And within chapters paragraphs do the same thing.
This man (?) sets out by telling us we're looking at a riddle.
Since then I've had a couple of interactions with him as you can see and he (?) leaps to the ad hominem, as you can see.
I will not play that game so I'm done with him.
I said nothing about excess.
I read 'hate when authors explain..' as referring to a dislike of having things spelled out too clearly for you. An 'excess' of explanation: you'd rather find out for yourself.
I find that a valid interpretation of your words.
Can't think what else they may mean.
More like lacking in sophistication.
yep. okay.
"the classic teaching is to put at the head of an essay what you are going to talk about then do it" - rote, formal, boring writing styles generically churned out by mass media is precisely why people read Substack.
"Since then I've had a couple of interactions with him as you can see and he (?) leaps to the ad hominem, as you can see."
Actually, criticising your own lack of writing ability isn't an ad hominem - it is a critique of your supposed expertise which you're attempting to exert. You come here trying to write, supposedly, suggestions, based on a single paragraph taken out of context, whilst having none of the experience, talent or qualifications that would lend *credibility* to your remarks.
If you can't handle the same criticisms sent back at you because it is an "ad hominem" and a "game", maybe you ought to reflect on your own writings.
Exactly my feelings.
We Brits were stirred up by Israel:https://open.substack.com/pub/thedailybeagle/p/keir-starmers-tyranny?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios
Sorry for you typical cut off your nose to spite now watch as the uk crumbles
Reform was many your last chance?
He is a puppet of the zs the only thing these crazy delusional twats do is as they are told by their paymasters. Trouble is the paymaster has turned into a monster and the whole world can see it. But the puppets can mot admit it.
The herds of modern moron slaves just persist in NOT UNDERSTANDING IT!
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-d08
(just replace those USofT aholes with UK ones!)
Douglas Murray is another cheer leader for all things 🇮🇱
Thank you for the extra background information.
The picture of 6 year old Bebe King on the First Post site looks a bit off. The head is too big, it is the length of from the neck to the waistline and the facial features are of someone much older. Bushy eyebrows, jowly cheeks of someone overweight but the body is
very thin.
Yes, that image appears to have the incorrect image size ratio (essentially they've squashed it on the horizontal to make it fit within their article boundaries). This can occur if somebody forgets to set a fixed ratio when rescaling the size of an image (I.E. they only resized it horizontally and did not also scale it vertically).