Crazy how bland my kids' tastes are. Watching them eat a 'rice sandwich' in a pitta right now.
2
0
5
249
Sam Melia retweeted
Prison vs The World - Sam Melia youtu.be/5xGQGdl3hHg?is… via @RealSamMelia
0
2
5
252
Sam Melia retweeted
BBC PROPAGANDA EXPOSED - FULL VIDEO
This is my latest video, it exploded on Youtube. It's the best performing video I have made so far.
Here it is in full for you on X. Bookmark this one for later if you can't catch it now.
Share this far and wide - the depths of BBC Left ening and this 2007 Documentary couldn't be more blatant.
This is my latest video, it exploded on Youtube. It's the best performing video I have made so far.
Here it is in full for you on X. Bookmark this one for later if you can't catch it now.
Share this far and wide - the depths of BBC Left ening and this 2007 Documentary couldn't be more blatant.
41
438
1,224
17,673
Sam Melia retweeted
Let's Talk About Sometime Leftist Darling Russell Brand (w/ Mark Collett) x.com/i/broadcasts/2…
18
29
180
12,035
Sam Melia retweeted
The Kent Nationalist Movement has had a busy week hanging up remembrance flags, laying poppy wreaths, and attending local events over the weekend. #KentNationalistMovement #Dartford
12
23
211
5,059
Sam Melia retweeted
Since this was filmed native British births have dropped to almost half of total and several of our largest cities have become minority British.
That has 'coincided' with economic, social and cultural decline.
That has 'coincided' with economic, social and cultural decline.
Russell Brand arguing with English nationalists in 2002.
26
244
3,845
38,942
Sam Melia retweeted
You're wrong about WW2 and the "Nazi" myths, but that involves a lot of layered propaganda that's difficult to disentangle. You need to understand things like memory conformity, the development of the story, et cetera.
But there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, even prima facie case you could possibly make that rejecting a white peace from Imperial Germany in April of 1915, was a good thing.
archive.nytimes.com/iht-retrospect…
- You can claim the talk about the Belgian Congo are absurd, or that you disagree with the refusal to indemnify Belgium.
There are two problems with these "objections"
1. This is an opening pitch from Germany. If the British wanted peace, they could at least agree to talks and try to talk Germany down. The British refused any talks whatsoever.
It is standard practice to enter negotiations demanding more than you really want.
To refuse ANY peace talks whatsoever on the basis of Germany's opening gambit is a bloodthirsty form of dishonesty.
2. These demands, even if unreasonable and the Germans unwilling to budge on them - hardly constitute an existential threat to anyone.
This reality needs to be stated openly and plainly. There was no existential threat to France, or Russia, or the British Empire, or even Belgium. If you're super-concerned about Serbia (moreso than Britain was in the 1940s, first couping them and using them as a speedbump against Hitler in 1941, then handing them over to Stalin in 1945), well - maybe FUCKING TALK about it like a HUMAN BEING, not some war-death-golem.
There's one explanation for why Britain refused talks of any sort: they were worried that the Germans would agree to something sensible.
And when you go back to World War 2 - there are all of these "reasons" for that war.
You say Hitler violated the Munich agreement, therefore he cannot be trusted. I invite you to pull your head from your ass and actually read it (it's not long).
encyc.org/wiki/Text_of_t…
Hitler didn't exercise his right to plebiscites on additional territories by the way.
Hitler also never promised no more territorial expansion, that was a deliberate mistranslation of a speech which - in case you didn't know - wouldn't constitute a treaty violation anyway!
I'm sorry if Chamberlain impressed his hallucinations of what Hitler agreed to onto the British public.
Think of it like this: how do we know the US Civil War wasn't about slavery?
Because if it were, Lincoln would sent an ultimatum to the CSA saying "free the slaves and we'll recognize the CSA".
Now, what "freedom" means, and the logistics of it all are something tremendous to work out, but broad strokes - if slavery was the problem, then work to solve the problem.
Okay, if the occupation of Czechia was a problem, then Henderson and Halifax ought to have approached Hitler and said to leave Czechia.
What would have been the downside to doing so? If Hitler says "no", then you're back where you started. If Hitler says "yes", but doesn't follow through, well now you have real evidence of Hitler's untrustworthiness AND you've likely reduced the integration of Czechia into the German war economy at least slightly.
And if Hitler says "yes" and follows through, well - then the problem that Chamberlain, Churchill, Henderson and Halifax were screaming bloody murder that they just cared so fucking much about - would be solved!
Or, and this is often brought up, "The Nazis secured 35 divisions worth of military equipment from the Czechs".
Well first of all, that's strong evidence of Hitler's claim that Czechia lay as a dagger deep inside Germany, ready to strike at any moment of Germany's preoccupation. But second off - if that equipment is TRULY a concern, then ask for that military equipment to be redistributed between Britain, France and Germany. The worst that could happen is Hitler says no.
There is an enormous volume of negative space, what the British DIDN'T DO, that evidences what they truly wanted: another death war against Germany.
There were no overtures to actually solve the issues that the British supposedly cared about.
Emil Hacha requires a guarantee of independence from Britain. Not only is he told "no", he's told by Halifax to travel to Berlin and make a deal with Germany. Halifax knew precisely what he was doing.
Then, instead of trying to set up some sort of arrangement wrt Czechia, Britain immediately fires off war guarantees to Poland, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia.
Incidentally, the guarantee bound Britain to war with Poland even if Poland was deemed the aggressor, though Beck didn't directly invade Germany proper - as that would put Britain in an awkward position.
Instead he occupies Danzig. Technically, as a member of the League of Nations, Britain was bound to go to war WITH POLAND to uphold the sovereignty of Danzig.
The opening shots of the German invasion was an obsolete German dreadnought firing on Polish positions in Danzig.
On September 2, Hitler agreed to a ceasefire and mediation with Mussolini. This is not what someone determined to conquer Poland would do - you don't halt an offensive right off the jump if you had some long-range goal of conquering Poland.
But as we know, Beck rejected peace, and the next day Britain and France declared war, starting the war that would kill millions of Europeans, hand over half of Europe to Stalin, with the British refusing to even entertain the possibility of peace.
But there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, even prima facie case you could possibly make that rejecting a white peace from Imperial Germany in April of 1915, was a good thing.
archive.nytimes.com/iht-retrospect…
- You can claim the talk about the Belgian Congo are absurd, or that you disagree with the refusal to indemnify Belgium.
There are two problems with these "objections"
1. This is an opening pitch from Germany. If the British wanted peace, they could at least agree to talks and try to talk Germany down. The British refused any talks whatsoever.
It is standard practice to enter negotiations demanding more than you really want.
To refuse ANY peace talks whatsoever on the basis of Germany's opening gambit is a bloodthirsty form of dishonesty.
2. These demands, even if unreasonable and the Germans unwilling to budge on them - hardly constitute an existential threat to anyone.
This reality needs to be stated openly and plainly. There was no existential threat to France, or Russia, or the British Empire, or even Belgium. If you're super-concerned about Serbia (moreso than Britain was in the 1940s, first couping them and using them as a speedbump against Hitler in 1941, then handing them over to Stalin in 1945), well - maybe FUCKING TALK about it like a HUMAN BEING, not some war-death-golem.
There's one explanation for why Britain refused talks of any sort: they were worried that the Germans would agree to something sensible.
And when you go back to World War 2 - there are all of these "reasons" for that war.
You say Hitler violated the Munich agreement, therefore he cannot be trusted. I invite you to pull your head from your ass and actually read it (it's not long).
encyc.org/wiki/Text_of_t…
Hitler didn't exercise his right to plebiscites on additional territories by the way.
Hitler also never promised no more territorial expansion, that was a deliberate mistranslation of a speech which - in case you didn't know - wouldn't constitute a treaty violation anyway!
I'm sorry if Chamberlain impressed his hallucinations of what Hitler agreed to onto the British public.
Think of it like this: how do we know the US Civil War wasn't about slavery?
Because if it were, Lincoln would sent an ultimatum to the CSA saying "free the slaves and we'll recognize the CSA".
Now, what "freedom" means, and the logistics of it all are something tremendous to work out, but broad strokes - if slavery was the problem, then work to solve the problem.
Okay, if the occupation of Czechia was a problem, then Henderson and Halifax ought to have approached Hitler and said to leave Czechia.
What would have been the downside to doing so? If Hitler says "no", then you're back where you started. If Hitler says "yes", but doesn't follow through, well now you have real evidence of Hitler's untrustworthiness AND you've likely reduced the integration of Czechia into the German war economy at least slightly.
And if Hitler says "yes" and follows through, well - then the problem that Chamberlain, Churchill, Henderson and Halifax were screaming bloody murder that they just cared so fucking much about - would be solved!
Or, and this is often brought up, "The Nazis secured 35 divisions worth of military equipment from the Czechs".
Well first of all, that's strong evidence of Hitler's claim that Czechia lay as a dagger deep inside Germany, ready to strike at any moment of Germany's preoccupation. But second off - if that equipment is TRULY a concern, then ask for that military equipment to be redistributed between Britain, France and Germany. The worst that could happen is Hitler says no.
There is an enormous volume of negative space, what the British DIDN'T DO, that evidences what they truly wanted: another death war against Germany.
There were no overtures to actually solve the issues that the British supposedly cared about.
Emil Hacha requires a guarantee of independence from Britain. Not only is he told "no", he's told by Halifax to travel to Berlin and make a deal with Germany. Halifax knew precisely what he was doing.
Then, instead of trying to set up some sort of arrangement wrt Czechia, Britain immediately fires off war guarantees to Poland, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia.
Incidentally, the guarantee bound Britain to war with Poland even if Poland was deemed the aggressor, though Beck didn't directly invade Germany proper - as that would put Britain in an awkward position.
Instead he occupies Danzig. Technically, as a member of the League of Nations, Britain was bound to go to war WITH POLAND to uphold the sovereignty of Danzig.
The opening shots of the German invasion was an obsolete German dreadnought firing on Polish positions in Danzig.
On September 2, Hitler agreed to a ceasefire and mediation with Mussolini. This is not what someone determined to conquer Poland would do - you don't halt an offensive right off the jump if you had some long-range goal of conquering Poland.
But as we know, Beck rejected peace, and the next day Britain and France declared war, starting the war that would kill millions of Europeans, hand over half of Europe to Stalin, with the British refusing to even entertain the possibility of peace.
On Remembrance Sunday, we should not just mourn, but be grateful too.
If we hadn’t taken Germany on twice, the German Empire would have dominated Europe much as the USSR sought to.
Well over a million Britons died for our freedom.
45
280
1,970
68,464
Sam Melia retweeted
One of the most impressive and well-argued tweets I've ever read.
I envy Ryan's depth of knowledge and reasoning skills.
We're lucky that he uses his powers for good, otherwise by now he'd be holding the world hostage with a giant laser coming out in the middle of a volcano. 🧠
I envy Ryan's depth of knowledge and reasoning skills.
We're lucky that he uses his powers for good, otherwise by now he'd be holding the world hostage with a giant laser coming out in the middle of a volcano. 🧠
You're wrong about WW2 and the "Nazi" myths, but that involves a lot of layered propaganda that's difficult to disentangle. You need to understand things like memory conformity, the development of the story, et cetera.
But there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, even prima facie case you could possibly make that rejecting a white peace from Imperial Germany in April of 1915, was a good thing.
archive.nytimes.com/iht-retrospect…
- You can claim the talk about the Belgian Congo are absurd, or that you disagree with the refusal to indemnify Belgium.
There are two problems with these "objections"
1. This is an opening pitch from Germany. If the British wanted peace, they could at least agree to talks and try to talk Germany down. The British refused any talks whatsoever.
It is standard practice to enter negotiations demanding more than you really want.
To refuse ANY peace talks whatsoever on the basis of Germany's opening gambit is a bloodthirsty form of dishonesty.
2. These demands, even if unreasonable and the Germans unwilling to budge on them - hardly constitute an existential threat to anyone.
This reality needs to be stated openly and plainly. There was no existential threat to France, or Russia, or the British Empire, or even Belgium. If you're super-concerned about Serbia (moreso than Britain was in the 1940s, first couping them and using them as a speedbump against Hitler in 1941, then handing them over to Stalin in 1945), well - maybe FUCKING TALK about it like a HUMAN BEING, not some war-death-golem.
There's one explanation for why Britain refused talks of any sort: they were worried that the Germans would agree to something sensible.
And when you go back to World War 2 - there are all of these "reasons" for that war.
You say Hitler violated the Munich agreement, therefore he cannot be trusted. I invite you to pull your head from your ass and actually read it (it's not long).
encyc.org/wiki/Text_of_t…
Hitler didn't exercise his right to plebiscites on additional territories by the way.
Hitler also never promised no more territorial expansion, that was a deliberate mistranslation of a speech which - in case you didn't know - wouldn't constitute a treaty violation anyway!
I'm sorry if Chamberlain impressed his hallucinations of what Hitler agreed to onto the British public.
Think of it like this: how do we know the US Civil War wasn't about slavery?
Because if it were, Lincoln would sent an ultimatum to the CSA saying "free the slaves and we'll recognize the CSA".
Now, what "freedom" means, and the logistics of it all are something tremendous to work out, but broad strokes - if slavery was the problem, then work to solve the problem.
Okay, if the occupation of Czechia was a problem, then Henderson and Halifax ought to have approached Hitler and said to leave Czechia.
What would have been the downside to doing so? If Hitler says "no", then you're back where you started. If Hitler says "yes", but doesn't follow through, well now you have real evidence of Hitler's untrustworthiness AND you've likely reduced the integration of Czechia into the German war economy at least slightly.
And if Hitler says "yes" and follows through, well - then the problem that Chamberlain, Churchill, Henderson and Halifax were screaming bloody murder that they just cared so fucking much about - would be solved!
Or, and this is often brought up, "The Nazis secured 35 divisions worth of military equipment from the Czechs".
Well first of all, that's strong evidence of Hitler's claim that Czechia lay as a dagger deep inside Germany, ready to strike at any moment of Germany's preoccupation. But second off - if that equipment is TRULY a concern, then ask for that military equipment to be redistributed between Britain, France and Germany. The worst that could happen is Hitler says no.
There is an enormous volume of negative space, what the British DIDN'T DO, that evidences what they truly wanted: another death war against Germany.
There were no overtures to actually solve the issues that the British supposedly cared about.
Emil Hacha requires a guarantee of independence from Britain. Not only is he told "no", he's told by Halifax to travel to Berlin and make a deal with Germany. Halifax knew precisely what he was doing.
Then, instead of trying to set up some sort of arrangement wrt Czechia, Britain immediately fires off war guarantees to Poland, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia.
Incidentally, the guarantee bound Britain to war with Poland even if Poland was deemed the aggressor, though Beck didn't directly invade Germany proper - as that would put Britain in an awkward position.
Instead he occupies Danzig. Technically, as a member of the League of Nations, Britain was bound to go to war WITH POLAND to uphold the sovereignty of Danzig.
The opening shots of the German invasion was an obsolete German dreadnought firing on Polish positions in Danzig.
On September 2, Hitler agreed to a ceasefire and mediation with Mussolini. This is not what someone determined to conquer Poland would do - you don't halt an offensive right off the jump if you had some long-range goal of conquering Poland.
But as we know, Beck rejected peace, and the next day Britain and France declared war, starting the war that would kill millions of Europeans, hand over half of Europe to Stalin, with the British refusing to even entertain the possibility of peace.
10
37
741
38,057
Sam Melia retweeted
Scotland has a drink called IRN-BRU. It's orange for some reason, and tastes like metal. To me, it's really gross, but I still drink it when visiting because Scotland.
But here's the deal. Irn-Bru actually has iron in it. AND Scotland is notoriously infested with banshees, lins, all of whom hate cold iron.
THEREFORE I have realized that the true purpose of Irn-Bru is to prove to another Scot that you are a real human, not a woodwife or a kelpie in disguise. This is also probably why the Scots kept trying to foist it on me. They had to be sure I wasn't going to steal their reflection out of the mirror or something.
But here's the deal. Irn-Bru actually has iron in it. AND Scotland is notoriously infested with banshees, lins, all of whom hate cold iron.
THEREFORE I have realized that the true purpose of Irn-Bru is to prove to another Scot that you are a real human, not a woodwife or a kelpie in disguise. This is also probably why the Scots kept trying to foist it on me. They had to be sure I wasn't going to steal their reflection out of the mirror or something.
176
282
4,454
314,875
An honour to be able to hold an antique naval flag that saw action in World War 1 alongside a Navy veteran.
6
16
297
17,614
Sam Melia retweeted
Even if Russell Brand wasn't guilty of r*pe, I'd still be happy with his conviction and whatever sentence he gets on the grounds of it being justice for his childhood dog.
I mean, he wrote the below extract himself. As if he thought people would think: "Oh that's mean, but what hap he is!"
If he could do this to a defenceless animal and laugh about it years later, it tells you a lot about his treatment of those around him who he saw as vulnerable.
What an evil prick. Fuck him.
I mean, he wrote the below extract himself. As if he thought people would think: "Oh that's mean, but what hap he is!"
If he could do this to a defenceless animal and laugh about it years later, it tells you a lot about his treatment of those around him who he saw as vulnerable.
What an evil prick. Fuck him.
378
611
4,390
258,360
FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS CASE:
Russell Brand - Guilty - The Case Explained
8pm UK time (3pm Eastern Time)
Tonight, I take a deep dive into the Russell Brand trial, examining the evidence, the testimony, the judge’s directions and finally giving my own unique perspective on the man and the way he behaved.
- The evidence examined
- His wife's testimony
- His establishment links
RUMBLE: rumble.com/v7hx4iw-russel…
ODYSEE: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
Russell Brand - Guilty - The Case Explained
8pm UK time (3pm Eastern Time)
Tonight, I take a deep dive into the Russell Brand trial, examining the evidence, the testimony, the judge’s directions and finally giving my own unique perspective on the man and the way he behaved.
- The evidence examined
- His wife's testimony
- His establishment links
RUMBLE: rumble.com/v7hx4iw-russel…
ODYSEE: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
3
13
56
4,351
Sam Melia retweeted
My study of the Black Prince equestrian in Leeds, by Sir Thomas Brock, 1903. Pencil on A3 paper 🇬🇧
4
14
152
1,903
Sam Melia retweeted
The ‘Nazi’ on the left in this documentary who you were supposed to hate turned out to be a family man.
The guy on the right exposing him turned out to have been raping women around the time this was made.
The guy on the right exposing him turned out to have been raping women around the time this was made.
Russell Brand spent years attacking the ‘far-right’, calling us evil and twisted, all whilst it turns out he was being a sexual predator.
Ironic. Let him rot.
25
78
851
21,201
Sam Melia retweeted
Patriotic Weekly Review is LIVE at 7pm UK time (2pm EST) with special guest Greg Johnson.
- US Midterm blue wave
- Democrats take Congress
- MAGA civil war
You can find tonight's episode of PWR LIVE on:
Rumble: rumble.com/v7htiug-patrio…
Odysee: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
- US Midterm blue wave
- Democrats take Congress
- MAGA civil war
You can find tonight's episode of PWR LIVE on:
Rumble: rumble.com/v7htiug-patrio…
Odysee: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
2
10
44
3,093
Patriotic Weekly Review is LIVE at 7pm UK time (2pm EST) with special guest Greg Johnson.
- US Midterm blue wave
- Democrats take Congress
- MAGA civil war
You can find tonight's episode of PWR LIVE on:
Rumble: rumble.com/v7htiug-patrio…
Odysee: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
- US Midterm blue wave
- Democrats take Congress
- MAGA civil war
You can find tonight's episode of PWR LIVE on:
Rumble: rumble.com/v7htiug-patrio…
Odysee: odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6…
2
10
44
3,093