"Council LOSES High Court fight to bar asylum seekers from North Stafford hotel!" Blares the headline in the Stoke Sentinel, which used to be my local paper, and which I still read every day.
"Shock over Home Office plan to house up to 84 asylum seekers in Huddersfield village," reports The Examiner, my current local paper, adding, "Kirklees Council says it was not consulted on the proposals and the location is not suitable."
You will find similar headlines in local papers everywhere, reporting that large factions of men (always men, always single, always military-aged) are being stationed by the Home Office in locations all over the country, expressly against the wishes of the local councils of these locations.
Councils with long and distinguished histories of providing asylum to genuine refugees are telling central government that these plans are completely inappropriate, the locations unsuitable, the implications undesirable - and yet, central government is totally disregarding them, even overriding them in court, to get these men placed where they want them.
If anyone thinks this is how things normally work with real asylum seekers, please think again. Shadowy central government agencies overruling - and often not even consulting - local councils, before stationing (and I use that word intentionally) large squads of fighting-age men in locations totally unsuitable for real asylum seekers, and with no expense spared, is not how any government has ever behaved in relation to actual refugees in the past (preferring rather and instead to dump them with random members of the public for a breadline stipend) and therefore it should not be assumed that is what they are doing now.
I make no secret of the fact that I believe these men are UN soldiers here on dark ops, a notion seemingly confirmed by a recent video where a member of the public approached them outside their quarters (a luxury hotel), and asked what they were doing there - why the government was lavishing a fortune on them whilst native Britons freeze and starve. Their spokesperson clarified that they were not here getting government freebies, but rather, they were working. "Actually, we're military guys," he said. "We work with your special forces".
Given the way the government is conducting itself with placing these people, and the immense sums they are spending on them, that they are working military assets simply makes far more sense than the idea they are unemployed illegal immigrants who the government will nevertheless lavish a fortune on to sit around in luxury hotels all day doing nothing - especially in locations which are poorly served in terms of employment opportunities and other other ways to integrate into the community - which both the locations mentioned at the beginning of this article, known intimately to me, are.
The North Stafford hotel, directly opposite Stoke-on-Trent train station, is surrounded by absolutely nothing - there are no shops, no cafes, no commerce or industry - for foreign strangers who may not speak the language, it is an utterly ridiculous location, if we are to believe they are here to seek asylum and integrate into the culture.
Furthermore, the presence of 88 single men in one building represents a very real and present danger to the immediate stability and safety of the surrounding area, whether they are soldiers or not.
You will note if you go out at night in any city centre, many pubs and clubs have rules about not letting large groups of just men in. This is because large groups of men, especially young men, are a risk - they are far more likely to cause trouble than mixed-sex groups or groups of just women.
This is a known and non-controversial fact about human nature, about young male energies and propensities, and, indeed, this was one key reason for the evolution all over the world of 'marriage' - because large groups of single and untethered young men make a society dangerous and unstable, and social engineers everywhere realised this, hence the invention of marriage, and why virtually every successful and advanced society in history has adopted it.
There is a misconception about marriage, or marital-type relationships (e.g., one man, one woman, monogamy), in that it was invented solely or primarily to control / oppress women, when this is not really true, given that large groups of single young women do not make a society dangerous and unstable - large groups of single young men do, so to stabilise your society, it's much more important to control the men than the women.
Without marital-type relationships being strongly promoted as the ideal and the norm, societies almost always end up organising themselves along polygamous lines (polygamy can also be known as 'hypergamy', the tendency of women to seek out high-status men), whereby the higher-status men have multiple 'wives' (hareems, concubines, etc.) and the lower status ones have none. Think the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints, where male 'elders' would often round up the teenage boys and send them away, because they wanted to keep the teenage girls for themselves, to add to their ever-expanding wife collection. They send the boys away because they know the presence of many young males, without a partner or family of their own to channel their energies into, will become gang-like and dangerous.
Polygamous cultures are therefore associated with increased levels of violence and disorder, because large numbers of 'spare' young men, who do not have a partner or family to channel their energies into, can become dangerous and destructive in a number of ways.
If you want a stable, civilised, advanced society, the energies of young men have to be channelled in a positive, productive direction, and the best system any society has come up with is the concept of "marriage" (which really just means one man, one woman, monogamy, regardless of whether you have the piece of paper). Marital-type relationships also tether young men to families and communities, and all social scientists worth their salt will tell you the most stable societies are those that are the most integrated and balanced - with men and women, children and grandparents, all living alongside each other.
Compartmentalising people into large groups based on their age or gender is not natural and not desirable, and the most dangerous age/gender cohort, in terms of rates of violent crime and disorder, is roaming groups of single young men. Therefore, if you want to make a society more dangerous and more volatile, all you need to do is dump a load of young men in it, who are not partnered, have no children, and who are not tethered to the community (since, in this case, they are from completely different cultures and may not even speak the native language).
Of course, it would be utterly ridiculous to believe the Home Office doesn't know any of this. It has dumped these men in these wholly unsuitable locations because it knows all this. Total destabilisation, and consequent destruction, of our societies is the goal, as we know, and disproportionately large numbers of single young males is one of the most tried and tested ways to do it (even if these men are not soldiers, though I remain firmly convinced they are).
If I was still living in Stoke - which I did, on my own in a flat, between the ages of 19 and 23 - I would be absolutely furious, and more than a little frightened, by these developments. I often used to frequent Stoke station late at night on my own, coming back from seeing friends in Manchester or Birmingham, and could spend up to 30 minutes or more standing directly outside the North Stafford hotel waiting for a bus or a taxi.
It's not a residential area and there aren't any pubs or late-night shops, so sometimes, I could be waiting completely on my own - making me therefore vulnerable. I generally felt quite safe as Stoke isn't a particularly high crime area - but would I now, knowing 88 military-aged men were stationed directly next to the bus-stop?
No, I would not, especially knowing that many of these men come from cultures that have very different - and what many would call very misogynistic - attitudes towards women, than are common in the UK - especially women out on their own after dark.
To be clear, it is entirely possible, and even likely, that many of these men come from ultra-religious cultures which believe women should not leave the house without a male relative and full body covering. So, a woman out alone, after dark, displaying her hair or any other body part, cannot assume she is safe around such men.
I think there is a real blind spot amongst modern people, especially of the more liberal persuasion, in fully grasping that these attitudes to women are still alive and well in the 21st century, and shared by millions of people, including entire countries and cultures. There seems to be this sort of glib dismissal that, "don't be ridiculous, as if these men are going to bring their 3,000 years old dogma that they have believed all their lives to this country. As soon as their boots hit English soil, they will instantly become right-on, progressive, PC liberals!"
Well, um, no. They will not. They will bring their beliefs with them and they will stick to them. When I was at university in the USA, one of my fellow students was a girl from Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact she was 25, she had to be chaperoned everywhere by a male relative, so her brother (her YOUNGER brother), lived with her, came with her to lectures, attended her coffee shop appointments with friends - everything. She invited me to visit her in Saudi but noted, quite casually, that I'd have to bring a male relative with me or I wouldn't be allowed into the country.
So, these are not medieval and antiquated attitudes consigned to the history books. They still exist in the here and now - and, with the current invasion under way, we may want to put significant emphasis on the "here".
Do I know for certain these men have these attitudes? No. But I don't know for certain that they don't, and nor does anybody else, because, in reality, we don't know anything about them. We do not know what countries they are from. We do not know what beliefs they hold. And critically, we do not know why they are here.
I think it is a result of decades of brutalising social engineering telling British natives how evil their culture is, how barbarous and rapacious, how hideously our ancestors behaved and how we owe grovelling reparations to literally every other culture on the planet, that has resulted in this situation. Too many people feel standing up and saying NO, this is not safe, this is not right, these people are not welcome here, would render them "racist" or some other inane liberalese slur. Look: I don't care if these men are white, black, green, orange, or polka-dotted (please note I didn't want the Ukrainians here either - certainly not in the way they were recklessly and irresponsibly dumped - and they are white) - I don't want large factions of foreign male strangers, whose presence inevitably represents increased instability and threat, dumped in unsuitable locations. Even the local councils agree it's not appropriate. So why is it happening?
Genuine asylum seekers very frequently come in family groups, because what strong young men would flee a dangerous warzone alone, leaving much weaker and more vulnerable family members to meet their fate? If an area is dangerous enough that the fighting-age men need to flee, then you can be damn sure the women and children need to leave, too, and should be prioritised, as they are in genuine asylum-seeking situations (note the Ukraine actually banned its fighting age men from leaving). Yet look at the boats of so-called "asylum seekers" arriving - they are all men! And young and fit men at that.
That central government is shamelessly and unabashedly overriding local councils (even very liberal and refugee-friendly councils who want to move the men to more suitable locations), and making no effort to conceal the utterly undemocratic and authoritarian nature of their behaviour, should concern us all very deeply. Because governments do not do this unless there is a very significant - and very nefarious - reason.
Please note that the UK Government is currently spending £7 million a day on these men's accommodation alone - which seems primarily to consist of fairly luxurious hotels. Can you think of one good reason why a miserly government, quite happy to let its own native population struggle and starve, to the extent millions now rely on food banks and warm banks, would do this for actual "asylum seekers"? Since when did the UK or any government behave with such well-bankrolled reverence to any vulnerable group?
Luxury accommodation and wads of cash are perks solely reserved for elite assets, not struggling minorities. These men are being put up in style because they are important establishment agents - military and intelligence operatives who will play a key role in what is to come.
As we can see, the stage-managed 'Great Reveal' is rapidly gathering momentum all the time, and the recent Atlantic call for 'Amnesty' is a clear clarion call telling us that something major is about to happen - indeed, already in progress. The establishment knows this (since they planned it), so they're setting the stage with the Atlantic piece, for when the full extent of just how hideously people have been duped and deceived comes to light (as it was always planned to).
It is of note that their latest booster programme has been spectacularly unsuccessful with, for the first time, less than half of eligible people taking up the offer to receive it. This is the first time being an "anti-vaxxer" has become the majority view, and that represents just how dramatically the narrative has changed. People are 'waking up' at the rate of knots, and every vaccine article in the press that allows comments is deluged with negative ones - calling the vaccine poison, calling the whole thing a scam, reporting many and various vaccine injuries, including the ever-spiralling sudden deaths.
This is being built up to hit a crescendo, and we might expect to see it culminate around Christmas time, when the days are the darkest and coldest, and also because of all the astrological activity that goes on around that time, which is very important to the ruling classes (as they say, millionaires don't use astrology. Billionaires do).
We have been warned repeatedly to expect blackouts, perhaps lasting as long as a week, so I suspect the social architects, strategising the complete collapse of our culture, may try to hit us with everything at once. It is well known that human beings are really only psychologically equipped to deal with one 'crisis' at a time - that is why they did not hit us with "War!" until they'd largely finished with "Plague!" - that is to say, "Covid" had mostly retired to the back-benches and life was more or less back to normal, before they started propagandising and fearmongering us with Ukraine.
That is because, at that time, they wanted us to put our full focus on these things and be able to coherently engage with them, but now I think they want to hit us with so much that the average person decries "I can't cope!" - blackouts, food shortages, bills' hikes, revelations about the harms of the jab - and thus, mass social meltdown ensues.
Cue the soldiers. I think that the ruling classes want total mayhem, complete chaos (ordo ab chao, as is their motto - order (new world order) out of chaos) - they literally want people rioting in the streets, and I think these soldiers are here to agitate that and make these displays as frenetic and violent as possible. The English temperament is very reserved when compared to our European cousins. We lack the Italian passion or the French fury, and, left to our own devices - even in the face of a collapsing culture and unfathomably evil elites - night respond in too meek or polite a fashion.
After all, our protests rarely get violent unless they are infiltrated, so I think the soldiers may be here to stoke up absolute rage by making protests and demonstrations far more volatile and violent than they might otherwise have been, and that they have been stationed in Stoke-on-Trent adds further confirmation to that belief, because it is clear that Stoke - as one of the poorest and most disadvantaged areas in the country - has been targeted with the particularly 'bad batches' and its sudden death rates are higher than most.
Stoke remains the only place in the country where, the week after the vaccine became available to their age group, two boys at the same school "died suddenly" in the same week (horribly poignant was that I'd written to that school - that I used to walk past every day when I was doing my A-levels at the sixth-form college next door - just weeks before, remonstrating with them not to roll out the injection). I check the Stoke local paper every day, and barely a day goes by without another 'died suddenly' report, including of babies.
I wrote earlier this year, when I visited Stoke for my birthday, of my absolute shock and alarm at how delipidated and in decline the local town centres had become, with almost everything - on a once vibrant and bustling high street - closed down and boarded up. Why haven't they invested anything in this place to bring it back to post-pandemic life, I wondered. And then suddenly I knew. Because ghost towns don't need human services. Stoke has been targeted for what is euphemistically called 'managed decline' - all commerce and business shut down as the population is genocided.
That is why the dark forces behind all this have forced themselves past all normal legal protocols and democratic processes to ensure there are 88 military-trained assets in the local area for when the truth about what has been done to them is revealed to the populace of Stoke-on-Trent - and many locations like it.
I know we are all tired of hearing "something big is going to happen", so that's not what I'm trying to convey, more that, something big is happening - something is rapidly gathering momentum as various different parts of the plan are secured into place.
The ruling classes, those malevolent masters of human psychology, are trying to break us, so that we, just like our broken culture, can be '6uilt 6ack 6etter' (transhumanism, etc. - hi Elon 'Neuralink' Musk). So the point, as always, is not to let them. It's not about "something big and bad coming", it's about the big and bad things that are already here - bills soaring, food shortages, vaccine deaths - continuing to gather pace until ultimately they hit some sort of crescendo (this is inevitable) and there is some kind of immense social explosion and pushback.
I don't think this crescendo is going to happen all in one day (forget "something big is coming on X date"), it will be more drawn out than that, but as I say, I fully expect the overlords to take full advantage of the cold, dark winter months - December and January - where people often struggle in myriad ways anyway - and, of course, because the overlords hate Christmas. Remember when they cancelled it in 2020 and made a damned good attempt in 2021?
It's interesting to note that this is the first year in living memory, for nearly all of us, that one of the central Christmas traditions - the Queen's speech - won't be happening. So what else do the overlords intend not to happen? Are they planning power cuts over Christmas to really try and break the national spirit?
The point as always is that being forewarned is to be forearmed. The people vulnerable to breaking in a crisis - rather than bending and adapting - are typically those who did not see it coming - even if they were warned but refused to look - "la la la, I can't hear you, I don't focus on the negative, that won't be part of my reality!". Look: there's nothing "negative" about making sensible and prudent preparation - quite the contrary, in fact. Facing reality and the highly alarming things already happening, is not 'manifesting' them. They are here already, and, sure, you can choose to look away. But you can't say you didn't know.
I don't foresee any major changes in the next few weeks, so we should all take this time of relative calm and normality to do whatever preparing is necessary so we don't panic in e.g., a lengthy blackout. Torches and batteries, extra blankets, and a plan with local friends/family about where you will meet in an emergency if all communication networks go down. Of course, it's far preferable that we will never need to action these plans or use these supplies. But it's far better to have and not need, than the reverse.
As for the soldiers, I don't think anyone need worry in their own homes, that these people are going to start looting or burgling etc. I think that story - that they are part of gangland criminality and drug empires - is a plant, to throw us off the scent of what they are really here for. And I do think their real purpose will be incontrovertibly revealed, along with many other things, extremely soon.
So, don't be frightened or disheartened: be ready and prepared, for a future that is really going to need us.
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.