The Lengths to Which the Far Left Will Go in Order to Distort or Entirely Dismiss Reality 🧵
It’s increasingly clear that many on the left hold such extreme views that they feel justified in lying to promote a version of reality that simply doesn’t exist.
You see it everywhere, from gender ideology to the Israel–Gaza conflict. Facts are far too inconvenient, so they gaslight anyone who dares to question their narrative.
Even worse, their actions are dangerous. By sympathising with perpetrators of horrific crimes in the name of virtue signalling, diversity, and avoiding the label of racism, they put innocent lives at risk.
It's completely delusional. In most cases, it borders on mental illness. Here are just a few examples 🧵:
1. A leftist activist who was less than honest about the identity of the men who sexually assaulted her. She later admitted that she lied because she didn’t want to fuel racial tensions. Never mind that her lies could have put the lives of other young women at risk and might have allowed the perpetrators to go unpunished.
2. This pathetic excuse for a human being who describes himself as a "feminist" and "anti-racist" cried because the man who raped him was going to be deported back to Somalia. And no, this is not a case of Stockholm syndrome. It goes beyond that and is tied to a broader, morally bankrupt ideology: the belief that rapists and degenerates like this deserve another chance at life, even if it means putting more innocent people at risk in a civilised society.
3. Activists in Calais, France, were well aware that one of their colleagues had been raped by a migrant. Yet they encouraged her not to report it to the police, as it would stigmatise refugees.
4. In the U.S. anti-ICE leftist activists helped a migrant child rapist flee feds in Colorado because of course they believe that the actions taken by ICE are considered to be 'racist'.
5. In Sweden. Swedish authorities protected foreign perpetrators of heinous crimes based on the fabricated idea that holding them accountable would lead to increased racism.
They made a conscious decision to shield rapists and murderers out of fear that it would fuel public distrust in migration from the third world. An entirely logical and organic shift in public opinion was deliberately suppressed because the authorities believed they held some kind of moral high ground.
6. On New Year's Eve 2015, over 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in Cologne by groups largely of North African and Arab migrant origin. Police and media initially downplayed the scale and migrant involvement, with reports emerging slowly amid fears of fueling anti-immigrant sentiment.
An internal police report admitted officers "could not cope," and it took months for full details to surface, leading to criticism of a cover-up to protect refugee policies.
7. In the UK, the grooming gang scandal is an ongoing issue that the government has attempted to suppress for years.
Left wing activists often push the notion that most sexual assaults and rapes are committed by white British born citizens. However, this is a classic case of failing to grasp a basic concept taught in school, the simple idea of what per capita actually means.
8. Also in the UK, amid fears that migrant crossings could lead to an increase in crime, leftist politicians like Darren Jones of the Labour Party openly promote the false claim that the majority of boat crossings in the English Channel consist of innocent women and children, rather than being predominantly male.
9. That of course has been proven to be an outright lie since according to the following data:
10. If you come across any more examples like this, please feel free to share them in this thread.
It's crucial that we continue to expose the truth and approach these issues with logic and common sense, rather than allowing the ideological extremism of far-left activists to dominate the narrative.
/End.
If you would like to support me in delivering more informative threads like this one, you can do so via the link below. Any support is greatly appreciated, and I will continue to strive to provide well-researched, engaging content for you all.
The Reason Why Keir Starmer Wants to Ban X in the UK and Why He Will Ultimately Fail 🧵
The UK government under Keir Starmer is now openly floating the idea of restricting or banning X, using the Grok image generation controversy as justification. Here is what is really going on, and why this will ultimately backfire:
1. X’s AI tool Grok was recently at the centre of a major controversy after users generated explicit images, including requests to strip people down to their underwear. Disturbingly, this also extended to content involving minors.
That is obviously unacceptable, and X has since taken measures to address it. Several Grok features are now restricted to subscribers only, which requires verification such as ID, address and payment details. That means misuse can be traced and acted upon, potentially leading to prosecution.
The UK government has dismissed these measures as not good enough.
But Starmer is being opportunistic. He is using one incident as cover for something much bigger. A crackdown on the only major platform in Britain where the political class cannot control the narrative.
2. Starmer’s push to ban X should surprise no one familiar with his background. In his youth, he was involved with far left Trotskyist groups and publications, and his hostility toward free speech has surfaced repeatedly since.
This is not his first clash with X, the only major platform he cannot control. After the Southport riots in 2024, people were fast tracked into prison for social media posts made under his watch.
In recent years, Starmer has also been repeatedly and rightfully humiliated on X. Several posts from him as Prime Minister have been Community Noted for misleading claims, misinformation, and at times outright lies.
A 🧵 dismantling this post (linked below), which claims that Zionism is anti-Christian. It was created by someone who suddenly realised that jumping on the anti-Zionist bandwagon would get him more views and engagement.
I'm tagging these accounts who should see this and can add additional information and context if needed:
"Zionists never discuss the fact that 90,000 Christians were victims of the Nakba and 30 churches were shut down as a result. Palestine in 1948 was 12.5% Christian but that number is now just 1%."
Well, firstly, the Nakba narrative is a lie, and the simplest way to see this is that today 20 percent of Israel’s population is Arab Muslim.
The decline in the Christian population at the time is real, but the numbers often cited are exaggerated.
Most of the drop came from emigration, lower birth rates, and general upheaval, not targeted actions.
Claims that 90,000 Christians were expelled or that 30 churches were closed come mainly from Palestinian political sources and are not supported by independent historical research.
Today, Christianity is actually thriving in Israel compared with the rest of the Middle East. Christian communities are growing, churches are active, and Christians enjoy freedom of worship and strong representation in society, which is increasingly rare in neighbouring countries.
2. Second Paragraph:
"The Haganah terror group, which the first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion led, bombed the Semiramis Hotel in 1948 which killed 25 Christians and there are countless stories of massacres of Christians including in historic cities such as Nazareth and Galilee."
The Semiramis Hotel bombing in January 1948 was carried out by the Haganah during the civil war after the UN partition plan. Around two dozen people were killed, but the hotel was targeted for its links to armed militias, not because of religion.
Claims of massacres of Christians in Nazareth or the Galilee are not supported by credible historical research. There is NO evidence that Christians were specifically targeted.
A 🧵 On Ben Shapiro, A Voice Of Reason And Common Sense When Both Are Needed More Than Ever
For years, the conservative movement has had one standout figure known for his relentless ability to debate, shut down arguments, and shape conversations. He became widely recognized for the phrase he popularized, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” That person is, of course, Ben Shapiro.
Now, in a time when there is a deep divide on the right, it is only fitting that we remind ourselves of the story of this great man and his achievements.
It will no doubt infuriate some, but… well… facts don’t care about your feelings.
1. Ben Shapiro was born in 1984 in Los Angeles, California.
He showed strong academic abilities early on and ended up skipping both third grade and ninth grade.
He went on to attend UCLA, where he earned a degree in political science, and later completed his studies at Harvard Law School.
While he was still a college student, he started writing political commentary and sent his work to major publications.
By the time he was seventeen, he had already become a nationally syndicated columnist, making him one of the youngest people in the country to earn that distinction.
2. Shapiro published his first book when he was twenty years old.
In his early writing, he focused on media bias, cultural debates, and critiques of American liberalism. That work helped him gain recognition within conservative circles.
He eventually became an editor at large at Breitbart News, which further raised his public profile.
His resignation from Breitbart in 2016, following disagreements over how internal controversies were handled, became a widely discussed moment and ultimately pushed him toward building his own media platforms.
The Reality of Women’s Freedoms in Most of the Middle East - Selfies at Private Beach Clubs Don’t Quite Cut It 🧵
In recent days a trend has emerged where people who cannot stand the idea of Israel’s unique secular freedoms post selfies from private beach clubs or isolated luxury resorts elsewhere in the Middle East, trying to suggest it is somehow the same.
That could not be further from the truth. Across much of the Muslim majority Middle East, millions of women still live under laws and customs that dictate how they dress, where they go, and even what they can study.
Here is a closer look at what women’s freedom really means in some of these countries 🧵:
1. Qatar
• Under Qatar’s male guardianship system, women often need permission to marry, travel, or access certain jobs.
• Human Rights Watch notes that domestic abuse laws are weak and rarely enforced.
• Women are expected to dress “modestly,” covering shoulders, cleavage, and knees in all public spaces.
• Revealing clothing is banned, and violations can result in fines or expulsion for foreigners.
• Despite modern architecture and luxury tourism, women’s freedoms remain tightly restricted by law and culture.
2. Lebanon
• Lebanon’s personal status laws differ by religion, often putting women at a legal disadvantage in divorce, custody, and inheritance.
• Women cannot pass citizenship to foreign husbands or children.
• In major cities, women can dress freely without legal restriction, though conservative areas expect modesty.
• Revealing clothing is legal but can still provoke harassment or social judgment.
• Domestic violence laws exist but are poorly enforced, and many women remain unprotected.
Marco Rubio: A Common-Sense Political Leader, Named Greatest Secretary of State by Trump, and a Potential Future President 🧵
1. Marco Rubio is one of the most recognisable figures in American politics today. Since becoming Secretary of State, he has shown little patience for politically correct talking points, handling his duties with a level-headedness long missing from American and global politics. Above all, he champions a common-sense approach.
2. Born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban immigrants, Marco Rubio grew up in a modest household where he witnessed firsthand the sacrifices his parents made to build a life in a new country.
His father worked long hours while his mother juggled multiple jobs, instilling in him a deep appreciation for hard work and perseverance.
These early experiences shaped his understanding of community, responsibility and the importance of public service, values that would guide him throughout his political career.
This is Faraj Al-Shamie, father of Jihad Al-Shamie, who carried out a terrorist attack and murdered two Jewish people at a synagogue in Manchester.
Although his Facebook profile describes him as a “digital creator,” Faraj Al-Shamie appears to be a doctor by profession.
Considering that he named his son “Jihad,” and given his son’s actions, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that Faraj Al-Shamie also celebrated the events of October 7th, as shown in the screenshots of his posts attached in the replies below 🧵
Is this someone who should be entrusted with the care of Jewish patients as a doctor? Or, in fact, with the care of anyone who openly supports the Jewish people and their communities?
In addition to that, how did this family go under the radar of our intelligence services in the UK? It's the politically correct, deranged liberalism of this country that has led to this..