UK Nationhood - Rooted in the Grand Oaks of the UK. Proven in the Live Oaks of Charleston SC. Restoring Sovereignty, Heritage, Prosperity, Autonomy, & Culture.
London, UK * Charleston, SC
Joined November 2024
- Tweets7.3K
- Following3.6K
- Followers4.8K
- Likes15.7K
Pinned Tweet
For those of us born and raised in the UK, Nationhood really does matter.
If the Grand Oak is our Nation, its roots are the British People, and the heritage, culture, education, rule of law, autonomy and sovereignty that were foundational in its creation.
Our Nation was not perfect, but we always tried to make it better, and for better or worse it was ours. It was passed down to us by great leaders, scientists, authors, artists, and by brave men and women who fought to protect it for us.
Yes, Nationhood matters, and the closer we come to losing it, more and more people are beginning to realize it.
🤖 Made with AI
Its out, published today. If you wish to buy it, you may want to wait until tomorrow as for some reason Amazon has not published the paperback version yet - it is cheaper. I am working on the Audio version that will take a week or so to go live.
Anyway, the barrage of hate emails and DMs has already begun. To hell with them, the truth hurts and the scale of the grift is incomprehensible. I would have zero clue why anyone would still want to vote for a left leaning party after reading this.
Here is the Amazon link amazon.co.uk/dp/B0HPWQCF7L @HouseofAyres as promised.
This is very simple: America sees non-discretionary as a captive market. Since 1055, non-discretionary items have experienced +/- 3500% inflation, where as more discretionary type items are actually cheaper.
Call it what it is.
Unfortunately “sycophant” should not be the number 1 skill set required to represent the people. Unfortunately, it was the only one that mattered.
Globalization and multiculturalism have been spectacular failures. Period, end of the story.
🤖 Made with AI
Spaces Wars are in full swing, but do you know the real fiscal state of the UK?
Don't take anyone's word for it - check for yourself.
Here is a free tool that shows the fiscal state of the UK, using public data. There's no sign-up and no personal information to fill in, simply use the tool.
Go to sovereignos.world/sfs.
Select United Kingdom from the drop down menu, see the score without illegal immigrants, then use the appropriate box to input how many you believe are here then see the revised score.
Then screenshot it and send it to your local MP, or to anyone who believes illegal immigration is not a financial problem.
True leaders (public and private sectors) will see the huge opportunity this provides.
@RestoreBritain @Conservatives @UKLabour @LibDems @reformparty_uk
Why I have cut back on spaces by 90% part 4:
Condescending & Insecure Hosts
Condescending: Showing or implying a patronizing attitude of superiority, as if a person is more important, intelligent, or capable than anyone else.
Saving Britain is going to take a bottom up, middle out, and top down approach. Each approach is vitally important.
Palpable Insecurity: Spaces hosts have every right to lay down their rules when they say "this is my space and I am going to cut you off, send you down to listening, or block you" to people who are not respectful.
However, when they do it because someone disagrees with them or calls them out when they are clearly wrong, is ridiculous.
None of us are experts in everything, so providing condescending comments in response to every speaker, especially those who are experts in particular topics shows a level of palpable insecurity.
UK focused spaces tend to be full of everyday people who care about the future of their families, communities and of course the country.
Occasionally someone appears who is an absolute expert on a given subject, and it's like a breath of fresh air because it breaks the I,I,I,I,I and the same old, same old regurgitated narratives.
I guess it comes down to people putting their egos over the logos that they say they support.
"Look for the signal, avoid the noise" is the fundamental rule of sonar operation, separating critical data from background distractions.
In the narrative driven world of politics this means isolating the intent (the signal) from a chaotic environment filled with deflection (the noise)
🤖 Made with AI
What happened to the culture, heritage, and traditions passed down to us by our grandparents and for many of us by our parents?
Did we take them for granted? Did we not pay attention to their slow erosion? Did we not spend enough time passing them on to your children? Were we too busy to notice they were not being taught in schools anymore?
Whatever happened, we are losing them. Once they are gone, getting them back will be almost impossible.
Let reverse the above. For those of us who care, let’s:
Stop taking them for granted; let’s pay real attention to their erosion and why; let’s spend as much time as it takes to teach our children and to create campaigns to bring them back; let’s not go quietly into that dark night and challenge our schools for bring them back.
@ProudofusUK is doing incredible work to arm us with modern day narratives that can help. Let’s spread the word, and use their creations to stop the rot, and recreate what we loved.
🤖 Made with AI
How about that small thing called personal responsibility?
I get it, there are things that are addictive, but we do have choices.
I guess I am simply sick and tired of people blaming everything including the kitchen sink and not taking accountability!
When was the last time you heard any politician, from any party, stand up and say, "you know what, mia culpa, I tried, it did not work, this one is on me".
Stuart W. Nationhood & Statehood Matter! retweeted
Hello, Mr Bernard John Dugdale. @BernardDugdale
I have a particular set of skills. Mine just happen to involve researching, following the evidence, examining public records and asking questions. 😂
Firstly, thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my post.
With everything happening in the world, it genuinely made my day that you decided to spend some of your valuable time insulting a complete stranger.
Much appreciated, Mr Dugdale.
Now, where shall we begin?
1. You know nothing about me.
Just as I know very little about your personal life.
Yet you decided to ask what happened in my life to make me interested in immigration, accuse me of being obsessed and finish by calling me a "weirdo".
Quite an interesting approach to political discussion!
But here's the difference between us.
I'm not going to speculate about your private circumstances or invent explanations for your behaviour.
I don't know those things.
And neither do you know them about me.
2. Your own political comments are rather interesting.
A compilation of comments attributed to your public X account includes expressions such as "twat", "cretins", "bell-end" and "fucking idiot".
Those quotations still need checking against their original posts, and I wouldn't want to misrepresent anything you've said.
But the comment you directed at me is clear enough.
You seem perfectly comfortable expressing strong political opinions, criticising Brexit and challenging those who disagree with you.
And you're absolutely entitled to do so.
But surely other people are entitled to express strong political opinions as well?
Even when those opinions differ from yours?
Political disagreement doesn't have to become a personal insult.
3. Something interesting from Exeter's electoral history.
While examining publicly available political records, I came across something rather interesting.
On 6 May 2010, a Bernard Dugdale stood as a Labour candidate in Exeter's Pennsylvania ward.
The recorded result was 491 votes, representing 16.2% of the vote.
The candidate was not elected.
Now, Mr Dugdale, the name and location certainly match, but I don't have definitive evidence that the candidate was you.
If it was you, I genuinely respect the fact that you cared enough about politics to put yourself forward for public office.
It takes conviction to stand for election.
But that raises a rather interesting question.
If you cared enough about political issues to stand for office, why should somebody else be considered obsessive or strange for caring deeply about issues affecting the country today?
Surely we can both care about politics without having to agree on everything?
And surely neither of us should have to justify what happened in our personal lives before being allowed to express an opinion?
4. Let's discuss my actual position on immigration.
I believe controlled immigration, bringing people with the right skills, genuine opportunities and a willingness to contribute, can make a country better.
I believe immigration must be responsibly managed, taking account of housing, infrastructure, healthcare, public services and the interests of the population.
I also believe immigration policy should be based on evidence and measurable outcomes.
That's a political position, Mr Dugdale.
Not an obsession.
5. Now, about the post you actually commented on.
The subject was sexual assault statistics broken down by nationality.
Instead of challenging the figures or questioning the methodology, you decided to ask why the subject affects me personally.
Why should it have to affect me?
Do I need to be a victim of sexual assault before I can care about the victims?
Does something terrible have to happen to my family before I'm permitted to raise concerns?
Of course not.
Somebody has already suffered.
That alone is enough reason to care.
Every victim deserves concern, regardless of nationality, and the actions of offenders should never be used to collectively blame innocent people.
If my figures are incorrect, challenge them.
If the methodology is flawed, demonstrate why.
I'm perfectly happy to examine evidence and correct mistakes.
But insulting the person presenting the figures doesn't make the figures disappear.
6. Let's talk about taxpayers' money.
Much of my research involves examining government expenditure, grants, charities, NGOs and organisations receiving public money.
I want to know where the money goes, who receives it, what they do with it and what measurable benefit British taxpayers receive.
Some charities do tremendous work.
Others may deserve closer scrutiny of their funding, activities and results.
Questioning how public money is spent isn't the same as opposing charities.
It's asking for accountability.
Much of my work relies on publicly available government documents, official statistics, published accounts and funding records.
Anybody can examine them.
Including you, Mr Dugdale.
7. Since we're discussing accountability, let's discuss public business records.
Your business, The Chain Gang Cycle Tours Limited, has been operating for many years.
Its records are publicly available through Companies House.
At the time of writing, the company's accounts and confirmation statement are marked overdue.
The register also shows that compulsory strike-off action was suspended on 24 October 2026.
That is publicly documented administrative information.
I don't know the circumstances behind those filings, and I'm not making accusations about them.
But while researching the company's history, something else caught my attention.
The London Gazette — 7 September 2011.
An official notice records that HM Revenue & Customs presented a winding-up petition against The Chain Gang Cycle Tours Limited on 15 July 2011, claiming to be a creditor.
High Court case number 6227 of 2011.
Now, let's be absolutely clear.
A petition is not proof of wrongdoing. I haven't established its eventual outcome or the amount involved, and I am certainly not suggesting that you personally owed the money.
But here's the rather amusing coincidence, Mr Dugdale.
You asked why I'm so interested in following the money.
It seems HMRC also had an interest in examining your company's financial obligations back in 2011! 😂
And that rather neatly brings me back to the original point.
If HMRC can scrutinise money owed to the Treasury, shouldn't taxpayers be equally entitled to scrutinise the money being spent by the Treasury?
I believe the same principles of transparency, accountability and proper record-keeping should apply to both.
Perhaps if government departments demonstrated more clearly how their spending delivered value, fewer ordinary people would feel the need to spend their evenings investigating where the money goes.
And I'm sure, as somebody with experience running a business, you can appreciate the importance of value for money.
8. Finally, Mr Dugdale.
I don't dislike you.
I don't know you.
And despite our political differences, I genuinely wish you and your business well.
You have every right to disagree with me.
You have every right to criticise my work.
You have every right to hold political positions completely different from mine.
I simply ask for the same courtesy.
I'm an ordinary person spending my spare time examining issues that concern me.
I don't claim to know everything.
I don't claim to be better than anybody else.
And I have no problem being corrected when somebody presents credible evidence.
But I do believe that if you want to challenge somebody's research, you should challenge the evidence rather than speculate about their personal life.
So I'll finish with two genuine questions.
1. What specifically was wrong with the figures or evidence in my original post?
2. Having examined the NGO and public-spending information I've published, can you explain what measurable benefit British taxpayers receive from the expenditure I've questioned?
I'm happy to discuss either subject.
No insults necessary.
You brought the insults, Mr Dugdale.
I brought the questions, the public records and, apparently, a rather interesting trip through the archives. 😂
Have a lovely evening.
Kind regards,
The House of Ayres
I think the work @ziggy6769 @DeeSonoIo and @Scotty_G9 are doing will help get important narratives to larger audiences than there are in Spaces. That is important work. It will take less than a munite to visit, kke, and share the channel.
It is up to those of us who care about tradition, heritage, and culture to keep them alive.
Clearly our schools are not doing it, so we must.
We must never forget that when we acquiesce to the lowest common denominator in one thing, we eventually acquiesce to the lowest common denominator in everything.
It is sheer lunacy that there are debates over the Poppy.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
