My profile picture on Facebook is currently just a St. George's Cross. 

Because, England should be free and should be England. 

Fri Jan 23 2026 15:21:16 UTC from darknetuser Subject: Xenophobe videogame character raised to memehood

This is so funny you can't make it up.

It turns out some years ago, the UK government commanded the creation og a propagandistic videogame in order to teach teenagers about the dangers of redicalization. The idea was to show what radicals are like and explain why they need to keep away from them.

In order to accomplish this, they created Amelia, a character that acts as a far-right activist and recruiter for "secret political groups" who use encrypted chats, spread leaflets, and say "hurtful" things. SHe was intended to be an antagonistic figure who tried to drag you down into radicalization.

The problem is this game has turned out to be a PR mess because players actually love this antagonistic figure, precisely because she is a hot alt-girl who stands for Brittish values and culture, and early this year people started making AI videos of her campaigning for right-wing values. This stuff has become so popular it has overtaken the game completely.

The lesson is: stop trying to use videogames as a pandering propagandistic tool.

I've seen "Amelia" and I was wondering who she was and what the deal with her was.

Your description makes it all make sense now.  So basically she was supposed to be a caricature of an "evil nationalist" but seeing her as evil required being part of the pusillainimous left, so it backfired?  And now she's an icon of the nationalist right?

I love that.

Exactly this. The youth of England love her, and the Left is scrambling to erase her - and they won't let her. They're using Ai to amplify her far-right messages. 

Total backfire. 

Sun Jan 25 2026 16:50:43 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar Subject: Re: Xenophobe videogame character raised to memehood

 And now she's an icon of the nationalist right?

I love that.

So they released about 1/2 of the documents they admit to have, and now 'the discussion and investigation is over". Now, as i have said before, i believe the majority of the people in his 'circle' were not partaking in the wrong doing, but there is no doubt some were, and everyone knew it, and there is still a coverup going to protect people.

While this is about what was expected by most of us, this is not how the victims get justice. Its a travesty. 

I think that is part of the plan. A flood of nonsense "see there is nothing here, now look over there while we shred the real evidence". I also think the 'accidental' release of victim's info was intentional. To serve as a warning for the future.   "Snitches get stitches" in effect.

Wed Feb 04 2026 04:09:20 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

There's so much crap in there now that it's practically untenable. I'm now hearing that entire technical manuals (like a guide to the bash shell) are in there for some reason. Just *anything* that existed in the same universe as Jeff Epstein.

There's an entire trove of submittals to a "tip line" that was set up after the scandal broke. 100% of the "Trump is in the files" accusations fall into this category.

And the rest is Bill Gates and the Clintons. Gates is turning out to be as awful as I've been telling everyone he is for the past 30 years.

There was one man who claimed to have been sodomized by Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. While I'm not his biggest fan, George H. W. Bush does not strike me as having been a gay rapist.

Wed Feb 04 2026 04:09:20 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

There's so much crap in there now that it's practically untenable. I'm now hearing that entire technical manuals (like a guide to the bash shell) are in there for some reason. Just *anything* that existed in the same universe as Jeff Epstein.

There's an entire trove of submittals to a "tip line" that was set up after the scandal broke. 100% of the "Trump is in the files" accusations fall into this category.

And the rest is Bill Gates and the Clintons. Gates is turning out to be as awful as I've been telling everyone he is for the past 30 years.

The thing that is driving me nuts - you guys don't do as much social media as I do, I think... 

All these monetized accounts engaging in yellow journalism and sensationalism - 

My three biggest examples... 

Trump buried bodies under the 18th hole of Mar A Lago:
A claim by a nutcase that was dismissed as not worth pursuing. The anti-Trump crowd is going, "Why didn't they investigate?" 
Because the person who made the claim was not credible. 

Epstein and his cohorts ATE babies: 
A guy who said he was abused as an adult said he saw them dismember babies and eat the feces from their intestines. Again, the witness was deemed not credible. It wasn't worth the resources to investigate. It is a vivid, graphic claim though - so all the podcasters are jumping on it and driving a "why wasn't this investigated," narrative. Answer - it wasn't credible. The witness wasn't credible. It was a waste of resources. Without more evidence - this is a dead end. 

Biden was replaced with a guy with a latex mask. Look at his earlobes: 
Ok. If this was true - why would they replace him with a guy who couldn't string together a coherent paragraph? Did they WANT Kamala Harris? Were they that stupid? Did they want George Clooney to come out and say, "I can't endorse this guy, he should step down?" That led to the reality of a 2nd Trump administration. Did they WANT Trump back in office? Make this make sense. If you were going to replace the real Biden with a guy wearing a Biden Skinsuit - wouldn't you pick someone competent and charismatic and compelling and... I dunno... aware? 

Both sides are driving these extreme claims - and to me - there is enough REAL evidence that why would you focus on these most unlikely events that were usually dismissed exactly because they lack credibility? 

Other than to distract.