Due diligence

Yes, I'm even questioning what "due diligence" involves. Yesterday, a post appeared on X by one JFK Jr who died in a plane crash in 1999. So ... obviously someone is using it as a pseudonym.  However, the information, if true, would be regarded as high grade.

Today, there's another up by "him" on Obama's soc-sec number.  Yes, an Assange type could access it but so could someone inside a letter agency.  In a similar way, a lady who seems to have been abused in an organised way in the 60s and 70s got her story out with the help of a Ted Gunderson, whom deep divers discovered was agency himself.

Throughout all these shenanigans, certain names, apart from corrupt pollies, started to come out.  One such name was Sid Gottlieb, a nasty piece of work, psychologist, who conducted experiments on humans, e.g. using LSD.  There was another called Jolyon West, another Ewen Cameron ... and so it went.

Cut to today and an item by names known as medical writers online:

https://www.reseaprojournals.com/journals/cardiovascular-research/archive/myocarditis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-and-covid-19-vaccination-epidemiology-outcomes-and-new-perspectives

https://x.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/2036782064955961616?s=20

What connection is there between PMcC and those back in the 60s/70s? None as far as I can glean ... until one looks at X's peculiar arrangement of quotes and comments. In short, he was quoting this company:

The word "Wellness" used for a company means medical narrative adopted by govts and major alt-med organisations and so that raises further questions ... why is PMcC quoting one of those in order to present research?

Lastly today, am I disparaging any of those named above? Well Gottlieb, Cameron, Leeks ... yes. Any others? Not in the least, maybe quite the opposite. The new "Wellness" industry, as named that way? Definite red flags, pending further deep dives.

Point of this post? The need for ultra-careful due diligence in 2026, questioning any "settled science".

......

Oh, 0548, just now:

Why Don't People Want To Raise Their Own Children?

It was all going well. Charlotte, five, was chatting with an AI soft toy called Gabbo at a London play centre about her family, her drawing of a heart to represent them and what makes her happy. She even offered a couple of kisses to the £80 toy with a face like a computer screen. It was when she declared: “Gabbo, I love you”, that the fluent conversation came to an abrupt halt. “As a friendly reminder, please ensure interactions adhere to the guidelines provided,” said Gabbo, awkwardly crashing into its guardrails. “Let me know how you would like to proceed.”

All the warmth and compassion of a speak your weight machine, or indeed, our current Prime Minister. So, mums and dads, how about instead of letting Alexa-in-a-teddy raise your child, how about doing it the old fashioned way? 

The moment came during a University of Cambridge study into the growing number of AI-powered toys hitting shop shelves for early years children.

It's not all parents plonking their kiddy in front of a machine  - some outsource it to a third party to do it instead:

The developmental psychologists behind the study are calling for AI toys that “talk” with young children to be more tightly regulated “to ensure psychological safety by limiting toys’ ability to affirm friendship and other sensitive relational areas with young children”.“Because these toys can misread emotions or respond inappropriately, children may be left without comfort from the toy, and without emotional support from an adult, either,” said Dr Emily Goodacre, a developmental psychologist in the University of Cambridge’s faculty of education.

Whether you#re farming your kiddies out to 'early learning resources' or AI - enabled toys, I feel I must ask, as someone who has never wanted children, why did you even have them in the first place?
?

Consequences

First off ... in 1984/5, Yuri Bezmenov, Soviet defector, gave an interview on "demoralisation" of a society, the word used in a broad sense, from loss of moral compass to a feeling of helplessness down the track.

He said that producing such a result in a society was the result of long planning and it crosses generations, to the point that once the disease gets into families, schools, media, entertainment, the judiciary, medicine ... there's no coming back.

He added that people reach a point, esp. on the Left, where they can be presented with "authentic information" and those people are then unable to reason, to draw valid conclusions, to see that their behaviour has consequences.

Contrived, handed down non-reality, disguised as wisdom, or in other words ... narrative ... replaces real reasoning, mental health plummets and behaviour involves deep depression at core level, interspersed with lashing out.

One consequence for this girl below was set in motion long before the actual incident.  For a start, what on earth was she even doing on her own?  Part of the answer appears further down here.  She simply had not adjusted to new societal realities. Just as with Iryna on that subway train. No concept of danger whatever.  But much "independent, strong woman" about it ... cue disaster in 2025/6.

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Consequences.  One who did understand it played for the other side ... he was referring to love/hooking up but it applies just as much to societal changes overall imho.

Maybe Campaign To Stop Disease Reaching Our Shores Then?

The father of an 18-year-old school pupil who died after the meningitis outbreak in Kent said his family’s devastation is “immeasurable” as he called for better protection for young people.

What sort of protection?  

Along with the Meningitis Research Foundation, Kenny and his family are calling for the UK to take urgent action to improve access to the MenB vaccination for teenagers and young people.“Juliette’s impact on this world must be lasting change. Now is the time to ensure families are safe from the impact of meningitis B.”

Well, I don't suppose you'll be clamoring to halt the importation of people from the parts of the world where its most prevalent, then? 

Nationhood has its advantages you know

Not sure any true thinker wishes for a return to wartorn Europe ... and communism was sold to Brits, for example, in 1975, along those grounds ... all in the market together, old grievances forgotten. The fact that this was a Bro on Bro war, at least at the start, did not register in the mind of Common Man.

Throw in "love everyone, hug a tree" feminazism and "don't you oppress us, we're as good as any man, better in fact" ... that was a very corrosive, addictive fiction for the modern gal.

The real aim was, under the guise of global sisterhood of man ... to split, play on deep resentments like wormtongues, to destroy real history and substitute unreality for reality ... we see it out there all around in 2026.

Add western infertility, emasculation, full term and beyond abortion, kill the elderly medical centres, the creation of the new manly woman ... and add the invasion of the neanderthals to cap it off ... armed ... and the direction is clear enough.

There are some things which are good about nations ... esp. western culture as it was at ground level, built on Christendom in its ethical and moral values, minus theocrats in pointy hats and high ritual, combined with enlightened ideas of classical liberalism.  Never mind the practicability ... the nation was a useful bulwark against the hordes out there, now within.

Nationhood has another advantage in 2026 ... escape from tyranny ... Guido illustrates this below, sent by one of our core readers:

Another advantage of nationhood, as played against the global reach of tyranny is illustrated in this YT, also sent by said core reader, replete with its Rik Mayall type "resistance presenter":

A Very Convenient Illness

The prominent Swiss academic and Islam scholar Tariq Ramadan has not appeared in court for the first day of his trial in Paris on charges of raping three women in France between 2009 and 2016.The head judge in the case adjourned proceedings until Wednesday and ordered a medical report on Ramadan’s health, after his lawyers said he was in hospital in Geneva because of his multiple sclerosis.

How very convenient. 

Ramadan, who advised previous British governments on Islam and society, denies all the charges in a case that has been seen as one of the biggest repercussions of the #MeToo movement in France.Ramadan, 63, was a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at the University of Oxford before taking a leave of absence in 2017 when rape allegations were first made against him. He took early retirement from Oxford in June 2021.

It's always the ones you least suspect, isn't it?  

Henda Ayari, 41, a former Salafist Muslim who is now a feminist campaigner, went to the police in 2017 to accuse Ramadan of rape, sexual violence, harassment and intimidation. She said he had raped her in a hotel room in the east of Paris in the spring of 2012 during a conference where he was speaking.Another woman, known by the pseudonym Christelle, told investigators Ramadan had raped her in a Lyon hotel room in October 2009 during another conference and subjected her to a violent attack. A third woman said Ramadan had raped her in 2016.

At the start of the investigation in 2017, Ramadan, who is married with four children, denied any form of sexual encounter with the first two women. In 2018, he changed his account, telling investigating judges that he did have sexual relations with Ayari and Christelle, but that they had sought the encounters and fully consented to the “dominant-submissive” relationship.

Bang to rights. Is he going to plead Taqyia?

In 2024, a Swiss appeals court found Ramadan guilty of raping a woman in a Geneva hotel in 2008 and sentenced him to three years in prison, two of them suspended. Switzerland’s highest court upheld the conviction in a ruling last year. Ramadan’s Swiss legal team announced they would take the case to the European court of human rights.

Why do human rights apply to those who don't believe in them? 

Of Lords, Senators and blog platforms

Going to open with this.

Samantha Smith the rape gang victim, on X, has listed these creatures below:

"These are the 185 Lords who just voted to legalise DIY abortions up to the point of BIRTH. They deserve to be named and shamed. Never forget their betrayal. Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat) Lord Adebowale (Crossbench) Baroness Alexander (Labour) Lord Alli (Labour) Baroness Anderson (Labour) Baroness Andrews (Labour) Baroness Armstrong (Labour) Lord Babudu (Labour) Lord Bach (Labour) Lord Barber (Labour) Lord Barber (Labour) Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) Lord Bassam (Labour) Baroness Bennett (Green Party) Baroness Berger (Labour) Baroness Bi (Labour) Baroness Blackstone (Labour) Baroness Blake (Labour) Baroness Bousted (Labour) Baroness Boycott (Crossbench) Lord Brennan (Labour) Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Brown (Labour) Lord Bruce (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Bull (Crossbench) Baroness Caine (Labour) Baroness Carberry (Labour) Lord Carlile (Crossbench) Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated) Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour) Viscount Chandos (Labour) Baroness Chapman (Labour) Lord Clark (Labour) Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat) Lord Coaker (Labour) Lord Collins (Labour) Baroness Crawley (Labour) Baroness Curran (Labour) Baroness D’Souza (Crossbench) Baroness Dacres (Labour) Lord Davidson (Labour) Lord de Clifford (Crossbench) Baroness Debbonaire (Labour) Baroness Deech (Crossbench) Lord Dixon (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Donaghy (Labour) Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Drake (Labour) Lord Dubs (Labour) Lord Duvall (Labour) Lord Eatwell (Labour) Baroness Elliott (Labour) Lord Evans (Labour) Lord Falconer (Labour) Lord Faulkner (Labour) Lord Forbes (Labour) Lord Foulkes (Labour) Baroness Fox (Non-affiliated) Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Freeman (Crossbench) Baroness Gerada (Crossbench) Baroness Gill (Labour) Lord Goddard (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Gohir (Crossbench) Baroness Goudie (Labour) Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Griffin (Labour) Lord Hain (Labour) Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat) Lord Hannay (Crossbench) Lord Hannett (Labour) Lord Hanson (Labour) Viscount Hanworth (Labour) Baroness Harding (Conservative) Baroness Harman (Labour) Lord Harris (Labour) Baroness Hayman (Labour) Baroness Hayman (Crossbench) Baroness Hazarika (Labour) Baroness Healy (Labour) Baroness Helic (Conservative) Lord Hendy (Labour) Lord Hermer (Labour) Baroness Hodge (Labour) Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Hunt (Crossbench) Lord Hunt (Labour) Baroness Hunter (Labour) Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Hyde (Labour) Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat) Lord John (Labour) Baroness Jones (Green Party) Baroness Jones (Labour) Lord Katz (Labour) Baroness Keeley (Labour) Lord Kennedy (Labour) Baroness Kidron (Crossbench) Baroness Kingsmill (Labour) Lord Kinnock (Labour) Lord Knight (Labour) Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Leaman (Liberal Democrat) Lord Leong (Labour) Baroness Levitt (Labour) Lord Liddle (Labour) Baroness Lister (Labour) Lord Macdonald (Crossbench) Baroness MacLeod (Labour) Lord Macpherson (Crossbench) Baroness Mallalieu (Labour) Lord Mann (Labour) Baroness Martin (Labour) Baroness Mattinson (Labour) Lord McCabe (Labour) Lord McNicol (Labour) Baroness Merron (Labour) Baroness Miller (Liberal Democrat) Lord Mitchell (Labour) Lord Mohammed (Liberal Democrat) Lord Moraes (Labour) Baroness Morgan (Labour) Baroness Morris (Labour) Lord Mott (Conservative) Lord Nagaraju (Labour) Baroness Nargund (Labour) Baroness Neate (Crossbench) Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat) Baroness O’Grady (Labour) Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat) Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated) Lord Pannick (Crossbench) Lord Patel (Crossbench) Baroness Paul (Labour) Baroness Penn (Conservative) Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat) Lord Pitkeathley (Labour) Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour) Lord Pitt-Watson (Labour) Lord Prentis (Labour) Baroness Primarolo (Labour) Baroness Rafferty (Labour) Baroness Ramsey (Labour) Baroness Rebuck (Labour) Lord Redesdale (Non-affiliated)"

It would also be useful to have the names of those who voted against and then those who abstained and that might appear later. A reminder that all this was done in the dead of night so that no one would be staying up to try to influence it.

At the same time, a far less influential topic was Julia and I receiving this:

Your post titled "Well, Yes, But Gradually Our Tolerance Has Been Thrown Back In Our Faces..." was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and (have) deleted the post.

It's a bit like scoring points on the road for supposed "violations" ... they accumulate over time and suddenly we find ourselves without a blog ... do you remember "nourishing obscurity"?  I remember it very well, it was well regarded by many on our side of politics.

As with Quisling in Norway, Arnold in the US and an array of less well known people who opened the sidegate of the castle in the dead of night ... or even the Karens during the lockdown and vaxx scandal of 2018 to 2023, such people do exist, they do rat on their countrymen and women.

Over at Unherdables, I've only just yesterday written about how to couch unpleasant topics in less "plaintext" format, a bit like the participants in the world wars.  For example, we might refer to a certain threat as globopsycho or a certain invader as "doctors and engineers" ... just two of many ideas how to phrase it.

In a state of outrage over really quite evil things happening, inc. the loss of our society as we know it, one can understand that, as Maye Musk put it in a letter to me ... I'm as outraged as anyone about last night's weasel vote but there's another aspect to this which no one wishes to confront ... where's that outlet for our outrage if the blog or other outlet has been removed?  What have we actually achieved then?

Sell out?  Say nowt?  Did I ask you to do that? Where have I ever asked that?  Am I of that nature? The word I used was "euphemise" ... we need to understand the nature of the war we're actually in the thick of right now.  There's a thing, you see, called using a bit of intelligence, when weasels are poised to flag us at the slightest pretext.  Where is your rage when there is nowhere any longer to write it?

Meanwhile, over in the US Senate, they also are into their weasel work, with the evil Thune preparing, right at this moment, to file for the 60 vote threshold on the SAVE Act, which does just that for the American people ... hence the Demonrat and RINO fierce opposition, fearing exposure for their wrongdoing.

By the way, Lord Toby's TDS this morning is headed by: "Teacher Who Told Migrants to “Respect Our Laws or Leave” Banned From Classroom Despite Being Cleared of Racism and it Being Recommended That He Keep His Job.

The rotting corpse of the CofE not fit for purpose

Update as of 8 a.m. (the post was written in the middle of the night): that cow (excuse my French) is going to be there after all in the Lords it seems, but not the two clown bishops. Possibly the weather for Damn Sarah looked like being inclement, who knows, for Canterbury "pilgrimage".

......

An Oxford doctor, Calum Miller, writes:

Have received word that the Bishops of Winchester and Norwich are not attending Parliament to vote against ABORTION UP TO BIRTH due to unspecified "diary commitments".

Let's go back to yesterday and recap:

And so the clergy and laity started piling on:

The issue is far more than a minor doctrinal point:

Where am I on this? In younger days, I condoned the killing of my baby twice, with two different partners, some years apart, not having explored the topic in any depth, let alone the religious aspects.  In the first case, it was discussed, in the second, she said not a word but went during working hours. In both cases, it was soon after pregnancy tests.

So I explored the topic and it seemed there were certain watersheds, Rubicons with the issue.  First was that the baby began at conception, which was the traditional Christian view ... second was heartbeat being detected ... some went by trimesters, no one I knew would have seriously put full term, for all sorts of reasons. Wot ... ripping a full grown baby's head off in the womb?  What sort of monster supports that?

With this Mullally creature, she knew exactly what she was doing avoiding this vote in the Lords, as do the other Bishes who've taken the cowardly, antiChristian path ... and one can view it either doctrinally or else as the head of a national church which is clearly unfit for purpose as is.

Following on from Supreme Beloved Leader Chas3 who's been wearing checked tablecloths again and is about as fit for purpose as a "dragon worthy of your earthly worship" (his vow at installation as PofW decades back).

And don't exonerate Welby, Williams and Carey ... all were subject to charges of apostasy in various ways.

The aim?  Pretty obvious, no? To give everyone from the atheists and pagans to gnostics to the latest mass invaders the chance, finally, to crush the Christian church across Europe and its corollary ... to suppress the faith itself, as back in Roman times with the early church.

Now, your starter question for ten ... if the church is meant to be the last bulwark against satan (quiet at the back there, not specifically referring to the CofE here) ... then who do you think could possibly be the chief motivator of crushing Christian faith, since ancient times?  Bit of a headscratcher, that, innit?

It's not unlike feminazis desperately clinging onto the infinite mercy of bloodthirsty mussies ... or fabian tertiary academics extolling the very lot slavering to enslave them.

We're truly dealing with left loonies here, the bane of western "civilisation" since at least as far back as 1776.

There's A World Of Difference Between The Two, Though...

Four decades ago, my parents were Cambodian refugees. As high school students, they were thrown into one of the darkest chapters of humanity’s history, surviving nearly five years in forced labour camps under the Khmer Rouge genocide. An estimated 2.7 million of my kin perished during that time. Fortunately for my family, they were accepted under Australia’s humanitarian program and arrived in Australia on 26 January, a date heavy with complexity for Australian identity, and our refugee story became another layer within it.

The 'Guardian' appears to have managed to pick a solid, genuine refugee for a change, astonishingly enough. I wonder why? 

Volunteers from around the world stepped into the chaos where states, borders and institutions had failed. Among them were nurses from the US who gave their time, skill and care in conditions few would willingly choose. One nurse, in particular, took my parents under her wing. She helped them navigate medical checks, paperwork, survival and dignity. She cared for them, and for me, as if we were her own family. She was from Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ah, I see why now. 

Four decades later, another Minnesotan nurse would lose his life supporting migrants in distress. Alex Pretti was shot by ICE agents and made the ultimate sacrifice in service to others.

No, made it to an ideology pretty much the same as that your parents once fled from. 

I watched this unfold on the news in horror, sitting side by side in front of the television with the nurse who had saved my family’s life. Sandra Evenson, a humble Minnesotan nurse...

And drawing some sort of parallel, erroneously. 

We are living through a time when migrants and refugees are increasingly dehumanised, politicised and reduced to slogans. In the US, aggressive ICE raids, including in Minnesota, have torn families apart in the name of enforcement and spectacle. Fear has become a tool of governance. In Australia, far-right groups are undermining the very fabric of our social and economic success, and one of the cornerstones of our regional security: multiculturalism.

Who are these dreamers, these creators of obvious fiction in service to a failed ideology? 

Rathana Chea is CEO of the Multicultural Leadership Initiative and co-CEO of global social impact consultancy The Rathana Group, co-chair of Asian Australians for Climate Solutions and on the board of New York-based Mobilisation Lab

Oh. Of course. 

There's info which is no one else's biz ... and info which needs declaring

There's certain baseline information a political analyst must give in order to be taken seriously. From the days of Richard Nixon, the question constantly asked was: "How much did he know and when did he know it?"

Dates are important, names less so ... the crucial thing, if it's political analysis of troubled areas, is the "tribe" he or she is from and if he's a normie, dissident, lone wolf, any of that.  When you see a name such as Shanaka Anslem Perera, then a reader needs to know "where he's coming from" in the sense of what are his tribal affiliations?

He can argue that he's "independent", so the question is irrelevant.  Sorry ... no it's not irrelevant, and that's borne out by one of the core search questions people ask ... just that ... what are his tribal affiliations?

I just wrote, over on X, above his analysis of the Hormuz situation:

There's a scholastic etiquette in this field as to how info is posted ... your background is deliberately and completely hidden, which renders your analysis useless. You could be Muslim, Tamil, anything. It is crucial to always show your background In political analysis.

On X, many fly their flag or flags in their name-line, which certainly helps. Seasoned campaigners on the antiWoke side give much out over time but newbies often hide crucial information as "protection" from being hit.

I quite agree that name, address, phone, bank details are sacrosanct ... there are sections of govt which must have them though and it's also clear from GovdotUK and Companies House that privacy there is shoddy to say the least. There is incompetence, then there is deliberate incompetence ... oh, sorrr-ee, our bad, lessons have been learnt.

All of that is one thing ... but political or religious analysis of a hot potato is quite another ... to be taken seriously, esp. as this man wishes to be ... see his Amazon book ... he must background why he thinks that way.

Across at Unherdables, I'm about to run an analysis by this man of the Hormuz and related situations, brought by "one of ours" over there.

Why do that, given his lack of honesty in giving key background? The analysis itself seems sound to me, seems independent in this case, of affiliation. Whatever tribal affiliation he has ... he seems to have migrated to Australia from Sri Lanka afa I can see and is viewing things from there.

Another is the ongoing Erika (1988) v Candace (1989) thing. Last evening, Candace came out with a defence of EK, strangely ... namely that the FBI wiretap (audio), from 2006, was a dud factor in the debate.

Ethnicity in this case seems quite subordinate to religious affiliation ... which particular cult or mish-mash are they? And how committed?

And what of Ben Habib? Which bkgd is vital to ustd "where he's coming from"?