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"?