The International Olympic Committee is edging closer towards implementing a ban on transgender women competing in the female category in time for the Los Angeles Olympic Games.
Multiple sources expect such a ban to come into effect over the next six to 12 months with the new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, making clear she wants to drive through her campaign pledge to protect the female category.
Electing a woman president clearly paid off!
Speculation that the IOC would introduce a new policy as soon as January intensified on Monday after it was reported that its director of health, medicine and science, Dr Jane Thornton, had given a science-based review of the evidence to its members last week, showing there were permanent physical advantages to being born male.
As did appointing a female director of health, medecine and science!
Each evening and early morning, Julia transforms into and out of her wild animal form (snarl, snarl) whilst the otherwise saintly jimbo gets into his sith outfit:
... and paces the floor of the internet, doing unspeakable things to pundits' comments sections. But it's obvious The Daily Sceptic are onto him ... witness:
Tony Blair, never shy about grand designs, has described digital identity as “a system of identity so that we know precisely who has a right to be here” — a tool he sees as essential to curbing populism and migration. Keir Starmer’s administration, though more circumspect, has set a target of 95% adult coverage via the GOV.UK Wallet by 2030. The Online Safety Act serves as the soft launch of a national ID card by stealth. The breaches, the VPN surge, the dark-web migration — all are treated as teething problems rather than fatal flaws. Officials point to the millions of compliant verifications as evidence of success, while quietly expanding the scope of the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework to encompass financial services, rental agreements and even NHS access. The firewall is not merely blocking content, it is gating citizenship itself.
Isn't that the Creeperati all over? In Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey tells Richard Vernon that if the civil service section head does not immediately get what he wants, that's hardly the end of it ... it's just a temporary setback (in the rolling out of the narrative). The arrogance of people locked into the Globos' dark, sicko narrative illustrates the fiendish fanaticism of what are, after all, the hierarchical hordes of hell ... except they of course don't know that ... all the compliant apparatchiki and karens see themselves as goblins for good.
In October 2000, in that interview with the formerly illumined San Diego torturer, Svali, on Toronto radio, she explained that every one of these people is brainwashed into seeing him or herself as a key implementer of the "change for the sake of change" agenda ... any inconvenience to "the little people" who disagree a necessary, temporary, if fatal, inconvenience they must endure on the road to the fifth turning ... nirvana. Each apparatchik or henchman or woman or karen is hellbent on implementing the new paradise.
We've already seen the hordes of college girls drawn into it, plus the male antifa types ... allied of course with the deathcult itself busily building paramilitary weapons stashes for the marauders currently roaming the streets, bravely attacking women, children and old people.
Some of these wokerati, a shorter word for the destructive-narrative-brainwashed, mature in time, whilst others like Islington Corbyn never do ... their version of eternal youth. Katie "Adrenochrome Dreg" Couric, former blonde beauty bimbo on US TV is another example. Von Leyen and Co. are other apparatchiki or High Priestesses in their own diseased minds.
The latest is the wonderfully named Senator Slotkin in the States who has joined other demonrats in urging armed forces personnel not to obey any "illegal" order from the Dark Lord of Mar a Lago, as it's by definition unconstitutional, they've decided for themselves. After all, they must defend the "democracy" they've shredded over the past decade.
The little matter of their actions being high treason quite escapes them.
For now. Two tier law, two tier constitution in their controlled brains.
Anyway, have a good working day today, try to avoid being stabbed or raped by a savage.
That thing that never happens (according to the trans activists, anyway!) happened again....
The nation's first openly transgender lawmaker once asked her accomplice girlfriendif they would still get into heaven as they exchanged lewd photos of children as young as three.
And of course, despite the charges and the natutre of the crimes, the MSM insists on respecting their chosen peonouns....
Disgraced New Hampshire Rep. Stacie-Marie Laughton, who was born Barry Laughton, 41, was arrested in 2023 and was charged with aiding and abetting the sexual exploitation of children.
She pleaded guilty to the charges in federal court in Boston last week, and admitted to encouraging her then-girlfriend, Lindsay Groves, 40, to take nude photos of young children in her care at Creative Minds daycare in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, KRCR reports.
Unluvkily for them, Middle America takes a dim view of the sort of thing and isn't inclined to be as lenient as the pathetic excuse for a justice system that we have over here...
At another point, Laughton expressed her fears that they would be arrested.
'I don't wanna get caught if we do,' she wrote to Groves on June 7 of that year.
'Lots of parents don't like people touching their kids and it is against the law,' she noted.
Let's see a lawyer argue their way out of that!
...the ex-politician and Groves - who entered into her own plea agreement last month, admitting to sending Laughton the explicit photos - now face between 15 to 30 years in prison, a fine up to $250,000 and a lifetime of supervised release.
At the start of last week, I was thinking my regular Remembrance season thoughts – Are people wearing poppies earlier every year? – and by the middle of the week, I’d agreed to have a quick morning argument about poppies on the radio. David Lammy had been caught in parliament without one, and roundly castigated. He had responded with sentiments to the effect that Remembrance Sunday was the most important day of the year; nobody found it more important than him; anyone who didn’t think it was important was not a patriot; and by sheer hideous happenstance, he had a new suit, and his poppy was on the other suit.
Yes, that sound like the sort of hopelessly incompetent bluster one can expect when David Lamentable has been caught out again...
Some of us were thus called on to adjudicate on remembrance, while the more agile wing of the commentariat was wondering how Lammy could afford a new suit.
Anyway, my line hasn’t changed on this for at least 25 years. Wear a poppy, don’t wear a poppy, both are legitimate positions. Honouring the fallen is worthwhile. Finding all that performative honour a bit militaristic, and declining to have your love of country elided with celebration of war, even in a tinged-with-sorrow way, also worthwhile. You do you.
Anyway, Sunday came, I was bombing along the Thames on my bike, and I couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t allowed to cycle round Parliament Square, nor why all the crash barriers were down across Westminster Bridge. It wasn’t until I noticed a large number of people wearing medals that I clocked it; I’d spent so long arguing about poppies that I’d forgotten it was Remembrance Sunday.
Ladies and gentleman, the Left! So in touch with Britain!
My consciousness of the out-and-out lying to us was from Cameron and successors ignoring the clear vote for Brexit but then something else sprang to mind ... it was Jack Straw saying he hated the English. Wish I'd kept the clipping, from 2010.
From that date on, I decided to trust none of em but not just the pollies, WEF, letter agencies et all ... but also pundits, hence the earlier post, and for those reasons. Now, in 2025, it's pretty much my job not to initially trust but only after a friend is proven to be so.
Thus, when these two Xposts came up, my first instinct was to say, "AI?" or, "Who's to say that's only third world savages?" Here's the first:
Now don't get me wrong ... I want the savages out of the country as much as anyone ... just wondering if anything as blatant as this has actually been done? I'm thinking no ... so who put out the picture? Who took it, who AIed it? This Matt Casey? Wasn't Helen, I know her, she's just an English curmudgeonette.
Were it indeed so, then we're talking council, aren't we? Not even Antifa this time, nor rainbow haired, nose ringed young karens. All right, here's the second:
We need to know about this Connor first, his bkgd, plus Landeur's. Not saying it's not so, not at all. What if it was council though or wokerati flotsam or even some of our own lot doing a false flag? What if it was the deep state paying for it to be done so that the savages can be blamed?
Why? Well look at the agenda ... above all else, they want the slaughter to start. The deep state considers civil war is well overdue ... karens versus unvaxxed, wokerati versus the sane, doesn't matter who the combatants are ... they want slaughter.
Interesting that no one ever takes out the instigators themselves.
We have a watch list accessible from the navbar at Unherdables and it’s not the usual Obama, Blair etc. known-knowns … but the players behind the scenes in the current punditry, the ones who go under the radar because they’re the Paul Reveres they’d have you believe.
There are any number of people, often under reinvented moniker, who “rush” “breaking news” to you … they’re never there to examine in depth and to learn … watch out for these is my advice, just who are they? Whom are they representing in reality? Which lobby?
Part of the sum total of non-Wokerati pundits are the “would be big stars of punditry”, often with their own big followings and own site, e.g. Guido, but also a new breed, often found on substack for some reason, e.g. Dan Wooton. As one who uses substack himself, it has severe limitations … it’s for the pundit who wishes to bring the scoop or column in simple form, centre page, to be a “highly respected oracle, a go-to quotee” … these are the minor media empire builders.
What I’m asking you the reader to do is to be a bit more circumspect, a bit “uh huh, I’ll read you but what are your own antecedents, whom are you shilling for?” Before taking onboard and parroting. Beware those who are always wanting to bring the big scoop, the “Breaking News”.
I didn’t say dismiss … I’m saying place it alongside, on the table before you, with all the other “incoming”.
Slow down, examine, even against your own bias, your own natural inclinations. Sometimes a labelled “hostile” who may well be that due to his/her bad decisions on who’s good/who’s bad may have been diverted offtrack on some things. To my mind, blind faith in Donny is just as dangerous as TDS … slow down, examine via “trusted” sources you’ve built over time. Just whom are they lobbying for?
An obvious “be careful” is Ben Shapiro who may or may not have had a hand in the CK demise but is a known Nethanyahu European Zion exponent. Against that are almost the entirety of Whitehall, quite pro-deathcult and flooded-in illegals. Candace is another … I’ve read the criticisms, usually Zionist, which does not necessarily mean Jewish, which is another thing (see Revelation 3:9).
Beware those who immediately turn on you for quoting from the NT … what are they themselves? The secular Settled Science is god set? Again, be circumspect instead of grabbing your bat and ball and storming off.
Currently, I’m looking at this about Susan Wiles, gatekeeper to Donny, also exploring Ann Vandersteel:
…who seems more ultranationalist in a Stew Peters way, similar to Red Ice. I’m also posting this:
The links you need for that are currently at NOWP 1203:3 (Evets 1). And anyway, how sound are Natural News? And how about Gateway Pundit? Again, don’t dismiss out of hand but be circumspect.
Which brings me to navigation and transparency. If you visit any site, you should go straight to the About, to who’s funding this guy/gal? If it’s hidden away somewhere under all the waffle, if he/she won’t state his/her bias … then be most circumspect, reader. Some, like Rhoda at Expose, are basically sound, just derivative … as I am … name me a pundit who is not derivative … that’s quite different to carving out an empire on the back of other people’s resources and investigation.
Flag is often an indicator … my flag is the Cross of St George but also the Union Flag, but am also MAGA, pro-Orban, secret liking for Giorgia, I like people who use ✝️ in the profile but beware again … so does the socialist Chicago pope and the Canterbury graffiti loving new archbish to be, the rainbow ratbag. And the jargon “ratbag” is a giveaway too, it says Oz influence … I could have said “tosser” instead for her, or for Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Obama, Holder, McCarthy (ex House Speaker). Could have used “jerk”.
Then we should note strange likings, e.g. mine for Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Rupert, not Farage. But even here, apply the 70/30 rule. For every person we have misgivings about … do we like less than 70% of what they’re about? If we like 70 to 90% about them, then they’re on the “fairly trusted” list. I’d worry if you were 100% for any human.
Now there’s a girl who’s comfortable in her own skin,” my father-in-law said about my daughter, his granddaughter. She was about one year old and we were watching her bounce happily in her high chair, egg smeared across both cheeks as she shoved pieces of fritter into her mouth.
I realised with pride it was true: she was comfortable. My pride was followed quickly by unease. How long had it been since I could say I was comfortable with myself?
Well, you’re writing in the ‘Guardian’ so probably ‘never’!
My daughter is almost four now and I’ve thought of my father-in-law’s words many times since that day. She’s at a precious age, no longer a toddler and still just on the precipice of childhood proper. She interacts with the world without self-consciousness and has not yet learned that society may expect something different from her.
When she expresses hunger and when she eats, she does so with joyful abandon. When she takes a mouthful of something delicious we can see a whole-body response: she closes her eyes, tilts her head back and dances her shoulders up and down.
Because she’s a child and so lacks inhibition - part of growing up is of course learning social inhibition, which so many adults these days appear to lack.
Many girls will learn, if not explicitly taught then by cultural osmosis, the notion they shouldn’t be outwardly hungry. Whether a girl’s hunger is literally for food or it’s yearning for something greater in her life – a high-powered career, an unabashed artistic practice, a passionate affair – she is often taught to not be so honest in her expression of it.
*sighd*
Watching my daughter’s strong sense of self has forced me to reflect on my own adolescence through the early 2000s, when our wildly misogynistic pop culture filtered down to the schoolyard. I once overheard a high-school boyfriend say I looked ugly when I ate. Instead of dumping him, I simply stopped eating when we were together.
Teenagers do stupid things pt 732489...
Later, in my 20s, when Instagram brought with it the first wave of diet culture masquerading as “wellness”, I was primed to try it all: juice cleanses, appetite-suppressing teas, “quitting” sugar. I once lied to a colleague that I was eating soup for lunch when I had, in fact, poured green juice into a bowl.
Women trying to make it in work do stupid things pt 732489...
These memories are horrifying to me now and thank God for that. Thank God that in my daughter’s world there is no morality ascribed to food, there is no good or bad, or that most disgusting of office kitchen diet-speak, naughty. There is just desire and pleasure and satiety.
It might be a little trite to say that adults can learn from watching children interact with the world...
Sheffield Hallam University staff in China were threatened by individuals described by them as being from China's National Security Service who demanded the research being done in Sheffield be halted.
And access to the university's websites from China was blocked, impeding its ability to recruit Chinese students, in a campaign of threats and intimidation lasting more than two years.
In an internal email from July 2024, university officials said "attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the research are now untenable bedfellows".
What's the Mandarin for 'We surrender, please don't hurt our future funding'?
When the UK government learned of the case, the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy issued a warning to his Chinese counterpart that it would not tolerate attempts to suppress academic freedoms at UK universities, the BBC understands.
Arguing, perhaps, that this was the purview of the UK government, and China should wait its turn?
China was seeking to halt research by Laura Murphy, professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam, into allegations Uyghur Muslims in the north-western region of Xinjiang were subject to forced labour.
Ah, Laura, you should have been researching grounds for reparations for slavery in the US instead, the university would have stood up for you then.
In late 2024, following pressure from the Chinese state and a separate defamation law suit against the university, Sheffield Hallam decided not to publish a final piece of research by Prof Murphy and her team into forced labour.
And in early 2025, university administrators told her that she could "not continue with her research into supply chains and forced labour in China".
Cowards. So much for intellectual rigour, but then, modern universities are no longer about that anymore, as a perusal of David Thomson’s blog will show.
The documents she obtained showed the university "had negotiated directly with a foreign intelligence service to trade my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market," she told the BBC.
She added: "I'd never seen anything quite so patently explicit about the extent to which a university would go to ensure that they have Chinese student income."
She seems surprised by that.
Sheffield Hallam has now apologised to Prof Murphy and said she can resume her work.
A spokesperson said "the university's decision to not continue with Professor Laura Murphy's research was taken based on our understanding of a complex set of circumstances at the time, including being unable to secure the necessary professional indemnity insurance".
