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:

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)"

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:

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"?

The rise of the Karen Stasi in 2020 and the new unvaxxed serfdom

Very tricky, messy post today from me, cyber-logistically. It takes one of Jacqui Deevoy's posts she put on X but to be legible, I have to run it column under column, from screenshots, using the "Read more" line.  It's about that time of Vaxxes and lockdowns, lockups, the way people's nastiness came out, the rise of the term "Karen" to describe the type.

It's also about how the authorities, who knew exactly what they were planning in 2015 and again at Johns Hopkins in October, 2018, then gulled a public who were perfectly happy, in order to save themselves, to incarcerate us disbelievers on the say-so of the globo-PTB, the Gateses, Faucis and Fergusons, Whittys, Hancocks ... to make our lives second class, miserable, using the Karen Stasi to support them.

It's about the TikTok, choreographed ward dancing in empty hospitals.

The Establishment Will NEVER Admit They Got This One Wrong

Essential to the case against Jeremy Bamber is the question of whether or not a silencer was used in the killings, then removed from the rifle and hidden. If so, it was argued in court, Sheila Caffell was clearly not the killer.

It's something I've come to belive more and more, the more I read about this case.  

When Justice Drake, who died in 2014, said the silencer only contained blood belonging to Caffell he misled the jury.

And shockingly, that isn't enough these days to ensutre an appeal succeeds. Nor was it just one slip. 

There was also a second blood group found in the baffles that didn’t match any of the deceased’s blood groups, or Bamber’s, although it was a potential match for David Boutflour. The jury were told none of these facts. On multiple occasions during his summing up, Justice Drake said that the blood in the silencer was a match “for Sheila alone”.

And when you look at the performance of Essex Police, the incompetence of the judge is matched and surpassed! 

Essex police announced that they had found a “heavily bloodstained silencer hours after the gruesome massacre” at a press conference on 16 September 1985. This was reported in at least a dozen newspapers, including on the front page of the Daily Mirror. The police now claim they never said this.

Yes, and they have never faced any consequences for such a blatent lie. So what else to do but go on lying: 

At the trial, David Boutflour said the police had not seized his silencer before the trial. But in the New Yorker’s epic 2024 investigation into the Bamber case, he told journalist Heidi Blake that they had taken it away for “months and months” before the trial, supporting the claim that Essex police were in possession of more than one moderator before the 1986 trial, despite their 40 years of denials.

This is why the Establishment will never, ever grant an appeal; this case shows, perhaps more than any other, the abject incompetence of the tools and institutions of the establishment. 

The only chance he has of the authorities admitting the trial was flawed will be after he and everyone else in the case is long dead.

"Handful of senators don't pass legislation"

In the US in March, 2026, the Senate is holding out, under its corrupt "leader" against what the majority of voters wanted ... so what's changed since July, 1965?

Here's the second half of the lyrics by P.F. Sloan:

Interesting twist on "and marches alone can't bring integration" in that the overwhelming young, white population were certainly for that pipedream, whereas the blacks were after something quite different.

F fwd to 2026 and look at the streets and what's being visited upon the "indigenous society constructors" since the 1600s.

And blocking the way, as ever, are The Senate and their paymasters.

Well, Catherine, Do You Really Want An Answer?

 Because I don't think you'll like it...

While it's a joyous thing when the lanyard class gets its noses rubbed in the glorious diversity and lack of public decorum they are so keen to subject the rest of us to, it's a bit of a wasted opportunity if they seemingly don't learn anything frtom it. And Catherine doesn't appear to have learned anything from it.

Last Friday, the local councillor rang the doorbell, doing impromptu and – for me at least – unprecedented doorstepping, so I told her what had happened. She looked appropriately revolted and carried on. The council’s first priority, she said, after children’s services, was parcel theft. That’s great. But while it’s possible to get big post diverted to the newsagent, it’s rare our short walk to school doesn’t become an obstacle course of lethal paving, crack dealers and stool samples, not all of them animal.

So what are you suggesting to her? Remigration? More cops on the beat?  

Perhaps some public loos could be rebuilt, I said. To give people privacy for those last two activities, at least.

Of course! God forbid the druggies and public defecators lack privacy for their antisocial actions, eh, Catherine?