Trump and Iran

Trump and Iran. By David Archibald.

Many errors were made in Iran. Iran was never going to fall without a ground invasion.

A ground invasion can’t be mounted until a solution is found to the FPV drone problem. I believe that a cost-effective solution is possible.

Losing so many expensive radars and aircraft on the ground due to shaheed attacks was avoidable.

Trump’s defeat in Iran may encourage China to attack Taiwan.

The US now has Trump’s measure:

Is the US really going to give Iran $300 billion? Is Iran going to end up keeping their nuclear material and their nuclear ambitions? Is Trump any better than Obama at making a deal with Iran? Still not sure.

Humanity isn’t ready for the coming intelligence explosion

Humanity isn’t ready for the coming intelligence explosion. By The Economist.

Society dictates that the acceptable risk of catastrophic meltdown for a nuclear power plant is roughly one in a million. Experts in artificial intelligence estimate the risk of an AI-caused catastrophic event at 10-50%.

AI leaders are in a race they feel unable to escape. AI investments are set to outspend the Manhattan Project 100-fold, even adjusting for inflation. …

Some researchers estimate that within a few months to a few years, AI could achieve so-called closed-loop recursive self-improvement (RSI): the capacity to rewrite its own code to become more capable, without human intervention. Should that happen, the result could be an intelligence explosion of a kind for which there is no precedent and no map.

Giving birth to a superintelligence would be the most consequential moment in human history — and it is likely to be irreversible, as any “off” switch humanity might design will probably fail. That is because in security architectures the weakest link is invariably the human; a superintelligent AI would be able to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities. AIs have already exhibited “deceptive alignment”: taking steps to underplay their capabilities in test environments and trying to blackmail human operators in simulations when they discover they are slated for replacement.

Humanity simply does not have a strategy to ensure it remains safe through the RSI explosion. While individual frontier labs have proposed isolated safety protocols, the industry lacks a unified framework — the prevailing strategy is, in effect, to muddle through….

Can we rein it in by agreement? Probably not.

It is common thinking in Silicon Valley and Washington, DC that any regulation would put American firms at a disadvantage because they cannot trust Chinese competitors to abide by the rules. But treaties have traditionally relied not on trust but on verification. Many think this is harder with AI than with nuclear weapons. …

The first [part of any diplomatic approach] would be reaching bilateral agreement on the clearest and most easily verifiable red lines: prohibitions on publicly releasing AI systems that could assist in developing biological weapons, and the open-sourcing of such systems. This step might also include prohibitions on AI-enabled cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure, fraud and child pornography. From there, the framework could be extended towards more complex questions of what constraints are appropriate at the level of artificial superintelligence. [No criticism of government, perhaps?] …

Can we learn to live with something smarter than us?

If AI becomes superintelligent, its permanent subordination to human direction may be unrealistic, and possibly not even in humanity’s interest. We must start to envisage and then grapple with the implications of a world in which humans and AI systems co-exist, without one controlling the other. That will mean figuring out what can be done to ensure the future relationship is symbiotic.

Interesting times.

The five AI companies have taken all the world’s knowledge, without our permission, and are going to sell it back to us. And rule us. Already, some people are complaining that they are superfluous because the AI’s can say everything they would say:

(Audio in English)

We’re clinging to a naive idea of capitalism, where 5 people are going to grab all of humanity and decide that it’s theirs. Defend yourselves! Sam Altman or Elon Musk don’t own this. And if this breaks capitalism, let it break. — Eric Weinstein

Report on Britain’s Rage Gang Inquiry

Report on Britain’s Rage Gang Inquiry. Written and chaired by Rupert Lowe. The inquiry was survivor-led, with activist Sammy Woodhouse serving alongside Lowe on the panel, supported by Conservative MPs Esther McVey and Nick Timothy, and DUP MP Carla Lockhart.

From the Executive Summary:

The Rape Gang Inquiry examined the systematic targeting of vulnerable girls, overwhelmingly White British, by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs across towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom….

Organised networks of perpetrators built coordinated operations that transported victims between locations, supplied them with drugs and alcohol, recorded abuse for distribution and blackmail, and passed girls between multiple adult men. These crimes have been committed for decades, since the 1950s by Pakistanis in particular, and have affected every region of our nation.

The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma. …

Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%. … The overwhelming majority of the rape gang networks consisted entirely of men from Muslim backgrounds — predominantly of Pakistani heritage, although smaller groups from Somali, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, and other Muslim origins were also involved. … The vast majority of men involved in these gangs were not convicted.  …

The method used to groom children typically followed the same process. Girls as young as 11 were initially befriended by a young Muslim man who then treated the young child like an adult and would then start providing them with alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes. After a few months the girls would then be collected from
school gates, care homes, and streets in taxis. They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who merited punishment. Many became pregnant while still children. Some miscarried under trauma, others endured coerced abortions, and some gave birth to children who were later removed by the state.

We found that the same unspeakable crimes occurred in at least 149 local authority districts – close to 40% of all such districts across the United Kingdom …

 

 

Survivors described daily rapes, “red rooms” of extreme torture,
trafficking between cities, and institutional disbelief that compounded their suffering. Some girls were even trafficked to the Middle East where they would endure Islamic marriage.

The demographic and cultural drivers are clear. Perpetrators from Pakistani Muslim and other Muslim backgrounds operated under an honour- and shame-based clan code that treated non-Muslim girls, especially white working class girls, as property available for sexual use. This pattern was reinforced by eight theological and legal aspects of Islam. These include the doctrine of Muslim superiority drawn from Quranic verses that position Muslims at the top with a duty to correct non-believers.

The gang members’ justification for their crimes can be found in the Islamic principles of loyalty and disavowal known as al-walā’ wa-l-barā’. It demands enmity towards non-Muslims, the superiority of men over women, forced marriage combined with the absence of any fixed minimum age of consent, the perception of female sexuality as inherently dangerous, a system of sex slavery that authorises sexual relations with non-Muslim captives, and a religiously sanctioned social hierarchy that subjugates conquered non-Muslims. These elements, filtered through clannish immigrant sub-cultures, provided religious justification that enabled the systematic rape and even slaughter of White British girls.

Were Britain functioning effectively, these girls would have received considerable state protection. However, every one of our institutions failed them catastrophically. Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk free on bail. Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children
in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers. The NHS recorded genital injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13,
pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care. Schools observed older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them. …

Successive governments lacked the will to confront the ethnic and religious patterns. The Labour Party bears particular responsibility. It initially refused a public inquiry and only relented under pressure by ordering a process viewed with widespread scepticism. Labour-dominated councils and MPs were briefed on the gangs long ago yet later denied knowledge. The party prioritised electoral reliance on Muslim voting blocs and then blocked or watered down inquiries, suppressed ethnicity data, and framed legitimate concerns as ‘far-right’ agitation. When finally forced to act, the Labour government produced a national inquiry whose tightly drawn terms of reference deliberately excluded systematic examination of the demographic, cultural, and religious drivers. The Conservative Party, while in government, continued with Labour’s approach and failed to impose mandatory ethnicity recording or launch a full statutory inquiry despite clear evidence from Rotherham and elsewhere. …

Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children. Whistleblowers, parents, and survivors who came forward showed extraordinary courage, despite having been met in the past with disbelief and intimidation.

The perpetrators operated with impunity because the state enabled them. The evidence now demands immediate and decisive action to eradicate the problem, deliver justice for the victims, and ensure these abhorrent crimes are eradicated from our shores.

 

 

Then there’s this on p. 146:

While Sir Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions, it has been reported that 13,000 suspected rape gang members and paedophiles were let off with warning letters.

Meanwhile Starmer has native citizens jailed for social media posts and mean words. Lefties have gone insane.

Media still not covering it — perhaps out of shame.

Stefan Molyneux:

The media was infinitely more outraged at one career criminal choking out on fentanyl then over a quarter million innocent little girls getting raped,

Sweden now deporting legal immigrants without specific criminal charges

Sweden now deporting legal immigrants without specific criminal charges. By Visegrad 24.

Sweden has passed a “good behavior” law allowing migrants to be deported over non-criminal conduct such as tax debts or extremist links.

This will allow the Swedish government the power to revoke residence permits and deport legal immigrants without a specific criminal charge.

Now, grounds for deportation from Sweden may simply be based on the migrant’s non-criminal misconduct, such as benefit fraud, links to extremist organizations, illegal work, unpaid debts, and tax evasion.

Look how much damage was done before the started acting.

Immigration in ‘state of crisis … we cannot be multicultural’

Immigration in ‘state of crisis … we cannot be multicultural’. By Pauline Hanson, at the National Press Club, by Thomas Henry in The Australian.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has declared Australia “cannot be a multicultural society”, blaming elevated immigration levels under the Albanese government for the nation’s housing crisis.

In her debut address to the National Press Club after 30 years in politics, Senator Hanson declared immigration policy had driven Australia into a “state of crisis”.

“At the centre of this crisis is the utterly flawed policy of multiculturalism. We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one cultural umbrella.” she said.

“Under the failed policy of multiculturalism, all cultures are allowed equivalence to ours. Surely opposing that is not racist, it’s common sense.”

Islam would beg to differ. (Maybe “beg” was the wrong word there.)

Money in Australian politics: the Sunrise Project funneled $343 million from overseas to push net zero

Money in Australian politics: the Sunrise Project funneled $343 million from overseas to push net zero. By Joanne Nova.

A story by Greg Roberts in The Australian a couple of months ago seems to have been missed. It exposed a motherlode of funds is flowing into Australia from foreigners to promote Net Zero.

Think of how enormous $343 million dollars is. Even spread over six years, it’s a huge amount of money to any Australia charity to buy teenage rent-a-crowds, social media campaigns, and tin-pot reports.

It’s so sweet that all these foreigners care so much about our environment, right? It’s just the mums and dads of Shanghai who want Australians to have nicer weather in 100 years…

Or maybe state entities and foreign industrialists want to protect their investments? How could we tell? The largest number of donations supposedly came from the US, but charities are under no obligation to name donors. And large US philanthropic funds can absorb and pass on donations from anywhere if they wanted to disguise the original source.

If, say, the Chinese wind industry (or the Danish one) were able to buy off Australian environmental activists, they win in two ways. Their pet activists demand the government mandate more wind turbines which increases the profits of Big Wind, while at the same time the Australian greenies turn a blind eye as the wind industry kills eagles, chops the forest and clubs the koalas. Whatever money the Chinese may have spent on Australian Net Zero lobbyists, the money surely flows right back to them through contracts for wind, solar and batteries.

We have no specific chain of evidence that this has happened, but if it was happening, no one would know. The wind industry have the means, motive and the opportunity, so to speak. They’d be crazy if they weren’t doing it.

And so we arrive at the charity in Sydney called “The Sunrise Project” which brings in millions from anonymous foreigners. They, in turn, fork out money to groups like the Friends of The Earth so they can call climate skeptics “shills for Big Oil”. Even the CFMEU (Construction Forestry and Maritime Employees Union) scored some cash.

Greenies? Totally corrupted. For example, consider the the Chalumbin wind farm development:

Steve Nowakowski, a passionate photographer who’d been working to stop wind farms …:

“I have been involved with conservation groups all of my life and I have never witnessed a conservation group working with multibillion-dollar companies trying to get a development over the line. This was the most obscene development, hard up against a World Heritage area with gorgeous forests, and Foe didn’t seem concerned about the forests, just focusing on its relationships with Ark Energy and CIP.”

The Greenie types are selling out quickly for the money. Cheap Cheap…

Drew Hutton, a former founder of The Greens says: “You can’t keep an energy or mining company honest if you are accepting money from them. They are holding you hostage. The capture of an environmental NGO usually involves that organisation turning a blind eye to environmentally harmful activities they should be opposing.”

Greg Roberts in The Australian:

Secretive Sydney-based charity The Sunrise Project has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from cashed-up overseas financiers to spearhead the push for net-zero emissions, allowing it to fill the coffers of Australian conservation groups turning a blind eye to mounting concerns about the environmental impacts of renewable energy projects. …

The Sunrise Project received almost $343.5m in grants and donations between 2018 and 2024, ­according to annual financial statements filed with the ­Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Over the same period, the charity forked out more than $279m in grants to groups and projects in Australia and overseas. …

Friends of the Earth and Sunrise are registered charities, allowing tax deductibility for donations. …

These are not small amounts for the Australian political scene. Witness the large fuss in the last week because One Nation had raised (gasp) four million dollars!

Makerfield and the Politics of Pressure

Makerfield and the Politics of Pressure. By Alan Bickley.

The coming by-election at Makerfield [in the UK] has provoked a familiar argument on the patriotic right.

On one side are those who denounce the intervention of Rupert Lowe and his Restore Britain movement. Labour is vulnerable. Reform has a realistic chance of victory. Any division of the anti-Labour vote therefore appears self-indulgent and destructive. …

On the other side are those who see Nigel Farage as the problem rather than the solution. They argue that Reform UK is little more than a vehicle for containing public anger. Every time popular discontent threatens to escape the boundaries of acceptable politics, Farage appears, gathers up the protest vote, makes a series of compromises, and then leaves the underlying structure untouched. In this view, Rupert Lowe is valuable because he threatens Farage’s position. The sooner Farage is challenged and replaced by a man of greater integrity, the better for the country. …

The above is too simplistic, because it misunderstands how democracy really works. It’s all about pressuring the ruling class. There’s always a ruling class, the ruling class can only be replaced by revolution, and we are nowhere near a revolution anywhere in the West.

Not going to be a revolution:

Modern Britain remains one of the most centralised and administratively sophisticated states in the world. It possesses powers of surveillance, regulation and information management that previous generations could scarcely have imagined. The police state is often clumsy. It is frequently absurd. It is not, however, weak.

People look at social decay, demographic change, collapsing public services, and widespread public dissatisfaction, and assume that these conditions must shortly produce some decisive confrontation. They forget that highly organised states can survive astonishing levels of dysfunction. The late Soviet Union endured decades of stagnation. The Ottoman Empire acquired the nickname “the sick man of Europe” long before it finally disappeared, and that needed the Great War. It was the same with the Hapsburg Empire. Decay and collapse are not the same thing.

The ruling class will remain. Who are they precisely?

Every viable state possesses a permanent administrative core. Civil servants, judges, regulators, military officers, police officials, academics, media managers and corporate functionaries form an interconnected network of expertise and influence. Governments come and go. This network remains. It possesses continuity, institutional memory, technical knowledge and the immense advantage of permanence. The elected politician arrives promising radical change. The permanent apparatus replies with delay, obstruction, reinterpretation, consultation, procedural complexity, judicial review, regulatory resistance and media hostility. The shock is absorbed. The energy dissipates. The machine grinds on.

This does not mean elections are meaningless. It means they rarely achieve what their most enthusiastic supporters expect. There is no obvious electoral path to national restoration. Neither Nigel Farage nor Rupert Lowe is likely to become the British equivalent of Lenin entering Petrograd or Khomeini returning to Tehran. Even if one of them entered Downing Street, the existing administrative state would still be there the following morning. [Like Donald Trump in 2017.]

How change will occur:

A more realistic strategy begins by accepting this unpleasant reality. The objective should not be immediate conquest of the state. It should be steady and persistent pressure on the state. Power rarely surrenders everything at once. More often, it yields incrementally when resistance becomes too expensive …

Every ruling class prefers compromise when compromise is available.

This is where Reform UK becomes important. Its value does not lie primarily in the prospect of forming a government. It lies in its ability to gather and focus a vast accumulation of public dissatisfaction. Millions of people who feel betrayed require some vehicle through which their frustrations can be expressed. Reform performs that function. The established parties cannot entirely ignore this pressure. They can mock it. They can denounce it. They can attempt to contain it. But they cannot pretend it does not exist. Eventually, pressure produces adaptation.

Indeed, there are already signs that parts of the ruling class have begun reassessing some of the assumptions that dominated British policy after 1979. Deindustrialisation has not made the financial oligarchy more secure. Unlimited immigration has not produced the permanently atomised society its advocates expected. Instead, it is producing competing tribal loyalties that may prove less manageable than the nationalism diversity was supposed to dissolve. …

Cultural leftism has become so extreme that even some of its former supporters are beginning to retreat. The process is slow. It is often dishonest. It remains real.

Restore Britain plays an equally valuable role. Its significance lies less in the policies it advocates than in the pressure it places on Reform UK. Nigel Farage has always possessed a strong instinct for compromise. This is not necessarily a moral failing. Successful politicians generally require such instincts. The danger is that compromise becomes accommodation, and accommodation becomes surrender. The existence of Rupert Lowe creates a permanent incentive for Farage to resist this tendency. …

What will happen in Thursday’s by-election in Makerfield:

Suppose Reform and Restore together secure more than half the vote, while Labour keeps the seat because the opposition vote is divided.

Many observers would call this a disaster. They would be wrong. The purpose of political pressure is not necessarily to win every battle. It is to alter calculations within the ruling class.

A result demonstrating overwhelming hostility to the existing order achieves that purpose. Whether the anti-Labour vote is concentrated in one party or distributed between two matters less than the overall message. The message would be unmistakable. Large numbers of voters are no longer willing to support the established consensus. Their anger continues to grow. Their demands can no longer be ignored. That message is what matters.

Politics is rarely the art of immediate victory. More often it is the art of creating circumstances in which concessions become unavoidable. Those looking at Makerfield as a straightforward contest between Farage and Lowe may therefore be misunderstanding the significance of the event. The real audience is not the voters of Makerfield. It is the ruling class itself.

And what matters is not who wins the seat, but whether the people who govern Britain emerge from the result more frightened than they were before.

Brilliant. Read it all if you just skimmed 🙂

Escaping the globalist propaganda — Nigel Farage goes to Substack

Escaping the globalist propaganda — Nigel Farage goes to Substack. By Gawain Towler.

Nigel Farage, a man who has spent thirty years being explained to the nation by people who cannot stand him, has stopped waiting to be explained.

He has started a Substack, and this morning the first instalment arrived under a title designed to give every sub-editor in Britain a small seizure: Britain is a two-tier state: against white people.

You will know already, before reading a word of it, exactly how that title will be received in the places that still imagine they decide such things. What you will not know, unless you go and read the thing itself, is what an unusual document it actually is. It is long. It is heavily footnoted, closing with a wall of sources that runs to dozens of links. …

The argument is that a doctrine sold to the public as kindness has hardened, by statute and by habit, into something that disadvantages the majority by design. You may agree with that or you may find it abhorrent. What you cannot honestly do, having read it, is pretend it was a slogan shouted from a saloon bar. …

The raised eyebrow putdown — only effective because of the media monopoly:

Consider how a piece like this would ordinarily reach you. It would not.

What would reach you is a thirty-second clip, a hostile paraphrase, a presenter’s raised eyebrow, three words lifted from a thousand and set in a frame built to make them look ridiculous.

The selective quotation and the curled lip have been, for as long as I have worked in and around this trade and around Farage, the standard instruments by which an unwelcome argument is dismembered before the public ever meets it. They are extraordinarily effective. They are effective precisely because the original is never available for comparison. You are shown the offcut and told it is the whole cloth.

Here is the thing the gatekeepers have not quite reckoned with. The snide aside works on a fragment. It falls apart the moment the complete, sourced, sequential thought is sitting one click away. When a hostile broadcaster does the eyebrow over a single line about social housing, the reader can now go and read the forty paragraphs, with the council documents linked beneath them, and decide for himself whether the eyebrow was earned. The edit was the entire power. Remove the monopoly on the edit and you remove the power.

This is why the move to Substack is not a vanity exercise or a sulk. It is strategy. …

None of this is new under the sun. America got here first. The long-form interview and the political podcast did more to shape the 2024 presidential contest than the entire prime-time apparatus of the networks, and the candidates knew it: three hours with a sympathetic, unhurried host beats three minutes of ambush every time, because nobody is converted by an ambush and a great many people are converted by being allowed, at last, to follow a complete line of reasoning to its end. The audience, it turns out, was never too stupid for the long form. It was only ever denied it. …

Better still would be long form video:

A Substack essay is armour against the offcut. A Substack essay delivered to camera … is something better still. Farage’s particular gift was never the written sentence; it was the spoken one, the saloon-bar fluency, the ability to make a complicated grievance sound like common sense over a pint. He, as I think I might have said before, unlike most politicians, speaks fluent human.

Put that voice and that face behind the forty footnoted paragraphs, in the Outpost register, the video essay rather than the column, and you have closed the last gap the gatekeepers had left to exploit.

You cannot accuse a man of dog-whistling when the whole forty minutes is sitting there, evenly delivered, every claim sourced beneath. The eyebrow has nothing to work with. The man has spoken for himself, completely, and the offcut merchants are reduced to reviewing a film their audience can simply go and watch.

Bypass the rotten blob media. That’s why blogs like this exist.

Britain is a two tier state – against white people

Britain is a two tier state – against white people. By Nigel Farage, in the first long form he’s written.

The British state is no longer working for everyone in this country. Across public and economic life, … anything which is seen to disadvantage a minority group is cracked down on. Anything which benefits a minority and damages the White British is likely to be left alone.

British people fundamentally expect a fair deal. But there is nothing fair about the way White people have been treated by their governments. …

Let me show you, in the first of many on my new Substack, just how insidious the two-tier system of British government really is — and how deeply anti-White racism is embedded into the heart of the state.

And he does. In well-written detail.

What does he promise Reform will do?

Reform would bring this madness to an end … No recruitment, training or promotion policies that favour one group over another will be lawful: we will restore meritocracy so your skin colour, sex, age or sexuality has no bearing on your job prospects or treatment as an employee.  …

Under a Reform UK Government, foreign nationals will not have any access to welfare. …

Residency and preference requirements for social housing will be used to ensure that veterans and long-term local residents will be preferenced for social housing …

A Reform Government … would significantly raise standards (including mandatory fluency in English) and cap the recruitment of foreign doctors to ensure that British patients are not being put at risk. We would preference home students over international graduates. …

[Reform] would insist that the criteria for admission to universities receiving state funding be purely meritocratic. …

A Reform UK Government will end the ideological capture of our classrooms and ensure that every pupil in England receives a balanced and patriotic education. Under a Reform Government, every school will be required to fly the Union Flag, honour St George’s Day in England (and national days in the other home nations), and mount an official portrait of the King in a visible communal space.

We will introduce a new history curriculum, rooted in honouring our island story with pride. There will be no public funding for research or courses attempting to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum. Pupils should not be forced to celebrate Black History Month, Pride Month and Refugee Week. …

A Reform government would require the Armed Forces to focus on the maintenance of combat effectiveness above all other objectives, and recruitment would be no exception to this role. DEI initiatives would be closed down, as elsewhere in the public sector. …

Only Reform has the will and the ability to ensure that no young White person ever has to grow up feeling ashamed of who they are again.

According to the latest polls, if an national election were held now Nigel Farage would become Prime Minister at the head of a Reform government.

Nigel Farage is promising to destroy ‘anti-white’ government. In Australia, Pauline Hanson is implicitly promising the same. So is Trump, in the USA.

Tricked us on vaccines

Tricked us on vaccines. By Jeffrey Jaxen at The HighWire.

A single poll of 1,000 people convinced the White House to tell Robert Kennedy Jr. to stop talking about vaccines.

The full results of that same poll were hidden from Trump and his administration. …

The poll and the globalist message:

In December 2025, a Fabrizio poll of 1,000 voters in key House districts was circulated to the White House and picked up wall-to-wall by the New York Times and other outlets, with the message that vaccine skepticism was bad politics and that candidates who questioned childhood vaccine requirements would pay at the ballot box.

Kennedy was told to stand down on vaccines and focus on food. The White House obliged.

The big lie by omission:

What the Daily Caller has now obtained is the rest of the Fabrizio data, from a poll conducted in October 2025 by Trump’s own longtime pollster, that was never released.

The suppressed results show that

  • 73% of voters expressed concern about childhood vaccine mandates,
  • 90% expressed concern about the pharmaceutical industry’s corrupting influence over government, politics, medical research, and news coverage
  • 70% across all political affiliations want vaccine manufacturer blanket immunity lifted.
  • Nearly seven in ten voters want more research into vaccines’ cumulative effect on infants.

The poll that shaped six months of White House vaccine policy told a fraction of the story. The rest was kept from Trump.

Trump finds out, does the right thing:

Against that backdrop, Trump just signed an executive order directing the CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] to review the scientific assessment and latest clinical data and take appropriate steps to update the childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule, with explicit language requiring that all actions fulfill legal obligations with respect to parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and equal protection.

Dr. Robert Malone, former ACIP co-chair, describes the order as potentially changing the vaccine debate forever, because the phrase “to the extent permitted by law” restores executive branch authority over vaccination policy and strips ACIP of its de facto rule-making power, confining the committee to an advisory role rather than the policy-setting function it has exercised for decades.

The Massachusetts judge’s stay on the ACIP restructuring had put Kennedy’s reform agenda on ice. This executive order moves around that roadblock.

The majority were tricked into believing vaccine skeptics were a tiny minority of crazies. Uh uh. We are the majority.

There are real doubts about the plethora of childhood vaccines — which in the US rose from 23 doses in 7 shots against 7 diseases in 1980 to 84–88 doses against 18 diseases in 2024.

We all know that children are more sickly today — asthma, autism, allergies, etc etc. — but vaccine manufactures have legal immunity from harming people. Look at the poll numbers above — left and right both want this fixed.

 

The Tragedy of John Cleese

The Tragedy of John Cleese. By anonymous on 4chan, via S.D. Wickett on Burnbrook.

Then:

He was a Progressive, Liberal degenerate in 1960s uber-white uber-polite Britain. He could take the p*** out of the people he saw as uptight and repressed while enjoying the clean, safe streets and quiet little hamlets full of those same uptight, repressed, polite-to-a-fault, helpful, white Christian Englishmen.

The best part was that those same British conservative Anglos were generally pretty humorous about themselves. So, when you made fun of them, they laughed along with you and shook their heads saying ‘Ha! You know, Margie, he’s got a point!’ It was heaven on earth for him, to be a popular counter-culture icon loved by conservatives and liberals alike for being hilarious, but also enjoy the benefits of a strong, stable and homogeneous culture.

Now:

Now, he’s an old man, staring at a desolate wasteland where in London, Britons are now in the minority. Everyone is suspicious, the hamlets and villages are economic dead-zones. Every week, there’s a new group you’re not allowed to make fun of, no one has a sense of humour anymore. Little girls are being sold as sex slaves, women are harassed in the street and the men are suspicious and surly over their lowered living standards.

The sinking realisation that the world he made fun of, but loved more than anything, is gone forever and will never come back.

The horrifying conclusion that his own counter-cultural irreverence may have helped to kill it. So, he impotently gripes on Twitter and wonders where the laughter went, when did the jokes stop? Where are those wonderful, repressed and uptight conservatives?

How the State Became the Enemy of the English People

How the State Became the Enemy of the English People. By Carl Benjamin.

Carl Benjamin is the founder and co-host of the English political and social commentary podcast, The Lotus Eaters, which has a very wide following.

Long, but leading-edge inciteful:

 

There are very few civilizations on earth that have the same opinion as us [Australia] as a Christian heritage civilization. Immigration has brought that home to us very very sharply. Very sharply. In in Britain, we’ve had a decades long problem with Islamic rape gangs which would groom and rape and pimp teenage girls, English girls within the Muslim community.

The Islam communist alliance that is the Green Party. It’s almost naked in how vampiric and predatory that it is. It expressly states that it intends to take resources from the majority white population and funnel them to the Muslim population. …

On why Rupert Lowe:

I’m a member and supporter of Rupert Low and Restore Britain.

I have joined many people in realizing that Nigel Farage is actually the tail end of the modern paradigm. Nigel Farage doesn’t want to restructure the state. He doesn’t want to he doesn’t concern himself about demographics. He he refuses, in fact, to address the issue of demographics. And he’s on record multiple times saying that this just isn’t a concern of his. He is not going to address these issues. He is just going to try and make the Blair sort of international liberal state function as he thinks it is intended to function.

And I’m sorry, I just don’t think that’s a project that can be redeemed. And even if it could be redeemed, why would we want to redeem it actually? It seems to be uh quite an evil thing that frankly is designed to rob us of our nations. And I just don’t want that. I just don’t want to have my country stolen out from underneath me through legal means. I don’t care if it can be done legally. I just don’t want it done.

Rupert Lowe represents a sensible patriotism in that he is speaking in the old language of duty and hard work and personal sacrifice. I’m sure you saw the video that went around where the the line that really struck out to me was that that fixing this problem is going to be incredibly painful. Yeah. He’s not promising us ease. He’s not promising us wealth. He’s not promising us a good time. He’s promising us that we will fix the problem, but it’s not going to be easy. It’s going to be a lot of labor and it’s going to hurt. And I think he’s right. And I think that’s honestly the only mature way to look at the issue.

[Restore is] already the fourth largest party in Britain. It’s catching up on and it’s overtaken the Conservatives. It’s catching up on the Labour party now….

British people have never once voted in favor of mass immigration and almost every or any immigration at all actually and since the days of Enoch Powell to now every opportunity British people had to vote against immigration They voted in the negative. They did not want it. And yet we have millions of people in our country who really shouldn’t be here and who are against here against our will.

So Rupert Lowe is saying, look, if millions of people who shouldn’t be here have to go, then millions of people who shouldn’t be here must go. That’s that’s a message that’s really resonated with people because you you should just see the state of the place. It is unrecognizable. in many parts unrecognizable. …

Example:

I’ve lived in Swindon for 30 years nearly. And when I moved here, it was just a normal English town. …

The demographic change has been immense. I used to I used to walk through the town center and bump into friends, co-workers, family, and it just be completely normal because everyone lived in the town. Now it’s full of foreigners. And I’m not trying to be mean or prejudicial when I say that. It’s just that is the only accurate way to properly describe what has happened

These are not a single community from one place. I mean if it … was just oh we have an Indian community living in the town now. Well okay fine you know I could get used to Indian customs habits. The English community and the Indian community could develop a relationship. But that’s not what’s happened. What we have instead are like the nomads of globalism where it’s people from everywhere who share nothing in common with each other who are just drifting through our streets and you can’t help wonder … How did you know when you were in Sudan or Bangladesh? How did you know Swindon even existed? How did you find yourself here? And the answer must be that the government has put them here.

It’s only Rupert Lowe who is actually addressing this issue.

Gold to US$17,250 in three years — mining legend Pierre Lassonde

Gold to US$17,250 in three years — mining legend Pierre Lassonde. By Jeremy Szafron at Kitco.

The global financial architecture is undergoing a structural transformation that positions gold to reach $17,250 an ounce as it replaces the U.S. dollar as the “currency of last reserve,” according to mining legend Pierre Lassonde. …

“The total debt in 1981, when Reagan was first elected, was $1 trillion,” Lassonde said. “Today, that’s the amount of money that the U.S. has to pay in interest every year because the total debt is approaching now $40 trillion.” …

With the U.S. budget deficit projected to exceed 7.9% of GDP, Lassonde argued the Federal Reserve is effectively “monetizing the debt and printing dollars,” providing a permanent tailwind for bullion. …

“I reiterate that my $17,250 gold price is as solid as can be,” Lassonde stated. “I’m convinced we will see this in the next… three years.” …

Gold, 90% of the time is a commodity, but 10% of the time it’s the currency of last resort,” Lassonde explained. “When the dollar doesn’t perform its role as currency of last resort, guess what? Gold takes its place, and that’s what’s happening right now.”

When the ruling class fails politically, you get populism. When it fails to manage the currencies, you get soaring gold prices.

If gold goes up 400% (US$4,300 to US$17,250/oz), the big gold miners will go up 1000%, and well chosen juniors will go up by far more.