Morning music
Tweets seen
Little girls at a school bombed by Israel. Another Israeli and American war crime.
At least the Israelis will not be able to harvest their organs this time.
[“The entire tenor of the US administration rn is so shocking. They insult and goad their allies in public, they are roundly self-congratulatory (having bombed children) rude bullies. Given they said we didn’t help them in other mad Middle East forays why on earth are we even speaking to them. Indescribably ghastly. Get off our bases frankly.“]
How utterly stupid so many standard British people sound these days.
What was it that I was constantly hearing on British TV until about a day or two ago, about how safe and nice Dubai is to live in?
In a century’s time, places like Dubai will be ruined and abandoned hulks sticking up out of the desert sands, the only visitors a few camel-borne Arabs.
Quite possibly, Tel Aviv will be similar.
Part-Jew nonentity, Tom Tugendhat MP, wants the UK to deploy its limited resources to help Israel, nothing else. Shut up, you fifth-columnist.
You need to go further. “Whites Only” at elections (both voters and candidates).
On those figures, Starmer himself would lose his seat in Parliament.
That poll translates to a Commons with about 394 Reform MPs (very large majority), 60 LibDems (official, very weak, Opposition), 52 Greens, 45 SNP, 44 Cons, 29 Labour [etc].
I look forward to something like that happening in a couple of years, or 2029, then to a pseudo-national Reform UK government which (in the pocket of the Jew-Zionist/Israel lobby, and unwilling to really tackle the “blacking and browning” of Britain, as well as being pseudo-“libertarian” and finance-capitalist) will be unable to “do de business“, and so will have to give way to real social nationalism.
Dan Hodges and other commentators keep saying that (at 35%, 30%, even 28%), Reform has reached its national electoral ceiling. Maybe so. At 35%, I would probably agree, but that is irrelevant as long as the Labour and Conservative parties are on 16%, 18%, even if they go up to 22% or more.
As for the Greens, so long as they remain below 25% (and at present they cannot even make it to 20 %; at present they are between 12% and 18%), there is no chance of their being able to form a government; they will, however, ensure that Labour cannot form one either.
That one would translate to Reform UK having about 336 MPs (small majority), Greens 88 (official Opposition but weak), Cons 74, LibDems 65, SNP 45, and Lab— 15! [etc].
The opinion polls differ slightly, but all have put Reform at the top, and usually well clear of the pack, for about 18 months now.
I had no idea that Sam Melia had completed the whole of his sentence actually in custody. If so, it must be because he refused to surrender his principles and refused to compromise. Well done.
“Welcome back to the fight; this time I know our side will win” (to coin a phrase…).
“They” don’t change.
Yet the Jews still whine about alleged similar events in Poland and the Ukraine in 1939-1941, where other Jews were, they say, the victims.
A pack of extremely malicious Jews. Several of the leaders of that tiny but (of course) “well-funded” cabal have engaged in attempts to pervert the course of justice, and Falter himself has lied on oath in court more than once, in my opinion.
Trump remains what he was in 2016, when I, still then having a Twitter account (a pack of Jews had me expelled in 2018) described him as “a squawking parrot in a gilded cage, and guarded by a phalanx of Jews“.
I was right. I am right.
Iran will rebuild, and I think will dig ever deeper into those mountains over there, constructing missile factories and launch bases far below ground-level. Certainly conventional, possibly nuclear, missiles. One day, tens of thousands of drones will take to the air, followed by thousands of missiles. Their destination will be Israel, which will then be obliterated.
Regionally, the conflict has already put paid to 99% if not 100% of tourism to Dubai, for example. Who will be going there even if the airport re-opens?
As for oil and gas, it can be sourced from other parts of the world, but at a price. The “cat of the Kremlin” must be contemplating the cream…
Striking yet not sinking? I am not sufficiently informed to know what it takes to sink such a vessel these days.
Google AI says: “Four ballistic missiles can severely damage a large aircraft carrier, potentially disabling its flight deck and combat capabilities, but sinking a modern supercarrier likely requires more hits, according to naval experts. While a few missiles cause major damage, deep, watertight compartments and heavy armor are designed to prevent total sinking“.
So there we are.
That Alex Armstrong character is yet another pseudo-national GB News talking head. Israel, and the JQ generally, is always the touchstone. Anyone supporting the Jewish lobby is at best useless and stupid, at worst an enemy.
Hero.
Laurels and oak leaves.
Contrary to what many believe, homeschooling is completely lawful in the UK: see https://www.gov.uk/home-education.
[“The Blair years (1997–2007) can be read as a “rewiring” of the British state: a huge burst of legislation that expanded state capacity, shifted key powers away from direct electoral control, and built legal frameworks that later governments found hard to unwind. The result, critics argue, is a UK that feels less governable: immigration pressures that look structurally “locked in”, an economy shaped by technocratic monetary policy rather than democratic choices, a voting system perceived as more open to abuse, and a general sense that the country is smothered in rules while basic competence and trust have declined. On immigration, the argument isn’t that Blair “caused” today’s numbers single-handedly, but that he helped build the modern machinery of mass migration management—and also raised expectations and rights around remaining in the UK. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created the modern asylum support framework, including Section 95 support and the dispersal system (moving asylum seekers around the country rather than concentrating in London). In practice, dispersal entrenched a long-running national system of accommodation contracts, local authority impacts, and political flashpoints—so when asylum claims rose later, the infrastructure (and the costs) scaled up rather than disappearing. Later, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 further reshaped appeals, removals, and the legal pathways around asylum and immigration decisions. A critic’s point is that Blair-era reforms normalised a permanent “immigration management state”—and once you have a large legal-administrative apparatus for it, you rarely get smaller numbers; you get larger budgets, more contractors, more case backlogs, and more political dependency on the system. Blair’s rights framework is also central to this critique. The Human Rights Act 1998 brought the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic UK law, making rights-based challenges easier to bring in UK courts. While defenders say it prevents abuse, critics say it also made removals, detention, and deportation more legally contested and slower—especially once immigration law became heavily litigated. (That criticism is strongest when combined with later case law and later legislation, but the “plumbing” starts in 1998.) On the economy, the standout is the Bank of England Act 1998, which put interest-rate decisions in the hands of the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), i.e., operational independence from ministers. The case for it was credibility and low inflation. The case against it is democratic deficit and distributional pain. When inflation spikes, the MPC tightens policy by raising rates. That hits mortgage holders, renters (via landlords’ costs), and small businesses first. In other words, a technocratic anti-inflation tool produces very real household hardship, and there’s no politician directly accountable for the vote. The government still sets the overall inflation target remit (now CPI 2% in modern practice), but the day-to-day levers are independent. Critics argue that this framework can feel like the public is being “disciplined” for inflation that may have been driven by energy shocks, supply problems, or fiscal choices—yet the blunt instrument is paid for by ordinary borrowers. On democracy and postal voting, critics point to Blair-era changes that encouraged “convenience voting” and widened the surface area for fraud or coercion. The Representation of the People Act 2000 and related reforms helped normalise postal voting expansion (later accelerated by subsequent governments and regulations), shifting voting from supervised polling stations into homes and informal settings. The critical claim isn’t that postal voting is automatically corrupt; it’s that it is easier to pressure family members, harvest ballots, or exploit weak handling practices—especially in tight local contests. The fact that the UK keeps updating postal vote rules and resilience (including recent guidance and reform pushes) is often cited by critics as evidence the system needed “hardening” after expansion. In short: Blair-era reform opened the door; later years had to retrofit controls. Finally, complaints about over-legislation is really about a governing style: Blair’s New Labour embraced “delivery” via targets, regulators, new offences, new agencies, and constant statutory change. The partial architecture to this: Terrorism Act 2000 and RIPA 2000 expanding state surveillance powers; multiple criminal justice reforms; major reorganisations in health, education, local government; and a steady stream of “fixes” that created new compliance burdens. Even when individual laws had plausible aims, critics argue the cumulative effect was a society that is more monitored, more regulated, and less locally self-directed—yet not necessarily more functional. So, the critical “how we got into today’s mess” story goes like this: Blair set up systems that persist. An immigration management and rights framework that makes rapid reduction harder; a monetary regime that can impose severe household pain without direct electoral accountability; a voting approach that prioritised convenience and then had to be patched against abuse; and a legislative habit of constant intervention that expanded the state’s footprint everywhere. Even where later governments made different choices, they mostly did so inside the institutions Blair built—meaning Britain’s problems now feel structural, not just political.“]
Ian Robert Millard 