A Gentleman's Rapier KC🐻 @agentsrapier

@FUDdaily And BBC presenters who are under the impression they're speaking truth to power when attacking the leader of a minority party

The last thing a bag of solvents ever sees.

One thing you can do is put "X warming twice as fast" into Google, where X is the name of a country or region. The frightening thing is, you soon discover that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else, which is terrifying actually.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@PendragonOrg Isn't that the folly at Arundel?

@BanHammerJags @jamesp_robinson @HumanityChad I can confirm, as enjoyer of both modes of consuming cheese and toast, a grilled cheese is different.

A Labour spokesperson said, without hint of irony: “This by election is a gimmick and distraction from the by election we ran to get Burnham into number 10 through the back door.”

Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope

6 days ago

NEW Sounds like Labour won’t be standing a candidate against Nigel Farage in Clacton. A spokesperson for Leader-to-be Andy Burnham says: "This is a gimmick designed to distract from serious allegations about Farage's funders. What really matters in politics is how we can change

70 21 131 45K 18

Me: "Any chance of a description of the rapist??" Police: "No, that would be racist" thesun.co.uk/news/39672721/…

@PolemicTMM If 10% sheep, what comprised the rest?

>liberian advisor texts me “we need to ban palantir” >“yeah class that pet uh what do they actually do though?” >“uh it’s like data or something but they’re basically evil wizards” >ask another northern mum advisor >“uh it’s like data or something but they’re basically evil wizards” >unclear what they do nobody really knows but it’s like data or something? >they’re basically evil wizards though >ban them

Politics UK @PolitlcsUK

2 weeks ago

🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is set to ban Palantir from the NHS if he becomes Prime Minister [@Telegraph]

682 2K 37K 3.7M 1K

@RollingHedge My sides...

My dear Michael, There you were. Perched upon your little GB News stool, eyes gleaming with that particular brand of performative earnestness you have perfected over decades of public betrayal. The topic was Britishness. A subject you apparently believe you own, like a trademark. You looked at Michelle Dewberry, a woman asking straightforward questions about identity and belonging, and you responded with the smooth condescension of a vicar explaining communion to a confused toddler. "One of the glories about the United Kingdom," you began. As if you were about to recite poetry. As if you had not spent your entire career trading in the very anxieties you now find so distasteful. The exchange turned to demographics. To the perfectly reasonable concern that native Britons might find themselves strangers in their own country. And what did you do? You reached for the England football team. You reached for Rishi Sunak's parents. You reached for every cheap, lazy deflection in the progressive playbook. When she dared mention the word "white," you pounced. "Once you start talking about black and white as what defines British, that is problematic." Problematic. There it is. The vocabulary of the campus activist, emerging from the mouth of a man who once posed as a conservative. You spent nine minutes explaining why someone from Mogadishu who arrived last Tuesday is just as British as someone whose family farmed Yorkshire soil for twelve generations. You called it integration. The rest of us recognize it as obliteration. You were not debating. You were lecturing. Deploying that soft, reasonable tone that masks the steel of absolute ideological certainty. The same tone you used when you were betraying your own party on Brexit. The same tone you used when you were cheerleading for lockdowns. The same tone you used when the High Court found you broke the law handing £560,000 to your friends at Public First. The same tone you used when you referred Michelle Mone's company for £203 million in PPE contracts. The same tone you used when you ran that Orwellian "Clearing House" to block journalists' freedom of information requests. The same tone you used when you admitted to snorting cocaine while writing columns condemning middle class drug use. And the pièce de résistance. When she refused to accept your civics lesson, you accused her of making it about skin color. The oldest trick. The cheapest shot. You have learned your lines well from your former friends on the left. You are not a conservative, Michael. You are a shape shifter. A man who believes in nothing except the next appointment. A man who spent £600,000 of taxpayer money defending his own unlawful conduct. A man who now sits in the House of Lords for life as Baron Gove of Torry, editing The Spectator, having seamlessly transitioned from ministerial office to media gatekeeper. And on this occasion, you were particularly vile because you did it all with that smug little smile. That knowing look that says "I am the cleverest boy in the room." You are not. You are merely the most flexible. You have broken the law, trafficked millions to your friends, and snorted your way to a lifetime peerage, yet here you are editing The Spectator with that same insufferable smirk, proving that in modern Britain there is no failure so complete that it cannot be rebranded as success. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE WRITING IN THE SPECTATOR. YOU NEED TO BE WRITING APOLOGY LETTERS FROM JAIL.

Two thinkers. Seven centuries apart. One in 14th-century North Africa, one in 1990s America. Neither knew the other existed. They drew the same graph. And Britain is sitting on the part where the line falls. 🧵

The current British settlement, with its codified rights, universal procedures, and expert-administered institutions, is one phase of a longer cycle. It is not the end of history. It is not the start. It is somewhere near the late chapters of a story that began roughly 250 years ago. Worldviews dominate in cycles. The pattern repeats across cultures and millennia. Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires names six phases that successful civilisations move through in roughly 250 years: Pioneers, Conquests, Commerce, Affluence, Intellect, Decadence. The phases are remarkably consistent across cases that have nothing in common except success and time. The shape of any worldview comes from two questions. Whose interests does the political project serve: everyone equally, or this people specifically? And where does legitimate authority come from: designed institutions, or inherited continuity? Two questions, four combinations. Each phase tends to favour a particular combination. Britain has lived through several of these phases over the last two and a half centuries. Pioneers and conquests in the 1700s and early 1800s. Commerce and affluence across the Victorian and Edwardian eras. The phase Britain is in now is what Glubb called Decadence: the procedural machinery still runs, but it produces worse outcomes at higher cost, and the substrate it needs to function is visibly thinning. The full mapping of British history onto the phases is worth a post of its own. This one stays on the substrate question. The current settlement assumes conditions it does not produce. High interpersonal trust, so procedures work without heavy enforcement. Intact families, so children arrive at institutions ready to be educated rather than rescued. Settled communities, so civic participation has something to participate in. Shared cultural reference points, so universal rights have meaning to those exercising them. Low corruption, so codified rules aren't gamed. All of these were inherited from earlier phases. The Victorian voluntary association, the chapel, the trade union, the settled parish, the extended family. The current settlement consumed this inheritance but did not reproduce it. It assumed the substrate was a permanent feature of reality rather than a slow accumulation that needs continual renewal. When the substrate thins, two paths open. The first is gradual loss of consent. Peripheral institutions fail first: small communities, marriage, churches, then schools, then policing, then borders, then the political class itself. The procedural machinery continues but produces worse outcomes. Eventually a shock the system cannot absorb produces sudden transition. The late Roman Empire and the late Soviet Union are the textbook cases. The second is coercion. The state recognises that consent is failing and substitutes enforcement. Surveillance expands. Dissent is criminalised. Legitimate political opposition narrows. The procedural state becomes a control state. Late Tokugawa Japan and late Weimar Germany are the historical examples. Both paths are unstable. Collapse produces a vacuum that gets filled by whatever has been preparing in the margins, often particularist-constructivism. Fascism is the extreme form. That's why cycles end in catastrophe more often than they end in renewal. Coercion buys time but corrodes the legitimacy it tries to preserve, which is why control states tend to be brittle. What comes next for Britain is not predetermined. The cycle names the phases. It does not pick the destination. Three broad possibilities are visible. Recovered particularist inheritance, meaning a slow rebuilding of family, faith, place, voluntary association. The historical British pattern, but it requires patient parallel-build over decades, not electoral capture in five years. Constructed particularist identity, meaning an ideologically-designed national project that builds belonging through state action rather than letting it grow slowly from family, place, and shared inheritance. Britain has tried this once, with the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and rejected it. Whether it would reject it again in a thinner-substrate environment is an open question. Coercive continuation of the current settlement, meaning more enforcement, less consent. Already visible in expanded surveillance, narrowed speech laws, growth of regulatory power. The destination is not chosen, but the path is being walked. Something else, not yet visible. The historical record is not complete. Notice which conditions of the current settlement (trust, families, communities, shared culture) are visibly thinning in your own area. Then notice which of the three paths that points toward.

@MythoYookay Albanians would take over in a heartbeat were it ever happen. None of the others (except maybe the Chinese) would be capable of the calm, collected, targeted cruelty needed to rise to the top and stay there.

Germany did not lose the World Cup yesterday. It was robbed from a title by Americans. Some insane info from people close to the team: 1. German players could not sleep the night before because of gunshots outside the hotel 2. Hotel manager kept offering fentanyl to German coaches, when they refused he called them "eurocucks" 3. Many players got sick because hotels had AC blasting extremely cold 4. Hotel staff kept playing loud African-American rap music at 3am 5. The German hotel was a 5-hour drive from the stadium 6. Players were served only chicken nuggets 7. The water cost $12 + tip so the team was dehydrated This is what happens when you let a country with no culture host the world's biggest sports tournament

A principle that only applies to your opponents isn't a principle. It's a tactic. We logged every quote, every date, across five changes of PM. Read the full evidence dossier: gbtt.info/labour-mandate…

@RollingHedge I had someone I knew finally admit after 10 years that I was right all along, unfortunately he's since OD'd on more red pills than I. I haven't been invited to dinner parties in about 20 years 😄.

No it wasn't. Britain was built by the British. English, Scottish, and Welsh boys going down the coal mines, labouring as masons, or tending to crops. Pakistanis, Indians, Africans, did absolutely nothing. Get over it.

Politics UK @PolitlcsUK

2 weeks ago

🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is set to ban Palantir from the NHS if he becomes Prime Minister [@Telegraph]

682 2K 37K 3.7M 1K

The Native English are 73.5% of our population but make up 74.3% of England’s NHS staff. Native English people are therefore slightly overrepresented in the healthcare sector. Yet leftists insist we need endless immigration to keep the NHS afloat. The truth is simpler: we only import foreign healthcare workers because of the rapidly expanding foreign population. It’s a giant Ponzi scheme - more immigrants require more immigrant staff to service them. We’d be perfectly fine if only our own population lived here. Foreigners need us, we don’t need them.