For millions watching a parent or loved one disappear to Alzheimer’s, even the possibility of restoring lost function warrants immediate further study: frontiersin.org/journals/neu…

Which civilisations enslaved the most people?

Part of Nigel Biggar’s article in The Sunday Times today, reminding us that a careful reading of history, by an historian who know what he’s talking about, is a big improvement on what too often passes for debate about slavery reparations.

The real her is on the left ... She's a horrible person.

The Telegraph’s new owner’s LGBTQ+ network - “Axel Springer Queerseite” “Since 2014 Axel Springer Queerseite has represented the interests of the LGBTQ+ community of companies and their employees at Axel Springer SE.  “The Axel Springer Queerseite is not just a nice benefit for LGBTQ+ employees, it’s more like a safe harbour or a queer family. We are an association of colleagues within the entire Axel Springer group of companies, who wants to drive a positive cultural change for all queer people and allies.”

The Conversion Practices bill “makes it a crime to say to your teenaged daughter: I want you to love your body, I want you to grow up to be a happy lesbian. I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE A MAN!” 💔 @Jebadoo2

If he came to work in Blackface @UniofOxford, security would be called to march Matt Rattley off the premises and his contract would be terminated. And I don't think @LinkedIn would tolerate it either. But, mocking and degrading women is now a perfectly acceptable way for so-called professionals to conduct themselves in public. @UniofOxford What exactly is the difference between these two pictures?

💔Please listen, and never forget the women of Afghanistan. Their voices deserve to be heard. Their dreams deserve to live. Afghan women deserve freedom, education, equality, and dignity. Don’t let the world forget their suffering or their courage. Stand with Afghan women. ❤️🇦🇫 #AfghanWomen #LetAfghanGirlsLearn #HumanRights @DEFAWorg

🇺🇸Okay…hands down the best response that you may never hear unless you listen to this 👇.🇺🇸

I’ve uncovered more than £1 million of your money going from the Ministry of Justice straight to pro-immigration charities. Charities that campaign against border controls and help illegal immigrants stay in Britain. This must stop. The Ministry of Justice exists to serve the British people, not to act as a cash machine for left-wing lawyers.

I’ve been so fortunate to know these guys in real life. They are the old stock of manliness, when that wasn’t an insult. Just blokes who love & admire women. They couldn’t have been more respectful. I hope this isn’t the end of an era.

This from Dennis is particularly brilliant. He was asked a leading question about how much conversion therapy is out there, and he turned it incredibly effectively to the post-modern "conversion therapy" that is gender medicine. There is definitely a lot of "reparative therapy" out there - and it's done by the gender clinicians who put gay teenagers on the path to chemical and/or physical castration. The framing the question suggested was that this bill is addressing a serious, existing harm, albeit perhaps the bill needs some safeguards to stop overreach. Dennis moved back onto his own framing, showing that there is a genuine, serious problem with conversion therapy, but it's not where the panel committee think it is, and this bill will make it worse.

Ko smo se odločali za vstop v EU, si ni nihče predstavljal, da bo v kaki njeni članici in uniji nasploh mogoče brez posledic: 1. Razveljaviti predsedniške volitve (Romunija); 2. Ukiniti informativni program na nacionalni RTV (Madžarska); 3. Poslati policijo na Ustavno sodišče (Poljska); 4. Tri tedne pred volitvami poslati v zapor predsednika stranke, ki vodi v anketah (Slovenija); 5. Zasesti nacionalno RTV s policijo in zamenjati vodstvo (Poljska); 6. Prekiniti mandate vodstvu nacionalne RTV in izvesti čistko zaposlenih (Slovenija); 7. Poslati v zapor člane prejšnje vlade brez možnosti obrambe (Madžarska); 8. Podeliti skoraj milijon državljanstev ilegalnim migrantom po hitrem postopku (Španija); 9. Zapreti novo Nuklearno elektrarno in zgraditi plinovod do Rusije (Nemčija); 10. Obdavčiti ogljične energetske vire ob hkratnem zapiranju NE ter preseliti industrijo v države z nizkimi ekološkimi standardi pod pretvezo, da tako rešujemo planet. Nastala je EU, ki se mora reševati sama pred sabo.

Sin X nadie en Europa se habría enterado de lo sucedido en Polonia está noche. El jefe del gobierno Donald Tusk perpetró un intento de golpe de Estado aprovechando el viaje del jefe del estado Karol Nawrocky al extranjero. Asaltó el Tribunal Constitucional con la policía y pretendió destituir a presidente y vicepresidente del Constitucional con una juez leal sin competencias. Pero no contaba con el presidente que enterado ordenó al avion dar la vuelta cuando sobrevolaba España. Volvió a Varsovia, entró por la fuerza por delante de sus escoltas en el edficio del TC pese al cerco de policias de Tusk y convocó a todas las máximasx instituciones de Supremo y Constitucional para restablecer el orden Constitucional. Aunque la crisis continúa, parece claro que el gobierno de Tusk, el títere de Von der Leyen que jamás habría perpetrado este asalto sin permiso de Bruselas, tiene los días contados. Pero recuerden, los medios publicos y privados de toda Europa han sido cómplices del golpe de Estado silenciando toda la operación. Solo las redes sociales han alertado a polacos y europeos. Por eso quieren intervenirlas.

As a former member of the progressive tribe, this post explains why I left. Where are the progressive celebrities now? Let’s hear what they’ve got to say about this. Is this gay man transphobic? Will that be the accusation? People need to understand the progressive process. If we all accepted gender ideology without question, threw women’s sex-based rights under the bus and celebrated young women undergoing mastectomies because they’d become convinced by some charismatic but mentally ill ‘influencer’ they’d seen on TikTok that they were somehow ‘born in the wrong body’, it wouldn’t end there. Before long, the very people demanding our unquestioning allegiance today would themselves be denounced as bigots by the next progressive movement. God knows what that would be, but I dread to think. This is what people need to understand. There was a progressive battle for gay rights. And it had been more or less won. Then the T was bolted onto LGB, and it came to mean far more than grown adults deciding to undergo sex reassignment. Suddenly, anyone could identify as whatever they wanted. Men could become women, women could become men, and people could declare themselves non-binary. Sex-based safeguards? Out of the window. Child safeguarding? Apparently an inconvenience. Children could be whatever they declared themselves to be, and parents who questioned it risked being branded bigots. Now we have a draft Conversion Practices Bill that could criminalise parents’ who challenge these ideas. People need to wake up. The modern progressive movement has lost its collective mind. It has embraced a vision of society that, had somebody written it into a dystopian novel 30 years ago, would have seemed too far-fetched to be believable. And look at The Celebrity Traitors. Apparently, it’s no longer enough to give money to a refugee charity. It has to be a charity for ‘queer’ refugees. And what does queer even mean? It was once a slur, subsequently reclaimed and transformed into something approaching a political identity. Yet there are plenty of gay people who want absolutely nothing to do with queer politics. They’re simply gay. Why should that entail subscribing to an entire ideological programme? That’s the extraordinary thing about modern progressivism. Yesterday’s hard-won victories are never enough. There must always be another cause, another orthodoxy, another group of supposed heretics to denounce. Sooner or later, I believe this madness will lift. But what wreckage will it leave behind? Women whose careers and reputations have been destroyed for defending their sex-based rights. Young people left dealing with the irreversible consequences of medical decisions they were encouraged to make before they were old enough to appreciate what those decisions meant. Families torn apart. Institutions whose credibility has been shredded. I’ll never stop being astonished by how thoroughly this ideology captured people I had previously regarded as intelligent, thoughtful and capable of independent judgement. I used to think progressivism was about challenging orthodoxies, questioning authority and standing up for the vulnerable. Now, far too often, it seems to be about enforcing orthodoxies, silencing dissent and sacrificing the vulnerable on the altar of ideological purity. How did we get here?

🚨 ISLAMIC BLASPHEMY LAW BY THE BACK DOOR 🚨 Kellie-Jay Keen (@ThePosieParker) has been charged with a criminal offence over posts criticising Islam, Muslim cultural practices and Islamism. The Free Speech Union is proud to be defending her. In a free society, no religion or cultural practice should be immune from criticism. Since Labour came to power, the number of FSU cases involving people penalised for criticising Islam has doubled. It is now the single biggest category in our casework. And now, with a state-approved definition of Islamophobia — rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility” — things are only getting worse. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Communities Secretary Angela Rayner met Muslim community leaders in Downing Street. Burnham took a swipe at critics of Islam, saying “some of the language” opposition parties use “is unacceptable”, and told the leaders “we need to find ways with you to demonstrate that more and more”. We now await Rayner’s appointment of an “Islamophobia tsar” who will help enforce the definition. All five hand-picked members of the Working Group that drafted it have concerning links to Islamist organisations, as FSU Research and Policy Director @DavidRoseUK exposed in his report. We have little hope that the appointed tsar will be good news for free speech. Meanwhile, the Government is refusing to say who submitted responses to the Working Group, so we cannot know which groups shaped the definition. Islamists may well have had a hand in its drafting. Support the FSU’s campaign against an Islamic blasphemy law — and the people penalised under it 👇

I am being sued for defamation in the High Court by Paul Carruthers. The claim seeks damages of up to £65,000, together with an injunction and legal costs. The case arises from a livestream I made in July 2025 following a court judgment concerning the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic and the CQC. I was talking, angrily and robustly, about what I regard as the medical abuse of children. I have said for years that transitioning children is profound abuse. I believe children cannot meaningfully consent to interventions that may affect healthy bodies, sexual development, sexual function and fertility. I will continue to campaign about that. Carruthers now heads the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic. Gender Plus's own website says its hormone service is available from the age of 16, and describes Carruthers as Director of the clinic and leader of its endocrine pathway. Carruthers is publicly described as a gay man and elsewhere as transgender. I have not independently verified Carruthers’ biological sex. I am, of course, a sex-based campaigner who believes that sex is immutable. The central legal dispute is about meaning. One of the passages relied upon in the claim was: “If you want to know how paedophiles successfully managed to ingratiate themselves into positions of power, this is how. It's just unbelievable.” Carruthers says that those words were a personal allegation about Carruthers. I dispute that. I was not talking about Carruthers when I made that comment. I did not intend to say, or imply, that Paul Carruthers is a paedophile or has a sexual interest in children. The context of the livestream matters. I had been discussing the CQC, the Cass Review, regulatory loopholes and how institutions allow people to gain positions of influence. Immediately afterwards I returned to the court judgment. The claimant's solicitors themselves have proposed that the High Court determine the meaning of the words as a preliminary issue. When I was first challenged about the video, I ensured it was removed from public view and offered a public clarification and apology concerning the disputed implication, together with an undertaking not to repeat it. I did not want litigation. I tried to resolve the dispute. Proceedings were nevertheless issued, and I now have to defend myself. I do not have the resources to fund unlimited High Court litigation. I am therefore acting as a litigant in person, with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, and I intend to obtain specialist defamation advice and barrister assistance at the stages where it is most important and where the funds allow. That still costs money. A complicated High Court case requires many hours of preparation: understanding procedure, responding properly to the Particulars of Claim, organising evidence, preparing documents and bundles, researching the law, corresponding with the other side and preparing for hearings. Specialist legal advice and advocacy will add substantially to that. I would never ask people to fund me to go looking for somebody to sue. I am the defendant. This fight was brought to me. If necessary, I will stand in the High Court and represent myself. I understand that litigation carries genuine risks and that I could lose. What I want is enough professional support and specialist advice to make sure I understand those risks and put forward the best defence I properly can. I am also going to be careful about what I publish while proceedings are live. This fundraiser is not an attempt to try the case on social media or encourage anyone to contact or target the claimant. The legal questions belong in court. But the wider principle matters enormously to me. People must be able to criticise medicine, regulators and powerful institutions, particularly where children are concerned. Free speech cannot become something only wealthy people can afford to defend. If the financial price of defending controversial speech becomes ruinous, you don't need to formally ban people from speaking. Fear will do the job instead. I am profoundly grateful to everyone who has already supported me. Every donation will help pay for the practical and specialist legal assistance I need to defend these proceedings. I didn't seek this case. But I intend to defend it. givesendgo.com/help-defend-m…

The police have charged me

Peter Hitchens, looking back on his days as a revolutionary Marxist: “When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants, from anywhere, as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people, usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.” Nothing fundamental has changed. Today’s left still doesn’t like Britain. They still treat mass immigration, open borders and demographic transformation as a weapon against the people, culture and institutions that already exist here. The motive was never affection for the newcomers; it was hostility to what the country was and, in their eyes, still is. That is why the same circles keep aligning with Mohammadans, recent arrivals, the useful “born here’s,” the halves and anyone else willing to help dissolve what’s left of the old country. They still sneer at anyone who objects as a bigot or a racist, while making sure their own lives stay as far from the consequences as possible. The revolutionary students of the Sixties came mostly from the nicer parts of London and the Home Counties; today’s equivalents do the same. They talk endlessly about vibrancy and enrichment from safe distance, then retreat to the expensive enclaves, the private schools and the areas that have not yet been transformed. The people who actually live with the results are told their concerns are “illegitimate.” Hitchens noted even then that many of the arrivals were not useful revolutionary allies at all, deeply religious, socially conservative, with attitudes toward women that sat uneasily with the left’s supposed principles. The modern version of the project has simply absorbed that contradiction rather than confront it. The alliance continues because the shared goal remains the same: to weaken and remake Britain in their image, not because the partners suddenly became “compatible”. Same anti-British impulse, same strategy of demographic change as political tool, same contempt for the native population that notices what is happening. Only the branding has been updated. The continuity is plain in the way dissent is handled. What was once the sneer of student radicals is now institutional practice: objections to the pace and scale of change are met with the same labels, the same refusal to debate numbers or outcomes, and the same insistence that noticing patterns is itself the problem. Meanwhile the areas most affected continue to change, and the political class that oversaw it continues to treat the resulting tensions as evidence of the public’s failure to adapt rather than as the predictable result of policy. Hitchens has since described the arrogance and self-righteousness of that earlier outlook. The present version shows little sign of the same self-examination. The project proceeds under new names, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, but the underlying calculation remains recognisable: demographic transformation as a means of permanently altering the character of the country, carried out by people who will not be required to live with the full weight of what they have set in motion.

Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński is explaining what is happening right now at Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, calling it nothing less than a COUP D’ÉTAT! “In Poland, we have a liberal-left government led by Donald Tusk, who is the Prime Minister. What is happening right now with the Constitutional Tribunal is that they want to take it over and fill it with their own people. Why? Because they want to get rid of the Polish currency, bring us into the eurozone, and eliminate our secure borders. They are being pushed by the Germans, who want to spread the burden of illegal migration and send migrants to Poland. First of all, the Polish złoty is our constitutionally protected currency. They have to change the Constitution to replace it, and without the Constitutional Tribunal, they cannot do that. So, number one, they want to get rid of our currency and force us to adopt the euro and join the eurozone. Then they want to take our gold reserves, the largest in the European Union, to Frankfurt, to the European Central Bank, which is a German-based institution. They also want to open our borders. And they want to make sure that when they lose the next elections, which are coming next year, the Constitutional Tribunal will be unable to do anything to stop their actions or reverse what they have done. There are many more reasons, but I want you to understand one thing: they are under German influence. They are globalists, and we are fighting not just for Poland, but for Europe. Be like Poland. Be strong. Our nation is strong, and we are going to win this fight!”