I don’t claim any originality here. I got the idea for this weekend’s blog from several of Simon Webb’s always excellent ‘History Debunked’ YouTube videos.
Apologies that this weekend’s blog may seem a bit long and boring. But I think it may be rather important.
I asked Google “How many species of humans are there?” The reply I got was:
While only one human species exists today—Homo sapiens—scientists estimate that at least 21 species of early humans (genus Homo) have existed throughout history, based on the fossil record. These extinct species include Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals), Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis. The exact number is debated due to evolving fossil discoveries and differing definitions of species.
I then checked with the source of truth – the BBC – and learnt:
“Not so very long ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, so why did only Homo sapiens survive?”
This is the perceived wisdom – that there is now only one species of human. This is ‘settled science’ (just like Anthropogenic Global Warming and the “safe and effective vaccines”?). So we are told we are all one species – Homo sapiens – and that although there are clearly different races, all races are of equal value, equal intelligence, equal culture, equal everything.
But what if DNA analysis was done and it showed that humans from one part of the world tend to be larger and stronger than other humans, that some humans from another part of the world tend to have better cognitive skills, creativity and intelligence and some humans from another part of the world are so inbred that they have decreased the quality of their DNA and are actually regressing?
For example, the BBC tells us:
the first creature we would recognise as human first appeared in Africa two million years ago. Known as Homo ergaster, they made tools and were proficient hunters. Their bones suggest they would have been powerful runners, capable of speeds that would rival a modern Olympic athlete.
The BBC also informs us:
ergaster became the first human to leave Africa and colonise Asia. Here, in a new and lush environment, they evolved and got a new name, Homo erectus.
Now, hopefully things start to get more interesting. Here’s the BBC again:
Homo erectus was slightly bigger and more powerful than Homo sapiens, so why did we thrive when they did not? The most obvious answer is that we had bigger brains – but it turns out that what matters is not overall brain size but the areas where the brain is larger.
“The Homo erectus brain did not devote a lot of space to the part of the brain that controls language and speech,” said John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York.
“One of the crucial elements of Homo sapiens’ adaptations is that it combines complex planning, developed in the front of the brain, with language and the ability to spread new ideas from one individual to another.. “
“Planning, communication and even trade led, among other things, to the development of better tools and weapons which spread rapidly across the population”
The BBC version doesn’t mention the Neanderthals.
About 60,000 years ago, there were four main human secies – Homo sapiens in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, Denisovans in parts of Asia and Homo erectus in some parts of the world.
Now let’s play a stupid game:
What if the Homo sapiens in subequatorial Africa either remained isolated or even interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus? This could have produced a human species that was physically and athetically strong
What if the Homo sapiens which remained in Northern Africa and parts of the Middle East didn’t interbreed with any other human species and even degraded its DNA through thousands of years of inbreeding?
What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Europe interbred with Neanderthals giving the new breed new skills and cognitive abilities which the original Homo sapiens didn’t possess?
What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Asia interbred with Denisovans creating a new species with its specific skills?
What if some Homo sapiens interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus producing a species which was genetically less advanced?
There are several clever people who have written best-selling books on why different parts of the world developed in different ways. For example, the 1998 bestseller “Guns, Germs and Steel” and the 2019 “Prisoners of Geography“. But, as far as I know, nobody has dared try to explain the different rates of development of different races in terms of them actually being different species.
Google informs us:
There are approximately 360 to 375recognized species of hummingbirds, belonging to the family Trochilidae
There are over 500 described species of sharks currently known to science, with some estimates exceeding 530
There are generally recognized to be 18 species of penguins, though some classifications range between 17 and 22 depending on whether certain populations are considered species or subspecie
There are approximately 30 to 80 species of true nettles within the Urtica genus, with 54 accepted species noted in global databases
Yet curiously, the only permitted ‘truth’ is that there is only one species of human being. However, the idea of there actually being several human species would go a long way to explaining why different parts of the world have developed in different ways going from the high culture and scientific achievements of Europeans (Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals) down to groups like aborigines and native Americans (possibly Homo sapiens interbred with Homo erectus) who didn’t even manage to invent the wheel.
Admitting that there are several species of humans, rather than just one species, would be catastrophic for the Kumbaya, ‘we-are-all-one-family’, ‘all-races-are-equal’ race relations industry. It would also suggest that if you did Bell Curves of specific characteristics – physical strength, intelligence, problem-solving or whatever – these would be quite different for the different human species.
Acceptance that there are different human species would also pose significant issues for policies around social cohesion. I’ll leave you to imagine the consequences. It would also affect how we view immigration. If we are just one species and all races are equal, it should be easy for new arrivals into a country to integrate and assimilate into that country’s values and way of life. But if we are different species, then questions could be asked about whether the arriving species can ever integrate with the indigenous species.
And so, political correctness instructs us to believe that alone among God’s creatures and plants, we humans are the only group where there is just one, and only one, species.
But then I came across a YouTube video in which presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer interviews a former British ambassador to Iran about the current situation.
In my extremely humble opinion (IMEHO), if this is the quality of British ambassadors, then (IMEHO) it’s no wonder our country has become a worldwide laughing stock.
To avoid any legal complications I will not make any insinuations about this gentleman’s relationship with what would normally be considered the truth. You can make up your own mind.
The things I found interesting were:
what this guy said
the total astonishment on Hartley-Brewer’s face at this guy’s ‘opinions’
some wonderful viewers’ comments you can read if you watch the video on YouTube
I recently did a blog about the ridiculous number of senior officers in the Royal Navy. I think it was 40 admirals, about 60 commodores and 250 captains for somewhere between 25 and 40 ships most of which were under repair most of the time.
I wonder if this ‘ambassador’ isn’t an exception, but rather is a typical example of our ruling elites. He is (IMEHO) arrogant, supercillious, deluded and dismissive of any other views than his own. Of course, that is just my worthless opinion. Quite probably you may find he is impressive, a towering intellect, a Rolls Royce brain and a credit to our once great country.
If you dare to watch the video, I suggest you make yourself a stiff gin and tonic first otherwise you might throw your laptop or iphone or whatever through the nearest window in fury.
As I read about how Ayatollah Starmer is struggling to find just one working Royal Navy ship to send to the Middle East to help protect the British airbase on Cyprus, I remembered a chart I used in a blog I wrote in 2015. It shows the number of ranks in the RAF and Royal Navy:
In 1939, the Royal Navy had 367 fighting ships, around 200,000 sailors and 53 admirals. That’s one admiral for every 3,773 sailors. In 2025, the Royal Navy has 25 warships (many of which are actually out of action being refitted or just lacking sufficient crew), 32,225 sailors (including reserves) and 40 admirals. That’s one admiral for every 805 sailors. I realise that today’s warships probably require fewer crew than ships in 1939. But applying 1939’s figures, we would only need around nine admirals for our much-shrunken navy, rather than the 40 we actually have.
Our 40 admirals are also rather expensive:
3 full Admirals – salary £165,284 to £185,000
27 lowest rank of Rear Admiral – salary £108,201 to £119,000
10 Vice Admirals – salary £125,908 to £152,000
Moreover, the Royal Navy also has 63 commodores. I’m not a military man so have little knowledge of what the Royal Navy’s different ranks do. But I assume that captains are generally those in charge of ships. Incidentally, the Royal Navy has around 260 captains for its 25 warships. So, in one of my more cynical moments, I might be tempted to wonder what most of the Royal Navy’s 40 admirals and 63 commodores and 260 captains actually do all day.
Is the Royal Navy beyond satire?
Here’s how one YouTube satirist viewed Britain’s pathetic attempts to find just one seaworthy ship to send to the Middle East:
And here’s President Trump ‘thanking’ Ayatollah Keir Al-Coward Starmer for Britain’s support:
Unemployment in the UK rose to its highest rate in nearly five years at the end of 2025, official figures show. The unemployment rate climbed to 5.2% in the three months to December, from 5.1% in the three months to November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
But young people are bearing the brunt, with unemployment for those aged between 16 and 24 rising to 16.1%, its highest in more than 10 years.
Apparently, this is the first time youth unemployment in Britain is above the EU average.
The BBC goes on to explain why youth unemployment has risen to record levels:
Many businesses have slowed hiring, pointing to measures in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s last two Budgets, including a hike in employer National Insurance contributions and a rise in the minimum wage, as increasing their costs.
Labour’s response has been the usual bureaucratic nonsense:
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said there was “more to do to get people into jobs”, with tackling youth unemployment a key government priority. He added Labour was making it easier for young people to find and secure an apprenticeship.
Dear Mr McFadden – if Labour are “making it easier for young people to find and secure an apprenticeship” why is youth unemployment shooting up and up and up?
Give it to them hard!
Satirist H. L. Mencken is quoted as saying:
Well, many young people will have voted Labour at the last election – a party that loathes Britain, hates and distrusts business, wants to crush successful people with punitive taxes, wants to bankrupt the country with massive unrepayable borrowing, wants to replace the White British population with mainly useless and often criminal benefits-scrounging Third-worlders and wants to destroy as many British companies as possible with the highest energy prices in the world.
Moreover, flame-haired rubinesque temptress Angela Rayner’s new employees rights legislation will make it too risky to hire someone. After all, if a pub landlord or retailer can be sued by their staff if they hear customers saying anything they find upsetting, who is going to risk hiring a hypersensitive, ultra-woke, tik-tok-obsessed GenZer just looking for a ‘micro-aggression’ to score a massive payout?
And, of course, the businesses which are collapsing – manufacturing, hospitality and retail – are often those where most young people get a start in their working lives.
The result – thousands of businesses closing, hundreds of thousands losing their jobs and an economy which has been in recession for months. I know the shambolic anti-British Labour government still claims the UK economy is growing. But as I have shown on a previous blog, that’s just an illusion created by Britain borrowing billions and spaffing it on huge pay rises for the public sector and generous increases in benefits for millions of skivers.
So, young people. You’re getting what you voted for and you’re getting it hard.
Enjoy!
Votes for 16- and 17-year-olds?
One of the key promises in the 2024 Labour election manifesto was to extend the voting age allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. This must have seemed like an awfully good idea at the time. After all, very few young people were likely to vote for the Tories or Reform. Some might vote LibDem, but many would vote Labour thus ensuring Labour could gerrymander another election victory.
But, then came a more than minor problem – the massive rise in popularity of the Greens under the leadership of gap-toothed psychic boob-enhancer and media wonder David Paulden (who changed his name to Zack Polanski).
Labour’s strategy of lowering the voting age was to fight off any threat from the Right. But now the Greens represent a massive threat from the Left. Given this huge shift in Britain’s political landscape, will Labour still risk lowering the voting age? Or will Labour do another Starmeresque volte face and find some excuse for delaying the change?
I await the result with bated breath.
More Internet satirical genius
And to end, here’s a message from our real Prime Minister:
I understand the old press dictum “If it bleeds, it leads“. If a story is full of blood, guts and frightening bad news, then it will be the main story as it will get the most readers. Of course, this also applies to the Internet and blogs and YouTube videos. After all, more people are likely to read or click on “World War 3 starts – we are all doomed” than on a title like “Everything fine in most of the world – have a nice day”.
And when you ally this tendency to always present the negative side of any event with the fact that much of the media is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, you have a recipe for only doom-gloom-disaster stories.
Iran – despair or hope?
We can see this with the current situation in Iran. Article after article and blog after blog and video after video warn us that the attack on Iran will lead to some or all of the following:
replacement of Ayatoilet Khameni with an even more extreme bearded loony
Iran’s determination to aqcuire a nuclear weapon (from Russia or, more likely, North Korea)
massive rise in energy costs
worldwide recession
civil war in Iran
worldwide terror attacks by Iranian proxies
huge Middle East war
World War 3
and much more of that ilk
And, of course, we’re regularly informed that Trump is a blundering idiot and has no exit plan. After all, that’s what towering international statesman Mr Starmer is reported as having said. So it must be true.
Trump – one of the US’s greatest presidents?
I have already blogged about how, being a businessman, Trump analyses situations and makes decisions in a completely different way from traditional politicians. We can see this by comparing the catastrophic Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq with how Trump brought Venezuela under US control just by arresting one person and making clear to Maduro’s successor that they would be toast unless they agreed to US demands. Moreover, Trump achieved a ‘buy-one-get-one free’ as extracting Maduro and getting Venezuelan oil will probably lead to the collapse of Cuba. It’s a pity that Bush/Blair didn’t think of doing something similar in Iraq as that would have saved many thousands of lives. Of course, Trump’s approach didn’t lead to the ‘perfect’ outcome – a democratic Venezuela. But a business man is usually looking for an achievable outcome with the minimum cost rather than risking disaster to try to get perfection.
It’s now up to the Iranians
Moreover, we’re told that Trump has no exit plan. That’s rubbish. Trump has made it clear he has four main objectives – destruction of IRGC military capacity, the Iranian navy, Iran’s ballistic missiles and Iran’s nuclear weapons work. That’s it. It’s then up to Iranians if they want to change their government.
The IRGC has about 135,000 troops. Though that number may now hopefully be lower. The population of Iran is about 90 million and most Iranian men will have done 12-24 months military service. So they will know how to handle guns. Instead of jumping up and down screaming about their ‘snackbar’, these men should get organised, over-run a few police stations to get basic weapons, then start attacking IRGC military bases to get more weapons and thus start a real revolution while Trump has given them the opportunity. Sadly, if the millions of military-trained Iranian men fail to act now, then they have brought their future subjugation and destruction on themselves.
Now let’s look on the bright side
While bleating about all the possible negative outcomes from the Iran attack, I don’t think too many commentators and experts and self-appointed ‘experts’ and other people riding the apparently lucrative doom-gloom-disaster gravy train have focused on the positives:
possibly ridding the world of one of the most dangerous and oppressive regimes
removing a major sponsor of terrorism
bringing Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves back onto the international market
a fall in energy costs leading to a worldwide economic boom
peace in the Middle East with Israel and a future less extreme Iranian government becoming allies
huge cooperation deals between Western countries and Iran to help Iran rebuild its infrastructure after 47 years of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence
disarming and defanging Islamist militias across the Middle East
Lebanon taking control of its own country and emerging from being a failed state
further isolation of Putin’s Russia hopefully contributing to Russia’s decision to depose Putin and stop its catastrophic Ukraine war
Starmer’s Islamic Republic of Britanistan being the only country in the world still exporting Islamic terrorism
I’m sure you could add to the list. But you can’t as there’s some security function now on my website blocking comments. In fact, some days I even struggle to get on to my own website.
Anyway, given how many positives could come from the US/Israel action, it’s a pity that so many commentators choose to never look at the bright side of life.
Another brilliant AI video
To cheer us all up, here’s another brilliant satirical AI YouTube video. Take it away Ayatollah Andrew:
Apparently our sub-Churchillian prime minister gave a speech at the ‘Big Iftar; in Westminster Hall to a mostly Muslim audience. In his speech he grovellingly bleated that Britain had no role in the attacks on Iran. He also told the audience that they were “the face of modern Britain”.
I’m not sure what he meant by “the face of modern Britain”. Surely it can’t be what horrible, waaccissst, Islamophobic people suggest – misogyny, oppression of women, encouragement of first-cousin marriages, rejection of ideas of equality, freedom and democracy, loathing of the British people and the British way of life?
I wish Mr Starmer could have explained what he meant.
Anyway, thankfully the brilliant satirists on the Internet have quickly leapt on Starmer’s latest blundering with a wonderful adaptation of Billy Joel’s ‘The Piano Man‘:
Much and mush have been written and said by experts and self-proclaimed ‘experts’ about the results of the Gorton and Denton by-election. But I’d still like to make three brief points:
it wasn’t a disaster for Starmer
the next government will be red (Labour), yellow (LibDems) and green-green (Greens and Muslims)
demographic changes mean Britain will never have a pro-British government again
It wasn’t a disaster for Starmer
All the experts have claimed the result was a disaster for Starmer. I disagree. The incumbent government will usually take a beating at by-elections. And yet in spite of the Labour candidate being a complete unknown and in spite of Starmer being the most loathed prime minister in British history, Starmer’s Labour still got 25.4% of the vote:
I’m amazed anyone voted Labour given what a catastrophe Starmer’s UK-hating, migrant-adoring, economy- and jobs-destroying government has been. So for me, 25.4% of the vote for Labour doesn’t seem too disastrous
The next government will be a red, yellow, green-green ‘stop Farage’ coalition
Looking at the overall results, you can see that the pro-British vote only reached 30.6% (Reform and Conservatives). But the anti-British, open-borders, economically-suicidal Net-Zero obsessed, tax-the-rich, expand the useless public sector vote (Green, Labour and LibDem) got 67.9%.
I realise that this constituency was a strong Labour one. Therefore this vote is not representative of the whole country. But the vast size of the anti-British vote (67.9%) suggests that a pro-British party like Reform will never be able to get the numbers to beat the anti-British coalition of red-yellow-green-green.
At the next election, the red-yellow-green-green block will run a brutal ‘stop Farage’ campaign which is likely to galvanise our ever-growing anti-British section of the population into voting to stop Reform getting anywhere near government.
Demographic changes mean Britain will never have a pro-British government again
But perhaps one of the most interesting charts to come from this by-election was a poll of voting intentions of British and immigrant communities:
With net immigration running at over 500,000 a year and with the fertility rates of ethnic minorities much higher than those of White British, the White British will decline as a percentage of the population in their own country. There are even projections that White British could be a minority in their own country by the 2050s. This means that the chances of ever having a pro-British government decline every year.
At the next General Election, when the red-yellow-green-green coalition manages to outperform Reform and block Reform from governmnet, will be when UK patriots realise they are outvoted in their own country. Moreover, they will finally start to understand that the coalition of lefty UK-haters and anti-British migrant voters will forever prevent a real pro-British government. And people do not like to be shown that they have lost their own country. Civil war beckons.
Lebanon was once a Christian country and one of the most advanced in the MIddle East. It is now an Islamic cesspit and a basket-case, bankrupt, violent, intolerant, failed state with almost no Christians left alive. Maybe with unlimited Third-world immigration of people who hate us and reject our values and way of life and the ludicrous economy-destroying Net Zero policies imposed on us by our own UK-loathing lefties, Brtain will become Europe’s Lebanon?
Today I was going to write a really depressing piece about Britain’s (lack of a) future. But there’s been so much good news, that I thought it worth taking a break from the doom and gloom.
Crapistan vs Talibanistan
It seems that Crapistan and Talibanistan have decided to beat the living daylights out of each other. Let us hope that both sides are enormously successful and a huge improvement is made to the human gene pool as a result.
Iranistan
The biggest chance of the human gene pool improving, of course, comes from Iranistan. The Americans and Israelis have gone in to try to defang possibly the most dangerous and murderous regime in the world.
But, ok, you know all about that. No need for me to repeat what so many others are reporting sometimes with much greater and sometimes with much less knowledge than myself. So, let’s get on to the point of this blog. There are just two issues I thought worth mentioning:
the horror and fury of Britain’s lefties at the attack on their favourite mad mullahs
Trump’s strategic genius
Lefties losing it
I probably read fewer than one Guardian article a year. However, I did read this one. The Guardian is incensed by the attack on Iranistan:
The arrticle is, I believe, interesting for a couple of reasons:
it shows us how the lefties, the whole BBC and the whole Labour/LibDem West-hating, UK-loathing establishment thinks. The article is full of vituperation against Tump. He is accused of starting an illegal war to draw attention away from the Epstein files and several other ludicrous reasons. The article never mentions the danger Iranistan has posed to the world for the last 47 years of the illegal Islamist occupation. And the article never considers that Trump might have understood that that the Iranistan Islamist serpent had to be crushed as a basis for possible peace in the Middle East
the article uses the fiction of ‘International Law’ to lambast the US/Israeli attack. But what would ‘International Law’ say about the murderous Islamist regime bringing in around 5,000 foreign fighters to slaughter possibly tens of thousands of innocent Iranians both in the streets and later when found wounded in hospitals? Why doesn’t Guardian mention that?
I wonder if they’ll be wearing black armbands at the Guardian offices and at the BBC in mourning at the demise of their favourite murderous muslim – Ayatollah Khameini? Truly, the US/Israeli attack was a dark day for Britain’s lefties.
Trump’s strategic genius
Trump has completely revolutionised international politics. Being a businessman, when he sees a problem, he looks for the most effective solution:
We saw this in Venezuela. Rather than organising an invasion, he just took out the top guy and told the successor that unless she did exactly what America said, she would be next to be imprisoned for the rest of her life or even wiped out. As they say, ‘when you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds usually follow’. Though, of course, I realise Venezuela’s new leader is a woman and so possibly doesn’t have any testicles. Though nowadays you never know
With Iran Trump has avoided a Bush/Blair-style Iraq invasion. He has made it clear he will not be putting American boots on the ground. Instead he explained that he will crush the Islamic regime’s air force, army and navy, wipe out its nuclear and ballistic missile facilities and obliterate its leaders and command structures. That’s it. As for the Iranian people, Trump has said that this is their chance to overthrow the Islamist mass murderers and get their country back. Whether the Iranians do that or not is their problem. It’s a pity Bush and Blair didn’t think of trying this approach against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Because most of the mainstream media suffers from acute TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), they never seem capable of giving him credit for his achievements. But Trump has stopped illegal immigration into the US, deported thousands of illegals, presided over 4.4% (I think) economic growth, pressured hundreds of companies to bring manufacturing back into the US, ditched the ludicrous economically-suicidal climate nonsense, withdrawn from the self-serving grifters on the IPCC and done so much more. He is probably one of the greatest presidents America has ever had. Yet all we get, day after day from the mainstream media, are negative stories, criticism and insults.
I’m on the way out. But before I go I just wanted to make a plea to our unbiased national broadcaster – the BBC.
Dear BBC, please get Jeremy Bowen into Iran to report on what is really happening. Then he can spout IRGC propaganda about how the evil Israelis and Yankees are just bombing hospitals and schools killing millions, or maybe even trillions, of innocent people and children.
We need to hear from Jeremy Bowen. We deserve to hear the “truth”.
This doesn’t seem to be going too well in spite of honest Mr Starmer’s many promises:
Deporting the illegals
This doesn’t seem to be going too well either:
The vast majority of Channel migrants are still avoiding deportation despite Labour’s repeated vows to boot them out. Some 2,550 were removed in the year to December, up from 2,324 in 2024 and 2,042 in 2023.
Oh, what a surprise – the Guardian and the BBC seem to have forgotten to mention this disaster.
So, around 95% of illegal migrants – many of whom are uneducated, unemployable, deeply misogynist, frequently criminal and most of whom hate the British, British values and the British way of life – are allowed to stay in Starmer’s UK. Why? Because most can be shoved into marginal constituencies where they will become Labour voters.
What could possibly go wrong? Maybe civil war within the next 20 years as the British fight back against becoming a minority in their own country?
Humour still survives on the Internet
In spite of Starmer’s Ofcom using its powers to ban humour and satire from TV and Ofcom’s attacks on Elon Musk’s ‘X’, thankfully they still survive somewhere on the Internet thanks to the creativity of ordinary Brits:
David Craig, on March 14th, 2026
