I’ve put together a long analysis of the Charlie Kirk assassination. A lot of what I cover has already been said in different places, but I try to bring it all into one big picture of why this moment matters. To me, Kirk’s murder is an inflection point for the U.S.
🧵 1. The Friend–Enemy line hardens

Let’s begin with the obvious. Why has Kirk’s death provoked such a visceral response on the Right, even here in the UK?

Part of the answer lies in his profile. Kirk wasn’t some fringe activist; he had been a recognisable debater and campus pugilist for years, with deep ties to Trump and the wider MAGA movement. That gave his murder immediate political salience. Add to that the brutal fact that his assassination was broadcast in real-time and went viral within minutes, and you begin to see why the impact cut so deep.

Kirk’s personality also mattered. For all his sharp elbows, he was disarmingly warm in person - the kind of interlocutor who could hold a respectful exchange with opponents. Among those who followed politics closely, that earned him a great deal of respect.

But the real significance lies beyond Kirk himself. His assassination - and, crucially, the reaction to it - has become a synecdoche (a ‘part’ standing in for a ‘whole’). In this case, it has come to symbolise the decades-long radicalisation and moral collapse of the modern Left.

The evidence is everywhere. Kirk’s murder was openly celebrated on social media; there were T-shirts and even a 3-D printed model mocking his death. In the press, including in Britain, commentators queued up to smear him posthumously as “extreme” or “hateful,” often leaning on false or wildly distorted claims to justify it.

Even those who stopped short of outright celebration often slipped into rationalisation: “Of course political violence is wrong…but Kirk was reckless with his words. He was hateful! Live by the sword, die by the sword.” Etc, etc.

Others went further still, gaslighting the public with absurd counter-narratives - insisting, against all available evidence, that his assassin was really radicalised by the right. Prominent pundits, lawyers, and influencers all lent their voices to this grotesque inversion of reality.

The result has been a flood of lies, smears, and schadenfreude that has seeped into the wider public consciousness. This is why Kirk’s death matters as more than a single, tragic event. It has become a brutal emblem of just how far the Left has fallen - how thoroughly it has surrendered to sectarian hatred.

Beneath the surface, I sense something else too: a deep sense of regret among conservatives. Regret at their own naivety - at failing to grasp the sheer depravity of their opponents, and for their complacency in not getting organised sooner. That, I suspect, is about to change. The Right is already compiling its own blacklist of assassin-apologists and has been surprisingly effective at getting many of these people fired. I also expect a Trump administration to unleash a full-blown storm on the NGO-activist machine that operates covertly inside the U.S. to undermine its political culture.

In short, Kirk’s assassination has delivered an ontological shock. Conservatives always knew the left despised them. What they had not fully appreciated was the depth of that hatred - vindictive, sadistic, and, most chillingly, embedded not just in scruffy street activists but in white-collared professionals and well-tailored pundits. That was the true revelation. And that revelation will not remain one-sided. The shock is already beginning to rebound, and the Left, which assumed it could gloat without consequence, may soon find the chickens coming home to roost.

In politics, timing is everything. And Sir Keir Starmer’s timing couldn’t be worse. Britain – and the world – is heading for an economic crash the likes of which we haven’t seen in decades. When the dust settles, Starmer’s position will be untenable. 🧵 Why do I believe this? What makes me so sure?

It all comes back to an economic forecast made years ago by @DaveHcontrarian, a contrarian macro strategist with over fifty years of Wall Street experience. Hunter’s track record is nothing short of impressive, with countless accurate predictions and an unparalleled understanding of markets. If his prediction comes to pass – and I believe it will – it will send shockwaves through the United Kingdom and prove disastrous for Starmer’s premiership.

So, what does Hunter predict? In short: we’re at the end of a 42-year secular bull market. A market that has defied gravity for decades but is now hurtling toward its final act. This won’t be just a correction – it will be an implosion. Hunter foresees a global economic crisis that will hammer the financial sector and trigger a deflationary bust. But before that crash, he predicts a spectacular melt-up in the stock market. Picture this: the S&P 500 soaring to 7,500 only to nosedive to 1,500 in a matter of months. That’s an 80% collapse from peak to trough.

When the full gravity of this forecast sinks in, it will be clear that Starmer’s premiership won’t survive. His disastrous start, paired with the ruinous policies of his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will make it impossible for him to weather the storm. I believe he will be forced to resign when the worst of the crisis is over. And if he doesn’t resign, a challenger will almost certainly emerge in the shadows, as John Redwood did to John Major in the 1990s. In short, I don’t believe Sir Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the 2029 general election.

Soul-crushing barely scratches the surface. This video exposes the moral bankruptcy of the British left. James Delingpole is silenced for daring to speak undeniable truths about grooming gangs and their ethnic profile.

Source: @RusGarbageHuman I feel physically sick and mentally drained after watching this. A basic fact - that Kashmiri Muslims are overwhelmingly responsible for grooming gangs abuse - is outright denied by Nelufar Hedayat, an Afghan-British host and director.

The Rotherham rape scandal ranks among the top 10 most significant events in British history since 2000. It stands alongside Brexit, the Iraq invasion, foot-and-mouth disease, 7/7, the expenses scandal, and the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Yet, unlike these headline-dominating events, Rotherham was met with an astonishing lack of media coverage. In fact, the Rotherham scandal is so pivotal - such a defining moment in modern UK history - that you could even place it in the top five. Why? For several deeply troubling reasons.

First, the sheer barbarity and sadism of the crimes. This wasn’t some dark fiction conjured from a warped imagination; it was Salò-level depravity, happening in real life, on an industrial scale, for decades. The crimes were grotesque enough, but their persistence over such a long period makes them uniquely horrifying.

Now, I’m an extremely calm and gentle man - something that might surprise you, given how adversarial I come across online. But when I read about the Rotherham rape scandal, I can’t help but lose my temper. It makes my blood boil in a way few things can. Even writing about it now, I’m absolutely seething. The only other times I feel this level of rage are when I read about the mass slaughters and rapes in places like Sudan or the DRC.

I’ve put together an article for @TheCriticMag breaking down the 'Boriswave' - the ongoing surge in immigration to the UK since 2021. There’s a lot more I could have covered, but here are the basics behind the biggest betrayal in modern British politics. thecritic.co.uk/explaining-the… This article builds on an earlier thread I posted here on X. I've expanded on it a bit, but the core thesis remains the same.

I don’t believe the Boriswave was *completely* the result of a carefully planned strategy. There were many moments of 'muddling through' - ie, decisions made on the fly, with little thought, especially around care workers and humanitarian visas.

I also believe the Tories were genuinely caught off guard by the number of dependents accompanying foreign students, though this could have been nipped in the bud much sooner (but wasn’t). And there were absolutely no excuses for allowing dependents to join care workers.

At the end of the day, Boris had NO intention of bringing net migration down to the 'tens of thousands.' He didn’t care one bit, and deep down (though he’d never admit it in public) he knew the numbers would soar past pre-Brexit levels.

You’ve got to remember: by the time he became Prime Minister, Boris was brimming with confidence - he’d been mayor of London, built a high-profile media career, and led the Brexit campaign to victory against all odds. Boris thought he was untouchable - believing he could bluff and bluster his way through immigration, without facing any fallout.

Of course, I still think Boris felt bitter over the radicalisation of the Remain side and how he was demonised in some of the more pro-EU papers. But this, in turn, probably made him more willing to make amends with the pro-immigration lobby.

This thread unravels one of the enduring mysteries of UK migration policy: why politicians consistently break their promises on immigration – despite knowing it’s politically toxic and perilous to their survival.

Buckle up 🧵 THE GREAT DECEPTION
“Control”. It’s the word of the moment – a touchstone for almost every political debate in Britain today. We often hear about how we've “lost control” of cities like London, how control has shifted to lefty lawyers and shady bureaucrats, or how we've ceded control to international courts and NGOs.

This is why the Brexit campaign’s slogan, “Take back control,” hit home so hard. It wasn’t just catchy – it was cathartic. It appealed directly to people who felt disempowered, out of the loop, and ignored by those in charge. As Paul Goldsmith noted in How to Lose a Referendum, Vote Leave’s slogans weren’t conjured by spin doctors – they echoed what people themselves were saying.

And it worked. Boris Johnson declared, “[the] only way to take back control of immigration is to Vote Leave”, while Priti Patel vowed to end the “chaos” with a slick new system that would slash numbers and cherry-pick only “the best and the brightest”. It was a bold pitch – simple, direct, and perfectly tailored to sell the dream of a Britain back in control of its destiny.

Fast forward to today, and those promises feel like ancient history. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show net migration hitting 728,000 for 2024 – more than triple what it was pre-Brexit. And if that’s not bad enough, 2023’s intake soared to a record-breaking 906,000. The immigration crisis is deeper, more entrenched, and more damaging than anyone anticipated.

This isn’t just a logistical headache for policymakers scrambling to build housing or keep public services afloat. It goes far beyond that. The stakes are existential. At its core, this crisis threatens the very fabric of Britain as a cohesive, prosperous, high-trust society. That’s what’s on the line here – and it’s hard to overstate just how high the stakes are.

Indeed, to call these figures “shocking” doesn’t do them justice. When the numbers landed on Thursday morning, I found myself, for once, utterly speechless. But the truth is, anger wasn’t my first reaction. What I felt, instead, was resignation. It’s not just that these numbers are terrible – it’s that they signal something far worse: damage that’s near impossible to reverse.

The most we can hope for now is to stop making things worse. Damage limitation is the name of the game. As the old saying goes: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Clarkson’s Farm stands out as one of the most important TV programmes in recent decades. It’s not just groundbreaking in entertainment or its reinvention of the documentary genre - it also tackles political and moral issues with subtlety, avoiding preachiness or self-indulgence. What does it reveal about Jeremy Clarkson’s political beliefs?

Quite a lot. 🧵 1. Entrepreneurial spirit
Clarkson thrives on experimentation, pushing boundaries, and embracing entrepreneurship. This has always been evident - from his Top Gear days to his documentaries on figures like Isambard Kingdom Brunel - but on Diddly Squat Farm, he turns his land into a living laboratory, exploring innovation and problem-solving at ground level.

The situation for the Conservative Party is worse than you think. The difficulty lies, however, in explaining how serious it is without falling into the language of hyperbole. So, I shall simply list some developments as dispassionately as I can.

🧵 1./ Lifting the UK’s chronically poor productivity has been the goal of successive Tory governments but it has proved elusive.

By the end of 2019, it was 20% below the level it would have reached if it had continued on its pre-(financial) crisis path.