The Democratic Party once championed masculine brutality. Now it runs on feminine cruelty. Another civil war coming up? By Helen Dale.

The Democrats were the Party of the slave-owning plantation elite, and then of Southern Jim Crow segregation. It was never just the Party of those things, but they were large parts of its history. …

Slavery is classic masculine brutality. Slavery is built on the twin humiliations of physical brutality and sexual exploitation. [No further explanation required.] …

Today, the left has migrated to female-typical aggression and cruelty:

That a lot of modern left-progressivism is strongly female — even apart from the gender gap in voting — is something many folk have observed. …

The soaring increase in prejudice terms (racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.) in scholarly abstracts corresponds quite directly with the sharply declining public standing of higher education in the US. The similar surging use of those terms in mainstream media coincides with the collapse of US mainstream media audiences.

These prejudice terms do not correspond to trends in wider society. On the contrary, what they represent is an increase in the use of terms of moral abuse to elevate one’s own status and de-legitimise dissent and disagreement. Hence we get the burgeoning phenomenon of the hate crime hoax, as demand for bigotry greatly exceeds the supply.

It’s also led to a situation where almost two-thirds of Americans report they have political views they are afraid to share. This naturally leads to a lot of preference falsification — a problem for pollsters, among others. It also leads to a lot of resentment, which a media-savvy politician can tap.

First came the feminists:

When we look at mobbing and shunning, and the dynamics of cancel culture, we can see patterns — now enabled and facilitated by social media — that first manifested in their modern form in the women’s movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The organised, networked form of targeting folk for what they say — attempting to destroy reputations, careers, livelihoods — was then pioneered by activists claiming to operate on behalf of Jewish communities. (The hostility this activism generated in countries without the First Amendment has quite a lot to do with why Jews find themselves increasingly friendless now they have lost cultural power.)

What women and Jews have in common is a vision of themselves as peaceful people. It is self-delusion: there is nothing peaceful about attempting to systematically hound people, to deny them a voice, to seek to destroy their careers, reputations, livelihoods — particularly not for things they merely said.

While humans in general have considerable capacity for self-deception, a key feature of both female aggression and female cruelty is that it typically cannot see itself. This flows directly from women being the physically weaker sex with — if they were to have any genetic legacy — bubs in tow. Aggression (and cruelty) had to be hidden to avoid provoking retaliation to which they were very vulnerable.

Moreover, only a fraction of our cognition is conscious. To lie consciously requires a lot of cognitive effort. The right sort of self-deception enables much more cognitively-coherent sincerity in one’s actions. The way to engage in aggression and cruelty without it seeming to be such — even to oneself — is to dress it up as moral concern, as social concern. Intensifying the aggression — and the cruelty — requires wielding the weapon of stigma.

Wielding moral/social concern as a form of aggression in such ways means that it is much more likely to be effective. It is also much easier for it to spill over into cruelty. This self-deception is much of the basis of the claim that cancel culture does not exist: it is just moral concern, just social concern. …

Prestige and propriety:

Prestige is status and admiration: it comes from doing things which are clever, skilled, or risky. It mobilises status as social currency to reward — and so encourage — folk to engage in activities which generate positive externalities: actions that benefit third parties, such as strengthening social connections and capacities.

Propriety is status and admiration: it comes here from adhering to wider social norms. It is hard to gain propriety. It’s much easier to lose it. The reverse of propriety is stigma: the loss of status from failure to adhere to proper behaviour. It mobilises negative status to discourage folk from engaging in activities with negative externalities: actions that harm third parties, such as weakening social connections and capacities.

Prestige has tended to be male: those who can’t get pregnant and don’t have bubs in tow can far more readily engage in the sort of obsessive risk-taking that generates prestige.

Propriety — and particularly stigmatising — tends to be more female. This is so whether from seeking social safety, as a safer weapon than overt aggression, or as a better cover for cruelty. (Women are every bit as likely as men to be violent or abusive to those weaker than themselves.)

Prestige and propriety are incredibly useful social mechanisms for a species with such biologically expensive children requiring cooperative subsistence and reproduction strategies. These strategies transfer risks away from, and resources to, childrearing. …

Religion plays an important role in wielding power:

A sense of the divine generated a shared framework of ultimate authority. Religious sensibility also generates a sense of the sacred: the realm against, or at least outside of which, trade-offs are not accepted. …

One of the many ways in which left-progressivism can act as a political or secular religion is in generating zealots. Zealots are notorious as both products of—and drivers for—religion becoming cruel and intolerant. …

The left, past and present, runs on a caste system:

One of the most obvious similarities between the masculine brutality of past Democratic Party and the feminine cruelty of present Democratic Party is both of them operate a moral caste system. In the past, it was a racial moral caste system, according to a black-white binary, which nevertheless had implicit gradings within both races.

The current moral caste system of intersectionality is more complex. Indeed, it is positively Brahmin in its complexity.

Like all moral caste systems, it is a structure of presumptive deferral. The intersectionality moral caste system operates according to oppressed/oppressor, marginalised/dominant pairs. Doctrinal adherence gives you extra credit, while doctrinal heresy or blasphemy casts you out. This is how Larry Elder famously became the “black face of white supremacy”. Meanwhile, Peter Thiel was not gay because he supported Donald Trump.

If a group is sacred, their claims cannot be traded-off. Others must give way. Trans are sacred, so women must defer to them.

Women are marginalised compared to men, so men must defer to them. It is fine to celebrate appointing a woman to whatever, not so to celebrate appointing a man. It is fine for some social good to be disproportionately female, it is a moral blot if some social good is disproportionately male. Thus, the publishing industry being overwhelmingly female is fine, STEM being predominantly male is not.

Leftist cruelty — do as we say, or lose your reputation and livelihood:

The most obvious cruelty in the intersectional moral caste system is in its relentless use of stigma. To mob someone, to attempt to destroy their reputation, livelihood, career — because they said something that you disagree with — is moralised cruelty. To shame, shun, belittle, someone because they have a different perspective, different concerns, to you, and then to do so at scale, is cruel. To seek to cut people off from their most valued connections, is cruel. (The act of official cruelty during Covid that folk most often cite is people dying alone, isolated from friends and family who were banned from being with them.)

The shaming and shunning, the belittling, the in-your-face nagging and scolding: this is classic feminine cruelty. It has elements of infantilising — dissenters are moral, cognitive and psychological inferiors to be talked down to. It has elements of overblown empathy and emotionalism — you have bad emotions, you are not deferring correctly. It has elements of misidentified predator — you are being a hateful bigot, motivated by maleficent intentions, your speech is violent, it makes me unsafe.

The oppressed/oppressor, the marginalised/dominant template provides the moralising structure for such cruelty. The invocation of that held to be sacred is no stop to the cruelty. …

One of the astonishing features of the first operation of the original, Marxist, version of the oppressed/oppressor template in the Soviet Union was the incredible cruelty the operatives of the regime felt entitled to engage in, which extended to vicious and murderous physical cruelty.

The contemporary version of the updated template stops at the emotional, social-connection, social-standing level. It is still moralised cruelty.

So entitled:

“We feel entitled to police all parts of your language, even in your private communications. We feel entitled to say what concerns are, and are not, legitimate. We feel entitled to police your information sources. We feel entitled to police your expression of views. We feel entitled to tell you what is, or is not, a legitimate way to vote. We feel entitled to invoke new sins, and to overturn long-established categories—;while excusing actual crimes.”

What makes all this both disorienting and infuriating is how it’s all parsed in the language of ostentatious compassion. This is made worse because those involved are not able to see themselves. Which is — when it comes to cruelty and aggression — particularly (but not only) feminine. …

Mass migration:

The notion of humans as socially-interchangeable widgets generated the notion—what the UN was pleased to call replacement migration—of importing people to replace the children who were not being born.

It turns out — especially if migrants are from highly clannish cultures that have been marrying their cousins for 1400 years, and are generally low skill — they can be a net drain on the fisc. Making the fiscal situation of one’s welfare state worse via migration policies seems an act of remarkable fiscal incompetence on the part of Western European states. But academic economists treating people as interchangeable social widgets provided cover for such incompetence. …

False claims about migrants and migration, along with failures to grapple with the flaws of bureaucracy, and ludicrous over-investment in higher education — which, among other effects, has led cultural conflicts to overwhelm attention to economic policy — have led to grotesque failure. …

All this has led to working-class voters to shift towards populist parties that are willing to elevate citizenship — and the security of common heritage — over the corrosive effects of migration.

Destructively divisive:

The notion that the Republicans are the Party of the middle class and the Democrats are the Party of everyone else does not describe contemporary US politics.

 

 

Under Trump, the Republicans are reverting to what they were in the 1850s: a protectionist party resting on working-class votes mobilising against an exploitive and contemptuous elite. In a case of history rhyming but not repeating, the original Republican Party was against an elite of masculine brutality; it is now against one of feminine cruelty.

Like the pre-Civil War election of 1860:

Isn’t this a spiralled-up new version of US politics as it was in the lead-up to the American Civil War? Not a repeating, but a powerful rhyming? Yes, it absolutely is. This in a situation where, just as mass migration in the lead-up to 1860 fractured the American Republic along its fault-line of slavery, mass migration is nowadays fracturing the American Republic along its metro/provincial and college educated/non college-educated fault-lines.

The politics of cruelty are the politics of entitlement: both over and against the choices of others. When the election of Abraham Lincoln as US President threatened to create and empower the coalition seen as an existential threat — between the slaves and the “masterless men”, the “poor white trash” — the then practitioners of the politics of masculine cruelty felt entitled to reject the act of democratic choice that was the 1860 Presidential election.

A similar wave of rage and entitlement is being played out against the act of democratic choice of the 2024 US Presidential Election. Like the politics of brutality, the politics of cruelty is showing itself to the politics of entitlement both over and against the choices of others. This goes beyond the embracing of the politics of censorship — of “words are violence”, of “silence is violence”, of the censoring in the name of blocking “dis- mis- and mal-” information. It extends to rage and contempt at those who “chose wrongly”, who “chose vilely”. …

Their ultimately narcissistic rage is intense. Their politics previously burnt US cities down in the cause of the lie of murderous police racism.

A big picture with a lot to unpack. More at the link.

“How do you plan to meet the sexual needs of 600 men?”

This was the pertinent raised by a resident at a public meeting hosted by Crowborough Town Council for residents with the [UK] Home Office last November.

“I don’t,” was the limp reply of Andrew Larter of the Home Office.

 

“How do you plan to meet the sexual needs of 600 men?”

This was the pertinent raised by a resident at a public meeting hosted by Crowborough Town Council for residents with the Home Office last November.
“I don’t.”
was the limp reply of Andrew Larter of the Home Office.🙄… pic.twitter.com/JraFCjbEac

— FreeByTheSea (@Free_ByTheSea) January 27, 2026

 

Clueless ruling class fool from the Home Office.

She wants Restore, “a party that actually puts British people first”.

Anglo women.

That is it. That’s the tweet. pic.twitter.com/snn4IZCGJS

— Em † (@erhglm_) May 10, 2026

Furious voters want an end to politics as we know it. By Allison Pearson in The Telegraph, telling us what she really thinks about Kier Starmer. The UK is just a few million immigrants ahead of Australia.

The British never liked Keir Starmer. Labour’s landslide victory in July 2024 was a furious rejection of the Conservatives (who added millions of migrants to the UK population against the express wishes of their own voters) not a ringing endorsement of the north London human rights lawyer and his dreary public-sector MPs spouting their idiot lanyard babble.

But the size of the Prime Minister’s majority gave him an arrogant sense of entitlement. We are witnessing it now as, Führer-like, he hunkers down in his Downing Street bunker claiming that he will “go on governing” in the national interest, which he has confused with his own.

Dislike swiftly curdled into loathing after the Southport massacre on July 29, 2024, when three little girls were savagely murdered. The new PM turned up in the shell-shocked northern town, ignored the distraught crowd, many of them in tears, nervously plonked down a wreath and scuttled off to the sound of jeering. “We called him ‘19 Seconds Keir’,” a relative of one of the injured children told me, “because that was how much time he gave us.” Starmer dashed back to London for a drinks party at No 10 — the first of many tone-deaf acts by that strange, soulless man.

The aftermath of Southport found Starmer in his comfort zone — railing against the “far-Right” while deploying legal process (Sir Keir hasn’t met a process he didn’t like). Instead of addressing the rising tide of public anger about the damage uncontrolled immigration had done to Britain, he visited a mosque. Of course he did. “Islamophobia” (and preserving the Muslim vote) has always been a more pressing concern for Starmer than the safety and wellbeing of the majority population. …

Ordinary people got the message. Starmer despised the white working-class, traditionally Labour voters, because too often they didn’t share what he insisted on calling “British values”. Values which had been forged, not in the guts and the soul of the native people, but inside the rarefied world of human rights law, where lavishly rewarded lawyers oversaw the persecution of our brave veterans, obstructed the deportation of terrorists and rejected asylum seekers while conspiring to give away sovereign territory. Because we were the bad guys. (Even typing that, I can feel the fury rising within me like a blood-dimmed tide. How DARE they.)

If you didn’t share that warped liberal guilt, if you resisted Starmer’s mantra that “it is British to be diverse, and that is the essence of Britishness” (speak for yourself, you pompous plonker!), you were “intolerant”, “racist” and probably jumping aboard a “far-Right bandwagon”.

Clearly, the Left’s multiculturalism project was in big trouble. It had caused unprecedented division and sectarianism in our heretofore harmonious society. It had led to a covering up of the rape and torture of thousands of white girls, blighting whole areas of towns and cities and placing enormous pressure on public services. But anyone who objected could now expect to have their collar felt for a “hate crime”. …

Keir “diversity is our strength” Starmer rapidly became the most unpopular prime minister since records began. Can’t think why. Chants of “Keir Starmer’s a w—er” echoed around football terraces up and down the land. In Northampton, Ray Connolly, Lucy’s husband who was then a Tory councillor, was canvassing in a café full of disenchanted Labour voters who were ranting about the PM. “Why do you hate him?” asked Ray. “Because Starmer’s not for the British,” one man replied. A million words of professional political analysis could not have put it better. The Prime Minister was not for the British.

And so on May 7, the people took their revenge. And how. They voted for Reform UK in astonishing numbers.

If I had to come up with two words to explain what happened last Thursday, they would be these: immigration and unfairness. The British have an acute sense of fair play. It has been violated over and over by a Labour Government (and before that by the Tories) that puts the foreign and the idle before hard-working people who must go to the back of the queue in their own country.

Why are 1.5 million migrants allowed to claim Universal Credit at a cost of billions? How the hell did 48 per cent of social housing in London end up being occupied by people who were not born in the UK?

Only this week, we learnt that the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that “additional spouses” in polygamous marriages are being given a 4.8 per cent boost to their benefits, which “would most likely be for husbands with multiple wives”. This is a Christian country. Polygamy is not only illegal, it disgusts us. Do they not mock us, ladies and gentlemen? Do they raise taxes on families with two parents working all hours, who struggle to make ends meet, to subsidise their indolent neighbours flaunting stuff they cannot afford?

Fighting words. Someone is going to lose big time in the upcoming fight — the time for compromise is over.

How rich is Anthony Albanese? By Dennis Shanahan in The Australian.

Today, after studying, then working and becoming an MP 30 years ago, Albanese has an estimated net worth, based on declared interests, of between $10m and $15m with a gold-plated parliamentary pension to fall back on in retirement.

This is commendable, but says to future generations of younger Australians “do as I say not as I do”, because his wealth is built on property investment and rising values in Sydney.

Based on three properties, one the so-called clifftop luxury home on the NSW Central Coast purchased for $4.3m in late 2024, it is estimated Albanese generates about $75,000 per year in gross rental income.

Albanese will continue to be able to use negative gearing for his property, like all other investors, but this highlights that younger Australians who do not already own an investment property will not be able to use the same benefits.

He helped make the rules that pushed the price of property to historic highs.

Why the Liberal Party is Out of Touch. By Flat White in The Spectator.

Too many within its structure are privileged, comfortable, and isolated from the consequences of decades of bad policies.

How many days do those sitting in positions of power spend on trains and buses in the city? How many walk home at night? How many choose between their aircon and a cup of coffee? How many have cancelled their private health insurance or moved their children into a state school? How many have quit their generational farm, finally broken by a looming wind farm or sunk by operational costs? How many will be eternal renters in tiny boxes, living in constant fear that the next government tax hike will leave them on the street? How many have been turned away from banks and left standing in a queue behind dozens of foreign workers? …

With generational staffers at the helm of the Liberals and the ranks of power populated by a narrow circle of well-connected individuals, it is hard to see how they can find traction over the widening divide of class hardship. And look, this structure used to be desirable in the Howard years. Politics revelled in its elitism. But that is a trapping of wider prosperity. A prosperity squandered.

One Nation — the members are the focus group:

One Nation is full of people living this every day. Gina Rinehart might have gifted One Nation a plane, but the people advising, working the offices, volunteering, and running as candidates are all battlers. They don’t need focus groups. They are the focus group.

It’s much the same for the Labor Party too. The ruling class is visibly failing, especially over immigration and electricity prices.

The Labor and Liberal parties have been overrun with the kind of people who annoyed us at school. By David Penberthy in The Australian.

Many Australians clearly have concluded that both the Labor and Liberal parties have been overrun with the kind of people who annoyed us at school, priggish prefect types in love with the sound of their own voice and only in it for themselves.

The stage-managed nature of mainstream politics, the stultifying cliches and question avoidance that infect mainstream political discourse, is a world away from the appealingly ocker stylings of the One Nation team. …

Authentic grit:

By way of both compliment and criticism, Hanson is the only person in politics whose views have not changed since she delivered her explosive maiden speech in 1996. She still speaks the same way, she still acts in the same way and she still has a quality of which others in mainstream politics can only dream: an innate ability to relate to ordinary people because she is the ultimate ordinary person.

She has never had polish and never sought to have polish, and it is political genius because where some see polish, others see slickness and insincerity.

The derision she endured from the elite media and her tactically challenged political opponents as being some drongo fish and chip shop owner has made her both a martyr and a heroine in the eyes of low-income people who have had limited educational opportunities. …

This earthiness manifests itself in human form with pubs in Eudunda and Kapunda in SA’s rural Mid-North having to bring on extra staff when she and Barnaby Joyce arrived for politics in the pub chats during the SA campaign. People were tripping over themselves to get in. …

It’s the same earthiness that has the party making headlines in SA with its four lower house and three upper house MPs, only one of whom in Cory Bernardi is a political professional, the remainder being a ferry driver, prison guard, farmer, make-up artist, carpenter and small businessman.

Democracy is still working, on the fringes. But can the people get the bureaucracy to change course on mass immigration and net-zero?

Ostracism is all the left have left. By Jennifer Sey.

It’s now “right wing” to be willing to talk to people who hold different political beliefs.

Much of the left just cuts anyone out of their lives who questions any one tenet of the Democratic Party’s platform.

Matt Van Swol:

I’ve gone to the same gym for almost 4 years now. Good friends with nearly everyone there.

One day a guy who used to make small talk with me, just stopped. Didn’t think much of it, but it went on for weeks. Found out later he’s a liberal and someone showed him my X account and he just won’t talk to me now.

This has happened many many many times since becoming publicly conservative. I’ve lost many friends and even many more acquaintances. They won’t even discuss us. Won’t even look at me.

It’s bad for me… but it’s 10,000x worse for my wife. Liberal women are genuinely EVIL to conservative women. It’s on another level. Pure evil.

No one talks about this enough but the public shaming of people who are openly conservative is extremely intense and unless you have a lot of mental fortitude and surround yourself with better people quickly…

I can understand why many find it is not worth saying anything at all. But that doesn’t make it harder for those of us who speak up… because we are the few.

Happened to Joanne and me when we publicly pointed out that the carbon dioxide theory of global warming was exaggerated rubbish. Got better friends now 🙂

Feminists perfected the art of bullying though ostracism. Now it’s all that remains for the left, who have not debated issues for over a decade now — instead relying on shut-uppery via media dominance, snark, reputational damage, cancellation, and cheating with voting to overcome their opponents. Physical violence (including assassination) is also creeping back into the left’s repertoire. At some point the left will have to concede that their party of patronage — which is only a rump of 10% of the population — is not sustainable. in a democracy. They will ether have to launch naked authoritarian rule (aka Chinese social credit and digital currencies, with Islamic enforcers) or they will have to concede the jig is up.

Climate Change has become electoral poison. By Joanne Nova.

Too late, the socialists have realized they’ve lost the working class

Not only did the British Labour Party get humiliated in the last few days, but ten thousand miles away, so did the Australia conservatives where they suffered a catastrophic 30% swing to One Nation. The unthinkable is happening. Unelectable Climate Deniers are romping home politically, and the workers are voting “far-right”.

Climate change and the core left-wing totems are not just failing to reach voters, they’re actively turning them away. It’s the same in the US where voters have already elected the antichrist of Climate Action (and three times already). It’s slowly dawning on the socialists that it is not a momentary blip.

Things are getting so bad, the New York Times warned Democrats to “Forget climate change” and talk about something else.

 

lmao

 

Why are the globalists losing? Immigration of course, but there’s also this (via Craig Kelly):

Can you pick on the graph when Rudd was elected and Labor started to subsidise all these “cheap” renewables?

 

Greg Sheridan in The Australian:

Here’s a critically important take-out from the Farrer by-election. Almost 65 per cent of all voters chose parties that explicitly reject net-zero emissions targets. Yet for how long have we been told that it would be electoral death for any party to oppose net zero in principle? …

Farage is utterly contemptuous of net zero commitments and just won very big. Farage and the Conservatives combined score just under half the popular vote in Britain. They, and a couple of smaller parties, now thoroughly oppose net zero. Even Tony Blair says the Labour government should ease back on net zero, as so many other developed countries are doing, either pulling back their official targets or quietly going for more fossil fuel development and power generation.

Across Asia this is undisguised. In much of Europe, it’s happening a bit more shamefacedly.

Almost the last true-believing net-zero governments are Keir Starmer’s Labour government in Britain and Anthony Albanese’s in Australia. Britain, in all its mess, is probably Australia’s future. …

When will the Australian Liberals get courage?

I mention all this because it goes to the heart of the Liberals’ contemporary dilemma. The Coalition has renounced net zero. But having done so, Angus Taylor and the Liberals almost never mention the fact. It seems they quietly try to reassure country electorates that they’re done with net zero, but do so in such a sotto voce way that they hope city electorates such as Wentworth and Kooyong won’t notice they’ve changed. …

Changing a policy then not campaigning on it doesn’t win you the support of those who hated the policy, nor does it win you the acquiescence of those who support the policy you’ve abandoned. As my hero, GK Chesterton, observed, it’s the willingness to die fighting that gives the brave soldier a chance of surviving a terrible battle, where the coward has no chance at all.

Maybe it will only be a few more years until the world is ready to hear what is wrong with the climate models, and why decarbonization was always rather pointless. Still a bit early though.

Taxpayers despair at forking out for ISIS brides. By Flat White in The Spectator.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor offered two numbers that represent taxpayer-funded support.

• Pensioners: $31,309
• ISIS Brides: $46,889

Taylor presented these figures in a social media video where he says: …

‘Someone who has been working hard all their life, paying taxes, gets access to less than the so-called ISIS Brides. People who have supported a death cult — a terrorist organisation. This is wrong.

‘And I’m calling on the government to permanently ban these ISIS sympathisers from getting access to welfare benefits. Australians expect their taxes to go to those who really need it. Not to Islamist extremists.’

This sentiment is well-represented within the wider Australian community. Not only is it commonly recognised that welfare is unfairly distributed to services such as the NDIS over pensioners or struggling homeless young people, many believe those who leave the country to join an organisation that seeks violence against Australia should be permanently excluded. …

Globalist BS:

The current Labor Party has repeatedly filled the headlines with excuses about being bound by the law to explain why the latest batch of ISIS Brides cruised into Sydney and Melbourne. This ignores the obvious reality that politicians in Canberra write the laws and, if they so wished, could write laws in contradiction to international agreements just as other nations do when acting in self-interest. …

Local media will have a fit if welfare is stripped from those within the Islamic community, even if they are associated with potentially illegal extremism. …

While the government probably hopes the arrest of some ISIS Brides will calm the outrage (this is a long way from conviction and serving time for any alleged offences), many fear nothing will change. Nothing changed in 2019, 2022, and 2025. So far, none have served jail time with only one conviction.

It has not been lost on the wider public that there appears to be no punishment whatsoever for joining a terrorist organisation despite a law existing saying that there should be. …

One Nation:

One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson would never have let anyone associated with ISIS into the country. Of that, we can be pretty confident, if her press releases are to believed. …

‘…Labor’s politically motivated, fear-driven coddling of Islamic extremism was complicit in the rising antisemitism which led to the Bondi massacre…’

Harsh words for a government that has commissioned an expensive, and arguably meandering, Royal Commission that has guidelines insisting on maintaining social cohesion instead of the obvious threat of Islamic terrorism. …

‘This ideology has no place in Australia. It goes against principles on which our nation was founded: the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion; secular democracy. This ideology has no room in the world for anyone who doesn’t submit to it. Labor has submitted without even realising it.’

Opposing radical Islam is a shared value between the warring factions of conservative politics, although the limitation on the words used for this opposition sit within the usual restraints of each party. Liberals will wink and nod, the Nationals lean forward to the camera. One Nation tempts retaliation in the Senate, often from their fellow conservatives. Who can forget the censure motions against Pauline herself in the leadup to the Bondi massacre?

Who knows, maybe a 50-year automatic conviction upon return might have stopped ISIS supporters from returning without the need for all this legal complexity…

What sort of country have we become?

Australians are more likely to go to jail for a mean tweet about whatever the trending Woke talking point is than flying to another country to join a terror group. Think about how utterly broken our legal system is.

Are Covid Jabs Causing Personality Change? By Jacqui Devoy.

An increasing number of people are reporting noticeable changes in the personalities, moods, and cognitive functions of friends and family members who have received multiple doses of Covid mRNA injections. While neurological side effects from these injections have been widely acknowledged in medical literature for several years now – including headaches, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s palsy, transverse myelitis and other inflammatory or demyelinating conditions – observers are now highlighting what appears to be a parallel rise in mental and behavioural alterations. These include mood swings, irritability, depression, anger, spitefulness, reckless behaviour and dementia-like forgetfulness.

Many describe loved ones who seem to have aged dramatically – looking 20 years older in just a few years – alongside new serious physical illness such as cancers, heart issues, brain tumours and mobility problems. Anecdotes circulate of previously responsible individuals engaging in impulsive reckless actions, such as a friend arrested for drunk driving who had never shown such tendencies before, or others becoming forgetful to the point of exhibiting signs of early dementia, or turning uncharacteristically bitter and difficult to be around. Some poor souls have felt tortured by paranoia and suicidal thoughts and sadly a few have gone onto taking their own lives as a result.

It is now common knowledge in certain medical circles that mRNA injections can trigger neurological complications. Reviews document a range of central and peripheral nervous system effects, including encephalitis, myelitis, cranial neuropathies and paresthesia. One analysis of neurological adverse events noted symptoms like paraesthesia (56%), fatigue (46%) and cognitive impairment (36%) in affected individuals, often following mRNA formulations. …

While many events are described as rare or transient, cumulative reports suggest they are not negligible, especially with repeated jabs. The more jabs a person has, the more likely they are to develop these problems.

The media and health bureaucracy might go there, but only after acknowledging that the the US 2020 election was rigged, and the carbon dioxide theory of global warming was always overblown nonsense. (That is, not in our lifetimes.)

hat-tip Peter S.

Tested and Found Wanting. By David Archibald.

Ben Roberts-Smith:

I expect that I am one of the few people in Australia who has read the Brereton Report in its entirety. I read it on the day it came out. Nobody who has read the whole thing could take it seriously after getting to page 120. …

Class warfare:

Now comes his current trial. There are interviews with other SAS troops on the internet. It turns out that it was the judge in the defamation trial was selective about what he accepted as evidence. He accepted the story of one bloke who hadn’t seen Ben Roberts-Smith shoot anyone, but had a feeling, and did not accept the evidence of the colonel in charge of the regiment who had been on site at the time and said that nothing had happened.

So the judge had been in error, at best. Not impartial. He had wanted Ben Roberts-Smith to go down. Some $300 million has been spent on the persecution of Ben Roberts-Smith to date. The persecution had four blokes who had committed war crimes and traded those four for a shot at Ben Roberts-Smith. We have not been told what the four did. They have been told that if they perjure themselves, they won’t go to prison. None of the four have a public profile as a hero.

Getting a conviction on any of them won’t suit the persecutors’ interest, which is kulturkampf against authentic Australian culture and the notion that Australia is worth fighting for. Which is the same reason that Cardinal Pell was persecuted. …

 

 

Testing, testing:

From time to time we have moments that test us. For Australia’s political parties, it was the Farrer by-election. where each party had the opportunity to weigh in on Ben Roberts-Smith.

Only One Nation passed that test. Remaining silent wasn’t an option. If you couldn’t see that a perfectly fine, almost flawless Australian was being persecuted by evil people with an unlimited budget, then you know nothing about how Australia is being run now. The political parties that did not come out in support of Ben Roberts-Smith have disqualified themselves from government by their silence. …

Anybody can rabbit on about migrants and economic management and change their mind once they actually get into government, as Julia Gillard did with the carbon tax. But only those who have the right values — shared, common, decent Australian values — will do the right thing in government because it is the right thing to do.

The details of the Ben Roberts-Smith case are mostly irrelevant to what is really going on. Woke Australia wants to tear down traditional Australia, and BRS is a hero and defended traditional Australia. It’s the same as defacing statues of Captain Cook, or persecuting Cardinal Pell over made-up sexual charges.

It’s class warfare conducted by the woke ruling class, against the deplorable rest of us. Notice how everyone almost immediately knew which side they were on? None of the ruling class wondered out loud about whether BRS was in fact guilty or whether it was a witch-hunt — no, they screamed “guilty” and wanted to prosecute him, straight away. And the rest of us knew immediately that something was off about the whole exercise, even before any details of the case came out.

Like the prosecution of Cardinal Pell, the details and what actually happened do not matter. BRS and Pell, like the statues of Captain Cook, are our symbols, so they want to denigrate them to make the new woke ruling class look better.

Major political realignment underway in the US.

Fugitive Caesar:

Leftists feel despair because their patronage networks are being dismembered piece by piece.

Trump supporters feel despair because they were locked out of career development by DEI racial discrimination and suffered 18 years of decline since 2008.

Porkypine:

The modern radical-left Dems have maybe 10% of the country as true-believer supporters. Maybe less. Then there are Blue-Bubble herd followers, who get them to maybe 35%. In a good Dem year low-info moderates who swallow the Dem lie du jour bring it to maybe 45%. Then if cheating can make up the rest, Dems once again control all that sweet grift. It’s been working for decades now.

The obvious conclusion is, the Dems are vulnerable on several of those points, and Trump is indeed working those angles hard. The longer-term conclusion is, the US system rewards two leading parties vying for the center, and punishes all others. But the Dems can’t compete for the center anymore (other than by lying) because any move that way is anathema to the lefties who’ve taken over.

So yeah, they now have to try everything, legal or otherwise, except centrism to win. And they’re desperate because they’re beginning to perceive their likely future as a rump radical 10% ignored and marginalized by some new two-centrist-parties national realignment. Desperate people steeped in violent revolutionary tropes… It’s gonna get ugly until they finally internalize that they’ve lost.

It’ll get far uglier if we do let them win — no tyrant worse than one who’s just had a good scare. Best we don’t let this crowd win national power again, ever.

Glenn Reynolds:

Due to an “accidental error” in the 2020 census, blue states got more seats in the House — and more electoral votes — than they were entitled to. When that “error” is fixed, the situation will be worse for them. Then there’s the flood of refugees from blue states to red, further expanding their Congressional majorities….

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is choking off the flood of taxpayer money that has kept leftist organizations and institutions afloat, buying votes with taxpayer dollars. And the federal workforce has shrunk 10% with more “draconian cuts” on the way.

It’s a bit like Winfield Scott’s “Anaconda Plan” to choke off the Confederacy — which worked once it was actually employed. (And Trump is doing something similar with Iran, choking it off gradually rather than going for a swift coup de main, which is disappointing some people but which will work at a much-reduced cost in lives. But that’s another essay.)

This is why the Democrats, and the left, but I repeat myself, are unhappy. They feel it happening. …

It’s also the case that many on the right don’t know what winning feels like, because there hasn’t been that much of it. Oh, there have been election wins, but those mostly wind up in legislative and administrative paralysis. The political world is full of midwit blather about why you can’t do things. The right used to believe that blather, but now the administration has realized that you can just do things regardless of the blather.

Modern McCarthyist:

I don’t think people understand just how much of an existential crisis Democrats are in. If they don’t gain control of the House, Senate, Presidency, pack the Supreme Court, re-mandate racial gerrymandering, and give illegals mass amnesty by 2032, they will all but die as a nationally competitive political party.

With the VRA being overturned we will net at least 15 seats and the census will give us like a dozen more, as well as forcing democrats to redraw their seats being bolstered by illegals, making them more republican. This will make the house all but impossible to win for Dems.

Then the senate will become increasingly hard for them to win as states like Nevada keep shifting red and republicans slowly keep picking better candidates.

And the nail in the coffin? The census will make it all but impossible for dems to win the presidency unless they win the popular vote by at least 6 points.

We’re witnessing the last gasps of the satanic ideology known as leftism. We will win.

 

The American Left has created a permission structure that says it’s basically OK to wantonly murder wealthy whites, Zionist Jews, Republicans, and others who refuse to get in line with their plans to remake the country.

This is a big problem. https://t.co/tYEpkbuiL2

— Jesse Arm (@Jesse_Leg) May 9, 2026

 

How long before Australia copies it? It usually takes 5 – 10 years for Australia to copy a major US trend, but given the 40% vote for One Nation on the weekend, perhaps it will be sooner.

Bombshell Evidence About the 2020 Election Is Coming. By Matt Margolis at PJ Media.

Something big is on the horizon — and the people saying so aren’t fringe voices on a podcast. They’re senior Trump administration officials.

Monica Crowley, the U.S. government’s chief of protocol, dropped a significant claim on Wednesday: hard evidence that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election is coming, and it’s coming soon. “He did win in a landslide, and we will soon be able to give evidence about that,” Crowley said.

Now, she didn’t lay out a timeline or spell out exactly what the evidence would look like, but the message was clear.

According to the Washington Times, she offered no further details on the nature of what’s being prepared. … [However] her claims track almost perfectly with what FBI Director Kash Patel told Maria Bartiromo last month.

As PJ Media previously reported, Patel appeared on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo and announced that arrests are coming over the coordinated effort to rig the 2020 election.

“We are going to be making arrests, and it’s coming, and I promise you, it’s coming soon,” Patel said.

Two senior officials. Same message. Same urgency. That’s not a coincidence.

Their argument — and they’re not alone in making it — is that a coordinated effort to undermine the 2020 election results led to Joe Biden being declared the winner.

Globalists:

You’ve heard all the liberal arguments that no fraud was actually found, and courts confirmed the election was entirely above board, but that’s simply not true. Every legal challenge filed after the 2020 contest was rejected, not for lack of evidence, but for lack of standing. …

You better believe Democrats are sweating over this.

The establishment media will dismiss all of this as election denialism, but the fact is that the 2020 election was never properly investigated. Instead, we were told to trust the results of the “most secure election in history,” and if you dared to question the results, you were mocked, censored, or demonetized.

But a reckoning is coming. There are now search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and federal prosecutors involved. The truth will come out.

Google downranked this site six days after the 2020 US election, because we were publishing material about Democrat cheating. Our views went from 50,000 per day to less than a thousand, and we’ve had almost no traffic from Google ever since.