Trump is a Moderate. What’s Coming is Far More Conservative. By Elizabeth Nickson at Absurdistan.

Lately the left has stepped on rakes in Hungary and the Americas:

I don’t suppose you missed the delicious humiliation of Obama, Clinton, the Blob, when they ululated over the defeat of Victor Orban only to find out that the new guy — Péter Magyar — young, with actual muscle tone — was even more committed to the anti-immigration/conservative agenda than Orban himself. Then, the next day –this was almost too wonderful for words — he shut down the official media until they corrected their bias. I felt like ululating myself.

The left, after tens of millions, hundreds of millions of Euro-dollar-propaganda got 2.3% of the vote, and no seats. They were obliterated.

Peru went 52% conservative, the left 25%. Chile, a long-time leftie haven, went conservative, California’s new governor’s race is conservative against conservative. …

It’s over, lefties. It’s over, globalist scum. All your plans have failed. No one’s life has been made better except criminals, your only genuine voting base.

You cannot fight reality and when it snaps back, the sting is memorable. It will last a hundred years. Your reputation’s collapse, the humiliation coming to you will be studied for centuries, it will be that spectacular.

What’s coming (see link for video):

“People might find this a little hard to believe, but I believe that anyone who does not belong to an American ethnicity — essentially pan-European — should be swiftly and humanely removed and sent back to their homelands. And I think if we don’t do this, it could get ugly.”

“That would mean a decent amount of people,” says the interviewer.

(So far, so shocking. But not that persuasive. How the heck could this happen?)

“Yes, it would be about 80 million people.”

Ok then.

“I’m of the belief that cultures, innovation and ideas emerge from people. I view humans as a biological substrate that consciousness and everything else emerge from, and without that, white people and white culture will go extinct. The reason why everybody wants to move here is because it’s better, it’s better than where they came from and the reason it’s better is because it’s made by people who made better societies and if those people die, who is going to upkeep them? I don’t think that Mexicans are going to upkeep the same way Anglos have.

“And it’s not looking good. The clock’s ticking on this….”

That kid is American, but in Canada, the base — the energy of the culture, the future — is roaring and it has traction:

 

 

You have to listen to that fellow’s voice to get the full import of what he is saying. He is fully male, and certain. He is not a demagogue nutcase like Nick Fuentes. He’s sensible, methodical, calm. And strong.

And there are millions like him. They are the future. Tens of millions. More. … And they are committed. Why? Because their lives have been trashed. Because their future looks worse. …

This is what I am seeing passed around among future leaders:

 

Kids, by which I mean the future, are aware that not one foreign country has America’s interests at heart, and the entire criminal enterprise of globalism wants to take what little they have. They are the prey. Literally.

This went viral last week among young women:

 

 

To a man or woman, they want the Iranian mullahs ended. Not trimmed back, not de-militarized. Ended.

And they want Islamists out of their country. This is what young girls are watching. This is what Sharia is, Tucker, you blithering idiot. Try and watch this and tell us Muslim culture is somehow acceptable in the West. …

Times have changed:

Everyone knows. Everyone. Our current governments don’t care. 250,000 English working class girls raped and the Labour government — not the right, the Tories — the left did nothing….

And in New York City, it begins. First, no dogs. Because Muslims don’t like dogs and wherever they go, they insinuate themselves into power, and start dominating.

In Italy, they want them out. All of them. This is not just a voting bloc. This is the energy required to pull it all down.

And this future is not just seen by those who have been victimized by the globalist left. The intellectual class is starting to consider their defeat …

Our labor is being stolen. Not only are children and women being raped and killed, everything we have is being stolen.

 

 

The author returns to Canada after 25 years:

When I came home to the Demented Dominion after 25 years of blissful not-here, it was clear the country had been ruined by post-war generations. It was a dull, programmatic society, with propped up ‘famous’ Canadians that were pushed in our faces ceaselessly and a propped up media that pushed socialist-funded-by-capitalist-patsies ideas. …

Canadians … earn one-third less than Americans, mostly because government leaches everything. As a result, they are, to a man or woman, envious of the USA. And hating, And envious. The government promotes this to deflect criticism.

Everyone young with ambition leaves and for every one that succeeds, 1000 slink back, intimidated, or pulled by their families and love. It’s tough out there when you don’t have the skills of determination, excellence and self-reliance, taught as if through breathing in the U.S. In Canada, losing is good, every business angles on how to get the government to pick up the tab. In the U.S. and even in Britain when I was there, you were on your own. Those cultures thrived because to succeed you had to reach down and find the thing, the skill or talent you had to contribute and then develop the grit to do so. …

The UN’s 2030 plan is being sneakily implemented throughout the West:

They got their instructions from the UN’s 2030 plan, which Canada has almost entirely put in to place, and which is in place in western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and South and Central America. And in the U.S. No one voted for 2030. No voter even knew what it was. It was imposed on us. It was legislated, the regulations were written to code from the U.N., and the rules imposed without our knowledge.

The result of this, and of the treaties that every town, county, region, province, state and country has signed in secret with the United Nations, has been decline. In my village, I watched family after individual after enterprise be ruined, their money extracted, their time eaten by “process”. Finally their families, financially bereft, slunk off to another jurisdiction where one could still get a job. It was a fierce managed destruction of the economy, incremental and pitiless. Again, this has happened everywhere, all across the U.S., all through Europe, Australia, the U.K. It is in process all through Central and South America. It is the principal reason for the growing endemic poverty among the lower 75%. Who no one talks to or takes into account. …

Muslims are the foot soldiers of globalism, here to take it all from us:

Islam … is taking over every western country, centimetre by centimetre with one overarching ambition, to turn us and our culture into Islamists, who pay tribute, who follow Sharia, who act as prey to be plundered.

It seems preposterous, ridiculous that they could break the west and its extraordinary wealth, creativity and bounty, but if they are stealing $500,000,000 a year, half a trillion, as is estimated in the U.S., being stolen by immigrant communities, well… they are getting there aren’t they?

 

 

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that most Muslims are good people with peculiar views. However, any study, however brief, is utterly convincing in that first of all jihad, or the suppression and extinction of other cultures is their first goal. There is none other. They are permitted, enjoined, to lie and steal from us. Therefore the Somalis in Minnesota and Maine and everywhere else, steal with joy, steal billions and do not feel an ounce of guilt or remorse.

Islamists are the standing army of globalism. They have been brought here to destroy our culture from within. Politically, they rise. The rape, murder and assault of white women and children is a weapon anticipated and used by their leaders to terrorize and silence us. It was planned many decades ago. And it is inexorable. Socialism brings them in, compassion leads us to gift them from our stores, and then they proceed to take over.

As they did to the Persians who have, for 47 years, lived under their boot.

That’s why we have an Islamist in charge of New York City, and the foul stench of Ilhan Omar in Minnesota backed by the fully evil Keith Ellison, and the entirely corrupted Kier Starmer who knew that 250,000 English schoolgirls had been raped by Islamists and did nothing.

These facts are hard to take on. Our globalist left propaganda insists that we hate corporations and ‘the rich’, and think everyone else is poor, good and honest like us. We thought green was good. We were like cows, like sheep. And they slowly slowly took us over.

This is why Canada, the U.K., France, Germany and Spain won’t turn up to protect the source of their oil. First they reckon ‘oil’ must be made expensive and hard to get, and this plays into 2030, and second, their governments are riven through with Islamists, who will make those politician suffer if they fight the source of Islamism in Iran.

The Red/Green/Islamist Alliance is a traitorous, violent, genocidal cult which is real, active, writhing with darkness and suppurating. It must be defeated and thrown into the fires of hell where it belongs.

hat-tip David Archibald

Wokeness is hard to kill because it is the feminine way of running things. By Camus, summarizing Helen Andrews.

[Wokeness is] rooted in feminine patterns of conflict — where disagreement isn’t debated, it’s treated as emotional harm that must be punished or silenced.

Instead of open argument (like James Damore’s memo at Google), the response became “I can’t believe you said that” followed by attempts to get the person fired. Men tend to argue, resolve, and move on. Women, she argues, are more likely to hold onto grievances.

If wokeness is partly a byproduct of rapid feminization of institutions, Andrews warns it won’t simply vanish with one election. It may be structural.

She points to overly “HR-ified” workplaces where feminine preferences for emotional safety now dominate promotions, culture, and daily life — often sidelining masculine strengths in the process.

 

Helen Andrews dropped a blunt explanation for why wokeness proved so hard to kill:

It’s rooted in feminine patterns of conflict — where disagreement isn’t debated, it’s treated as emotional harm that must be punished or silenced.

Instead of open argument (like James Damore’s… pic.twitter.com/4BxnE0bGVd

— Camus (@newstart_2024) April 17, 2026

 

Commenters:

In a DEI environment mandated by HR, work discussions, especially when supported by knowledge, experience and facts, quickly become “bullying” by the white males, followed by a complaint to HR. This is how organizations fail. …

I am a woman. I have been a student of Aristotle nearly my whole life. I don’t guess this Feminist nonsense. I believe it is an epidemic of Borderline Personality Traits that have become normalized. …

You see it in everyday life. Two men get into a heated argument and the next day it’s forgotten. Happens all the time. For a woman, it’s WW3.

The Great Silencing: How Australia’s Ruling Class Turns Pressure Into Moral Shame. By Craig Tindale.

Physically and financially separated from us:

The people running the country increasingly live in a different Australia from the one most people live in. They don’t experience housing the same way; they don’t face power bills the same way; they refuse to face public disorder the same way; and they don’t bear the strain on schools, hospitals, roads, and family budgets the same way.

They live inside institutions, salaries, property exposure, and professional networks that cushion the pressure.

That separation matters because once a governing class is protected from the force of its own decisions, it begins to mistake its own environment for the country itself.

They translate our complaints into moral language, in which they are virtuous and we are deplorable:

Real pressures arrive in ordinary life as rent, mortgages, groceries, insurance, fuel, power bills, blackouts, busy roads, stretched schools, weaker policing, and growing insecurity. But instead of dealing with those things directly, the system translates them into moral language.

That is the move people need to learn to spot. Keating used it when he called the Liberals racist. He was too fearful to argue the issue. His response is performative moral authority, denouncing opponents as impure and using character attack in place of reason. It is the missionary method in secular form: condemn first, explain never. …

• A housing complaint becomes a suspicion of your character.
• A migration complaint becomes a question about your decency.
• A complaint about crime can be seen as a sign of fearfulness or prejudice.
• A complaint about energy costs and grid weakness becomes a failure to care enough.

The material problem goes in, and a moral accusation comes out.

All of this is a great silencing, rooted in contempt for the people being silenced, who are cast as morally lesser and therefore denied any right to speak.

That is why so many people feel they are going mad.

They are talking about pressure in daily life, and the response they get is a lecture on virtue.

They are talking about whether they can afford rent, whether their daughter can buy a home, whether the road is safe, whether the lights stay on, whether their suburb can absorb another wave of growth, and the reply is not practical or material.

The reply is their own moral condemnation.

The system presents itself as compassionate, inclusive, progressive, safe, responsible, and humane, while presenting the person under pressure as bitter, ignorant, fearful, backward, or morally suspect.

One side claims virtue. The other side gets denounced.

Once you see that pattern, you start seeing it everywhere. Opponents are rarely answered on the material point. They are recast as bad people. Meanwhile, those defending the system present themselves as guardians of kindness, tolerance, safety, inclusion, and human dignity.

That rhetoric is part of the machinery itself. It absorbs anger, shuts out scrutiny and intellect, and keeps the real pressures fixed in place. By that trick, the very people imposing the strain step forward as the sole keepers of virtue.

The ruling class sets housing regulations and interest rates, and haven’t their property portfolios done splendidly for the last 20 years? But at a devastating cost for the rest of us.

Credit settings, planning restrictions, land scarcity, tax settings, government revenue dependence, and population growth all push in the same direction.

Prices rise, rents rise, debt rises, and the gains flow upward. Younger people form households later, save less, borrow more, delay children, commute further, and carry more stress for longer. …

Migration:

Migration matters within this structure because it keeps feeding demand into a housing market already under supply constraint. The pressure lies in scale, timing, and absorption.

But any attempt to discuss those material limits is instantly moralised. The facts are pushed aside, the speaker is put on trial, and a capacity question is turned into a sermon about racism and virtue.

When demand is pushed harder into a market with blocked supply, prices, rents, and overcrowding rise, and the pressure on services rises with them.

Then the same people who helped create that pressure tell the public that noticing it is the moral problem. …

The deplorables know:

They know their bills are up. They know housing is broken. They know migration is running at a scale the system cannot absorb. They know the grid is less secure and power is dearer. They know crime and disorder change how people move, shop, travel, and raise children.

They know they are being spoken to as if the real problem is their attitude.

Conclusion:

[Australia’s ruling class use] moral language used as cover for authoritarian power.

A reader mentions “all those ghastly, sanctimonious urban lefties who are wrecking the country.”

Kuwaiti nationalists expel 20% of Kuwait’s population. By سلطان العامر.

The number of those whose citizenships were withdrawn in Kuwait has reached 70 thousand.

If we add the numbers of those among them who were withdrawn by dependency, the figure will be approximately 300 thousand.

The number of Kuwaiti citizens is one and a half million. That means 20% had their citizenships withdrawn. …

This is the biggest demographic change in the world without war. …

Commenters:

The overwhelming majority of those whose citizenships were revoked fall under three categories, all of whom obtained them legally: wives of Kuwaitis, sons of Kuwaiti women, and the category of major business owners.

Even the other individuals whom the government claims are forgers or dual nationals, the government does not allow them to file grievances or go to trial. …

Many countries need to take this step to protect their land, not just for punishment. …

Expelling them is what preserves the original Kuwaiti demographics. A Kuwaiti is Kuwaiti, and a foreigner is a foreigner. …

What’s the benefit of granting citizenship to someone whose loyalty lies with hostile external regimes? And the disaster is that some of them have held sensitive positions in the state!! Kuwait’s national security comes first and foremost, even if it means the government has to revoke half the citizenships granted without rigorous security vetting.

Why isn’t our left up in arms about this? Because it doesn’t make you, dear reader, the culprit.

Elite status games are responsible for the dire straits we find ourselves in today. By Lorenzo from Oz.

Here’s a very good analysis of how western society has come to be in such trouble. Our ruling class spends all its time and energy on crazy status games, where their supposed moral authority trumps reality and truth. The game is only possible because modern technology (especially social media) and their wealth (much of it plundered from common folk by taxation) increasingly insulates them from reality.

Universities across Anglo-America, and across the West more broadly, have become increasingly dominated by a Critical Theory magisterium: a teaching authority that claims ultimate or trumping moral authority. This magisterium is based on Critical Theory and its derivatives …

The elite status game explained:

It offers a powerful shared status game — affirm beliefs X, Y, Z and that makes you A Good Person. This status game spreads a supporting censorious intolerance, for if affirming beliefs X, Y, Z and makes you A Good Person, then denying X, Y, or Z makes you A Bad Person.

This justifies shaming and shunning anyone who denies X, Y, Z, because they are Bad People and its shows your commitment to what makes someone A Good Person. It shows commitment to the shared status game.

Participation on the winning side of the status game bring social and financial rewards:

This status game generates moralised cognitive assets, and you protect the value of those assets by participating in — or at least going along with — the shaming and the shunning.

The status game generates moral projects that the central administrations of universities can use to expand their authority, range of action, and so resources. An opportunity they have enthusiastically embraced. An opportunity that corporate, non-profit and government bureaucracies have also enthusiastically embraced.

 

Women are pre-wired for status games:

[The status game threatens] emotions (and safety through norm conformity), which are much stronger among women than men. Women are thus systematically more hostile to freedom of speech than men.

It is an exaggeration to claim that “wokery” is just the consequence of feminisation of institutions and occupations. It is, however, true that what works for … increasingly feminised institutions and occupations has been selected for.

The three underlying (false) beliefs you need to buy into to play the status game:

1. A blank slate view of human nature.
2. A view of social dynamics as dominated by conflict.
3. An activist relationship with information: that the trumping purpose is not to describe the world, but to change it [i.e. choose power over truth].

Blank slatism is a declaration of social power over reality. The more extreme expression recently is trans, the elite belief that you can change your sex.

The blank slate view of human nature — not merely that we are born without inborn ideas, but that everything that forms us is social — means that any level of social transformation that can be conceived is attainable. Provided enough social power can be assembled — to move human action, speech and thought in the correct direction — the socially-transformative society free of oppression and alienation can be created. …

Belief in conflict excuses any behavior as moral justified:

If conflict dominates social dynamics, then the prosecution of such conflict so as to achieve human liberation becomes the ultimate moral good. Coordinating the fighters for human liberation becomes a moral urgency. To prosecute that struggle becomes the most important thing one can do. …

Since such motivated and coordinated commitments are aimed at human liberation, all institutions must either be bent to that purpose, or destroyed, so that said human liberation can be achieved. This combination of motivation, coordination and all-trumping purpose that de-legitimises all dissent is thus structured towards taking over institutions. …

Your role, should you choose to accept it:

A supporting status game [has evolved] that people can adhere to without having any idea of where the underlying ideas come from or what their purpose is. People who have never heard of, or read, Marcuse can nevertheless prosecute his repressive tolerance strategy because they are committed to a status game of believing X makes you a Good Person, so believing not-X makes you a Bad One.

This status strategy thereby turns affirmed beliefs and modes of speech into moralised cognitive assets that folk in elite networks — or aspiring to join or create elite networks — can (and do) add to their other assets. There then develops an entire media/education/IT/advocacy non-profit/corporate/government bureaucracy infrastructure that prosecutes this strategy. They do this both on their own behalf as individuals — albeit in networks — and as a service they are selling: these are the narratives that affirming make you a good person, let us help you curate your information flows to build, maintain and protect your moralised cognitive assets.

For example, academics and journalists live in la la land because the deplorables live in reality:

 

Immigration:

One of the more contemptible patterns of our time is elite folk — who live by their networks, their connections, their social capital — sneering at working-class folk who arc up at having having their locality-based social capital swamped by newcomers flooding into their communities. …

Feminized society:

The surface doctrines of left-progressivism … can, and do, evolve over time. What is selected for is what works better to coordinate and motivate in various cultural and institutional circumstances. Hence the current selection is for what works best in feminised institutions and occupations. … The evolutionary mechanism that this most builds on is human status-seeking. More particularly, status-through-moral-propriety.

Humans have always been willing to shame-and-shun fellow humans who violate accepted norms. … The women’s movement became semi-notorious for it. Left-progressivism has evolved on the basis of basic, foundational claims that allow the very effective mobilisation of the shame-and-shun mechanisms. …

The two big claims of the status-game players are highly narcissistic:

1. All unwanted constraint is oppression.
2. What is in my head is better than decades, centuries, millennia of human experience and achievement.

The first claim is obviously highly motivating: who does not have unwanted constraints they wish to get rid of? It is also endlessly motivating, as there are always unwanted constraints, so there is always oppression, so-defined. It allows any blue-haired graduate of an elite university to claim to be oppressed.

The notion that any part of her life experience is somehow in the same continuum as, say, a zek in a Soviet gulag; or a slave being worked to death in a Caribbean or Brazilian plantation; or a Neolithic farmer woman forced to live and breed with the rapist who killed all her male relatives; is utterly, utterly offensive. But playing to people’s narcissism — indeed, enabling them to moralise their narcissism — is a social selection advantage. (This is so, provided that no reality-tests or character tests get in the way.)

The second claim … is a rampantly narcissistic claim [that flows] quite directly from making human liberation the all-encompassing social goal that trumps all other human achievement.

Blank slatism ignores genetic history, especially bottlenecks:

Humans are not blank slates. We are evolved beings with genetic variations between individuals and variations in the distribution of genetically-transmitted traits in different human populations. The longer a human population has been separate from other populations, the more differences in the distribution of such traits there will be.

The more intense the genetic-selection bottlenecks, the more differences in the distribution of such traits there will be. The male expression of human genes is systematically much better at forming and maintaining effective teams than the female expression of human genes. This is in part because of different evolutionary roles across human history but those differences became much more intense due to the y-chromosome Neolithic bottleneck that arose once farming and animal herding had developed enough to create increasingly intense social conflict over farm and grass lands.

Only about 1-in-17 male lineages made it through the bottleneck. Female lineages were unaffected. Effective male teams killed less effective male teams, took their women as the spoils of victory and bred with them.

Generations of women bred with their rapists who had killed all their male relatives. It is horrible to contemplate. (That romantic novel trope of the male brute tamed by a love of a good woman, well …)

The continuing consequence has been that boys and men are much better at teams than girls and women. Hence teenage boy sporting teams regularly crush adult female national teams. Hence — given that institutions and organisation are formalised teams — there are issues with the feminisation of institutions, organisations, occupations.

Human social dynamics are dominated by conflict? No, the opposite is true:

Every human society is dominated by cooperative mechanisms. The more complex and larger the society, the more that is true.

We are the biosphere champions at non-kin cooperation because we are so able to develop cooperative mechanisms. Western states came to dominate the planet because Medieval Christendom — riffing off how Rome did it — put non-kin cooperation on social steroids.

If you see human societies as dominated by conflict, not only are you basing your program on false claims; you will systematically undervalue, and under-consider, such cooperative mechanisms. You will therefore degrade or break such mechanisms.

We can see this process in progressive-governed cities in the US, where the mad program of redistributing status breaks giving prestige to pro-social actions and stigmatising anti-social actions. …

Decolonization has it backwards:

What is “de-colonisation” but seeking to replicate in high-functioning societies that passed the stress-tests of history with flying colours the patterns of lower-functioning societies that failed them? …

Everything in the elite status game turns to s***, like it always does for the comrades:

Activism corrupts and degrades every realm of human action whenever it imposes on that realm pre-set requirements from outside. We can very much observe this in the degrading of area after area of popular entertainment by the imposing of the “Diversity Message” on behalf of the (almost entirely mythical) “Modern Audience”. …

The Trans madness is an excellent example of this. Claiming that a person with a penis is a woman … requires monumental levels of not-noticing and rationalisations to support a bunch of evil lies that destroy lives. Something that hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated their ability and willingness to do. But their earlier confreres did the same with Castro, Mao, Stalin …

The current cohort display by their not-noticings and rationalisations their commitment to the [status games] of the universities especially strongly with Trans. Such status claims have been spread via gay and lesbian non-profits — who shifted to Trans to keep the donation flows going — and by mainstream media whose business model has become selling the narratives the affirming of which made one A Good Person. …

Left-progressive governance is regularly a disaster for human flourishing. Mass murder, terror-famines, tyranny, poverty, economic stagnation, intensely exploitive Party-elites: these are the wages of left-progressive governance when it achieves the social dominance it seeks.

Even when it just achieves local control, we see failure. Left-progressive urban government in the US is a litany of failure, from street non-cleaning through entrenched homelessness to crime surges. The current “woke” version of left-progressivism — which seeks to redistribute status — breaks a basic social mechanism, as it separates prestige and propriety from pro-social behaviour and strips stigmatisation from anti-social behaviour. Elevated crime, economic stagnation, fiscal stress, problems with providing basic services: this is what we can observe in such cities.

How can the elite sustain such harmful status games?

So, the question arises, how can something based on such false claims, and which has a litany of failures of governance, get so far, and does so in democratic societies? This is due to two factors:

1. The expansion of the unaccountable classes.
2. The accelerating effect of the coordinating unreality of social media.

The unaccountable classes are all those who are paid to turn up, so their incomes do not directly rely on their performance generating ongoing consent for their income. They include a large proportion of paid employees. They include most people in any bureaucracy, corporate, non-profit or government. They include academics, teachers, public broadcasting journalists

 

The social benefits of believing in the Emperor’s New Clothes have long been around in the ruling class

 

If one is not subject to the reality-test of performance, then status games that do not require reality-tests become very, very attractive. … Consider the package it generates: that its adherents own morality; that those who disagree are morally illegitimate and epistemically incompetent; that the past is irretrievably sinful, the present oppressive; that the imagined future — from which we have no information — provides a reliable, indeed superior, benchmark of judgement; that nothing is ever their fault….

The networking unreality of social media has, demonstrably, generated an accelerating effect. That on social media we interact with narrow avatars of humans that lack the full-feedback effects of a living person means that the self-deceiving mechanisms of relational aggression — where you hide your aggression from yourself, and others, behind moral or social concern — can get full flight. Linguistic taboos become king, while online mobbing is so much quicker and easier than the real thing.

These are social displays of performative “goodness” and of casting out “devils”. But a performance of goodness structured to impose costs — including cruel costs — on others is just the ticket for the socially-impoverished feedback-narrowness of social media.

Social media provides a remarkably low personal cost, but potentially very large effect on others, vehicles for moralised social cruelty.

Vile people playing vile status games:

As both Rousseau and Marx were pretty vile human beings, we should be deeply sceptical of any notion of human good emanating from such people, because it will be a conception compatible with being a vile human being. Which is exactly what we find: a whole series of monsters, both great and small, have been attracted to, and empowered by, such politics precisely because it not only hides, it actively mobilises, psychopathy behind grand purposes.

The politics of appropriation of the property of others, and the elimination of entire classes of people, is a politics of violent aggression. It attracts violent aggressors.

Commenters:

Reality needs to bite. When I was teaching one of my female colleagues was a classic liberal leftist. One parent and teacher evening she encountered the father of one of her Muslim students, very middle-class, wearing a suit, well-spoken. When she stood to shake his hand he refused, saying that he would not shake hands with a woman. This stunned her, brittle illusions fell away in an instant. Next day she was still furious. She’d been struck by a reality she never suspected.

Now that you know about elite status games, it is hard not to see how they are the underlying organizing principle of modern politics. For instance, it explains why the ruling class always have the same crazy opinions, and sticks to them so dogmatically in the face of evidence — you must conform precisely, or lose the benefits of playing the game.

Understanding the Australian Liberal Party. By Jame Hunter in The Noticer.

I am a former party member and political staffer for Liberal Party politicians, giving me a deep understanding of the internal landscape. This article is submitted under an alias …

First, it’s important to understand that the Liberal Party is dominated by two main factions. The Left, or Moderates, and the National Right, or Conservatives. There is a smaller Centre-Right faction, but for all practical purposes, it functions as an extension of the Moderates, sharing similar ideology, behaviour, and influence. For simplicity, I will refer only to the two primary factions going forward.

The Moderates are careerists and weakly pro-globalist:

The Moderate faction ideologically adheres to small‑l liberalism. It attracts relatively high-IQ individuals aiming for or currently in successful white-collar careers, but often carrying personal vices such as hedonism, drug use, and homosexuality. More than ideology, they are motivated by the networks, connections, and access to wealthy figures, MPs, ministers, and government departments that the Liberal Party can offer to advance their wealth and social status. …

The Moderate faction is most vulnerable to the consequences of electoral defeat. Being out of government federally and in most states has reduced lobbyist contributions, dried up jobs for the boys in ministerial offices and lobbying firms, and cut off government access for party-aligned businessmen. The last federal election and NSW state election left the Liberals with a much reduced parliamentary team, and saw the loss of several former blue-ribbon state seats to teal independents. This has already significantly reduced the number of taxpayer funded electorate office staffer positions available to give to party operatives in exchange for their efforts with branch membership growth and campaign work. As a result, political and organisational activity from both the Young Liberals (controlled by Moderates) and senior moderate branches has noticeably declined. …

The Conservatives are ideological and anti-globalist:

The Conservative faction is far more ideological. It is a somewhat diverse coalition of traditional Catholics, hardcore free-marketers and libertarians, climate-change sceptics, and a handful of common sense patriots and nationalists. They are bound together less by a single, cohesive worldview than by the fact that the Left faction offers them nothing or very little on the issues they care about. Networking and career advancement remain factors tying them to the party, but ideology is the primary driver of their involvement. This is the party’s base or true-believer wing — the members who fondly reference the oft-cited We Believe statement and insist the party must return to its roots. …

To weaken the Conservative faction, their members must be repeatedly reminded of the party’s repeated betrayals of White Australians’ interests and shown that a viable, winning alternative exists, whether that is One Nation, the White Australia Party, or otherwise. The Liberal Party has done little to endear itself to its conservative base in recent history. It has failed to curb mass immigration and the demographic replacement of White Australians, helped pass hate speech and prohibited organisation laws at both state and federal levels, waved through social media restrictions, and established the widely reviled eSafety Commissioner, among other actions.

Unfortunately, many conservative members are lifelong die-hard members and boomers, and they often suffer from a severe case of Stockholm syndrome, clinging to the belief that they can reform the party if they just try hard enough. This is despite decades of yielding little movement on this front except for within the South Australian division. The faction is also not without its own flaws as many members naively believe in a harmonious multi-racial society where anyone can become Australian if they adopt the right values, and too often display fervent, uncritical support for the Jewish lobby and Israel. Despite these issues, conservative members of the Liberal Party can be coaxed away from the party, ceasing their support and thereby advancing nationalist aims, even if we do not agree with them on every issue.

The nationalist parties are ascendant for now, but will it last?

As the Liberal Party continues to rot and collapse, it is absolutely critical that ascendant nationalist parties do not allow every opportunistic turncoat to waltz in unchecked.

Only the truly loyal and ideologically committed should be welcomed. Many are political refuse, ready to drag things backwards by reintroducing the same cowardly and careerist politics that corrupted the Liberal Party. If these self-serving parasites are allowed to infiltrate, they will turn the new vehicle into a hollow shadow of the movement it could be, just as we’ve seen with defectors from the UK Conservative Party to Reform UK.

I’m still waiting for the talent and organization on the non-left to align with the interests and dreams of the great mass of conservatives. Don’t hold your breathe. Can the globalist uniparty continue to buy off much of the talent on the right side of Australian politics with career baubles like nice jobs and minor media fame? It’s worked a treat for the last 20 years.

Let the man work. By Flopping Aces.

For weeks the New York Times screamed Trump’s Iran strike would crash the economy, send oil to $150, and hand victory to the mullahs via the Strait of Hormuz.

Today?

S&P 500 just smashed another all-time high. NASDAQ at record levels. Gas prices falling. Oil stabilized and dropping.

Meanwhile Iran’s economy is in smoking ruins … worse than the entire Iran-Iraq War … with their core industries obliterated and Tehran now desperate to crawl to the negotiating table.

The same “experts” and black-pillers who swore we had “no plan” and Trump was leading us into economic armageddon just got absolutely nuked by reality.

Trump was right. The doomsayers were clowns. The media doom narrative is officially obliterated.

Let the man work.

Iran and the US open the Strait of Hormuz. The Australian.

Donald Trump said Iran was removing all sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the US would acquire the regime’s highly enriched uranium and Israel will be “prohibited” from bombing Lebanon. …

It comes after Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said commercial vessels would be free to pass through the Strait of Hormuz “for the remaining period of the ceasefire” between Lebanon and Israel.

But

Iran says its enriched uranium is “as sacred to us as the soil of Iran and will not be transferred anywhere under any circumstances,” adding that 60% enriched uranium will not leave the country “in any way,” per Iran’s Foreign Ministry via Tasnim.

We shall see. The left of course have been hoping for Iranian victories, mass American casualties, or at least a quagmire.

 

Poor deluded British still think they are wealthy. By John Hinderaker at Powerline.

The United Kingdom [has fallen] behind America’s poorest state, Mississippi, in per capita GDP. But evidently not many Brits got the message: when free market think tank Institute of Economic Affairs polled the question, most Brits thought that their country would rank with America’s most prosperous states:

 

 

Confronted with the right answer, almost all Brits were shocked and dismayed …

What is the cause of Britain’s decline? Its government. It spends too much and taxes too much. It cares about “equity,” not growth. …

Decline is a choice. Sadly, that is the choice the United Kingdom has made, and there is no sign on the horizon of a reversal.

Stephen Green at PJ Media:

If [Britons] take just a brief gander at the new Institute of Economic Affairs report on the comparative wealth between Britain, American states, and Britons’ sad delusions about where they stand. According to the IEA, ask the typical Brit where his country ranks, income-wise, if it were a state. And the typical answer is “Seventh place.”

Not quite, old chap. The sad fact is that if Britain were a state, it would rank at the very bottom, below Mississippi.

It’s one of those ego-crushing studies because it’s words and delusions of worth that tell the story, not the dry economic figures …

30 years ago, Britain would have ranked fifth among U.S. states, just behind Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Those Northeastern states dominated per-capita income rankings in 1996, driven by finance, insurance, and other high-earning professions.

By the early 2000s, Britain slipped out of the Top 10 American states, and its relative decline only accelerated….

What happened? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Britain — just like the rest of Western Europe — essentially outlawed innovation and growth. Importing endless numbers of Third World “migrants” who are net drags on the economy isn’t helping, either.

British economic growth was unlocked by Margaret Thatcher and her Tories starting in 1979, and successive governments (including Tony Blair’s New Labour) didn’t muck up her success formula very much.

After the economy flat-lined during the 2008 global financial crisis, both Labour and Conservatives kept it stamped down with growth-killing policies like “net zero.”

There is a huge price being paid by the West for the refusal of our ruling classes to due diligence on the carbon dioxide theory of global warming. The more a country works towards net zero, the poorer it becomes. Elite status games by your ruling class — like net zero — are a wealth hazard.

To those who obsess about equity: it matters not to me that Elon Musk is richer than me, because his wealth does not make me poorer. (In fact, as it happens he makes me richer, by offering me the option of Telsas, Starlink, etc. etc.).

If the Liberals mean to reduce low-skill, welfare-dependent, non-assimilating Muslim migrants, then say so immediately. By The Spectator.

It was the Whitlam Labor government that foisted ‘multiculturalism’ on Australia; a cynical ploy to branch-stack certain electorates by keeping close-knit communities closely-knit to voting for Labor.

This was achieved by locking them into welfare and communal voting dependency based on special favours to ‘community leaders’. And it worked. As union membership in Australia declined during the prosperous decades of the 1980s and 1990s, Labor instead relied not on ‘workers’ but on migrant ‘communities’ to maintain its electoral base. One community in particular.

The payoff was that these communities were not only permitted to maintain their ethnic and cultural communal roots, as opposed to assimilating into mainstream Australia, but were actively encouraged to do so. Anyone opposing this blatant scam was accused of ‘racism’ and quickly toed the politically correct line.

One Nation emerges in force 50 years later:

The only politician who dared speak up about this disgraceful undermining of the dominant Australian Anglo Judeo-Christian culture was tossed out of the Liberal party and treated as a pariah, and even sent to jail at the connivance of the Liberals.

Now, that particular politician is the most successful political leader in Australia and both major parties are struggling to work out how to counter her ever-growing popularity. Like the most successful leaders (or pop stars), recognition only requires her first name: Pauline.

The Liberals new immigration policy:

Cutting through the verbal maze and ‘pillars’ of the Coalition’s new policy, and stripped of all the PC jargon, it appears that the Coalition will be focussing on the quality of migrants as much as reducing the quantity; to bring in to this country people who share our ‘values’ and kick out those who demonstrably fail to do so. All of which is coded language for the two words the Coalition refuses to utter: radical Islam. …

The Coalition has been more willing to engage in discussions about Islam, but not when it comes to specifics like welfare, housing, NDIS corruption, crime or even immigration.

But in avoiding naming the actual problem their policy seeks to address — namely the high levels of Islamic immigration without integration — the risk is the Coalition will tie themselves up in knots in the coming eighteen months over which countries or cultures are deemed ‘incompatible’ with ‘Australian values’.

Let’s be frank. The problem is not in limiting Buddhists, Zoroastrians or Presbyterians. The problem is Muslims migrating in large numbers, often from countries or communities that are extreme in their antisemitic views, with large families who refuse to integrate, who live largely on welfare, and who are beholden to communal leaders or the local imam.

Refusing to name the problem doesn’t make it any easier to tackle; it makes it harder. The intention behind Mr Taylor’s policy is plain for all to see. The problem is that the moment he ties his vague ‘values’ mantra to specific individuals, cultures or nationalities, he will run straight into the ‘Islamophobia’ forces that refuse to permit any such examination.

It’s inevitable, so say it now:

To be frank, it would behove the Coalition to have the fight now rather than let it drag out all way through to the next election. If you mean we need to reduce the number of low-skill, welfare-dependent, non-assimilating Muslim migrants, then say so. Because One Nation most certainly will.

Political earthquake in Wales: Restore overtakes Reform. How do they compare with LePen and AfD?

Poll April 15 in Wales:

🟢 Green – 22.9%
🌼 Plaid – 14.7%
🇬🇧 Restore – 13.2% 👈
➡️ Reform – 12.9%
🌹 Labour – 12.8%
🌳 Tory – 9.9%
🔶 LibDem – 4.9%

Why is this significant? The Restore Party is much harder against immigration, especially Islamic immigration. Restore advocates undoing essentially all the immigration of the last 20 years — hence the name, “restore.” Restore is very recent, only started in February 2026 by Rupert Lowe, but is rocketing up the polls.

The Reform UK Party is Nigel Farage’s Party. Nationwide it still tops the polls with 21% support (Restore is at 9%).

 

Alternative for Germany (AfD)

Position on Islam:

• Explicit: “Islam does not belong to Germany” (official party line)
• Opposes:
  • mosque expansion in some contexts
  • minarets / calls to prayer
• Frames Islam as a civilisational issue, not just immigration

On Muslim immigration:

• Advocates “remigration” (return of some migrants, including some with residency)
• Strong push for mass deportations of illegal migrants
• Wants very low immigration overall

AfD is openly critical of Islam as a system, not just immigration flows

National Rally (Le Pen)

Position on Islam:

• Framed through French secularism (laïcité)
• Opposes:
  • public religious displays (e.g. headscarves in some settings)
  • Islamist influence

On Muslim immigration:

• Strong reduction in immigration
• Priority for French citizens (“national preference”)
• Crackdown on Islamist networks

Less blunt than AfD, but still directly targets Islamic practices in public life

Restore Britain (Rupert Lowe)

Position on Islam:

• Harder line on immigration than Reform
• More explicit discussion of:
  • cultural compatibility
  • Western values vs incoming populations

• Doesn’t yet have AfD-style formal anti-Islam doctrine
• But rhetoric is moving closer in that direction

Immigration:

• “Mass deportations” of illegal migrants
• Ending or radically restricting the asylum system
• Net-negative immigration target

 

Reform UK (Nigel Farage)

Position on Islam:

• • Concerns about integration and extremism
  • Does NOT formally challenge Islam as a religion
  • Strong reduction in immigration
  • But generally framed within existing legal structures

Immigration:

• Strong reduction in immigration
• But generally framed within existing legal structures

 

Summary

• AfD: Most direct — openly challenges Islam itself
• Le Pen: Targets Islamic expression through secular law
• Restore: Edging toward cultural/religious critique
• Reform: Stays focused on immigration, avoids religion explicitly

Teal MPs come out in unison in favour of mass immigration and open borders. By The Noticer.

Australia’s teal independents have responded to the Liberal Party’s new migration policy by declaring their support for mass immigration and open borders. …

Six Teal MPs — Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan, Sophie Scamps, Zali Steggall, Nicollete Boele, and Kate Chaney — have all since spoken out about the policy and insisted that Australia’s record high levels of immigration must continue, even though repeated polls show most Aussies want it drastically cut.

 

Left, Ms Steggal, Ms Spender and Dr Scamps. Right, Muslims praying in a park in Melbourne (Facebook).

US Federal Bureaucracy Lost America’s War on Poverty; Media Silent. By Mark Tapscott at The Washington Stand.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) declared America’s “War on Poverty.”

The government’s distressing record of utter failure decade after decade in the War on Poverty is thoroughly documented in a recent analysis written by Tyler Thurman, a Cato Institute research associate…

“From 1939 to 1963, absolute full-income poverty plummeted by 29 percentage points, from 48.5% to 19.5%. Then, despite the government pouring trillions of taxpayer dollars into combatting poverty, poverty fell only 15.7% points from 1963 to 2023. Barely half the progress in twice the time.”

That sounds like a crucial fact for federal policymakers, to say nothing of American taxpayers, yet such facts are all-but-never reported by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, or any of the rest of major outlets in the mainstream media.

And even more significant is this: The full story is not only that the government lost its War on Poverty, but that it was the absence of government and a vibrant free enterprise economy in the two-and-a-half decades prior to the conflict’s declaration that liberated more than twice as many people from poverty than did LBJ’s all-out assault paid for with federal tax dollars. …

Before the rapid expansion of the welfare state, most people were earning their way out of poverty,” Thurman observed. …

“The most powerful anti-poverty program had no enrollment forms, caseworkers, or spending bills. It was a growing economy that helped millions of people earn their way to a better life. As such, subsequent efforts should focus on removing government-created barriers to economic growth, occupational opportunities, and job market entry, rather than adding another layer of expensive, inefficient wealth transfers. …When analyzing the best ways to combat poverty, policymakers should reflect on whether the welfare state was ever the right tool for the job.”

Let it also be noted that such realities won’t surprise anybody familiar with the Bible, which is replete with warnings about the perils for people and nations of failing to encourage hard work, individual responsibility, and personal accountability. To cite just one example, Proverbs 13:4 reminds us that “the soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.”

Jeremy Kaufman:

The per capita tax burden in the United States is ~$16,600

Eliminate all social welfare and it falls to ~$3,500

The primary purpose of the United States government is violent wealth redistribution.

How much does a vote cost?

And who benefited from the war on poverty? Bureaucrats (mostly lefties) who were paid to “fight” the war. Well paid.

Trump turns the ship, by Stephen Moore:

President Trump is delivering what Washington never would: a smaller government.

Nearly 300,000 fewer federal workers in just one year. More leaving than joining.

 

No wonder the left hates Trump — all those nice government jobs for lefties disappearing!

Sacking 300k bureaucrats saves the Federal Government at least $30 billion (probably more like double that, considering benefits and admin). At an average tax bill of $30k per worker in the private sector, that’s at least the taxes raised from one million private sector workers.

The blank slate just got destroyed. By Hitchslap.

New paper from Nature shows, “strong direction selection” for complex traits in Europe, including cognitive performance (IQ).

i/o:

Population genetics just dropped an atom bomb on blank slate science denial in the pages of Nature.

We were told for decades that evolution could not have meaningfully operated on the human brain in the “short period” of time since humans left Africa for Europe and Asia around 50,000 years ago.

In fact, it’s been accelerating over the past 10,000 years, and the proof is in our DNA, and the DNA of our ancient ancestors. Bigger data sets and improved scientific techniques are exposing the ideologically-motivated lie that’s been ruthlessly enforced in academia since the 60s: Population groups are biologically all the same under the skin.

Reich himself warned liberals back in 2017 that they needed to prepare for some bad news, and that if they didn’t they were going to end up on the wrong side of the scientific revolution occurring in genetics. But rather than accepting his argument, Reich was attacked.

Now the bad news is arriving.

Commenters:

Surprised they were allowed to publish this. …

We domesticated ourselves like we did dogs. No magic potion or visit from monoliths. …

Stephen Jay Gould, as usual, shown to be not only wrong but a duplicitous propagandist. …

I predict that this result will not have any impact at all on the mainstream discourse. The view that humans have not meaningfully evolved since out of Africa is now clearly wrong; but there are no direct consequences for being wrong on this point – no bridges will collapse, the airplanes will not fall out of the sky – so no change is required. …

Blank slatism has been dead since the 1970s. academics have know this forever but were targeted and silenced by the rabid horde of marxists embedded everywhere in our society. …

“blank state just got destroyed”. Yeah for the millionth time I guess. …

You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. …

Wait for the implications of violent behavior, low average IQ, and solipsism on other genetic groups. What’s funny is that any dog breeder has known it for thousands of years. Too many “educated” assholes in academia, I guess. …

It’s so incredibly obvious when you think about it. How would evolution have worked so effectively on skin color, eye shape, and so on, while miraculously exerting no differential selective pressure whatsoever on anything not superficially visible?

It is inevitable that advances in genetics will arrive at the truth about genetic influences and evolution on IQ etc., thus destroying the left’s self-serving ideology of blank slatism.

The political question is where the outcome is uncertain. How long can the left keep pretending blank slatism is true? That average IQ’s don’t differ markedly between groups, and that economic performance, trust, etc. and IQ aren’t strongly linked? Meanwhile they are importing lots of immigrants from low IQ populations into the West.

AI is becoming dangerous. By Josh Code at The Free Press.

Last week, Anthropic announced that it had developed a cutting-edge model, Mythos, with hacking capabilities that are the stuff of science fiction.

Mythos found vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser, some of which would allow hackers to remotely crash any device running them. Some of the bugs it found were deep in old code and had gone undetected by decades of human-run security tests. …

Mythos’s skill at finding and exploiting coding vulnerabilities is so great, Anthropic believes, that it has limited the preview release to around 40 tech companies, to fortify their cyber infrastructure in an effort Anthropic calls Project Glasswing. Perhaps even more telling, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called an emergency meeting with top bank executives to prepare for the cybersecurity risks posed by Mythos to American banks. The consequences of Mythos “falling into the wrong hands,” Anthropic said in a press release, “could be severe.”

Nationalize AI, like we did with nuclear weapons?

That’s putting it lightly. In fact, the release of Mythos has given new urgency to the debate over just whose hands AI should be in — even raising the question of whether so-called frontier AI models should be nationalized.

On one side are technologists who believe AI must be handled with the care and caution that nuclear weapons were accorded at the dawn of the nuclear age. And on the opposing side are those who think handing over AI to the government will cripple American innovation and cede ground to adversaries. …

Push back from the economically threatened:

But the Pentagon is far from the only force that is hostile to AI; in just the last few weeks, gunshots were fired at the home of an Indianapolis city councillor who spoke out in favor of data centers, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s residence has reportedly been both shot at and targeted with a Molotov cocktail.

While bomb throwing is the work of a few extremists, a backlash to AI is also reflected in the halls of Congress, where the idea of nationalization as a solution to the worst of AI’s risks is getting a warm reception. …

[AI thinker and entrepreneur Charles Jennings] argues that an exclusive consortium of some 40 tech companies isn’t enough. Just as every new drug ends up in a Food and Drug Administration lab before it reaches patients, he says, every frontier model like Mythos should end up in a national AI lab — staffed by experts, insulated from corporate pressure, and empowered to say no. …

Last month, Alex Karp, the CEO of the AI and data analysis company Palantir, warned his Silicon Valley peers of where things were headed if AI developers didn’t find a way to improve their image and work with the government.

“If Silicon Valley believes we’re going to take everyone’s white-collar jobs and screw the military,” he told an audience at a top venture capital conference, and “you don’t think that’s going to lead to the nationalization of our technology — you’re retarded.”

Violence starting up. By Maya Sulkin at The Free Press.

On Friday, April 10, at 3:45 a.m., Daniel Alejandro Moreno-Gama allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s San Francisco home while Altman, his husband, and his baby were asleep. It set the exterior gate on fire.

Moreno-Gama, 20, then allegedly drove to OpenAI’s headquarters and struck the glass doors of OpenAI’s offices, threatening to “to burn it down and kill anyone inside,” according to a complaint filed in San Francisco. The complaint says he was holding a three-part anti-artificial intelligence manifesto that, according to the federal criminal complaint, “discussed the purported risk AI poses to humanity” and his intention to kill Altman, and listed several other AI executives and their addresses. …

Three people have been arrested. No one has been hurt. And in some corners of the internet, the reaction was disappointment. …

“Sam Altman has even said/admitted there’s about a 25 percent chance AI will destroy humanity and is proceeding to proceed with it at breakneck speed and fighting any kind of regulation along the way.” …

Post after post framed the attacks as an overdue reckoning: the working class finally striking back against the billionaires who are automating it into obsolescence and buying bunkers to protect themselves from a future they helped create. …

Salty-Plantain-4299 put it more bluntly: “What do they honestly think is going to happen when that fucker and his other billionaire tech bros are actively working to destroy people’s lives and livelihoods. 500,000+ in the U.S. alone laid off because of AI 2024-2025. Let that sink in. How can anyone really be surprised when the pitchforks come out?”

For example:

Lukas, a 15-year-old living in New York, equated the three suspects to John Brown, a 19th-century abolitionist who was hanged for a raid aimed at freeing slaves: “Sometimes peaceful protest is so hard, nearly impossible, that you need to be violent.”

I reached out to Lukas after reading some of his alarming posts on several Reddit boards. When I got him on the phone, he told me he empathized with the three alleged attackers. After all, Altman is threatening human extinction. “Sam Altman is violent. He’s harming people. So we’re just fighting violence with violence.” …

The possibility of an AI apocalypse has made him “feel depressed lately,” Lukas told me.

He continued, “I feel like I won’t be useful in the future. I’ll be easily replaced by some AI model. So I can understand people’s anger. We have our whole future still ahead of us.”

The attackers, Lukas reasoned, “want to live the rest of their lives without it being cut short by AI extinction,” he said, adding, “It’s unfair, because everyone in control has already lived their lives.”

Stay tuned.