Spend less or tax more: it’s Jim Chalmers’ call, say experts

Spend less or tax more: it’s Jim Chalmers’ call, say experts. By Thomas Henry in The Australian.

Many countries (are running) very large government deficits, and there are no particular signs that these are coming down,” [RBA governor Michele Bullock] said during a fireside chat in Sydney

“This is adding to financing ­issues for governments. And if the economy is growing more slowly than the interest rate they are being charged, then that is just going to keep widening over time. So that’s the challenge.” …

KPMG chief economist Brendan Rynne warned decades of budget deficits would become incredibly politically damaging for any government as households ultimately picked up the bill for higher government debt.

Politicians always choose the inflationary route rather than keeping the money supply near constant because it is not as obvious that they are to blame for inflation (because of the one or two year lag between their overspending and the ensuing inflation, and because the media has thoroughly confused most people about inflation).

The one exception was in 1930, where the US Fed choose to rein in the money supply in response to the debt/banking crisis — and the Great Depression followed. Central bankers have since made it very clear they will never do that again. The response now is always to print instead, to accommodate whatever spending the politicians feel is necessary.

All this tough talk about raising interest rates is a bluff. Eventually the central banks will collapse and give way to the inflation. Caught between a rock and a hard place, doing an impossible job.

Coalition updates their climate policy, and it’s good …but not good enough

Coalition updates their climate policy, and it’s good …but not good enough. By Joanne Nova.

Angus Taylor won’t find the killer one liners he needs to win the election, because [the Coaltion are] still balancing precariously on the fence. They still won’t get out of The Paris Agreement, and they won’t set targets for Net Zero until after the election, which sounds ominously vague, not like people who know what the country needs — the cheapest energy it can get. …

The solar-power-baby has been subsidized for a quarter of a century, just like the windmills-of-wonderful-weather. When will it end? When do these babies grow up and compete in a free market? Is that never? Not only are they still subsidized directly, we build their billion dollar interconnectors too, and subsidize the battery backup, the synchronous condensors, and the pumped hydro that they need to do anything useful. The subsidies pile on subsidies until the free market dies of dementia and the cheapest energy is driven out of business.

 

The Coalition team could start by calling out Chris Bowen, who is speaking outrageous untruths:

Mr Bowen said he expected the next election would again be a referendum on nuclear …

He highlighted “sensible solutions that Australians are backing” such as almost 550,000 home batteries, which he predicted would rise to about one million by the next election. Mr Bowen said these one million households would not only have reduced bills but “reduce prices for everyone else”

The Coalition need to start explaining to everyone that the half a million households with solar power and batteries have made electricity more expensive for other Australians not less. Someone needs to say as diplomatically as possible, that nearly all solar panels were subsidized through electricity bills that mostly came from people without solar panels. Most Australians had no idea. They thought they were helping the nation. It may break the Liberal and National Party’s hearts to admit this (because they endorsed it).

Once upon a time we all had cheap electricity, not just the half million who got a hand out. And the free market can get us back there. But the science needs to be audited, the energy cartels must be disbanded, the subsidies for solar and wind power and batteries must stop. If solar makes any five minute period cheaper, it makes the cold dark hours at night more expensive. The total system cost is always higher with random intermittent generators.

 

 

The Coalition thinks if it feeds the crocodile and talks about carbon emissions like they matter (a bit) the lefty machine, the Blob media will be a bit nicer to them. But they will be called cage-rattling science-deniers anyway. …

We’re in a cold war, against adversaries that are building as much cheap power as they can get, while we pretend to stop droughts in 100 years by crippling our energy supply and sending our factories to China. It’s not science, it’s witchcraft and sorcery, and we’re falling for it. How many solar panels does it take to stop a heatwave in Sudan? If we cover the country in windmills will we stop bushfires for ever?

Just keep repeating, the science needs to be audited, the climate models ignore most of the solar factors, and China built three times our entire coal powered grid system last year. Just say 78 Gigawatts. Australia has about 24 GW of coal power which we’re paying a trillion dollars to close, and China is building our entire national supply every 4 months.

I have the science answers, but no one is interested. (I put that there for posterity.)

The Machine That Decides What You Know

The Machine That Decides What You Know. By Robert Malone.

AI is rapidly becoming the gatekeeper to the world’s information. Increasingly, people will not search through ten websites and decide for themselves what they believe. They will ask a machine a question and receive an answer. That makes the rules governing those machines enormously important. …

Behind the increasingly urgent campaign to regulate AI is a surprisingly small and interconnected world of billionaires, foundations, nonprofits, researchers, policy organizations and technology companies. Many are connected through a movement most Americans have never heard of: Effective Altruism. Its money helped build the field of AI safety. Its institutions helped define the threat. Its researchers and policy organizations are helping define the solutions. And one of the world’s most powerful AI companies, Anthropic, emerged from this same intellectual ecosystem while spending tens of millions of dollars to influence the rules under which it and its competitors will operate.

Now Barack Obama wants Democrats to make AI regulation a major political priority.

That is where this story stops being about obscure arguments among computer scientists. The people who write the rules for artificial intelligence may ultimately help determine what the machine is allowed to tell you. …

How money builds a consensus (exactly what was done with the carbon dioxide theory of global warming):

Ideas require money before they acquire institutions, experts and political power. EA had plenty of it. …

But look at what the money actually buys. It doesn’t simply fund research. It builds a field.

Fund the researchers who define the threat. Fund the university centers that study it. Fund the organizations that evaluate the machines. Fund the fellowships that train the next generation of experts. Fund the policy shops that turn the research into proposed regulation. Fund journalism programs that explain the threat to the public. Then move those trained people into technology companies, think tanks, lobbying organizations, and government. …

None of this requires a conspiracy. That is what makes the structure more interesting. People can sincerely believe the same thing while being funded, trained, employed and credentialed inside institutions built around that belief. Eventually the institutions begin citing one another. The researchers become the experts. The experts advise government. And what began as a philosophical argument starts looking like an independent scientific consensus. And the public is told that they need to trust “the experts”, that science is dictating policy. In reality, it is money that is dictating the policy.

Here’s a quick review of the current AI landscape I found helpful to can keep up with the conversation, excerpted from a conversation with ChatGPT.

A frontier AI model is one of the most capable general-purpose AI models at the current performance frontier — especially models competitive in reasoning, coding, science, multimodal work and autonomous/agentic tasks. There isn’t an official membership list, and it changes quickly.

 

Company Model Ownership
OpenAI GPT family OpenAI is privately held. Outside investors include Microsoft.
Anthropic Claude family Anthropic is privately held. Major investors/partners include Amazon and Google.
Google DeepMind Gemini Alphabet (Google)
SpaceXAI / xAI Grok Musk-controlled SpaceXAI.
Meta Llama Meta Platforms, the listed company controlled through Mark Zuckerberg’s high-vote shares
Mistral AI Mistral Privately held French company Mistral AI

 

A useful way of thinking about the landscape is that there are really only about four unequivocal giant frontier labs in the US at present:

OpenAI — Anthropic — Google DeepMind — xAI/SpaceXAI

with Meta somewhat different because its strategy emphasizes open-weight models, and Mistral a smaller European competitor.

There are also Chinese frontier labs that deserve to be included if you’re asking globally rather than just about the US/European ecosystem — notably DeepSeek, Alibaba/Qwen, Zhipu AI/GLM, ByteDance/Doubao, and others. Their strongest models can be competitive with the Western frontier on at least some benchmarks. DeepSeek is the big Chinese disruptive entrant: very capable reasoning/coding models with unusually aggressive cost efficiency.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

The English upper class have failed us

The English upper class have failed us. By Mary Harrington in UnHerd.

Charles’s and Diana’s institution-building and moral-reform instincts went in search of a canvas at sufficient scale. Alas: they found themselves reborn as warring emotional camps, in an America-led, globalised 24-hour TV entertainment cycle. In this frenzied setting, a sensibility that once ruled the world degraded into an ugly divorce battle, between “duty” in Charles’s sense of subsuming your feelings for the greater good, and Diana’s of pursuing personal truth, no matter what the cost.

Diana’s personal truths:

This resonated more widely than just the Windsors, because the battle was also raging throughout our erstwhile imperial class. Long before Diana died, her combination of idealism and selfishness was a sufficiently common cultural hangover of the Sixties to have been vividly satirised in the Nineties sitcom Absolutely Fabulous.

 

 

The show’s two central characters, Patsy and Eddie, capture the hedonism and sentimental, self-righteous attitude this produced — while casting a sharp eye at Britain’s fraying upper class. Only Patsy is genuinely “posh”, but she also has no money: she lives a parasitic life in nouveau riche Eddie’s house, where she guzzles Eddie’s champagne, makes use of her chauffeur, and bullies her staid daughter, while weeping crocodile tears whenever challenged.

The year after Ab Fab stopped broadcasting, Diana’s sudden death declared her self-involved version of “duty” the winner in the media battle, as it were by martyrdom and canonisation. As Tony Blair solemnly declared at the time, she was the “People’s Princess”. From there on in, the Patsy and Eddie version of “authenticity” was to be the new normal for Modern Britain. …

Watching Earl Spencer justify his latest salvos against King Charles to Laura Kuenssberg, I don’t doubt his assertion that if he really wanted to spill the tea, there are spicier truth-bombs he could drop. But clearly he doesn’t just want to screw King Charles. … Like Patsy and Eddie, he wants to destroy his enemies and not be made to feel guilty and still have everyone agree that he’s a really nice person.

Charles put the greater good before his feelings:

What of the other side, meanwhile? If Britain’s posho moral-reform instincts have long since resiled into wokeness, philandering, and crybully emotional terrorism, the proponents of emotionally detached team spirit are just as gravely adrift. …

Here, for example, we find hereditary products of Britain’s erstwhile imperial class such as Boris Johnson, opening Britain’s borders to the “Boriswave”. We find Jacob Rees-Mogg enjoining British plebs (presumably excluding himself) to “do their duty” and enlist to defend their nation, even as those plebs witness government after government refusing to defend Britain’s own coastline because of “international law”. And, indeed, we find the recent, cold-blooded assertion by Rory Stewart that the mass rape of British girls by Pakistani-heritage clan mafia networks is a trivial issue compared to real problems, such as the future of AI governance….

“It’s not our fault”:

These two poles represent, between them, the spread of ways a decadent upper class can absolve itself of responsibility.

On the one side, by resiling into Patsy and Eddie emotivism, and saying, of anything inconvenient or guilt-inducing: “It wasn’t my fault because I’m nice and a victim.”

On the other, by fixating on “the future of mankind” rather than of a particular people, and offloading responsibility to assorted forms of technocracy, from institutions, to international laws …

The failure of the English ruling class:

A fish rots from the head down. Ordinary Brits are still demonstrably capable of self-organising in a crisis, for the common good, at a pragmatic scale. If our country is in a bad way, ultimate responsibility lies with our leadership class, which long since committed itself to a general stance of “it’s not my fault”, or “we need to make things even more neutral”.

Whether the supposed culprit is personal trauma, institutional racism, Donald Trump, International Law, or AI Swarm Gods, we’re stuck with this ghastly tranche of wet-eyed cry-bullies and cold-blooded universalists, none of whom shows the slightest interest in the one thing they’re supposed to do: lead and serve, in the interests of their own nation. …

It’s not really possible to do without an elite. But we really could do without one whose sole unifying refrain is “It’s not my fault”.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Archbishop of Canterbury presents award to modern Muslim Islamist

Archbishop of Canterbury presents award to modern Muslim Islamist. By Pete Smith in Quadrant.

AI assures me, because I couldn’t believe it, that this is a real photograph taken at Lambeth Palace. It captures the Most Reverend Sarah Mullally presenting the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation to Pakistani cleric Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi.

Lest you mistake her for a pillar of coal, the encased figure standing between the Archbishop and the cleric in the pictures is the wife. Of what number I know not. …

The Muslim cleric pictured is a strong supporter of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and the death penalty that accompanies them. And he has opined that the Iran war is all about Jews and Christians targeting Iran’s nuclear power. He was also a fanboy of Osama Bin Laden. What a very model of a modern Muslim Islamist. …

The award was presented on September 11 (9/11). Yes, it is unbelievable.

Presumably, and thankfully, once a rudimentary Googling had been done on the character of the cleric, the Archbishop saw the light and withdrew the award on September 17.

What a complete fiasco from the Church of England … Mind you, Pope Paul II got into the act early by kissing the Quran in 1999. It is all mightily unbelievable. How about a grand mufti kissing the Bible? Show me that and I’ll show you a dead mufti.

Notice that the award seems to be hanging around the neck of the aforementioned wife. I imagine that the Muslim cleric would not allow himself to be soiled by wearing a Christian decoration, particularly bestowed by a mere woman. And touching hands would have been verboten absolutely. … So put that in your pipe and smoke it, feminists for Palestine.

Well said.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Deficits for the next 40 years — Australian Government

Deficits for the next 40 years — Australian Government. By Matthew Cranston in The Australian.

Jim Chalmers has assured Australians that personal income tax cuts are still part of his economic plans, despite revelations the country faces 40 years of budget deficits, ballooning debt, and an economy that will remain largely reliant on migration. …

Awesome job, Jim.

His second Intergenerational Report … pushes migration and multiculturalism as key drivers of economic growth through to 2066, and puts artificial intelligence at the centre of future productivity strategies

Reality will be even worse:

Economists and industry bodies warned the report relied upon unrealistically rosy assumptions of productivity and fiscal discipline.

Now it’s AI that is going to make us rich? After broadband (NBN), net zero, renewable power, and green hydrogen all failed? All our competitors will also adopt AI, many faster than us, so our relative position will slip.

The Best and Shortest Economics Lesson

The Best and Shortest Economics Lesson. By Handre.

1.Humans act. Every choice a person makes traces back to an incentive, a trade-off, a cost weighed against a benefit. Remove the incentive and the action stops. Distort the incentive and the action warps.

Tax income at 90% and watch producers stop producing. Subsidize failure and watch failure multiply. The behavior follows the reward structure, always.

2.Value exists only in the mind of the person choosing. A glass of water is worth nothing to a drowning man and everything to a man dying of thirst. No central authority can calculate this, because it changes with every individual and every circumstance.

Nothing has value in itself, only the degree to which humans choose to value it. Diamonds and even gold only carry value because humans decided they do.

3. Money does not come from a government decree. It emerged spontaneously when traders needed something durable, divisible, and widely accepted to escape the limitations of direct barter. Gold won that competition across centuries and across dozens of independent civilizations because the market, not a ministry, chose it.

Fiat currency is the state hijacking that evolved institution and replacing it with paper backed by nothing but a legal threat. Every central bank on earth operates on this model right now.

4. Wealth does not fall from the sky. A farmer who eats his entire harvest produces nothing next season. The farmer who saves seed, plants it, and specializes in what he grows best accumulates a surplus. That surplus is capital. Capital funds everything that comes after.

Consumption without prior production is just burning down the furniture for warmth. Every welfare state eventually reaches this point.

5. Strip private property rights and production collapses. A farmer will work his own land until midnight. That same farmer, working collective land, stops at noon. The Soviet Union ran this experiment across seventy years and killed tens of millions, proving the point.

When you cannot own the outcome, you do not produce the outcome.

6. Voluntary trade generates wealth from nothing but mutual preference. When you pay twelve dollars for a meal, you value the meal above twelve dollars; the restaurant values twelve dollars above the meal. Both parties walk away wealthier in real terms. No politician, no regulator, no bureaucrat added anything.

Protectionism destroys this. The 2018 US steel tariffs raised steel prices for American manufacturers, killed more jobs in steel-consuming industries than existed in steel production itself, and transferred wealth from productive firms to a protected few. …

7. Inflation is a tax. Every dollar the Federal Reserve creates without corresponding production dilutes every dollar you already hold. The new money flows first to the government and its contractors, who spend it at current prices. By the time it reaches you, prices have already risen.

The US M2 money supply grew from roughly 15 trillion dollars in January 2020 to over 21 trillion by early 2022. Consumer prices followed. Your savings took the loss.

8. Prices carry information. A price spike tells producers to produce more and tells consumers to use less. It coordinates millions of strangers without a single central command. Interfere with that signal and the coordination breaks.

Rent control in New York City is the cleanest example. Cap rents below market and landlords stop maintaining buildings, stop building new ones, and convert units to other uses. The people rent control was supposed to help pay the price through collapsing supply.

9. Interest rates are the price of capital over time. When the Federal Reserve pushed rates to near zero between 2008 and 2022, it told every investor that capital was nearly free. Businesses built projects that only made sense at zero percent. When rates normalized, the projects failed. The 2022 collapse of the US tech sector and the crypto market were not random events. They were the correction of a decade of artificially cheap capital.

The business cycle is not a mystery of capitalism. Central banks manufacture it.

10. Bureaucrats face no profit and loss. A businessman who misallocates capital goes bankrupt. A bureaucrat who misallocates capital writes a report requesting more funding. The feedback loop that disciplines markets simply does not exist inside a government agency.

The US Department of Education has spent over a trillion dollars since 1980. Literacy rates have not improved. No one at the department has been bankrupted by this outcome.

11. Every producer inside a local market holds knowledge that no bureaucrat in a capital city can replicate. A wheat farmer in Kansas tracks soil moisture, futures prices, local equipment costs, his specific buyer relationships, and a hundred other variables simultaneously. That knowledge lives in the price he sets.

Friedrich Hayek called this tacit knowledge in 1945. The Soviet central planners ignored him and spent fifty years proving him correct, producing chronic shortages of goods that private markets coordinate effortlessly. No model, no algorithm, and no committee can compress what millions of independent actors know into a single plan.

12. Every government intervention produces effects you see and effects you don’t. You see the road the state builds. You don’t see the factory the tax dollars never funded, the job that never existed, the innovation that never happened because capital was extracted at gunpoint and redirected by bureaucrats with no skin in the game.

Take the 2009 Cash for Clunkers program. Congress destroyed 690,000 working cars, handed dealers a short-term spike, and you saw the sales numbers. The used car market was stripped of affordable inventory, pricing working-class buyers out for years afterward.

13. Prices, supply chains, and language itself coordinate millions of strangers without any central planner issuing a single command. That coordination is spontaneous order: complex, functional patterns that emerge from individuals pursuing their own goals under rules they did not collectively design. No committee holds the dispersed local knowledge required to replicate what voluntary exchange produces every second.

Watch how English evolved. No king designed its grammar. Millions of speakers across centuries adopted words and structures that worked, dropped ones that didn’t, and produced a language richer than any bureaucrat could have engineered. Central planners who believe they can replicate that process with price controls or production quotas destroy the feedback mechanism that generates the order in the first place.

The above is Austrian economics, which has been out of favor with governments and banks for nearly a century now.

Instead, today we have Keynesianism, which is just an elaborate excuse for governments and banks to lower interest rates, thereby generating for themselves more spending power and income. Keynesianism is an ideology invented for the great depression of the 1930s, to stop more banks going bust (their assets were mainly bonds, and bond prices go higher when interest rates go lower).

The generation of economists before Keynes, the classical economists, thought Keynes was a crackpot. But government and banks only give plum economist jobs to followers of Keynes, which filters the profession, first at universities and then everywhere. By 1970 nearly all economists were Keynesians.

So, here we are in the 2020s, with the world awash in debt, but no longer able to keep interest rates artificially low without inflation taking off. Interest rates cannot be raised now, because everyone would go bust. Japan must spend 100% of its tax income on interest payments if rates get to 7%, the US at 14%. In 1980, it took 20% interest rates to halt inflation. How many people on mortgages can afford the 18% interest rates of Australia in 1989?

In all of human history, the average lifetime of a fiat currency is about two generations (~50 years). Our current money technically began in 1971, when the last link to something real was cut. So, we’re about on the usual schedule.

The left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts

The left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts. By Glenn Reynolds.

As the old saying has it, the left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts, and both find what they’re looking for.

The effect is no doubt subliminal, but people who treat you like crap are, over time, less persuasive than people who don’t. If people on the Left are so unhappy about how many former allies are changing their views, perhaps they should examine how those allies are treated.

Newspoll: Two thirds of Australians want less immigration, only 4 per cent want more immigration

Newspoll: Two thirds of Australians want less immigration, only 4 per cent want more immigration. By Geoff Chambers in The Australian.

Two-thirds of Australians, including 44 per cent of Labor voters, want fewer immigrants allowed into Australia, according to an exclusive Newspoll that reveals ongoing concerns in the electorate about high levels of immigration. …

37 per cent of voters wanted a lot fewer immigrants than now and 29 per cent wanted fewer immigrants than now. …

4 per cent wanted more immigrants than now and 2 per cent wanted a lot more immigrants than now.

Western governments are refusing to give an inch on mass migration

Western governments are refusing to give an inch on mass migration. By Fugitive Caesar.

Foreign crime is fueling a global right-wing nationalist movement and the return of tribal white identity politics in every country suffering under the adverse consequences of cheap foreign labor.

Leftist governments are risking everything on this one single goal. They’re wrecking their economies. They’re bankrupting senior pensions. They’re unleashing rape and murder onto innocent women. They’re risking civil war.

And yet, the horror continues.

There is a global Leftist consensus that if the nonwhite population can reach some critical threshold of 60% or 70% or 80% of a nation’s numbers, then Leftists will be able to permanently consolidate and entrench power.

This is the great evil of our time. This moral crusade has inflicted crushing poverty, despair, and violent atrocities upon innocent citizens and vulnerable children.

Only in America has President Trump driven them back and reversed the tide. But even in America, every Democrat state is bitterly resisting handing over their voter fraud rolls, and fighting against the federal government’s efforts to audit welfare, medical fraud.

Eastern Europe too:

 

John Carter:

Permanently solving this will require constitutional changes to the nature of citizenship. …

We need to adapt the Athenian citizenship model. Something like, naturalization takes three generations of continuous residency, ideally with intermarriage. That can’t just be an ordinary law, it has to be built into the constitution, so that it’s almost impossible to change.

 

 

Commenters:

Why would they give an inch? They know that they only need to win one more election. …

It’s their entire platform. Subversion is their only way to keep their corruption going. …

It is willful destruction of the western world and will hopefully be seen as such by almost everyone, quickly. It is worldwide and it is the elites vs the citizens.

 

 

Only useful idiots want open border immigration, most people are against it, but it doesn’t matter. That is what we are getting. There is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

The upcoming US midterms are going to be a shitshow of fraud and corruption. The left in the United States seem to quickly be agreeing that the fall of the US is the best path forward. I’m sure it’s the same for leftists elsewhere in the West. They are starting to lose, and their path forward is “anyone but the right, they are evil.” …

The leftist elites encouraging mass migration seem not to realize that if they actually succeeded with their goal , the very people they imported would remove them from power very quickly! Migrants have no desire to be ruled by anyone outside their ethnicity. …

There are still white liberals in South Africa. They will never admit the fallacy of their world view even as everything collapses around them. If anything they will feel justified if things go kinetic so they can say “we were right about the evils of Whiteness”.

 

Angela Merkel was the true extremist of our age. History will judge hyperliberals as the vandals who dissolved our borders

Angela Merkel was the true extremist of our age. History will judge hyperliberals as the vandals who dissolved our borders. By Matthew Syed in The Times.

If extremism is defined as acting out of proportion with context, history or consent, I suggest Merkel’s tenure represented the high point of postwar European extremism.

It was not just that she opened the door in 2015 to almost a million unvetted, largely male asylum seekers, but did so knowing perfectly well what the consequences would be. We know this because she alluded to many at the time of her (again, widely acclaimed) “Wir schaffen das” (“we can do this”) speech. She knew it would impose ruinous fiscal cost on the German people but she went ahead anyway, prioritising the projection of her own virtue above the interests of her voters.

 

Merkel smiles for dominant immigrant

The famous photos at the birth of Islamo-leftism

 

She knew it would add huge pressure to schools with tens of thousands of extra pupils needing German-as-second-language teaching in an already short-staffed system, not to mention adding huge tension to a tight housing market. She knew this would shaft her neighbours as migrants moved westwards, making a mockery of Schengen and adding to the drumbeat for Brexit. She must also have surely known there would be a spike in crime; rape and sexual assaults rose by 13 per cent in 2016 and asylum seekers were overrepresented sixfold in the numbers. On New Year’s Eve in 2015 more than 500 sexual offences were recorded in Cologne on a single night.

Coming up: the “rabid right”:

You’ll doubtless have noted the increasingly Orwellian terminology applied to parties such as the AfD, Reform and the like. It started with “far” right, then moved to “hard” right, then “radical” right. Soon they will be labelled the “rabid right” …

Who are the extremists here?

Who are the extremists here? Is it the people who want to rip up a chronically out of date legal framework or “moderates” who follow in the footsteps of Mutti by waving them in?

My sense is that the leaders of the various uniparties believed their legacies would be defined by the tenets of wokeism, seeing this ideology not as a passing cultural spasm but a new moral paradigm. This is why we got trans ideology (was this not extremist?), net zero zealotry (was this not extremist, at least in its implementation?) and more.

It is also why I believe history will judge the likes of Cameron, Johnson, Trudeau, Hollande, Macron and von der Leyen as the most disastrous in postwar history since they undermined both the concept of the nation state and the alliance that defends our version of it.

Henrik Dahl points out the consequences of a lying media that omits anything that does not support a leftist point of view:

In Merkel’s own country, Germany, the political centre is collapsing. Nationwide opinion polls suggest that the three establishment parties that rebuilt Germany after the Second World War now command the support of only around a third of the electorate between them.

Nor is Germany the only country where the political centre is collapsing. The same is happening in France [and all western countries]

The extraordinary denial of reality that, in my assessment, Merkel allowed to take hold when it came to immigrants’ responsibility for antisemitism, violence against women, terrorism and gang crime.

Coming from Denmark, where we have reliable statistics on all these matters, I find it frankly shocking to listen to the nonsense coming from Germany’s political elite.

But I would also trace back to Merkel the rise of what is often called “Islamo-leftism” — a tendency that has recently gained ground in Sweden and is also growing in Germany. In Sweden, polls have indicated that 85 per cent of Muslim voters support parties to the left of centre, with almost one in five supporting the Left Party, Vänsterpartiet — a party tainted by antisemitism and the glorification of terrorism. I see no compelling reason to assume that the pattern in Germany is fundamentally different.

My argument, then, is that it is not only the rise in support for the AfD that can be traced back to Merkel. The same applies to the growing support for parties on the German left that promote the political and religious views of a significant proportion of the people, Merkel invited to Germany. Not least on the Gaza question.

Pigs fly:

We need to discuss this openly and honestly. Otherwise, we cannot understand why the political centre is collapsing in so many countries today.

Commenters:

Ronald Regan said 40 years ago something along the line of “when fascism return to the west it will be in the form of hyperliberalism”.

First the state changes the meaning of a word. Then it punishes those who remember what it meant.

First the state changes the meaning of a word. Then it punishes those who remember what it meant. By Chris Uhlmann in The Australian.

The moment it really went south:

If there was a moment that clarified what was wrong with politics as usual in Australia, it was the Bondi Beach massacre.

In the aftermath of that December day, some of the country’s leadership condemned antisemitism while shrinking from naming the radical Islamist ideology behind the attack. Others declared that this atrocity had nothing to do with religion. This defied logic. The killers were Muslims, the targets were Jews. This crime had everything to do with religion.

People watched as the great and the good tortured language and logic to declare that we should not accept the evidence of our own eyes. It was emblematic of a ruling class that believed it determined what was true. …

Migration woes:

We woke up in a foreign land and wondered how we got there. It heightened existing reservations about migration and the flaws of multiculturalism.

Boiled down to its basics, the widespread unease with migration is economic and emotional: too many people too fast, and too many of the wrong kind of people.

Expressing even the first half of that fear often invites retribution, but the second is unsay­able because it runs to race and religion. Everyone knows they will be branded racist if they wonder aloud whether some minority beliefs are incompatible with living in harmony with the majority.

Everyone also knows the only person in Australia’s political atmosphere prepared to say the unsayable is Pauline Hanson. …

Trans lies:

Part of the problem is that the word progress has been hijacked by weirdos … So rack this up as progress: the law has declared that biology is bunk and opened the door to the colonisation of women’s spaces by men. …

In the disturbingly named Giggle v Tickle case, Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner intervened on the side of the trans woman to argue that sex was not settled at birth, was not binary and could change.  …

Yet this lie is now law. People will be compelled to comply with it and face legal action if they don’t. Pause on that and consider its implications. First the state changes the meaning of a word. Then it punishes those who remember what it meant. ..

The religious bureaucracy in the Middle Ages was ended by hundreds of peasants revolts.

Australia has built an official secular morality, complete with its own clergy and courts. Its priests do not wear collars. They chair commissions, draft codes of conduct and sit on corporate boards. They discover new rights, declare new offences and summon heretics to the star chamber. The catechism changes with the era. The method does not. The old church named sins, demanded confession and prescribed penance. Its modern counterpart calls the sins harm, the confession conciliation and the penance training.

The power goes to their heads, even as they succumb to competitive virtue-signaling.

And the idea that global warming is mainly due to our carbon dioxide? Utter rubbish. It’s been warming since 1650, a fact that was in all the climate textbooks and the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990. But that heresy was disappeared by 2000, replaced by their big lie, the fraudulent hockey stick.