Labour Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, in charge of Immigration to the UK, is a Muslim.
Labour’s Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has just set the stage for yet another betrayal of the British people. That’s the only conclusion one can draw after listening to Shabana Mahmood’s speech at the Labour Party conference.
Because what Labour has put into motion is an entirely new wave of immigration that will further undermine our already weak economy, erode trust in our democracy, put British people at risk, and utterly transform what’s left of an already broken nation. …
The Labour Party has still not fixed Britain’s broken borders. It has not stopped the boats. It has not removed an estimated 1.5 million illegal migrants in Britain. It has not returned levels of legal immigration back to the sensible levels that were seen before Tony Blair and Labour fired the starting gun on mass immigration, in 1997. …
New immigration rules will unleash a bigger immigration wave than ever before:
This week Andy Burnham’s Labour Party and Shabana Mahmood decided to put the narrow interests of their fanatical left-wing activists and Labour’s Muslim voters ahead of the interests of the country by announcing an entirely new wave of refugee migration from the Third World and a dramatic softening of current immigration policy.
Contrary to what every single opinion poll in Britain now shows, that a large majority of British people want immigration reduced, Shabana Mahmood’s extreme policy will now re-open and turbo-charge the UK Resettlement Scheme, importing as yet unknown numbers of refugees into Britain from Afghanistan, Gaza, and many other Third World nations. It will open immediately, with one-quarter of the first arrivals coming from Afghanistan and Palestine. …
The Shabbywave is the Boriswave on steroids:
The Boriswave … added nearly 3 million mainly low-wage, low-skill migrants from outside Europe to its population — net — through legal schemes since 2021 alone.
But if the Boriswave has become known for imposing a policy of mass migration from outside Europe that nobody voted for, then Shabana Mahmood’s new policy — what we might call the Shabbywave — is about to put all this on steroids.
It will be characterised by a fresh wave of mainly low-skill, low-wage, poorly-educated and Islamic migrants and refugees from radically different cultures who will not only be allowed into Britain but put on a path towards permanent settlement.
That’s right. Despite Britain already giving permanent settlement to roughly 700,000 people since 2021 alone, and about to give it to millions more Boriswave migrants who arrived between 2021 and 2024, Labour will fast-track another wave of migrants from the Third World into receiving Indefinite Leave to Remain.
They will be allowed to stay in Britain permanently and have unfettered access to welfare benefits, housing, education, and more, all of which will be subsidised and paid for by … the British people. …
How many people will come? Who knows. All we do know is that Labour openly state the scheme will operate at “much higher capacity” than anything the British state currently has in place. …
Wait, there’s more:
There will now be endless “chain migration” into Britain — another extreme and disastrous policy nobody voted for….
Inevitably, all those imported into Britain from the likes of Afghanistan and Palestine will bring their relatives, much like one woman from Gaza was recently able, thanks to human rights laws, to bring her parents, brother, his wife, their four children, her sister, her four children, another sister, her husband, and their three children into Britain. All of whom were then immediately able to access public funds and welfare. …
Who decides who can migrate to the UK?
Will it be democratically elected Members of Parliament who are accountable to voters? Will it be a collection of British people? No. They will be selected by the United Nations Refugee Agency, alongside the International Refugee Assistance Project — unelected, unaccountable, international organisations that have no connection whatsoever to the British people.
Globalists decide; patriots pay — and hand over their country. Is Britain the model for other white countries?
This talks about Canada, but it nearly all applies to Australia too.
Rome ruled through legions, garrisons, roads, and the physical occupation of ground.
The American empire rules through the things that move without an army. It is an empire of covert softpower most of whose subjects are blissfully unaware of their subordinate position. That empire maintains control:
Through the currency the world prices its oil in.
The payment rails every bank on earth must touch.
The studios and platforms that manufacture what a hundred nations find funny and frightening and true.
The defence umbrella that quietly turns an independent foreign policy into a luxury most of its members decline.
The foundations and the NGOs that decide which causes are respectable and which are fringe.
The universities whose faculties set the terms of every argument before a single voter ever hears it.
It lets its provinces keep their flags. It lets them keep their anthems and their parliaments and their little ceremonies of self-government, because none of that costs the metropole a thing, and a province that believes it is a country is far easier to manage than one that knows it is a province. …
Copycat politics:
Once you see the country this way, something that has nagged at you for years finally has a name. You have noticed, surely, that our politics feels like a rerun. That the arguments arrive already formed, six months late, dubbed into Canadian. The slogans on the placards, the list of what counts as controversial, the shape of every fight, all of it seems to come pre-packaged from somewhere south of here, keyed to institutions and a history that are not ours.
The Canadian left takes its vocabulary and its enemies from the American left. The Canadian right does the same in the other direction. To argue about any of it from outside the imported frame, to counter-signal the entire American script, is treated in this country as something close to blasphemy. That is what it is to be a province. The metropole ships the politics, and the province stages the show. …
The globalist uniparty ruled:
Try the other story. Over forty years the American economy (and Canada’s [and Australia’s]) was reorganized so that the money flowed away from the people who make things and toward the people who arrange things. Factories went abroad. Finance stopped being a utility that funded industry and became the industry.
A whole class came up in the gap between those two facts: the asset managers, the consultancies, the compliance shops, the climate-finance desks, the private equity partners. Men whose income arrives not from building anything but from standing between someone’s labour and someone’s capital and charging a toll on the traffic.
Intermediation, in the polite register. Skimming, if you want the shorter word.
It is very good money. It also has requirements. Open borders for goods and capital. A regulatory thicket dense enough that only the largest players can afford the guides through it. And a political class that treats all of it as weather rather than policy.
Then 2016, and worse, 2024. …
Now, led by Trump, we are challenging them:
You have been told that Trump is a vulgarian who blundered into office twice and that decent people have been holding the line ever since. That story is about manners designed to manipulate people’s emotions. It explains nothing, which is the point of it. …
Trump is a realignment. Tariffs, reshoring, open contempt for the managerial professions and the international bodies, a stated preference for the man who pours concrete over the man who writes the memo about pouring concrete. Say what you like about how he does it. The direction is unmistakable. He is dragging the American state back toward the people who work with their hands, and away from the people who take the percentage.
Which is why the reaction has never behaved like ordinary disagreement. Tariffs break the offshoring arbitrage. Cheap energy hollows out the climate-finance complex. Deregulation fills in the moat. Walking away from the multilateral bodies strips out the sinecures and the summits where that class goes to see itself reflected. Every plank is somebody’s revenue.
So the loathing is rational. It is a class defending its rents. That accounts for the intensity and the unanimity, and for how quickly people who had spent a century insisting certain rules were sacred discovered the rules were situational.
Listen carefully: there is no conspiracy. It’s just a confluence of interests, a team of aligned players who look after each other’s interests:
Now, precision, because this is where writers like me usually overreach and get dismissed for it. There is no cartel. No room, no minutes, no chairman.
What exists is a class with one formation, one enemy and one set of interests, whose members arrive at identical conclusions separately and at the same time, having never needed to arrange anything.
That should worry you more than a conspiracy would. You can expose a conspiracy. There is nothing to expose about a thousand people who went to the same schools, hold the same assumptions, and stand to lose the same money when the same man wins.
Battle recap:
In the first term they fought him from inside the building.
They said so themselves, in the paper of record. September 2018, the New York Times ran an anonymous op-ed by a serving senior official of the administration, explaining to the public that appointees were working to thwart the president’s agenda and contain him until he was gone. There are adults in the room, the author wrote.
Officials of the executive branch announced in public that they were obstructing the elected head of the executive branch, and respectable opinion thanked them. On an NBC panel that week a Democratic commentator said on air she was disturbed by what looked like a soft coup, and grateful for it. Their own people reached for the phrase. They just thought it was warranted, because they had spent two years explaining that the man was an emergency, and an emergency excuses almost anything.
Keep one thing straight, since the lazy version of this argument dies here. Those were Republicans. Generals and oilmen, not progressives … What carries over is the reflex, the settled conviction among people formed in the same institutions that when the electorate returns the wrong answer, the institutions are entitled to correct it.
By the second term that door was welded shut. He came back having learned the lesson of the first four years precisely. Appointments went to people picked for loyalty rather than for the approval of the editorial page. The inspectors general were cleared out. The departments were staffed against the possibility of internal sabotage, and the legal ground had moved his way. … You cannot run the 2018 playbook in 2026. …
The new globalist tactic — Carney!
So a class with the same interests, the same enemy, the same certainty of its own legitimacy, and nothing left to work with at home. It did what capital always does when a jurisdiction turns hostile. It went offshore.
Think about what an allied government can do that a dissenting deputy secretary cannot. It can impose real costs. Withhold cooperation. Coordinate with Brussels and Berlin. Aim economic pain at American voters in the handful of states that decide American elections, and do all of it under a foreign flag, out of reach of every agency the President had just taken back. Same instinct. New jurisdiction. Someone else’s colours.
That is the globalization of the resistance, and it needs one thing in any given country. A government at the top of a useful one, run by a man of the class …
Which brings us to the least examined event in modern Canadian politics.
Winter 2025. The most despised governing party in the country, twenty points down, saddled with a leader the public was finished with, needs a prime minister. What it produces is a man who has never held elected office. Never run in a riding, never sat in the Commons, never faced a voter in his life.
He is handed a G7 country in the smoothest transfer of power anyone can remember, at the exact moment a hostile realignment is underway in the capital of the empire, and at the exact moment the losing faction in that empire has run out of ground to stand on.
A party in that much trouble does not reach for a central banker. Unless a politician was not what it needed. …
Mark Carney made the riskiest gamble in Canadian politics without hesitating. He launched his political career on American television. He prioritizes American papers and lets his ministers clean up after him at home. He restricted the Prime Minister’s office to function more like a corporation and filled it with an American Democratic operative who also handles the American file. He also closed a Washington-cohosted summit in Toronto with [the Candian] press locked out. …
He spent a year waging the most expensive confrontation in modern Canadian history, and not one dollar of his own wealth rides on how it turns out for Canada. Ninety-one percent of it sits in the [U.S.]. Whatever this costs, it does not reach him. …
Provincial status:
We are already a province of the global American empire. This is not a formalized empire, which is exactly what makes it so durable.
A paper annexation would come with two senators, thirty-odd congressmen, a vote in the American system and standing to make trouble inside it. What we have instead is the structural arrangement described at the top of this essay: our money, our media, our universities, our defence procurement and our professional class all wired into the metropole, and no representation anywhere.
We pay our tribute without a seat, taxation without representation. That is not a better deal than statehood. It is the worse one, and we congratulate ourselves on it every July. …
No empire can exclusively administer a province with imperial staff. It is too expensive and too obvious. It needs locals. Men of standing in the provincial capital who are already inclined to see things from the centre’s point of view, who require minimal supervision, and who understand that their own advancement runs through the metropole rather than through the province they govern. …
Look at where the careers actually go. The academic whose funding, citations and reputation depend on American institutions. The NGO officer whose foundation money and whose entire sense of which causes are respectable arrive from New York. The consultant billing an American parent for advice on a Canadian file. The columnist auditioning for an American masthead. Nobody in that chain has been bought. That is what makes it hold. Their careers simply point south, so thinking from a Canadian interest first never occurs to any of them as a live option, and the few who try it find there is no institution in this country prepared to pay them for it….
Like One Nation?
The Conservatives cannot solve it. Their movement runs on prairie populism, which is itself an American import, brought north to help prairie elites organize against the East with a crude us-and-them and a standing grudge against the cities. It does not believe in elites at all. A movement that disbelieves in elites cannot produce the governing class that a complex, advanced civilization requires, and so it might win the occasional election but can only crudely administer the same machine.
Trouble is, conservatives are REALLY bad at addressing [antisemitism]. Simply horrible. We’re unpersuasive, unconvincing, and off-key.
Why?
Because we’re disconnected from the subject matter. It’s diametrically opposed to how our brains are wired.
We don’t get it. Antisemitism and ethnic hatreds are alien concepts.
Because conservatives believe in the glorious, God-given sanctity of the individual. It’s our foundational tenet: Each life is precious, unique, and irreplaceable. The individual is the smallest, most vulnerable minority on the planet — and morality demands his protection. Conservatism embodies individuality, self-determination, and the pioneering spirit.
Reducing a person to the sum-total of his ethnicity is the exact opposite of that. …
The modern left:
In left-wing America, racial identity is king. Our skin color is our group. …
Which creates an insurmountable optics problem for “white” Israelis fighting “brown” Palestinians.
Group identity is a prerequisite for antisemitism; individualism negates it. If you’re an individualist, hating all Jews is as illogical as hating someone for their height or eye color. Because genetic superficialities do not define us; our actions, choices, decisions, and beliefs define us. …
Accentuating group identities blazes an open lane for ethnic hatreds to spread. …
Group identity and a rejection of individualism … sow fertile fields in Goebbels’ garden: In every historic example of antisemitism, group identity superseded individualism. …
History:
Antisemitism has survived for many millennia. But conservative values are a recent phenomenon — as is the United States. We’ve barely been around for 250 years. But in that short time, no country has done more to protect the Jewish people. When other countries persecuted them, jailed them, and slaughtered them (repeatedly), we provided safe haven — and in turn, Jews have been our doctors, served in our military, built atomic weapons, cured polio, invented Hollywood, and revolutionized industries. From Wall Street to Main Street to Silicon Valley, it’s been one of the most fruitful, two-sided, win-win partnerships in world history.
It worked because the American Dream is antithetical to antisemitism. The stronger the former, the weaker the latter.
Because conservatives are individualists, while the left are collectivists (who have recently taken to grouping peple by race and ethnicity, having moved on from grouping by class).
I thought I’d take the liberty of putting in my two cents for The Wentworth Report and give the following remarks about FlyDubai FZ1073:
1. The startle effect
Quick thinking on the part of the Indian captain to have electrically unlocked the cockpit door, even though he had been stabbed repeatedly and was bleeding profusely. …
In the world of Crew Resource Management, especially since the loss of Air France 447 over the Atlantic in 2009, the difference between startle and surprise has greatly occupied the thinking heads of aviation psychology. Specifically, how airlines should train to handle such events. Please don’t tell Elon…he’ll offer to replace pilots by robots, which incidentally in this case would not have helped.
2. This opens up a new front in the war on terror
This one is going be a headache for Shin Bet, the Israeli FBI. The task of vetting every crew member flying in and out of Israeli airspace, especially from foreign airlines, can and will likely be gargantuan. They won’t have access to HR and flight training data, etc.
Then again, they can be incredibly resourceful. If they can fool Hezbollah commanders into using boobytrapped beepers, maybe flying personnel intel is reachable.
3. There are very few countries where passengers would have gotten involved to take over
This is reminiscent of United 93, albeit with a happy ending.
Very few passengers from E.U. countries, from Canada, from NZ, from any of the U.S. blue states would have instinctively taken over. The populace in these globalists internment camps are simply too lobotomized and nannied.
Maybe passengers from Australia would have, possibly. One Nation voters would have, of that I’m convinced.
But for Israelis, daily life is like an episode of Fauda, a NetFlix show in which a top Israeli agent comes out of retirement to hunt for a Palestinian fighter he thought he’d killed, setting a chaotic chain of events into motion.
In reality, it is also too like an episode of Fauda in the E.U., the blue U.S. states, Canada, NZ and Australia — but people are generally too weak and too addicted to the nanny state to realise it. The Bataclan (Paris) or Bondi (Sydney) are perfect examples of it. These should have been blatant wake up calls, but alas they weren’t and the populace begged for more government control.
Brainwashed by the mainstream media, rarely serving in the army, seldom equipped with critical thinking, without a clear and concise second amendment or first amendment (see Digital Duty of Care), most western “democracies” are sold to the totalitarian globalist clique. Govern me harder, please!
In these countries such a hijacking could have easily taken place, because the general population is politically and patriotically moribund. As Israeli comedian Yohay Sponder just posted today: “Wrong airplane A..holes!”
4. The technical aspect
Okay, so I can understand that a passenger who’s never flown an airplane in his life would instinctively know to pull on the control yoke to level an aircraft off. The Israeli passenger in question mentioned a documentary that he’d watch on TV. As a B737 check and training captain and a Crew Resource Management lecturer, I seldom watch ‘Crash Investigations’ on television myself but I acknowledge that it informs the general public.
I also acknowledge how lucky they were that two pilots were deadheading to TLV on that flight. Had there not been, the question begs: Who would have landed the airplane?
IAF jets, F15s, 16s or 35s, had been scrambled with the order no doubt to shoot it down, if need be. And rightly so if you ask me. Australia experienced the same in 2000 during the Sydney Olympics. A small general aviation single engine plane got lost and on the wrong frequency over Sydney Olympic Park. A pair of RAAF F18s were launched and reached the small plane in minutes. Their orders were to establish contact and evaluate the situation, and to possibly shoot it down. I spoke to one of the F18 pilots involved afterwards. There was zero ambiguity in the mission at hand. In the end, it was a simple navigation and communication error, which was corrected, but which could have been disastrous.
On flight FZ1073, what’s astonishing to me — professionally that is — is the fact that although the rudder essentially sheared off, making the aircraft uncontrollable in the axis of yaw, the vertical fin stayed on. The boxes (FDR and CVR) are being looked at and we should hopefully know in details what happened. The bank angle, speed (in knots and in Mach number) as well the rate of descent and the load factor will be of particular importance. For the rudder to break off, the forces at play would have been extremely high.
We know of multiple accidents where the vertical fin sheared right off: AA587 out of JFK in 2001 (Airbus 300-600), QZ8501 in the Java Sea in 2014 (Airbus A320), US427 in Pittsburgh in 1994 (B737-300), etc. The vertical fin + rudder assembly is a solid and highly protected part of any airplane…as long as the aircraft is maintained within the tested flight envelope. If not, all bets are off.
So in the case of FZ1073, the rudder broke but not the fin. My guess is the forces would have been tremendous, with a possible force fight over the control wheel and rudder pedals on the flight deck. If the rudder broke, it is likely that the vertical fin would have been next to shear off. We would have been talking about a total hull loss then.
5. Will the lesson ever be learned by the West?
In 1986, precisely ten years after his brother Yoni fell fighting terror in Entebbe, Uganda, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book entitled ‘Terrorism: How the West can win.’
In plain English he explained clearly and concisely what the solutions to defeating terrorism were. Some governments listen, most didn’t.
Israel is at the forefront of it all. It is fighting the fight that the western world is refusing to fight.
Most Netflix aficionados will tell you that Fauda is fiction. It painfully isn’t. As the great Mark Steyn famously wrote in his seminal 2015 article, “The barbarians are inside, and there are no gates.”
Please, he was a mostly peaceful pilot who mistakenly brought a knife on board, curiously stabbed the captain, and accidentally globalized the intifada.
The New York Times initially reported it as “an altercation between the pilot and co-pilot,” prompting the Babylon Bee to recall how The New York Times reported some other events:
Yeah:
The flydubai incident is a good litmus test to see if people who claim they aren’t Nazis or Nazi-esque can condemn an attempt to kill a plane full of Israelis without excusing it, minimizing it, “contextualizing” it, or deciding the victims had it coming.
Macroeconomist Garett Jones summarizes the scientific literature on this question …
He identifies a consistent pattern: migrants assimilate culturally and economically to their destination country, but never completely — not even after four or more generations, nor after centuries. Whatever strengths and weaknesses they possess tend to persist across generations. And for that reason, for better or worse, migrants tend to make the countries they move to like the ones they left.
Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. …
Built upon mainstream, well-reviewed academic research that hasn’t pierced the public consciousness, this book offers a compelling refutation of an unspoken consensus that a nation’s economic and political institutions won’t be changed by immigration. …
And since most of the world’s technological innovations come from just a handful of nations, Jones concludes, the entire world has a stake in whether migration policy will help or hurt the quality of government and thus the quality of scientific breakthroughs in those rare innovation powerhouses.
The explanation (back to William Meijer):
Two things follow migrant families across generations, geographies, and institutions: their familial environment and their genes. Everything else — from schools and laws to peer groups and governments — usually changes.
This section makes the case that the familial environment is insufficient to explain cultural persistence and, thus, that genetics contribute to observed racial differences in culture.
Culture has deep roots: it is partly rooted in psychology, which is itself partly rooted in biology. Because these layers differ in malleability, cultural traits do not assimilate uniformly. Traits shaped primarily by the immediate social environment tend to change relatively easily, whereas those more deeply embedded in biopsychological dispositions tend to persist. Culture is therefore better understood as a hierarchy of traits than as a collection of equally malleable practices. The Culture Iceberg organizes this hierarchy into four domains, ranging from the deepest and least malleable to the most visible and environmentally responsive.
Abilities:
Abilities … are the deepest layer of the model and, in general, the most resistant to change. Because they shape how people think, learn, and interact, they have important cultural, institutional, technological, and economic implications.
Cognitive ability is probably the most consequential human ability. It is difficult to observe directly, highly stable over time, moderately associated with individual outcomes, and strongly associated with collective outcomes.
Cognitive ability has broad implications because individuals with higher cognitive abilities tend to cooperate more effectively with strangers in mutually beneficial ways (Drouvelis & Pearce, 2025).
At the individual level, each additional IQ point predicts roughly 1% higher wages. At the national level, each additional IQ point predicts approximately 6–7% higher GDP per worker (Jones, 2011). Through the compounding effects of social interactions, relatively small differences in individual traits produce large differences in collective outcomes.
PISA mathematics performance, a reasonable proxy for cognitive ability at the population level, reveals that third-generation (and later) Americans continue to display large racial differences that broadly mirror those observed in their ancestral homelands (Crémieux, 2023; OECD, 2023). …
Emotional suppression, an emotional regulation strategy, also influences large-scale cooperation … The inhibition of strong emotional expression in favor of outward calm and social harmony may have become more common among populations that evolved in cold environments (Sun, 2025). … Evidence from the United States suggests that familial resemblance in emotional suppression is substantially genetic, with shared-environment influences near zero (McRae et al., 2017). …
Taken together, these examples illustrate a broader pattern: cultural assimilation appears to have only a limited effect on abilities because they are constrained by the genes from which they arise. …
The deep roots of institutions and prosperity:
The previous section argued that genetics contribute to the persistence of population differences in abilities, preferences, beliefs, and customs. If culture is partly genetic and shapes institutions more than the reverse, then genetic differences between populations should predict long-term differences in institutional policies and outcomes. The evidence is consistent with this prediction.
In The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, Henrich (2020) attributes Northwestern Europeans’ exceptional capacity for cooperation with non-kin to the Catholic Church’s prohibition of cousin marriage. The main problem with his explanation is that cousin marriage already appears to have been uncommon in pre-Christian Europe….
In Why Nations Fail (2012), Acemoglu and Robinson — who shared the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics for their work on institutions and prosperity — argue that the wealth of nations is determined not by geography or culture but by political and economic institutions: inclusive institutions, which distribute power broadly and secure property rights for the many, generate sustained growth, while extractive institutions, which channel resources to a narrow elite, suppress it. The problem with their theory is that inclusive institutions need a specific type of human capital to function. Even the Committee for the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (2024) acknowledges that their empirical strategy cannot disentangle the effects of inclusive institutions from the independent effects of the European settlers’ human capital. Good institutions undoubtedly generate positive feedback loops once they exist, but they first require populations capable of sustaining them.
Supporting this view, countries with high-quality governance — as measured by control of corruption, the rule of law, government effectiveness, and regulatory quality — tend to trace a larger share of their genetic ancestry to populations that were technologically advanced 500 years ago. …
There appears to be a threshold of human capital below which stable good governance becomes difficult to realize. …
Conclusion:
The tendency of historical outcomes to follow genes across geography further supports the notion that population differences in human capital are partly genetic. If these differences were primarily products of institutions or geography, then historical outcomes should remain more strongly associated with places than with the populations that move between them. Instead, institutional quality and prosperity appear to follow populations across environments.
That genetic ancestry can predict institutional policies and outcomes hundreds of years in advance, even in recently admixed populations, suggests that human capital shapes institutions more than institutions shape human capital and, thus, that genetics likely contribute to observed differences in institutional, technological, and socioeconomic outcomes.
The direction of causality:
Biology shapes psychology more than psychology shapes biology.
Psychology shapes culture more than culture shapes psychology.
Culture shapes institutions more than institutions shape culture.
Institutions shape technology more than technology shapes institutions.
Technology shapes socioeconomic environments more than socioeconomic environments shape technology.
This causal asymmetry exists because more malleable domains are built upon less malleable ones…. Both nature and nurture matter, but the ability to nurture is itself a manifestation of nature.
Implications for migration:
Meijer’s Law explains why, for better or worse, migrants tend to make the countries they move to like the ones they left. Their biological, psychological, and cultural characteristics shape the institutions of the destination country—especially inclusive institutions—more than the institutions shape them. It also explains why imported institutions consistently fail when the biological, psychological, and cultural capital required to sustain them is not adequate.
The evidence suggests that today, countries tend to be orderly or corrupt, rich or poor, because of the people who live in them.
The arguments presented here should not be understood as claiming that ancestry itself determines institutional success and prosperity. Rather, it is the psychocultural traits populations possess — the abilities, preferences, beliefs, and customs that enable large-scale cooperation — that matter.
So choose your immigrants carefully.
Speaking of which, here is Peter Sutherland (1946–2018), an Irish statesman and businessman, who is widely recognized as the “father of globalisation” for his pivotal role in establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and shaping the multilateral trading system, and who served as the UN Special Representative for International Migration from 2006 to 2017:
We must use migration to turn the English people into a minority in England. This will allow us to undermine the identity of the native English and import a new majority that will end the very idea of England. This is critical for the globalism to take hold of England.
A reader writes:
“It also explains why imported institutions consistently fail when the biological, psychological, and cultural capital …”
This is obvious to anyone who’s worked in the third world, especially Melanesia or Africa.
The western idea that if you keep throwing mud (money) at the wall long enough it’ll eventually start to stick is manifestly wrong. It just doesn’t work.
Individually they can present as highly intelligent people, but collectively they’re a disaster as far a running complex western-style institutions is concerned. The key areas where the problems occur are always:
One reason the masses rebel against AI is that they correctly assess that AI is most useful to smart people (not them).
AI shifts human work from execution to orchestration, and orchestration is more cognitively demanding.
Smaller and smaller teams of smart people will be able to deliver more and more, while cognitively modest haters fade into irrelevance.
And why are the people who run the world now reining in AI development? Because they currently run the world and they don’t want competition from smart people. Whites and Jews are constant threats to their power, but they have that situation under control with (a) mass migration from the third world into their countries, and (b) the rise (again!) of antisemitism.
But small groups of smart people whose abilities are magnified by AI probably terrifies them.
In the middle ages, under feudalism, those in control were content to limp along with poor societies and very slow tech development for centuries — so long as they were in charge. It’s all about relative status, and power, not absolute standard of living.
Patricia Leidl is a journalist and author who lives in British Columbia. … She had had previously worked under contract for the World Health Organization.
In her experience, a vaccine against a coronavirus was deemed impractical, because the pathogen mutates too quickly for any vaccine to be effective. For that reason, she was surprised when the development of the mRNA treatment against COVID-19 was announced just a few months into the “pandemic”.
One of those harmed by the covid “vaccine”:
She subsequently needed to get the vax in order to travel abroad for a new job. She was in good health, so, despite her reservations, she decided to get the two-dose mRNA “vaccination”. A week after the second dose she developed severe symptoms, which included fainting, physical collapse, and intense pain, among other issues. The doctors told her she had “Long COVID”, but that made no sense, since she had never had COVID at all.
She developed multiple symptoms related to her reproductive system, and when a doctor started treating her for them, she (the doctor) told her that many of her patients were presenting with the same absolutely strange symptoms.
Ms. Leidl said she also had a migraine that lasted for about a year, and experienced “a real deterioration in my cognitive function”.
Socially contaminated:
In addition to her physical symptoms, she had to deal with the social consequences of being seen as “anti-vax”. She said, “I’d become somehow socially contaminated, because I insisted that what had happened to me was a result of a vaccine reaction which was in fact confirmed… People that I had known for decades suddenly lumped me or defined me as some sort of right-wing wing nut because I have a vaccine injury and I’m vocal about it.”
Leidl described what happened when she insisted her injury was a vaccine reaction, something confirmed by several doctors. Friends chose not to believe her, even when she was unrecognizable and could not walk. Journalism colleagues disassociated from her. She became, in her words, socially contaminated.
She told the inquiry she realized when she testified at the National Citizens Inquiry that she would probably never get hired again for anything. But she felt it was important to tell the truth. There was too much gaslighting going on, she said.
She experienced personal humiliation and considerable degradation while seeking care. She was told her symptoms were a mental health episode, even as she was swelling to 200 pounds and developing boils across her torso. …
Not just any nutter:
She has the institutional record on vaccines. She wrote it. The WHO’s own publications, drafted by a woman they hired for her expertise in vaccine communications, said that coronavirus vaccines could not work because coronaviruses mutate too quickly. It was the official position of the WHO.
And then it was abandoned purely for political reasons. The science remained the same.
The woman who wrote that institutional knowledge was then coerced by circumstance into taking a vaccine her own publication said should not work, and when it destroyed her, the institution that employed her looked the other way.
The left values power for their tribe — which nowadays means big government — over truth. Of course they expel and ostracize a truth seeker like Ms Leidl, even when the evidence is perfectly plain.
How to dramatically raise productivity. By Professor Richard Werner, from an interview with the UK’s Peter McCormack (below). Werner is a financial sector expert and experienced global macro fund manager, and a Professor of Banking, Finance and Economics at a number of universities in Europe.
Basically the post-war Japanese success was due to a fairly straightforward implementation of what is possible. The Japanese had researched quite well what can we achieve, what can be done? And they thought, oh, we can have high growth, 15% growth for decades. It’s actually possible. Let’s do it. That was announced, for example, by a new prime minister at the time, Ikeda, in 1960, who announced, well, we’re going to double national income in the next 10 years.
A storm of opposition — that’s nonsense, impossible, cannot be done. All the economists outraged: what, how dare you, this cannot be done, impossible. Well, they did it in four and a half years, way ahead of schedule. Of course it can be done. And so they kept doing it. And then it turned out that basically Japan was considered too successful by very powerful players …
Well, it delivered 15% growth for decades. It made — you double national income every four and a half years at 15% growth, and it can be done. They’ve proven it can be done.
And then Korea, Taiwan, Singapore copied it.And then in 1978, China copied it. Deng Xiaoping came to power, and the first thing he did is, let’s go to Japan. He went there with 300 of his top people, and he told the Japanese, “Okay guys, we’ve done a lot of ideology, the deductive approach, the Ricardo approach, which is logical arguments, the Mao Red Book. We’re all tired of that. We’re throwing out ideology. We just want to do pragmatic stuff that works. I’ve come here as a student. Teach me — how can I have double-digit growth?” And they told him, and that’s what China did.
Of course, the key was the monetary system. They asked him, so how many banks do you have? Oh, one bank, central planning. Well, the central planners love it — power maximization, control, but it doesn’t really work well. It works for the controllers, but everyone else is unhappy, more or less. …
Werner and his team studied banks in the West:
What we found analyzing those 5,000 banks of different sizes is it’s a very simple principle, which, you know, it’s not surprising, makes common sense. But again, the finance literature had sort of disputed it. Namely, it’s a rule in banking that we confirmed: big banks want to do big deals with big customers. They need to.
Who lends to small firms? It’s small banks. And that’s it. But that changes everything, because when you then consolidate the banking system, like in the UK, nobody lends to small firms. …
Big banks cannot be bothered doing small loans, because all loans take roughly the same amount of due diligence and paperwork — but the profit is proportional to the size of the loan. Big loans are vastly more profitable than small loans. So small business is starved of capital, and is consequently less productive.
A concentrated banking system, with just a few big banks, inevitably causes productivity to drop because the small business sector is overcapitalized.
Let me remind you of how a typical small business operates. Someone has a business idea. To get the business started, they need some capital (money), so they borrow some. If the business works, they pay it back and perhaps expand, etc. Similarly, an existing business may need capital in order to by the newest equipment, or to expand and reap economies of scale. The productivity gains provided by the new business idea or the new equipment depend on the availability of capital. And big banks just aren’t that interested in small loans.
The vast majority of people work for small firms. Small and medium-sized companies employ two-thirds, usually, of employment. The UK — yeah, 65%, roughly. In Germany and Japan, it used to be actually higher, between 70% and 80%. Anyway, this is the majority works for small firms. And now how can their productivity be higher?
Well, I’ll tell you why German small-firm productivity in the past … [had high] productivity … Whenever new technology came up, small firms would realize — I mean, they go to the fairs in their industry, the Messe and so on — and they realize, okay, these are new trends. And of course, oh, there’s a new technology that affects our industry, our sector, our market niche. Well, we’ve got to get it. It means we’ve got to spend some money, we’ve got to master that. We’re going to buy that technology and apply it. Where do we get the money from? Well, we go to our local bank, and that’s the system in Germany.
There’s — the number’s also been declining, but there’s still around 1,200 small local banks, cooperative banks mostly, some savings banks. And you go to the local bank and you explain — they know you already, because they only lend locally, they will not lend outside their local area, so they know all the firms there. Oh yeah, so you guys — okay, there’s this new technology, you guys want to get that? Okay, let’s look at the plans here. And within maybe two days, they would have the money and they can buy the technology, implement it.
In the UK, forget it. There’s just nothing. Yeah, they find out, okay, there’s this new technology, we got to get it. Oh, it’s too expensive, we can’t do it. Okay, let’s find a workaround, or other ways of — but they can’t really get the funding, that’s the problem. And so productivity stays low. And why is that? Because the banks are large, and large banks only do large customers, large business. They don’t want to deal with small firms. And that’s all it is.
Now, the consolidation of the UK banking system took place before the First World War. And the problem therefore has been known — I mean, every few years we have these studies, not just on productivity, there’s also studies on the banking sector, the problems with the UK banking sector. And they always come to the same conclusion — wow, it’s a concentrated banking sector. And there’s this great report, the Colwyn Report, which says that, yeah, the problem is a concentrated banking system. The Big Five dominate banking, they don’t lend to small firms and they give only short-term loans, one-year, two-year loans. And so that’s the problem. …
And that report, the Colwyn Report, I think a parliamentary committee, was published in 1918. So more than a century ago, the problem had been identified. But what had been done about it? Nothing,…
If you want a healthy, wealthy economy doing well, people doing well, you need many small banks.
Might upset the wrong people:
But in this country [the UK], there are strong interests in the City of London against this. I mean, if you want to set up a new bank for the super rich and you make your business case that, well, the super rich need a special bank, oh, you get the banking license in record time. But try to set up a local community bank — that’s definitely not going to be easy, to put it mildly. …
I can easily demonstrate that we can have in the UK 10% growth. I mean, give me the job at the Bank of England — the Bank of England could engineer 10%, 12% growth for two decades. But to do that, you need to implement policies that some very influential people don’t like. …
The most important thing is to establish many small banks, local banks, because it immediately takes some of their centralized power, the central planning power, and decentralizes it and spreads out the power, the decision-making power.
That’s what Deng Xiaoping was told by the Japanese when he asked them, tell me the secret of high growth. And they said, what, you only got one bank for a billion people?
How about you create 5,000 banks, and each bank has 30 branches, and each branch has 35 loan officers? Then you will have more than 5 million loan officers that each year will receive hundreds of millions of loan applications from small — because these are small banks, they need to lend to, and they will lend to small firms — from small firms. …
So you’ve moved from a centralized system — essentially the Soviet central planning system that the UK is very close to really, with five banks and the Bank of England, that’s pretty centralized — and China with one bank. So then they switched from the Soviet system to the highly successful decentralized system, which is what all the high-growth economies have done. When Britain was successful, it had thousands of banks.
We’re talking now, of course, about the 19th century, when growth was double digits. And there were literally thousands of banks. …
How to get high growth again:
Economic growth is simply a direct proportional function of bank credit creation for productive business investment. In other words, bank loans, the quantity of bank loans to productive businesses. And when you lend to small firms, that’s mostly productive, and that’s a simple way of doing it.
Therefore, if you set up 5,000 small local banks, as Deng Xiaoping did, then you will get a lot of investment in productive things, and you will get implementation of technology on a large scale, but decentralized. You get high growth — 15% growth for decades, four decades, as it happened — lifting more people out of poverty than anywhere else before. That can be done in any country. Other countries have demonstrated it. And so, you know, Britain can do this. We can have this high economic growth.
What limits? Ask Elon.
What about limits to growth? Well, there aren’t any limits, because growth is driven by productivity. Productivity is driven by technology. Technology is invented by humans. And the ultimate limit is human ingenuity. And nobody’s found a limit to that one.
To set up a bank you need a banking license from the government. And those are very difficult to obtain nowadays.
There has big bank consolidation over the last three decades throughout the western world. In that same period, the rate of productivity increase dropped and dropped. The two facts are connected.
Australia now has only five or six big banks, and that’s it. Back when productivity growth was higher, we had many banks and building societies. A small local bank or loan desk knows the local people and who is a good risk — but big banks generally do not.
Young white men are the most vilified cohort in the modern age. What shocks me is how people don’t understand what history says about vilified cohorts.
Many people over the age of 40 simply forget, young white men don’t remember the super egalitarian post war order. The world we grew up in no longer exists.
We were taught judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. MLK etc etc. And by God, I still live by that. I see the divine spark in others. It’s what makes being a Soldier in this nation possible. We don’t care what you look like. Everyone is equally worthless.
But sometime after the 90s, tribalism was injected back into this place. The super rare conditions that allowed for so many in this nation to live under one flag withered away. And it became politically useful to demonize one group above all others; white men.
Young white men under 30/40 don’t remember the 90s mostly. All they know is that there needs to be less of them. Politicians and media effortlessly say the future needs to belong to anyone but them.
Where do you think this ends?
What does history teach us about where this ends? Truly. Do your homework. Because you don’t understand how radical these men already are.
Imagine growing up and being told you’re the fucking villain of civilization every single day. You can’t get a job, an education, dating access, all because you are…. the villain.
It’s not safe to say young white men are the problem anymore. In fact, it never should have been. But the further people go down this narrative path, the worse the reaction is going to be.
Sorry boomers, but your grandkids aren’t all lazy shitbags. They’re reactionary zealots in waiting who have worldviews that would make the despots of the 20th century blush.
There is NO relief valve for them politically. They think both political parties in the United States are comfortable maligning them, and they’re right.
Understand the powder keg you sit on right now. The dry timber ready for someone to strike one match. I mean do what you want. That’s America, right? Shit on them if you need to. But don’t cry when it ends as predictably as history says it will.
Do you know what the most destructive force in human history is?
It isn’t a weapon or an army. It’s young men with nothing to live for. And today’s most “acceptably” maligned cohort happens to be young white men.
Every civilization that forgot how to give its young men purpose eventually met them on the battlefield. Every single empire that scorned its sons ended the same way.
When men are denied purpose, mocked for their instincts, priced out of homes, shut out of marriage, and treated as expendable, they eventually stop protecting the system that rejected them.
These are the men who rally to strong voices. They march behind banners promising righteous belonging. And when they move, the world moves with them.
A society that mocks masculinity is a society playing with fire. Young men are not inherently violent. They are VITAL. Whether they build cathedrals or burn cities depends entirely on whether the civilization that raised them still deserves their loyalty.
TLDR. The lesson is to respect your sons. Or you’ll one day meet them as Soldiers. Don’t take it up with me and get angry. Take it up with history.
I sure Anthony Albanese and the woke ruling class have a perfectly fine form of worlds that says this is all completely wrong.
Iran’s ability to choke off oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz — and use that as leverage in talks with the U.S. — is breaking down.
Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz have rebounded significantly, with recent data indicating volumes are between 72% and 98% of pre-war levels, depending on whether the metric includes bypass pipelines or just the strait itself.
The day before the war began in February, traders in Tehran needed about 1.7 million rials for every dollar. They now need more than 2.5 million.
Data from the Cato Institute indicates that legal immigration from 45 majority-Muslim nations to the U.S. fell by 96% between December 2024 and February 2026.
The Trump administration celebrated this figure as a policy success, attributing the decline to a combination of entry bans, visa suspensions, and the suspension of the diversity visa lottery.
The reduction was most severe in specific countries: Afghan immigration plummeted by 99.8%, Pakistani immigration fell by 97.9%, and Somali visas dropped by 99.7%.
Legal immigration from other global regions decreased by 36%. Refugee resettlement from majority-Muslim countries was entirely halted, reaching zero admissions by February 2026.
US jobless claims tumbled last week to levels not seen in years, retail sales are up and manufacturing is booming.
Importantly, the workforce participation rate is climbing — so the low unemployment numbers aren’t just the result of people giving up on the job search altogether.
As columnist Daniel McCarthy notes, “Establishment economists predicted none of this.” …
Trump’s combination of lighter regulation, tighter restrictions on illegal immigration and protectionist tariffs is translating into more jobs here at home as businesses expand.
New industries, like the private space race led by SpaceX and Starlink, are employing hundreds of thousands and still growing.
New industries, like the private space race led by SpaceX and Starlink, are employing hundreds of thousands and still growing. …
But:
You can make a case that the economy is great or that it’s bad.
You can bet that between now and November, the Democrats and the media — but I repeat myself — will be focusing on the bad.
It’s an old playbook, one that Bill Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn wielded to defeat President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
The economy had actually recovered from a brief recession in 1991, but voters thought otherwise — because the media told them so.
“There is often a huge disconnect between belief about the economy and the true economic state of affairs,” Penn wrote in his 2007 book “Microtrends.”
“Until the statistics are actually published, people tend to assess the economy through the eyes of the national media.”
During the 1992 election, Clinton repeatedly told us we were experiencing the worst economy in 50 years.
The press echoed that message dutifully.
But as Penn recounted with glee, “The statistics that came out after the election showed that the period leading up to November had actually been a period of record growth.”
There are two kinds of polls: the “internals” and the “public polls,” also called “media polls” and “independent polls,” although they are hardly independent. …
So, what are “public polls”? Those are the ones everyone in the news media is talking about incessantly right now. Leftist universities, NGOs, media organizations, activist groups, and others pay for them. They serve a very specific purpose, one every conservative should already know.
Public polls are designed to shape public opinion, not reflect it. They are designed to discourage conservative and Republican voters and embolden Democrat and leftist voters. They want to disenfranchise you. They want you to give up and decide not to vote, because they want you to feel that voting this time around is pointless. They want to suppress the vote for Republican candidates.
If a legacy media organization, including Fox News, attaches its name to a public poll, ignore it, especially right now. Between now and the final week before the election, pollsters will oversample Democrat voters and leftists to tilt the scales in favor of Democrat candidates. They will structure the questions to favor the Democrats. They will talk mostly to Democrats. They will shut out Republican candidates and ignore Republican and independent voters.
The Wall Street Journal provides us with a perfect example of how public polls are used to discourage you into giving up. “President Trump’s approval rating drops to 37% in a WSJ poll, the lowest of any president heading into a midterm election in Journal polls dating to 1990.” …
Most legacy media organizations … shore up their results in the final days prior to the election. If you notice, the polls tend to tighten up right before the election. … [The pollsters] know they have to make sure their final polls before Election Day are more accurate so that no one can accuse them of being wrong or biased once the votes are counted.
Everything’s more extreme under Trump, including the bias.
Wasn’t it easier to just get things done back in the day? As a matter of fact, it was. Our regulatory burden has grown: the number of restrictive terms in Commonwealth Acts of Parliament and legislative instruments grew dramatically in the two decades to 2020.
In practice, this looks like ever-more approval hoops to get anything done. In Brisbane, it takes 31 approval steps to open a café. Until recently, federal environmental approvals for wind energy projects could add $5 million in costs and months of delays. …
Anyone who has worked in a large business will tell you that their stock of policies and procedures grows faster than remuneration packages.
The cost to comply with all this regulation can be eye-watering. Macquarie estimated it spent $1.2 billion on compliance in 2025, up from $405 million in 2017. …
Ticking all these boxes takes time. Corporate boards devoted 55% of their time to risk and compliance issues in 2025, up from 24% in 2015. For small business owners, it means less time on the tools, and less time to think about how they might expand. …
In our major cities, for example, regulations add about $200,000 to the cost of a new house, and $90,000 to the cost of a new unit. That pushes a lot of potentially feasible developments into the ‘doesn’t stack up’ column, leading to fewer houses being built. …
On some measures, our regulatory burden has grown less than the US or Europe. …
As we get richer we buy pay more to avoid risk:
Red tape hasn’t proliferated by accident. Our changing social risk appetite drives demand for new regulations. And that demand is supercharged by our political structures, which mean more regulation is the reflex response to any crisis or thorny issue. …
As we get richer and more comfortable, we can afford to be less tolerant of risks. … This changing risk appetite manifests in greater expectations on governments to prevent and minimise harms — more regulation.
Our demand for more and better regulation has led to positive outcomes … In 2004, there were 3 deaths per 100,000 workers; in 2024, there were 1.3 deaths per 100,000 workers. Safety regulations and interventions are associated with fewer accidents at work. …
Frenzies:
But we’re predictably irrational in the way we assess risk.
We can be swept into frenzies about risks that weren’t even on our radar before (was anyone tracking the risk of needles in strawberries before 2018?), demanding politicians ‘do something’ before a cost-benefit analysis can even get its shoes on. …
This creates asymmetric incentives. Non-existent entities — the business that didn’t get started, the granny flat that didn’t get built, the tradie who didn’t move across state lines — are by definition less visible and vocal. …
Asymmetry:
The incentive for ‘just in case’ regulations, and a cautious interpretation of those on the books, is strong. And there’s not much pull in the other direction. How many policy makers get a public commendation when they choose not to regulate?
There are a few willing to hold the line until level heads can assess the right response. …
The only recent Australian example I can recall is the South Australian premier resisting calls for an inquiry following a serious accident at the Tour Down Under. “I’m reluctant to overreact to it given that it is such a freak occurrence,” he said. If only more were willing to utter those words. …
Regulations seem like an easy response to hard problems:
Governments increasingly default to regulation when they can’t, or aren’t willing to, actually ‘solve’ a tough problem. It feels like a get-out-of-jail-free card: a way to stake out a position with minimal budgetary cost.
This is particularly evident in our growing business reporting requirements. Businesses are now required to report on slavery in their supply chains, on the climate emissions of their suppliers, and on their gender pay gaps.
Publishing information that enables customers and workers to make informed decisions might feel like an unambiguously good, even pro-market, thing to do. But, like everything, it has a cost.
How do we manage before all those regulations? Life was better, in many ways. Some easy productivity wins are possible here, surely.
Because the Albanese government now never talks of its “net-zero” energy commitments, the IGR [Intergenerational Report] has been given a free pass for its ludicrous passages on net zero…
The IGR contains plenty of government propaganda that simply contradicts reality, such as: “Australia’s energy transition is well under way, with cleaner, cheaper, renewable energy …”
But the passages on net zero deserve special mention for they perfectly reprise one of the very worst dynamics in contemporary policy. There is a fantasy that much of the world will reach net zero by 2050, and the rest of the world not too long after. …
By pretending that what is at best an impossible aspiration is actually going to happen, the government and its subservient institutions create a toxic feedback loop of bad information that justifies terrible policy today. …
Look at what they believe:
A foundational sentence in the IGR reads: “Progress is expected to continue over the coming decades as the world continues to transition towards net-zero emissions. Around 170 countries accounting for around 80 per cent of global domestic product have adopted net-zero commitments.”
This is one of the worst sentences you could ever read in any Australian government policy document because it does not make any attempt to assess the reality of those commitments. It was never the case that the majority of the world economy was seriously committed to getting to net zero. But even the majority of the small number of countries that were taking some serious action towards that goal have now mostly backed off. …
China is notionally committed to net zero by 2060. That is utterly meaningless. Its emissions may have peaked as its population is now in decline and it’s using cleaner coal and some renewables. It’s still commissioning and building new coal-fired power plants and will not seriously reduce emissions for many years, if not decades. It will never go anywhere near net zero. It’s responsible for 30 per cent of global emissions.
The second-biggest emitter, the US, has no net-zero commitment at all.
Nation number three, India, has a notional commitment to net zero by 2070! Yes, 2070. India, where hundreds of millions of people need electricity, will certainly carbonise long before it thinks about decarbonising.
Russia has not the slightest interest in net zero.
That’s way over 50 per cent of global emissions that have no effective net-zero commitment at all — exactly the reverse of what the IGR claims, and bases Australian policy on. …
In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency, global greenhouse emissions rose, as they do every year. That’s not a world moving to net zero. …
The world will pay us? Don’t think so mate:
Aidan Morrison, energy program director at the Centre for Independent Studies, says Treasury falsely [expects] the world will pay whatever it takes to decarbonise, and therefore hugely expensive notional green exports from Australia will become competitive: “In reality, markets for expensive substitutes for carbon-based fuels and materials have not materialised. So we’re living in a fantasy world.”
And let’s not get started on how the Australian Government was hoodwinked by modern bureaucratically funded “science.” The climate models are based on an assumption about how convection and water vapor change when carbon dioxide increases. That assumption was made in 1963 when the modellers and climate scientists had simply no clue, so they made a convenient guess. By the time the empirical evidence was in, around 2005 — showing the assumption to be violently wrong — the “science” was already set in political stone.
One group learned physics in one of Harvard’s best hands-on, active-learning physical classrooms. Group work. Instructor support. The premium university experience.
The other group went home and learned the exact same material with an AI tutor.
The AI didn’t just win. It embarrassed the institution. Students using the AI learned more than twice as much as the students in the elite Harvard classroom. They scored 30% higher on the final assessment. And they did it in less time.
Goodbye universities:
Universities have always justified their exorbitant tuition with two things: access to elite knowledge and the physical classroom experience.
This study just proved both of those moats are gone.
When software can teach you complex physics twice as well as a $60,000-a-year institution, the math of higher education breaks permanently.
The AI didn’t just give the students answers. It used strict pedagogical guardrails. It guided. It questioned. It forced the students to do the cognitive work. It offered perfect, one-to-one tutoring, personalized to the exact moment a student misunderstood a concept.
That level of attention is mathematically impossible to scale in a physical lecture hall.
For a thousand years, the university was the only place to get a premium education. Now, it’s the bottleneck.
If AI can double your learning speed for a fraction of the cost, what exactly are students taking on decades of debt to pay for?
AI is certainly a heck of a lot cheaper and much quicker, and saves on being physically present. Personally, I found the university environment invaluable for motivating me to learn things I wouldn’t have otherwise thought about.
Anyway, universities have just become finishing schools in elite attitudes, and a dating service.
