Why you learn more by handwriting than by typing. By Ihtesham Ali.

A Norwegian neuroscientist spent 20 years proving that the act of writing by hand changes the human brain in ways typing physically cannot, and almost nobody outside her field has read the paper.

Her name is Audrey van der Meer. She runs a brain research lab in Trondheim, and the paper that closed the argument was published in 2024 in a journal called Frontiers in Psychology. The finding is brutal enough that it should have changed every classroom on Earth.

 

What happens:

The experiment was simple. She recruited 36 university students and put each one in a cap with 256 sensors pressed against their scalp to record brain activity. Words flashed on a screen one at a time.

Sometimes the students wrote the word by hand on a touchscreen using a digital pen, and sometimes they typed the same word on a keyboard. Every neural response was recorded for the full five seconds the word stayed on screen. …

When the students wrote by hand, the brain lit up everywhere at once. The regions responsible for memory, sensory integration, and the encoding of new information were all firing together in a coordinated pattern that spread across the entire cortex. The whole network was awake and connected.

When the same students typed the same word, that pattern collapsed almost completely. Most of the brain went quiet, and the connections between regions that had been alive seconds earlier were nowhere to be found on the EEG.

Same word, same brain, same person, and two completely different neurological events. …

Why?

Writing by hand is not one motion but a sequence of thousands of tiny micro-movements coordinated with your eyes in real time, where each letter is a different shape that requires the brain to solve a slightly different spatial problem. …

Pressing the same key with the same finger over and over does not stimulate the brain in any meaningful way …

Children who learn to read and write on tablets often cannot tell letters like b and d apart, because they have never physically felt with their bodies what it takes to actually produce those letters on a page.

This is why you learn more by handwriting notes:

A decade before her, two researchers at Princeton ran the same fight using a completely different method and ended up at the same answer. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer tested 327 students across three experiments, where half took notes on laptops with the internet disabled and half took notes by hand, before testing everyone on what they actually understood from the lectures they had watched.

The handwriting group won by a wide margin on every question that required real understanding rather than surface recall.

The reason was hiding in the transcripts of what the two groups had actually written down.

The laptop students typed almost word for word, capturing more total content but processing almost none of it as they went, while the handwriting students physically could not write fast enough to transcribe a lecture in real time, which forced them to listen carefully, decide what actually mattered, and put it in their own words on the page.

That single act of choosing what to keep was the learning itself, and the keyboard had quietly skipped the choosing and skipped the learning along with it.

Zen:

Pick up a pen. Write the thing down. The slower road is the faster one.

Which of course is part of the attraction of a classical Christian education.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

They’re calling you a White Supremacist so they can justify killing you.

Hasan Kwame Jeffries, brother of U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is a professor at Ohio State University and who hosts a podcast for the SPLC:

John Brown understood that only way to free America from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary.

Jeremy Carl:

Remember: They’re not trying to kill you because you’re a “White Supremacist.”

They’re CALLING you a White Supremacist so they can justify killing you.

(Actually, John Brown was white guy who sought to end slavery, not “white supremacy”.)

We’ve entered the pre-violence rhetorical phase of the classic communist cycle. By Brivael Le Pogam.

The script is documented, archived, and it repeats itself identically for a century. Before every mass slaughter carried out in the name of Marxism, there are always 5 to 15 years of public designation of a category of people as “the enemy to be taken down.”

Not a debate on public policies. Not a critique of inequalities. A methodical dehumanization of an entire class.

In the USSR in the 1920s, it was the kulaks. Lenin wrote as early as 1918 that the kulaks must be “exterminated as a class,” a phrase repeated word for word by Stalin ten years later. Result: 4 million peasants deported, several million dead in the Holodomor.

In Maoist China, it was the landlords and “class enemies.” Mao orchestrates public “struggle sessions” where neighbors, children, former employees are forced to denounce, humiliate, beat. Tally from the land reform alone: 1 to 2 million executions, not counting what follows.

In Cambodia, it was the “new people”: city dwellers, intellectuals, people wearing glasses. Khmer Rouge propaganda designated them for years as parasites before massacring them. 1.7 million dead in 4 years.

The United States in 2026.

Hasan Piker, who reaches millions of young men on Twitch, speaks openly of the “blood of f***ing capitalists.” Not in 1968 in a Trotskyist cell, in 2026 on the platform most watched by 18-25-year-olds.

Zohran Mamdani, elected mayor of New York, films viral videos in front of billionaires’ buildings, right at the spot where Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was assassinated last year by Luigi Mangione. The latter was turned into a pop icon by a segment of the American left in less than 48 hours. T-shirts, fan art, romanticization of the murderer.

This isn’t “political passion.” It’s phase 1 of the protocol. The public designation of a category of humans as legitimately hateable, followed by the valorization of those who take action.

The “normal” reaction of a healthy democracy should be the immediate social and professional isolation of these voices. What’s happening: they top podcast charts, hold elected office, and get sympathetic media coverage.

History doesn’t stutter. It copy-pastes. And the first victims are always surprised to discover, too late, that the rhetoric they found “a bit excessive but oh well” was actually the clear warning that a pit was being dug for them.

Yes, you:

And if you’re reading this thinking, “This doesn’t concern me, I’m not a billionaire”, stop for two seconds and really think about it.

Because that’s exactly what the Russian peasants told themselves in 1918 when people started talking about the “bourgeois”. They applauded, or they looked the other way. It wasn’t their problem. They weren’t rich.

Ten years later, they were called kulaks. And “kulak“, in Stalinist practice, meant any peasant who owned one more cow than his neighbor, who had dared to hire a seasonal worker, who had a slightly better-kept barn. 4 million deported. Several million dead.

That’s exactly what the small Chinese shopkeepers told themselves in 1949, when Mao went after the “great landowners”. Not their problem. They just ran a little store. Five years later, they too were classified as “class enemies”, stripped of everything, publicly humiliated, sometimes beaten to death by their own neighbors.

That’s exactly what the Cambodian schoolteachers told themselves in 1970, when the Khmer Rouge talked about “urban exploiters”. Not their problem. They barely earned enough to live on. In 1975, knowing how to read was enough to sign your death warrant.

The communist mechanism NEVER stops at the ultra-rich. Never. It’s a historical law as solid as gravity.

Why? Because fundamentally, the communist doesn’t hate wealth. He hates individual emancipation. He hates the very idea that a man can build something that belongs to him, decide his own life, refuse the collective. Private property isn’t an economic detail to him — it’s the metaphysical enemy. Because someone who owns something is someone who can say no.

So if you have an apartment you spent 15 years paying off, you’re concerned. If you have a small business, a shop, a sole proprietorship, you’re concerned. If you have a savings plan, a bank book, stocks, you’re concerned. If you have a family home in the provinces, you’re concerned. If you work hard to pass something on to your kids, you’re at the top of the next lists.

Billionaires are just the first course. Always. Because there are few of them and they’re easy to point out. They’re the appetizers for the machine. The main course, historically, is you. …

Every time a society has tipped into this madness, it did so because the reasonable majority stayed silent too long, thinking it would all blow over on its own. It never blows over on its own.

They also try taking your stuff through excessive taxation, because they need it to redistribute to their supporters.

Angus Taylor proposed killing big government. By Paul Kelly in The Australian.

Angus Taylor has made one of the bravest calls in history. His pledge to index the personal income tax rate scales has three consequences — it kills big government in Australia, it transfers future revenues from politicians to the people, and it limits the decision-making capacity of governments.

Taylor’s pledge strikes at the interests and values of the Labor Party. It is no accident Jim Chalmers rejects the initiative. His rejection on the ABC was illuminating: “We’re cutting income taxes five times using three different mechanisms.” In short, Chalmers will decide, when, how and by how much income tax will be cut — no way will Labor surrender that power.

 

His tax indexation would kill the automatic growth of government

 

Surrender is the name of this transformation. Higher government spending depends utterly upon personal income tax as a growth tax (unlike either company tax or the GST). Bracket creep — when taxpayers automatically move on to a higher tax rate — is indispensable to sustaining bigger government, the core faith of Albanese Labor. …

Hoist by their own petard:

The Treasurer hammered the argument that Taylor’s policies would add $250bn to the debt … Such a figure merely pointed to the confiscatory capacity of Labor’s bracket creep.

This history is not an argument against Taylor’s budget centrepiece. Indeed, it documents the epic nature of the reform, the tenacity that must sustain it and the in-built tax advantage over Labor that it bequeaths.

Labor’s budget cruelty to young Australians. By Robert Gottliebsen in The Australian.

Many see the younger generation as spenders who don’t save. While that’s partly true, a large number have been buying ETF securities with the aim of making money on the share market to enable them to gain a deposit for a dwelling. It was a high-risk strategy, but Chalmers destroyed that strategy — and the hope of a house — with his capital gains tax on their profits.

Younger people now find career pathways hard to achieve. Increasingly, they are looking at start-ups and using their talents in technology, marketing and other areas to develop a business. … Chalmers plans to hit them with high capital gains taxes that clock in when the business is worth nothing. Those who have succeeded tell me they would now never start a start-up in Australia and are advising others to base themselves in either New Zealand (where there is no capital gains tax) or Singapore. A huge loss for Australian innovation. …

 

Compulsory sharing, comrades

 

Young tradies are furious. They don’t buy ETFs but rather seek to buy rundown houses which they repair and rent out. It has been a very profitable exercise for tradies over many generations and now our young tradies are being told they can no longer use negative gearing so it is not economic. I won’t repeat the expletive words they are saying about Chalmers and Albanese. …

Businesses around the country are now looking at converting their trust operations into company structures, creating huge stamp duty obligations. …

The huge hidden obligation:

The total Snowy 2.0-related project is going to cost around the $1 trillion mark, including secret guaranteed investment returns, many of which are nothing short of rorts. (And now that the unions have discovered it could be a honey pot, the $1 trillion current estimate of costs could explode.) …

The $1 trillion that will have to be paid for by the next generation of power users — our young people.

It will slash their job opportunities and keep their cost of living high. The cost was not disclosed in the budget. … This future liability is so enormous that its deliberate concealment made a complete nonsense of the budget.

Australia now has easily the highest capital gains tax of any western country.

If you want more of something you subsidize it; if you want less you tax it (e.g. cigarettes). Now the Labor Government is taxing entrepreneurship more heavily.

A better way to tax capital gains. By Chris Brycki in The Australian.

Supporters of reform are also right about one thing. The current 50 per cent CGT discount can produce overly generous outcomes for short-term windfalls. Someone who flips an asset in 12 months shouldn’t be treated the same as someone who spends 20 years building a business or investing patiently.

The real question is whether Australia can reform capital gains tax without discouraging the productive risk-taking the economy depends on. …

Should labour and capital should be taxed the same? No, and here’s why not:

First, investing involves risk and time in a way ordinary wage income doesn’t. Investors are putting already taxed savings at risk and there is no guaranteed return, no minimum wage, no sick leave, and very often significant losses.

Second, economies rely on people willing to defer consumption and commit capital toward businesses, housing and innovation. If the after-tax reward for taking long-term risks falls too far, less capital gets invested and more gets consumed, parked in lower-productivity assets such as cash or moved offshore.

Third, capital is mobile globally. Entrepreneurs and investors can choose where to build companies and allocate capital. If Australia taxes long-term investment much more heavily than comparable countries, over time that risks pushing investment, businesses and talented workers elsewhere.

Labor’s new taxes are particularly unfair:

The proposed 30 per cent floor is also difficult to justify economically. If the government’s goal is to align capital gains tax more closely with ordinary income tax, then why should someone taking long-term investment risk still face a minimum capital gains tax of 30 per cent, while someone leaving cash in a bank account simply pays ordinary marginal tax on guaranteed interest income?

The proposed indexation model also creates several practical problems.

One is grandfathering. By exempting existing assets while imposing a harsher regime on future investments, the government creates a deep sense of unfairness between generations. Older Australians keep the old system while younger Australians inherit a significantly worse one.

Another problem is the lock-in effect. When investors fear losing favourable tax treatment, they become less willing to sell assets, recycle capital or invest in new opportunities. That reduces liquidity and capital mobility across the economy.

Most importantly, indexing a cost base can become most punitive precisely for those who have taken the greatest risks or used capital most productively. Someone who spends 20 years building a successful company from nothing can end up facing dramatically higher tax because much of their gain reflects genuine value creation rather than inflation.

That’s why so many business founders reacted so strongly, joking they may as well reserve a permanent seat at the shareholder table for the Prime Minister because the government gets an effective 47 per cent claim on the upside they spent decades building.

The 47 per cent figure refers to the maximum tax rate that could apply under the proposed changes to the CGT discount — up from the current ceiling of 23.5 per cent — when a business owner sells their company, lists it publicly, or enables secondary share sales.

 

 

this problem extends far beyond technology founders and venture capital.

The architect, physio, newsagent or small-business owner who spends decades building a business to fund their retirement and succession planning faces exactly the same issue.

Creating carve-outs for politically connected or fashionable sectors such as technology only makes the system more complex and more unfair. Australia doesn’t need more special-interest exemptions, it needs a simpler and more broadly defensible system.

So use a tapered system — simpler and fairer:

Under this model, investors would earn a 5 per cent CGT discount for every year an asset is held, up to a maximum 50 per cent discount after 10 years.

Own an asset for two years and receive a 10 per cent discount. Five years would deliver a 25 per cent discount. Hold it for 10 years and the investor receives the full existing 50 per cent discount.

This would solve many of the legitimate criticisms of the current system while preserving incentives for genuinely long-term investment and stopping the perverse outcomes created by an arbitrary 30 per cent CGT floor.

Shorter-term windfalls would receive less generous treatment and therefore generate more tax revenue. But Australians who spend a decade or more building businesses, funding housing or investing patiently would not suddenly face punitive tax increases.

The evil of deconstruction. By Brivael Le Pogam.

Deconstruction is the most effective mental virus ever devised against a civilization. It was manufactured in France between 1966 and 1980 by three men: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. It was exported to the United States, hybridized with American racial puritanism, and returned thirty years later under the name of wokism to paralyze the entire West. …

Denies the existence of truth:

The thesis is simple. Every truth is nothing but a disguised power relation. Every sacred text, every law, every science, every norm, every hierarchy, every identity, every institution actually conceals a domination. To deconstruct is to reveal the power dynamic beneath the veneer of truth….

It doesn’t just say “let’s question norms”; it says “there is *only* power relations.” The difference is civilizational.

Destroys civilization:

A society that questions its norms remains standing. A society that believes its norms are *nothing but* domination collapses. Because it can no longer defend anything. No more borders, no more laws, no more science, no more language, no more history, no more biology, no more family. Everything becomes suspect. Everything becomes negotiable. Everything becomes “constructed therefore deconstructible.” …

Science is patriarchal, so let’s deconstruct it. Language is colonial, so let’s reinvent it. Meritocracy is racist, so let’s abolish it. Sex is a construction, so let’s choose it. There is no more bedrock. Everything is sand. …

Tails I win, heads you lose:

The virus is *non-falsifiable*. If you defend a norm, it’s because you’re the oppressor. If you deny being an oppressor, that’s proof of your unconscious privilege. If you cite facts, your facts are contaminated by the power that produced them. If you cite reason, reason itself is white, male, Western. There is no possible exit. The system is designed to make any objection inadmissible by definition.

A destructive cult that cannot build:

That’s exactly the structure of a cult. And that’s exactly what has taken hold in universities, HR departments, media, administrations, and corporate boards for the past twenty years. …

An entire generation has learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. It knows how to suspect, never to admire. It sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere. It can produce a thousand pages on the oppressive nature of Shakespeare and zero lines worth reading in a hundred years. It has confused critical intelligence with critical posturing. It is sterile by construction. A mind fed on deconstruction is a mind that no longer knows how to build anything. …

So don’t give it power:

The good news is that a mental virus only survives as long as we cede it authority over discourse. It dies the moment we stop playing its game. The moment we quietly reaffirm that there exists a truth, a beauty, a good, an inheritance. The moment we stop asking permission from the deconstructors to build. The moment we remake. The moment we pass on. The moment we create.

Builders have always had the last word over commentators. Always. Because in the end, what remains is what has been built, and nothing of what has been deconstructed.

Thousands of Australian scientists ‘supporting Chinese weapons tech’. By Ben Packham in The Australian.

Researchers from at least 80 Australian organisations co-authored papers on technology with military applications with counterparts at China’s National University of Defence Technology and other PLA-affiliated institutions, according to a report by AI-led intelligence company Strider Technologies.

The company does not reveal specific projects or organisations involved, but The Australian has learned details of three, in which researchers at the Australian National University, Melbourne University and the University of Queensland collaborated with Chinese partners developing drone target-tracking and anti-jamming technologies, and new electronic warfare capabilities. …

Australian Research Council data shows the organisation has funded at least 1500 joint projects over the past decade with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. …

Strider Technologies said that in the absence of formal restrictions on collaborating with PLA-affiliated institutes, Australia’s research secrets were exposed.

Great. It’s as if Australia is run by pro-China cliques.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Liontown founder Tim Goyder warns tax grab threatens minerals exploration. By Brad Thompson in The Australian.

Mining entrepreneur Tim Goyder says the Albanese government has “lost it” and that its capital gains tax changes will have a disastrous impact on mineral exploration as well as the ability of Australians to create wealth.

Mr Goyder, who pegged his first exploration tenement 52 years ago, savaged a government he said lacked vision and had no understanding of how ordinary people made money.

The self-made billionaire and his loyal band of investors have survived a wild commodity ride to claim life-changing fortunes from explorers like the lithium producer Liontown which he chairs.

“What’s the crime about making money?” he asked The Australian. “The government has lost it. They think they can spend the money better than the individual, and that’s not the case.”

Mr Goyder lashed out as the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies warned the tax changes would deter investment in finding Australia’s next big mining project and mineral security.

“The reason why exploration and mining has been successful in Australia is that there’s an underlying investment community made up of super funds and, in the early stages, retail investors,” said Mr Goyder, who says he could never replicate his success as an entrepreneur in a world where the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount is discarded as Labor plans from July 1, 2027. …

“To buy a house, you need money. How can you make money out of wages when you’re being highly taxed and the only chance you’ve got of actually accumulating wealth is through capital gain?”

National Australia Day Council message leaves us out. Here it is:

Alexandra Marshall:

Absolutely nowhere does the National Australia Day Council message thank the colonial ancestors who settled this nation and built the modern concept of ‘Australia’.

It asks to respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

It asks to respect multicultural Australians and their stories.

But makes no mention — at all — of the bulk of individuals that came and built this nation from whom the majority of us are descended.

And frankly, it’s insulting.

The message of an ‘inclusive’ day doesn’t really work if you EXCLUDE Australians.

How hard is it to say, ‘And thank you to our colonial ancestors who settled Australia and brought with them democracy, Western Enlightenment, and built the cities we proudly share’ or something like that?

This organisation wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for their sacrifice – and yet they are left nameless.

We are not just ‘people who travelled here’. We are the descendants of BUILDERS. There is actually a difference that should be properly and respectfully acknowledge.

 

Trump’s Administration to pay victims of government weaponization. By Wall Street Apes.

The Justice Department and Donald Trump are finalizing a deal to launch “Truth and Justice Commission” [which would] pay victims of government weaponization

Trump is agreeing to drop his $10 billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS for leaking his tax returns in exchange for this new commission

“President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS may soon be dropped — The lawsuit stems from the leak of some of his tax returns in 2019 and 2020 by a government contractor who pled guilty in 2023. And now sources say the president is preparing to drop the $10 billion lawsuit in exchange for the creation of a fund that would compensate his allies who claim they were targeted by the, quote, weaponize the Biden Justice Department” …

The “Truth and Justice Commission” would oversee a $1.776 billion compensation fund. (The number references 1776, the year of U.S. independence.)

It will compensate individuals and entities who claim they were victims of “government weaponization” during the Biden administration.

Most of the 1,600 people charged in connection with January 6 will be eligible for compensation.

The commission would have 5 members. 4 appointed by the Attorney General, with Trump reportedly able to remove them without cause (if they aren’t doing their jobs).

Interesting development.

Too much politics: Concept of health now poisoned for the left. By Emily Sipiora in UnHerd.

For the Left, MAHA-type alternative health-consciousness and Right-wing politics have become almost the same thing, and people are afraid that embracing one means embracing the other.

When RFK Jr. joined the Trump campaign, he effectively poisoned the concept of health for most Left-leaning people. Rational engagement with the health question now requires social courage. This, even though many of these impulses — a view of industrial modernity itself as the cause of illness — used to be Left-coded.

I was on team big-government. By Claire Lehmann in The Australian.

I come from a Labor family. … However, like many people from lower-middle or working-class backgrounds, I drifted away from the left as I grew older, with various life experiences shaping my views. The experience that most influenced that drift was working inside the Australian Public Service.

At 25, after graduating from university, I moved to Canberra to work for the federal Department of Health. What I encountered there changed the way I think about the role of government, permanently.

The Department of Health is situated in a gigantic office building in Woden [an area of Canberra]. In every team I worked in, the pattern was the same: one or two people carried the load for a team of six to eight.

The rest ranged from disengaged to functionally incapable. In one team, I sat next to a woman who spent her entire working day researching property online. She could not conduct a basic web search for work purposes. She could not file documents alphabetically. She had been in her role for years, on a salary of $65,000. She could not be fired.

Having spent a decade working in cafes and restaurants from age 14 to 24, encountering this felt like a slap in the face. Were blue-collar workers busting themselves for a wage while desk workers lounged about doing personal research projects? Apparently in Canberra, the answer was yes.

Of course, this does not apply to every federal public servant. But what I witnessed in my one year inside the department was not unusual. One deputy secretary I worked under complained to me that “the federal government just throws money down the toilet”.

We had flextime. We had morning teas almost every day. And still the union representatives lobbied for better conditions – conditions that could not possibly have been more generous. A friend of mine, given so little work that she had nothing to do, would cry in the toilets out of despair.

I quit after just one year, ashamed of abusing the taxpayer. But that was 15 years ago. Since then, the problem has got only worse.

Under the Albanese government, the APS [Australian Public Service, i.e. the bureaucrats] has grown by 26 per cent since 2022. The cost of running it has blown out by 42 per cent to $114.6bn: roughly $8200 for every Australian taxpayer, every single year. Budget papers show the cost of running the bureaucracy has been revised up by $19.6bn across the next four years. The explosion of cost in the public sector will eat up more than half the savings the government expects to make from cutting the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And for what? To feed a public service that the government has lost the ability to control.

Government spending sits at 26.8 per cent of GDP, the highest level since 1986 outside the pandemic. This is the monster that Jim Chalmers’ budget refuses to name. And because he cannot face it, the 2026 budget has been shaped around it – designed not to tame the beast but to find new ways to feed it. Our tax policy is effectively being redrawn to support the growth of the public service, without politicians ever taking that choice to the public for a mandate. …

The inequity that exists today is straightforward: every productive worker in the economy is subsidising a public service that cannot be made to perform, cannot be made to shrink and cannot be held accountable. The only reason there is not more outrage is that most Australians have no idea how much it is costing them. …

The fault line is no longer between labour and capital but between private and public sectors; those who produce and those who administer those who produce

Much of the left has simply become a party of patronage. Join the team, barrack for every lefty cause, and you will probably be rewarded with a cushy job on tax money — either in the public service, as a contractor to the government, or at an NGO. But you have to be a loyal team member to get the money.

It’s a moral thing. People in the real (private) economy are paid because people voluntarily pay them for their goods or services. People on the government team get paid out of taxes, which are compulsory, backed by force (imprisonment).

Trust the government-funded scientists. The bureaucrats only fund those scientists who give the answers they want. Maze:

2016. Guy McPherson (a climate change expert, scientist, and professor from the University of Arizona) says that there will not be any humans on the planet by 2026 due to the effects of climate change.

2016. Guy McPherson (a climate change expert, scientist, and professor from the University of Arizona) says that there will not be any humans on the planet by 2026 due to the effects of climate change.

Trust the scientists. 😜🤣 pic.twitter.com/1Z8kElagAl

— MAZE (@mazemoore) May 15, 2026

 

So many wrong predictions. But the money has been made and the globalist politicians used it to get into power, so it’s ok to start turning down the alarm:

 

England’s anti-globalist uprising. By Eric Daugherty.

Islamists and leftists are FURIOUS after Tommy Robinson gave the perfect answer:

Q: What would happen if you become a prime minister tomorrow?

ROBINSON: “I would STOP Islam, I’d END foreign funding in this country. All the migrants would be taken out the hotels and sent back tomorrow by the military!”

Holy based!

“I would have re-migration. It’s time for many Muslims to leave this country. You’ve got your homes to go to. This is our home. We’ve got nowhere to go to!”

The globalist-patriot divide is clearly international at this stage. Western politics now has two international teams slugging it out (by JJ):

At the Unite The Kingdom rally in London, Tommy Robinson flashed photos of globalist leaders on the big screen and the massive crowd erupted in BOOS!

Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Mark Carney, Anthony Albanese, and Keir Starmer… the ENTIRE crowd roared in disapproval.

Then he put up a photo of President Trump and the energy flipped instantly!

The sea of patriots chanted Trump before exploding into the legendary USA! USA! USA! chant.

At the Unite The Kingdom rally in London, Tommy Robinson flashed photos of globalist leaders on the big screen and the massive crowd erupted in BOOS!

Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Mark Carney, Anthony Albanese, and Keir Starmer… the ENTIRE crowd roared… pic.twitter.com/lGoPgWf12s

— JJ🕊️ (@jesseyjay94) May 16, 2026

Even John Cleese now gets it:

I read everywhere about the ‘hard right’

This the term used to describe people who are Islamosceptic — that is, people who are doubtful about the merits of a religion that demands child marriage, the beating of women, and death to all who oppose it

Perhaps ‘sensible right’ would be a better description.