It’s worth remembering also that blind and non-blind tests shows that female teachers deliberately tend to grade boys lower than girls. No other civilisation in history has ever handed over young males to resentful women for their formation, except ours. It’s a disaster.
“by four years of age, girls tend to think that boys are academically inferior to them…teachers often see their female students as academically superior…they see things this way even when aptitude tests show the opposite pattern for their classes.”
A lot of guys my age and older don’t realize how much the world has changed over the past 20 years. Young, talented white guys have been shut out of every institution in America and told their only hope for a future is clearing toilets for their new female and Third World overlords. Of course they should work every angle and do the best they can, but just telling them to just try harder is extremely tone-deaf.
If you think I’m overstating it, put together a fake resume as a young white guy with your exact credentials at that age, then apply to top-tier schools and jobs, and see how far you get.
Toward the end, I was teaching “Gen Z.” These students combined ignorance with strident moral certainty. They seemed to have had no general education at all, and lacked the most basic knowledge of history, even recent history. They were immature and emotionally fragile.
Many could not handle criticism, no matter how sugar coated. It took very little to reduce them to tears — or to send them into a fit of narcissistic rage. They were shockingly bereft of intellectual curiosity, and many gave the impression of having no internal life at all.
I gave a lecture to medical students of this age cohort on diabetes treatment. In the course of it I said that the cachexia that patients exhibited made them look like concentration camp victims. I was reported to the Dean for triggering them and removed from the lecture pool.
I used to look around and think, how did we ever get here? To this incredible level of technology, prosperity, security that we enjoy. I mean, look at these people.
I knew it was the critical 1 percent or so of true innovators, inventors, another 5 percent or so of high-level leaders, entrepreneurs. 10 percent of diligent, competent managers, supervisors. And most of the rest doing their jobs. Most of the other 84 percent, minus 5 or 10 percent of layabouts, total shitbags, criminals. It worked.
Now I look around and think, how do we maintain this? Those percentages have shifted. Are the 10 percent who should be competent managers, supervisors, executing, making things happen, are they up to the task? In the 84 percent, what’s the layabout, criminal, parasitic, predatory percentage now? Even among that 5 percent of high-level leaders, entrepreneurs, how many have submitted to DEI nonsense … answer, about 95 percent … or have embraced assorted covid, gender, climate end-time bullshit?
The AfD’s biggest gains came not from the CDU [the Christian Democratic Union, the German Chancellor’s party], but from the ranks of disaffected voters who had sat out previous elections: a net total of around 170,000 votes.
People who had once stopped believing their vote made a difference, because politics was deliberately defined as something apolitical and the realm of experts, now voted for the party that promised a fundamentally different setup. This is the result of decades of frustration with a political class that answers every concrete question with a procedural description.
The CDU is the biggest culprit and the biggest loser, deservedly so. It garnered a mere 17.2 percent of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt — a truly historic defeat.
To explain the disaster, however, its leading figures resorted to yet more painful platitudes. This phenomenon deserves to be presented in some detail since it revealed with remarkable clarity the party’s — and the establishment’s — intellectual and moral bankruptcy. …
Why did the blob do so badly? It’s born-to-rule politicians are so dishonest:
Wiebke Winter, a young CDU parliamentary group leader in the northern city of Bremen … the young rising star of the CDU, replied that “the results need to be examined closely.”…
Minister of State in the Federal Chancellery Philipp Amthor, recited almost didactically on the ARD network a slightly different set of platitudes. “Democracy means rule by the majority,” he declared. “I believe all one-dimensional explanations for this shift in the party system fall short, all one-dimensional descriptions are inadequate.” …
Winter and Amthor, both in their thirties, share a common biography: Junge Union (CDU youth wing), party scholarship, early mandate, and office. Amthor was in the Bundestag at the age of 24; Winter, who is also considered a prominent advocate of an expansive climate policy within the Union, already leads a parliamentary group at 30.
What the blob filters for:
Winter and Amthor represent political high-flyers who learned at a young age that, in German politics, those who say something substantial are not rewarded, but those who say nothing wrong certainly are:
A dying generation of politicians of the Christian Democratic persuasion have built their entire careers on avoiding to address any issues of substance. They got away with it brilliantly — until the day came when an answer is demanded. Then they stand there and say that one has to “look into it.” …
This type of politician, omnipresent in the CDU/CSU alliance, is a legacy of Angela Merkel’s (CDU) 16-year chancellorship.
Merkel perfected the art of using many words to say nothing and of not answering questions but rather evading them until interest fades. She staged her political maneuvers as the administration of the inevitable. For 16 years, hers was the most successful technique in the country, and an entire generation was socialized by it.
Such power tactics could be employed in a sedated, affluent Germany of a decade ago. They have long since become useless for Merkel’s successors, however. Today’s Germany is a different country.
The political shifts are deep and the political, economic, social, and cultural crises are either present or expected. With the AfD the strongest party in the polls month after month, Merkelesque platitudes are a de facto declaration of bankruptcy.
The language used by Winter, Amthor, and Hoppermann is symptomatic of a political style that for years has reliably produced disaffected citizens who don’t bother voting. …
So Germany now needs the AfD:
The Alternative for Germany is demonized as “neo-Nazi” for wanting to close the borders, deport (“remigrate”) unassimilable aliens, stop appeasing immigrant criminals, support the traditional family and German values, and actively work on normalizing relations with Russia.
All that is just common sense, practicing politics (domestic and foreign) as the art of the possible, and therefore by no means “extreme.” …
After last Sunday’s election in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD has fortified it image among a huge segment of Germany’s electorate as the only hope for the country’s salvation.
The Space Launch System [SLS, an American super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle developed by NASA for its current lunar program] costs $4.1 billion per launch. One launch.
NASA’s own inspector general confirmed that number. Boeing builds the core stage. Northrop Grumman builds the solid rocket boosters. Aerojet Rocketdyne supplies the engines. Every one of those contracts flows to congressional districts where senators sit on the appropriations committees that fund NASA. Coincidence?
Congress mandated the SLS in 2010 because the cancellation of the Constellation program threatened to idle the same workforce and facilities that had built the Space Shuttle. Senators Richard Shelby and Bill Nelson wrote the requirement directly into the authorization bill. They protected Alabama and Florida jobs. The politics drove the rocket, not engineering logic.
Elon Musk, America’s shadow government, doing what government can no longer do:
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy lifts comparable payload for roughly $90 million.
The difference:
The SLS costs forty-five times more per flight. That gap destroys you as a taxpayer; you fund the difference without consent and without choice. No competitive bid. No market test. Boeing received cost-plus contracts, meaning every overrun simply became next year’s invoice to the Treasury.
Ludwig von Mises identified the central problem: when bureaucracies spend other people’s money on other people’s projects, waste is the predictable outcome, not the aberration. Congress spent $23 billion developing the SLS before its first launch in November 2022. It launched twice total by mid-2026, with the third mission schedule slipping repeatedly. The SLS is a constituency management program wearing a rocket as a costume.
If rape and coercive control are treated as cultural and learned — which is the idea left-wing activist push — then the culture of the source country is relevant.
So here is the question I want to put to the people running this campaign.
You have spent a decade arguing that culture determines how men treat women. Therefore, you can’t talk about how patriarchy shapes the way men treat women, then go on and insist that importing large numbers of people from high-patriarchy, high-cousin-marriage, low-female-autonomy societies is unrelated.
You cannot maintain that Australian boys are formed by their cultural environment and simultaneously that everyone who arrives in Australia is a blank slate. Either culture does the work or it does not.
The same coalition that talks about patriarchy, coercive control and rape culture is overwhelmingly the coalition that treats mass immigration as beyond debate and deportation of even serious offenders as a moral outrage. …
Women moving sharply left is ignored:
It is clear that men are only modestly drifting to the right, and the media class treating this as “radicalisation,” while treating a sharper female leftward movement as normal, healthy or invisible, is a political choice about whose attitudes count as a crisis.
Non-white men and Muslims are much more into Andrew Tate:
The second thing that is also often under appreciated or outright omitted from the conversation is that the actual consumers of this sort of content are not primarily White men. Yet, the media coverage on this topic will implicitly argue that it is young White boys who are being radicalised by using visual cues. Netflix’s recent hit show Adolescence, turned this image into the official parable: a White British schoolboy radicalised in his bedroom by the manosphere, watching videos of Andrew Tate.
Nevertheless, the British polling on Andrew Tate’s audience is unambiguous. A 2023 Savanta survey of 1,214 UK 16 to 25 year olds found 15% of White respondents had a positive view of Andrew Tate, against 31% of Asian and 41% of Black respondents. Ethnic-minority youth were about twice as likely as White young people to view him positively. … Among young Muslims the figure was 51%, and 72% among young Muslim men. …
Implications for immigration:
Australia has run a high-migration program that includes large inflows from regions where those attitudes are commonplace. That important fact is almost never allowed into the same article as “rape culture” and “the manosphere.”
Instead we get the “straight white male” as the archetype of the radicalised young man. …
The ruling class is hiding the facts:
Is that there is a “rape culture” sitting inside ordinary Australian society, and that the remedy is a re-education programme aimed at Australian boys?
Is that true? The honest answer is that Australia has made it basically impossible to know. We do not publish sexual offending statistics disaggregated by country of birth, parental country of birth, or migration pathway. The ABS and state crime statistics agencies simply do not produce the tables that would let anyone test the claim. This is a choice, and it is worth asking who it protects. …
Denmark shows that non-White immigrants are the most likely perpetrator of sex crimes per capita. …
Before Elon Musk bought Twitter, you couldn’t notice that foreigners committed most of the group rapes in Germany, despite being just 15% of the population.
By lifting censorship .. Musk unleashed a “vibe shift” that led to
AfD’s historic victory.
Sport Is a Western Value. That’s Why They’re Trying to Destroy It.
The Greeks are the origin:
The [ancient] Greeks invented sport – and in doing so invented something that had never existed before: the idea that physical excellence is a moral category. …
The Olympic athlete was celebrated alongside the philosopher and the soldier because the whole person mattered. The naked body competing in public without shame, in front of the whole civilization, judged purely on performance. No birth, no wealth, no connections. Only what you could do. The most radical meritocracy the ancient world produced. The West being born.
Rome is the warning:
Rome perverted it. The gladiatorial games replaced the athlete with the slave, competition with death, excellence with spectacle. The crowd got what it wanted and stopped wanting anything higher. This is what sport becomes when a civilization loses the values that created it — entertainment for a managed population, bread and circuses, the Colosseum as the original streaming platform.
The English codified team sports:
The English codified it — and this is the most underrated civilizational contribution in history. Football 1863. Rugby 1871. Cricket, tennis, golf, boxing with the Queensberry Rules. The English didn’t just invent games.
They invented the moral architecture of sport: written rules, the neutral referee, fair play, the handshake at the end, winning within the rules rather than by any means necessary. This is the rule of law applied to play. Specifically, profoundly, unmistakably Western.
The Olympics started at the peak of Western Civilization (and western average IQ):
Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympics in 1896 with an explicitly civilizational argument: nations competing on the field rather than the battlefield. The amateur ideal — you compete for glory, not money. Peace through excellence. …
America today:
In the most vigorous Western society — America — sport is not entertainment. It is formation. The scholar-athlete. The sports scholarship.
The playing field as the place where you learn what the classroom cannot teach: how to lose, how to lead, how to perform under pressure, how to be part of something larger than yourself. …
Western values:
Sport requires values that are specifically Western. Rules everyone agrees to follow. The referee as neutral authority. Meritocracy — you cannot fake your time, your score, your result. The gracious acceptance of defeat. Fair play — winning within the rules, not by any means necessary. These are not universal values. They are Western values. Which is why sport flourishes where those values flourish — and is corrupted where they are absent. …
Naturally, the last meritocracy is under attack:
The last meritocracy is under attack because meritocracy is always under attack — by those who cannot win on the field and therefore need to change the rules of the field.
The politicized Olympics.
The kneeling controversies.
Biological men in women’s competitions — the one case where the system’s attack on meritocracy has a measurable, undeniable, physical consequence that cannot be narrated away.
The ball goes in or it doesn’t. The clock stops or it doesn’t. The result is the result. This is intolerable to a system built on managed reality. Sport is the last public space where the lie cannot hold. That is why they are trying to destroy it. And that is why we must not let them.
Football is the largest shared ritual left in Western civilization:
When God died and the Church emptied, what filled the void for the masses wasn’t philosophy – it was football. The stadium became the cathedral. The club colors the liturgy. The season the liturgical calendar. The derby the holy war. Millions of people who cannot name a single philosopher know exactly what they felt when their team won the championship. That feeling is not trivial. It is the survival of something ancient and necessary — tribal solidarity, collective identity, the experience of belonging to something larger than yourself.
The club is inherited like a religion. Father to son, grandfather to grandson, the colors worn like a flag across generations. … You support your club the way you love your country: not because it is the best, but because it is yours. That irrational loyalty is not a bug. It is the mechanism by which civilizations transmit identity across time.
Trust:
The pitch is the last space in Western civilization where results cannot be managed, narrated, or captured by ideology. The ball goes in or it doesn’t. No diversity statement wins a championship. No committee changes it. This is why people trust it with a depth they trust almost nothing else — it is the last remaining public meritocracy, operating in real time, with no possibility of spin. We would be well advised to apply such meritocracy to the more important areas of life.
Social control:
But bread and circuses is the oldest formula in politics, and it works as reliably now as it did in Rome. The crowd cheering in the arena is the crowd not asking questions in the Senate. Football is simultaneously the most authentic community left in Western civilization and the most efficient distraction machine ever built. A population that knows every transfer fee and no political philosophy is a population that has been given exactly enough meaning to stop looking for the rest.
The capture is now complete at the top. The clubs that once belonged to communities now belong to sovereign wealth funds, American hedge funds, and oligarchs using sporting prestige to launder geopolitical reputation. Players have no loyalty to the cities whose shirts they wear — they are assets, transferred between portfolios. …
Corruption:
The system cannot change the game – it is too visible, too meritocratic, too honest. So it buys the clubs instead. This is the Machiavellian move applied to sport: when you cannot win on the pitch, acquire the pitch. When the institution is too legitimate to attack, capture it from above and hollow it out from within while leaving the form intact. The stadiums are full. The game is real. The ownership structure is indistinguishable from the forces hollowing out every other institution in Western civilization.
The tension is this: football is both the last authentic mass community in Western civilization and a machine being used to pacify it.
Sounds crazy at first, but I think he makes some good points.
Team sports were nearly all invented in England, at the time and place that the industrial revolution started. Mere coincidence, or were both due to the flowering of western values?
The leftists’ responses to Islamic terror attacks have become routine sick jokes. We’re constantly told that motives are “unclear” when “Allahu Akbar!” was the last thing people heard before they were killed. If you’re sane and mention that there just might be a pattern, they all start barking “Timothy McVeigh” like trained seals.
Everyone else always gets the blame, never the Muslim terrorists who hijacked the planes, or the centuries of Islamic terrorism and jihadism.
Fuck off already. We’re sick of you. https://t.co/f4eMLHKN30
I frequently write about the fact that American leftists live in an alternate, fictional reality. One of the biggest fictions that they peddle is that Islamic terrorism isn’t a problem, but the white Christians are a powder keg that’s ready to blow. It’s wearisome and dangerous. When Democrats are in charge, they’re never looking for the real bad guys. …
Islamophobia makes sense, but the left practices IslamoFAUXbia:
There is nothing irrational about fearing people who have not only been quite open about wanting to murder anyone who disagrees with them, but have a very, very long track record of doing just that. Making matters even more fraught with danger is the fact that they think that God is telling them to do all of the murdering.
It’s a healthy fear, by any objective measure. When necessary, I’m going to be using “Islamofauxbia” as my way of indicating that Islamophobia is a pile of horse manure.
This country is now polluted with people in positions of political power who support terrorism. The antisemitic “Free Palestine” psychopaths have the support of many Democrats in Congress. Anti-Israel Hamas propaganda is routinely spouted by Democratic Socialists of America Rashida Tlaib types.
Again, there’s plenty to be worried about there. The lefties don’t get to repeat “Islamophobia” ad nauseam in an attempt to shut us up. Not this week. Not ever.
History is important. Under the heading “Sydney Rents Hit the Roof”, The Sydney Morning Herald on March 14, 1987, pointed out that “investors are leaving the residential real estate market because of a decreasing return on investment” caused by removal of negative gearing and the introduction of a capital-gains tax.
Even Bob Hawke admitted the link between the tax changes and rent increases. In due course Keating backtracked and reintroduced negative gearing.
Sadly, the Albanese government is easily the most ideological since the Whitlam government. …
Kill the kulaks!
A “kulak” was a prosperous landed peasant in czarist Russia. From 1929 to 1933 Stalin campaigned against anyone deemed to be a kulak, involving mass arrests, executions (about half a million), expropriation of property, and deportations of entire households to remote and inhospitable regions (two to three millions). Far left ideologues in Australia — including Anthony Albanese — were brought up on a solid diet of Soviet history. (I knew these people.)
The government did not accidentally set out to stop people investing in investment properties by getting rid of negative gearing. This was a deliberate policy informed by class-war ideology; it was intentionally aimed at Australians whom the Prime Minister and Treasurer regard as rich: those who own, or seek to own, investment property. …
Class envy prompted the Prime Minister to repeat claims that negative gearing was “taxpayer-funded landlord welfare”. Albanese may have studied economics at university but any reasonably competent student would recognise that negative gearing was, in effect, taxpayer-funded welfare for renters. Given that landlords simply pass on their costs to renters, tax deductions for the interest they pay end up benefiting renters.
More monthly readership than the circulation of all newspapers combined.
So, it’snot just me. In the last couple of years, I’ve noticed that much (most?) of the interesting stuff is on X. Interesting because it doesn’t self censor truths to fit in with blob narratives.
I think the spell has completely broken. The word “far-right” has lost its sting as a moral tripwire and everyone is seeing through the ruse.
Scroll the comments under any piece about AfD’s result in Saxony-Anhalt and you can see it immediately.
In 2016, the label “far-right” still worked. People panicked and acted accordingly.
In 2026 they either no longer believe it or laugh in its face. The replies are blunt:
“not far-right, just right”
“this is what a 90s liberal believed”
“wanting a border isn’t far-right”
This is the inevitable result of the mainstream media stretching the label “far-right” until it covered any opinion to the right of Lenin. Once a term is used on sensible opinions on border control, energy policy, crime statistics and school admissions, it just becomes noise and people start resenting the attempts at manipulation. Gay race communism became the only position that was ok to hold.
Well … the people hate what their countries have become. They don’t believe the media anymore and the term “far-right” has completely lost its moral weight.
Which will be a problem the day that a true need to deploy it arises… but until then.
One Nation [are…] not Nazis. There’s nothing at all in Pauline Hanson or Barnaby Joyce that justifies the tag “extreme right wing”. …
In Germany:
AfD has been allowed to maintain the purity of the impotent, as Gough Whitlam once described it. That means their support has steadily grown. Their signature issue is immigration. They hate the size and scale of the immigration Germany has experienced, especially from North Africa and the Middle East.
That’s not a Nazi position. The failure of mainstream German parties to deal with immigration has fed directly into AfD’s rise. AfD wants to deport people who are in Germany illegally and force other asylum-seekers who are in Germany legally to work for welfare benefits. These too are not Nazi positions and it’s mad to demonise them.
AfD wants to do a lot of culture wars stuff … It wants to remove gay pride flags from public schools. It’s a good thing that democracies are tolerant of everybody’s sexuality. But it is not a necessary condition of democracy that gay pride flags must fly from all public schools.
In Australia:
The obscene Bondi massacre led to a huge rise in One Nation’s support. At first this seems strange. What’s the connection?
The Bondi massacre convinced many voters that the two major parties had both made a mess of the nation. Look what you’ve done to my country, was voters’ agonised cry. And the one figure in Australian politics who has stood most strongly against unregulated immigration from the Middle East, and from South Asian nations with strong Islamist traditions, is Hanson. …
Immigration populists are reshaping Western politics. That represents historic failure by mainstream parties. Shooting the messenger is no solution.
Normal people in white countries don’t want mass immigration from the third world, and we don’t want Sharia law and the culture that comes with it. So who are the extremists here, really? The far left are the 20% who have captured the institutions and hand out the taxpayer money, and are our new ruling class. They are the extremists.
The summer of 2024 brought riots. The summer of 2025 brought protests outside of migrant hotels. Now the summer of 2026 ends with hundreds of masked men in Dover, stopping traffic and chanting ‘Stop the boats’, and hundreds more in Portsmouth, blocking bus-loads of illegal migrants bound for processing centres. …
It is already being slurred as ‘far right’ by the newspapers and ‘thuggish’ by the government. But the truth, if anything, should be more alarming for the powers-that-be. Here was an organic, spur-of-the-moment uprising against illegal migration that could be a taste of things to come.
Word got out on Sunday that a dinghy, carrying 140 migrants, had arrived in Portsmouth’s Eastney Landing. Nationalist activist Danny Tommo (real name Daniel Thomas), an acolyte of Tommy Robinson, showed up. Tommo and a few others hopped into the water, refusing to move, while he called out over a livestream for ‘lads’ from across the country to descend on the ferry port and stop the buses, carrying the migrants, from leaving.
It worked. Hundreds arrived outside. …
🚨BREAKING: Danny Tommo calls on patriots to go to Eastney, Portsmouth to stop migrants
They are literally bringing in men from god knows where
Seriously, when we win the RNLI are getting dismantled and the people responsible for this should be arrested pic.twitter.com/f4zKbuSE5S
Danny Tommo calls on patriots to go to Eastney, Portsmouth to stop migrants
This came only a day after the black-clad blockade in Dover, where a large group of activists, all in balaclavas, shut down the Kent port for hours on end, leaving a trail of traffic and stranded ferries in its wake. This was also the work of Tommo …
The only beverages consumed appeared to be bottled water, handed out at the roadside by well-wishers. It all took Kent Police entirely by surprise: a statement insisted the protest was ‘spontaneous’, despite the visible evidence to the contrary. … With no riot police or counter-protesters to clash with, this flash blockade came and went without any violence or arrests. …
Dover was an act of almost cosplay paramilitarism, for the delectation of the smartphone streaming cameras – echoing the aesthetics of Ulster loyalism, to which Tommyworld has long had links. Portsmouth, by contrast, was more haphazard, on-the-fly, suggesting Tommo – and Robinson – can now call non-trivial numbers of people out on to the streets at will.
The images from Dover flushed out more than a little hypocrisy. Left-wingers who turned a blind eye to masked-up Islamic sectarians marching up and down east London, or scrawny antifa types menacing gender-critical women for daring to gather in public, were suddenly clutching their pearls now that white working-class blokes were donning the same clobber. Meanwhile, right-wingers who all of five seconds ago were calling for face-coverings to be banned suddenly seemed to have found an exception, pretending that the sight of hundreds of men ballied up in public wasn’t menacing at all and was purely about evading facial-recognition cameras and state persecution. But this weekend’s remarkable scenes demand more than a discussion about the boundaries of permissible protest.
The state clearly views these demos primarily as a public-order problem, as a new ‘far right’ threat to be crushed rather than understood. …
Our rulers are obsessing over the symptoms rather than the cause – the deep sense of injustice over illegal migration that is now compelling some to take matters into their own hands. Vigilante border control is only the regrettable, but entirely predictable, consequence of catastrophic state failure. …
The political class can burble on about our humanitarian commitments or the legal complexity of the situation as much as it likes. What ordinary people see is migrants not only violating our sovereign borders but also being assisted in doing so – escorted into British waters before being picked up by British vessels and delivered on to British soil. The fact we have become accustomed to all this doesn’t make it any more normal.
It’s almost like Boston Harbor, 1773. British men protesting for liberty against a gargantuan state.
Take the period from 2010 to 2025, when both Russia and China pretty much tripled defence spending in real terms, a stunning period of rearmament.
America could see with absolute clarity the risks on the near horizon and desperately sought to persuade European nations to take care of an area they dominated in economic terms, while watching military spending wither away and welfare states continue their inexorable growth. It’s an unprecedented anomaly that our continent is menaced by a nation — Russia — with just 10 per cent of its GDP. …
Our welfare states have effectively been subsidised by American taxpayers — some of the hardest-working and most productive in the world — for so long that we’ve come to believe we deserve them.
As one Labour backbencher put it: “Welfare is a human right.” I almost hesitate to break it to such people, but there are no human rights without the military power to resist those who would destroy them, a truth absolutely grasped in Washington but not at all in London, Paris, Brussels, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the state bureaucracies and much of the judiciary. …
Australia, like Europe, is completely dependent on global trade and therefore the US Navy:
Unlike America, China and Russia, whose economies have a modicum of self-sufficiency, Europe is utterly beholden to the global free trade that powered the postwar boom. Without intricate supply chains to furnish it with parts, electronics and chemicals, Sweden (for example) would face economic collapse, turning its generous welfare state into a joke.
Yet global free trade doesn’t happen by magic (or because of the human rights convention); it happens because hard power is employed to patrol shipping lanes, protect freedom of navigation and deter piracy. [Like in the Straits of Hormuz.]
And who has borne this cost? Pre-eminently America and its huge naval fleet, first deployed by Jefferson in 1801 when the frigates President, Philadelphia and Essex were sent under the command of Commodore Richard Dale to tackle the Barbary corsairs off Tripoli. …
Sweden would have no welfare state, indeed no state at all, without the implicit American military umbrella. …
Generous welfare states are testaments not to European socialism but to the American capitalism that funded them, without thanks or even acknowledgment.
Europeans are not happy about the Trump administration’s insistence that they take primary responsibility for their own defense, but to my knowledge, not a single prominent European politician says Trump is wrong. On the contrary, they admit that he is right. …
America’s military prowess has enabled and subsidized Europe’s welfare states. Which is too bad: the welfare state isn’t just unaffordable, it is corrosive of civilized values. …
Some European countries, like Poland, seem to be avoiding the downward spiral into which Britain, France and Germany, among others, have fallen.
In a little over a week, the High Court of Australia will hear White Australia Party Inc v Commonwealth, a challenge to the new federal prohibited hate-group legislation. …
This is one of the most consequential constitutional cases in modern Australian history. The Court is being asked whether the federal government can use national security and international treaties to ban political organisations, and in effect take away the voters’ right to decide the field of candidates themselves. …
The whole reason Canberra had to invent the separate category of a “hate group” was because it wanted the power to ban organisations which were not terrorist groups and which had not engaged in terrorist violence. …
Pretty important, wouldn’t you think? Why are the media are staying mum?
When the legacy media has bothered to cover it at all, its attention has overwhelmingly drifted toward the spectacle surrounding the plaintiffs rather than the constitutional power being claimed by the Commonwealth.
This is not very surprising given much of the mainstream press is now materially dependent on public money, or on revenue streams the government has created for it. Through the News Media Bargaining Code and now the proposed News Bargaining Incentive, the state is effectively forcing Big Tech to subsidise mainstream media outlets which can no longer maintain their old business model on those platforms. The government is making Google, Meta and other platforms prop up the same media class that otherwise struggles to compete in the new media environment.
Unsurprisingly, that class is not especially eager to dwell on a case exposing how far the government is now prepared to go to control political association. So they cover the personalities, the Nazi imagery, the Antifa scuffles and the spectacle, anything except the constitutional question.
The media has barely, if at all, articulated what the Commonwealth is trying to do with the external affairs power, or what it is asking the High Court to accept about nationhood. …
The power the Government has claimed as its own:
The government is … asking for an extraordinary power to outlaw political organisations, while ludicrously presenting that power as necessary to “protect democracy.”
The challengers’ answer is the obvious one: a government power to decide which political organisations may legally exist is itself a threat to the constitutional structure of democratic government.
And if your response is simply, “Yeah, but these people are Nazis,” then answer the more important question: why do you despise Nazism? Because it is authoritarian? Because it rejects liberal democracy? Because it treats political opposition as something to crush? That is precisely the irony here. People reject National Socialism primarily because of those totalitarian tendencies.
Yet the Australian Labor government is now quite literally defending a legal regime that allows the state to ban political organisations and criminalise participation in them. …
If political parties can be policed out of existence by the executive, then “liberal democracy” is an incredibly inaccurate term for the political model of Australia. If the Labor Party get their way, the High Court has officially affirmed that we live under police state multiculturalism, in which elections may continue, but the government reserves the right to decide which political organisations Australians are allowed to choose between. …
The Minister does not need a prior conviction to conclude that an organisation engaged in hate-crime conduct. The Minister does not have to provide procedural fairness when forming the relevant statutory satisfaction. The organisation is then listed through regulation. After listing, continuing membership and various forms of support become criminal offences. …
No democracy without freedom of political association:
If the Court sides with the Commonwealth, this is the end of democracy in the only sense the Constitution actually guarantees: that senators and members are directly chosen by the people from among the political organisations the people are still allowed to form.
The issue that matters is immigration. The globalists call anyone or any party “far right” if — and only if — they want to reduce third world immigration. This is the litmus test.
If a new party arose in Australia whose policies explicitly advocated for remigration or mass deportation, like Restore in Britain, it would sit under the same ban hammer.
It’s not about “Nazis”:
Which makes the timing of this even more suspicious. Australia has had forms of National Socialist political organisation since the 1960s. The Australian National Socialist Party was founded in 1962. The National Socialist Party of Australia followed in 1967, published material, organised publicly and even ran candidates. They were never banned as a hate group, but perhaps this was because of their political irrelevance.
The rollout of laws is only happening now because the Labor government appears nervous that movements further to the Right have stopped being politically irrelevant and could potentially become a serious electoral force: one capable of siphoning votes away from the major parties, feeding preferences into right-wing minor parties and ultimately delivering those votes to parties such as One Nation.
They could neuter One Nation by steering it through the Overton window:
And horrifyingly, the hammer of a political ban even hangs over One Nation.
Even if One Nation itself is never listed, the regime still does the work. It can ban everything to its Right …
It forces One Nation to police its own side internally: to purge the language, personnel and political energy that give protest movements their force, and to neuter itself as the price of remaining safely on the legal side of the line.
And what class do the High Court judges belong too? The Constitution is clear enough, but who can be confident the High Court won’t interpret it in a manner that their peers, friends, and family prefer. We shall see.
People’s stereotypes about differences between men and women tend to be highly accurate: unsurprising, in that we have a lot of experience with each other. …
Due to strong, even at times intense, sex-differentiated selection pressures, in human evolution, human males are systematically better at forming and operating teams than women. Among women, it is the most masculinised personalities — lesbians and tomboys — who tend to be better at teams and teamwork, though they are still generally not as good at it as men.
The operating principle is that men are more likely to suppress their emotions to perform their designated role (in a team, in an organisation). Women are more likely to subordinate their designated role (in a team, in an organisation) to their emotions. …
It is not strength difference that leads schoolboy teams to regularly beat women’s national sporting teams. From adolescence on, boys and men are systematically stronger than girls and women of the same age: but even a fit 14 year old boy is not likely to be stronger than a fit, athletic 21 year old sportswoman. It is difference in male and female cognitive and behaviour patterns that leads to teenage boys sporting teams beating national women’s teams.
Even though the girls are bigger and more developed than the boys, the boy’s skill and decision making are still a lot sharper which is what got them the victory.
The political implication:
Institutions — to be functional — generally have to been scaled-up teams. That women are systematically worse at teams than men means that the feminisation of institutions and organisations tends to degrade their functionality.
For example, female “emotions-as-threat” tone-policing makes it harder to generate trust, as people curate their interactions. Men and boys make outrageous jokes and rib and insult each other to test whether the others will fold under pressure. The social flattening of tone policing generates much more uncertainty, because it produces far less revealing information, so less trust.
The more differences of opinion are seen as threat, insult or moral failure, the more destructively conformist the institution or organisation is likely to be. This both acts to block feedback and enable the entrenchment of structures of conformist not-noticing.
One way out of this is to have strong standards in favour of truth and robust use of evidence. This, in turn, requires willingness to enforce such standards, which many women find emotionally confronting to do, as they are far more primed to read emotions as threat. Retreating from enforcing standards and boundaries on the grounds of being “inclusive” gives emotional — and so moral — cowardice a warm inner glow via a patina of self-righteousness. …
That women tend to be self-deceptive about their own aggression — passing it off as moral or social concern — can be highly corrosive to the internal operation of an organisation or institution. In particular, it can be an effective way to block inconvenient information or concerns. All of this makes an information-restricting conformity likely to develop, and become entrenched, within an organisation as it becomes more female-dominated while making it less functional in enforcing standards, so delivering services.
Doesn’t that sound like today’s institutions?
More status conscious, leading to less social cohesion:
Women are much less likely than men to have friends of lower socio-economic standing — as those of lower social standing are generally not a good social return on the emotional investment that female friendships are based on. …
For more team-oriented men, one never knows when someone of lower socio-economic status might be useful on your team.
Feminisation — that is, the increasing pervasiveness of more female-typical behaviour patterns — thus raises issues of weakening social solidarity. One of the striking things about contemporary Western societies is how little active concern that female university graduates show for people, including other women, of lower socio-economic status within their own societies. They have very little sense of how very different the experience of women in very different social milieus can be, and they do not socialise with such women to find out.
Britain provides an extreme example of this lack of social solidarity, in how little public outrage or concern the systematic rape and sexual exploitation of mainly working class girls by Muslim (mainly Pakistani) gangs has generated among female university graduates, who otherwise can go from zero to outrage in 280 characters. …
Stronger in-group preferences, which again makes for a less trusting, less cohesive society:
Women show far higher rates of social preference for other women than men do other men. …
Men thus tend to be more socially inclusive, both across the sexes and across social levels, than do women. Conversely, an ostentatious commitment to “inclusivity” can be an excellent mechanism for not enforcing standards while insisting on opinion conformity. In other words, to greatly reduce actual social inclusiveness. …
Bad for men:
This has led female-dominated organisations to be much worse at catering to what interests and engages men than male-dominated organisations have been a catering to what interests and engages women. We can see this in how female-dominating publishing has largely lost male readers of fiction; female-dominated Hollywood writers’ rooms have regularly lost male watchers of cinema and television; and female-dominated schooling and education has been catering worse and worse for male students.
Similarly, increasing domination of discourse (including media) and management by female university graduates … coincided with the British state’s effective abandonment of working class boys in education and working class girls to so-called “grooming” gangs. The contrast with the public horror of Victorian Britain over the forced prostitution of poor girls is stark. …
Don’t go overboard when generalizing:
It is important not to romanticise either sex. The Mongols under Genghis Khan and the Waffen SS were excellent at creating effective teams. Bad male behaviour is often criminal and men overwhelmingly dominate violent crime (except against children) and male sexuality can get very dark. But both sexes are capable of toxic behaviour.
With women, there are much more likely to be toxic cliques and networking, as we see in contemporary publishing. With men, you are much more likely to get toxic teams, as when police go bad and in criminal gangs.
Better team play by males is presumably also why elite sportswomens’ team are dominated by lesbians — who have more male characteristics than regular women.
