Female privilege at the New York Tennis Open. By Andrew Battifarano at The New York Post.
Tennis fans lose their minds as Carlos Alcaraz goes shirtless after US Open third-round win
Been 24hrs and not one feminist has called out this creepy behaviour.
Been 24hrs and not one feminist has called out this creepy behaviour. pic.twitter.com/oDMgCCJQN8
— Suffragent (@Suffragent_) September 6, 2026
Imagine…
Is the High Court about to allow the Australian Government to decide who may participate in Australian politics? By Celina101.
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.
Men are more team oriented, so they build better institutions. By Lorenzo from Oz.
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.
Elon Musk is the New Pope. By Krzysztof Szczawinski.
For a thousand years, Europe had an authority above power. Not a stronger army — a higher court. The papacy could not tax, conscript, or arrest the men who mattered, and it did not need to. It could declare: this is legitimate, that is corrupt. Kings defied it and universities disputed it, but nobody could ignore it. That was the civilizational axis — the thing that answered the question every civilization must eventually answer: what is all of this for?
That axis broke, and nothing replaced it. States regulate. Markets allocate. Science explains. None of them can say what a civilization should become. Europe got steadily more powerful in means and steadily more lost about ends.
Then one man, with no office and no mandate, started doing the job.
1. Look at what he actually does, several times a day. He does not lobby, does not petition, does not draft policy. He issues verdicts – this is corrupt, this is a lie, this is beneath us, this is what a serious civilization would do. A judgment, in public, with his name on it. That is not commentary. That is the papal instrument, and nobody else in the West is using it.
2. And his profile became the front page. … That front page has not existed in the West for fifty years. It exists again now – one account, hundreds of millions of readers, no editor between the judgment and the public. The civilization got its shared morning back, in the least expected place.
3. He can do this for the same reason the popes could: he cannot be removed by the people he judges. No board can fire him, no advertiser can starve him – they tried, and he told them where to go, on stage, on the record. Independence is the precondition of the office. Every other candidate for this role – the presidents, the editors, the university heads – must first survive the people they would have to judge.
4. Notice what he judges by. Not left and right. Not the polling. He judges by whether a thing builds or destroys: does this produce more life, more children, more energy, more capability – or does it produce process, dependency, and decline? That is a hierarchy of ends, stated plainly enough that ordinary people can apply it themselves. Which is exactly what an axis is for.
5. The reaction proves the function. … The fury directed at him is the same fury directed at Rome by every prince who found himself declared in the wrong and could not make it stop.
6. He did not seek this. It fell to him because the seat was empty – and it was empty because we emptied it, and then spent a century discovering that a civilization without an axis keeps its wealth and loses its purpose. Reality does not tolerate the vacancy. If no legitimate authority says what is corrupt, the position gets filled by whoever has the reach and the nerve.
7. But one man is not an institution, and that is the whole problem. The papacy lasted a millennium because it was a structure, not a person – it survived bad popes, mad popes, captive popes. What we have now is the function without the institution: a single mortal, a single account, a single platform. This works exactly as long as he does.
So the task is not to find a better man for the job. It is to build the thing that outlives the man — a public council, transparent, with a published hierarchy of values and the nerve to issue verdicts under its own name. Musk proved the seat is not obsolete. Now we have to build the chair.
You broke it, you fix it. By Tom Dusevic in The Australian.
Australians want fewer migrants. The political class has absorbed the message but, as yet, has not faced up to the barbarous trade-offs to achieve that without causing an economic calamity. …
In December that year, O’Neil released Labor’s migration strategy … According to those inside the rescue job, Albanese had demanded: get the numbers down and stop talking about migration. After all, just before the strategy was announced, NOM had hit an all-time high 556,000 and Labor was being hammered by the Coalition for running a “Big Australia policy by stealth”. …
Given the quick descent into toxic politics, scant expertise about the system, and the government’s refusal to explain its migration story, there has been little serious discussion beyond numbers. … More of Labor’s bewildering selective mutism and delay will only imperil social cohesion. …
Henry Sherrell and Lachlan Vass … warn. “The days of quiet bipartisanship are gone.” …
“The immigration system is complex and the trade-offs are sharp. The social, economic, and political risks of change are genuine but pale in comparison to the stakes for our society.”
It’s the biggest issue, even slightly bigger than the economy, and it’s not going away. It is existential. It can no longer be hidden by the ruling class, who must now explain what on Earth they were thinking.
A massive number of blacked out men in balaclavas have taken control of roads in Dover right now to protest to the illegal migrant invasion
They are REFUSING to move, with more protesters beginning to arrive.
🚨BREAKING: A massive number of blacked out men in balaclavas have taken control of roads in Dover right now to protest to the illegal migrant invasion
They are REFUSING to move, with more protesters beginning to arrive.
The whole country backs them. 🏴 pic.twitter.com/9U7egGl9yr
— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) September 5, 2026
Simultaneously at different locations across Dover patriots have mobilised to close down the port . There are 3 plus locations that patriots have shut down so far with many more planned to be closed . People wanted action I’m guessing there are 100’000’s of men willing to fill their shoes.
Simultaneously at different locations across Dover patriots have mobilised to close down the port . There are 3 plus locations that patriots have shut down so far with many more planned to be closed . People wanted action I’m guessing there are 100’000’s of men willing to fill… https://t.co/c56PeAzqAS pic.twitter.com/LN3VkzOjYu
— Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 (@TRobinsonNewEra) September 5, 2026
For 70 years we have been ignored, Tony Blair even “rubbed our noses in diversity.” The worm has turned with the blockade in Dover.
In 1381 Wat Tyler and John Ball led an army of peasants into London. They dragged the elites from their homes and offices and beat them to death in the streets with farm implements. The elites took notice.
THis kind of thing probably won’t have much effect on the ruling class or its policies, yet. But no one — apart from those who only follow the MSM — can be too surprised that it’s happening, or that it will grow. The Northern Irish showed an effective way.
Meanwhile, here in Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens, and the media mention immigration as little as possible. Can’t imagine why.
UN adopts a new world map. By Aleksandra Michalska in the SMH.
The United Nations has voted to shift away from the 16th-century Mercator global map towards one more accurately reflecting countries’ true size, a resolution sponsored by African states to counter perceptions that the continent is peripheral.
Togo led the initiative to further the African Union campaign to limit use of the Mercator map, which distorts the relative size of land masses by expanding those nearer the poles. It makes Greenland appear roughly the same size as Africa, though Africa is about 14 times larger. …
The resolution passed in the UN General Assembly on Friday (US time) by a vote of 164 to 1, with 6 abstentions.
The US, the only country to vote against the resolution, said it promoted an “ideological agenda” and was a distraction from the “genuine problems of international peace, prosperity or good relations”.
The old map was the familiar Mercator map. Designed by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569 to help seafarers navigate the world, it preserves local angles and directions. A straight line on a Mercator map corresponds to a constant compass bearing, which made it invaluable for marine navigation.
It also preserves small-scale shapes reasonably well. A coastline, city street grid, or country outline looks locally familiar rather than being visibly squashed or stretched. That is one reason the projection became deeply entrenched in atlases and navigation.
It it works very neatly with rectangular map tiles and zooming systems.
The new map is called Equal Earth. It preserves area while trying to make the shapes not look too squished. Introduced in 2018, it was deliberately designed as a more aesthetically pleasing equal-area alternative. “Equal Earth” doesn’t mean it reproduces the globe without distortion — no flat world map can — but it guarantees equal area, while sacrificing some combination of shape, distance and direction.
For navigation or interactive street maps, Mercator is very useful. For comparing the geographic size of countries and continents, Equal Earth is much better.
Mercator stuck his home, Flanders, in the center of his map 🙂 Which required leaving off Antarctica and putting the equator about two thirds down the map.
What Australia’s real Nazis are like. By Alexandra Marshall, who infiltrated their chat group and has been listening for a year.
Sat in on one of the N-zi spaces last night for many hours. It’s part of my job that I hate but you have to learn what these people say privately versus what they’ll admit publicly.
After the National Socialist Network (NSN) was banned, many of its members migrated to the White Australia Party
The handful of N-zis and ‘nationalists’ took a brief interlude from the discussion to call each other ‘fa—t’ for a while and dared each other to meet in person so they could beat each other up over ‘p–y’. Behold the level of intellect trying to lead a revolution. …
The whole thing was hosted by Australia but headed by a self-declared Canadian N-zi who kept whinging that the NSN guy who normally led the space couldn’t because they were in jail and others were banned from social media.
There was all the usual H-r simping. They really are obsessed. …
There’s no way ASIO and the AFP aren’t listening to these spaces. The problem is — ordinary Australians are NOT and so they don’t know what these people really think versus the polished propaganda they promote to the public.
Here are the main take-aways from half-a-dozen people who run around claiming to be ‘patriots’ and ‘just nationalists’ and ‘not socialists’ who ‘just love Australia’ and try to con well-meaning conservatives into their cause.
NOTE: None of these people are to be confused with actual patriots who just love Australia and want it to return to the land of our childhood.
1. They are desperate to tie One Nation to the White Australia Party court case because — to paraphrase them:
‘If One Nation isn’t banned along with the WAP then this will be the end of the N-zi movement in this country.’
Which goes a long way to explain why they keep demanding to bring One Nation into every conversation about the WAP… If One Nation distances themselves completely, this fringe group is f—d and they know it. One Nation is only in danger if it allows these creeps to stand in their shadow.
So they are happy to sacrifice One Nation — and everything that has been built and worked for — to save their little extremist cult….
2. They said they are grooming more young men ‘who don’t know it yet’ to be the next frontmen for their cause after so many were arrested, deported, or banned from social media.
3. They are fascists. Openly so. They described fascism as the ‘cure to racial conflict’ because fascism represents ‘racial harmony’. And then they went on about the need to educate people into the virtues of fascism. Let me repeat that. They are proud fascists and they want fascism for Australia.
4. They are also socialists. After drooling in the chat over the power of communist China and other historical regimes, they insisted that their vision for Australia was socialism, that they are socialists, but that it will be a different kind of socialism because anyone not of their race would be deported and only their women would be helped to stay home and have children. They described democracy as oppression and a system that doesn’t work without ethnic purity — and that it was never meant to be for non-ethnically pure states.
5. They cautioned each other about criticising new digital security, surveillance, and AI because ‘we would definitely use it’ to — as they put it — weed out the subversives and ‘cucks’ from the nation. In other words, these so-called freedom lovers who try to present themselves as conservative want to use big tech to hunt down their ideological opponents and subdue them.
6. When asked what they would do with people who refused to convert to this world view — they admitted to the tough decision of … well … you know that their favourite historical dude did. They complained that making decisions to do that is what ‘weighed on them’.
7. They explained that while Marxism has been normalised, N–ism has never been part of the Australian narrative …
8. They claimed their new narrative is that Australia of the 80s and 90s ‘was socialist’ because Qantas and Auspost were owned by the state along with other things. So they are going to lean in on nostalgia for the Zoomer and Millennial childhood and try to re-write history as if that was ‘the socialist utopia’. And because those people were only kids — they might believe it.
Banning them was counter-productive:
Banning the name of the movement did not make this ideology go away. They changed their name. Changed their phrasing. And now they have become more subversive than ever. At least before they were banned, ordinary people knew who these online accounts were and what — exactly — it was they stood for.
Now, ordinary Australian conservatives see a flag or see a sign about ‘free speech’ and assume these are ordinary people. They are not. …
Reject them:
It’s never occurred to them that none of this is a conspiracy against them. Australians just f-ing HATE the N–s, National Socialism, Fascism, and losers who want to enslave other people to give themselves ‘purpose’. …
Demanding deportation of criminals, a migration pause, and the restoration of cultural systems is completely different to the fascist ethno-state promised by the fringe.
One Nation has a real and serious chance to replace the Coalition and to FIX THIS COUNTRY and RESTORE AUSTRALIA. But it can’t be done with this group hanging off the side, lusting after a long-dead psycho and fantasying about fascism. That’s not an Australia anyone wants.
Wow! Real journalism. Well done Alexandra.
Glenn Reynolds: “Nothing is more radicalizing than pictures of the old America.” New York subway in 1968:
58 years ago. Arthur Ashe takes the NYC subway the day after winning the US Open… and no one notices him.
Laura Ingraham: “Also note how clean the subway is and how nicely dressed everyone is. A shocking decline across society.”
The subway has become lawless. Hoodlums everywhere with backpacks filled with drugs and stolen electronics. Nobody says a word anymore. God help our cities. …
Where’s all the graffiti and crazy loud people? It’s like another world. …
No twerking or panhandling.
I’ve heard of place out east like this. Mystical Land of Japan. …
Obviously it was because [Arthur Ashe] was a black man “acting white”. Today, some Marxist would call him out as a “Tom” and push him onto the subway tracks. …
And just seven years later, after disastrous left-wing governance, the city went broke and descended into a hellhole.
Now it looks like we’re heading for a repeat
And in China:
China is putting scientists on public screens and treating them like national celebrities, we are so fucked pic.twitter.com/rChag3WA4l
— Matthew Graham (@mattyryze) September 4, 2026
China is putting scientists on public screens and treating them like national celebrities. We are so fucked.
Remember when we did that in the U.S.? Made our scientists rockstars?
Ignore me at your peril billionaires. We *MUST* cut our own scientists into “the upside” that they created.
“Capitalists” are giving the golden goose to Communists in China. This is madness.
Mark my words.
Commenters:
I remember when the US used to elevate achievement above grievances. I hope we can go back to that someday. …
These aren’t just scientists, they’re significant figures in the history books and every Chinese person knows them. One of them for example is someone who created a type of rice that was much easily grown and stopped a widespread famine. They’re all heroes.
The past is as foreign as China.
What Sort of Party is One Nation? By Loiuse Clegg in The Spectator.
The One Nation constitution names Pauline Hanson as party president for as long as she wishes. When she resigns, she appoints her successor. The national executive can disband branches and remove office-holders. State leaders, even candidates, or local branch executives do not emerge victorious from a vote, preselection or party-room vote. They are simply announced by Hanson.
We have watched some of this unfold at close quarters in our region. New One Nation supporters have attended meetings intended to establish something resembling federal and state electoral conferences. One Nation flying squads have arrived from Queensland with kooky speeches and zero knowledge of the electorate. A local executive was formed, only for its members to resign within weeks when they realised Queensland headquarters demanded total control. The complaint from a few who attended several meetings is that, for a so-called grassroots party, it has no interest whatsoever in the grassroots. …
None of this means One Nation will fail at coming elections. It may succeed spectacularly. A tightly controlled party is agile: it can move quickly and enforce a message the majors cannot because of internal processes. The cracks will appear in time, when locals don’t get a say, centralised vetting is a disaster, disagreements become public and rogue members of parliament leave the tent.
This is a party that promises to return power to the people, yet is conspicuously designed so that its own people — leaders, MPs and members — have no power. Long term, this is not strength. It is a house of cards.
Lack of staff, from Adam Creighton.
One Nation is criticised for ‘lack of policy detail’.
This is the 2026 allocation of Personal Staff to parties and leaders. (Allocated at Anthony Albanese’s discretion). Outrageously biased against ON.
Read David Archibald’s experience with One Nation here.
What happens when a narrative of lies becomes embedded in our institutions? By Krzysztof Szczawinski.
Within systems built on institutional falsehood, something happens to people that goes far deeper than political disagreement or economic hardship.
A process of demoralization sets in – and this word must be understood in its fullest sense. Not merely disappointment. Not discouragement. But the systematic erosion of the moral infrastructure that holds a person, and a society, together: trust, integrity, the shared assumption that truth is real and that it matters.
Truth is penalized, loyalty to the lies is rewarded:
People learn, through accumulated experience, that honesty costs. They watch colleagues who speak plainly get passed over, demoted, or destroyed. They watch those who perform loyalty — regardless of whether they believe a word of it — advance. The lesson is absorbed not as ideology but as survival knowledge: say what the system wants to hear. After enough repetition, this stops feeling like compromise. It becomes instinct.
Negative moral selection:
The result is one of the most destructive and least discussed phenomena of institutional life under such systems: negative moral selection. The term deserves to be used widely, because the process it describes is precise and devastating.
In a healthy institution, the qualities that get rewarded — competence, honesty, independent judgment, willingness to deliver unwelcome truths — are roughly the qualities that make institutions function well. The selection pressure, however imperfectly, tends to elevate people worth elevating.
Under a system of institutionalized lying, the selection pressure inverts. What gets rewarded is the willingness to subordinate truth to narrative, to signal loyalty over competence, to manipulate rather than inform. And crucially, those most willing to do this — whether out of opportunism, cowardice, or genuine ideological capture — rise. Those least willing to do it are sidelined, pushed out, or in harder cases, destroyed.
Over time, the institution fills, top to bottom, with people selected specifically for their unreliability. The honest are gone. The competent who refused to play along are gone. What remains is a self-reinforcing culture of cynicism and mutual complicity — everyone knowing, at some level, that the whole structure rests on a lie, and everyone invested in maintaining it because the lie is now the source of their position.
This is not merely inefficiency. It is institutional rot at the genetic level.
The social aftermath:
Beyond the institutions themselves, something corrodes in the broader social fabric.
- Public life becomes performative theater.
- Language decouples from meaning — words are uttered not to convey reality but to signal allegiance, deflect suspicion, or accumulate social capital.
- Truth inverts: the more emphatically something is proclaimed, the more suspicious a rational person learns to be.
- People adapt. They develop a kind of split consciousness – participating in the public rituals because refusal carries costs, while privately withdrawing all genuine trust from the system. They say the words. They attend the meetings. They sign the statements. And inwardly, they check out entirely.
This is doublethink, not as a dramatic Orwellian act of self-violation, but as a mundane daily habit. A way of moving through the world. And like all habits, it shapes the person who practices it.
The bad habits die slower than the lies:
When communism formally collapsed in Central and Eastern Europe, there was a widespread assumption in the West — and to some degree among the people themselves — that the pathologies would dissolve along with the system that produced them. Remove the oppressive structure, introduce free markets and democratic institutions, and the culture would normalize.
It did not. Or at least, not nearly as quickly as hoped.
Because the damage was not located in the ideology. The ideology was the occasion. The damage was located in the people — in the habits of mind, the social reflexes, the deeply internalized assumptions about how the world works, that decades of living inside a system of lies had produced. …
The negative moral selection continued … The people most skilled at institutional maneuvering, at cultivating networks of complicity, at navigating power through loyalty-signaling rather than competence, were precisely the people who had been selected into positions of influence under the old system. They remained. They adapted their language. They learned to mouth the new words — democracy, market, civil society — with exactly the same fluency and exactly the same hollowness with which they had mouthed the old ones.
The cynicism persisted. The corruption persisted. The distrust persisted.
A generation of virtue-signalers and liars, practiced at ignoring certain truths, for social and professional survival. Look what it did for the Soviet Union — what will it do for the West?
The economic climate just changed for Australia. By Robert Guy in The Australian.
Australia spent the cheap-money era convincing itself that expensive houses, bloated government, lousy productivity and asset prices amounted to an economic model.
Global bond markets are calling time on the fantasy.
Money has a price again. Australia’s 10-year bond yield is at levels last seen in 2011, well above 5 per cent. It does not set mortgage rates — the RBA cash rate does — but resets the cost of capital beneath government borrowing, corporate debt, infrastructure and equities.
With gross debt above $1 trillion, refinancing turns yesterday’s choices into tomorrow’s interest bill.
The uglier discovery is how little growth Australia can now generate without above-target inflation. … Australia can barely grow above 2 per cent without above-target inflation. …
Australians are carrying more public debt, paying more for capital, housing, energy and services, and getting little in return from productivity or per-capita growth. The economy still functions, but increasingly on worse terms. … This is enshitification at a sovereign scale: the platform still works, but the user pays more for less. …
Australia’s place in the world economy:
The AI economy continues to outpace Canberra’s thinking. … Australia is down the bottom pouring the concrete. …
Australia risks mistaking AI infrastructure for AI power.
We know this model: dig it up, ship it out, let someone else add the value, then buy it back at a premium. AI could be the same old bargain in digital form. We supply the land, power and concrete. Silicon Valley owns the margin.
Forty years of decreasing interest rates ended in 2022, globally. It’s not widely appreciated yet, but history suggests we have now entered the back leg of the cycle, with several decades of upward-trending interest rates ahead. Rolling over loans will get more expensive, so capital will have to be repaid.
Many western borrowers, and governments in particular, will simply not be able to afford to keep paying interest on their debts. Japan will spend all its tax income on servicing its current debt when interest rates average 7%, the US 14%, and Australia 21%. In the 1970s, to stop inflation, interest rates had to rise to 20%.
So, governments will be forced to use their only escape hatch — devalue their paper currencies, i.e. allow a controlled inflation to run to whittle away the real value of debts, a policy called financial repression. (Is it just a coincidence that everything in finance has an obscure or misleading name?) Borrowers love it, lenders lose. This policy was last run in the 1970s. (Btw, got gold? The gold price went from 35 USD to well over 400 USD per ounce in the 1970s.)
The Albanese Government, like the Whitlam Government in the early 1970s, just “happens” to be in power when global stagflation hit. A high-welfare, big-spending government that was elected at the end of the easy times, just as the festival of cheap credit was drawing to a close. Bad timing, yes — policies appropriate for the time they were elected quickly became very inappropriate as time changed. But unlucky again, not really — elected governments always get pretty free-spending towards to the end of easy times.
And like the Whitlam Government in 1975, the current government is quickly going to become very unpopular.
The Albanese Government Begins its Doom Spiral. By David Pearl in The Australian.
Chalmers has changed his tune. Until recently he was saying that achieving net zero was the biggest economic prize on offer. In March last year he called it his “obsession” and “reason for being”.
But with the public’s faith in this particular utopia now crumbling after two decades of rising power prices, the government needs another one. And AI fits the bill ideally, since this revolution has barely begun. It is a kind of Rorschach test, allowing us to project our hopes and fears as our inclination strikes us. …
Sadly, the government’s grand ambitions suffer from a rather serious flaw. It is committed to policies that are hostile to any positive technological revolution, whether linked to AI or otherwise. Indeed, if you asked a properly trained AI bot how best to kill off AI in this country, it would refer you to the government’s energy, industrial relations and tax policy settings.
The government’s commitment to high-cost and intermittent energy sources that cannot meet the growing demands of AI data centres is made worse by Canberra’s bizarre insistence (until recently) on the kind of energy that is unsuited to data centres.
The government’s likely demand is that AI not replace a single union member’s job in this country or undercut their conditions. And its 2026 budget assault on savings and investment, as we know, will penalise high-risk and high-return investments across the economy, with the government and its bureaucrats to police a narrow carve-out for some start-ups.
Where does new technology come from? For people like Jim Chalmers, it just happens. In reality, it doesn’t happen without the right backing and motivation structure:
But technological change is a by-product of innovation and risk-taking by entrepreneurs in search of profits, with investors and consumers — acting through free markets — the ultimate judge of their success or failure.
A government that is hostile to entrepreneurs and believes bureaucrats rather than markets should allocate resources will only stifle, rather than foster, this process. Yet Chalmers believes “we” — meaning our politicians and bureaucrats — can somehow micromanage the AI revolution to maximise its productivity benefits and eliminate its costs and risks altogether.
This is rubbish. I don’t pretend to know whether the AI revolution will prove to be a big bang or a whimper. But if it proves to be the former, it will – like every previous positive structural shock we have experienced – cause considerable economic pain.
Labor people — with precious few exceptions — are not knowledgeable about economics. Worse, they are not even interested. So, Labor Governments inevitably end up hurting the economy. Not out of malice, but because they simply do not know how to care for it.
The once exception was when Hawke was PM and Keating was Treasurer. Keating, bless him, promptly leaned economics from the Treasury officials in his Department, and he implemented what they suggested! Australia blossomed! (Btw, apart from what he learned from Treasury, Keating shows the usual leftist confusions — justifiably earning him his “Captain Wacko” nickname.)
Now that the economy has demonstrably turned downhill, Albanese’s Government is doomed politically. The economy will just get worse until it is gone, because it will reliably make mostly bad economic decisions.
I am a persecuted human rights icon. By Milo Yiannopoulos in The Spectator.
You may have heard: Milo Yiannopoulos was deported from the United States to the United Kingdom on August 28, 2026, one day after being arrested by ICE at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Louisiana.
At 41, in ICE detention
According to the Department of Homeland Security, he legally entered the U.S. on a visa in May 2019 but overstayed, and an immigration judge issued a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear at his hearing. Notably, Yiannopoulos had been a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and had called for even stricter enforcement.
Very amusing. Despite being provocatively funny and very early at pushing against the globalist narrative in 2015 – 2018, Milo went kind of nuts after that.
In his heyday
But there’s more to the story, as he explains in The Spectator.
Thursday night, New Orleans. I have flown in from Los Angeles for work and am walking off the jet bridge, thinking about dinner, when 15 men in vests coalesce around me. I have never been arrested before. …
I am ever so nice about it all. They take my belt, wallet, every piece of identification, my rosary and Missal, cash. They put me in chains. Real chains. Every man they arrest, whatever he has done, ends up garlanded in steel like this: wincing, hopping, clattering. It hurts more than they make out on TV. … Yes. I am being deported.
Somewhere in Miami, at hearings nobody told me about, a judge has ordered me removed. My work permit has been canceled without a word. The notices were sent to a Florida address I left ten years ago, which, I realize, must have been on purpose. The same agencies have been writing regularly and without incident to my new address for years.
Three of the five warning letters were even returned, marked “addressee unknown.” The arresting agents told me so. When I said I could not find my lawyer’s number, an agent read it to me off his computer screen. But somehow my lawyer had never been informed about any of the past year’s developments. I am stripped, starved, shipped between three detention centers in 12 hours.
Must have pissed someone off:
A few of the agents knew my face from 2016, when I was Donald Trump’s biggest fan. Back then, I called him Daddy. …
The last pair, who drove me to Houston for the flight, said they were getting “calls from Washington” every 20 minutes. They agreed that none of this was normal. “You must have pissed someone off.” …
The irony:
I spent years demanding this agency be let off the leash. And so it is. Yet, I am torn about the fact that I am the only person arrested by ICE in August who has not killed or raped anyone. I might be the only person arrested by them at all: In each new jail, I am the only prisoner. Long corridors of empty cells. Gleaming 2026 SUVs in the parking lot. Agents on steroids in virgin tactical gear. They’ve spent the money. But I don’t think they’ve done much deporting.
Yep, Trump:
Well-connected friends confirm a few days later that this theatrically cruel performance is my punishment for turning on Trump. On air with Candace Owens, I’d accused him of betrayal, cowardice, and capitulation to warmongering Israeli psychopaths.
Like it or not, this makes me a political prisoner, a persecuted human rights icon. I am Mahatma Gandhi. I am Nelson Mandela. I’m not exactly sure who Aung San Suu Kyi is, and can’t be bothered to look it up, but, yes, I am him too.
They keep moving me to keep ahead of my lawyers, who, when they call, are given the name of wherever we just left. I am handed a note and told it’s where I am being taken next; this is a lie. I am promised a phone call, a nurse, medication, a chance to be heard by a judge. All lies. Twenty-four hours without food. Longer without sleep.
No sign of my lawyer. But — of course! — there is a photographer. He, at least, has been given truthful directions. I mean to stare into his lens with defiance and stoicism, but I am fat and covered in filth and stains and drool and I am crying and even border czar Tom Homan can’t bring himself to tweet this one. But he does go on on television to say I have “had my due process.”
The gods must be laughing. But he’s still a great writer (more at the link). And someone, presumably Trump, has overstepped the mark into selective enforcement against a political inconvenience.