Why I moved from Britain to Australia. By Louise Perry in The Australian.

Louise migrated to Australia last week, with her husband and their two little boys.

So if we’re not “excited” about our move, then why did we do it? …

It’s certainly true that healthcare is better in Australia, and salaries are higher, since Australia is now a significantly richer country than Britain, the two countries having diverged following the 2008 financial crisis. Britain used to be the aspirational destination for ambitious young Australians — including my parents — but that is no longer true, and Australia has been merrily brain-draining Britain for some time now. Our move is perfectly rational in economic terms.

But there is another reason for leaving, one that is more difficult to say out loud. I’m not only unhappy with how things are right now in Britain, I’m worried that they’re set to get a whole lot worse. I started thinking seriously about leaving Britain in 2024, spurred by two things:

1. My direct experience of the dire state of NHS maternity services.
2. My unease about the rise of Muslim sectarianism in politics. This was the year in which the “Gaza Five”, a group of politicians who ran on an Islamopopulist platform, were elected to parliament. These candidates ignore the liberal universalist ideals that other British politicians are committed to, instead making explicit appeals to ethno-religious solidarity. Meanwhile, the Pakistani Muslim-dominated cities of Birmingham, Oldham and Bradford have seen multiple cases of arson attacks on politicians’ cars in the lead-up to elections, as well as tyre slashing and threatening messages scratched into the paintwork. Violence is a feature of elections in Pakistan. Is it so very surprising that we are now seeing the same disorder in Pakistani-majority areas of Britain? Paying close attention to current affairs is part of my job, and it became apparent to me that British politics was changing, and not for the better.

I sought out scholarly opinion on the matter, and came across the work of David Betz, a professor of war studies at King’s College London.

He uses established models and ideas within the discipline of war studies to predict that Britain and France are the Western countries most likely to experience the outbreak of a violent civil conflict that would be fought primarily along ethnic lines. Such conflicts would be the product of economic stress, lost political legitimacy, indigestible levels of immigration from culturally distant places, and a sense of “downgrade” among a native population that feels itself to be losing power and status. Britain is, says Betz, “explosively configured”. …

“(T)he steady trickle of retired police chiefs, former civil servants and security officials privately voicing concern indicates that the thesis is apprehended even if never formally endorsed.””

It’s possible these predictions are wrong. But nothing that has happened since 2024 has made me feel more confident about Britain’s trajectory. Since then, we have seen more outbreaks of race rioting and increased political instability. And, all the while, experts warn that the government is borrowing and spending way beyond its means, with welfare spending exceeding income tax revenue. This economic pain will be intensified by the loss to emigration of both the wealthy and the youthful which seems to be under way. A poorer Britain is hardly likely to be a more peaceful Britain.

I realise I’m contributing to this potential doom loop by leaving. Anecdotally, a lot of my peers are thinking along the same lines. A message I received from a friend over the weekend: “every cell of my body wants to emigrate.” If Britons with the means to leave start to do so at scale, then a crisis of mass emigration could be at hand. …

We wouldn’t have left if it weren’t for our children.

The full interview with David Betz:

hat-tip Phil

Populist politics is inherently weak, but it ultimately triumphed last time. By Eugyppius at American Greatness.

Across the West, the political elites have become estranged from their native populations. This process began in the years after the demise of Communism, and it accelerated in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

By 1990 the leftist intelligentsia had well and truly hauled itself out of the working class. But now they had quite different economic interests to the working class (whom they despised), so they needed a new politics. I recall conversations among Canberra leftists from the early 1990s: how could they build a new electoral coalition to keep themselves in power, and thus hooked up to the flow of government money? So, they dropped class rhetoric, and took up identity politics instead, appealing to the interests of all voters except white men. Eugyppius focuses on the what happened downstream of that strategic realignment:

The causes are manifold: Cheap money during a long period of low interest rates, ideological radicalization, the lack of clear political alternatives, the cancerous growth of state bureaucratic systems, and the social consequences of globalization within the political classes all played a role. Probably we have yet to understand the causes fully, but the upshot is that our elites have been pursuing crazy policies that are obviously detrimental to their own populations for decades now. …

As postwar television democracy succumbs to the internet and as it is increasingly clear that the fat years are behind us and the future portends nothing but ever leaner years as far as the eye can see, an organic opposition has taken shape. This is the populist backlash, and in each national context it has had different political consequences, although the movement itself is broadly similar everywhere.

• In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz spent 16 years attempting to establish “illiberal democracy” before they were voted out in May.
• In the United States, where Trump has succeeded in loosely aligning all three branches of government behind his agenda, the MAGA movement is at the height of its influence.
• In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage’s Reform and more recently, Rupert Lowe’s Restore have all but eclipsed the Tories.
• In Germany, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) continues to accumulate support despite withering opposition from the cartel parties and the state itself.

Despite being in a democracy, the ruling class has doubled down against the popular revolts. (Did you know there were over 620 peasant revolts in medieval Europe, which were nearly all successfully suppressed?)

The establishment has reacted to the backlash very strangely. We would expect elites to adjust their politics and adopt elements of the populist program to defang their opponents. Instead, they have ceded incredible ground by doubling down on the very policies that caused the backlash in the first place. Part of this is because we are governed by stupid and parochial elites who don’t understand what is happening to them and why. Another part, however, is probably that elites have assessed the new opposition and decided that this is a passing moment that they can either manage or outlast.

 

 

The ruling class might be right, in that they can just tell the peasants where to go:

I’m not sure they’re right, but more and more I’m also not sure they’re wrong. Since sometime last year, I’ve been thinking a lot about the limitations that beset populist political movements everywhere they have arisen. …

As we’ve become less prosperous and the internet has made the informational environment harder to control, popular sentiment in Western democracies has gone off-reservation. Millions have been politicized in ways contrary to oligarchical preferences. That’s what the populist backlash is, and that’s all that the populist backlash is. I typed that in bold because it is very important to understand: We are talking about people using the democratic processes available to them to confound oligarchical control of the state — mostly by voting for measures, politicians, and parties that the oligarchs don’t want.

Who are the revolting populists, really?

Populist protest voters don’t have armed militias; they lack robust activist cadres; their organization is heavily dependent on social media; and in most cases outside the United States, they are also still in search of elite backers. (One major purpose of the feverishly manufactured political hysteria directed against “the extreme Right” in Germany is precisely to scare away economic and other elites who might otherwise feel tempted to support the AfD.)

The populist backlash is an extremely eclectic movement, consisting of everyone whom the establishment has alienated. …

What emerges from this colorful blend is generally some kind of classical liberal political message combined with a rejection of the most hated elite policies of the past generation, particularly climatism and mass migration. …

The eclectic nature of the organic populist movement causes two major problems:…

1. There is no real control from the top, and any efforts by party leadership to impose strategy or direction threaten merely to feed rival parties or split the movement.
2. Second, it’s pretty clear that populist political candidates cannot govern without sooner or later alienating significant constituencies, because these very different people don’t all want the same thing and no single set of policies will satisfy everybody.

Present elites clearly believe that if the AfD ever does get into government, they will succeed primarily in cutting themselves down to size …

We also have to consider the other side of this question — namely, the kinds of people who end up in the leadership of populist parties, the kinds of people who run for office on populist tickets, and the kinds of people who make their careers in this novel milieu more generally. They, too, have been reverse-selected. The best of them have defected from the establishment for reasons of personal conviction, but in Germany they are joined by others whom the traditional parties excluded or expelled — often for good reason. …

The populists have been able to recruit a few incredibly talented people, but if we are honest, they have also inevitably filled their ranks with people who are inclined to various sorts of corruption, who don’t have any sincere political beliefs at all, and who are mainly interested in personal advancement. …

Media attacks on populist movements are unjust, exaggerated, and malicious, but it is very often these two factors — the eclectic nature of these movements and their reverse-selected leadership — that provide the kernel of truth at the center of many a hyped-up scandal. …

The populist parties are thus subject to substantial undirected drift, because (summarizing now) they are open to all comers, their leaders cannot control the program without risking splits or spinoffs, and criticism from within is routinely sidelined in favor of undying loyalty. This loyalty is offered to lionized figurehead leaders … or to a general political brand … , which in turn is so powerful that it eclipses the political candidates themselves.  …

The populist movements, meanwhile, appear frozen and inflexible, locked into their brands and figureheads. I fear this means they have a real expiration date, because while the Greens can f-ck up massively, alienate everybody, and come back in eight years with a different palette of candidates and a different message, the AfD is always going to be the AfD, and I have no idea what MAGA is going to be after Trump.

These movements are hostile to anyone proposing any kind of political strategy, which means that despite their growing popularity, they end up punching substantially below their weight …

There is no cavalry to rescue the day. The populists have to defeat the ruling class themselves, which requires great numbers to make up for their lack of skill and resources:

Many supporters assume that there is on the horizon a turning point, a moment of change … Then they will expel the malefactors, right the wrongs, re-migrate the migrants, tear down the wind turbines, and turn the clock back to 1996. …

Their thinking betrays, among other things, an absolutely incurable underestimation of their left-progressive opponents and a corresponding overestimation of their own strength.

They hate the people in charge, and they assume everybody else feels the same way, when in truth they are large but nevertheless still minority movements, the electoral success of which will depend upon their ability to win over outsiders.

As soon as they win, they will begin to bleed support, while most of the bureaucracy will remain arrayed against them, and the temporarily disempowered oligarchy will merely have to play a waiting game. Once they win, they will need the one thing they are most congenitally opposed to having — namely, some kind of plan and strategy for the way forward.

Eventually the peasant revolts in Europe succeeded. Economically, this gave rise to capitalism — anyone could produce anything, free of guild control and government licensing. Politically, it gave rise to our democratic republics of the 20th century — everyone was equal before the law, and the law was applied to all.

Here we are in 2026 fighting the same trends again: communism and authoritarian rule (big government) versus capitalism and democracy (small government).

Australian multiculturalism is the institutionalization of minority ethnic and religious lobbying. By Celina101.

It is a system in which governments treat organised ethnic, religious and minority identity-based groups as permanent stakeholders with privileged access to policy-making.

These groups receive taxpayer funding, sit on advisory bodies, submit formal recommendations, and see their priorities turned into law on hate speech, anti-discrimination, social cohesion and diversity policy. …

So undemocratic:

Policies on hate speech, online regulation and antiwhite DEI measures are routinely justified by reference to recommendations from these same organisations and commissioners.

The justification is never “this is what a majority of Australians want.” It is “these recognised community representatives have told us this is necessary.” That arrangement inverts democratic accountability as ordinary Australians become the diffuse, unorganised interest whose preferences can be set aside when they conflict with the demands of better-connected groups.

When millions of voters express concerns about immigration levels, speech restrictions or cultural direction, the institutional response is that such views lack legitimacy within the multicultural framework, as the framework itself decides which opinions are admissible.

Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman

 

This is why for example the rejection of the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament was so telling. When the unorganised Australian majority was given an opportunity to vote on a constitutionally entrenched body for one group (Aboriginals), they voted no. …

Lesser rights for whites –> second class citizens:

White Australians, as the historic majority, are told they require no such structures because the general political process already represents them while everyone else receives supplementary representation.

Under the multicultural framework “cultural and linguistic diversity” (which actually just means less white people), is a measurable policy outcome that the government actively engineers inside its own institutions.

The Albanese Government’s Employment Strategy sets an explicit target of 24 percent cultural and linguistic diversity representation in the Senior Executive Service, with an interim goal of 15 percent within four years. The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA), the main national peak body for ethnic communities, has long advocated for diversity targets in the Australian Public Service. In its 2022 policy platform, FECCA explicitly called for governments to “establish diversity targets in the Australian Public Service”, which is what the Albanese Government’s Employment Strategy did. …

Censorship is required to muzzle white complaints:

Multiculturalism as an institutional project also explains the steady expansion of speech restrictions. …

Someone, somewhere, will always be offended, so the sensibilities that must be protected are those of organised minorities rather than the population as a whole, whose rights are subordinated. …

Multiculturalism is a set of bureaucratic institutions, so reducing mass immigration is not enough:

Reducing the numbers is very necessary. But it is not sufficient. A government can slash migration tomorrow and still leave the bureaucratic and lobbying infrastructure untouched. …

The more important question is therefore civilisational and institutional. Australia is a Western nation with a particular legal tradition, political culture and historical inheritance. Immigration policy should reflect that reality by prioritising entrants from societies with compatible norms, IQs, institutions and expectations. … This argument does not require explicit discussion of race. It rests on observable differences in integration outcomes and cultural continuity. It is compatible with both civic and cultural nationalism. …

Which political party is most likely to end this anti-white bigotry?

Liberal leaders have repeatedly declared opposition to multiculturalism in principle. John Howard and Tony Abbott both did so. Yet while in office they left the grant programs and advisory councils wholely intact.  …

If Pauline Hanson and One Nation are serious about ending multiculturalism, the test is whether they are willing to do what previous governments would not: defund the peak bodies, abolish the dedicated multicultural departments and offices, repeal the speech and discrimination laws that flow from this framework, and restore the principle that government represents the Australian people as a whole.

What got Pauline Hanson dis-endorsed as a Liberal candidate in 1996 was her insistence that welfare rules be the same for all Australians, regardless of race. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Canberra smarties to funnel government aid where it is needed, such as to aboriginal communities, without discriminating on the basis of race?Aboriginal and white kids — and all the mixtures in between — in the suburbs should have the same access to welfare.

A non-racist government would be color-blind. But no, because she insisted on color-blindness, Australia’s ruling class called Hanson a “racist.” Then three decades later they tried to implement a South African Apartheid-style constitutional change — the Voice — in Australia. Talk about outing themselves as the real racists.

The government needs to get out of the racial discrimination business:

Dismantle the multicultural bureaucracy, restore free speech, end taxpayer-funded identity lobbying and reject anti-white discrimination in policy and institutions.

The advantage of this framing is that it shifts the argument from contested demographic questions to uncontested democratic ones. It does not ask Australians to dislike any particular group. It asks why unelected commissioners, funded activists and organised lobby groups should exercise greater influence over law and policy than millions of ordinary Australian citizens.

“Diversity” just means anti-white bigotry.

Non-white conquerors, mass murderers, and warlords get zero scrutiny. By Stefan Molyneux.

No one cares about imperialism or colonization or mass murder or genocide or slaughter.

Genghis Khan killed 10% of the world’s population, and he is on the Mongolian currency and has countless statues. They even named an airport after him. No one nags them.

They just hate Whites.

Restore Australia:

Communist mass murderers, Mongolian barbaric warrior elites, and African warlords all get zero scrutiny. Often they are applauded and celebrated by leftist imbeciles (especially Mao, Mandela, Guevara etc.).

The British Empire — which outlawed slavery, invented the modern world and gave the planet the agricultural/industrial revolutions, the computer, the internet, TV, phones, fibre optics, railways, jet engines, radio, antibiotics, vaccines, codified sports, property rights, common law principles, radar, sonar, penicillin, stainless steel and modern glass production — are apparently the bad guys

Former Muslim: Islam wants to take over Europe and the West. By Khaled Hassan.

I was never a practising, observant Muslim.

Yet, even I wanted Islam to take over Europe and the West until I was a teenager.

We are taught that Islam’s greatest achievements are conquest and colonialism.

We are taught that the greatest thing we could ever do is enable the invasion and conquest of non-Muslim countries.

This is a fact that only a former Muslim would tell you.

Political Islam has spread entirely by the sword and the womb — never by proselytizing — from the Arab peninsula starting 1400 years ago:

“Religion of peace” is one of the greatest lies ever told.

The upcoming fall of the symbol economy is already rearranging political fault lines. By Samuel Thawley in The Spectator.

The rise of symbol manipulation:

My grandfather was a civil engineer. He built things for a living — first in wartime England, then in Tasmania — and in the whole of his working life there was no such creature as a middle manager. There were engineers, and there were the men who dug or put together, and above them all a thin layer of owners, whether public or private. The thick, heavy slab of individuals whose job it is to manage other people who in turn manage other people had not so far been invented.

My parents went to university in Australia in the late 1960s, when — as my former boss keeps reminding me — going to university was a faintly eccentric thing to do; relatively few did at the time.

Within two generations both oddities — the middle manager and the graduate — became unremarkable. We treated them as progress. Indeed, even today it is hard to think of them as otherwise… They do, in fact, form a bubble which will come to represent this era in time, and the relative decline of these two unremarkable elements of the modern age is precisely what should worry us.

The symbol manipulators:

For 50 years, the great growth industry of the Western world has not been mining, energy, or manufacturing, or even finance. It has been the production of people who work with symbols rather than things: the graduate, the manager, the official. Call it the symbolic economy — the side of the modern workforce which processes information, administers, credentials, advises, reports.

It expanded on an unexamined assumption: that cognitive labour would stay scarce, and so valuable, indefinitely.

On that assumption an entire civilisation rebuilt its idea of the good life. Get the degree, join the firm, climb the ladder, and if all else failed there was always the security of the expanding state. …

The upcoming fall of the symbol manipulators:

Four pressures are now converging on the symbolic economy, and it is their convergence, not any one of them, that makes a crash rather than a correction.

The first is overproduction. … A credential that confers status only works if not everyone holds it; a credential everyone holds is merely the new minimum, and confers nothing. We have spent 30 years manufacturing aspirants faster than the economy manufactures the chairs they were promised. Peter Turchin calls the result elite overproduction, and the bill is arriving. …

The second pressure is [that] a pyramid can only lift everyone toward its apex if you keep building new pyramids — new firms, new divisions, new layers needing new supervisors. For decades growth obligingly supplied them. Now, the movement has reversed. Organisations merge, flatten, delayer, consolidate; the apex slots disappear even as the queue of the qualified lengthens behind them. … There is no promotion at the top of a stable pyramid, let alone one that is shrinking. … The single most stall-prone field of all was public administration, the credentialed bureaucracy itself, with nowhere left to promote anyone. …

The third pressure is political, and it is the oldest. To one set of parties the public wing of the symbolic economy is not a workforce but a swamp — a blob, a self-interested administrative class that votes for its own expansion and calls it service. The conviction that government is too big is now shared by new forces such as MAGA, Reform, and One Nation, as well as by a substantial part of the legacy right. …

The fourth pressure is artificial intelligence. Consider what happened before AI:

Washington has just run the experiment for us. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) delivered one of the largest peacetime cuts to the federal workforce in decades — something close to a tenth of the administration, gone inside a year. Yet federal spending kept rising — revealing almost no break where the cutting began.

The reasons are twofold. Salaries are no more than a rounding error compared with transfers, pensions and, increasingly, government interest. And across the agencies managers quietly rehired, because the work was still sitting there when the workers had gone. That is the lesson the next reforming government will absorb. You cannot shrink the state by removing people while leaving their work behind; the work simply summons the people back. …

But now with AI:

If the task itself can be done by a machine, as in the era of Victorian industrialisation, then the specific task stays cut. …

Fewer human symbol manipulators, and the blob will shrink the most:

The crash will fall across the whole symbolic economy – the graduate without the salary, the manager without the promotion – but it will fall hardest on the public servant.

The official sits at the purest node of the bubble: the part least disciplined by any market, most swollen by debt, most resented by a major part of the political spectrum, and most exposed to machines, because rules-based processing of information is exactly the work artificial intelligence learns first. …

The end of a trend:

Nothing grows forever, and the symbolic economy that was sold to us as the shape of the future was in truth the shape of a single 50-year expansion that is now passing its apotheosis.

When an expansion so large reprices, it risks creating something that is politically combustible: a large, credentialed, downwardly mobile class promised status as well as comfort and then handed an ordinary stall. They were offered a lounge — but ended up sitting like everybody else on the hard seats in the main concourse. …

Labor is the flagship party of the symbolic economy –- the graduate, the city professional, the official are at once its base and its self-portrait. They rejected the worker for the intellectual; so much that the worker has had to dress up as an intellectual to feel acceptable. So the crash does not merely cost the party votes, it dissolves the world that made the Labor party what it currently is.

This opens up a new, ugly political front. In the US, the new downwardly mobile symbol manipulators who missed out on good jobs have taken over the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and are currently on course to takeover the Democrat Party:

[Jesse] Watters saved his sharpest criticism for the people making up that socialist wing itself. They’re candidates who have never worked a real job, whose parents bankroll them, and who rack up debt while producing nothing. “They’re professional students,” he said. “They’re all in debt. They don’t earn anything. A lot of them don’t even own anything.” Their answer to that self-inflicted mess is to declare the entire American system rigged.

Watters wasn’t buying it. “It’s actually not rigged if you work,” he said. He described grinding through cramped apartments and lean years before earning success the old-fashioned way, contrasting that with a class of Democrat candidates barely into their careers who insist the American dream is already dead. “They haven’t even tried,” he said. “What are they talking about?”

He rattled off examples, from Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D-Texas) to Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner (D-Maine) to the socialist candidates in Colorado and New York, calling the current slate “all pathetic people.” Watters argued that their appeal comes precisely from that shared lack of accomplishment.

It’s only the most prosperous society that has ever existed in the history of human civilization, built by the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents, but let’s find a reason to be resentful https://t.co/kyZiiFRtPP

— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) July 1, 2026

The producers will need to escape their entitled grasp.

Assimilation, immigration, and race. By Eva Vlaardingerbroek.

Moroccans in the Netherlands decided to celebrate by rioting after Morocco beat the Netherlands at the World Cup, even if many are 4th or 5th generation, born and raised here.

If they don’t regard themselves as Dutch, why should we?

Perfect candidates for Remigration I’d say.

Moroccans in the Netherlands decided to celebrate by rioting after Morocco beat the Netherlands at the World Cup, even if many are 4th or 5th generation, born and raised here.

If they don’t regard themselves as Dutch, why should we?

Perfect candidates for Remigration I’d say. pic.twitter.com/xzHSUk7pZk

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) June 30, 2026

 

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Why We Don’t Care That the Amish ‘Don’t Assimilate’. By Mark Tapson at Front Page.

Leftie Joshua Reed Eakle: “The Amish are also clearly a community that refuses to assimilate to American society. And yet no one on the right seems to care. Curious.”

Spoiler alert: contrary to what Eakle was undoubtedly implying (because “liberals” make everything about race in order to demonize their opponents rather than debate the merits of their actual position), the reason has nothing to do with race. The Right doesn’t have a problem with the Amish “not assimilating” not because they’re white, but for the following reasons, which are self-evident to any honest observer:

The Amish are not from a culture that is incompatible with and even hostile to Western civilization. Their beliefs and values may not be wholly mainstream but they are largely Christian, American values.

The Amish don’t have an ideologically supremacist imperative to overthrow the Judeo-Christian, capitalist West and to subdue non-believers.

They don’t fly hijacked planes into the World Trade Center or massacre nightclub patrons.

They don’t behead or knife random non-believers.

They don’t stone adulterers to death or hurl gay people from rooftops.

They don’t view the sexual assault of non-believers as their right.

They don’t establish “Amish Learing Centers” as fronts for defrauding American taxpayers of billions of dollars.

The Amish do have their own communal moral and legal code – the Ordnung (German for “order” or “discipline”) that has historically put them in occasional conflict with federal law: for example, the Ordnung forbids relying on government public assistance. The Amish view this as a failure to trust in God’s providence and a violation of the church’s duty to care for its own elderly and sick, so Congress granted them an official federal exemption to waive their Social Security taxes – which meant the Amish gave up any right to receive future benefits. This is hardly a burden on their fellow taxpayers.

But their default stance is to respect civic authority and pay their taxes. Most importantly, they don’t try to impose the Ordnung on non-believers.

They also don’t view themselves as an oppressed victim class and demand special government privileges. They don’t demand the establishment of prayer rooms in schools, airports, and hospitals or demand that nonbelievers around them participate in their fasting.

There is more, but I rest my case. …

Conclusion:

In truth, the Amish actually are assimilated. There simply are some areas in which they choose not to participate in mainstream culture, and who can blame them? Many Americans could actually learn, for example, from their wariness of the dangers a degenerate culture poses to their children, their community, their spirituality, and their way of life.

I hope that clears things up for Joshua Reed Eakle and his fellow race-mongers. As much as they want to make the issue of unassimilated migrants throughout the Western world about race, it is not.

Labor’s immigrant firewall. By Kos Samaras.

Birthplace has become one of the sharpest predictors of the Labor vote in Victoria.

• Among Australian-born voters, Labor sits on 24.
• Among voters born overseas, it’s 35.

That eleven-point gap is Labor’s firewall.

If your status and money was tied to the Labor Party, wouldn’t you want mass immigration?

If you have a grudge against your country, how can you destroy it? By Tony Abbott in Quadrant.

Blackening a country’s history is one of the most effective ways to undermine the morale of its people. …

The most recent academic history of Australia, published last November, opens by declaring that the traditional notion of settlement, as a largely peaceful expansion, is no less than the “founding lie” of modern Australia, masking what the author claims was a brutal conquest. Even though it was always official policy — albeit imperfectly observed — that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia should enjoy all the rights and protections of British subjects. …

What then, might those persuaded that their country’s history is shameful do by way of atonement? Well, in Australia, they could:

• Seek to amend the constitution to give people with some Aboriginal descent more say than others over the government of the country.
• Delegitimise the national flag by flying it co-equally with indigenous flags on all government buildings and at all civic occasions.
• Begin all public speeches by acknowledging the traditional owners of “what always was and always will be” un-ceded land.
• Change the school curriculum so that every subject, from maths to Latin, is taught from an indigenous perspective.
• Invoke a climate crisis to close down our main exports and to hobble heavy industry.
• Defund the armed forces now, while claiming to boost them in the far distant future.
• Insist that gender is a social construct, rather than a function of biology, to confuse and subvert troubled adolescents.

 

 

The big one:

But for those with a grudge against their own country, it’s sustained mass migration, especially from countries with quite different cultures, that’s the surest and swiftest way to change and punish a place that’s irredeemably tainted by unforgivable sin.

This is done in order to dilute and eventually to extinguish the Anglo-Celtic core culture and the Judaeo-Christian foundational ethos (which is actually what attracts migrants to the Anglosphere) that today’s left-establishment finds so suffocating and judgmental. And it’s to encourage migrants to “other” themselves by funding ethnic activism under Orwellian slogans like “our diversity is our unity” or “our diversity is our strength”.

In this regard, migrants from Islamic countries are especially useful, because belief in a global caliphate, and the conviction that it’s the Koran rather than the legislature that validates law, starts to make pluralist democracy unworkable.

 

To green-left, cultural-Marxist governments, mass migration from the “global south” is not a problem; it’s the plan. It’s the way for supposedly unjustly rich countries to atone for their white privilege and to apologise to poorer ones by becoming more like them.

Pointing this out is not to attack immigrants, nearly all of whom come to countries like Australia to join us, not to change us. But in enough numbers, change us they do, and not always for the better.

It’s Time To Stop Pretending That Migrants Are Entitled To Equal Citizenship. By Brendon Smith at Alt-Markets.

Yet another civil conflict is brewing this week as the Supreme Court tackles a number of foreign citizenship debates, including Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and Birthright Citizenship. The court has ruled that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants residing in the US under TPS are no longer safe from mass deportations (a win). But, they have also ruled in favor of migrant anchor babies (a big loss). …

 

🚨 WOW! Justice Alito is absolutely FUMING over SCOTUS giving the green light to birthright citizenship

“In my judgment, the court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”

“Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born… pic.twitter.com/QiPRBLj7hB

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 30, 2026

 

I find it mind boggling that this debate has been ongoing for so many decades. Frankly, foreigners should not have any citizenship rights under the constitution until they have demonstrated assimilation. Until that time, there should be a separate set of rules handling newcomers (and invaders).

When it comes to TPS and the Haitians, the leftists are raging. Despite this status supposedly being “temporary” (the Obama Administration originally claimed these people would only be in the US for 18 months), many of these foreign transplants have been enjoying the benefits of unearned American citizenship for 16 years or more. Yet, when Haitians protest the TPS decision, what flag do you see them flying? That’s right – They fly the Haitian flag, not the American flag. This tells us everything we need to know.

Moderate left:

The liberal position on this issue is crystal clear: They believe that the constitution protects foreign migrants and their cultures from overt scrutiny. Meaning, foreigners don’t have to prove themselves worthy of citizenship, they get access regardless. Liberals also believe that it should be extremely difficult to remove migrants once they enter the country.

Keep in mind, this is the LIBERAL position. The woke position is far worse.

Woke:

The radical left argues that western borders should not exist at all. For other countries, borders are fine. For the US and Europe, borders must be erased. Furthermore, they assert that the American economy must be treated as an open marketplace rather than a closed system. In other words, foreigners should be allowed to feed on the system whenever they please, transfer that wealth back to their third world hovels, and then come back for more.

Melting pot myth:

The “empathetic” liberal position creates the foundation for the militant woke position. It’s rooted in a propaganda narrative created in the early 20th century: The claim that America’s entire identity is a “melting pot” of cultures and nationalities and that there is no original source identity. This false origin story was produced by New York socialists and it’s been spread by Hollywood for decades. …

The melting pot is not our identity and never was. Historically speaking, America has always had a guarded relationship to immigration and we operated on “origin-based rules”. Meaning, Europeans from the north and west were welcomed, everyone else was limited. There was nothing wrong with this model.

America’s source identity is western civilization and European influence. There is no cultural melting pot.

 

 

The notion that the US is somehow legally required to accept everyone from everywhere regardless of their beliefs or background was not a thing until after the liberal era of the 1960s – 1990s. Until this time period, America had numerous regulations on who was allowed in. After the 1990s, the melting pot ideal became sacrosanct, as if it had always been a part of our constitutional legacy.

George Washington instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to people mostly from European nations. John Adams instituted the Alien Friends Act 1798 which allowed the quick deportation of migrants found to be initiating civil disruption and sedition. He also enforced an extended probation period of 14 years before any migrant gained citizenship rights (instead of the original five year period). …

Teddy Roosevelt enforced the Immigrant Act of 1907, which banned the citizenship of any foreigners from cultures that practiced polygamy (which included Muslims) and focused on migration among groups that could easily assimilate into American society. Once again, this is perfectly acceptable and rational. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing logical standards.

Some groups are too dangerous:

Even in a republic, there are certain groups who cannot be allowed to exist because they represent a clear and present danger to the very framework that our country is built on. They are at war with our culture. To give citizenship to the barbarians at the gate is suicide.

By extension, one could argue that Muslim ideology is much like communism in that Muslims have a tendency to seek dominance and authoritarianism rather than integration. Their presence in the US is an obvious threat to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we may have to make exceptions for them, just as we made exceptions for communism (globalism is also another important target for removal). …

As we’ve witnessed over the past decade, some groups tend to sabotage everything they touch. They don’t view American life as a privilege, they see it as something that can be pillaged, and liberal movements are enabling this behavior. …

If the government isn’t allowed to remove these threats, then make no mistake, the American people will eventually do it themselves. The film “Citizen Vigilante” is not fiction, it’s a warning. It’s wildly popular for a reason.

Every Single Haitian Migrant is Going Back to Haiti Under Trump. By Steve Watson at modernity.

White House Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller delivered a clear and forceful message: every Haitian national on Temporary Protected Status [TPS] will be returned to Haiti under President Trump. …

Miller called the deliberate importation of these migrants into places like Springfield, Ohio, one of the most heinous acts the government has ever committed.

Miller laid it out without hedging:

“There’s an earthquake in Haiti. So she’s (Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano) announcing TPS for a few months while they’re recovering from an earthquake. That was in 2010, 15 years ago. Then the Biden administration in its last year extends TPS to every single illegal alien from Haiti while they are flying them en masse into Springfield, Ohio, across the Midwest.”

He continued, “It was a formal policy of replacing the communities that lived in, settled, and sustained these communities for generations. It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.”

“And yes, under President Trump, let me be very clear, the illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there,” Miller further urged.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026, that the Trump administration has full authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from specific countries, effectively allowing the President to undo these protections without judicial oversight.

This directly follows the Trump administration’s earlier termination of TPS protections for 353,000 Haitians, with those designations set to expire. …

Springfield became the most visible example of the fallout. Local residents watched as federal policies funneled large numbers of Haitian migrants into their city, straining housing, schools, and public resources.

Americans reported being priced out of apartments while migrants received housing assistance. Parks saw geese and other wildlife targeted

Haitian immigration was an issue in the 2024 election:

Haitian in Springfield caught town ducks to eat

Cat on the bbq — multicultural cusine!

In 2025, net US immigration was negative for the first time ever.

Putin Seeks Ways To Describe Failure In Ukraine. By StrategyPage.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin is trying to explain to the Russian people that Russia has lost its war against Ukraine. …

Putin’s main aim is to avoid exposing the Russian people to the sudden shock of defeat after more than four years of fighting and all the media coverage that followed. Sudden shocks tend to spark popular revolutions. Putin wants the news of the Russian defeat to arrive slowly and smoothly to avoid any sudden realizations that Putin’s war failed and all the losses were for nothing.

Putin is trying to rewrite history as it is being made. … The current defeat generated articles like Amazing Defeats: When Geopolitical Losses Can Be More Useful than Brilliant Victories. …

Russian government media officials counseled that in Russia defeats are quickly forgotten and are often followed by a period of reforms and revitalization of the economy, government and military. As the old saying goes, what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. …

Will the Russian make another attempt at conquering Ukraine?

Ukrainians are uneasy about all this because the primary use of a reformed, rebuilt and revitalized Russian military would be the conquest of Ukraine….

Everyone understands that what follows the Russian defeat is a period of rebuilding the military before another attempt to conquer Ukraine. As long as Putin is alive, he will be seeking a military victory, preferably against his arch-nemesis, Ukraine.

Europe chose left bureaucracy, and is now being crushed by the US. By Michael Arouet.

The biggest economic story of the last decade isn’t China.

It’s America decoupling from Europe.

Innovation follows the free market. Talent follows innovation.

Europe will get economically irrelevant, not because the U.S. abandoned it, but because it follows the wrong policies. …

Europe chose regulations, overtaxation, and left redistribution, while the US chose free market, entrepreneurialism, innovation and progress.

With AI the gap will keep growing.

 

And what is the European response to all that? They blame capitalism and scream “tax the rich.”

It will end in disaster for Europe. They will lose the prosperity their fathers and grandparents worked so hard for.

The only people in Europe who want degrowth are those who have never worked in a real job or run a business and assume that “the state” will keep feeding them, not the hard-working taxpayers.

Alluha Akbar, comrades! Less carbon dioxide and more 3rd world immigration!