What the Data Actually Shows About the Pfizer COVID Injections

What the Data Actually Shows About the Pfizer COVID Injections. By World Council for Health.

Exhibit A:

Okoro, Ikoba, and colleagues … simply compared COVID-19 deaths in the pre-vaccine period against the vaccination period — using the WHO’s own data ..”:

  • Africa: 43.3% increase in COVID deaths with vaccination
  • Eastern Mediterranean: 350.9% increase
  • South-East Asia: 403.7% increase
  • Europe: 496.5% increase
  • Americas: 705.9% increase
  • Western Pacific: 1,275.0% increase …

The Western Pacific region —Australia, Japan, South Korea, countries with advanced healthcare systems and very high vaccination uptake — saw COVID deaths multiply by nearly 13-fold after the vaccines were deployed.

The study’s authors call this finding “paradoxical,” which is polite academic-speak for “the exact opposite of what we were promised.”

The regions with the lowest vaccination rates — Africa at 3.8% of global cumulative deaths pre-vaccines, the Western Pacific at 1.5%— were essentially untouched by COVID mortality before the shots arrived. Meanwhile, the Americas and Europe, with their aggressive vaccination campaigns, accounted for over 70% of global COVID deaths despite their high vaccination coverage. …

Exhibit B:

Denis Rancourt, a former physics professor at the University of Ottawa, has produced what is arguably the most comprehensive excess mortality analysis of the COVID period. His team’s 2024 paper examined all-cause mortality in 125 countries across six continents — roughly 35% of the global population — with weekly or monthly resolution spanning years before and during the declared pandemic. …

Using temporal association between vaccine rollouts and mortality spikes across 78 countries with sufficient data, Rancourt’s team calculated a vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) and projected approximately 16.9 million COVID-19 vaccine-associated deaths globally through the end of 2022.

In a separate Southern Hemisphere study of 17 countries, Rancourt et al. (2023) found an all-ages vDFR of approximately 0.126%. [Influenza is about 0.1%] This implies roughly 17 million vaccine deaths from 13.5 billion injections — and critically, no evidence in any country of the vaccine rollouts being associated with a reduction in excess all-cause mortality.

The core finding across all of Rancourt’s work is devastating in its simplicity: the spatiotemporal pattern of excess mortality is incompatible with a spreading viral contagion as the primary cause of death. Nine of the 17 Southern Hemisphere countries studied showed no detectable excess mortality during the first year of the declared pandemic — until the vaccines were rolled out. Then the death spikes began. …

Exhibit C:

Christine Cotton spent 25 years running clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry as founder and director of the contract research organization Statitec. She knew exactly what a properly conducted trial looks like — and what Pfizer’s C4591001 trial actually showed. …

Across every interim analysis — adults, teens 12–15, children 5–11, toddlers — there was never statistically significant efficacy [of the Pfizer vaccine] against severe COVID-19. The adult study showed one severe case in the vaccine group versus three in the placebo group. The claimed “66% efficacy against severe disease” was statistically indistinguishable from random chance.

After six months of follow-up, there was —supposedly— one COVID death in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group. Statistically meaningless. And this was using Pfizer’s reported death numbers.

Cotton documented that Pfizer used two different manufacturing processes — Process 1 for the clinical trial product, Process 2 for the commercial product distributed to the public. The vaccine that went into hundreds of millions of arms was not the same product that generated the (already dubious) 95% efficacy number. As she testified in her final post on X: “You were administered a product for which there were absolutely no results, neither of efficacy nor of tolerance.” …

Hospitals killed:

A staggering proportion of COVID deaths occurred in hospitals — and the treatment protocols deployed in those hospitals were catastrophic. …

Mechanical ventilation was deployed aggressively despite mounting evidence of harm. The standard protocol called for early intubation, but the mortality rate for ventilated COVID patients was abysmal. … Ventilators were blowing out already-damaged lungs.

Denial of early treatment was official policy. The mantra was: “there’s no treatment, go home and come back when you can’t breathe.” By the time patients returned, they were in cytokine storm — exactly when aggressive interventions become least effective and most dangerous. Ivermectin, which has a well-established safety profile over decades of use and showed strong signals of efficacy in multiple studies, was actively suppressed. HCQ was demonized. The message was: wait until you’re crashing, then we’ll intubate you.

Remdesivir was pushed as standard of care despite the WHO SOLIDARITY trial showing no mortality benefit. It’s an IV antiviral that costs thousands per course — and it didn’t save lives. …

Biggest medical scandal ever, media mum:

The scale is staggering. Rancourt’s estimate of ~17 million vaccine-associated deaths makes this the largest iatrogenic [healthcare induced] event in human history.

The Okoro study showing COVID deaths increasing up to 1,275% after vaccination —in direct proportion to vaccination coverage— should have ended the debate. The Michels et al. forensic analysis showing the significant underreporting of deaths, and a 3.7-fold cardiovascular death signal Pfizer never disclosed, should have triggered criminal investigations.

Instead, we got “safe and effective” repeated like a liturgical incantation while the bodies piled up.

The serious harm rate of the mRNA injections seems to be somewhere between one in 200 and one in 1,000. Credible studies put the death rate at about one in 800. High enough to be very serious and grounds for immediate withdrawal of the vaccines, yet low enough that it can be kind of hushed up if the establishment looks the other way and mumbles while withholding critical data.

All cause mortality from a huge range of maladies — including wide range of cancers, and Parkinson’s — increased significantly after the vaccines were administered, which is consistent with the vaccines damaging people’s immune systems. Who knows what harm was caused there.

Chaser:

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Today’s media lie about Pauline Hanson concerns domestic violence

Today’s media lie about Pauline Hanson concerns domestic violence. By One News.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson spent Wednesday being wrongly accused of victim blaming by Brittany Higgins, Finance Minister and Minister for Women Katy Gallagher and Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek, all over one answer in a wide ranging 4BC interview.

Hanson called domestic violence “wrong” the moment she was asked, called it “a scourge”, called it “absolutely wrong” when host Gary Hardgrave pressed her about men killing women, and told victims to leave because she once had to leave herself. And to no surprise, none of that survived into the coverage.

What did survive was this:

“It is wrong but it’s also a two way street. I’m not saying that it’s just men, women can lose their cool as well.”

And this:

“If these women are getting abused by men out there, then don’t put up with it. That’s what I am saying.”

Higgins, now executive director of the anti One Nation Vida Fund, and declared bankrupt three years after her $2.4 million Commonwealth payout [which was predicated on her never being abler to work in her profession again], said in a social media statement, as reported by Nine, that “normalising this victim blaming rhetoric in relation to domestic violence when 38 Australian women have already been lost to femicide is atrocious”….

This is the same Brittany Higgins a 360 page WA Supreme Court judgment found had made 26 false or misleading statements in media interviews, who apologised to Linda Reynolds and was bankrupted by the costs, and who’s now employed as the public face of a campaign built to stop Hanson’s party….

Barnaby Joyce:

The exchange didn’t come from nowhere. Hardgrave had just played Hanson a clip of Barnaby Joyce, who’d told 4BC’s Jason Matthews earlier that same morning that men should walk out of the house before they lose their temper and keep it together like James Bond, who is “loved in the cinemas because he keeps it all together”. Joyce copped his own backlash for that within hours. …

What Hanson said, and why:

Wednesday’s interviews put both halves on the table: Joyce told men to walk out and cool down, Hanson told victims not to put up with it and called for somewhere real to go. P…

Hanson didn’t lecture women from a safe distance. She told them what she did herself. …

Hanson speaks as a woman who fled a violent home. Gallagher and Plibersek spoke through ministerial media statements. Only one of those is lived experience. …

In her autobiography she wrote of a marriage that soured with the ill treatment of her sons and years of alcohol fuelled violence, and after her then husband put his fist through a wall she left, working low paid jobs to keep four children fed. …

In 2019 she secured a Senate inquiry into the family court system after telling the ABC that some litigants were “nothing but liars” who used violence orders to keep fathers from their children. Women’s groups warned the inquiry would become a platform for men’s rights activists. …

Her position then is her position now: the system exists to protect victims, both sexes can be victims, and both sexes can work the system. On Wednesday she added the part her critics keep cutting. It’s wrong, all of it.

The suppressed truth:

The line that drew the most fire was “I’m not saying that it’s just men”. It happens to be what the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports, across every kind of abuse it counts. For emotional abuse the figures are 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men. For economic abuse, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 13 men. Abuse doesn’t have to leave a bruise to wreck a life, and the institute counts the mental and financial kinds for exactly that reason.

“1 in 6 women and 1 in 18 men have experienced physical or sexual violence from a cohabiting partner since the age of 15.”

Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, national family, domestic and sexual violence summary, cohabiting partners since age 15. …

Of the 98 domestic homicide victims recorded in 2024 to 2025, 32 women and 14 men were killed by an intimate partner.

The same summary reports that 2 in 5 male victims of partner violence never sought advice or support afterwards. On Wednesday those men learned that a senator acknowledging their existence counts as a dangerous message.

None of this disputes that the violence is gendered. University of Technology Sydney associate professor Jane Wangmann told Nine that most domestic and family violence is perpetrated by men against women, and the AIHW tables agree. So did Hanson, on the tape, when Hardgrave put the death toll to her. Recognising male victims and condemning male violence aren’t competing positions.

Conclusion:

Step back from the pile on and look at the shape of it. A survivor said abuse runs in both directions and that victims should get out. For that, she was branded a victim blamer by a movement that claims to speak for victims, despite Hanson being a victim herself. The test was never what she said. It was who said it, and about whom.

Male victims fail the same eligibility test. They’re 1 in 7 of the emotionally abused and 14 of the year’s intimate partner homicide victims, and no minister issued a statement about the dangerous message their invisibility sends. Anyone who has lived near domestic violence knows it can run both ways inside the same house, verbal and mental as well as physical, long before anything reaches a police report. Saying that out loud isn’t victim blaming. It’s the precondition for protecting everyone involved.

The feminists and their media toadies will not admit that men can be victims of female violence. They suppress that information and agitate for more resources for women. Despite 80% of the victims of violence today being male (across all  categories, not just domestic violence, and noting that 90% of the perpetrators are male), it’s always “stop violence again women.” No bigotry there, eh?

Today’s developing class structure

Today’s developing class structure. By Charles Hugh Smith.

A compelling taxonomy of class in America:

How do different groups in today’s America get their income?

1. Investment class: income from investments (i.e. capital)

2. Salary class: income from a monthly salary with benefits

3. Wage class: income from an hourly wage with no benefits

4. Welfare class: income from welfare programs

Greer argues that the salary class is now the gravitational center of power in the U.S., absorbing much of the national income in unproductive faux-problem-solving for fabricated problems explicitly devised to justify generous salaries and benefits.

The nation can no longer afford this staggeringly costly unproductive work force and so “replacing cognitive work with AI” is the cover story for the mass evisceration of this class, in a parallel to the previous gutting of the factory work force by automation and offshoring. …

The modern class structure — keeping it real:

This is a neofeudal society passing itself off as a free-market democracy. Power is concentrated in the top state-private sector classes. No one below has any real power. Electing another leader or party changes nothing: life gets more difficult, insecure and expensive for commoners regardless of who’s in office. The Imperial project grinds on, regardless of the delusional hope that electing someone else will change anything. Everything else is an illusion of power, not real power.

Try switching the 37% tax rate on labor to capital gains and all income from capital, and see how far you get. …

The essence of neofeudalism is debt penury and wage-slave bondage to the owners of the debt, which is capital that generates income. Commoners have no agency because they have to work for corporations or the state to service their debt. They can’t change jobs because they’ll lose healthcare insurance, and so on. …

Stripped of PR gloss, the majority of workers have a false choice of servitude: they can serve their current oligarch / state agency / corporation, or they can toil in another noble’s domain. Six one way, half-dozen the other. …

America’s neofeudalism now depends on inflating an endless series of credit-asset bubbles that generate phantom wealth, financial claims that are easily inflated without actually creating any real value via increasing income streams by means other than inflation and monopoly extortion.

This has worked so well for so long that recency bias has kicked in and we now believe this is a well-oiled permanent mechanism we can rely on. Alas, credit-asset bubbles are inherently unstable and the current system-wide bet on AI being something that will actually generate value / massive new income streams is an all-in last-ditch bet. When this bubble pops, the conditions enabling a future bubble will no longer exist.

In other words, you have to own assets and get capital gains to get ahead financially, or have a very high salary.

Here is a chart of the income distribution from owning capital. Note that it follows a power-law distribution: the few collect the lion’s share of the income generated by capital. The vast majority don’t own any income-generating capital, and the top 20% are delighted by the steady rise in their phantom wealth as the bubble-du-jour inflates the nominal price of the assets they own, setting up the inevitable crash when tulip bulbs revert from “investments” to flowers.

 

All this is because money is created out of thin air to buy assets with debt. Participate in that system, and you accelerate away from everyone else financially. Fail to participate, and you become a wage or salary earner, or on welfare –a modern day serf. Naturally, the guys with all the assets and capital income make the rules.

Fix the money system. Restore sound money. Neofeudalism will fade away, people will be able to afford houses again, and fertility will recover.

And the parasitic bureaucratic class would wither away:

Much of the work Greer describes as unproductive is considered highly productive because our exploitation of hydrocarbons and technology has generated such a vast surplus that we could spend it on symbolic work — meetings about meetings, compliance reports, marketing plans, projections, consulting, and so on, work that despite claims to the contrary has little to do with harvesting grain, connecting pipelines, replacing transformers, making beds, performing surgery or any other real-world work.

Try telling the priesthood of the temple gods that their work is symbolic. Ours is the most valuable labor, as we’re the ones keeping the whole thing glued together. If we stop, the gods will be angered and all will fail. Indeed.

“The gods will be angry unless you do as we say” game is a very old one

The Odyssey is just as woke as you fear

The Odyssey is just as woke as you fear. By Matt Walsh.

Just saw The Odyssey. Despite what you may have heard, literally all of the criticisms by conservatives were entirely correct. The movie is just as woke as you fear, if not more so….

At no point in the story does Nolan ever transport the audience to the ancient world. You never feel like you’re 3,000 years in the past. You feel like you’re watching modern Americans put on a pageant, because you are. Nobody would be calling this thing a masterpiece if it was made by a director not named Christopher Nolan. …

The DEI casting is atrocious. Completely takes you out of the story right from the beginning.

Elliot Page (previously Ellen Page, trans, 5 feet 1 inch tall) plays the Greek soldier Sinon:

 

Then there’s Helen, whose beauty and capture motivated and triggered the whole invasion of Troy. In the story, she was rivetingly beautiful and white. Here she is played by Lupita Nyong’o:

 

But even worse than that is Nolan’s decision to turn Odysseus into an anachronistic whiney, solemn shell of a man plagued by “trauma” and guilt.

Reveso, by Matt Walsh:

If someone made a movie set in Africa and based on ancient African folklore, and then populated the cast with white people and other random races and ethnicities that have nothing to do with Africa, everyone would say that the casting is ridiculous and distracting at best (and I would agree).

Yet the same thing is done in the reverse to a foundational text of western civilization and even conservatives line up to defend it. It’s pathetic, honestly.

Globalist firepower and fakery, by Mr Obvious:

The Odyssey is FAKING ticket sales by buying up theaters/seats (Fraud) to make the movie look like a success (already $400 million in the hole). Moviegoers are reporting having to take terrible seats (because full) but when they show up the theaters are mostly empty.

Elon to the rescue!

Before this year ends, Grok Imagine will make a full-length movie of The Odyssey that is historically accurate and true to the art of Homer.

Grok Imagine made this dialog scene between Odysseus and Circe already:

Part of the Marxist cultural assault on Western Civilization. By Daniel Jupp.

When was the last time a major studio produced a big budget movie with a right-wing message? When were hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into a story that would actually reconnect people with their Western heritage and identity?

When was the last time you saw a movie or a TV show that told you how vital dads are and that families can exist that aren’t dysfunctional or comical or both?

Have you ever seen a MAGA movie? Or a serious film that might show leftist views as stupid?

A film about child sex trafficking was buried for a decade because they knew it contradicted supporting open borders. Citizen Vigilante had no big backing and no big budget and was immediately trashed by every media outlet there is.

We can’t pump half a billion dollars just into destroying and desecrating one text that matters to them. We can’t pump a billion dollars into doing the same with one other text. But that’s what they have done with Odyssey and Rings of Power.

They have the billions to lose on an act of vandalism.

And they have so many billions behind it that they can guarantee it’s considered a huge success. Give any movie the level of coverage and the level of gaslighting Odyssey has had (or Oppenheimer had, or Barbie) and it will be huge.

Now try getting something truthful on grooming gangs into the cinema or on a TV screen, or something depicting McCarthy as a hero or Enoch Powell as a hero. Try getting a rightwing version stuffed full of rightwing messages done from Roots or The Colour Purple.

Try for a film that depicts Mohammed honestly and accurately or maybe an epic on Barbary Muslim pirates taking American white slaves. Is that getting a 250 million dollar budget and 250 million dollars in promotion?

When are you ever going to see Hollywood stars stand up and say at the Oscars that too many whites are dying and the hate has to stop? With a film on that winning Oscars? …

The films are like everything else: their propaganda and their power and their money, which massively exceeds ours.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Bondi, Islamic terror, Jews leaving … and the Albanese Government gives out $66m to combat Islamophobia

Bondi, Islamic terror, Jews leaving … and the Albanese Government gives out $66m to combat Islamophobia. By Alexandra Marshall.

The Australian government is committing $66 million to combat Islamophobia, announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on July 18, 2026.

It remains utterly bewildering to the vast majority of Australians that the Labor government’s response to an Islamic terror attack at Bondi Beach has involved curtailing free speech and throwing millions at combatting so-called Islamophobia. …

 

66 million dollar man!?

 

The world’s most dangerous and active terror groups are all religiously motivated and rooted in Islam. That is an indisputable fact. To water-down terror laws in denial of this is, to my mind, unhelpful in properly identifying the danger.

Australia is right to be angry about the arrival of not only Islamic terror, but intimidation from Islamic groups that champion the cause of foreign terror-led regimes or show open support for their leaders.

This has broken the social cohesion and civil peace Australia used to enjoy only a few short decades ago.

Islamic terror, even when perpetrated by Australian-born individuals, is a foreign ideology that began elsewhere. …

The problem, clearly, has nothing to do with Australian society and everything to do with a violent, religiously-based ideology that promotes violence and savagery as a means to spread its political influence. Which is why we call it terrorism.

Allahu Akbar!

Those who kill in the name of Islamic terror do so while professing devotion to god. “[Our] God is the greatest!” are often the last words these terrorist say. This form of terrorism is, without question, religiously motivated and deeply bigoted in its view of non-believers.

Not us, mate:

There was nothing that Australians did or said to provoke these terrorist attacks.

Australians are the victims of Islamic terror. …

Woke rulers:

Why is it, the taxpayer wonders, are we throwing tens of millions toward Islamophobia instead of dismantling Islamic extremism?

Surely, if Sydney did not have groups of people marching aggressively down the street holding signs that read Behead the infidel! and Globalise the intifada! people wouldn’t be so frightened? …

Somewhere along the line, social cohesion has been used as an excuse to shield an examination and expulsion of Islamic terror from Australian society.

You broke it, so you fix it:

Our streets used to be safe. It is the government’s job to make them safe again without infringing on the rights of Australians or victimising Western Civilisation.

More:

I want my home back … the one that I was born into.

I want the innocent, carefree, safe Australia.

The Australia where Aussie kids could play on the beach without intimidation and women could walk through any suburb without feeling afraid.

The Australia that made no apologies for loving its Christian festivals and honouring its history. The Australia that had its own voice, soul, language, and culture. The Australia that anyone could point to and recognise.

The government has turned Australians into tourists in their own cities and villains of their own story.

Ladybugfunk:

Australia started to go downhill around 40 or so years ago when the Muslims started moving here and building their mosques. If I’m honest, I was afraid of them in Sydney as a young woman 30 years ago. I was called a slut and chased down the street by guys in a big ford truck. The more of them that there are, the worse their behaviour.

And stop gaslighting us:

Can you believe that some of Australia’s highest paid bureaucrats are trying to tell us that Islamic terror has nothing to do with religion? …

This is like asking us to believe that people can change gender or the world’s going to end in 10 years if we don’t raise taxes on carbon.

An oldie but a goodie:

Starmer out, Burnham in, and Britain crosses the threshold of doom

Starmer out, Burnham in, and Britain crosses the threshold of doom. By Tom Slater in spiked.

Andy Burnheam took over from Keir Starmer as UK PM yesterday.

Time was, PMs were ousted mid-term over crises, over defining political questions, over something of consequence. This time around we seem to have something more akin to a summer makeover – a Paul Smith glow-up of a Labour Party totally out of ideas. …

Where the old guy failed:

[Starmer was a] creature of the liberal-left, cosmopolitan, eco-obsessed state reigning over a people smarting from broken borders, sky-high energy bills and a not-so-sneaking suspicion that the elites regard them as scum. A nation looking for inspiration and leadership lumbered with a man who would struggle to gin up a biddable scout group.

It was never going to end well. Starmer proved himself psychologically incapable of doing what is necessary to set Britain on a more prosperous, self-confident path. For doing so would mean dispensing with Net Zero, mass immigration, international ‘human rights’ law — the panoply of failed orthodoxies from which our political classes continue to draw their phoney moral superiority. …

Who’s the new guy?

He is an unthinking adherent of the real ruling-class ideology of our time — the Third Way worship of technocracy over democracy, multiculturalism over nationhood, and environmental piety over economic growth.

The contradiction is glaring. Burnham is simultaneously posing as a steady pair of hands and a decisive break with how politics has been done since the 1980s. When he spoke outside No10, he had one eye on the markets, jittery at any perceived ‘lurch to the left’, and another on his backbench MPs, for whom virtue-signalling and infinity welfare is now the closest thing they have to an ideology.

Old boss, same as the new boss.

And now for the important news, broken (at least to us — have you heard this elsewhere?) by a pair of comedians (via Vigilant Fox):

Bill Maher tells British comedian Jack Whitehall that England now spends more on welfare than it collects in income tax.

£333,000,000,000 out. £331,000,000,000 in.

MAHER: “England just got way too woke on a bunch of crazy shit... They passed a milestone where the amount of money they’re giving out in welfare is, for the first time, more than what they take in in taxes.”

[Whitehall’s eyebrows shoot up]

MAHER: “Every third eligible-to-work man is not working. They’re ‘on disability.’ And some people really are… but NOT THAT MANY.”

The real war is fought in the culture

The real war is fought in the culture. By Devon Erikson.

Fighting Marxism with superpacs, NGOs, and social media is a great way to lose slowly.

Why? Because the real war is upstream. The real war is fought in the culture.

People show up to politics, show up to the voting booth, show up to social media, with their opinions already formed by the shows they grew up watching, and the books they grew up reading.

The culture war for the mind of young Elon Musk was not won by a hundred million dollar superpac — it was won by a twelve-dollar Heinlein novel.

Because of that victory, the tech right understands the value of rockets. But it has yet to fully grasp the value of Heinleins.

Lost that culture, now lose the war:

Big Tech stood by silently while the “Big Five” Manhattan-based publishing industry withered on the vine and its corpse was skinsuited by marxists.

And now, decades later, they are trying to build AI and go to space, while scratching their heads wondering why no one outside El Segundo and the Bay Area seems to understand their vision of the future, and just wants to steal all their stuff to pay for more Pepsi and Doritos. …

How the left won, using your money:

If a right-wing author has to self-publish, pay for his own cover artist, and market his own novels, while some lefty MFA from Bryn Mawr can pen a novel about having a lesbian affair with her professor’s wife, and get a six figure “fellowship” for selling a few copies, and I wish I was making that up, then what this means is that left wing art is effectively free, or negative cost, to make.

Currently, the culture war is being fought on behalf of the right by broke middle class writers and artists, who have to fund themselves, bootstrap style, while their enemies own all the institutions and distribution networks.

It doesn’t matter how poor your enemies’ tactics are, if your soldiers have to buy their own uniforms and rifles.

You must help:

When they lose, and they will unless the Tech Right starts helping, then the Marxists are going to throw you in prison and take all your shit.

Don’t want that to happen?

Fine. Then you have to actually become a conservative, instead of just playing one on social media because you don’t wanna pay more taxes. You have to actually believe in the cause and contribute to the fight. And it starts with art, culture, and stories.

The media and Labor lied about Malcolm Roberts

The media and Labor lied about Malcolm Roberts. By One News.

Malcolm Roberts spent 89 minutes telling his own supporters that there is no evidence of chemtrails in Australia, and that chasing them is a distraction. The Australian quoted from that video on Wednesday and told its readers the One Nation senator had “embraced the chemtrails conspiracy theory.”

Chemtrails is the belief that the white trails behind aircraft are chemicals sprayed deliberately on the population rather than ordinary condensation. Roberts does not hold it. He says so repeatedly across the video, to an audience that did not want to hear it, and he published the full transcript on his own website. On the strength of the coverage, the Prime Minister has since said his views make him unfit to sit in the Senate.

The video was never hidden. Roberts posted it to his own YouTube channel on 10 July 2025 …

The conversation:

[Roberts] down with a former Qantas captain, Graham Hood … Across a career at the controls of those jets there was no switch in the cockpit to release chemicals, and no tank fitted anywhere on board to hold them. It is an eyewitness account from a man who would have had to be one of the people doing it. …

Here is what Roberts said in the interview:

“So many people ridicule the notion of chemtrails in Australia,” he said. “I don’t ridicule the idea. I’m open to there being chemtrails in Australia.

“I have never denied it.

“I won’t say there are chemtrails in Australia because I haven’t seen evidence for it. So, I won’t say there are any. I won’t say there are some. But I just don’t know.

“And I think it’s likely, highly likely, that the USA military are doing trials on these things.”

To aid his argument, Senator Roberts asserted that the US military has a history of conducting “inhuman experiments with drugs and chemicals” that had “killed army people and army soldiers in America”.

When Jack Quail in The Australian quoted Roberts, he omitted the part in red above, where Roberts denied chemtrails but couldn’t rule them out because he didn’t know for sure (obviously, no one does). Without the bit in red, Roberts sounds like a man edging toward the a crazy fringe theory — which fits in with the picture of Roberts and One Nation that The Australian has been painting in the last few weeks.

The impression given by The Australian’s article — without ever quite saying so directly — is that Roberts believes “a debunked conspiracy theory which posits that deadly toxins are being released into the atmosphere as part of a secret global depopulation plan.” But no, Roberts was debunking the theory for his followers.

Four sentences are missing from the published version, and they do not sit just anywhere. They sit precisely between “I have never denied it” and “And I think it’s likely, highly likely.” They are the four sentences in which the senator says he has not seen evidence, will not claim it either way, and does not know.

The paper ran the two halves as consecutive paragraphs, with no ellipsis and no other mark to show that anything had been taken out between them. What was taken out was the part where he says he cannot support the claim.

And here is his own summary, from later in the same recording:

“There’s no evidence to support chemtrails in Australia. My office and I cannot find any evidence of chemtrails or geoengineering in our country.”

The rest of the video is Roberts pulling apart the “evidence” his own supporters send him. He calls the popular chemtrails film The Dimming “just crap.” …

Watch the video and you come away thinking Roberts talked people out of chemtrails. Read the headline and you would think he had signed up to them.

The establishment lies constantly about climate skeptics. Among the lies told about me, the ABC came to our house and interviewed Joanne and me for a program in 2013 called “I can change your mind“. We took the precaution of filming them interviewing us. Sure enough, they broadcast deceptive propaganda. They had me saying a sentence that they constructed from two different things in the interview, an hour apart, spliced together — to make me appear to say something stupid that I disagree with and never said. All caught on camera. Which we posted on the web, along with a full explanation of the context, here.

How Pauline Hanson fills the gap in our political landscape

How Pauline Hanson fills the gap in our political landscape. By Nick Cater in The Australian.

One Nation may one day eclipse the Liberal-National Coalition as the principal force on the centre right but it will never form government while Hanson remains its leader.

Not while its internal structure remains nebulous and immature and the mechanism for the leader’s removal is entirely in her own hands. Not when the party’s future as a parliamentary force lies in the hands of inexperienced MPs and senators. …

The gaping political hole for leaders to ride the populist wave of those who oppose the globalist ruling class — principally mass immigration and decarbonization:

The populist wave overturning business-as-usual politics around the world is driven by demand, not supply. A gaping hole has opened up in the centre of the political landscape which, this being a democracy, would sooner or later be occupied.

Hanson’s One Nation didn’t create this space, nor did it appear to be the natural candidate to fill it after the last election, when it emerged with a primary vote of 6 per cent.

Yet One Nation has scooped up the none-of-the-above votes scattered like confetti in 2025 and pushed the boundaries still further by becoming the home for a substantial subsection of the disgruntled Liberal base as well as the working-class voters Anthony Albanese has shaken off as Labor reinvents itself as the party of the technocratic elite. …

Passions:

For Hanson’s accidental army, One Nation is as much an emotional home as a serious political choice. A survey of the comments on any article in The Australian remotely critical of One Nation (including most probably this one) reveals how passionately supportive they are. Former Liberal voters who switch allegiance to One Nation are not simply changing their votes. They are changing tribes. Their internal narrative changes from “I support the Liberal Party” to “I’m one of the people who finally woke up”. …

It’s global:

In his 2022 book Values, Voice and Virtue, British political scientist Matthew Goodwin makes a strong case that the exposure of this fault line in Britain predates the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. The speed of Farage’s ascendancy, like the sudden rise of populist movements in other European democracies, owes less to his political attributes than the gap in the market for a movement that respects the view of the non-graduate majority.

Reform was the result rather than the cause of the populist mood, fuelled by resentment over the pursuit of pet projects such as multiculturalism and the mitigation of climate change that diverted government attention from the everyday problems of working families, small businesses and retirees.

In Britain, the populist revolt manifested itself most clearly in the Brexit vote. In Australia it was the Voice referendum. In both countries the established conservative parties seemed at first to be on the right side of the argument. Peter Dutton’s Liberal Party appeared to gain ground, just as the Conservatives did in Boris Johnson’s landslide election win in 2019. In both cases, the alignment with anti-establishment voters was short-lived. Neither Johnson nor Dutton could overcome the tensions in their own party.

In both cases, and the US too, the long-standing right-wing party was tainted by its past adoption of the globalist policies on mass immigration, DEI, and carbon. Hence the “uniparty” charge. Can we trust the main right-wing party to change its ways, or is it better to elect a new but less capable populist party? Why do we have to choose between talent or the right policies delivered with conviction? Can’t we have both?

‘Pauline Hanson does not support White Australia,’ says Barnaby Joyce

‘Pauline Hanson does not support White Australia,’ says Barnaby Joyce. By Thomas Henry in The Australian.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has said Australia risks creating its own “Tommy Robinson” if there is no crackdown on immigration policy …

“Pauline Hanson does not support the White Australia policy. She supports the assimilation and the Australian culture in such a form as we have the egalitarian peacefulness that we all want,” Mr Joyce told Sky News. …

“There’s friction and division in England that we don’t want in Australia. There quite obviously is, from the optics of what we saw, sections of England that no longer look like England and start to look a lot like Bangladesh or Pakistan,” he said. …

Mr Joyce also claimed that Seven’s Spotlight program had pushed Senator Hanson to sit down with Robinson for an interview because it would “make good television”.

It is moderately clear that Pauline Hanson is demanding cultural whiteness, not ethnic whiteness. She has said umpteen times in public that skin color is not the issue. She and Tommy Robinson are criticizing the lack of assimilation that is required to produce culturally white citizens. The monoculture she yearns for is cultural whiteness.

See Cultural whiteness versus ethnic whiteness.

The left, of course, only want to talk about skin color and cuisine — interpreting her inarticulate comments as racism. The left studiously avoids the distinction between cultural and ethnic whiteness, which is dishonest of them.

Any ideology that seeks to reorganize morality on an a priori basis ends up with gulags

Any ideology that seeks to reorganize morality on an a priori basis ends up with gulags. By Tom Wolfe, via Ed Driscoll at PJ Media.

The publication of The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, however, was a wholly unexpected blow [to the academic left]. No one was ready for the obscene horror and grotesque scale of what Solzhenitsyn called “Our Sewage Disposal System” — in which tens of millions were shipped in boxcars to con­centration camps all over the country, in which tens of millions died, in which entire races and national groups were liquidated, insofar as they had existed in the Soviet Union.

Moreover, said Solzhenitsyn, the system had not begun with Stalin but with Lenin, who had im­mediately exterminated non-Bolshevik opponents of the old regime and especially the student factions. It was impossible any longer to distinguish the Communist liquidation apparatus from the Nazi.

 

 

Yet Solzhenitsyn went still further. He said that not only Stalinism, not only Leninism, not only Communism — but socialism itself led to the concentration camps; and not only socialism, but Marxism; and not only Marxism but any ideology that sought to reorganize morality on an a priori basis [and that includes identity politics].

Sadder still, it was impossible to say that Soviet socialism was not “real socialism.” On the contrary — it was socialism done by experts! …

They didn’t want to know:

Solzhenitsyn’s tour of the United States in 1975 was like an enormous funeral procession that no one wanted to see. The White House wanted no part of him. The New York Times sought to bury his two major’ speeches, and only the moral pressure of a lone Times writer, Hilton, Kramer, brought them any appreciable coverage at all. The major tele­vision networks declined to run the Solzhenitsyn interview that created such a stir in England earlier this year (it ran on some of the educa­tional channels).

And the literary world in general ignored him completely. In the huge unseen coffin that Solzhenitsyn towed behind him were not only the souls of the zeks who died in the Archipelago. No, the heartless bastard had also chucked in one of the last great visions: the intellec­tual as the Stainless Steel Socialist glistening against the bone heap of capitalism in its final, brutal, fascist phase. There was a bone heap, all right, and it was grisly beyond belief, but socialism, had created it.

Since then, another generation of would-be rulers has grown up, enticing voters with visions of an equitable paradise — where, ahem, they just happen to be in charge. “Socialism done right” this time, they say.

Cancellation and censorship is how it starts, comrades. Any system that relies on them inevitably hardens into maxx-repression, because people don’t like it and if given a choice would have different leaders — hence the repression.

Questioning election integrity is out of bounds, even for the President of the USA

Questioning election integrity is out of bounds, even for the President of the USA. By Scott Pinsker at PJ Media.

Trump gave a major speech about election fraud in the US last week, but the major media refused to cover it — including Fox News.

“Not even Trump’s ‘flunkies’ at Fox News believe this nonsense! The president is lying again!” …

The left-wing media is pushing this interpretation because it directly undermines President Trump’s argument and credibility …

It was a clever way to score political points. But the truth, alas, is even darker and more disturbing.

About two years ago, I pitched a cybersecurity expert to a prominent Fox News producer. S/he is someone I’ve worked with since Barack Obama’s first term. (For obvious reasons, I don’t want to reveal his/her name, but he/she produces one of FNC’s most high-profile Monday through Friday TV shows.)

The topic I pitched was cyber vulnerabilities in U.S. voting machines.

The producer [at Fox] sent me a one-sentence reply: “I like it — but we don’t touch election fraud in any capacity.”

Nothing else needed to be said. Unless you’re a total moron (or CNN’s “chief media analyst”), you could read between the lines: One of the long-term consequences of Fox News settling its lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million is that FNC programming will avoid discussing voter fraud.

The topic appears to be forbidden. Fox News shuns it like the plague. …

[Fox New] will bend over backwards to avoid discussing voter fraud — especially cyber vulnerabilities — even after the president of the United States went on national TV and accused our #1 geopolitical rival of interfering in American elections.

This matters, because today’s political wars are fought with media assets. The mainstream news/entertainment media, celebrity culture, and the TV networks shield the Democrats. Republicans rely on conservative media, talk-radio, Trump’s bully pulpit, and podcasts/social media.

But the biggest, most influential conservative media outlet in America, by a yuuuge margin, is still Fox News. If [Fox News] doesn’t have a free hand to fight back, Republicans have lost an important PR asset.

Fox News cannot rally public opinion on this issue; apparently, it’s been censored and defanged.

You can criticize their theory of global warming, or mass immigration from the third world and its consequences, but criticizing election integrity is out of bounds. The ruling class defend that really tightly, because it’s the source of their power — and in so many cases, essential to their incomes.

Some say that the left vote in the US is only around 40%, and they make up the rest by cheating. Impossible to know, because the left changed the various US state election systems so that they are impossible to audit, and they refuse to allow ID checks. Funny that.

To learn who they rule over you, simply find out what you are not allowed to criticize.

Islamization of the West is a ruling class choice to get the cheapest labor now, regardless of the huge cost later

Islamization of the West is a ruling class choice to get the cheapest labor now, regardless of the huge cost later. By Cynical Publius at American Greatness.

Now comes the part where my recent trip to England enlightened me as to what is really happening: in my week in England, every single person that I met who was acting in a low-wage, employee/service capacity (waiters, hotel staff, shop workers, airport staff, etc.) was a South Asian immigrant, all with a weak command of English or, at best, a first-generation South Asian immigrant. (By “South Asian” I mostly mean from Pakistan or Bangladesh; I’m not including Indians here because, by and large, Indians are rather economically successful in modern English society.)

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Without exception. (I thought I found an Englishman in a service capacity on a cab ride, but he owned his own cab and ran his own tourism business.)

This realization caused me to drill down on the economics of recent South Asian immigrants versus native middle- and lower-class Englishmen. What I discovered is that recent South Asian immigrants are substantially poorer on average than white, working-class Englishmen.

One more thing — as I saw Canary Wharf and the stunning, multimillion-dollar town homes crowding the Thames, I realized that the posh, hereditary upper class still thrives in England. That was the second piece of the puzzle for me. In a nation with stagnated industry and a per capita GDP less than America’s least prosperous state, that upper-class wealth was coming from somewhere.

It’s a matter of the cost of the cheapest labor — they are haggling about the price, and wrecking their country in so doing:

My conclusion? England NEEDS (and has always needed) a class-based system for the aristocracy to thrive, and native Englishmen had become too expensive a fit for that system, so a low-income lower class needed to be imported.

The problem? Approximately 92% of all recent South Asian immigrants are Muslim and from Islamic countries that treat women as chattel property, govern by Shariah law, believe in forced conversion of infidels at the point of the sword, and where perversions such as bacha bazi are culturally accepted.

In a nation that celebrates women’s rights, pork-based culinary treats such as bangers and mash, a national Christian religion, and is the birthplace of so many cherished Western values of personal liberty and autonomy, Islam is simply incompatible. Which would be fine, I suppose, if the English Islamic community were a small minority in a small corner of the nation. Instead, it has taken over much governance, and birth rate demographics have become England’s fatal destiny.

Islamization is an upper class choice, of where to get the cheapest labor in the short term (but boy will their descendants pay for it later):

At this point, you may be asking, “What’s your special insight here, author? We all know about Islamification in England.” My insight is this: my travels taught me that Islamification is not a purposeful, guilt-based cultural suicide so much as it is a rational aristocratic economic choice to perpetuate a class-based system without regard for the massively negative cultural and social changes that ensue.

Maybe you already knew that, but it was a revelation to me, and when you come to this realization, so much else makes sense.

Ignoring the rape gangs? That is to preserve the new aristocratic economic order.

Shutting down free speech by Englishmen? That is to preserve the new aristocratic economic order.

Stifling English patriotism? That is to preserve the new aristocratic economic order.

Allowing large segments of Islamic immigrant society to live on “benefits“? That is to preserve the new aristocratic economic order.

There is a message here for America: import cheap labor from cultures that oppose the American concepts of freedom and liberty at our own peril; short-term economic gain can and does result in long-term social and cultural destruction.

Same message for Australia.

It”s not as if the globalist ruling class does not know the problem with Islamization. Here are official stats from the UK:

Our ruling class is giving away Western countries that are not theirs to give, in order that they can have cheaper servants in their lifetimes. Delightful. Not that they would ever put it like that of course, or admit to it, but that’s what it amounts to.