Albanese’s tax changes make the wealthiest tenants better off while making the poorer ones worse off

Albanese’s tax changes make the wealthiest tenants better off while making the poorer ones worse off. By Henry Ergas in The Australian.

Faulty lefty argument:

Saul Eslake’s recent article in The Guardian welcoming Labor’s proposed tax increases … is a textbook example of “progressive” economics.

Like every good progressive, Eslake approaches public policy as a search for victims and oppressors. In his telling, the victims are would-be owner-occupiers; the oppressors are landlords. Those roles assigned, the argument largely writes itself.

He begins with a conceptual confusion. Shelter, he says, is a basic human need. Quite so. But he immediately smuggles in a wholly different proposition: that a right to shelter entails a right to home ownership.

That proposition is absurd. In Switzerland, some 60 per cent of dwellings are rented; the proportions in Germany and Austria are only slightly lower. Yet no one could argue that the Swiss, the Germans and the Austrians are denied the right to shelter. By every measurable standard they are extremely well housed.

Eslake’s error is simple. A right to shelter is a claim about the consumption of housing services; a right to home ownership is a claim about the ownership of assets.

The two are no more identical than a right to nutrition is a right to own a farm. …

Follow the money:

What that means — and what Eslake astonishingly overlooks — is that Labor’s policies do not benefit all, or even a majority, of the ­“oppressed”. They may benefit tenants who move into home ownership; but to the extent the higher costs imposed on landlords are passed through into rents, they make the remaining tenants worse off. …

The new owner-occupiers are likely to be the tenants with the highest incomes: those already on the cusp of buying but not quite there. The policies therefore make the wealthiest tenants better off while making the poorer ones worse off. That is quite an achievement: a policy sold in the name of equity that redistributes from poorer renters to richer ones. …

Winners and losers:

The basic point is straightforward: it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a policy that works by raising the cost of supplying an essential good — in this case shelter — to make the community better off.

It is hard to believe that this one is an exception. It penalises most tenants to benefit a relatively small number of affluent renters, redistributing from the poorest tenants to the richest; it imposes substantial efficiency costs on the Australian economy; and if there are any gains to future buyers, they come entirely by inflicting large losses on existing asset owners, breaking election promises, increasing uncertainty and discouraging investment.

We began with a simple distinction: a right to nutrition is not a right to own a farm, and a right to shelter is not a right to own a house. Labor’s policy forgets it — and in forgetting, contrives to starve the very people it claims to feed.

That such a program should be presented as an obvious social good is remarkable. That it should be applauded as a triumph for the disadvantaged is positively perverse.

Labor has become the party of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. It was inevitable, as big government grew every bigger and their supporters grew wealthier due to government action. Albanese himself is clearly a wealthy man.

50 years of progress and progressivism

50 years of progress and progressivism.

Pepsi commercial from 50 years ago (the past is like a foreign country):

 

This is Pepsi’s modern version of the ad (actually, the present is like a foreign country):

 

Did you vote for this?

Possibly related: (By Anglo Saxon Logic)

Australia was 98% homogeneous white Anglo Celtic up until the 70s. That is who built the country, settled the land, built the infrastructure, federated our nation and introduced all our civic structures, culture and institutions. They are why we enjoy Football, Rugby, Cricket and other Victorian British sports, why we follow English common law, property rights and free speech and open expression. Our people being British Islanders also is the root cause of why the nation was so prosperous, safe, harmonious and positive. For 200 years our people slaved, toiled, and crafted a first world country out of an unsettled wild continent. They also shed their blood defending Australia in two world wars.

The delusional multiculturalism project, driven by boomer liberalism, weaponised empathy and deconstructed identity has given the baby boomers the greatest life imaginable.With monstrous house price growth, huge savings via inflated equities and superannuation and now endless cheap labour for the service economy and big business.

Sadly it is all a ponzi scheme, and this has come at a cost: the Zoomer and Gen alpha generations are now competing with endless foreigners in their homeland, their inheritance squandered by the boomers. Millions of Indians, middle-easterners, Asians, and Africans with antithetical cultures and customs now clog up our cities and towns, meaning our young can no longer afford a home. Their standard of life is suppressed and they now no longer enjoy the high trust homogeneous society of the 1900s-1990s. GDP per capita is in free fall, crime is up, and nobody can afford to live anything resembling a steady life here down under.

Our country is not “a social experiment” … Our nation isn’t a gamble or a venture. It is a shared homeland for the Anglo Celtic people who have a shared ancestry, a shared culture and shared values to bestow to each new generation: not to be given away to third worlders who have no respect for our past or present.

Sadly, many of their generation are so individualistic; selfish and arrogant. Our land isn’t a faceless, cultureless economic zone for all the races of the world to just use as a marketplace of goods, services and property.

Don’t know what you had ’til it’s gone.

The crucial part is assimilation. If immigration is kept slow enough for every immigrant to either assimilate or depart, we keep our unusual high-trust ways and enviable society. High-trust societies are a distinct minority in the world, and are currently being replaced due to mass migration from the third world

Big government scam of “unfixable” problems

Big government scam of “unfixable” problems. By Stephen L. Miller.

The left lets institutions and communities break down to a point of total degradation to prove why more government and non profits are the answer.

The goal is to purposely not solve problems and make life and safety worse. See the entire defund the police movement and homelessness nonprofits in California. Gavin Newson promised to end homelessness and instead it ballooned on purpose.

This is why there was such enormous flip out over Trump renovating the reflecting pool or spencer Pratt’s campaign.

Once people realize that things can be improved a lot of nonprofits and public union/money dries up.

There is a reason why cities like Chicago Los Angeles Portland Seattle and now Denver all look the same because they are all run by the same people running the exact same scam.

Commenter:

The Trump Administration cleaning up Washington DC and crushing the crime rate is a Success for everyone, except . . . . . our corrupt & incompetent Ruling Class.

The mascot group — such as Aboriginals in Australia or the homeless in LA — receive lots more government spending per capita than normal folks, but the money is actually spent employing lefties in big government and the NGO complex. If the problem is fixed, the flow of money to lefties from government would be reduced.

In many cases it might be better to give the money directly as cash to the disadvantaged people, rather then give it to a bunch of privileged bureaucrats or NGO types — who then pretend to do something.

The catch-22 of big government: it cannot fix a problem, or government would get smaller.

 

Conversation between a Boomer and a Gen Z

Conversation between a Boomer and a Gen Z.

Gen Z to Boomers:

Dear Boomers,

I’m writing this because a lot of us are tired of pretending everything is fine.

We grew up hearing how great things used to be. How one income could buy a house, raise kids, and still have something left over. How you could graduate high school or trade school and walk into a solid job. How communities felt safe and people actually trusted each other.

We don’t have any of that.

Instead we got sky-high housing prices, wages that haven’t kept up for decades, and student debt that follows us for life even if we paid back the original amount. We watch jobs in trades and manufacturing get crushed by cheap foreign labor and illegal immigration while politicians from both parties act like it’s no big deal. We see the Social Security and Medicare systems, the ones you and your parents paid into, getting stretched thinner every year as more people who paid far less into them start drawing out.

We feel betrayed.

You had the strongest economy in history, affordable homes, stable families, and real opportunity. Then somewhere along the way the doors were thrown open, the factories were shipped overseas, and the rules got changed so the people at the top win no matter what. Now we’re told to “just work harder” in a system that’s rigged against us.

We’re not lazy. We’re not entitled. We’re exhausted from watching the ladder get pulled up after you climbed it.

We want to know: When did you realize it was going this bad? And why didn’t more of you fight harder to stop it?

Sincerely, A frustrated Gen Z

Boomer to Gen Z:

I read your letter. I hear your anger. You feel betrayed, and a lot of you have every right to feel that way. You’re right that it got bad. But let me tell you how it actually happened from our side.

We switched parties more than once trying to get smaller government. We voted for politicians who promised to cut spending, secure the border, and put Americans first. We showed up at the polls. We wrote letters. We trusted the system.

The politicians did what they wanted anyway.

We never voted for open borders. We never voted to ship our factories overseas. We never voted to raid the Social Security lockbox or take the country off the gold standard. Those decisions were made by the generation before us and the permanent ruling class in Washington. They broke the deal no matter which party we sent to power.

We built the interstate system, the power grid, the early internet backbone, the satellite networks, and much of the physical world you live in today. You enjoy the benefits of that infrastructure every single day. We handed it to you in far better shape than we received it.

The suffering you feel, the wage stagnation, the housing crisis, the debt, the broken trust, didn’t fully hit until your generation and the one after. We watched it coming, warned about it, and got called every name in the book for doing so.

We didn’t create this mess. We inherited part of it and then failed to stop it. That’s on us. But pretending we wanted this outcome or voted for it is simply not true. We still believe in hard work, self-reliance, and building something real. We hope you do too.

The country we grew up in had real problems, but it also had real opportunity. You deserve that same chance.

How Did Pakistan Become 96 Percent Muslim?

How Did Pakistan Become 96 Percent Muslim? By Uzay Bulut in PJ Media.

Pakistan was once majority-Hindu. It was part of the Indian civilization with significant religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity.

This is no longer the case. Native Hindu and other non-Muslim cultures were systematically and largely erased by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Moreover, attempts at reviving the Hindu and other pre-Islamic names of geographical locations are met with backlash from Muslims in the country. …

A little history:

Before the arrival of Islam in the 8th century, the region that is now called Pakistan and the broader Indian subcontinent was exceedingly diverse. Throughout millennia, the region’s religious diversity included a rich mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, other local/folk beliefs, and later, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity.

Throughout the last 14 centuries, the Islamization of the Indian subcontinent has been shaped by massacres, pogroms, persecutions, and forced conversions. This spans the initial Arab expansions, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughal Empire, and the partition of India, up to the present. …

One of the largest genocides of Hindus in the post-independence period occurred during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War….

During the nine-month conflict, Pakistani soldiers and their local collaborators systematically targeted Hindus. They engaged in mass killings, rapes, and the destruction of property. It is estimated that 300,000 to 3 million people were killed. …

This systematic persecution led to a drastic decline in the Hindu population in Pakistan, from nearly 15% at the time of Partition to less than 2% today.

It’s happening still:

Pakistan’s current population is approximately 259 million, whereas the Christian population is around 4,785,000. There are approximately 3,479,000 Hindus and 3,522,000 members of other religious minorities in the country. The Islamization of Pakistan has led to extreme and ongoing persecution of these religious minorities.

Hindus and other non-Muslims in Pakistan continue to face religious discrimination, violence, and forced conversions. In recent years, there has been an alarming increase in the abduction and forced conversion of Hindu and Christian girls, often underage, who are forcibly married to Muslim men. Local authorities and religious leaders often turn a blind eye, with judicial systems offering little to no protection to these vulnerable communities.

 

 

Something similar happened to North Africa, which used to be Christian and Jewish. Only Spain evicted Islam, though it took seven centuries.

Islam is different — supremacist and intolerant:

Meanwhile, India is home to the third-largest Muslim population in the world and the largest global Muslim-minority population. India’s Muslim population is estimated to be approximately 200 to 213 million people, accounting for roughly 14.2% to 15% of the country’s total population. While Pakistan has persecuted and largely exterminated its Hindu communities, Muslims have thrived in India as equal citizens of the country.

Out to conquer the world:

The ultimate outcome of Islam’s desire to dominate the world is the creation of nations such as Pakistan, where indigenous non-Muslim cultures and peoples are eliminated, and the surviving, tiny non-Muslim communities perpetually live under tyranny. Non-Muslim countries of the world must immediately start learning lessons from Pakistan’s history of Islamization and take precautions so they will not experience a similar fate.

Sure it can’t happen here? Dr Maalouf:

Islamic preacher: “When Muslims become the majority in the West in the next 40 years, non‑Muslims will have to convert, pay the jizya, or be killed, because Sharia will rule.”

Is the message clear, or do they need to spell it out?

“Islam” means “submission.”

Complaining about racism in Australia

Complaining about racism in Australia. By Katherine Deves,

Pakistani-born and bred Mehreen Faruqi, Senator for Palestine, is complaining about racism in Australia for the eleventy billionth time

Who else is bored?

 

 

Restore Australia:

There is something so awful about a constantly aggrieved first generation migrant. It is the ultimate display of arrogance, entitlement and disrespect.

Instead of thanking the Australian people for welcoming her in, for their kindness, their tolerance and their open mindedness, especially as we have a society that is so tolerant (or foolish) that she can become a serving politician, despite being a foreign born Pakistani woman, she does exactly the opposite.

She displays her ethnic hatred of white Europeans, her tribalistic loyalties and her selfish goals and aims: every single time she speaks, it is in a negative manner to the host population and is demanding our erasure and or displacement. …

Why do we allow millions to migrate here with antithetical views and beliefs, who fundamentally hate our people and history?

 

Albanese Government’s Marxist Economic Agenda

Albanese Government’s Marxist Economic Agenda. By the Editors of The Australian.

It was American civil rights activist Maya Angelou who said when someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time. Jim Chalmers told everyone who he was in a sweeping Monthly essay in January 2023 in which he railed against the market economy and failings of capitalism.

Dr Chalmers has praised socialist economist Mariana Mazzucato — who was an adviser to hard-left British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn — as an inspiration. And here we are today. The Albanese government has adopted Professor Mazzucato’s agenda to increase taxes on capital and embrace a pre-distribution focus to target accumulated wealth.

Dr Chalmers promised to renovate our key institutions, and has made changes to Treasury, the Productivity Commission and the head of the Reserve Bank of Australia, as well as how interest rates are set. The head of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, has confirmed the federal government’s plan to redistribute national housing as productivity falls into negative territory. …

What’s next?

The next steps in Professor Mazzucato’s playbook include taxes on financial transactions, an end to fossil fuel rebates, and support for a wealth and inheritance tax to fund a minimum universal inheritance scheme.

Following Angelou’s advice, when Anthony Albanese and Dr Chalmers say they want to change the social and economic fabric, we know to believe them. Because when they promise at election time not to make changes that lift taxes, upend retirement plans and sap incentives to work and save, they can always change their mind.

Forewarned. Australia is heading for a typical socialist economic downturn, which might last decades. On top of the demographic changes, Australia is being radically transformed. Time to leave?

Chaser:

A country becomes prosperous when its brightest people build companies, create jobs, and take risks.

When they shift from entrepreneurship to a government desk, prosperity slowly stops being created.

Some public servants in Canberra get paid almost $1m per year, then retire on a pension of 38% for life.

US Vice President blames the left for Henry Nowak’s death

US Vice President blames the left for Henry Nowak’s death. By J.D. Vance.

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit.

His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.

Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last. Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response — the only response — is righteous anger. One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership. Anything else is an excuse.

It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it. We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children.

But the UK PM blames Elon Musk and the US Vice President:

Keir Starmer has now blamed JD Vance and Elon Musk for dividing the UK instead of Henry Nowak’s murderer, the family who tried to cover it up and the appalling response from the police.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has accused Elon Musk and US Vice President JD Vance of interfering in British democracy and seeking to stir up division over the murder of student Henry Nowak

Imagine:

Henry Nowak death: The left is to blame

Henry Nowak death: The left is to blame. By Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

The death of 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak is as terrible as anything you’ll ever see. …

Nowak is not even given the dignity of being hated or abused. There is just utter indifference to him, the cold, bureaucratic hand of identity politics, which has delivered us not into a land of racial justice, but into Dante’s Inferno, the fourth circle of hell. …

An accusation of racism was more important than murder, and the desperate need for first aid. …

Britain’s Opposition Leader, Kemi Badenoch, says Nowak’s killing is a seminal moment that will change Britain profoundly.

Nowak had been stabbed five times by Vickram Digwa, 23, a cold blooded murderer who contrived to tell the police many lies. …

Anti-white ideologues rule:

Starmer denies two-tier policing exists but his denial seems absurd. In Australia, too, there are obvious double standards, but nothing on the scale of the Nowak incident.

From the first, there was something wrong with Black Lives Matter. Hillary Clinton and one or two innocent celebrities said: yes, black lives matter, all lives matter. The BLM movement viciously chastised them: you must only say black lives matter. …

Identity politics, like all contemporary left-wing ideology, is simplistic and filled with hatred. It is a bastard child of Marxism which substitutes for capital and labour, and the paint-by-numbers analysis of their power relationship, a new class of oppressor and oppressed. White people are oppressors and can never, by definition, be victims of racism. Non-white people are victims of oppression, and can never be guilty of racism. 

Critical Race Theory is its expression in ethnic politics. It reverses the liberal ideal of Martin Luther King who wanted a society in which people were judged by the “content of their character, not the colour of their skin”. CRT means character counts not at all, skin colour is everything. …

It’s rising to existential danger:

How did we get to the point where the police are so afraid of being accused of racism that they handcuff a dying man, while consoling his murderer, simply because a charge of racism has been levelled? Here’s the ineradicable, undeniable truth of human morality which identity politics can never acknowledge, admit or accommodate. You can’t cure racism with more racism, defeat discrimination with more discrimination, beat prejudice with more prejudice. …

The British police believe justice should not be colour blind, people should not be treated equally. This is sad and mad and bad. The very depiction of Lady Justice, in a thousand courts and judge’s chambers, is of a woman, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice. She weighs the evidence, blind to the background, race, power or wealth of the people involved. She is meant to be colour blind.

UK Police training: chanted “Islam is a religion of peace” and discussed white privilege

UK Police training: chanted “Islam is a religion of peace” and discussed white privilege. By Gordon Rayner in The Telegraph.

Luke Salmons lost his job as a police community support officer (PCSO) with the North Yorkshire force and was barred from policing after a conversation about Gaza with a Muslim officer.

He later won an appeal but has never received an apology from the force where he said a “culture of fear” existed among officers who were terrified of being fired for saying the wrong thing.

Mr Salmons, 46, told The Telegraph that a training day on race, religion and culture turned into an “indoctrination” session as trainers chanted “Islam is a religion of peace” and discussed white privilege.

Having been encouraged to ask questions in what staff were told was a safe space, he asked a Muslim officer about his views on terrorist attacks by Islamist groups including Hamas. The officer happily discussed the issue with him and invited him to chat further over coffee after the session.

But within two days he had been suspended for gross misconduct by an inspector who told him: “I don’t like your beliefs.”

Career ending:

Mr Salmons told The Telegraph: “I loved my job and I was good at it. I was well respected as a PCSO and my colleagues said they loved working with me and couldn’t understand what was happening.

“But an overzealous inspector took against me and that was the end of my career, even though I had done nothing wrong.”

Would Henry Nowak have survived if the police had been less anti-white and less pro-Islam, and called an ambulance or begun medical treatment right away? Some say yes.

Polls: Support for Gay Marriage drops. Was the Trans Issue the Poison Pill?

Polls: Support for Gay Marriage drops. Was the Trans Issue the Poison Pill? By Scott Pinsker at PJ Media.

An eye-opening new Gallup poll: …

Between 1996 and 2022, the percentage of U.S. adults in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage increased by 44 points, from 27% to 71%. In 2024, the figure dipped to 69%, and it has shown a marginal decline each year since.

Gallup first asked about the morality of same-sex relations in 2001, when 40% said they were morally acceptable. By 2022, 71% held that view, before a sharp drop to 64% in 2023, holding at about that level during the past three years.

When Gallup first asked about changing one’s gender in 2021, 46% found it morally acceptable, and 51% found it morally wrong. Today, those numbers stand at 38% and 57%, respectively. …

In 2022, 87% of Dems supported same-sex marriages; today it’s still 87%. As for the morality of same-sex relationships, in Gallup’s analysis, there was “no meaningful change among Democrats (now at 81%).”

The one issue where the Democrats changed the most was on trans rights, where support dropped by 7 points!

Dylan Mulvaney was the turning point for trans:

The tide began to turn against the LGBTQ movement in early 2023. Before then, it was nothing but gains; all the momentum was theirs.

And not-so-coincidentally, 2023 was also the year when — among (many) other things — Bud Light showcased transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in its ill-fated ad campaign.

 

The reason for accepting LGB:

The secret to LGBTQ’s earlier acceptance was a very clever, two-prong PR campaign: Bigotry is wrong (“Love is love!”) and gay people are no different than anyone else.

Opposing racism, sexism, and bigotry is drilled into our heads at a very young age, so the first half was an easy sell. … And with gay people so ubiquitous — they’re in your family, my family, and the rest of society — we didn’t want to hurt the people we cared about. We want the best for ALL our friends and family. …

Trans too?

At first, the trans movement piggybacked on gay marriage’s PR messaging: Trans people are just like you and me. Your children could be trans. Anyone could be trans! Don’t you want the best for your children?

This messaging was synthesized into the snappy soundbite, “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?” (And vice-versa, of course.) It gave audiences a binary, Patrick Henry-inspired choice: Transition or death. …

We heard the media’s messaging and saw a slew of warm, glowing, positive portrayals of trans people — especially children. Trans children were everywhere!

Megyn Kelly went on national TV and said, “it is possible to transition [children] socially, with love and support and acceptance within a family and a community.” …

From 2010 through 2022, most Americans gave the trans movement the benefit of the doubt: If this is what it takes to prevent kids from committing suicide, well, being trans is certainly better than the alternative.

But then:

The trans movement overreached.

We saw male-to-female MMA fighter Fallon Fox shatter the orbital bone of “her” female opponent — and was heralded by OutSports as “the bravest athlete in history.” We heard countless accounts of scared little girls who didn’t want to share their locker rooms, bathrooms, and school showers with biological males — and were promptly derided as bigots and bullies. Young men were told they were “transphobic” if they didn’t want to date a “girl” with testicles and a penis.

Instead of “protecting children,” the trans movement did the opposite, displaying a callous indifference to the safety, traditions, and integrity of all other groups and institutions.

Trans people were given carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted, and anyone who disagreed was blackballed from polite society.

This wasn’t equality; it was supremacy — with the trans movement at the top.

It grew increasingly creepy and Orwellian, with the satire site Babylon Bee banned from Twitter (now X) for “misgendering” trans political appointee Rachel Levine. And the Babylon Bee was far from alone.

Disagreeing with someone’s choice of pronouns could, quite literally, get you demonetized and barred for life from social media!

Unhappy, nihilistic, and dangerous:

Then a weird connection between trans and gun violence began to emerge. There was the Tumbler Ridge school shooting in February 2026. The Annunciation Catholic School mass shooting in August 2025. The 2023 Nashville school shooting. And, of course, the assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson, who was (allegedly) motivated by his trans lover.

Instead of perceiving trans people as victims, they were increasingly seen as perpetrators. For a group that’s less than 1% of the population, they certainly seemed overrepresented in shocking acts of violence. …

The scam dissolved as people noticed:

Little by little, Americans noticed that we didn’t see too many trans kids in our own families or neighborhoods — but among Hollywood celebrities, they were practically everywhere. And they often appeared in clusters that were statistically improbable, such as Oscar-winning movie star Marcia Gay Harden’s three children, one of whom is gay, the other is non-binary, and the third is “gender fluid.” And Harden wasn’t the only celeb with trans kids …

The trans movement seemed less based on a rigid, immovable biological reality about gender, and more a byproduct of peer pressure, mental vulnerabilities, and “social contagions.” …

An extremely harmful social contagion, as explained by Chloe Cole:

The American people have woken up from the obvious lie of transgenderism.

There is no excuse for the mutilation of young people. Members of Congress who still defend it should have to look parents in the eye and explain why their child’s healthy body is now a commodity.

 

Why LGB is accepted, but trans is not:

The “social contagion” association was a PR killer because gay and lesbian people gained public acceptance AFTER we decided that sexual orientation wasn’t a choice; it’s hardwired into our personalities. Therefore, it’s not something that can be “willed away.”

Like it or not, this is how gay and straight people are born.

But what if it’s not? What if a large percentage of the trans community was comprised of confused, lost souls who are desperate for a sense of belonging?

The trans movement tried to have it both ways: Gender was a “social construct” that didn’t matter anyway — yet so intrinsic to our identity, why, preventing a boy from identifying as a girl would drive him/her to suicide.

Eventually, the American people had enough: The cognitive dissonance was simply too great. …

The collapse of support for trans is pulling down LGB as well:

And because the LGBTQ movement bundled itself under a unified banner rainbow — it literally stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, TRANSGENDER, and queer — when one pillar collapsed, there was an inevitable ripple effect. It undermined public acceptance of the entire LGBTQ community.

And now, according to Gallup, LGBTQ acceptance is at its lowest level since 2016.

History will show that the trans movement was a PR poison pill that set the LGBTQ movement back at least a decade. All that goodwill — and a generation of positive PR — was squandered at the altar of transitioning children.

If the trendlines continue, same-sex marriage will probably be on the chopping block by 2030.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society? Excessive feminism

Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society? Excessive feminism. By ZeroHedge.

Recent surveys paint what might seem like an apocalyptic picture:

  • In the US, around 45% of men ages 18-25 do not approach women anymore to engage in dating or relationships.
  • Over 42% of all men have no interest in seeking out women for relationships or casual dates.
  • Around 30% of men over 40 years old have never been married and are not necessarily seeking marriage. …

Men are not lonely, they are deliberately refusing to participate in order to make a point. What we are witnessing is perhaps the most substantial mass boycott of liberal ideology in history as men go more conservative.

On relationships, all men’s voices are cancelled:

It’s a boycott the establishment media does not want to acknowledge….

A recent expose by The Guardian … regurgitate[d] the old standby excuses: Men are afraid of women because of lack of emotional intelligence. Men are having trouble navigating the new world of fluid gender roles and women’s independence. Men are being lured into “toxic masculinity” by conservative movements, etc. …

But they never ask those men what it is about conservatism that attracts them. Why? Because they don’t want to hear the answer. They don’t care what men have to say. So instead, they gather up a gaggle of female psychologists, jilted women and woke beta male activists and ask them “What is going on with men these days?”

Given too much power out of politeness:

The idea of self improvement and striving for success has become the rallying cry for many men lost in the sea of the post “Me Too” world. It makes perfect sense. After a decade of feminist militancy and narratives painting men as walking time bombs on the verge of exploding into a deadly rage, men are no longer asking for validation from society or from women. Instead, they have set their own goals and measure their achievements according to their own peace of mind.

The power of the woke movement and feminists is in their ability to insert themselves into the role of judge and jury. They do this by claiming constant victimhood, which they say earns them access to the halls of power and influence. When the media talks about masculinity from an anthropological standpoint, they talk to the self-appointed woke experts (mostly women).

When they do ask men, it’s usually from a liberal standpoint. When they ask conservative men, they ignore the answers and attack the honest responses. …

The idea of “toxic masculinity” is a woke feminist fallacy; a creation meant to shame men for their natural behaviors, their normal biological roles and the inherent ways they deal with the world.

The important thing to remember is that feminism has not been about equality for decades. Women have had social equality and legal superiority over men in the west for some time now.

Rather, feminism is about keeping men in line and under control to prevent any rebellion against the liberal epoch. After all, women have no inherent power. They gain power by convincing men to give their power away through government. By convincing men to behave in the name of modern civility. …

Masculinity and patriarchy is the left-wing version of “original sin”; a great crime against humanity that can only be defeated when men and women come together…and submit to feminism. Which means, men have to hand over all their power as the source of this great evil. Men have to accept proper “management” to avoid falling into their darker ways. If only these men would prostrate themselves before the benevolent woke gods and beg for forgiveness, then the world would be a much better place.

But why would they? The idea that they get something in return is a proven lie. They get no redemption, no peace. Why not simply step on the neck of feminism, destroy it and take control? It would be easy. The only thing stopping this from happening is the hope most men have for a logical and reasonable discourse — the hope of honest reconciliation. As long as feminism exists, however, this is never going to happen. …

When the left-wing media opines on the lost generation of men, what they’re really doing is pretending to have empathy while scrambling to circumvent a full blown male rebellion against the liberal order.

“Me too” was too much, “believe all women” was way too much:

The “Me Too” movement was presented as a reckoning over abuse against women in professional spaces, but it ultimately became a power grab in which liberal women leveraged fake outrage to elevate the idea of “guilty until proven innocent.” It weaponized mob justice against men as a way to steal jobs women didn’t earn or deserve, and steal political power they had no moral capacity to handle.

It’s no mistake that the Me Too motto was “Believe all women.” That’s a radioactive level of power.

Sisters are doing it for themselves … because no one else wants to

Sisters are doing it for themselves … because no one else wants to. By Bettina Arndt.

The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic – inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture, and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible, and less than a real man.

Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame, and the yoke comes off.

Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

The trend is not confined to America. Australian men’s workforce participation has fallen from around 79% in 1978 to approximately 71% today (see below), while similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK and Canada. …

Here’s why:

What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition.

If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal.

The modern woman: a prospectus:

  • They are the most miserable, anxious, and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material.
  • Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem.
  • Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt.
  • They’ve gone full throttle left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently.
  • They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories.
  • Yet their hypergamy (desire to marry up) is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn.
  • The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag.
  • They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting.

What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life? …

Crisis:

Ehrenreich feared in 1983 that if the shame mechanism collapsed, male productivity would follow. She was right.

What she could not have anticipated was the other half of the equation — that the feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it. The yoke is off. The men have looked at what’s on offer. And many have, with considerable rationality, decided to go and play video games instead.

Not all women, by any means, but far too many.