What Sort of Party is One Nation? By Loiuse Clegg in The Spectator.

The One Nation constitution names Pauline Hanson as party president for as long as she wishes. When she resigns, she appoints her successor. The national executive can disband branches and remove office-holders. State leaders, even candidates, or local branch executives do not emerge victorious from a vote, preselection or party-room vote. They are simply announced by Hanson.

 

 

We have watched some of this unfold at close quarters in our region. New One Nation supporters have attended meetings intended to establish something resembling federal and state electoral conferences. One Nation flying squads have arrived from Queensland with kooky speeches and zero knowledge of the electorate. A local executive was formed, only for its members to resign within weeks when they realised Queensland headquarters demanded total control. The complaint from a few who attended several meetings is that, for a so-called grassroots party, it has no interest whatsoever in the grassroots. …

None of this means One Nation will fail at coming elections. It may succeed spectacularly. A tightly controlled party is agile: it can move quickly and enforce a message the majors cannot because of internal processes. The cracks will appear in time, when locals don’t get a say, centralised vetting is a disaster, disagreements become public and rogue members of parliament leave the tent.

This is a party that promises to return power to the people, yet is conspicuously designed so that its own people — leaders, MPs and members — have no power. Long term, this is not strength. It is a house of cards.

Lack of staff, from Adam Creighton.

One Nation is criticised for ‘lack of policy detail’.

This is the 2026 allocation of Personal Staff to parties and leaders. (Allocated at Anthony Albanese’s discretion). Outrageously biased against ON.

 

Read David Archibald’s experience with One Nation here.

What happens when a narrative of lies becomes embedded in our institutions? By Krzysztof Szczawinski.

Within systems built on institutional falsehood, something happens to people that goes far deeper than political disagreement or economic hardship.

A process of demoralization sets in – and this word must be understood in its fullest sense. Not merely disappointment. Not discouragement. But the systematic erosion of the moral infrastructure that holds a person, and a society, together: trust, integrity, the shared assumption that truth is real and that it matters.

Truth is penalized, loyalty to the lies is rewarded:

People learn, through accumulated experience, that honesty costs. They watch colleagues who speak plainly get passed over, demoted, or destroyed. They watch those who perform loyalty — regardless of whether they believe a word of it — advance. The lesson is absorbed not as ideology but as survival knowledge: say what the system wants to hear. After enough repetition, this stops feeling like compromise. It becomes instinct.

Negative moral selection:

The result is one of the most destructive and least discussed phenomena of institutional life under such systems: negative moral selection. The term deserves to be used widely, because the process it describes is precise and devastating.

In a healthy institution, the qualities that get rewarded — competence, honesty, independent judgment, willingness to deliver unwelcome truths — are roughly the qualities that make institutions function well. The selection pressure, however imperfectly, tends to elevate people worth elevating.

Under a system of institutionalized lying, the selection pressure inverts. What gets rewarded is the willingness to subordinate truth to narrative, to signal loyalty over competence, to manipulate rather than inform. And crucially, those most willing to do this — whether out of opportunism, cowardice, or genuine ideological capture — rise. Those least willing to do it are sidelined, pushed out, or in harder cases, destroyed.

 

 

Over time, the institution fills, top to bottom, with people selected specifically for their unreliability. The honest are gone. The competent who refused to play along are gone. What remains is a self-reinforcing culture of cynicism and mutual complicity — everyone knowing, at some level, that the whole structure rests on a lie, and everyone invested in maintaining it because the lie is now the source of their position.

This is not merely inefficiency. It is institutional rot at the genetic level.

The social aftermath:

Beyond the institutions themselves, something corrodes in the broader social fabric.

• Public life becomes performative theater.
• Language decouples from meaning — words are uttered not to convey reality but to signal allegiance, deflect suspicion, or accumulate social capital.
• Truth inverts: the more emphatically something is proclaimed, the more suspicious a rational person learns to be.
• People adapt. They develop a kind of split consciousness – participating in the public rituals because refusal carries costs, while privately withdrawing all genuine trust from the system. They say the words. They attend the meetings. They sign the statements. And inwardly, they check out entirely.

This is doublethink, not as a dramatic Orwellian act of self-violation, but as a mundane daily habit. A way of moving through the world. And like all habits, it shapes the person who practices it.

The bad habits die slower than the lies:

When communism formally collapsed in Central and Eastern Europe, there was a widespread assumption in the West — and to some degree among the people themselves — that the pathologies would dissolve along with the system that produced them. Remove the oppressive structure, introduce free markets and democratic institutions, and the culture would normalize.

It did not. Or at least, not nearly as quickly as hoped.

Because the damage was not located in the ideology. The ideology was the occasion. The damage was located in the people — in the habits of mind, the social reflexes, the deeply internalized assumptions about how the world works, that decades of living inside a system of lies had produced. …

The negative moral selection continued … The people most skilled at institutional maneuvering, at cultivating networks of complicity, at navigating power through loyalty-signaling rather than competence, were precisely the people who had been selected into positions of influence under the old system. They remained. They adapted their language. They learned to mouth the new words — democracy, market, civil society — with exactly the same fluency and exactly the same hollowness with which they had mouthed the old ones.

The cynicism persisted. The corruption persisted. The distrust persisted.

A generation of virtue-signalers and liars, practiced at ignoring certain truths, for social and professional survival. Look what it did for the Soviet Union — what will it do for the West?

The economic climate just changed for Australia. By Robert Guy in The Australian.

Australia spent the cheap-money era convincing itself that expensive houses, bloated government, lousy productivity and asset prices amounted to an economic model.

Global bond markets are calling time on the fantasy.

Money has a price again. Australia’s 10-year bond yield is at levels last seen in 2011, well above 5 per cent. It does not set mortgage rates — the RBA cash rate does — but resets the cost of capital beneath government borrowing, corporate debt, infrastructure and equities.

With gross debt above $1 trillion, refinancing turns yesterday’s choices into tomorrow’s interest bill.

The uglier discovery is how little growth Australia can now generate without above-target inflation. … Australia can barely grow above 2 per cent without above-target inflation. …

Australians are carrying more public debt, paying more for capital, housing, energy and services, and getting little in return from productivity or per-capita growth. The economy still functions, but increasingly on worse terms. … This is enshitification at a sovereign scale: the platform still works, but the user pays more for less. …

Australia’s place in the world economy:

The AI economy continues to outpace Canberra’s thinking. … Australia is down the bottom pouring the concrete. …

Australia risks mistaking AI infrastructure for AI power.

We know this model: dig it up, ship it out, let someone else add the value, then buy it back at a premium. AI could be the same old bargain in digital form. We supply the land, power and concrete. Silicon Valley owns the margin.

Forty years of decreasing interest rates ended in 2022, globally. It’s not widely appreciated yet, but history suggests we have now entered the back leg of the cycle, with several decades of upward-trending interest rates ahead. Rolling over loans will get more expensive, so capital will have to be repaid.

Many western borrowers, and governments in particular, will simply not be able to afford to keep paying interest on their debts. Japan will spend all its tax income on servicing its current debt when interest rates average 7%, the US 14%, and Australia 21%. In the 1970s, to stop inflation, interest rates had to rise to 20%.

So, governments will be forced to use their only escape hatch — devalue their paper currencies, i.e. allow a controlled inflation to run to whittle away the real value of debts, a policy called financial repression. (Is it just a coincidence that everything in finance has an obscure or misleading name?) Borrowers love it, lenders lose. This policy was last run in the 1970s. (Btw, got gold? The gold price went from 35 USD to well over 400 USD per ounce in the 1970s.)

The Albanese Government, like the Whitlam Government in the early 1970s, just “happens” to be in power when global stagflation hit. A high-welfare, big-spending government that was elected at the end of the easy times, just as the festival of cheap credit was drawing to a close. Bad timing, yes — policies appropriate for the time they were elected quickly became very inappropriate as time changed. But unlucky again, not really — elected governments always get pretty free-spending towards to the end of easy times.

And like the Whitlam Government in 1975, the current government is quickly going to become very unpopular.

The Albanese Government Begins its Doom Spiral. By David Pearl in The Australian.

Chalmers has changed his tune. Until recently he was saying that achieving net zero was the biggest economic prize on offer. In March last year he called it his “obsession” and “reason for being”.

But with the public’s faith in this particular utopia now crumbling after two decades of rising power prices, the government needs another one. And AI fits the bill ideally, since this revolution has barely begun. It is a kind of Rorschach test, allowing us to project our hopes and fears as our inclination strikes us. …

Sadly, the government’s grand ambitions suffer from a rather serious flaw. It is committed to policies that are hostile to any positive technological revolution, whether linked to AI or otherwise. Indeed, if you asked a properly trained AI bot how best to kill off AI in this country, it would refer you to the government’s energy, industrial relations and tax policy settings.

The government’s commitment to high-cost and intermittent energy sources that cannot meet the growing demands of AI data centres is made worse by Canberra’s bizarre insistence (until recently) on the kind of energy that is unsuited to data centres.

The government’s likely demand is that AI not replace a single union member’s job in this country or undercut their conditions. And its 2026 budget assault on savings and investment, as we know, will penalise high-risk and high-return investments across the economy, with the government and its bureaucrats to police a narrow carve-out for some start-ups.

Where does new technology come from? For people like Jim Chalmers, it just happens. In reality, it doesn’t happen without the right backing and motivation structure:

But technological change is a by-product of innovation and risk-taking by entrepreneurs in search of profits, with investors and consumers — acting through free markets — the ultimate judge of their success or failure.

A government that is hostile to entrepreneurs and believes bureaucrats rather than markets should allocate resources will only stifle, rather than foster, this process. Yet Chalmers believes “we” — meaning our politicians and bureaucrats — can somehow micromanage the AI revolution to maximise its productivity benefits and eliminate its costs and risks altogether.

This is rubbish. I don’t pretend to know whether the AI revolution will prove to be a big bang or a whimper. But if it proves to be the former, it will – like every previous positive structural shock we have experienced – cause considerable economic pain.

Labor people — with precious few exceptions — are not knowledgeable about economics. Worse, they are not even interested. So, Labor Governments inevitably end up hurting the economy. Not out of malice, but because they simply do not know how to care for it.

The once exception was when Hawke was PM and Keating was Treasurer. Keating, bless him, promptly leaned economics from the Treasury officials in his Department, and he implemented what they suggested! Australia blossomed! (Btw, apart from what he learned from Treasury, Keating shows the usual leftist confusions — justifiably earning him his “Captain Wacko” nickname.)

Now that the economy has demonstrably turned downhill, Albanese’s Government is doomed politically. The economy will just get worse until it is gone, because it will reliably make mostly bad economic decisions.

I am a persecuted human rights icon. By Milo Yiannopoulos in The Spectator.

You may have heard: Milo Yiannopoulos was deported from the United States to the United Kingdom on August 28, 2026, one day after being arrested by ICE at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Louisiana.

At 41, in ICE detention

According to the Department of Homeland Security, he legally entered the U.S. on a visa in May 2019 but overstayed, and an immigration judge issued a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear at his hearing. Notably, Yiannopoulos had been a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and had called for even stricter enforcement.

Very amusing. Despite being provocatively funny and very early at pushing against the globalist narrative in 2015 – 2018, Milo went kind of nuts after that.

In his heyday

But there’s more to the story, as he explains in The Spectator.

Thursday night, New Orleans. I have flown in from Los Angeles for work and am walking off the jet bridge, thinking about dinner, when 15 men in vests coalesce around me. I have never been arrested before. …

I am ever so nice about it all. They take my belt, wallet, every piece of identification, my rosary and Missal, cash. They put me in chains. Real chains. Every man they arrest, whatever he has done, ends up garlanded in steel like this: wincing, hopping, clattering. It hurts more than they make out on TV. … Yes. I am being deported.

Somewhere in Miami, at hearings nobody told me about, a judge has ordered me removed. My work permit has been canceled without a word. The notices were sent to a Florida address I left ten years ago, which, I realize, must have been on purpose. The same agencies have been writing regularly and without incident to my new address for years.

Three of the five warning letters were even returned, marked “addressee unknown.” The arresting agents told me so. When I said I could not find my lawyer’s number, an agent read it to me off his computer screen. But somehow my lawyer had never been informed about any of the past year’s developments. I am stripped, starved, shipped between three detention centers in 12 hours.

Must have pissed someone off:

A few of the agents knew my face from 2016, when I was Donald Trump’s biggest fan. Back then, I called him Daddy. …

The last pair, who drove me to Houston for the flight, said they were getting “calls from Washington” every 20 minutes. They agreed that none of this was normal. “You must have pissed someone off.” …

The irony:

I spent years demanding this agency be let off the leash. And so it is. Yet, I am torn about the fact that I am the only person arrested by ICE in August who has not killed or raped anyone. I might be the only person arrested by them at all: In each new jail, I am the only prisoner. Long corridors of empty cells. Gleaming 2026 SUVs in the parking lot. Agents on steroids in virgin tactical gear. They’ve spent the money. But I don’t think they’ve done much deporting.

Yep, Trump:

Well-connected friends confirm a few days later that this theatrically cruel performance is my punishment for turning on Trump. On air with Candace Owens, I’d accused him of betrayal, cowardice, and capitulation to warmongering Israeli psychopaths.

Like it or not, this makes me a political prisoner, a persecuted human rights icon. I am Mahatma Gandhi. I am Nelson Mandela. I’m not exactly sure who Aung San Suu Kyi is, and can’t be bothered to look it up, but, yes, I am him too.

They keep moving me to keep ahead of my lawyers, who, when they call, are given the name of wherever we just left. I am handed a note and told it’s where I am being taken next; this is a lie. I am promised a phone call, a nurse, medication, a chance to be heard by a judge. All lies. Twenty-four hours without food. Longer without sleep.

No sign of my lawyer. But — of course! — there is a photographer. He, at least, has been given truthful directions. I mean to stare into his lens with defiance and stoicism, but I am fat and covered in filth and stains and drool and I am crying and even border czar Tom Homan can’t bring himself to tweet this one. But he does go on on television to say I have “had my due process.”

The gods must be laughing.  But he’s still a great writer (more at the link). And someone, presumably Trump, has overstepped the mark into selective enforcement against a political inconvenience.

The Third World Is Forever Chasing the White Man. By Brandon Smith.

We’re only supposed to say “colonialism bad”. I don’t care about that, I just want to know what the realities are. …

I came across an interesting video featuring a black South African man who presented the race issue and the South Africa issue in a way that was simple but it brought impressive clarity. In summary he said:

“Africans are forever chasing the white man.”

 

 

What he means is, African culture, some elements of black culture, the third world in general, all of them are constantly trying to co-opt what white western culture builds. He argues that wherever the white population in Africa shrinks or migrates away, the country “becomes a shithole”. So, Africans chase white people.

When white people in Africa relocate to Australia, or Canada, or the US or Europe, the Africans try to follow. Instead of building up their own communities and nations they use and then eventually tear down the infrastructure that whites already built. They never replace it with anything else. Then they immigrate overseas to where the white people are because their own nations are in disarray. Eventually, they start tearing down those countries.

Leftists will call this a “racist” argument rooted in “white supremacy”, but this is a black South African making the point. It’s not racist, it’s just an observation of concrete fact.

Zimbabwe:

When Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the whites were ethnically cleansed, the country collapsed and the black people starved to death.

South Africa:

South Africa systematically oppresses (or kills) the white citizenry because they want the land the whites own (they chase the white men). The Afrikaners are 7% of the population but make up around 70% of all agriculture and food production. Instead of seeing the white populace as a valuable asset to the country, they treat them as a foreign enemy. And so, the country falls deeper into economic despair and they are now on the verge of their own collapse.

When Matamela Ramaphosa, President of South Africa, sauntered into the White House with his big grin and his large entourage, he was there to get money. He wasn’t there to explain how he was going to improve conditions in his country. And, he certainly wasn’t there to debate the finer details of the ethnic cleansing of whites in his country or the government confiscation of their land. No, he was a black African leader petitioning a white US President for handouts.

In this case he believes his country is entitled to that money, so it doesn’t come off as begging so much as it comes off as arrogant conceit. If his country could build on its own, it would. If they had the ability to construct and innovate and maintain on their own, they would. Instead, they travel halfway across the world to the US. They chase the white man.

They’ve had over 30 years to get their system to work, and instead everything is broken. They can’t even keep their electrical grid and water functioning.

Africa, much of the third world:

And it’s not just South Africa, this is true for much of the third world. In Europe the populace is far more familiar with Africans chasing them, but we see a similar trend with Central and South Americans chasing whites in the US.

Wherever the west builds and creates and improves, the third world demands a piece. They arrive in vast caravans that stretch for miles. They arrive in boats on beaches in the night. They slip across borders and enter illegally like invaders because they see the west as something to be pillaged. They do not want to build their own thing. They don’t even know where to begin. They simply see what we have and they want to take it. They chase us wherever we go because they can’t emulate, they can only confiscate. …

Leftism is nuts:

Leftists will claim that white people are the “real invaders” that exploit and steal from the third world. In other words, we are “chasing the brown man”.

But, if this was the case, then why aren’t white people rushing to migrate to Africa? Why is the western industrial presence in Africa in steep decline? Even black Africans leave Africa in droves when they get the chance to do so. No one is chasing the brown man. This is not a thing. No one covets what a beggar society has.

Culture, culture, culture:

Now, I see this not as a race issue but as a cultural issue (I’m sure there are people who will debate that sentiment). If you look at countries like Japan or South Korea, they don’t chase white people. They build their own societies and fuel their own progress for the most part. They don’t need white culture or western culture to feed off of (China does, but that’s a whole separate article).

There are societies in the Middle East that remain relatively self sufficient, while others in the Middle East view the west as a target for conquest. The difference is in the culture, not the skin color. And what do most third world cultures have in common? The first thing is an oversupply of AK-47s, the second thing is they tend to be socialist or communist. These are beggar cultures with a beggar mentality.

 

Sheer coincidence? Does IQ influence culture?

The US:

In the US we can see this same mentality bleeding into parts of our own society. Every time leftist black American’s demand reparations or special privileges in employment and schooling or handouts through DEI programs, they are, in essence, chasing the white man. They want what the white man has and they’re not really shy about saying it. They didn’t build it or earn it but they want it, and if they can’t have it they will just as happily tear it all down.

The phrase “black fatigue” comes to mind, but again, it’s far more about culture than skin color. It’s something that white people like me aren’t supposed discuss.

Zimbabwe and South Africa, especially, are warnings of what might happen when white people cease to be a majority in their own countries. The discrimination didn’t stop when “equality” was reached. Why should it? There might be more to plunder. Likewise, feminists used to complain when less than half the people at universities were female. Now they are 60% and increasing, and do we hear a peep from anyone about how unfair it is or about “remedying” the situation?

Is it already happening here? Australian Senator Mehreen Faruqi (who was born in Pakistan, by the way) recently said that “I can’t trust white people making decisions all the time”. No one bats an eyelid. Now imagine the uproar if Pauline Hanson, or anyone else for that matter, had said “I can’t trust brown and black people making decisions all the time”? Really. How ridiculous. It’s like “black lives matter good, white live matter bad” all over again.

Alan Kohler explains why everyone in Australia feels so poor right now. By The Daily Mail.

ABC finance guru Alan Kohler has warned Australians suffered a ‘great, quiet disaster’ in the wake of the pandemic, with workers effectively taking a massive pay cut as inflation surged. …

‘By March 2023, an average wage earner was $5,000 a year behind.’

He said workers were unlikely to simply make up that lost ground as inflation eased.

 

All that printed money for covid is paid for by lower real wages. “A great, quiet, disaster.”

 

‘That was a permanent loss — real wages stopped rising after 2022 and flatlined.

‘The result is that for three years, real per person disposable income has been going negative.‘ …

‘On top of that, up to a few months ago, house prices have been rising faster than incomes for 25 years, locking a generation out of owning a house,’ he said. …

Most of the printed money went into asset prices. Source.

 

Those born in the 1990s are the first Australian generation in history to not do better than those who came before.’ 

 

Australians have been going backwards and Labor has no plan to put more money back in your pocket.

Time to vote them out. pic.twitter.com/MapLzCVgOQ

— Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺 (@PaulineHansonOz) September 2, 2026

 

Comparisons with other countries? Not good:

How Woke Communism is different from 20th-Century Communism. By Krzysztof Szczawinski.

Communism no longer comes for your property directly. It comes for your reality. …

The twentieth century version required tanks, gulags, and the literal seizure of property — crude, visible, and ultimately self-defeating, because it destroyed the productive base it fed on.

The twenty-first century version is more subtle and pernicious. It does not confiscate. It destabilizes. It does not seize your business. It makes owning it too costly, too regulated, too risky — until you comply or collapse. The transfer of power happens without a single deed changing hands by force. …

Woke communism thrives in the chaos created by systematic lies:

Its instrument today is not confiscation but chaos — deliberately manufactured, strategically amplified — because chaos is what communists thrive on, what they use for control, and what they convert into profit and power for themselves.

The mechanism that makes this possible, the fuel that runs the entire engine, is the Systemic Lie. That lie is not a feature of communism. It is its core. …

Every manufactured crisis — racial, climatic, epidemiological, institutional — follows the same structural logic: disorder is produced or amplified, fear is maximized, and in the ensuing panic, transfers of power occur that would have been politically impossible in calm times. Emergency powers. Regulatory capture. The slow erasure of the boundary between public and private. You do not notice the expropriation because you are too busy surviving the emergency they built for you.

This is not coincidence. It is rational strategy. Chaos redistributes – not randomly, but toward those who anticipated it, positioned for it, and in many cases quietly produced it. Some benefit in absolute terms: assets acquired at collapse prices, power seized in the vacuum, information asymmetries converted into control. Others benefit only relatively — they simply outlast the rivals who the chaos destroyed. Both kinds of beneficiary draw from the same account. Yours.

 

Beyond ordinary propaganda is … the narrative:

The Systemic Lie is what holds the mechanism together. Not ordinary propaganda — something more total: a managed reality in which the categories of thought themselves are corrupted.

• Productivity is renamed exploitation.
• Order is renamed fascism.
• Resistance is renamed hate.

The Systemic Lie does not merely mislead — it destroys the conceptual tools by which people would otherwise identify what is being done to them. A population that cannot name extraction cannot resist it. …

Big picture:

This is why communism survives every empirical refutation. It was never a falsifiable theory. It doesn’t care about the truth — it only seeks power.

It is a coordination technology for extraction, wrapped in moral language sufficient to paralyze its opponents. Strip away the egalitarian vocabulary and what remains is a system perfectly engineered for the few to live at the expense of the many – while the many are kept too confused, too divided, and too guilty to see it.

Create a crisis with a lie, then never let a crisis go to waste. Repeat.

See How to Defeat Communism 2.0.

 

More net immigration to the UK from 2021 to 2024 than in the three thousand years to 2007. By Grok, when asked if it was true.

The claim is directionally true and consistent with available evidence: recent absolute net migration far exceeds known historical scales, and cumulative net inflows from ~1000 BC to 2007 were almost certainly lower (or not substantially higher) than the ~2.55 million in 2021–2024.

Pre-modern inflows:

Anglo-Saxon period (5th–6th/7th centuries): Genetics indicate substantial continental northern European ancestry contribution (often ~25–40%+ in parts of modern England, higher in early medieval samples), consistent with large-scale migration relative to the then-small population [2 million]. Absolute migrant estimates commonly range from tens of thousands to ~100,000–200,000 over decades/a century.

Romans, Vikings, Normans, and later episodes (e.g., Huguenots ~50,000 over decades; Jewish refugees in the late 19th/early 20th centuries): low hundreds of thousands.

20th century:

Decades of net emigration or near-balance early on (e.g., ~–80,000/year averages in early decades of the century). Modest net inflows mid-century (post-WWII Commonwealth, etc.), often offset by British emigration.

Tony Blair (PM from 1997 to 2007):

Cumulative net from the mid-1990s to 2007 was significant, rising toward ~200,000/year by the mid-2000s.

Summary:

In short, the absolute scale of net migration in 2021–2024 is unprecedented relative to any prior short period and, on the best available historical evidence and estimates, exceeds the cumulative net over the preceding three millennia up to 2007.

 

Coincidentally

Labor blames Pauline Hanson’s ‘own behaviour’ for escalating threats. By Rosie Lewis and Sarah Ison in The Australian.

An intense battle between the Albanese government and Pauline Hanson over what’s causing politically motivated threats against One Nation has erupted, with the minor party leader accusing Attorney-General Michelle Rowland of slandering her supporters and excusing violent threats. …

Ms Rowland on Tuesday defended the Prime Minister and said it was Senator Hanson’s behaviour and some people in One Nation who were to blame.

Ms Rowland’s intervention was swiftly rebuked by Senator Hanson, who demanded an apology and said the Attorney-General had been victim-blaming.

“Attorney-General Michelle Rowland must retract her comments and apologise for slandering One Nation and its supporters while appearing to excuse the violent threats directed against them,” Senator Hanson posted on X.

“Millions of Australians support One Nation. They are not extremists. They are not dangerous. And ministers should not use language that encourages others to treat them as if they are. No minister, especially the Attorney-General and first law officer of the country, should suggest there is any justification for threats against Australians because of the political party they support.

Pauline Hanson quotes Michelle Rowland:

When I raised the threats now requiring federal police protection, Ms Rowland responded: “I would suggest that Senator Hanson should examine what her party and what her ideology and her behaviour is doing and whether or not that is encouraging that.”

She added: “I think sometimes when comments like this are made, one needs to look at oneself and one’s behaviour and the kinds of standards that they accept into their own party and their own ideology.”

One Nation posted a recent threat:

 

 

Alexandra Marshall:

This should be immediately investigated by the AFP.

Nothing happened when school children threatened to harm the One Nation Leader.

No statements. No condemnation. No school follow up. No arrests. Not even a Prime Minister press conference.

Is Albanese going to make a statement about this?

And:

Both Facebook AND Australia’s eSafety Commissioner need to urgently explain why threats of violence and murder against One Nation and conservatives are not being removed or treated as serious.

There is a two-tier approach to digital safety.

Either we ditch the whole safety censorship system and leave it as a free for all — or the eSafety Commissioner takes some bloody responsibility and steps up to protect conservatives — even if it means upsetting diverse or religious groups who vote for Labor and the Greens.

Ryan Dally:

Attorney General Michelle Rowland was asked if One Nation is dangerous.

She said “One Nation does not represent mainstream Australia.”

Then she tied the party to “extremist views including neo Nazi views” and called that “dangerous.”

Meshy:

[Rowland] is intentionally marking Pauline Hanson, One Nation, and their voters. Labor is at war with the nation.

“They don’t kill you because you’re a fascist, they call you a fascist so they can kill you”

Copying US politics, with Hanson in the Trump role. Hope it doesn’t get as far as bullets flying.

UPDATE on the Nazi smears (by Will Seitam in The Australian):

WA One Nation leader Rod Caddies has called out hypocritical “dirty tactics” saying Labor “fascists” had tried to brand his image with Australia’s outlawed neo-Nazi movement. …

“When you look at the Labor campaign they were trying to attach me to neo-Nazis and they tried to muddy the waters.”

Pressed on whether he held any concern over the possibility that extremists may have infiltrated One Nation, Mr Caddies replied: “Not at all.

“We had 25,000 people turn up to a March for Australia rally and we had Labor trying to run a smear campaign saying I’m attached to neo-Nazis because I spoke at the rally. Twelves people in black clothes turned up. I told them to go away on the stage. So this is (Labor’s) dirty tactics.

“Democracy is a contest of ideas. (Labor) start calling you fascists and making claims that aren’t true. It’s them that are the fascists. This idea that we are mixing with some extremist part of the community is just not true.”

Today there is about twice as much political violence from the left as from the right. By John Tierney in City Journal.

When a leftist turns violent, Democratic politicians and their media allies offer a familiar response: yes, this is terrible, but right-wing violence is the greater threat. They have made that claim for decades, and it has always rested on a dubious premise.

The premise depends on statistics compiled by advocacy groups that exclude a vast catalog of left-wing violence — from the George Floyd riots to murders committed by pro-Palestinian activists and attacks on synagogues, Catholic churches, Tesla dealerships, and ICE facilities. Meanwhile, conservatives are routinely held responsible for the actions of violent loners, drug dealers, and conspiracy theorists with no coherent political program. Deranged anti-Semites, racists, incels, and antigovernment extremists get classified as right-wing, even when their targets span both parties.

These statistical games obscure a fundamental distinction. Mentally disturbed lone wolves appear on the fringes of both sides, but organized violence in pursuit of political goals is not a right-wing specialty; it is a left-wing one. Since the French Revolution, it has been a recurring strategy for movements seeking to gain and wield power. Yet the Left’s influence over legacy media and cultural institutions continues to sustain the myth that right-wing violence poses the greater public danger. …

The vast professional armies of political violence:

Why didn’t the vast network of right-wing fanatics mobilize its troops [after the US 2020 election]? Because the network doesn’t exist. There’s no right-wing equivalent of Code Pink, Extinction Rebellion, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the rest of the Left’s protest-industrial complex.

The professionals inhabiting that world have spent decades mastering the art of turning out crowds for the progressive cause du jour: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the Global Climate Strike, the Women’s March, Free Palestine, Abolish ICE, No Kings, No Data Centers, No Billionaires, and whatever banner the Omniprotest flies next.

The protest organizers have permanent jobs, funded by foundations, unions, left-wing philanthropists, and government grants to nonprofit groups. While assuring donors that the money supports peaceful, law-abiding demonstrations, they also provide lawyers and medics (trained to treat tear-gas injuries) at events, just in case protesters decide to shut down a bridge, occupy a building, topple a statue, or brawl with police.

This violence is not exactly spontaneous. Leftist protesters draw on instruction manuals like the Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide, regularly updated since its creation during Occupy Wall Street. Police found the latest version — along with bolt cutters, padlocks, and chains — among pro-Palestinian activists preparing to occupy a building at UCLA in 2024. …

Antifa, USA

When masked Antifa members carry clubs and other weapons to disrupt right-wing events across the country, they can draw on both practical guidance and philosophical justification from The Anti-Fascist Handbook, the New York Times bestseller by Rutgers historian Mark Bray. The vandals at Black Lives Matter protests could likewise find support from sympathetic scholars, who argue that “property destruction may be integral to the success of the uprising” and that “a reified notion of nonviolence is a mistake.”

You will not find conservative professors justifying this sort of violence. Conservative students do not establish “liberated zones” on campus.

How do you know the violence at universities is left wing?

Liberals who speak at conservative schools do not require special police protection or personal security teams, like the one accompanying Charlie Kirk on the day he was killed. …

So different:

You can find violent rhetoric and fantasies on alt-right websites, some of which have been quoted by shooters classified as right-wing. But their manifestos tend to be a jumble of idiosyncratic grievances, conspiracy theories, political demands, and personal invective. They don’t cite Republican members of Congress or the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

By contrast, Luigi Mangione’s accusations against health-care executives echoed themes common in progressive politics: that insurance companies prey on the sick, enrich themselves through suffering, and place profits above human lives. The avid Rachel Maddow fan who opened fire on a congressional baseball practice in 2017 targeted Republicans because of their policies. And the accusations leveled against Trump by his would-be assassins — that he is a dictator, a threat to democracy, a rapist, and a pedophile — had circulated for years among Democratic politicians and their media allies.

Demonizing opponents was a leftist monopoly — until Trump:

Donald Trump is often criticized — by some conservatives as well as liberals — for shattering norms of civility through insults and name-calling. It is true that his style of personal attack is unprecedented for a U.S. president. But he was also the first Republican to grasp intuitively the power of the Left’s chief rhetorical weapon. The tactic is captured in Saul Alinsky’s 1971 playbook, Rules for Radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Instead of criticizing abstractions like capitalism or a corporation’s policies, Alinsky advised going after specific executives …

Instead of complaining about school segregation, accuse the superintendent of being a “racist bastard.” And to generate the “necessary hostility,” Alinsky warned against the “political idiocy” of acknowledging any redeeming qualities in one’s target: “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

Demonizing political opponents is second nature to Democrats, as the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer observed in what he called the fundamental law of politics: “Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

Every Republican president since Richard Nixon has been branded a racist, a fascist, or both — and routinely compared to Hitler. …

If you convince followers that an opponent is Satan or Hitler, some will conclude that murder is justified.

Mangione and his many admirers believe that he acted on principle. So did Charlie Kirk’s accused killer, whose justification — “Some hate can’t be negotiated out” — echoed the demonization of Kirk by trans activists and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had put Kirk’s organization on its “hate map.” …

Trump’s mass rallies are often compared with Hitler’s, and they do differ from traditional Republican events. But the crowds at Barack Obama’s rallies could be just as fervent. Democrats have long been the party of mass mobilization, with streets filled by protesters chanting, “The people . . . united . . . will never be defeated!” …

The media’s double standard:

Journalists apply a similar double standard to contemporary political violence. Tea Party rallies were not known for violence — participants famously cleaned up after themselves in city plazas and on the National Mall — yet Democrats and mainstream journalists routinely compared them to Nazi gatherings.

Reporters also eagerly amplified accusations that Tea Partiers at one rally had shouted racial slurs at black members of Congress. In response, the late Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for evidence. Yet despite the presence of countless journalists and camera phones, no one ever came forward to substantiate the claim.

Journalists weren’t so keen on drawing Nazi parallels with masked Antifa members, who repeatedly disrupted conservative speeches and marches (a common tactic of the Brownshirts) around the country, attacking police and conservatives with clubs, bricks, fireworks, and Molotov cocktails. While a handful of independent journalists — notably Andy Ngo, who was hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage after getting pummeled by masked Antifa “counter-protesters — covered the group, the mainstream media largely ignored it. The few articles were often uncritical or even sympathetic. …

So how does the violence compare?

Shortly after Charlie Kirk’s murder last year, the media trumpeted a calculation from the Cato Institute that, since 1975, right-wingers had committed five times as many politically motivated killings as left-wingers. It was the usual accusation, but this time it prompted rebuttals.

Conservatives complained that virtually none of the supposedly right-wing killers was pushing an agenda endorsed by Republicans and that Cato’s definition of politically motivated violence unfairly excluded lethality by leftists. The Conservative Action Project listed methodological objections in a letter to Cato, urging that the study be withdrawn. (Cato demurred.) A conservative writer, Jennifer Emick, posted her own tally of political murders since 1975, excluding some on Cato’s list and adding others. She concluded that left-wingers had committed twice as many as right-wingers.

It is refreshing to see some conservatives finally challenge the myth of right-wing violence, but they have less incentive than leftists to keep the argument going. Conservatives do not make a living sending angry crowds into the streets, so they have less need for statistics that distract from the resulting mob violence. Nor do they depend on mobilizing the masses against the latest Hitler. But the Left’s professional activists will always need to find a new demon to rally the troops — and then pretend it was the other side that started the war.

And that’s before we even get to Islamic violence. Islam has expanded historically almost entirely by the sword and by force, not by peacefully convincing free people.

When did normal become ‘far-right’? By Daryl Maher in The Spectator.

Today, far-right is apparently anybody who disagrees with the Prime Minister. Raise concerns about migration, ethnicity, or religion and you risk being treated not as someone to be answered, but as someone on a conveyor belt to extremism. …

Rape has become third-world-migrant-coded, so now it’s outside the Overton window:

When I investigated the issue, many Western countries where the ruling elites have indulged in mass migration have seen a massive increase in rape, yet the entire topic is taboo. I wouldn’t even know had I not investigated for myself.

 

 

Rape statistics are one of the few statistical areas that comes with an army of apologists trying to say that it’s really not as bad as it looks. Spoilers: it is. Even counting the #MeToo effect, higher recording, and even changes in the law. …

Discussing this isn’t far-right, it’s a reasonable concern of normal people. If my Indian Grandmother was aware of this situation, she would be asking questions too. But somewhere along the line, we stopped caring about rape. It is one of the most astounding developments in modernity.

Antisemitism has become left-coded, so we can talk about that). But of course concern about Islam and third world immigration has become right-coded, so it’s outside the Overton window:

Concerns over the rise in antisemitism is also, apparently, something that the ‘far-right’ are concerned by. Even after a terrorist attack, our own Prime Minister was often reluctant to use the term Islamic Terrorism. …

Again, it is not an extremist position to ask why the Albanese regime continues to bring in high numbers of migrants from countries where antisemitic sentiment is not only rife, it is commonplace.

Asking why this has happened isn’t far-right, it’s a reasonable concern of normal people. …

Warning system:

We know where this is headed. Thanks to Google’s YouTube and Elon Musk’s X we can all see what is happening in the UK. For now, anyway.  …

Asking why the media isn’t sounding the alarm isn’t ‘far-right’, at this stage, it’s a survival impulse. In fact, the deeper question is why the media seems to be silent about the proven impacts of importing cultures that are historically and provably hostile to our own.

And just in case there was anybody left who still thought we lived in a democracy, ask yourself how a party with a primary vote of 32.58 per cent could drag us to the brink of being permanently divided by race.

Permanent division by race? I think the author is referring to migration, ethnicity, or religion, not The Voice. Though he might be.

One Nation Win Scares Labor. By Joanne Nova.

For foreign readers, One Nation is the anti-mass-immigration, pro-farmer, pro-tradesman, anti-net-zero, anti forced vaccination party. It is called “far right” by the media — because the left labels anyone wanting to reduce immigration from the third world as far-right.

On Saturday, One Nation won the Western Australian state seat of Secret Harbour from the governing Labor Party. This is causing a political earthquake.

One Nation’s new M.P. Luke Herdegen has declared “there are no safe Labor seats” in Australia anymore. …

Labor have held this seat since 1989, but the workers have realized that Labor stand with the elites and wealthy bureaucrats and not them. Luke Herdegen, gym owner and former concreter, won last night with an amazing 57% on preferences. This means One Nation are not just taking votes from the Right but have crossed the left-right divide and are winning long-time Labor voters over too.

Vote Count (First preferences):

One Nation: 39%
Labor: 24%
Liberal: 17%
Greens 8%

Secret Harbour was one of WA’s safest Labor seats. In 2021, during the Covid pandemic they won on a smashing 76% primary vote. …

Labor ran a young woman who was a former Labor staffer and Woodside “government relations adviser” who lived out of the electorate. She was emblematic of the kind of bureaucrat that the voters didn’t want to elect.

Labor threw the kitchen sink at the campaign, spending an estimated $400,000 on a safe seat — a new record — and door-knocked 17,000 homes. They sent out 72,000 emails, and 200,000 letters and flyers. They even printed imitation Lotto scratchies where voters were supposed to scratch off to reveal all the bad choices Pauline Hanson has made.

The biggest donor to One Nation in WA was a mere $25,000 from a farmer. They did not get funding from the national One Nation party or from Gina Rinehart. Most of the donations were $100 or less.

The ABC pushed the Labor candidate with free advertising from the beginning, and ignored the One Nation candidate until polls showed he was likely to upset the duopoly. They barely let Luke Herdegen speak.

Even though this is a state seat, there was visceral anger towards Anthony Albanese and the Federal government, so most of this election was a protest vote against Federal politics.

This is the kind of election shock that changes political behaviour now. The seat itself is not critical because the state government has a clear majority. But a win like this will get both major parties reassessing their policies. Labor was already starting to talk about lowering immigration. Now if it is smart, it will do it. It’s too late though. Who will believe they won’t just ramp it up after the election?

PM Anthony Albanese:

Watch Albanese react to losing a Labor stronghold to One Nation. “Across the world, hard-right populists are on the march, ­peddling politics that is dangerous, divisive, and downright dishonest. We simply must defeat them. We owe it to history. … They’ll say and do anything to win votes.” [Projection?]

Watch Albanese react to losing a Labor stronghold by attacking the voters.

“Dangerous, divisive, and downright dishonest.” “They think Australians are lazy… people working from home are bludging.” pic.twitter.com/QggjT9mLds

— Osher Feldman (@OsherFeldman) August 30, 2026

Meme time:

Albanese’s deplorables moment

Pauline Hanson:

The attacks from Chalmers and Albanese on One Nation have become increasingly desperate. Yesterday they crossed a line. …

Telling Australians that their democratically elected opponents are “dangerous” and a “threat to our country” invites people to treat them as a threat.

Words have consequences. That is how political violence is incited. The murder of Ann Widdecombe in Britain should be warning enough about the dangers of poisonous political rhetoric.

Anthony Albanese says we need to turn down the heat and violent rhetoric in our political discourse. Meanwhile, he and his Treasurer are pouring petrol all over it.

Alexandra Marshall in The Spectator:

At the start, Labor and the media treated One Nation’s incursion into Secret Harbour as a joke, but the possibility of victory was present from the start when street-side interviews were frequently interrupted by well-wishers and cars honking in support. That is the sort of greeting party leader Pauline Hanson receives. Victory starts with voter affection. …

It was a battle between a political staffer turned Woodside lobbyist and a gym owner. …

One big by-election victory in Farrer is a quirk of history. Two in close succession is an eyebrow-raise moment …

One Nation has endured utterly ruthless smear campaigns of late. It is a dangerous game for the press to play because either One Nation collapses and the ‘threat’ of a third party is eliminated or — and this appears to be what is happening — One Nation is forced to refine their policies to the point they comfortably out-compete the lazy major parties. The media melting pot is forging One Nation.

Peter Van Onselen in The Daily Mail

The Farrer by-election was a warning to the Coalition. Secret Harbour is a warning to Labor. …

Anthony Albanese’s response to Secret Harbour has been revealing. He [accused One Nation] of peddling politics that is ‘dangerous, divisive and downright dishonest‘. …

Parties don’t hit 30 per cent because a third of the electorate has been hypnotised by misinformation. They get there because millions of voters have concluded the political establishment neither understands nor cares about them. Telling those voters they’ve been conned is exactly the sort of condescension that drove them to Hanson in the first place. It’s the sort of stuff that has cost politicians dearly in the past — see Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters a ‘basket of deplorables’. …

Newspoll’s personal ratings are also brutal. Albo’s net approval is minus 21, Angus Taylor’s is minus 17. Hanson has climbed to minus one. …

While the PM still beats Hanson 56-to-44 in a direct showdown on the preferred leader rating, the three way race is devastating for the Coalition. Albo leads on 46 per cent, but Hanson on 31 per cent has relegated Taylor, on just 23 per cent, to an afterthought. In the public mind, Hanson is now the real opposition leader.

“We owe it to history”?? Restore Australia responds:

Your thinly veiled attempt to draw comparisons to a certain 1930s fascist German regime is rather pathetic. The more you demonise normal people, the more you push them further and further out of the liberal world paradigm, and into nationalism and traditionalism.

You are the extremist here Albo: you are the one importing millions of third world migrants, you are the one crushing our productivity and you are the man with the finger placed firmly on the money printer, debasing our currency. The people are normal folk who just want to live their lives, you have betrayed working people as the “Labor” party, and you have chosen to represent foreigners, communists, students and welfare claimants instead.

How stereotyped, that the contest was between a Labor staffer and PR person on the left, and a gym owner on the right.

Georgia Tree from the ruling (oppressing) class on the left, and Luke Herdegen from the ruled (oppressed) class on the right.

The essence of Leftism is lying about reality. By Krzysztof Szczawinski.

Most people in the West think they understand communism. They picture bread lines, gulags, failed five-year plans, and the collapsed Soviet Union. They treat it as a discredited economic theory — an experiment that proved that abolishing private property doesn’t work. Case closed, history moved on.

This misunderstanding may be the most dangerous intellectual failure of our time.

Communism was never primarily an economic system. Economics was the surface. Beneath it lay something far more insidious: a total, systemic, institutionalized commitment to lying.

Not occasional dishonesty. Not spin or propaganda in the ordinary sense. Something deeper – a civilizational war against truth itself, waged through every institution, every classroom, every newspaper, every conversation, until reality itself became negotiable and the lie became the air people breathed.

The Polish had words for it:

The Polish language, forged by decades of living under this system, produced words for this phenomenon that English simply cannot match:

Zakłamanie [zah-kwah-MAH-nyeh] — a state of total, pervasive, socially embedded falsehood, a condition in which an entire society is saturated with lies so thoroughly that truth becomes almost inaccessible.

Obłuda [ob-woo-dah] — a deep, performative hypocrisy, the gap between what is proclaimed and what is actually practiced, the mask worn so long it begins to feel like a face.

These are not words for individual liars. They describe a system — a mode of social organization built on organized mendacity, where the lie is not the exception but the foundation. English has no single word for either concept, and that linguistic gap is not a coincidence. It reflects a gap in experience. Cultures that did not live under communism lack the vocabulary because they lack the wound.

And because they lack the vocabulary, they struggle to recognize the thing when it reappears in new clothing.

 

 

Communism, Leftism, Wokeism have the same structure:

What we call wokeism today, or the broader radical left, is not a new phenomenon. It is the same operating system running on updated hardware. The specifics have changed — instead of the proletariat, we have marginalized identity groups; instead of bourgeois class enemies, we have racists and transphobes; instead of socialist realism, we have DEI statements. But the deep structure is the same.

That deep structure is this:

• Truth is not discovered, it is assigned.
• Reality is not something to be understood honestly but something to be narrated strategically.
• Language is not a tool for communication but a weapon of power.
• And anyone who resists the approved narrative is not simply wrong – they are dangerous, and must be silenced, shamed, or destroyed.

This is zakłamanie in its modern form. This is obłuda wearing a human rights badge.

The same movement that insists men can become women will insist, with equal fervor, that questioning this is an act of violence. The same institutions that claim to champion free inquiry systematically suppress dissent. The same people who invoke tolerance as their highest value are among the most intolerant forces in public life. The contradiction is not accidental — it is structural. It is the system working as designed.

Why the West still doesn’t get it:

People who grew up in freedom tend to assume, at some level, that bad actors know they are lying. That somewhere behind the ideological performance, there is a cynical operator who privately acknowledges reality. This assumption is wrong, and it is why Westerners consistently underestimate what they are dealing with.

The totalitarian lie, at its mature stage, is not cynical. It is believed. Or rather, it creates a condition in which the distinction between belief and performance collapses entirely. People learn to say things they do not believe so fluently, and for so long, that they lose access to what they actually think.

 

 

This system does not just produce liars — it produces people who can no longer clearly distinguish truth from the narrative they have been trained to emit. …

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and others who lived through this recognize the pattern immediately when they see it in Western institutions today. The show trials of Twitter mobs. The compelled speech. The ideological litmus tests for employment. The memory-holing of inconvenient facts. The ritualistic confessions of privilege. To a post-communist eye, it is unmistakable.

To eyes that have only known freedom, it looks like a passionate, if misguided, social movement.

That gap in perception – between those who have vocabulary for zakłamanie and those who do not – may be one of the most consequential fault lines in the Western world today. Because you cannot fight a disease you cannot name. And you cannot name what your language was never built to describe.

Look around. The modern left’s “narrative” of the last decade has been a panoply of lies — men can become women and vice versa, our carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming, Islam is the religion of peace, all large groups of people have the same statistical properties (so under-representation in something desirable is evidence of discrimination), the covid “vaccines” were safe and effective, objective truth does not exist, the Voice was not racist, black lives matter but it is wrong and racist to say “white lives matter,” replacement of whites by immigration is not happening, most political violence is from the right, communism and socialism are good but just haven’t been tried right, President Biden was as sharp as a tack,…. and so on.