Albanese and Report 117 that went missing. By David Archibald.

Kim Beazley did well:

Australia’s political leaders have not always been such fools when it comes to liquid fuel security. In 2005, Kim Beazley, while Leader of the Federal Labor Opposition, asked, in an address to the Australian Institute of Company Directors,

As Australians queue for petrol at around $4.00, $5.00 potentially up to $10.00 a litre further down the track, the question will be: how did our government not see the writing on the wall?

Anthony Albanese was bad and dishonest:

Anthony Albanese provides a couple of examples of not seeing the writing. He was minister for transport in 2009, when the department’s research arm was about to release Report 117, which is 474 pages on the subject of long-term oil supply.

Albanese pulled the report just prior to printing. Another report on aircraft was relabelled as No 117, to bury the crime. At the time Gillard was bringing in her carbon tax, so a report saying that the real problem was the opposite would not have helped her. …

 

 

What did we miss out on, when denied the 474 pages of Report 117? This is summarised by this figure from page xxix:

 

 

That figure, made in 2009, is of world oil production from 1870 with a projection to 2100. It has world oil production falling out of bed right about now. As a civilisation, starting in 2009, we would have had to scramble hard to replace oil in the economy while maintaining our standard of living. Starting that process 20 years later will make the process harder. That is the consequence of Albanese’s judgement.

Angus Taylor was just as bad and evasive:

What about the alternative to Albanese, the current Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor? Mr Taylor was Minister for Energy from 28th August, 2018 to 23rd May, 2022. He talked a big game on energy security, but in the end he did the opposite. Being in contempt of its own voter base, the Morrison regime bought some oil to be a strategic reserve but didn’t tell the Australian public the quantum involved. It was a token effort to shut up its supporters.

To make things worse, it was stored in the salt caverns of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana. We didn’t find out how much was involved until later, after it had been sold. In one of his last acts as Energy Minister, Angus Taylor sold the whole of our strategic oil reserve of 1.7 million barrels in March, 2022. That amount of oil would have lasted us 1.7 days, if it ever made it to Australia.

So what now?

By their fruits you shall know them — Albanese and Taylor are worse than useless on energy security. They have been deceptive and in contempt of the Australian public. We need someone else to lead us.

How much do we need to spend to have some security? In 2023, the Ampol Lytton refinery in Brisbane awarded a contract to design and build a new 31 meter diameter, 20 meter high jet fuel storage tank for $9.3 million. That works out to $103 per barrel of storage capacity, which is $0.65 per litre.

A good start, proportional to Japan’s 470 million barrels, would be a strategic reserve of 100 million barrels. The tankage for that would cost $10.3 billion. To fill it at the current Brent price of US$112.82 per barrel would be a further $16.1 billion. The total of $26.4 billion is significantly less than what we are currently spending each year on the NDIS. No more need be said about affordability — just reallocate from the NDIS. We need to start a bidding ware amongst the political parties about the size of the fuel stock they promise to build.

Everything looks cheap next to the fraud-ridden NDIS.

One Nation is renewing the conservative side of politics in Australia. By Nick Cater in The Australian.

One Nation’s campaign line — “we say what you’re thinking” — is more than just a slogan. It’s the complete mission statement of a party that is strong on conviction but light on policy. All talk but no action.

When the Liberal Party was in the hands of solid-blue conviction conservatives such as John Howard and Tony Abbott, One Nation’s appeal was limited. Yet the more bland the Libs become, the more One Nation thrives. Outrage, clarity and conflict work well in the era of political TikTokisation. Measured, relaxed and comfortable fall flat. …

Copying the Labor Party fell flat.

If One Nation wants to change the policy, it must build an intelligent and persuasive case, as the No campaigners did at the voice referendum. Yet One Nation has no intention of mastering the art of persuasion. It is not and never will be a party of government, not while it remains a Hansonite party, one of limited ambition, content to barrack from the grandstand rather than lace its boots and get on to the field.

Pauline Hanson made that point explicitly this month. “I don’t want any ministerial positions,” she told Sky News. “I want to remain completely independent to judge the legislation that’s being put up.” …

Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan’s leadership offered a clean break, but the real resurgence is coming from the grassroots, driven by the realisation that, despite One Nation’s rise in the polls, a Liberal-National government is the only viable alternative to a bad Labor government. …

Grand coalition?

Yet we can forget the fanciful notion that the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation can form government in a grand coalition. The century-old National-Liberal partnership endures for a reason.

It evolved to adapt to Australia’s singular instant run-off voting system. The convention that prevents two parties from competing for the same electorate, together with a tight preference exchange, maximises the efficiency of conservative votes and avoids wasting energy on internal fights.

With the best will in the world, it is hard to imagine One Nation maturing into such a responsible partner.

Maybe One Nation will change, as it gathers voters because no one else will squarely oppose the globalists — especially their anti-white policies. Already Barnaby Joyce and Cory Bernadi have switched to One Nation. If Pauline retired, maybe One Nation could transform from being a protest party to being a party of government.

The problem then, of course, is that a party in government gets used to the luxury — and the bureaucracy is in their ear all the time. After a while they effectively join the uniparty, becoming just like the globalists, and conservatives must start over with a new party.

Robert Conquest’s Second Law:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

This observation reflects Conquest’s view that institutions, in the absence of deliberate conservative safeguards, tend to drift toward progressive or left-leaning ideologies over time due to cultural pressures, bureaucratic inertia, and ideological entryism.

(Btw, Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics are:

• First Law: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. This suggests individuals tend to resist change in areas they understand deeply.
• Second Law: Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.
• Third Law: The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be explained by assuming it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies. This is often interpreted as a satirical take on bureaucratic dysfunction, implying organizations often act against their stated purposes.)

The left have become deniers. By Megan Goldin in The Australian.

Reminder:

On October 7, 2023, as the Nova music festival was overrun by armed Hamas terrorists, surgical nurse Tali Biner hid in a trailer listening to women screaming “No” and “Stop”. …

Watching Hamas terrorists from his hiding place under the festival stage, Yoni Saadon, a 39-year-old father of four, saw a “beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or 10 fighters beating and raping her … When they finished, they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.” He later saw a girl beheaded with a shovel by Hamas when she refused to strip off her clothes. …

These are just a few of many testimonies so disturbing that some of the survivors and first responders who witnessed the atrocities of October 7 and the aftermath have committed suicide. …

“Many of the rapes were gang rapes … Many of the rapes were done in front of an audience; spouses, family or friends … Most of the victims were executed after or during the rapes,” a 2024 report by the Association of Rape Crisis Centres in Israel states.

Etc. etc.

But the left live in the media echo chamber, which led to them to believe something else:

In the face of overwhelming evidence, it is a testament to the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign since October 7, 2023, that Grace Tame, who built her reputation as an advocate for sexual assault survivors, would deny the October 7 rapes.

Tame took to the media this week to bemoan losing paid speaking gigs because of what she called “a smear campaign” by “a well-oiled political machine” following her “From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the intifada” chant at a rally in Sydney, weeks after the intifada was in fact globalised when two Islamists gunned down 15 people at a Jewish festival at Bondi Beach.

After trying to sanitise the word intifada, colloquially used to describe the suicide bombings, shootings and other attacks of the second intifada that killed more than 1000 Israelis after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected a peace deal with Israel in 2000, Tame then doubled down on October 7 atrocity denial.

Asked during an ABC radio interview about her failure to speak out on behalf of Israeli women raped and killed by Hamas on October 7, Tame snapped: “I am not going to sink to the level of entertaining any kind of propaganda.”

When asked why she considered that propaganda, Tame responded angrily: “Those things have been debunked.” …

“I stand strong with my convictions and the knowledge of history,” Tame told the ABC. “I am a human rights activist who advocates for the safety of all human beings, no matter their background, whether they are Jewish, whether they are Muslims, whether they are Christian, whether they are atheist.” …

Like Holocaust denial, only quicker:

Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt, who won a landmark lawsuit in 2000 against Holocaust denier David Irving, sees parallels between Holocaust denial and October 7 atrocity and sexual assault denial.

British historian Roberts agrees. “Holocaust denial took a few years to take root in pockets of society, but on 7 October 2023 it took only hours for people to claim that the massacres in southern Israel had not taken place. Hamas and its allies, both in the Middle East and equally shameful in the West, have sought to deny the atrocities,” his 2025 report states.

Lipstadt has expressed particular shock at the silence of groups that were quick to speak out when the perpetrators of atrocities were Boko Haram or Islamic State. Yet when it came to Jews, not only did these groups not speak out but they denied it.

“The silence was most disconcerting. Silence of precisely those groups from whom one would expect to have been outraged — women’s groups, progressive groups, groups that fight sexual violence, human rights groups,” Lipstadt says.

“What’s the difference between that and October 7? There’s only one difference, and that difference is the perception that these victims were all Jews.”

Good of Grace Tame to remind us of how deluded and misinformed many on the left are.

Australian policy now decided on the steps of the Lakemba Mosque. By David Flint in The Spectator.

In 2012, during a heated Labor caucus meeting, then-Foreign Minister Bob Carr reportedly issued a challenge to his colleagues that has since become a chilling piece of political folklore. Arguing against Julia Gillard’s insistence on maintaining bipartisan policy and not recognising Palestinian delegates at the UN, Carr allegedly demanded to know: ‘How could I possibly explain this from the steps of the Lakemba Mosque?’

Fourteen years later, it appears the ‘Lakemba Veto’ has evolved from a desperate plea into a formal pillar of Australian national security, at least while Labor is in office. …

Here we go, in 2026:

On March 16, 2026, Federal Transport Minister Catherine King … stepped onto the national stage to issue a preemptive and highly provocative snub to our most critical ally, the United States. Speaking to ABC Radio National, she didn’t just decline a request; she ruled one out before it was even made. In a statement that felt more like an electoral bribe than a strategic briefing, Ms King declared: “We won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz. We know how incredibly important that is, but that’s not something that we’ve been asked or that we’re contributing to.” …

The gratuitously provocative and insulting nature of this refusal is staggering. At the time of her broadcast, the Trump administration had made no formal, specific request to Canberra. Yet, Labor felt the need to rush to the microphones to reassure a very specific domestic audience that Australia would not lift a finger to help the United States secure the world’s most vital oil artery.

The most likely reason for this ‘preemptive no’ isn’t a lack of naval capacity or a sudden pivot to the Indo-Pacific. It is a calculated act of political survival.

Following the 2025 election, where Labor’s primary vote in Western Sydney was significantly reduced by the ‘Muslim Vote’ movement, the Albanese government is now in a state of terminal fear. They are so beholden to the concentrated voting blocs in seats like Watson and Blaxland that they have effectively adopted what is an antisemitic line of least resistance. By refusing to oppose the Iranian regime’s blockade of the Strait — a regime that funds the very proxies their inner-city and Western Sydney constituents support — Labor has decided that saving Tony Burke’s seat is more important than securing the global energy supply.

But it’s not enough! Last week, Albanese and Burke were run out of Lakemba Mosque to cries of Allahu Akbar and “feral pig”:

Meanwhile, Australians are suffering:

While they play to the mosque steps, they are abandoning the traditional working-class voters who are being driven into the arms of One Nation. They are the ones paying $3.00/L at the petrol pump — a direct consequence of the instability Labor refuses to help quell….

Apparently, Australia’s defence strategy is no longer being written in Russell Offices; it is being dictated by an assessment of the electoral effect through that barometer for Labor: the steps of the Lakemba Mosque.

Iran started this war a long time ago. By Daniel Hannan in The Washington Examiner.

What do the following countries have in common? Argentina, Australia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The answer is that all have been on the receiving end of Iranian terrorism, either directly or through a Tehran-backed proxy, such as Hezbollah.

Think about that list. What possible interest could the ayatollahs have had in, say, Buenos Aires, which lies 8,500 miles from Tehran? In 1994, a militant drove an explosives-laden van into a Jewish community center, killing 85 people and injuring more than 300. Argentine prosecutors followed the trail back to Iranian state officials.

Why, for Heaven’s sake? I mean, why Argentina? Presumably, to show that they could strike anywhere they wanted. That charred horror was what “globalize the intifada” looks like.

 

You think that it is the U.S. picking a fight? That President Donald Trump is the man who has trashed international law? The mullas’ regime was literally founded in defiance of any concept of law among nations. Can you remember its opening act, the overture that announced all that was to follow? That’s right: The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

It is difficult, after so many years, to recall quite how shocking it was to make hostages of embassy personnel. The sanctity of diplomatic missions is the cornerstone of the international order. If the U.S. declared war on Venezuela tomorrow, diplomats would be peacefully evacuated through third countries.

In rejecting that convention, the ayatollahs were sending out the strongest possible signal: “Your rules don’t apply to us. We don’t recognize international law. We answer to a higher power”.

That abuse should have told us everything we needed to know. It is in the nature of revolutionary regimes to pick fights. They buy stability at home with instability abroad, drinking order from their environment. These were not tinpot kleptocrats but millenarian fanatics who believed that their foreign adventurism would hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam and the end of the world. …

We should bracket the Iranian Revolution with the French or Russian Revolutions. All three violently opposed the rule of law among nations. All three had networks of foreign sympathizers and imitators. Just as the French Directory inspired Jacobin Clubs around Europe, and just as the Bolsheviks had client communist parties, so the ayatollahs popularized the idea that a good Muslim could not be a loyal citizen of a secular state. They did not invent the idea, but they made it mainstream. …

Iran has declared war on the world. Not just on Israel and not just recently. The ayatollahs have some support from Russia, which they supply with drones, and from China, which they supply with cheap oil. Almost every other country, especially neighboring Arab states, loathes them. …

A lot of people who would otherwise be able to see this are blinded by their dislike of Trump. Well, as one who shares that dislike, he has called this one correctly.

For decades, successive US presidents have put off dealing with the problem. But in 2026 it could wait no longer, and it happened to fall on Trump’s shoulders. What the media — being anti-Trump — fail to explain is that the Chinese had begun rapidly building lots of missiles for the Iranians. In a few months, Iran would have had so many conventional missiles that the US and Israel would dare not attack Iran, for the damage those missiles could do Israel and the Gulf States. Look at the damage Iran is doing now — what if they had ten times as many missiles? And in due course, perhaps in a year or two, Iran would build nuclear bombs to put on those missiles.

Religious Islamists with nuclear bombs, on missiles that can reach India, Europe, Israel, and all over the Middle East. But the anti-Trump media doesn’t want to talk about that.

 

UK House Of Lords Rams Through ‘Abortion Up To Birth’ Law; Only 1% Of Brits Approve. By Steve Watson at modernity news.

The unelected House of Lords in the UK has just voted to embed extreme abortion provisions into law, decriminalising terminations right up to birth. This comes despite clear polling evidence that only 1% of the British public supports the move, exposing a ruling class utterly detached from the people it claims to serve. …

It removes criminal liability for a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any stage, meaning self-induced abortions — even late-term — carry no legal consequences.

The disconnect could not be starker. As GB News reported: “Just 1% of the public agree with this… and yet it has now made it into law.” …

A Whitestone Insight poll showed … 62% believed abortion should remain illegal after 24 weeks, 53% agreed that abortion should not be an option if a baby could survive outside the womb, and only 5% supported allowing abortion up to birth.

Democracy used to mean that the government expressed the will of the people, with due protections for minority rights. Not any more.

Background:

Tony Blair initiated major reforms to the House of Lords in 1999 by removing the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the chamber. He eliminated over 600 hereditary peers, leaving only 92 temporarily allowed to remain.

These hereditary peers were largely replaced by life peers, who are appointed by the government and do not pass their titles to heirs. The majority of these new appointments were made on the advice of the Prime Minister, leading to criticism that the chamber became a “house of cronies”, filled with allies of Blair, known as “Tonies Cronies”. 

The final removal of all remaining hereditary peers was completed in March 2026 under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government.

We are losing our country, yet only Hanson is saying “No!” By Alexander Downer in The Australian.

The uniparty-aligned commentators won’t mention the big issue:

Commentators will tell you the reason voters have moved from the Coalition in particular to One Nation is because of public concern about the cost of living, the price of electricity, declining real wages and the cost of housing.

These are certainly legitimate issues for public concern. For example the political class has tried to convince voters that building windmills and solar farms will produce much cheaper electricity when obviously the complete reverse has happened. In the past decade, SA electricity prices have increased by about 100 per cent. Yet 85 per cent of the state’s electricity comes from renewables. Go figure.

Wokeness? No, that’s not it:

But talk to people in SA who have moved from voting Liberal to voting One Nation, and it is clear that it is as much non-economic issues that have caused their defection.

Many are saying Australia is changing and they use the phrase “we are losing our country”.

Some of their anger is directed at absurd overreach on symbolic issues. The overuse of welcome to country ceremonies and, in particular, acknowledgment of traditional owners is a good example of woke policies that drive a lot of people nuts. …

Most Australians were born in this country and have no other nationality. They rationalise it this way, for right or for wrong. Progressives think they are not just wrong but downright racist.

A recent poll showed 63 per cent of Australians didn’t want welcome to country ceremonies at sporting events. That’s a big majority and those people think Hanson is the one person who’s prepared to say she doesn’t like these ceremonies.

The big one:

But there’s no doubt immigration is the most potent issue driving up One Nation’s vote. …

Those migrants who don’t integrate and who have been playing out the tensions and hatreds of the parts of the world from which they have come have turned a sizeable proportion of the population against immigration.

Events such as the massacre of the Jews at Bondi Beach last December only inflame private hostility to immigration.

The scene last Friday of Anthony Albanese being heckled and abused at a Lakemba mosque in Sydney plays into this same sentiment.

Hanson may say hurtful and insensitive things, in particular about Muslims, most of whom are perfectly reasonable law-abiding citizens, but her comments play into the private views of many, many people.

These are just examples of how many South Australians and indeed Australians from around the country feel and why they are increasingly flocking to One Nation. It’s not that One Nation has any particular policies that would address housing shortages, the cost of living, electricity prices and so on. It’s that a lot of perfectly patriotic and decent Australians think she stands up for Australia.

Like the nationalists in other Western countries, who have been subjected to replacement and anti-white hostility from our globalist ruling class:

This is the Australian version of a phenomenon that has been under way in Britain and the EU for quite some time. A sizeable percentage of their populations is fed up with the progressive agenda promoted by the centre-left and often supported by the centre-right.

They are upset about illegal immigration and the restructuring of society to accommodate migrants rather than encouraging the integration of migrants. As in Australia, disruptive and aggressive demonstrations over issues such as Middle East wars only exacerbate this sentiment.

South Australian election results. By Caitlan Powell in The Daily Mail:

Of the state’s 47 seats, the ALP had secured 30, the Liberals had 4, with 13 seats still in doubt.

Late on Saturday night, Electoral Commission figures showed statewide Labor had 37.8 per cent of the vote, One Nation had 21.7 per cent, the Liberals slipped to third on 19.1 per cent and the Greens were on 11.6 per cent.

One Nation’s Upper House lead candidate, former Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, has secured his seat, with the party on track to claim two or possibly three seats in total.

Conservatives must pluck up the courage to oppose the ruling class. Hanson is showing them how, and the SA election shows many that voters will vote for her policies — despite the social opprobrium and Pauline’s shortcomings as a would-be PM.

Opposing the uniparty: Conservatives want a voice. Why choose a whisper? By Flat White in The Spectator.

State Liberal parties in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and (until recently) Western Australia have prioritised the ‘Ley’ model. That is a ‘nice’ inoffensive centrist woman pitched at the Teal voters and the ‘modern’ electorate.

Some state leaders of the Liberal Party — electoral success eludes them all:

Kellie Sloan in NSW (ex-ABC)

Ashton Hurn in South Australia

Jess Wilson in Victoria

Libby Mettam in Western Australia, until March 2025

 

No one is saying conservatives won’t vote for a woman. After all, the Liberals are being wiped out by Pauline Hanson and still go weak at the knees for the ghost of Margaret Thatcher.

It’s the type of woman that matters.

Teals like their women rich and dripping in an environmental saviour complex. Bonus points if they sound like a private school teacher delivering a lecture on political correctness.

Conservatives prefer their women scary as shit. They want them to casually break balls, injure the egos of Labor unionists, and ruthlessly subvert the gender privilege of the Teals. These voters want warriors, not appeasers.

Oppose the globalists, don’t suck up to them — give us an alternative to the blob

 

In Pauline Hanson, they do not see a fish and chip shop owner, they see a woman who routinely throws creatures into hot oil and serves their corpses up to the highest bidder.

Nothing about any of the Liberal women currently standing for state leadership screams dangerous. … They are not going to give answers on Sky News Australia that make the party elite reach for their pearls. These leaders are meticulously controlled by the party machine as if they had been printed alongside the How-To-Vote-Cards. …

The people are voting orange to send a giant F-U to the establishment because they are tired of having nation-changing decisions made without their consent.

Conservatives want a voice. Why would they choose a whisper?

Iran’s surprise: Long range missiles that can hit Berlin and Paris. By Brett McGurk.

Speaks for itself:

Feb. 25, 2026: “We are not developing long-range missiles… we have limited the range below 2,000 kilometers” — Iran’s FM Araghchi (IRNA).

March 20, 2026: Iran fires missiles at Diego Garcia — ranging 4,000 kilometers (WSJ).

Obama sent Iran pallets of cash because it promised to be good.

Trump’s Pearl Harbor Joke Ends the Curse on Japan, now a Laugh Between Equals. By Captain S.O., a Japanese citizen.

Trump’s Pearl Harbor joke wasn’t an insult. It was the key that finally unlocked something buried deep in the Japanese soul.

For 80 long years, we’ve carried apology and guilt like a permanent shadow—haunted by the past, bound by the Constitution America wrote for us, forever in “reflection mode.”

He turned that raw wound into a shared laugh between equals. No more endless atonement. No more vassal shadow.

The curse is broken. Japan is free now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

We’re allowed to stand tall again — as true partners, not subordinates.  The strongest alliance in the world is rising — equals, brothers, ride-or-die.

 

Trump, on why the strike on Iran’s leaders wasn’t signaled to allies an the world first: “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?“

A mature tree increases a home’s value by 7 to 19 percent, worth far more than the savings in costs of removing it when building. By Aakash Gupta, in the US but clearly applicable in Australia.

Let me explain exactly why every new subdivision in America looks like the top photo …

 

A mature tree increases a home’s value by 7 to 19 percent. On a $400,000 house, that’s $28,000 to $76,000.

A single shade tree produces the cooling equivalent of ten room-size air conditioners running 20 hours a day. One tree on the west side of a house cuts energy bills by 12 percent within 15 years. …

Removing those trees saves the builder roughly $5,000 per lot. Concrete trucks need twice the dripline radius of every standing tree. Utility trenches need flat ground. A bulldozer flattens 200 lots in an afternoon. Preserving trees adds weeks and thousands per home.

So the developer pockets $5,000 in savings and the buyer eats $50,000 in lost value for the next two decades. The person making the decision and the person paying for it have never been in the same room. …

Fifty years of data. The trees are worth more than removing them saves.

Developers clear-cut anyway because they sell the house once and leave. You live in it for 30 years.

Example:

[Developer] George Mitchell bought 28,000 acres of Houston timberland in 1974 and preserved 28% as permanent green space. He forced McDonald’s to build behind the tree canopy. That McDonald’s became one of the highest-volume locations in Texas. The first office building, designed to reflect the surrounding forest so you couldn’t see it from the street, leased completely.

The Woodlands median home price today: $615,000. Katy, a comparable Houston suburb that clear-cut: $375,000. Named #1 community to live in America two years running.

We have a couple of large trees, the only ones for several houses in every direction, in Perth. It is noticeably much cooler in summer under our trees than anywhere else up and down the street.

David Archibald:

All of Perth’s new suburbs have been clear-felled, with the new lots not having enough room for trees or on the footpaths.

So pay up for aircon or swelter.

One Nation has not changed; rather, the times have swung in the party’s favour. By Chris Kenny in The Australian.

Hanson is being mobbed in the streets.

I saw it with my own eyes this week, joining her and One Nation state leader Cory Bernardi for a street walk in Adelaide’s Rundle Mall, a CBD location far removed from One Nation’s heartland. Aside from a group of SA Socialists protesters who materialised at the end and one student egged on by friends to timidly tackle Hanson on immigration issues, every person who approached Hanson was friendly and encouraging.

Many lined up for photographs with Hanson and Bernardi, and many said they had voted for One Nation already (pre-poll booths have been open all week) or were intending to do so on Saturday. People of all ages and ethnic backgrounds characterised Hanson and Bernardi as patriots, fighting for mainstream voters.

Now, I have covered campaigning as a reporter for four decades and have been involved from the inside, state and federal, through the years, and this reaction is out of the ordinary. This is a legitimate political phenomenon — a shift is afoot in our political landscape. …

It’s not personalities, so it’s policies — stop mass immigration, end net zero, and, above all, lower the cost of housing.

Asked why he was voting One Nation, a security guard sporting an Australian flag on his vest said, “How they’re standing up for Australia and Australian values.” He urged Hanson and Bernardi to “keep up the good fight” after noting “all the grief” they copped. …

Bernardi basks in the same glory. At a suburban shopping centre recently, security objected to the One Nation candidate mingling with shoppers and called the police. Two officers turned up, confirmed Bernardi was quite within his rights, then requested a photo with him. …

The reaction is more substantial than mere fame. Hanson is seen by many as a warrior and people’s advocate — a saviour. The issues favour her. Record immigration has fuelled a housing crisis and cost-of-living pressures have been driven by escalating electricity prices thanks to governments pursuing UN-inspired net-zero goals.

Hanson has been consistent on these issues for three decades, demanding lower and more selective immigration, and shunning net zero in favour of energy affordability. One Nation has not changed; rather, the times have swung in the party’s favour.

 

 

Hanson has never faltered. In the face of aggressive protests, virulent criticism and even jail time on electoral fraud charges (eventually overturned), this one-person political juggernaut has powered on. …

“Trust,” said Hanson, “people trust me because they know I have never lied to them about what I believe, I stick by it.”

It is a powerful point. In the face of changeable major party politics, shaped more by focus groups than firm policy convictions, Hanson stands apart as the ultimate conviction politician. Love or hate her, we all know where she stands. And that she does not back down.

South Australian state election today. Labor will win, but which party will come second?

Allahu Akbar, Mr Albanese. By Craig Kelly.

The stunned, terrified expression you make when you finally realise Churchill was absolutely right.

• Albanese has repeatedly grovelled and tried to appease radical Islam, desperately chasing their bloc votes.
• He’s funnelled tens of millions of hardworking taxpayers’ dollars into mosques and Islamic schools — effectively subsidising separatist ideologies.
• He opened the floodgates, allowing thousands of unvetted migrants straight from war-torn Gaza to pour into Australia with zero proper screening.
• He’s worked behind the scenes — in secret — to facilitate the return of ISIS brides and their offspring, bringing battle-hardened jihadist sympathisers back to our shores.
• He cheered on senior Labor figures shamelessly marching arm-in-arm with supporters of the fanatical Khomeini regime and Iran’s extremist theocracy.
• He’s shovelled millions more in taxpayer “foreign aid” straight to Hamas-controlled groups — effectively bankrolling terrorists.
• In the midst of the Israel-Gaza war, he cynically rewarded Hamas’s barbaric atrocities by recognising “Palestine” — a blatant signal of weakness and surrender.
• He stonewalled and resisted calls for a Royal Commission into the Bondi jihadist massacre, refusing to confront the rising tide of Islamic extremism while smearing “the far right” as the real villains dividing Australia.
• He’s ignored urgent US requests to help secure the Straits of Hormuz and even ordered Australian navy personnel serving alongside Americans to cower in their bunks — all to avoid offending supporters of Iran’s murderous regime.

And after all that grovelling, all that betrayal of Australian values, all that craven appeasement — they still turned on him. They still wanted to lynch him.

His face said it all: the classic, wide-eyed panic of an appeaser who fed the crocodile… only to discover it’s now lunging for him.

Ruksan Fernando:

Despite all this and more, they still tried to lynch Albanese at the mosque while screaming Allahu Akbar and calling him a dog. There is a lesson in that somewhere about radical Islam but sadly it won’t be learnt.

Elon Musk:

He is a simple man

Bob Hawke (in the 1980s):

(That’s Albanese to Hawke’s left.)

The West’s moral operating system is being overthrown by a woke, Manichaean moral framework. By Claire Lehmann in The Australian.

Earlier this week, … Grace Tame – who was awarded Australian of the Year in 2021 for her advocacy for survivors of sexual abuse – described the sexual violence of October 7 as “debunked propaganda”.  … Tame’s denialism, while abhorrent, is not aberrant.

A Crossroads25/YouGov poll conducted last year found only 48 per cent of Australians agreed it was “broadly true” that Hamas killed about 1200 Israelis on October 7, with 44 per cent saying they were not sure.

Ignorance alone does not explain why people are motivated to deny atrocities. And many of those who minimise or reject what happened that day are not disengaged at all. On the contrary, they believe they are informed, engaged and are certain of their views.

The Manichaean framework:

The more honest explanation is that a moral framework shared by many in our country forecloses the conclusion that those who are “oppressed” can also be guilty. When the world is divided into a binary of the oppressors and the oppressed, guilt and innocence are assigned without any reference to conduct. And these categories remain unchanged even after an atrocity.

The framework is Manichaean. The Manichaean religion of the third-century in Persia divided all existence into dualistic cosmology. The world consisted of the struggle between forces of light and dark. Today, this cosmic struggle is between the oppressors and the oppressed.

“I stand with the oppressed,” Tame repeatedly insisted to the ABC. Within this framework, the women of the Nova festival are, by virtue of being Israeli, classified as oppressors. And oppressors cannot be victims. So the evidence of their suffering — the photographs, the witness testimony, the coroners’ reports — must be denied.

The traditional Western framework:

Most Australians have grown up with a different set of moral instincts entirely. The most familiar is the deontological tradition, rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage. In this framework, murder is wrong and rape is wrong — regardless of who commits them and regardless of the political identity of the victim. The act itself is what carries the moral weight. From this perspective, October 7 was an atrocity because of what was done to innocent civilians: the elderly, women, children. There is no other interpretation.

The utilitarian framework:

The other framework most of us recognise intuitively is the utilitarian: what is good is what benefits the greatest number; what is bad is what causes suffering and harm. From this perspective, October 7 was a catastrophe — for Palestinians above all. Hamas invaded a country it had no hope of defeating, triggering a war that has killed tens of thousands of Gazans and leaving their own territory in ruins. On purely practical terms, October 7 was the worst strategic miscalculation Hamas has ever made.

The left’s new moral operating system:

The Manichaean framework, however, escapes both verdicts. It is not interested in acts or consequences. It is interested only in identity. In this moral universe, evil is not defined by what you do but by what you are: your skin colour, your ancestry, your position in an economic order. Guilt and innocence are collective, inherited and fixed. Author Adam Kirsch calls it a “political theory of original sin”.

In the contemporary theory of settler colonialism — the framework that has come to define progressive politics across the Western world since 2023 –- any people deemed to have arrived in a land already inhabited are classified as oppressors, guilty by definition, regardless of individual conduct. As one American academic wrote: Palestinians are “a non-white, non-European people struggling for liberation and freedom against a settler colonial oppressor”.

From this perspective, whatever Palestinians do – even if it consists of terrorism, rape and murder – is freedom fighting. Whatever Israelis do is colonial oppression. The rape victims at the Nova festival are conveniently ignored. …

This is not a fringe way of thinking, but a system of thought that has been running in academia for 50 years now and is now being taught to the young:

That moral system now has escaped the academy entirely, travelling through activist culture, non-government organisations and social media until it presents itself not as ideology but the correct way to pursue social justice. Tame did not need to read either book [two core texts, by Fanon and by Friere] to absorb their conclusions. She needed only to inhabit the world those books helped create. …

The backlash to Tame may give some a false sense of security that her views are not tolerated in wider society. But in many places they are; in much of the academy, the arts and our broader literary culture, her views are not only permissible, they are the status quo. The world view that absolves the oppressed of any responsibility for their actions is growing in popularity. Young people are seduced by its simplicity. Older people embrace it — without ever reading its core texts — to appear as if they are keeping up with the times.

The left’s new moral operating system is just an excuse to be anti-white and anti-male. It’s woke (by PyschoMath):

“Woke” has always meant nothing but “anti-white.” …

From the beginning of its middle-class, college-educated popular adoption in the 2010s, the word “woke” has always referred to a discrete set of values. These values are well-known and unambiguous.

Slavery bad. White man do slavery. White man too rich. White man steal from brown man. Man bad. Man steal from woman. Man hurt woman! White man hurt brown man! Borders not real. Everything for free! Paid for by white man! Too rich anyway! Christianity bad! Islam good! Marriage and family bad! Polyamory good!

All of these values without exception are degrading, specifically to White Western civilization. Blame is placed specifically on the categories of straight, white, rich, Christian, high-status, and male.

Woke is a grab for power without merit or hard work.