A survey conducted by Roy Morgan between 13 and 16 February shows One Nation at 26.5 per cent, narrowly ahead of Labor on 25.5 per cent, while the Liberal–National Coalition trails at 21.5 per cent.
The Greens sit on 13.5 per cent, with 13 per cent backing independents and minor parties. …
On a classic two-party-preferred basis, Labor leads 52 to 48 against the Jess Wilson’s Coalition and 52.5 to 47.5 against One Nation.
At the last election, on the how-to-vote pamphlets at my voting booth, the One Nation pamphlet lead with “End mass immigration.”
Year One of Trump finished with 4.4 per cent GDP growth, 2.4 per cent inflation, the lowest murder rate since somewhere around 1900 (and that is plainly due in part to deporting illegals and sending in the National Guard to cities like Memphis and Washington DC), a booming all-time-high stock market, and the most secure border in US history. But that’s not all folks. Trump has presided over a 10 per-cent fall in federal government jobs — around 40,000 such jobs gone.
Meanwhile private sector jobs grew by 170,000. That is why US productivity growth is booming. So in the US, government is shrinking, the private sector is growing and real wages are finally, and noticeably, outpacing inflation. (For comparison, Australia has record mass migration and 83 per cent of all new jobs are non-market, taxpayer-funded ones.) …
Meanwhile Mr Trump has overseen net negative migration. Middle-of-the-road estimates are that some three million illegals were deported or left the US voluntarily in just The Don’s first year. That has significantly boosted the per capita GDP of Americans, the measure that matters and that shows Australia’s woeful plight.
And real wage growth has gone up 189 per cent from Biden to Trump – having been -1.4 per cent under Sleepy Joe to today’s +1.25 per cent under Trump. The average American’s weekly pay cheque buys 2 per cent more than it did a year ago when Trump was inaugurated. (It fell 4 per cent under Biden.)
Notice that Trump did not cave in to the pleas of universities running Ponzi schemes that rely on overseas students knowing they’ll get visas. And notice he paid no attention at all to the mass migration snake-oil salesmen. That is why rents in the US have also gone down by 1.4 per cent.
Trump has done more for the less well-off in society — the working class if you prefer that language — than any left-wing government in the Anglosphere. And it’s not even close.
And this is without getting into Trump’s shunning of transnational bodies that destroy a country’s democracy. His leaving all sorts of international bodies that truly deserve to be left such as the WHO and Paris and the UN Human Rights Council fiasco. His fighting full-on the transgender lobby and the DEI anti-merit brigades (who, I can report, have fully captured all of Australia’s universities).
On the other side of the ledger, though? Hmm.
Well, the TDS types always come back to ‘he’s just so uncouth, boorish and not one of us, old boy’. Because no one can deny that Trump ruthlessly does whatever he can to keep his promises, something Australian and British conservatives never get to experience of late. More to the point, before the last election Trump made specific promises, all sorts of them. No waffle. No platitudinous generalities. No dealing in ‘the vibe’.
So, Angus:
That, Mr Taylor, is what Australia needs. Detailed specifics and a willingness to fight, to take on the legacy media and, alas, half of your own party room. Because I want what the Yanks have. And so do the Japanese (see the recent election), the Argentinians, more and more of South America and Europe.
Half-a-dozen mainstream, left-wing publications have warned the Liberals about embracing Trumpian policies.
Thanks, but we’ll pass on your advice:
You should always do the opposite of what your enemy demands.
If someone stroking a hammer and sickle wants you to turn away from Trump, that means it’s time for the Liberals to finally ascend to the empty throne beside MAGA and Reform.
Don a red MAGA hat. Create a DOGE program. Hire young people to start a meme war.
If Angus Taylor doesn’t, Pauline Hanson certainly will. …
The big issue. If only they would pluck up the courage to talk about it:
The Liberals’ first step should be to capitalise on a leaked immigration policy to ban roughly 37 regions across 13 countries where radical Islam is a pressing concern. A hundred years ago, this would not have been a discussion, it would have been standard practice.
This is a safe, brand-building activity for Taylor’s base.
Believe it or not, it is also popular with young Australians who believe they have had their future stolen. All those ‘feel good’ slogans kids were fed about a borderless world died off pretty quick when they found themselves living alone, working minimum wage, saddled with university debt, and feeling like a tourist in their home suburb. These kids are the descendants of the Settlers, and they are hopelessly lost. Who are they going to vote for, the Greens?
Yes, of course we mean Islam:
That said, Angus Taylor did pivot stupidly, at least a little, when he told Sky News Australia the proposed migration ban wasn’t ‘about any particular race or religion’. He would have been better off just to say, ‘Yes, of course we’re targeting radical Islam. Obviously. That’s the point.’
We are long past the point of pretending that migration isn’t linked to the emergence of Islamic terror in Australia.
The headlines so far are unhinged. ‘Prejudice’: Migrant ban sparks ‘Trump’ fears screamed one.
Which brings us to a critical point.
There’s a sacred cow in Australian politics where migration has to be free of prejudice. I think that’s mad. Almost every country, for almost the entirety of human history, has used prejudice to decide who can and who cannot enter. Why? For the same reason you prejudice the person at your front door. If a country is full of a hostile ideology that hates your way of life and has actively declared a sort of Holy War on its neighbours, would you let them in? Should America, for example, offer refuge to the Death the America! Iranians loyal to the Ayatollah? It’s only the West that has decided to experiment with a reckless ‘come one, come all’ philosophy, and it has triggered a potentially fatal collapse of their nations. …
Our modern politicians think that by being nice to everyone they are more civilised and serious than their predecessors, but they should read history more closely and then take a look at what their ‘niceness’ has done to the culture, economics, and safety of the nation. …
It is not racism or bigotry to ask, Are we safe?
Bleeding-heart politics has turned into blood on our streets, and that is wholly unacceptable. …
Listen to what people who fled violent regimes are saying. They believe Australia is falling under the same horrific spell as their homelands. It’s time we grow up and get tough. …
An Islamic imam in Australia is very angry and says that the entire world belongs to Muslims, and that those who refuse Islam will be punished with fire and experience the rage of Allah.
This is Radicalism and it’s in your face and Extreme.
An Islamic imam in Australia is very angry and says that the entire world belongs to Muslims, and that those who refuse Islam will be punished with fire and experience the rage of Allah.
Trump has suspended immigration from 75 regions, and with good reason. He is in the process of cleaning up a substantial mess of crime and fraud created by decades of corruption. The Somali saga is an indefensible outrage that even Democrat voters are struggling to comprehend. Their generosity as taxpayers was not just abused, it was laughed at by an industrial scale operation. There is a suspicion that Australia has a similar problem within its extensive humanitarian and welfare system, but as yet, very few politicians have had the nerve to investigate.
Grow up, politicians. So far, the Liberal Party is saying they will continue to import people that hate our way of life. Have they learned nothing?
Are we to be led by Pauline Hanson? It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
For the first time in decades, Pew Research notes, in the U.S. at least, Christianity has stopped its nosedive as more people begin to see the efficacy, and the rewards, of religious faith and practice.
This fragile development is especially noteworthy as it exposes growing divides and fault lines in American politics and culture. Drawing on a vast array of longitudinal studies, interviews, and other sources, one startling finding in both America and abroad is that, contrary to past assertions, today the faithful are not poor and ignorant but increasingly from the educated upper middle class.
Even the cognitive elites are experiencing a growing trend to embrace religious activity. Indeed, in a rebuke of the aggressive New Atheism of the early 2000s advanced by thought leaders such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, a counter-movement appears to be growing among scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals who view religious tradition not as a delusion to be eradicated but as a sustainable civilizational operating system.
As our politics splinter along gender — with women increasingly forming the base for Democrats and men, for Republicans– it is men who are leading the return to church. Reversing a 25-year-long trend, men reported higher church attendance than women in 2025. This growing divide may continue to separate men and women, with grave implications at a time when rates of marriage and parenthood are declining.
Even in places where religion continues to decline, the remaining faithful are shifting away from more liberal faiths to those hewing closer to traditional values. For many, more orthodox sects provide existential security and create a sustainable sense of community. …
The implications and promise of this trend cannot be overstated. Data show that religious communities function as potent engines of human capital accumulation, risk mitigation, and social capital. These mechanisms effectively propel adherents up the socioeconomic ladder. …
More recently, traditional faiths, such as Greek Orthodoxy, have done particularly well. … “I have talked with, I would estimate, 100+ young men headed into Orthodoxy in the past decade or so. It is true that most are strong supporters of this ancient faith’s teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, and gender. Many of these single men are highly motivated to get married and start families. Yes, they are worried about trends in American life and many mainline pews.” …
Chetty’s team found that poorer people associate more with the affluent at religious institutions than at secular institutions like high schools, colleges, and workplaces. A low-income individual attending a religious congregation is significantly more likely to form a meaningful friendship with a high-income congregant than they would be in a workplace, school, or neighborhood group.
Perhaps most critically, religion provides a sense of community and ties that are more tangible than those found online, at school, or in the workplace. For instance, just 10% of religious observants say they have no close friends; the number almost doubles for those who have no faith. For young families, in particular, the religious community offers a village in which to raise children in an era of atomized parenting. This functional utility is a major driver of individuals returning to church in their thirties.
The church, notes Aaron Renn, a leading protestant intellectual, provides a mechanism, particularly for the young, to escape the loneliness and alienation associated with the “negative world.”
1 year imprisonment for saying “Jews are the enemy“.
(I remember this bloke, he was heckling me when I spoke — as is his right. What he said was wrong and his jew-hatred is totally misguided.)
When will Grace Tame be arrested and jailed ?
And now this precedent is set, if I were to say “Russians are the enemy” or “Radical Islam is the enemy“— I’ll face arrested and be jailed for a year ?
Or what if those infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome say “America is the enemy“?
It’s not what you say, it’s whose team you’re on. Grace Tame is calling for genocide of Jews, but that’s ok because she’s not right wing.
A long one but a very powerful explanation for the changes we are seeing.
Society is falling apart. I’m sure you’ve noticed how every single institution feels weaker, every conversation feels more fragile, and people today are more anxious, more tribal, and more easily offended. The moral compass of the West, once built on individualism, truthtelling, and merit, has been replaced with something softer, more irrational, and far more chaotic.
People offer lots of different explanations for why this is. … All of these lenses capture the story to some extent, but none of them get at the root. That’s because there is a lens that nobody uses. It is a lens that people actively avoid because they are scared to talk about it. The implications are just too big. Yet, this lens explains the pattern more clearly than any other. I’m talking about gender.
Women favor conformity and social harmony over truth and competition. After the vote for women came feminism and the wholesale upending of the modern world. Identity politics and woke replaced individualism and merit. Contest of ideas were replaced by character assassination and exclusion. Stagnation and stupidity is making a comeback.
When women gain influence over cultural norms, values, institutions, education, media, public discourse, that’s when everything changes. Not because women are bad, but because feminine psychology, feminine morality, and feminine styles of conflict resolution are at their core in conflict with what used to provide the structural basis of all of our institutions. …
It is gender more than race, class, or creed that is the invisible engine that’s driving our cultural decline. …
Tribalism has replaced individualism and it is group affiliation that now defines your moral status and your credibility and role in public life. This of course completely erodes the foundations of liberal thought that held that individual sovereignty reigns supreme guaranteeing the rights of everybody under the law to be treated as equals. ..
Once feminism demonstrated that you could use your group identity to advance yourself personally, it then opened the door for everybody to identify with their group and then use that as a tool to get ahead. Merit was no longer the determining factor to see how far you could rise. Grievance was. This undermines the liberal notion that it is individual merit that should determine your level of success.
Once merit was abandoned, identity group politics followed:
But very quickly, feminism made the claim that women were not succeeding because of a lack of individual merit, but because of systemic oppression. Perhaps they were right. But instead of giving time for the culture to catch up, they relied on legal action, enforcing affirmative action, gender quotas, special recruitment programs, and of course, scholarships based on gender. The key change was that feminism framed under-representation not as a challenge to be overcome, but as proof of oppression and injustice.
It didn’t take long for people to notice that being part of an oppressed group gave you moral leverage. When you were applying for a position, you are no longer just a candidate. You are now a potential solution to an injustice. Employers could no longer afford to look at candidates simply based on merit because not hiring you was suddenly a political decision. Once the politics of representation took root, it didn’t take long for other groups to notice. The strategy was mimicked by racial minorities, the LGBT community, even obesity activists and those who were pushing for body positivity felt they needed representation. The message was clear. You don’t need to outperform, you just need to out-identify.
Suddenly men began to feel a pressure that they had some kind of moral duty to step aside to allow women to take opportunities that they based on merit would have been given because to not do so would be an act of political oppression. …
Before we even knew what had happened, we discovered that our compassion had been hijacked and used as a competitive tool against us. Those who favored a merit-based system were pushed aside as increasingly individuals looked towards their collective identity as their personal tool for advancement. The cultural precedent is set and now every minority identifies with their group identity. …
For many, home life became political and unstable:
When feminism politicized the home, that was no longer a safe space. … It is almost impossible to understate how much damage has been done by the erosion of a stable family life. It used to be that men could suffer setbacks out in the world but still be respected at home. It used to be that women found tremendous meaning and identity in their role as mothers and wives. Children had a clear model for how reality worked, a sense of structure, and the roles that were expected of them. With that psychologically stable base, it gave individuals the freedom to experiment and to innovate in the public sphere, knowing that they could always return to their families and their home for stability.
Undermining that foundation has created a collective trauma that is very deep. People questioned their identities. They did not know what their role was. Suddenly you found fathers uncomfortable embodying the authoritative leader role at home. Mothers were inattentive to their children, seeing them as a form of oppression and soft imprisonment and often left the home in search of a new identity, a quest to find themselves.
The results were entirely predictable. Divorce rates soared. Children grew up in confused and fragmented homes. They internalized the message that nothing is permanent. There is no safety. There’s nothing that you can count on.
Without a stable non-political identity, mother, son, daughter, father, people began to define themselves by their group affiliations. Your group identity became your new emotional home. …
Female psychology:
The evolutionary roots of female psychology [are] that women are inherently more tribal and group oriented. Due to evolutionary pressures, women naturally evolved survival strategies that were anchored in group bonding and social cohesion. So long as this was tempered by male authority and other matters, it was fine. Things were in the balance.
But as women’s tribal instincts began to take hold in our public institutions, it eroded the healthy sense of competition and individualism that used to define our public life and replaced it in favor of emotional consensus and group thinking.
There is no denying that the ideology of individualism maps far more neatly onto male psychology. The notion of healthy competition, a fair fight, or even just going it alone and being a lone wolf are all instincts that fit naturally into male psychology.
But for a woman to be seen as an individual alone from the group was akin to a death sentence. She needed the sisterhood to survive. And so over generations, evolution favored women who prioritized group coherence and social harmony. When given the choice, many women would choose to be wrong but remain inside the group, than to be right and kicked out. This is why differences of opinion and conflict inside all female groups can either become explosive or be quashed. This is because the stakes for women are incredibly high.
Conflict, disagreements, and arguments, these are not opportunities to learn from new perspectives. Instead, these are dangerous developments that threaten the harmony of the group. At a cultural level, this has reshaped everything that we experience. As we move away from a competition of ideas into a public discourse that focuses more on consensus building and emotional validation, social media has become an ideal environment for studying these ancient feminine tribal instincts as they’re playing out today.
You see the ancient instinct of reputation policing with the modern phenomenon of cancel culture. You see virtue signaling with the constant anxiety to be seen as one of the good ones, one who gets on with the group. Political correctness itself emerged from the tribal instinct to promote harmony, to make sure that nobody felt excluded or offended.
The goal is not let’s have a debate and discover what’s true. The new goal is to make sure that everybody feels good. Over time, a society that internalizes these values becomes risk averse, emotionally sensitive, and conformity driven.
The values that gave mankind the huge leap forward of the last few centuries are now seen by a feminized society as bad:
The traditional hallmarks of liberalism like creative dissent, free speech, intellectual disagreement, these are viewed as threats to social cohesion. Now the group is more important than the individual, a direct inversion of liberal values. …
It is important to understand that this is not just ideological. This is biological. What you’re seeing is the feminine instinct to nurture scaled up to the position of law. What we now see is the erosion of any natural accountability structures. The system has now been designed to insulate people from the feedback loops of reality and an increasing number of people for whom their need is a permanent state of affairs. They will be dependent upon the government for life.
One of the biggest drivers of this change is the demographic of single mothers who receive more support from the government than any other group. But of course, when you subsidize the choice of single motherhood, you disincentivize any instinct that they had for preserving a long-term relationship or encouraging their own independence. It is not a coincidence that we have seen a decline in marriage rates. It is not a coincidence that women vote more left-leaning on economic issues than men do. And it is this voting block that has shaped national policy away from temporary relief structures to permanent dependency systems.
Over generations, this kind of dependency becomes culturally embedded and children grow up seeing the government as the natural provider of their needs rather than a man, a father, a husband. Men are increasingly being displaced as the economic providers, replaced by the state. Gratitude shifts away from your personal relationships towards the government. After all, they’re the ones taking care of your needs.
And so the cycle continues until people feel like the idea of a government that is not involved in every area of their lives as an unthinkable course of action never to be contemplated. This will be difficult to break because men and women define compassion in fundamentally different ways. When men think of compassion, they think of fairness and justice, holding people to a consistent set of standards and giving them a chance. But for women, their expression of compassion is very different. It’s often expressed with rule bending and leniency and a desire to remove all suffering. …
Attitudes to risk are very different between the sexes:
It is also true to say that women naturally are more risk averse than men. At the core of classical liberalism is the belief that you are free to rise and you are free to fall. You are free to win and you are also free to fail. Failure itself is not injustice. It is feedback.
To men, this freedom is important and men are naturally predisposed to taking risks, facing consequences, owning their outcomes, and creating new plans based on that feedback. This mindset is extremely important for any society because it creates innovation and entrepreneurship. An individual who practices personal responsibility in this way is going to be a leader, somebody that other people feel trust in and who they can count on in an emergency.
Unlike men, women are not built for risk. While in caveman times, men were out waging war on the neighboring tribes or hunting big game or doing other dangerous activities, women stayed at camp, protecting themselves and protecting their offspring, often relying on the community around them for their sense of safety. Risk was inherently more biologically costly for women. Pregnancy and child rearing demand caution, and your status as a woman in the tribe depended upon you being well-liked. And given that women were almost guaranteed to be able to reproduce, it really made no sense for women to take huge risks.
It is no surprise then that women overwhelmingly support public policy that eliminates risk. There has been an exponential increase in government regulations, consumer protections, health and safety mandates, and various other forms of government overreach all in the name of the public good.
Goodbye freedom, hello censorship:
Gradually what you have seen is freedom being reframed away from something that is heroic and noble into a source of danger. Freedom is seen as being reckless or selfish or harmful. Even free speech, the cornerstone of all liberal democracies is under attack.
And there is a growing sentiment in society driven primarily by women that if free speech can be used to say things that are hateful, then that speech needs to be regulated. …
Stagnation is re-occurring, as safetyism reigns:
The consequences of this kind of thinking are devastating. A society that wants to protect its citizens from failure is going to kill ambition. Risk takers, those that would use their creative energies to innovate and push society forward, are now going to be seen as dangerous troublemakers and villains that are making the rest of us unsafe by their choices. …
In higher education, grade curves have been flattened in order to protect students from feeling like failures. Safe spaces and trigger warnings have replaced areas that should be reserved for intellectual challenge and debate. …
For today’s media, truth is not as important as conforming to the narrative:
And perhaps the strongest institution that we’ve seen shift under feminine influence is that of journalism and media. There has been an undeniable shift away from hard journalism, our accounting of the black and white facts, towards narrative journalism, which focuses on the lived experiences of the people going through the event. Newspaper headlines are written more for emotional validation rather than informing the audience. Opinion pieces are seen as more important than those pieces with true investigative depth. When the focus shifts away from the discovery of the truth towards emotional validation, then it naturally creates a culture of intellectual stagnation. …
Why bother, men?
Why risk innovating or suggesting new ideas when all it does is put a target on your back?
In all of these institutions, the natural male instincts are being wasted because they are not welcome or valued. Men’s ambition, their quest for the truth, their innate competitiveness, these are all now viewed as problematic. …
If a man did have an issue with the institution and the way it was being run, what are his options? He would like to have a structured debate, a competitive testing of the ideas, an objective examination of the facts. But this is because it suits the masculine style of conflict resolution. But women feel and experience things differently. When things get difficult for women, they often resort to indirect emotional tactics, social exclusion, passive aggression, and reputation destruction. These instincts fundamentally undermine the integrity of any debate where we’re having a healthy disagreement, and any quest for the truth. …
Men find truth:
Men do not inherently view disagreement as problematic. In ancient times, when discussing battle tactics or hunting strategies, there was likely fierce disagreement amongst the warriors as they debated the merits of a particular course of action. But this was encouraged and even promoted because this exchange of ideas would lead to the best outcome. It was possible to fiercely disagree with the person next to you, but still respect them, knowing that at an inherent level, the two of you were on the same team working towards the same goal. These masculine instincts formed the basis of our cultural institutions that we have today and the principles that underly them. Courtrooms where justice is delivered, scientific inquiry where new discoveries are made, sport and athletic competition, and even in the realm of politics where healthy debate used to be a hallmark of our liberal democracies.
However, the concept of a healthy disagreement and respect for an opponent who is telling you that you are wrong is a difficult concept for female biology. This is not to say that women are not competitive or that they don’t enter into conflict with each other. But women have strong instincts telling them to repress this conflict and to express it in indirect ways.
Today we run on women’s rules. Men and debate are increasingly excluded:
This is why you see in groups of women tactics used like gossip, social exclusion, emotional manipulation, reputation damage. The goal is often not to win the argument, but to undermine your opponent’s social standing. As more women entered into the institutions of media, education, and politics, their style of conflict resolution began to take over.
It has shifted from a case of you are wrong to you are a bad person. Debate is no longer about ideas. It is about signaling which tribe you belong to. The collapse of respectful and rational discourse in our society is corroding us from the inside.
In order for a healthy society to function, there needs to be space for a healthy disagreement and an exchange of ideas that is robust and competitive. A shared commitment to truth, a willingness to hear ideas that make you uncomfortable or that you don’t agree with. There needs to be a fundamental understanding that the facts of a situation are often separate from the feelings we have about it. When we lose our commitment to these principles, everything collapses….
Again, we have a situation where the masculine values are not able to thrive or even contribute in this system because men’s directness is seen as relational aggression. The logic that so defines the masculine mind is seen as cold and harmful. And any disagreement that they express, even in a healthy way, as seen as them trying to usurp power and dominate a situation.
The effect, of course, is that many men have just checked out of public discourse altogether, no longer willing to participate in a system that does not value their contribution.
It’s communism versus individualism. For nearly all of human history, communism was the norm, as was poverty and the Malthusian limit. But for a few centuries a small portion of the world’s population practiced individualism and capitalism.
Image on the left is Thon Monyluke Deng Angui, a refugee from South Sudan. Australia’s broken migration system flung open the gates to this savage, importing him from a violent shithole, dumping him in schools and suburbs with handouts and second chances he never deserved or appreciated.
In June 2024, he targeted a 20-year-old woman on a nightclub dancefloor. While she was out with her friends, he lured her away, dragged her to a dark embankment near Queens Park, pinned her down on the ground, tore off her clothes, and raped her despite her pleas for him to stop. Her life was destroyed. She would later say that the attack left her in a constant state of terror. Her family gave statements explaining that they too have been traumatised from watching her suffer.
Thanks to Qld Police, Angui was arrested promptly and brought to face what should have been real justice… if only. Enter Toowoomba District Court Judge Dzenita Balic (image on the right).
She ate up his sob story about refugee hardships, dead parents, war-torn childhood, the usual excuses, and her melted for the rapist. Then right there in open court, in front of the victim and her shattered family, Judge Dzenita Balic called the rapist a “wonderful young man with a very bright future who has worked very hard,” as if he was the true victim of the whole ordeal. She gave him five years with parole eligibility after just two years in actual custody.
The animal walks free soon, is handed sympathy and a second chance at his so-called “bright future.” The survivor is left with zero justice, no real protection, and fresh terror knowing her rapist will be back on the streets in no time.
Here’s an uncomfortable truth about the Epstein accusations:
We only find them morally reprehensible because of Christianity.
Before the spread of Christianity, “civilized” Greek and Roman elites openly flaunted underage s*x slaves. This was normal.
Emperor Hadrian built an entire city in honor of his favorite boy.
We’ve heard for decades that Christianity is a barrier to moral progress, but if you undercut the moral foundations of Christianity from the West, culture reverts back to pagan norms.
Paul’s teachings on sexual morality were received as completely liberating by lowborn women and male slaves of that time. They were treated by the Romans as Epstein treated young women. …
It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. .. Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time — exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure.
Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage — and marital sexuality — with love.
Christianity’s even more radical political idea was that we all answer to a higher power than any person. This has three ramifications: might does not make right, we do not owe our allegiance to any person on Earth, and you had better behave in this life.
Epstein quietly pumped his personal donations into MIT’s Media Lab which was home to Digital Currency Initiative a major hub for Bitcoin. Then is it any wonder that BTC is widely used on the dark web for trafficking and casually called Baby Trafficking Coin?
In light of the Epstein files, the immaculate myth of Bitcoin is starting to look like a crime scene, not a creation story. We are discovering that what was sold as a stateless, grassroots revolt against central banking may have been incubated in the same elite petri dish that sheltered Jeffrey Epstein — intertwining MIT, tainted money, and influence over core developers. Strip away the techno-utopian branding, and Bitcoin begins to resemble the unofficial house currency of a compromised network of power …
The cult of Bitcoin sold itself as a bloodless revolution — mathematical, incorruptible, outside the greasy reach of politicians and central bankers. That myth is over. …
Origin myth:
In the past six months, Bitcoin has plunged from 120,000 to 67,000—a 43% drawdown in what was supposed to be the apex “store of value.” …
What we’re watching now is not just a price decline. It’s the collapse of an origin story — and the exposure of a new, synthetic system every bit as captured, politicized, and compromised as fiat
Bitcoin was fun while it lasted. Trillions of dollars flowed into an asset that produces nothing, yields nothing, and depends entirely on the next investor paying more than the last. It started in the darkest corners of the internet, then got scrubbed clean and rebranded as “digital gold” and a “store of value” — buzzwords used by people who wanted exit liquidity. …
Corruption of Trump, and how many others?
Against that backdrop of financial manipulation and permanent war, the Trump–Changpeng Zhao scandal isn’t an aberration. It’s the logical next step. Four months after Donald Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao — whom he could only describe as “the crypto person,” unable to recall his name — Binance was revealed to control roughly 87% of the supply of Trump’s World Liberty Financial stablecoin. …
The official story behind the pardon collapses instantly. Zhao was not exonerated. He was not vindicated. He had already served his sentence and overseen the payment of a record-setting corporate fine. There was no new evidence, no moral awakening, no miscarriage of justice to correct.
What there was, however, was a timeline:
Binance quietly routes roughly $2 billion into World Liberty Financial, a Trump family DeFi venture co-founded by Trump himself.
No clear public explanation of why this capital is pouring into a sitting president’s pet protocol.
A presidential pardon granted shortly after Zhao’s legal team makes its formal request.
A president so detached — or so cynical — that he cannot even name the man he just absolved.
When multibillion-dollar flows and presidential mercy move in lockstep, that’s not coincidence. That’s a receipt. …
Even if you dismiss every rumor, the result is inarguable: a supposedly neutral asset that now lives and dies on centralized exchanges, regulatory indulgence, and political patronage. An asset whose fate can be bent by a single president’s relationship with a single exchange founder. …
The time-tested solution:
Every time in history, the script is the same: the fiat experiment ends at zero, and the political class walks away from the wreckage it created. Every time, gold and silver step back in to do the hard, honest accounting of corrupt empires, tallying up the lies, the wars, and the theft.
Perhaps. Bitcoin has violently up and down in price before, so a 50% fall in value in the last six months is nothing unusual. Even it its birth was less than immaculate and some people use it to fund morally reprehensible activities, there still remains something valuable — it is strictly limited, it cannot be printed or faked by governments and banks, and it is a store of value that you only need the Internet to access. You cannot be debanked 🙂
The only reason given to me so far was a “breach of the terms and conditions.” They will not tell me which terms or conditions I’ve broken but have withheld any access to my accounts and closed them. …
I’m not even a prominent nationalist figure, I’m literally just an MFA [March for Australia] organiser, I push the envelope a little but I play it comparatively safe. …
Cash is king. I’m glad I have enough on hand to survive the weekend, but I’m now on a time crunch to find a bank that will work with me before I run out of funds.
The money in the account needs to be sent to me via cheque but as we’ve seen before, this can take months that some may not have.
Don’t be naive, this can and likely will happen to you too eventually.
Bergroth is named in articles about right wing extremism. That’s enough for the ANZ, but I’ll bet they don’t debank communists or Islamic radicals.
NYC FALLS: Adhan Blasts Through Streets – Zohran Mamdani’s Sharia Dawn is Here!
(TURN YOUR VOLUME UP)
My lord, America – the conquest we’ve warned about is exploding now. The Adhan isn’t a “beautiful call to prayer”; it’s a militant declaration: “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is… pic.twitter.com/9Vq4DfpZxW
My lord, America — the conquest we’ve warned about is exploding now. The Adhan isn’t a “beautiful call to prayer”; it’s a militant declaration: “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is greater than your gods, laws, freedoms), “There is no god but Allah” (all other faiths are false).
Blared 5× daily from loudspeakers — 5 AM wake-ups included — it’s forced submission on non-Muslims, pure civilizational jihad straight from the Muslim Brotherhood playbook. …
In Astoria, Brooklyn, Manhattan residents are horrified: Noise complaints flood in, yet the broadcasts grow louder and more frequent.
It began under Adams in 2023 (permit-free Fridays & Ramadan), but Mamdani’s regime has supercharged it — daily calls spreading unchecked in Muslim-heavy areas.
In Islam, there is no reciprocity: Try church bells or hymns in Mecca — arrested. Yet in 9/11-scarred NYC, we submit.
This is noise pollution masking conquest — normalizing Islamic dominance, eroding our culture, testing tolerance until it breaks.
Leftists call it “progress”; it’s the internal-external war: parallel societies (women-only cafes, halal zones) + penetration (crescent lightings, Adhan blasts).
Multiculturalism is the false prophet of celebrating difference, presented as the ultimate engine for “diversity”.
In practice, it is a factory of global homogenisation, and a solvent that erases local cultures. Cities like Sydney, Toronto, and London now compete to be the top “global hub”, which is no unique identity at all.
Vibrantly diverse bus riders. Is it London? … or Toronto … or Sydney?
Everyone keeps asking why I don’t run for politics.
I would – but I’ve been truthful about my feelings related to Islam.
I did this knowing it would exclude me — forever — because I care about the truth and I’m not a coward.
But she does it anyway:
People really have had enough of Islamic radicalism and the cultural incursion into our lives.
We might have a political class trying to silence us — but you hear the resistance in gyms, cafes, on the street — everywhere.
The average Aussie is seriously pissed off and doesn’t give a jot about accusations of ‘Islamophobia’.
This country is a proudly Western Christian-secular nation — and it WILL stay that way. We refuse to follow the path of our Asian neighbours who have been entirely suffocated by the spread of Islam. Their way of life is gone.
19 Yazidi girls were burned alive in an iron cage for refusing to convert to Islam and become sex slaves. Before killing them, the Jihadists paraded them through the streets of Mosul, Iraq. Leftists will never talk about it because it would cause “Islamophobia.”
The problem for censors is of course how to define hate speech without offending Muslims by outlawing the Quran.
As NSW Premier Chris Minns (easily the best politician in Australia in responding to the Bondi massacre) pointed out recently, multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech. In a tribalised society, people are inevitably going to say mean and offensive things about other groups. Doubly so it their religion encouragers or commands it. So, why allow mass immigration of groups that hate? Isn’t that inviting hate speech? Australia never voted for it, so why did our politicians do it?
If she said this in 2016 she would’ve been President …
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” – George Orwell, 1984
Third world immigration is simply a few years earlier in its cycle than gender ideology. Soon enough even liberals will say we’ve gone too far. Keep this mind when they’re trying to shame you. They’re simply late adopters to the reality you’ve already picked up on.
The Overton windows is shifting, fast. The Democrat’s polling must be apocalyptic.
UPDATE: More in that vein:
The Atlantic, a far left publication, has come out today with a piece about how indefensible it is to transition kids. Massive sea change. We’ve won the PR war to end this absurd abuse. pic.twitter.com/0GO56aqhRy
But the euphoria of [the downfall of the Berlin Wall] led us to a dangerous delusion: that we had entered, quote, “the end of history;” that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order – an overused term – would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.
This was a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history. And it has cost us dearly. In this delusion, we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours — shuttering our plants, resulting in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals.
We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves. This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military buildup in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests. To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else –- not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.
And in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.
We made these mistakes together, and now, together, we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward, to rebuild.
Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. …
We are part of one civilization — Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir. …
We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know – (applause) – because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.
National security, which this conference is largely about, is not merely series of technical questions — how much we spend on defense or where, how we deploy it, these are important questions. They are. But they are not the fundamental one. The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending, because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life. And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny. …
Deindustrialization was not inevitable. It was a conscious policy choice … It was foolish. It was a foolish but voluntary transformation of our economy that left us dependent on others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis.
Mass migration is not, was not, isn’t some fringe concern of little consequence. It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilizing societies all across the West. …
Controlling who and how many people enter our countries, this is not an expression of xenophobia. It is not hate. It is a fundamental act of national sovereignty. And the failure to do so is not just an abdication of one of our most basic duties owed to our people. It is an urgent threat to the fabric of our societies and the survival of our civilization itself.
And finally, we can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations. We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored, and we don’t need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed. These must be rebuilt.
For example, the United Nations still has tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world. But we cannot ignore that today, on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role.
It could not solve the war in Gaza. Instead, it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce.
It had not solved the war in Ukraine. It took American leadership and partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still-elusive peace.
It was powerless to constrain the nuclear program of radical Shia clerics in Tehran. That required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers.
And it was unable to address the threat to our security from a narcoterrorist dictator in Venezuela. Instead, it took American Special Forces to bring this fugitive to justice.
We do not want allies to rationalize the broken status quo rather than reckon with what is necessary to fix it, for we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.
What a difference a year makes. At this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was given a standing ovation for a speech that echoed what Vice President JD Vance had said so scandalously 12 months earlier.
Rubio accused Europeans of trying “to appease a climate cult” that has impoverished the continent by forcing it to adopt catastrophic energy policies. Like Vance, he also criticised Europe’s immigration policies and its dogmatic commitment to global free trade, which he said has fuelled deindustrialisation and hollowed out supply chains. He even lamented the transfer of sovereignty to international organisations — a swipe not just at the UN and international legal bodies, but at the EU itself.
Europeans hated Vance’s speech. Yet they loved Rubio’s. The difference was tone. Unlike Vance, Rubio sugar-coated the message. “For us Americans,” he said, “home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.” Europeans just love it when Americans show respect for their cultural heritage. It flatters their sense of pride — and superiority.
Europe is deluded, though. And when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen popped up to say she felt very much reassured, it reminded me of that old quip about diplomacy, often, probably wrongly, attributed to Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.” …
Instead of accepting this new reality, Europe is convinced there will be a return to the status quo ante: President Donald Trump is deemed an aberration; once he is gone, transatlantic relations will return to normal. Only half of this is true. Trump is no doubt an aberration. And he will be gone in three years. But his security doctrine will endure. …
The Americans have just sent the Europeans to hell. And the Europeans are asking for directions.
David Archibald:
A very good speech indeed. Rubio displaces Michael Anton as the chief narrative builder of the regime — whose last effort failed to mention Taiwan.
Hear also what Elon Musk says: “Nobody dies to defend a ‘multicultural economic zone!’ For a country to survive, there has to be a common culture.”
