The Odyssey is just as woke as you fear

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Reveso, by Matt Walsh:

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

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

Globalist firepower and fakery, by Mr Obvious:

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

Elon to the rescue!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

66 million dollar man!?

 

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

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

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

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

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

Allahu Akbar!

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

Not us, mate:

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

Australians are the victims of Islamic terror. …

Woke rulers:

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

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

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

You broke it, so you fix it:

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

More:

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

I want the innocent, carefree, safe Australia.

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

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

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

Ladybugfunk:

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

And stop gaslighting us:

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

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

An oldie but a goodie:

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

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

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

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

Where the old guy failed:

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

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

Who’s the new guy?

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

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

Old boss, same as the new boss.

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

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

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

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

[Whitehall’s eyebrows shoot up]

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

The real war is fought in the culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost that culture, now lose the war:

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

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

How the left won, using your money:

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

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

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

You must help:

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

Don’t want that to happen?

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

The media and Labor lied about Malcolm Roberts

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

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

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

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

The conversation:

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

Here is what Roberts said in the interview:

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

“I have never denied it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Pauline Hanson fills the gap in our political landscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passions:

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

It’s global:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Cultural whiteness versus ethnic whiteness.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

They didn’t want to know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same message for Australia.

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

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

One Nation vs Labor vs Liberals

One Nation vs Labor vs Liberals. By Rebecca Weisser in The Spectator.

Taylor, Albanese and Hanson each come from different backgrounds, and their thinking has been shaped by their working lives.

  1. Albanese has spent a lifetime immersed in the left faction of Labor politics. He’s an extremely skilful politician.
  2. Hanson has also spent the last 35 years in politics but as the quintessential outsider, and she is extremely accomplished at communicating the anger of those who are outraged at the absurdity, waste and arrogance of Australia’s self-appointed elite.
  3. Taylor has spent most of his life outside of politics. Before entering Parliament in 2013, he spent most of his career working with businesses; that’s why he knows how to cost a program, anticipate its unintended consequences, and balance the books. Those differences in background are reflected in the way they govern or propose to govern. …

Costings of policies distinguishes One Nation and the Liberals:

One Nation wants to be regarded as a serious party of government rather than merely a protest party. Fair enough. But parties aspiring to govern should expect their policies to be scrutinised, costed and criticised. That is what Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has done — but One Nation’s supporters have not taken kindly to it.

Taylor’s estimate that One Nation’s four headline policies would cost around $1 trillion over a decade sparked outrage. It shouldn’t have. Conventional costings put tax indexation at around $371 billion, income splitting at about $69 billion, lower migration at roughly $200–225 billion and higher defence spending at perhaps $275–350 billion. Whether every assumption is right is open to debate, but the arithmetic is within the right order of magnitude.

The difficulty is not the arithmetic but the lack of detail. One Nation’s migration policy illustrates the problem. It proposes a 130,000 visa cap but provides almost no breakdown by category. Senator Hanson exempted Pacific workers, essential temporary workers and working holiday makers, but the remaining allocations have to be guesswork. One thing, however, is clear: unless skilled migration is slashed, the cuts would fall overwhelmingly on international students — one of Australia’s largest export industries. That may reduce pressure on housing, but it also reduces export income, university revenue and the supply of skilled labour. Those trade-offs deserve to be acknowledged rather than ignored.

One Nation supporters were furious at Taylor’s critique that their policies are uncosted, incoherent and lack any credible plan to pay for their commitments, other than to abolish parts of the bureaucracy, a proposition that would cover only a tiny fraction of the cost. They would prefer that Taylor sing along with the One Nation cheer squad while they relentlessly deride the Coalition as the ‘uniparty’, identical to Labor. …

Three immigration policies:

Here’s another difference between Labor, the Coalition and One Nation.

  1. Labor recklessly increases international student numbers and visa charges, then simply pretends it has not created a housing crisis, instead increasing taxes on property investors.
  2. One Nation arbitrarily chooses a migration cap and provides no details on how it will work.
  3. Taylor says the Coalition will cap migration to match housing supply. …

Three strategies:

  1. Labor deludes itself Australia can tax, regulate and decarbonise its way to greater prosperity.
  2. One Nation proposes to sharply reduce migration, restrict foreign investment and shrink one of our largest export industries without acknowledging the economic consequences or addressing them.
  3. Taylor argues that prosperity depends on expanding the nation’s productive capacity while managing those trade-offs honestly.

Voters may or may not agree. But pretending the Coalition is simply Labor’s identical twin in disguise ignores one of the most significant shifts in Coalition policy for many years.

The South Africanization of California and the left’s obsession with race

The South Africanization of California and the left’s obsession with race. By Christopher Rufo.

Race-based politics isn’t working for South Africa:

After nearly a half-century of apartheid, however, South African leaders argued that formal equality wasn’t enough. Instead, as the argument went, a transitional period of redress for nonwhites was required. These efforts included affirmative action, land reform, and “black economic empowerment,” among others. For example, the government bought white-owned farms and distributed them to black South Africans, many of whom lacked the skills and knowledge to run them successfully. …

South Africa created a dense system of race-based policies across employment, procurement, land rights, and licensing. The country embedded racialism throughout the political, educational, and economic systems, making identity central to how the government, schools, and businesses hired employees, enrolled students, prioritized benefits, bid on contracts, and assessed the success of initiatives.

Today, the hope that followed the fall of apartheid has all but evaporated. South Africa now struggles — literally — to keep the lights on. Power outages are so common that many middle-class families buy generators. Suburban homes regularly feature tall security gates and electric fences to fend off violent thugs. …

Corruption is rampant. South Africa’s race-based procurement model shows “systemic signs of corruption and political interference,” according to the World Bank and the OECD. President Cyril Ramaphosa boasts an estimated net worth in the hundreds of millions as of 2015. Former president Jacob Zuma has faced a litany of corruption, fraud, racketeering, and money-laundering allegations.

Predictably, the measures deemed necessary in the aftermath of apartheid have become permanent. For many of the country’s leaders, the question is no longer whether racial redistribution is permissible; instead, the question is how extreme the racial redistribution will be. Race has been reinforced as a continual site of social conflict, instead of fading into the background of a multiethnic society.

But California is giving it a try anyway:

Three decades later, the South Africa model is being replicated in an unlikely place: California. The state’s leaders have increasingly embraced a radical, race-based vision of politics that echoes South Africa’s post-apartheid experiment in racialized government. …

During the administration of Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s racialist project has kicked into high gear. Race is becoming an organizing principle of public policy, shaping everything from education and data collection to bureaucratic decision-making and wealth redistribution.

South Africa sorted its citizens by race to deny rights, and now California does the same to distribute benefits. The road between Pretoria and Sacramento is shorter than you would think. …

Newsom ordered state agencies to create or update their strategic plans to “more effectively advance equity.” When agencies “identified disparities,” the governor instructed them to respond by changing their organizational “mission, vision, goals,” and more.

What this meant, in practice, was that California would increasingly conduct government business on the basis of race. The order encouraged bureaucrats to adopt “inclusive practices,” help “disadvantaged business enterprises” access federal infrastructure dollars, and administer state programs through a racial equity lens. In other words, the executive order effectively enshrined the principle that California’s government would prioritize citizens based on the color of their skin.

Newsom’s order echoed talking points from post-apartheid South Africa. In California, the governor emphasized the need to “address[] disparities for historically underserved and marginalized communities.” In South Africa, the government sought to “remove discriminatory barriers of the apartheid past.” Both created a permanent bureaucracy devoted to the racial transformation of society ...

It is not an exaggeration to say that California’s public institutions — from state government down to school classrooms — have been infected by racialist ideology. …

Institution after institution, agency after agency, the effective message is the same: the United States of America is rotten with racism, white people are oppressors, the government must equalize outcomes, and wealth redistribution is justified to achieve that end. This is what the racialist project demands. …

Having racialized politics, the left now wants to tax Whites and Asians more — to pay the other races. No principles, just votes.

Despite all the progress that California’s racialist revolutionaries have made during the Newsom administration, progressive activists outside government, and Democratic legislators inside of it, want to go further.

The California Budget & Policy Center published a paper in April 2021 outlining how the state could use tax policy to pursue “racial equity.” …

The solution, according to the group, is to use ostensibly race-neutral means to raise taxes on whites and Asians in order to funnel the money to preferred races. …

To understand where all this is going, consider today’s South Africa. Since 2011, GDP per capita in South Africa has declined, infrastructure has deteriorated, and the unemployment rate is the highest in among G20 countries. The South African experiment also demonstrates that once a government chooses the racialist road, it must walk down it further and further. …

On and on it goes. These measures are far more than the ad hoc diversity trainings common during the era of “peak woke,” or toothless symbolic announcements. These policies and proposals represent a concerted effort to strip wealth from whites and Asians and redistribute it to favored racial groups. …

Left wing ideology (all large groups of people have identical statistical characteristics, so unequal outcomes is evidence of discrimination) comes with a heavy price:

California’s racialist revolutionaries seem incapable of grasping a simple truth: all these heavy-handed policies will not work. No matter how much wealth is seized, no matter how much government spending is redirected to favored racial groups, outcomes in the real world will never look the same as a Census table. These policies failed in South Africa, and they will fail in California, too.

The revolutionaries also refuse to recognize another obvious fact: rather than being the racist nightmare they make it out to be, America has had formal legal equality among the races for more than 60 years, not to mention a robust welfare state and decades of affirmative action policies. …

Easy solution: treat persons as individuals, rather than as stand-ins for their group identity. But then, where would the left get their votes from?

The solution, according to the group, is to use ostensibly race-neutral means to raise taxes on whites and Asians in order to funnel the money to preferred races.

Heat, literacy, and air-conditioning

Heat, literacy, and air-conditioning. By Ed West.

Different climates have enjoyed advantages at different points in time.

For most of history, industry and scholarship in southern Europe benefitted from significantly longer hours of sun and daylight much of the year compared to the north, allowing for more hours of work and study. James Belich noted in The World the Plague Made that this all changed with the expansion of the Basque whaling trade in the late medieval period, providing cheap wax for candles.

England and the Netherlands subsequently overtook the south in their levels of literacy, a transformation usually attributed to Protestantism, although this technical solution to a physical disadvantage certainly helped. As the northern countries grew richer, and were able to use more energy, so the climate came to be an advantage. Cooler areas of Europe in particular benefitted from a relative absence of vector-borne disease, dangerous insects and food poisoning, which made hotter regions of the world more lethal.

Yet the biggest curse of the lower latitudes is that heat makes us sluggish — since people struggle to work above 23° centigrade. As Maarten Boudry writes on his substack, ‘For every degree above 25°C (77°F), our cognitive performance declines by around two percent. And if synapses suffer, so does economic activity. At 30°C, office performance drops by almost 9 percent.’

I see that. I’ve been trying to write this in temperatures of up to 34°, which equates to a production level similar to a moderate hangover. If only there was some sort of technology that could make my home cooler.

Until relatively recently the world was dominated by a handful of relatively cold regions, and Paul Johnson observed in his history of the United States that human industry thrives in what Fahrenheit appreciators would call ‘the 60s’, a Goldilocks zone that turned New England and Greater Yankeedom into a powerhouse. The southern states, in contrast, were held back by higher mortality and the impossibility of productive work in the sweltering summer months, and until the mid-20th century were about 40 per cent poorer than the Union states.

The northerners were especially known for their work ethic and their inventiveness, a characteristic epitomised by the Boston-born Benjamin Franklin.

Then in 1902, New York’s Willis Carrier changed everything with the one of the most world-changing inventions, the air conditioning unit; aircon has notably shifted population and power in the US southwards, but Dixieland is just part of a broader, global ‘sunshine belt’.

Among the most notable beneficiaries of this technology are the financial powerhouses of Dubai and Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew famously said of air conditioning that it was ‘perhaps one of the signal inventions of history. It changed the nature of civilization by making development possible in the tropics… The first thing I did upon becoming prime minister was to install air conditioners in buildings where the civil service worked.’ …

Japan has almost universal air conditioning, with 91 per cent of homes equipped, compared to 88 per cent in the US. China is home to more than 500 million aircon units, is the world’s largest manufacturer, and has also seen an economic shift towards the south. Vietnam, also likely to be a major economic power by mid-century, is as dependent on this technology as it is on its people’s ingenuity. The development of aircon, and medical breakthroughs in the treatment of tropical diseases, has shifted the centre of gravity away from the cold regions of the earth – just as the globe is warming up.

The article is mostly about the reluctance of Europe to use (allow!) airconditioning, due to their belief in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming. But that’s an interesting intro, quoted above.

Here in Perth Australia, the invention of evaporative air conditioning changed everything. Prior to 1970, Perth was a hot, small, sleepy town — where many people slept outside on their verandah during the hot summer nights. Evaporative air conditioning is cheap to run, costing only about a tenth as much as regular air conditioning. However, it only works in dry air — it is perfectly useless in humid climates. But it suits Perth perfectly, because Perth only has at most a handful of humid days each summer. With cheap aircon, Perth grew fast and blossomed.

We live by our “evap” in summer, leaving it on 24/7 for several months. It knocks about 5 degrees C off the temperature inside.