Labor announces new immigration policy, essentially the same as its old immigration policy

Labor announces new immigration policy, essentially the same as its old immigration policy. By Peter van Onselen in The Daily Mail.

Tony Burke finally made it to the National Press Club this afternoon, to unveil Labor’s long awaited immigration reforms. …

It was that such a modest collection of measures took six weeks of cabinet warfare, political panic and public humiliation to finally produce. …

Denies mass immigration:

Burke got stuck into the idea that Australia is a mass migration country, dismissing the notion as ‘absurd’.

A stunning graph shows just how much Australia’s population has grown compared to other nations:

 

 

Why? Because of mass migration. … And in the last quarter of a century it has accelerated the population well beyond the infrastructure capabilities to cope with it.

To suggest otherwise, as Burke did, is utterly absurd, and makes it harder to trust everything else he had to say today.

Labor’s not cutting immigration significantly:

Burke’s plan is essentially a plan to meet the existing plan. Labor already forecast that net overseas migration would fall from around 300,000 to 225,000 by 2027-28. The measures announced on Thursday are designed to ensure reality finally conforms with that Treasury forecast. …

The permanent migration program remains at 185,000. The humanitarian intake remains at 20,000 (according to sources, Burke wanted to lower it but Prime Minister Albanese overruled him).

International student numbers are largely untouched. And the net overseas migration forecast of 225,000 hasn’t been lowered one little bit. …

Burke has merely announced regulatory changes designed to stop Labor overshooting its own target yet again. …

Skills or left-voters? One of these priorities is obviously a joke:

Australia is supposedly importing skills to fill shortages, yet doctors, engineers and other qualified professionals are driving Ubers or working in jobs that make little use of their expertise because recognition and licensing systems are slow, expensive and completely fragmented. …

More than 250,000 permanent migrants with qualifications in regulated professions are estimated to be working beneath their skill levels. Think about that. The economic cost has been put at around $9 billion annually.

Interesting:

“Africa (excl. South Africa)” includes Zimbabwe.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

 

The Great AI Debate Goes Political

The Great AI Debate Goes Political. By Edward Dowd.

Winter is coming for the AI industry, and the great houses are already drawing swords

  • On one side sit OpenAI and Anthropic, wrapping themselves in the banner of “safety”…House Monopoly.
  • On the other sit the accelerationists including David Sacks, President Trump, and a growing faction that wants the pathway cleared, not blocked…House Speed Racer.

The fight is being sold as existential risk versus national destiny. This is a battle for power, money, and control. The average citizen is not at the table. …

House Monopoly wants regulation by government to exclude competitors and thus rescue them financially:

Basically House Monopoly wants embedded evaluators inside the labs and common safety standards. Coordination that would require government blessing and, conveniently, an antitrust waiver so the two biggest closed model shops can sit in a room and decide how fast everyone else is allowed to run and regulate their competition out of existence. This is not altruism, rather this is regulatory capture.

The reasons for attempting this regulatory capture are simple … Open source models are putting real pricing pressure on the closed frontier systems. The closed system companies are burning cash with profitability nowhere in sight. Enterprises are finally asking about ROI [return on investment] and whether they want their data sitting inside OpenAI or Anthropic. Secondary market valuations are starting to crack. Growth is slowing and capex is increasingly getting harder to finance. …

House Monopoly wants a licensing cartel and a fusion of frontier AI with the administrative state for “safety reasons”…the digital jailer many have been warning about. …

House Speed Racer wants competition and to beat China:

House Speed Racer has not been subtle. Trump called the panic a hoax and a scam. He said the only guardrails AI needs are a strong president, that we already have criminal and regulatory power over these companies, and that whoever wins AI wins. Sacks, who has been in this fight longer than most, told Amodei and Altman they can pace themselves if they want, but stop pretending they need Washington to bless a cartel. Stop asking for the waiver. Stop dressing market protection as public salvation. …

House Speed Racer wants the throttle open because the alternative according to them is losing the race to China …

The left backs House Monopoly, MAGA backs House Speed Racer:

The alignment is political, and everyone in the room knows it.

The safety rhetoric travels most easily through Democratic networks, legacy NGOs, the parts of the administrative state that grow when fear grows and of course the MSM.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s handpicked super-woke globalists he thinks will save us from an AI apocalypse

 

The acceleration side is MAGA coded: beat China, build here, do not hand the future to Brussels-style bureaucrats or to companies that spent years positioning themselves as the moral opposition to the current administration. That camp is not wrong that a slowdown written by the current leaders is a gift to Beijing. However it is also not wrong that data center buildouts, power prices, and labor displacement are already landing on regular people who never got a vote. …

The future is very undecided:

The ultimate governor for both sides is the credit market and its willingness to fund this so far profitless endeavor. …

There are no easy choices in this situation. Real risks exist…models that can crack cyber security and wreak havoc are not science fiction. Alternatively steam rolling local communities into accepting data centers is not the path forward.

 

The Economist lies about Islam

The Economist lies about Islam. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

On the cover of its latest edition, The Economist promises to uncover “the truth and the lies” about “Islam in Europe.”

The story it presents is, for the magazine’s readership, a reassuring one: a crisis of two extreme fringes fighting across a sensible middle. But this is a false framing that betrays the complexity of Islam in Europe it promises to untangle, just when honest understanding is urgently needed. Allow me to explain why.

The editors offer a soothing symmetry: on one side, a small minority of Islamist extremists; on the other, a small minority of far-right extremists. “Islam poses no serious danger,” declares the accompanying editorial. “But Islamism and the fear of Islam do.” Both are dangerous. Both must be resisted. In this formulation, the vast majority of Muslims and the vast majority of native Europeans are peaceable people caught between two fringes.

Unfortunately, that symmetry does not reflect reality …. Consider what would have to be true for the symmetry to hold.

  • There would have to be, on the European far right, a creedal architecture of comparable depth to Islamic scripture and tradition … There is not. The European far right has no scripture. It has memes, manifestos, a handful of self-published tracts, and a scattering of ideologues who cite one another. …
  • There would have to be a recruitment base of comparable size. On the Islamist side, the recruiting field is the young men of a global community of about two billion people, of whom the middle classes alone number in the hundreds of millions, all of them potentially reachable through mosques, Quran schools, satellite channels, and university Islamic societies that exist in every European city. On the far-right side, the recruiting field is a scattering of subcultures made up of football-hooligan networks, online gaming communities, and obscure political parties that have never, in any European country, produced a mass following since the 1930s. They are aggressively policed by every European state, security service, employer, and mainstream media outlet. The two recruiting fields are not remotely comparable.
  • There would have to be money of comparable scale. The Islamist infrastructure has been resourced, for 50 years, by well over an estimated $75 billion to $100 billion of Gulf state and private funding. It builds mosques by the thousand. It funds television channels, publishing houses, university chairs, and international NGOs. On the far-right side there is no equivalent. …
  • There would have to be state power behind it. The Islamist current has, in Iran, an entire state built on its logic … It has, in Qatar and Turkey, two states that use their diplomatic, financial, and media apparatus to support the movement globally. It has, in Saudi Arabia, a state that spent decades exporting the doctrine and that even now, under a modernizing crown prince, still funds a religious establishment shot through with it. It has the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 states that consistently defends the movement’s political priorities at the United Nations. There is no equivalent on the European far-right side …
  • And there is one final asymmetry, the one that ought to settle the matter once and for all. There is no flight from Europe by anyone …  as a consequence of European far-right violence. No Muslims, no Jews, no atheists, no ex-Muslims, no gay men and women are packing suitcases in Frankfurt or Manchester or Marseille and applying for asylum in Cairo or Islamabad or Algiers because European far-right militants have made their lives untenable at home. The traffic runs, on a massive scale, in the opposite direction, and it has run in the opposite direction for two generations. Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, Baha’is, Ahmadiyyas, ex-Muslims, secularists, feminists, gay men and women, and religious minorities of every description are leaving the Muslim-majority world in millions, and they are coming to Europe and the rest of the West. They come because Europe, whatever else it is, is not governed by the doctrinal architecture they are fleeing.

During the Cold War, we knew the Soviet propaganda about the wonders of communism was false because people risked their lives to cross from East Germany to West Germany, but no one went the other way. Same here.

The direction of migration by itself — that is, the votes of feet cast in their tens of millions by the very people who know both worlds –is a stronger empirical statement about the relative danger of the two phenomena than any Home Office report, academic study, or half-baked media essay will ever be.

Why is The Economist — a reliable spokes-publication for the globalists — so crazy when it comes to Islam?

The Economist … would not write today that the Chinese Communist Party and the Falun Gong are symmetrical authoritarianisms. In every other domain, this magazine understands that variables such as scale, state sponsorship, and institutional depth matter; that a movement with a coherent multigenerational strategy is not the same kind of thing as a collection of aggrieved amateurs. On this subject, uniquely, the analytical standards slip. It is worth asking why.

The answer, I suspect, is that the movement itself has spent decades constructing the very framework within which the Economist editorial was written. Its second prong, after the doctrinal one and before the militant one, is a soft-power infrastructure of charities, NGOs, media relations, lobbyists, legal-defense funds, and university programs whose principal purpose is to ensure that any serious criticism of the movement can be immediately reframed as Islamophobia against Muslims as a whole. The Economist delivers that framing on a plate.

When will they wake up? When Islam invades their comfy neighborhoods?

Is Any Vegetable Truly Innocent?

Is Any Vegetable Truly Innocent? By David Archibald.

Cucumbers come close. But first the background to this line of inquiry. The globalist psychopaths who spawned global warming, covid and the other preoccupations of ‘dark triad’ personality types have plenty of time on their hands to come up with new ways to torture the rest of us. The mischievous imps created this image of the actor Kevin Bacon in a bean suit:

 

 

The beans on display are navy, pinto, black and black-eyed peas. It is a campaign by a mob called Humane World for Animals … to encourage people to eat beans instead of meat once a week. It is a revival of the sumptuary laws of the Middle Ages, under which what you could eat depended upon your social status, reinforcing the social hierarchy.

It is a bad idea promoted by bad people, but just how bad could eating vegetables be? Let’s stick to the poisons and anti-nutrients in common vegetables:

  • Oxalate is used by vegetables to control intracellular calcium levels. The needle-like crystals of oxalate also defend against being eaten by insects and animals.
  • Phytates bind to iron, zinc, magnesium and calcium and reduce the body’s absorption of them from the gut. They are a defense against being eaten.
  • Lectins act as defense proteins by binding to foreign carbohydrate structures. They can disrupt digestion in insects and herbivores. …

The reason why vegetarians have to spend a lot of time chewing is that they need to eat a lot of beans to get enough protein in absence of meat, while the phytates in all those beans stop the absorption of iron, zinc and magnesium. It is a similar story in wheat and rice. I remember 50 years ago when it was popular to eat brown rice instead of white rice because of the extra nutrients in the bran. It turns out that the ancients milled rice and wheat to remove the bran for a reason. They didn’t know why but they knew through empirical evidence that they should.

Giving up meat for beans is a bad idea, but don’t give up on plants altogether. Human cells have receptors for a wide range of plant molecules. … Prostate cancer incidence in Vietnam is one fortieth the US rate. The difference is not genetic; it is dietary. …

The Thais have Thai salad. The Vietnamese have pho, in which the chilli provides capsaicin, the bean sprouts provide coumarins and the mint provides the molecule carvone. A lot of cancers are caused not by what we eat, but by what we don’t eat.

Would you or your children want to go to this school?

Would you or your children want to go to this school? A teacher in an Australian government school writes:

A fellow teacher, a friend, one of the last permanents, just resigned without even completing the rest of the term. She took a job in the Catholic system.

About a fortnight ago, she was on a sport class and was refereeing a game. A year 7 male student disagreed with a decision and started intimidating her. He got right up into her face, put his hand on her shoulder and put his other hand in her face and told her to stop talking. She managed to push to get him suspended. Upon his return, it was made clear in writing to the staff that his mum wasn’t supportive of the suspension.

The first lesson back she had with the class, this boy and his friends staged a premeditated attack. Five of them approached her and all put their hands on her, circling her. And peppered her with questions in her face. Despite it being caught on CCTV, and despite it being planned and the second instance for the main boy, he wasn’t suspended again. Only two of the other boys were given verbal warnings.

hat-tip Phil

I have no intention of assimilating; there is no white culture

I have no intention of assimilating; there is no white culture. By Nyadol Nyuon, a Sudanese refugee and lawyer who appeared on the ABC’s national forum on migration.

 

Actually there is a white culture. It is a truth culture, which evolved over the last few hundred years in Europe (and to a lesser extent in northeast Asia), and stands distinct from the honor culture that prevails almost everywhere else and for almost every time before that. Krzysztof Szczawinski takes a stab at describing white culture:

Western civilization is not an idea. It is a set of working arrangements, each of which took centuries to build and any of which can be lost in a generation:

1. Law that binds the ruler as well as the ruled.

2. Trial by evidence, not by authority.

3. Property the state cannot take at will.

4. Free exchange, and the prices that make it intelligible.

5. Science: the claim that reality is real, knowable, and open to correction by anyone with better evidence.

6. The individual conscience, which no institution owns.

7. The family: the only structure that transmits all of the above and invests in people who do not yet exist.

8. These are not Western by geography. They were built here, at great cost, and adopted elsewhere because they work.

What is being dismantled as honor culture reasserts itself:

9. Truth. Institutions built to establish facts now exist to protect narratives. Where evidence and narrative conflict, the evidence is managed. A society that cannot correct itself cannot steer.

10. Merit. “Who is best for this” is replaced by “who belongs in the room.” Position is allocated by credential, network, and demonstrated loyalty. This is not equality; it is the protection of incumbents in the language of equality. …

13. Free Speech. Not by law, mostly – by cost: employment, reputation, access. The result is a population that says one thing in public and another in private, and a growing number who have left public life entirely. …

Why white culture is eroding now (apart from immigration):

15. Accumulation. Every society builds layers of protected position. People who reach the top arrange the ladder behind them. Without periodic clearing, the layers thicken until the society is run by people it cannot remove.

16. Selection. An institution told to avoid scandal will select for people who avoid scandal, and those people prevent things rather than build them. No malice is required. Give an institution the wrong mission and it will perform it faithfully.

17. Therefore replacing individuals changes nothing. The same incentives produce the same people.

What can still be defended:

18. The law still mostly works. The scientific method is intact even where scientific institutions are not. Property holds. Several nations still know what they are and say so.

19. And the monopoly on distribution is broken. For the first time in a century, an argument can reach a continent without anyone’s permission.

What must be rebuilt:

20. The rotation of elites, so that position must be re-earned.

21. The presumption of freedom to act: punishment after harm, not permission before existence.

22. Institutions that transmit — schools, apprenticeships, prizes, families — rather than merely certify.

23. An authority that says publicly what is legitimate and what is corrupt, measured against a stated hierarchy of values. Nothing else on this list gets repaired while no one’s job is to name the problem out loud. …

The standard:

29. We will be judged by whether what we say turns out to be true. That is the whole authority available to us, and it is enough.

Woke lefties described white culture with a negative slant a few years ago for the Smithsonian in Washington:

What happens to Australia when we import thousands or millions of people like the woman in the video above? It changes.

Lozzy B. goes off:

This is a perfect example of an incompatible immigrant and why we must stop third world immigration and remigrate hostile incompatible migrants.

This African immigrant moves to Australia and says that there is NO WHITE CULTURE and that she dislikes the term Anglo Celtic, which is who ethnic Australians are.

Anglo Celtics literally founded, created and built Australia with their own hands.

These entitled, arrogant narcissistic immigrants come to our country to benefit off of the sacrifices, blood, sweat and tears of our people then openly disrespect us and our ancestors.

Then they have the nerve to tell us that our identity, people, culture and nation do not exist.  …

These people do not respect Australians or our culture yet at the same time they demand that we respect their identity and their culture.

They come to our country tell us who we are and what our nation is then make demands that we accept their version of our identity and nation. …

Facts are stubborn things, but play no part in honor culture:

Statistically Africans are currently the most problematic and violent group of people in Victoria. This is a fact.

At only 2% of the population, they make up over 50% of the youth prison population for serious violent crimes.

In Melbourne, the biggest fear of most Aussies is waking up during the night to five Sudanese teens standing over our beds with machetes. We sleep with one eye open now.

Aussies in Melbourne are literally building panic rooms, fortifying their homes and hiring personal security to keep these people out.

UPDATE: Drew Pavlou:

I discovered that [Nyadol Nyuon, the woman in the video above] is in fact the daughter of a Sudanese warlord who abducted and enslaved hundreds of child soldiers, dozens of whom starved to death.

Human Rights Watch accused William Nyuon Bany of these horrific crimes against humanity in a September 1995 report titled ”Children in Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers.”

South Sudanese Australian lawyer Nyadol Nyuon posted Instagram photos celebrating her warlord father as late ONE WEEK before Australian state broadcaster ABC selected her to speak for the pro-migration side in a national migration debate.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

One Nation calls for fewer immigrants

One Nation’s call for fewer immigrants.

Pauline Hanson:

Australians are screaming out for mass migration to be cut because they are doing it tough.

They can’t find a home, can’t get a hospital bed and spend every morning stuck in traffic. I’m listening to them, not economists who keep getting it wrong, bureaucrats, politicians or big business chasing cheap labour.

More than 150,000 Australians are homeless, living in cars, tents or couch surfing….

I want migration returned to sustainable levels so our quality of life can improve. …

The uniparty people all scream that we’ll be economically ruined without ever more immigrants to do all the jobs. This brilliantly made French piss-take is their essential argument — notice all the doctors and engineers!

 

The globalists say we need immigrants to do the low-paying jobs that Australians won’t do, such as casual farm labor. Well there’s a solution for that — and it’s exactly the point. Pay more and Australians will do all the jobs. Duh.

Mass immigration lowers wages, especially at the low end. Which lowers living standards for those who depend on wages, especially at the low end. It’s supply and demand. But guess who it benefits? Those who’s income is mostly asset appreciation, or have high end jobs, or jobs that are insulated from competition from migrants. (Oh, the people in favor of mass immigration!)

Mass immigration raises home prices and causes overcrowding of our infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, and schools.

And that’s just on the numbers, before considering which immigrants arrive. Do they come from truth cultures (i.e. whites, north east Asians) or honor cultures (the rest of the world)? Truth and honor cultures are incompatible — there is no multiculturalism possible. Truth cultures only arose in the last few hundreds years, after millions of years of evolution, but leaped ahead technologically. If truth culture nations are swamped with non-assimilated people sticking to their to their honor cultures (“my tribe is more important than the truth, there are only winners and losers, oppressed and oppressors, exploited and exploiters, might makes right”) then a new dark age begins as truth culture gets snuffed out.

One Nation’s immigration policy:

  • Three years of net negative overseas migration.
  • A cap of 130,000 visas per year for permanent residents.
  • A 750,000 reduction in temporary visa holders over three years, returning the international student population to 2015 levels and the broader temporary migrant population to 2017 levels.
  • The deportation of 75,000 illegal migrants (including visa overstayers) within three months. Those who leave voluntarily may reapply, while those who remain face deportation and lifetime bans.
  • A “monocultural” Australia where immigrants assimilate under a “one cultural umbrella.” The party proposes refusing entry to migrants from nations deemed to foster extremist ideologies (including specific Muslim-majority countries) and withdrawing from the UN Refugee Convention.
  • An eight-year waiting period before migrants can access citizenship or welfare.
  • Ending taxpayer-funded visa appeals and reintroducing Temporary Protection Visas to prevent permanent residency through the back door.

Don’t hear much in the media about the details of One Nation’s policy. Too busy hiding her policies, but playing gotcha with Pauline.

Honor or truth: Can we say that Australian Aboriginals were among the most primitive of races?

Honor or truth: Can we say that Australian Aboriginals were among the most primitive of races? By Craig Kelly.

It might be uncomfortable, but it’s the truth.

Around 20,000 years ago, as the Earth’s climate changed — as it has throughout history — sea levels rose, severing the land bridges that had once connected Australia to New Guinea and mainland Asia, and Australia’s Aboriginal peoples became isolated from the rest of humanity.

For thousands of generations they remained in extraordinary isolation, trapped (Antarctica aside) on one harshest inhabited continent on Earth.

Without domesticated animals for transport or agriculture, and particularly without horses or other beasts of burden, they lived in a harsh and unforgiving environment where survival itself demanded extraordinary resilience.

Separated from other civilisations for millennia, technological development remained comparatively limited.

No written language emerged, nor metallurgy or ceramics, and only simplest canoes and stone tools were used. And Australia appears to be the only inhabited continent where the bow and arrow was never developed or widely adopted.

Honor culture is creeping over Australia. For years now we have only been able to say positive things about Aboriginals. Many lies are told about Aboriginals in public, but there are encouraged by the ruling class because they are positive about Aboriginals. In an honor culture, status matters more than truth. The status of aboriginals must be raised, according to the ruling class. Even in truly racist ways (e.g. the Voice) or when it harms us (e.g. mandatory aboriginal maths in school).

But what Pauline Hanson said is true, or close enough (ok, it’s a nitpicker’s delight). In a truth culture, that’s enough to make it permissible to say, albeit impolite. In a truth culture, we act and make policies that accommodate the truth, not punish the truth tellers.

Honor culture means not hurting the feelings of the powerful or those the powerful choose to protect at any given moment. It is not compatible with truth culture.

Albanese’s mother’s housing is a legitimate issue because he’s spent 30 years boasting about it in public

Albanese’s mother’s housing is a legitimate issue because he’s spent 30 years boasting about it in public. By Ryan Daly.

Anthony Albanese spent 30 years selling the houso story. Pauline just asked why his mum kept the house for 65 years.

Albo just fronted the cameras emotional and steaming, slamming Pauline Hanson as “nasty and spiteful” for comments about his late mother.

He said he’s “stunned”, that Maryanne was “way out of Pauline Hanson’s league”, and that he’s “proud to be a houso”.

Fine.

No one is stopping him from being proud of “being a houso”

What Pauline actually said, months ago on Stefanovic, then again this week, is the bit they don’t want discussed:

“Public housing is a hand up, not a 65 year occupancy. You get help, then it should move on to the next family coming through”

That’s it. …

Albanese has used the Camperdown commission house story as a political prop for his entire career. Victory speeches. Interviews. Every time he needs the humbleorigin card.

The moment someone points out that scarce public housing shouldn’t be a lifetime tenancy while other Australians are in cars and tents, suddenly it’s an unforgivable attack on a dead woman.

Lozzy B. on the selling of the smear:

Meanwhile he calls Hanson dangerous, divisive and appealing to dark forces 🙄

A man that cries about a true statement made by another politician on national TV should not be leading a nation. Pathetic.

Albanese is not exactly addicted to telling the truth. He seems pretty comfortable with honor culture.

Sydney Sweeney is completely untroubled by her sexual charisma, and leftist women hate her for it

Sydney Sweeney is completely untroubled by her sexual charisma, and leftist women hate her for it.

US ABC News:

An advertising campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney for a sports betting platform, in which she covers herself with footballs, tennis rackets, and hockey pads, has sparked widespread backlash from female athletes, who say it sexualizes women in sports.

Tim Treacher:

Last year, liberals were all angry at Sydney Sweeney for wearing blue jeans. Now they’re angry that she’s not wearing blue jeans. Or anything else.

She’s naked again. She just did an ad for some sports betting app, I think. I don’t know. Not anything I’ll ever use. But in the ad, she’s butt-nekkid, with strategically placed sporting equipment covering her naughty bits. …

 

There’s a theory that this woman keeps triggering these people because she’s not a liberal. Or at least not an outspoken one. Her relatives were seen in MAGA hats at one point, I think. That’s how it all started.

That could be part of it, I guess. I think it’s just women hating a woman for being more attractive than they are. If they could get a lucrative endorsement deal for lounging around in the buff, they would. But they can’t, so they rage at somebody who can.

Oh the hypocrisy:

Haven’t any of these people heard of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue? That’s been around since I can remember.

No outcry over these:

No outcry here either:

 

End Wokeness:

These are the “journalists” writing hit pieces on Sydney Sweeney.

Ace of Spades:

My other mild objection is about attention-getting. The media and media-personalities are constantly demanding the attention of each of us. I prefer these demands to be made more subtly. Yes, Sydney Sweeney has an amazing body but I would like my own Male Gaze to decide when to gaze.

But feminists have decided that attractive women are not allowed to show they are attractive in public because of Equity. Unattractive women do not draw positive attention in public, and therefore attractive women should be hated, shamed, and clucked to death by angry hens in the name of Sexual Equity. If we can’t all be gorgeous Sex Symbols, than nobody can.

Note how they never admit that they’re engaging in the ancient art of female sabotage/smear-campaigning against rivals they’re sexually jealous of. They always have to pretend their obvious middle-school sexual jealousy is actually some high-minded campaign for Women’s Empowerment.

Turns out Sydney is no dummy, as Eric Raymond noted:

I am in fact going to say “intelligent”. She was on the math and robotics teams at her high school. She restores and maintains her own cars. She’s been shrewd about managing her career. And she even shoots tactical pistol competently.

She is also, if one can judge from her public appearances, a sweet-natured and happy person. I think that thousand-candlepower smile is genuine.

She likes who she is. And she pisses off all the right people.

Mystery Grove:

Communism is when ugly deformed freaks make it illegal to be normal then rob and/or kill all successful people out of petty resentment and cruelty. The ideology is all window dressing.

Leftism stays strong by ostracism

Leftism stays strong by ostracism. By Matt Van Swol.

When my wife and I became conservative at the same time, early last year, I knew I would take some hate for it, and I did… but NOTHING like my wife took from liberal women

They all dropped her like a fly and then they ostracized her from their circle.

I have never seen anything like it.

If you’ve ever had the privilege of meeting my wife, you know she is one of the kindest, gentlest people you will ever meet.

Yet, every day she braces herself before she walks into places she used to walk into freely where we live because someone will inevitably ignore her, berate here, or sneer at her.

I watch her brace herself like this and I hate it.

All my wife did was just decided what she believed and didn’t hide it.

And for that, other women have decided she’s should be utterly destroyed.

Women are deeply radicalized to the Left and they legitimately attempt to destroy women who leave “their side”.

It’s cruel and evil and I’ve seen it first hand, but I’ve seen my wife turn into the most badass fighter on earth who doesn’t give a DAMN what anyone thinks and just chooses to do good and speak truth.

Christian Heiens:

Older Conservatives have no idea that this is what every single Right-wing Millennial and Zoomer experience when they interact with anyone of a similar age to them on the Left. …

They hate us. They want the worst for us. They have broadcast their intentions to hurt us for years, and there is no universe where we will ever allow these people to inflict their sadistic fantasies upon us without a fight.

Islam already has the ultimate apostate policy — the punishment for leaving Islam is death. Islamic scholars reckon that without this policy Islam would long ago have dwindled to a minor religion.

25 Years Later, Yes, They’re Winning

25 Years Later, Yes, They’re Winning. By Robert Spencer.

The media narrative has been set in stone for years: the real victims of 9/11 were Muslims in the U.S., who for a quarter-century now have suffered from unreasonable suspicion, hatred, harassment, discrimination and worse at the hands of racist, bigoted “Islamophobes.”

And yet in reality, if Osama bin Laden and Mohamed Atta were alive today, they would look at what is happening in the United States with a deep sense of satisfaction. …

The jihad project to transform the U.S. into a Sharia state, which Osama bin Laden and his brethren tried to advance so spectacularly 25 years ago today, is going along quite nicely.

As ever-increasing numbers of Sharia-adherent Muslims are elected to political offices at all levels of the U.S. government, the entire leftist establishment continues to insist that Sharia is entirely benign religious law with no political content, to which only hate-filled “Islamophobes” could possibly object. …

Ever since George W. Bush proclaimed six days after 9/11 that “Islam is peace,” the U.S. government has focused on stopping jihad terrorists, without ever acknowledging in any way that other Muslims might be trying to extend the hegemony of Sharia over this country by means other than terror attacks. …

Under cover of darkness, the Sharia agenda continues to advance. The establishment does its part by spreading propaganda about how Muslims are poor, innocent victims, with no attention whatsoever to the 49,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11, or to the boasts of an increasing number of Muslims in the U.S. about their imminent takeover. …

 

Missing from our news

 

There are, however, glimmers of hope. More and more people are waking up to what Sharia involves. Numerous Americans are determined to resist. The jihadis and their allies and enablers have had a relatively easy time for the last twenty-five years. They may find the next 25 not to be so easy.

The Rational Response to 911 — Not Taken

The Rational Response to 911 — Not Taken. By Benjamin Weingarten.

The rational domestic response to 9/11 would have been for the federal government to engage in an extensive study of Islam, Sharia, the ideology and practices of both violent jihadist organizations and “civilizational jihadist” organizations, and then to calibrate a whole-of-government response to neutralize the threat posed by those animated by that ideology, and prevent it from coming to our shores and metastasizing to the greatest extent possible under the law.

Authorities would have surmised that our foes’ primary goal was to spread Islam over the world; that they would impose their totalitarian system using any and all means necessary; that that system was inherently incompatible with America, posed an existential threat to our republican system, and that its adherents would seek to exploit all of our freedoms — including our commitment to religious liberty — to advance their antithetical political and social project under banner of religion.

They would have acknowledged, in short, that our commitment to religious (and all other) freedom requires us to prevent threats to that freedom clad in religious garb — including from those seeking to overthrow our nation with a hostile, totalitarian, theopolitical ideology in the name of Allah.

Our response would have included closing the borders, a total freeze on immigration only to thaw once policies had been implemented to mitigate the threat, the rolling up and eliminating of Islamic supremacist support networks, deporting non-citizen promoters of such subversive and revolutionary ideology, likely a related denaturalization effort, eliminating foreign funding mechanisms of such activities to all relevant public and private institutions, etc. — anything and everything possible under the law to prevent Islamic supremacists from operating in or coming to the U.S., influencing let alone coercing us, and advancing their subversive cause in our body politic. …

But what did our ruling class do instead?

Its primary feature … has been to abide if not encourage mass Islamic immigration and integration into every aspect of American society.

Lefties, it’s not your civilization to give away.

I preferred the earlier situation where they live in their countries and we live in ours. That’s what countries are for.