Albanese and Burnham, living in the ’70s

Albanese and Burnham, living in the ’70s. By Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

 

Both Burnham and Albanese are committed to left-wing economic and social policies that replicate the 1970s, the last era of catastrophic Anglophone social democratic failure. Both men bizarrely idealise the 70s. It’s perverse, as though a 12-year-old boy chose cabbage and brussels sprouts for a birthday treat.

Burnham thinks all Britain’s mistakes began with Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Albanese (who has devoted his life to “fighting Tories”) and his ministers take inspiration from the disastrous 70s Whitlam government while determinedly becoming the complete opposite of the successful 80s Hawke government, which they never reference.

London is so “exciting” now — like the third world!

Norway and Denmark have successfully controlled illegal immigration. They are placid, co-operative societies. The worst you could say is they’re perhaps a bit dull. …

But, but, but — unlike London, Copenhagen and Oslo are clean, safe, friendly, affordable even. Public transport is cheap, accessible and easy. There’s not much anti-social behaviour. In days of walking we never felt the slightest tension. Unlike London, people didn’t talk constantly of knife crime or having their mobile phones snatched.

Mass immigration has overwhelmed Britain’s NHS. But it’s not just the health system in crisis. Government generally doesn’t work any more. Neither does much else. One in four working-age Brits officially suffers a disability. A million 18 to 24-year-olds are involved in neither education, employment nor training.

The British state has never been bigger or more inefficient. Taxation represents nearly 39 per cent of GDP, higher than at any time since World War II. Just like Australia, seemingly everyone in the government sector works from home, which means they don’t work much at all. An English friend needs a minor update on his passport and has been told this could take six months and cannot be accelerated. …

The unsentimental markets think Britain, and Burnham, a bad bet and charge it more to borrow money than any other advanced country.

Just like Australia, Britain has a dismal productivity record. Like Albanese, Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, heavily re-regulated industrial relations and empowered trade unions. Both nations follow net-zero obsessions resulting in both having among the world’s highest energy prices. Manufacturing flees both nations. Labour, in neither London nor Canberra, does anything to free up the supply side of the economy.

There are a whole lot of things Burnham wants to do. They all involve spending money he hasn’t got. Reprising Albanese, none of Burnham’s initiatives will accelerate economic growth. …

Indicating how pandering to activists and extremists will go, Burnham made just one foreign policy statement. Ukraine? Russia? Iran? China? No, in a country awash with antisemitism fuelled in part by hate-filled anti-Israel demonstrations, Burnham apologised that Labour had been too soft on Israel, not strong enough for Palestine. Social cohesion is even worse in Britain than Australia.

The 1970s was our leaders’ happy time:

In the 70s Britain was a bad joke, needing an IMF bailout, crippled by strikes, the sick man of Europe. That’s Burnham’s happy time, Labour’s happy time.

In Australia, Whitlam’s government was so disastrous more Australians left the country than migrants came in. Whitlam was rejected, twice, in landslide election losses. But in Labor myth Whitlam is the perfect leader.

Thatcher’s election led to 18 years of Conservative rule. Brits became wealthier, many more owned their homes, London became the global financial centre, the UK had a powerful military and was central in defeating communism. For Burnham, this Thatcherism was all bad.

Australia and Britain today embody the crisis of social democracy. Burnham and Albanese are left-wing leaders of antique vintage, as though their respective electorates somehow mistakenly bought a Morris Minor or FJ Holden as the new family car. Their economic policies are impoverishing, building structural obstacles to growth. Social policy is woke, foreign policy often fatuous. Only in the vapours of Labor myth is the view today Olympian. For those forced to live in the real world, the outlook is bleak.

Sigh. It will take Farage/Lowe and Hanson to begin to break the stranglehold of our entitled, bureaucratic, stupid ruling class. And if Trump 1 is anything to go by, they won’t be enough at first.

“The people who know nothing know everything”

“The people who know nothing know everything”. By Nachum Kaplan.

Foreword by Daniel Clarke-Serret:

What is so special about the piece is how it is written. Far more than a mere polemic or an academic thesis, it is a bona fide work of literature … It speaks of argument in a world of slogans. It promotes truth in a world of ignorance. It elevates fact in a world of fiction. And it does so with a humour, humanity and exasperation that AI would never be capable of. It is Nachum Kaplan’s authentic voice, and the voice of all those that despair along with him.

Put simply, it’s a masterpiece deserving of a prize that the luvvies will never give him — and it’s a powerful testament to the continuing force of the writer to preserve our humanity.

Read the whole thing, but here’s the set up:

I knew the evening was in trouble when the hostess described the table as “a safe space for difficult conversations.”

Nothing good has ever followed such words.

A safe space for difficult conversations is usually a space in which everyone is free to express precisely the same opinion, provided they do so using slightly different therapeutic vocabulary. Disagreement is welcome in the way vegetarians are welcome at a barbecue: theoretically, warmly, and without any intention of accommodating them.

The dinner was being held in an immaculate apartment overlooking the city. The furniture was Scandinavian, the lighting was flattering, and the books had been arranged not alphabetically but morally. Edward Said sat beside Frantz Fanon. Judith Butler leaned against a large volume on decolonising architecture. There were several books about Israel, none by Israelis, historians, military analysts, Arabic speakers, Hebrew speakers, or anyone who had recently burdened themselves with the region’s chronology.

The apartment belonged to Oliver and Beatrice, who had invited 12 people for what they called “an evening of food, friendship and necessary conversation.”

I had been included, I later realised, as the necessary conversation; the one in need of “education.”

Beatrice greeted me at the door with the expression of a person welcoming a recently rehabilitated extremist.

“We’re so glad you came,” she said, touching my arm. “We were worried you might feel uncomfortable.”

“I’ve been to family weddings,” I replied. “I’ll survive.”

The other guests had already assembled around a huge island bench. They held champagne flutes and spoke in low, solemn tones about suffering in places they would never visit.

There was Julian, an international lawyer who specialised in commercial leases but had recently developed strong views on the laws of armed conflict. Nadia worked in branding and referred to herself as a storyteller. Marcus was a documentary producer whose documentaries had never been produced. Eleanor taught postcolonial literature and had perfected the academic art of converting adjectives into accusations. Simon was in finance and considered himself politically courageous because he had once criticised capitalism at Davos.

There was also Theo, a surgeon, who knew nothing about Israel but knew it with clinical confidence.

I was introduced around the room.

“This is our pro-Israel friend,” Beatrice announced.

I gently corrected her that I was not pro-Israel but an actual Israeli, which caused a murmur.

It was a curious introduction. Nobody else was introduced by the country they were expected to defend. There was no “This is our pro-France friend” or “Meet our controversial supporter of New Zealand.”

Apparently, Israel was no longer a country. It was a personality disorder, and not a borderline one.

“How brave of you to come,” Eleanor said.

“Why?”

“Well,” she replied, glancing around the room, “I suspect you may be in the minority.”

“Minorities are sacred,” I said. “I’m sure I’ll be protected.”

The first course was served on plates that looked handmade because they had been expensively manufactured to resemble imperfection. It was some kind of compressed beetroot construction accompanied by a smear of something apologetic.

Oliver raised his glass.

“To honest conversation.”

Everyone echoed him.

I should have left then.

For the first 10 minutes, the conversation was restrained. We discussed schools, property prices, artificial intelligence and whether the city had lost its soul. Then Nadia placed her fork carefully beside her plate and sighed.

“I just don’t understand how anyone can still defend Israel.”

There it was.

Not raised, exactly. Released.

The room grew quiet. Heads turned towards me with the benign anticipation of people waiting for a laboratory animal to perform a familiar trick.

“What is it that you don’t understand?” I asked.

“All of it,” she said.

This was at least honest.

“The occupation. The apartheid. The genocide. The colonialism.”

Four accusations, delivered with the rhythmic confidence of a wine list.

“Those are different claims,” I said.

“Are they?”

“Yes. Words retain separate meanings even when discussing Israel.” …

And then it starts.

Here’s the ending and the aftermath:

I placed my napkin on the table.

“But before I go, let us clarify what happened here. You invited one pro-Israel guest into a room of people who share the same politics and called it dialogue. You introduced me by my position, then treated me as morally suspect for holding it. You recited accusations you could not define, cited history you did not know, invoked laws you could not explain and became offended whenever asked for evidence.”

Nobody spoke.

“You are not courageous dissenters. You are the local branch office of an international consensus assembled from newspaper headlines, dinner-party fashion and the intoxicating pleasure of condemning Jews for surviving incorrectly.”

“That is outrageous,” Beatrice said.

“No. Outrageous was Theo suggesting Jewish trauma produces aggression while sitting beneath a painting his family probably bought from a refugee.”

Theo looked towards the painting.

I had no idea where it came from, but by then accuracy had become less important to everyone, so I decided to participate.

Simon stood as well.

“You’re becoming hysterical.”

“Hysterical? I am the calmest person here. I am merely no longer cushioning the information for people who consider contradiction a hate crime.”

“You are proving every stereotype about pro-Israel people,” Nadia said.

“You mean Jews? Which stereotype? That we eventually lose patience after being lectured by people who discovered the Middle East six months ago?”

“You’re impossible.”

“No. I’m inconvenient. There is a difference.”

I picked up my jacket.

The room watched me with the shocked resentment of aristocrats who had just discovered the footman could read.

At the door, Oliver made one final attempt at magnanimity.

“I’m sorry you didn’t feel heard.”

“I was heard perfectly well. That is why everyone is upset.”

“We may simply have to agree to disagree.”

“No. You may have to agree to read.”

He folded his arms.

“Do you genuinely believe you’re the only person here who understands the issue?”

“No,” I said. “I believe I’m the only person here who has made the vulgar effort.”

Beatrice opened the door.

The conversation, she said, had become unsafe.

I thanked her for the meal.

Outside, the night air was cool and gloriously free of moral vocabulary. I walked home reflecting on the strange burden of being pro-Israel in polite society.

One is expected to arrive with evidence, history, nuance, empathy, military expertise, legal precision and a detailed alternative strategy for every available course of action.

The other side need only arrive with adjectives. Colonial. Genocidal. Apartheid. Brutal.

Each word is placed on the table like a royal flush. No definitions required. No chronology necessary. No awareness of competing claims. The accusation itself is treated as evidence, while any response is proof of callousness.

The ignorance would be less irritating if it were accompanied by humility. Yet ignorance among the educated rarely travels alone. It brings status, vocabulary and the confidence of belonging to a moral majority. Its possessors do not merely lack knowledge. They regard knowledge as faintly disreputable, particularly when it interferes with the emotional clarity of their conclusions.

By the following morning, I had received three messages.

Beatrice said she was “holding space” for me but needed time to process my aggression.

Nadia said she hoped I would one day reconnect with my compassion.

Julian sent an article from a newspaper columnist who had never visited Israel.

Islam’s desires now part of Australian politics

Islam’s desires now part of Australian politics. By Lachlan Leeming in The Australian.

The Muslim Vote political movement has declared it will target seats in Labor’s western Sydney heartland at the coming NSW election, with the group aiming to capitalise on fury within the ­Islamic community at Premier Chris Minns, stemming from Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s Australian visit earlier this year. …

Sheik Wesam Charkawi, the group’s convener, .. said announcements would soon be made on which nominees will be supported in the NSW elections, adding that frustration within the Islamic community at Mr Minns, stemming from his strident support of the Jewish community and related protest laws had galvanised the group’s efforts to take on Labor.

He claimed the NSW Labor Premier was “willing to advocate forcefully for one community while showing no regards for advocates of justice and fairness”.

“Without question, Chris Minns has come to be regarded as the most aggressive and openly partisan premier,” he said.

So it begins in the formal political arena. Islam’s desires must be accommodated by our political leaders — Muslim preachers now have significant political power in Australia. The Islamic population of Australia is 3.2% (2021 census), but will only grow under current demographic trends and immigration policies.

How long before parts of Australia get Sharia law? Before Arabic becomes an alternate national language? At what point will Australia’s current ruling class (soon to be deposed by Islam, ahem) realize that multiculturalism was a dreadful mistake for people who are culturally or ethnically whites? France may be majority Islamic or ethnically Arabic by 2060; currently 25% of French teenagers identify as Muslim.

Straits of Hormuz update

Straits of Hormuz update. By Richard Fernandez.

Iran’s missile attack volume was substantially higher in March 2026 than in July 2026 going from as many as hundreds per day then to mere dozens now. It’s retaliatory power, while still existent, has clearly diminished.

Since the war restarted in early July 2026, the United States has not used “exquisite” high-end weapons (heavy standoff cruise missiles, stealth bombers, or hypersonics) at anything approaching the scale or intensity of the initial campaign in late February–March 2026. Nor has it required the augmentation of a parallel campaign by Israel. It appears to have greater dominance than in March. This probably means a far greater weight of delivery. …

The strait of Hormuz situation:

 

From reading the media one gets the impression that the US is inflicting so much damage on Iran that Washington is in danger of punching itself out.

The IR [Iraqian Regime] for its part is showing that it can keep absorbing destruction while still laughing, which must be demoralizing to Trump.

Yet while the IR merely laughs at the blows it is exciting the pity of the entire civilized world, who are disgusted at the meting out of such a one sided beating, warning that the worse the thrashings the greater the reparation which must eventually be paid.

Commenters:

When there is no reasonable way defeat can be logically avoided the losing party can make losing so catastrophic the victor will dread to win. Imperial Japan pursued this strategy in WW2, reasoning that it could force the allies to negotiate with the military — otherwise millions would die in an invasion.

Ironically as the sinking paradox becomes the only choice left it increases the power of the hardliners.

Iran can’t be reasonable because there is no reasonable way the IR wins. …

The US has hardly touched Iran. Barely touched. WWII style strategic bombing would destroy 80% of Iran’s electrical grid, water supply and oil infrastructure in 72 hours. Yes, 72 hours. Tehran would be dark — no power — no water to fight fires, no food.

The Odyssey And The Tiresome Woke War Against White Culture

The Odyssey And The Tiresome Woke War Against White Culture. By Brandon Smith.

The Odyssey film is a clear salvo aimed directly at conservatives and western history. It is a multicultural travesty, a joke of a movie filled with historical inaccuracies and based on a deconstructionist translation written by a feminist academic from Oxford (Emily Wilson). The movie explicitly undermines the heroism of the story and makes Odysseus a broken man, suffering from “trauma” and PTSD over his regrets of the war and his “colonist” behavior. …

The globalists pulled out all the stops with The Odyssey:

Why is it okay to diminish or denigrate white culture while worshiping every other culture? Furthermore, if white culture doesn’t exist, why are woke minority groups constantly trying to hijack white history and accomplishments?

I want to explore this issue a little more deeply, mostly because of the endless targeting of western civilization through the leftist deconstruction of our most popular figures and mythologies. This time, the Hollywood elites have chosen Homer’s The Odyssey, an ancient Greek classic deeply rooted in western history (white history), as their victim.

Hollywood has pulled out ALL the stops for this movie and I suspect it’s because they are desperate. They are desperate for a woke win. They’ve had hundreds of failures both in film and television in the past few years and it’s starting to look like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is becoming the dominant force in popular discourse. The leftists can’t stand it.

In response, Hollywood has stacked the deck — They brought in Christopher Nolan, one of the only directors left in the industry who still has a built-in audience of simps who will go see his movies regardless of their quality. The distributors have focused on IMAX ticket sales for a wealthier clientele, artificially inflating the overall box office take.

The media has been running non-stop interference, promoting the movie heavily months in advance. Evidence also suggests that Rotten Tomatoes is once again rigging the audience score for this film by rejecting most negative reviews (they have done this with multiple woke tent pole movies over the years).

Hilariously, journalists are already declaring The Odyssey “proof” that “Get Woke, Go Broke” is a fallacy. As I write this, the movie hasn’t made a dime in profit yet. What I find most interesting, however, is that these activist journalists are actually using the phrase “Get Woke, Go Broke” in their vernacular. It’s an indirect admission of their agenda.

They are specifically citing our movement as their enemy and declaring us “defeated” because The Odyssey is projected to make money. By default, they are admitting that we are a threat to them, and that The Odyssey is a woke project designed to “silence us.” But why does this matter?

The modern left doesn’t believe in truth, only power (they call this “critical theory”):

It’s important to understand that leftists think like children. They believe that having a “majority” is the same as being right; having a majority to them is the same as having power. If the Odyssey is a box office success, they think this proves that they are the dominant political movement.

They don’t care if their supposed majority is actually astroturf; if they can fool the public into thinking the political left has a social mandate, this will win them control over the culture. In other words, they’re trying to manufacture a consensus.

Denigrating whites and their culture:

The deconstruction of Odysseus reminds me of what Kathleen Kennedy and friends at Disney did to Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi”. They took a brilliant, courageous and moral man and turned him into a shattered, crusty and nihilistic little bitch — completely the opposite of his original character. This was not a mistake, this was quite deliberate.

White people are not allowed to have bold, wise and confident heroes. We’re supposed to regret our history and our accomplishments. We’re not supposed to celebrate such things, because that might inspire us to be bold, wise and confident today.

The race swapped cast of The Odyssey featuring black actors, Hispanics, Asians, and other people (including a transgender Ellen Page playing a male Greek warrior) who would never have populated Homer’s era is the common angle of attack for woke Hollywood, but it’s not the only attack. If a main protagonist is white, as is the case in Nolan’s film, he must be torn down and made weak. He must be portrayed as shamed and desperate for redemption, which, of course, he will only receive by embracing progressive ideals.

The last thing Hollywood wants is to portray a white hero who is unapologetic for his actions and values. …

Their “Racism” shield:

The minority actors are primarily a shield from criticism. If anyone complains about African or Hispanic or Asian actors in a Greek epic, the media can pull the “racism” card and dismiss the issue outright. They assert that we merely hate seeing minorities in movies.

But it’s not minorities in movies that we have a problem with; it’s the injection of woke propaganda. This is the real crime. If Christopher Nolan made a film based on the African “Epic of Liyongo” from the 9th Century and he replaced the Swahili characters with white actors in a bid to hijack African history, the left wing would lose their collective minds and scream “cultural appropriation.” The double standard is obvious. …

Reality:

At the time The Odyssey was created, the Mediterranean was overwhelmingly Caucasian according to genetic records. This includes North Africa, which was majority Caucasian and largely “white” by modern standards. It should be noted that Sub-Saharan Africans did not exist in any notable quantity in North Africa or the Mediterranean until many centuries later because travel across the deserts of central Africa prevented their migration north for thousands of years. …

Numerous images from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, including pottery, murals and other surviving art, depict people of fair skin, often with blue eyes, and in some cases blonde hair, etc. In other words, they were white – Varying shades of white, but still white.

Simply pointing out this historical and scientific fact will immediately trigger the woke mob and their academic allies. You will be inundated with a flurry of exceptions and some tiresome mental gymnastics about why the people of these early civilizations were not really “white”. Remember, “white culture doesn’t exist”, only other cultures exist.

Far too many critics and historical conspiracy nuts actually think the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean in the time of Homer were the same as the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean today. They don’t know anything about the great migration shifts of the Middle Ages or the invasion of the Muslims. No meaningful discussion can be had with these people because their point of reference is built on pure ignorance.

The globalist end-game:

Beyond that, there is another subset of dishonest people (woke leftists) who see it as their duty to undermine white history and rewrite as if it never existed. They often cater to the inferiority complexes of minority groups by asserting that white history is actually THEIR history. White people just “stole” accomplishments from other civilizations and replaced them over time.

This is part of the narrative that motivates the discourse over Christopher Nolan’s dismal film version of The Odyssey. It is a woke treatise, a magic talisman designed to brown-wash and feminize yet another piece of western heritage. It’s part of a greater agenda to make white people forget who we are, or at the very least, make us ashamed of who we are.

The end game? Like I said, it’s about the multicultural takeover of the western world. Everything stems from this scheme.

Hollywood’s woke reboots are rooted in it. The mass immigration policies of leftist governments drive the agenda forward. The deconstruction of our history in public schools and colleges is designed to indoctrinate children so they never learn the truth.

Until one day, we look around, and everything that makes us who we are is gone, from meritocracy to republicanism, from Christianity to critical thinking, from innovation to entrepreneurship, from individual liberty to free markets, from property to responsibility, and yes, colonialism (the act of improving third world hellholes where people are incapable of improving their own surroundings so they don’t turn into pillagers trying to invade our countries).

All of it replaced with a socialist purgatory in which everyone is equally pathetic, hopeless and useless.

Communist nirvana coming up. The globalists expect they will be in charge in this neofeudal future, and the white deplorables will be their serfs.

The Odyssey is a globalist provocation

The Odyssey is a globalist provocation. By Mark Lopez at Quadrant.

From the moment a black actor loudly rammed his staff on the floor of a great dining hall in Ithaka, signalling the beginning of the film, my heart sank. This much anticipated film, Odyssey, was to be a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI ) movie and the writer-director-producer Christopher Nolan wants us to know this from the outset.

The casting was more than irritating, it was demoralising, so much so that I was not able to ignore it and lose myself in the story unfolding n the screen. Had this flick been made in Australia, I’m sure it would have begun with a Welcome to Country.

Nolan’s film is the kind of provocation that the politically correct love. They ideologically misrepresent dimensions of our culture, challenging us to accept what they have done because to express antagonism at being poked with a sharp stick is to fall into their carefully laid trap, leaving oneself open to being called ‘racist’.

So, from the outset, I had to watch Bronze Age Greeks and their gods played by a United Nations panoply of Africans, Asians, mixed-race individuals, and Europeans, hardly any of whom looked Greek. It felt like an insult to European culture and literature and to those like me who value it. …

At least I did not have to endure seeing a Greek warrior played by a man with a nose ring and a man bun. But, then again, the warrior Sinon is played by Elliot Page, a biological woman who recently re-identified as ‘male’. This is yet another carefully set trip wire. Criticise this travesti travesty and you’ll be derided as ‘transphobic’. 

Anti-White Hollywood

Anti-White Hollywood. By Jeremy Carl at Chronicles.

Racial revenge films have become the toast of Tinseltown. Leftists have dominated Hollywood for a long time, but today’s La La Land lefties are more anti-white than ever. The 2026 Academy Awards attest to this. If you want to hold that little golden Oscar up, you had better be willing to push the white man down because anti-white politics, far from being in retreat, is more ascendant than ever in the film industry.

Sinners, a horror film set in Jim Crow-era Mississippi, earned 16 Oscar nominations and took home four, including Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay.

No other film has received as many nominations, indicative of the fact that Sinners captured the zeitgeist of today’s Hollywood elite. It did well at the box office as well, taking in $370 million worldwide, with 76 percent of that coming from North American audiences, making it the seventh-highest-grossing domestic film of 2025. Whatever Sinners was selling, American audiences were buying. At the box office, demography is destiny.

Sinners’ box office performance is shocking, considering that the film arguably traffics in more racial stereotypes and invective than The Birth of a Nation, the 1915 D. W. Griffith film that set box office records, but was controversial even at its debut for its glorification of the original Ku Klux Klan. If that seems like an extreme statement, it simply echoes that of conservative African-American commentator and Blaze TV host Jason Whitlock, who called Sinners “The most nakedly racist movie that I have ever seen.… akin to Birth of a Nation.”

How could such a racist film find such an appreciative American audience, and such enthusiastic critics (97 percent approval from hundreds of reviews on the popular Rotten Tomatoes film site) in the enlightened days of 2026?

Globalists are anti-white, both culturally and ethnically. Nationalists are pro-white culture, and the globalists hate us for it. On behalf of their non-white supporters, they hate white achievements. It’s all political, obviously:

Sinners was not even the most anti-white film honored at this year’s Oscars. … One Battle After Another … is replete with anti-white themes. …

Perhaps no critic understood the film better than Sasha Stone, proprietor of the film review site Awards Daily, once one of the industry’s most influential until Stone made a political right turn by opposing Hollywood’s relentlessly anti-white bias:

“It was depressing for me to watch the phantasmagoria spill over into art and become nothing more than propaganda for the Democrats and the social justice fundamentalism that has overtaken the party.”

“One Battle After Another is a cartoon version of White Supremacists in America,” Stone continued. …

Stone correctly sees the characters in the movie not as complex three-dimensional portrayals but as shallow archetypes … The film’s characters are ultimately moral symbols and plot devices rather than real human beings.:

But people at the top and on the Left don’t see people of color as actual people. They are symbols of virtue and thus, trapped in the cage of “goodness.”

They could never see migrants as potentially criminal — that would be racist. No Black woman or person of color is allowed to really be a bad guy in a movie, without the quick fix of redemption by the end.

And Stone understands that the film has a fundamentally political purpose — to elevate the elite left and bash the deplorables, their most hated enemy:

“The Academy might love it and will celebrate the wealthy white man calling the working-class voters who want a secure border as racists. Those “good white men of the Left” need to be seen as the only good ones in a corrupt white supremacist empire.” …

Demographic takeover in Hollywood:

Writers Guild of America diversity reports show that in 2011, white men comprised roughly 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024–2025, that figure had collapsed to 11.9 percent. They were replaced mainly by “women of color,” who now hold 35 percent of lower-level TV writing jobs.

Savage found similar numbers among directors. In just seven years, between 2014 and 2021, the percentage of TV directors who are white males halved to 34 percent from 69 percent, with newer white entrants presumably almost entirely eliminated.

So don’t expect Holly wood to be sympathetic to white culture or white people in the foreseeable future.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Elon Musk speaks with Eurowoke reporter

Elon Musk speaks with Eurowoke reporter.

On Europe and borders:

REPORTER: Your interventions are pushing Europe toward the abyss.

ELON MUSK: Seriously? Explain how.

REPORTER: You’re backing proto-authoritarian figures… with evident fascist tendencies.

ELON: You’re making up an entire story. What you’re saying is pure fiction, from start to finish. The only thing I’m saying is something so basic it’s embarrassing to have to repeat it: Europe needs secure borders.  It can’t keep throwing its doors wide open to hundreds of thousands of people whose beliefs are radically opposed to the values that have defined Europe for centuries.

Elon Musk: “Europe has a serious and growing problem. I think you people are asleep at the switch and do not realize the magnitude of the issue. What you’re saying is total fiction. I’m simply saying that Europe needs secure borders and should not let in vast numbers of people whose views are antithetical to the accepted values in Europe and where there will not be safe cultural integration.

“This is simply common sense. When you have a welfare state that provides substantial benefits to anyone who comes there, you create a very powerful economic incentive for anyone below that standard of living to come to Europe. People will come if the standard of living they receive in Europe is higher than where they are elsewhere in the world.”

 

 “The extremist didn’t like being told that she’s the actual extremist.”

 

On the political spectrum:

ELON MUSK: “My political views are very centrist. They’re not far right. Frankly, calling them far right is an insult to history and an insult to many people. It is an outrageous falsehood. It’s completely absurd. I have literally stated my position, and I’ve been very clear about this: there need to be secure borders.

If there’s an influx of immigrants, then they need to be people who agree with Western ideals and Western values. If there is long-term growth of people who do not, or in some cases are adamantly opposed to Western values, you are setting yourself up for civil war. This is obvious. A child can see this, but this is not a right wing view. I’m simply stating reality.”

Choose a side, globalist or nationalist:

Reporter: “Some people loathe you. Do you understand why? Do you think what you are doing is helpful for Western democracy?”

Elon Musk: “Maybe some people do loathe me. That’s probably true. I don’t care. I think a lot more people hate you and the media than you realize.”

A reader comments:

Look how this woman frames her question. She clearly thinks mass 3rd-world immigration is “helpful” for democracy; seriously, how stupid can you be? That’s such a stupid proposition on its face.

On AI:

ELON MUSK: “AI will outperform humans at most jobs.”

“I do think it’s going to be a bumpy road, because AI will be able to do any job better than any person can do that job. That will be true very quickly for jobs that are digital, or really anything that involves a person at a computer or on a phone. AI will be able to do all of that very soon.

“For software engineering, we already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90% of humans at writing software, including 90% of professional software engineers. It really is getting to the point where it will be better than 99%, and then it will get to the point where there’s just no way to compete. It will get to what I call Stockfish level. Stockfish is a chess program that is so good at chess that it will easily beat Magnus Carlsen, or anyone, even while running on a small computer. I suspect you could probably run Stockfish on your phone and beat Magnus Carlsen. That’s how good it is at chess, and that’s how good AI will be at writing software. And that applies to everything.”

On robots:

Elon Musk: “You can think of the economy as digital and physical intelligence. AI is advancing very rapidly, but it is still somewhat confined to the digital realm. You need end effectors in the form of humanoid robots. Then you can go from intelligence manifesting itself digitally to shaping atoms. An economy is the production of goods and the provision of services. If you have vast numbers of robots with vast amounts of digital intelligence, you have a quasi-infinite economy.”

What the Data Actually Shows About the Pfizer COVID Injections

What the Data Actually Shows About the Pfizer COVID Injections. By World Council for Health.

Exhibit A:

Okoro, Ikoba, and colleagues … simply compared COVID-19 deaths in the pre-vaccine period against the vaccination period — using the WHO’s own data ..”:

  • Africa: 43.3% increase in COVID deaths with vaccination
  • Eastern Mediterranean: 350.9% increase
  • South-East Asia: 403.7% increase
  • Europe: 496.5% increase
  • Americas: 705.9% increase
  • Western Pacific: 1,275.0% increase …

The Western Pacific region —Australia, Japan, South Korea, countries with advanced healthcare systems and very high vaccination uptake — saw COVID deaths multiply by nearly 13-fold after the vaccines were deployed.

The study’s authors call this finding “paradoxical,” which is polite academic-speak for “the exact opposite of what we were promised.”

The regions with the lowest vaccination rates — Africa at 3.8% of global cumulative deaths pre-vaccines, the Western Pacific at 1.5%— were essentially untouched by COVID mortality before the shots arrived. Meanwhile, the Americas and Europe, with their aggressive vaccination campaigns, accounted for over 70% of global COVID deaths despite their high vaccination coverage. …

Exhibit B:

Denis Rancourt, a former physics professor at the University of Ottawa, has produced what is arguably the most comprehensive excess mortality analysis of the COVID period. His team’s 2024 paper examined all-cause mortality in 125 countries across six continents — roughly 35% of the global population — with weekly or monthly resolution spanning years before and during the declared pandemic. …

Using temporal association between vaccine rollouts and mortality spikes across 78 countries with sufficient data, Rancourt’s team calculated a vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) and projected approximately 16.9 million COVID-19 vaccine-associated deaths globally through the end of 2022.

In a separate Southern Hemisphere study of 17 countries, Rancourt et al. (2023) found an all-ages vDFR of approximately 0.126%. [Influenza is about 0.1%] This implies roughly 17 million vaccine deaths from 13.5 billion injections — and critically, no evidence in any country of the vaccine rollouts being associated with a reduction in excess all-cause mortality.

The core finding across all of Rancourt’s work is devastating in its simplicity: the spatiotemporal pattern of excess mortality is incompatible with a spreading viral contagion as the primary cause of death. Nine of the 17 Southern Hemisphere countries studied showed no detectable excess mortality during the first year of the declared pandemic — until the vaccines were rolled out. Then the death spikes began. …

Exhibit C:

Christine Cotton spent 25 years running clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry as founder and director of the contract research organization Statitec. She knew exactly what a properly conducted trial looks like — and what Pfizer’s C4591001 trial actually showed. …

Across every interim analysis — adults, teens 12–15, children 5–11, toddlers — there was never statistically significant efficacy [of the Pfizer vaccine] against severe COVID-19. The adult study showed one severe case in the vaccine group versus three in the placebo group. The claimed “66% efficacy against severe disease” was statistically indistinguishable from random chance.

After six months of follow-up, there was —supposedly— one COVID death in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group. Statistically meaningless. And this was using Pfizer’s reported death numbers.

Cotton documented that Pfizer used two different manufacturing processes — Process 1 for the clinical trial product, Process 2 for the commercial product distributed to the public. The vaccine that went into hundreds of millions of arms was not the same product that generated the (already dubious) 95% efficacy number. As she testified in her final post on X: “You were administered a product for which there were absolutely no results, neither of efficacy nor of tolerance.” …

Hospitals killed:

A staggering proportion of COVID deaths occurred in hospitals — and the treatment protocols deployed in those hospitals were catastrophic. …

Mechanical ventilation was deployed aggressively despite mounting evidence of harm. The standard protocol called for early intubation, but the mortality rate for ventilated COVID patients was abysmal. … Ventilators were blowing out already-damaged lungs.

Denial of early treatment was official policy. The mantra was: “there’s no treatment, go home and come back when you can’t breathe.” By the time patients returned, they were in cytokine storm — exactly when aggressive interventions become least effective and most dangerous. Ivermectin, which has a well-established safety profile over decades of use and showed strong signals of efficacy in multiple studies, was actively suppressed. HCQ was demonized. The message was: wait until you’re crashing, then we’ll intubate you.

Remdesivir was pushed as standard of care despite the WHO SOLIDARITY trial showing no mortality benefit. It’s an IV antiviral that costs thousands per course — and it didn’t save lives. …

Biggest medical scandal ever, media mum:

The scale is staggering. Rancourt’s estimate of ~17 million vaccine-associated deaths makes this the largest iatrogenic [healthcare induced] event in human history.

The Okoro study showing COVID deaths increasing up to 1,275% after vaccination —in direct proportion to vaccination coverage— should have ended the debate. The Michels et al. forensic analysis showing the significant underreporting of deaths, and a 3.7-fold cardiovascular death signal Pfizer never disclosed, should have triggered criminal investigations.

Instead, we got “safe and effective” repeated like a liturgical incantation while the bodies piled up.

The serious harm rate of the mRNA injections seems to be somewhere between one in 200 and one in 1,000. Credible studies put the death rate at about one in 800. High enough to be very serious and grounds for immediate withdrawal of the vaccines, yet low enough that it can be kind of hushed up if the establishment looks the other way and mumbles while withholding critical data.

All cause mortality from a huge range of maladies — including wide range of cancers, and Parkinson’s — increased significantly after the vaccines were administered, which is consistent with the vaccines damaging people’s immune systems. Who knows what harm was caused there.

Chaser:

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Today’s media lie about Pauline Hanson concerns domestic violence

Today’s media lie about Pauline Hanson concerns domestic violence. By One News.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson spent Wednesday being wrongly accused of victim blaming by Brittany Higgins, Finance Minister and Minister for Women Katy Gallagher and Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek, all over one answer in a wide ranging 4BC interview.

Hanson called domestic violence “wrong” the moment she was asked, called it “a scourge”, called it “absolutely wrong” when host Gary Hardgrave pressed her about men killing women, and told victims to leave because she once had to leave herself. And to no surprise, none of that survived into the coverage.

What did survive was this:

“It is wrong but it’s also a two way street. I’m not saying that it’s just men, women can lose their cool as well.”

And this:

“If these women are getting abused by men out there, then don’t put up with it. That’s what I am saying.”

Higgins, now executive director of the anti One Nation Vida Fund, and declared bankrupt three years after her $2.4 million Commonwealth payout [which was predicated on her never being abler to work in her profession again], said in a social media statement, as reported by Nine, that “normalising this victim blaming rhetoric in relation to domestic violence when 38 Australian women have already been lost to femicide is atrocious”….

This is the same Brittany Higgins a 360 page WA Supreme Court judgment found had made 26 false or misleading statements in media interviews, who apologised to Linda Reynolds and was bankrupted by the costs, and who’s now employed as the public face of a campaign built to stop Hanson’s party….

Barnaby Joyce:

The exchange didn’t come from nowhere. Hardgrave had just played Hanson a clip of Barnaby Joyce, who’d told 4BC’s Jason Matthews earlier that same morning that men should walk out of the house before they lose their temper and keep it together like James Bond, who is “loved in the cinemas because he keeps it all together”. Joyce copped his own backlash for that within hours. …

What Hanson said, and why:

Wednesday’s interviews put both halves on the table: Joyce told men to walk out and cool down, Hanson told victims not to put up with it and called for somewhere real to go. P…

Hanson didn’t lecture women from a safe distance. She told them what she did herself. …

Hanson speaks as a woman who fled a violent home. Gallagher and Plibersek spoke through ministerial media statements. Only one of those is lived experience. …

In her autobiography she wrote of a marriage that soured with the ill treatment of her sons and years of alcohol fuelled violence, and after her then husband put his fist through a wall she left, working low paid jobs to keep four children fed. …

In 2019 she secured a Senate inquiry into the family court system after telling the ABC that some litigants were “nothing but liars” who used violence orders to keep fathers from their children. Women’s groups warned the inquiry would become a platform for men’s rights activists. …

Her position then is her position now: the system exists to protect victims, both sexes can be victims, and both sexes can work the system. On Wednesday she added the part her critics keep cutting. It’s wrong, all of it.

The suppressed truth:

The line that drew the most fire was “I’m not saying that it’s just men”. It happens to be what the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports, across every kind of abuse it counts. For emotional abuse the figures are 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men. For economic abuse, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 13 men. Abuse doesn’t have to leave a bruise to wreck a life, and the institute counts the mental and financial kinds for exactly that reason.

“1 in 6 women and 1 in 18 men have experienced physical or sexual violence from a cohabiting partner since the age of 15.”

Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, national family, domestic and sexual violence summary, cohabiting partners since age 15. …

Of the 98 domestic homicide victims recorded in 2024 to 2025, 32 women and 14 men were killed by an intimate partner.

The same summary reports that 2 in 5 male victims of partner violence never sought advice or support afterwards. On Wednesday those men learned that a senator acknowledging their existence counts as a dangerous message.

None of this disputes that the violence is gendered. University of Technology Sydney associate professor Jane Wangmann told Nine that most domestic and family violence is perpetrated by men against women, and the AIHW tables agree. So did Hanson, on the tape, when Hardgrave put the death toll to her. Recognising male victims and condemning male violence aren’t competing positions.

Conclusion:

Step back from the pile on and look at the shape of it. A survivor said abuse runs in both directions and that victims should get out. For that, she was branded a victim blamer by a movement that claims to speak for victims, despite Hanson being a victim herself. The test was never what she said. It was who said it, and about whom.

Male victims fail the same eligibility test. They’re 1 in 7 of the emotionally abused and 14 of the year’s intimate partner homicide victims, and no minister issued a statement about the dangerous message their invisibility sends. Anyone who has lived near domestic violence knows it can run both ways inside the same house, verbal and mental as well as physical, long before anything reaches a police report. Saying that out loud isn’t victim blaming. It’s the precondition for protecting everyone involved.

The feminists and their media toadies will not admit that men can be victims of female violence. They suppress that information and agitate for more resources for women. Despite 80% of the victims of violence today being male (across all  categories, not just domestic violence, and noting that 90% of the perpetrators are male), it’s always “stop violence again women.” No bigotry there, eh?

Today’s developing class structure

Today’s developing class structure. By Charles Hugh Smith.

A compelling taxonomy of class in America:

How do different groups in today’s America get their income?

1. Investment class: income from investments (i.e. capital)

2. Salary class: income from a monthly salary with benefits

3. Wage class: income from an hourly wage with no benefits

4. Welfare class: income from welfare programs

Greer argues that the salary class is now the gravitational center of power in the U.S., absorbing much of the national income in unproductive faux-problem-solving for fabricated problems explicitly devised to justify generous salaries and benefits.

The nation can no longer afford this staggeringly costly unproductive work force and so “replacing cognitive work with AI” is the cover story for the mass evisceration of this class, in a parallel to the previous gutting of the factory work force by automation and offshoring. …

The modern class structure — keeping it real:

This is a neofeudal society passing itself off as a free-market democracy. Power is concentrated in the top state-private sector classes. No one below has any real power. Electing another leader or party changes nothing: life gets more difficult, insecure and expensive for commoners regardless of who’s in office. The Imperial project grinds on, regardless of the delusional hope that electing someone else will change anything. Everything else is an illusion of power, not real power.

Try switching the 37% tax rate on labor to capital gains and all income from capital, and see how far you get. …

The essence of neofeudalism is debt penury and wage-slave bondage to the owners of the debt, which is capital that generates income. Commoners have no agency because they have to work for corporations or the state to service their debt. They can’t change jobs because they’ll lose healthcare insurance, and so on. …

Stripped of PR gloss, the majority of workers have a false choice of servitude: they can serve their current oligarch / state agency / corporation, or they can toil in another noble’s domain. Six one way, half-dozen the other. …

America’s neofeudalism now depends on inflating an endless series of credit-asset bubbles that generate phantom wealth, financial claims that are easily inflated without actually creating any real value via increasing income streams by means other than inflation and monopoly extortion.

This has worked so well for so long that recency bias has kicked in and we now believe this is a well-oiled permanent mechanism we can rely on. Alas, credit-asset bubbles are inherently unstable and the current system-wide bet on AI being something that will actually generate value / massive new income streams is an all-in last-ditch bet. When this bubble pops, the conditions enabling a future bubble will no longer exist.

In other words, you have to own assets and get capital gains to get ahead financially, or have a very high salary.

Here is a chart of the income distribution from owning capital. Note that it follows a power-law distribution: the few collect the lion’s share of the income generated by capital. The vast majority don’t own any income-generating capital, and the top 20% are delighted by the steady rise in their phantom wealth as the bubble-du-jour inflates the nominal price of the assets they own, setting up the inevitable crash when tulip bulbs revert from “investments” to flowers.

 

All this is because money is created out of thin air to buy assets with debt. Participate in that system, and you accelerate away from everyone else financially. Fail to participate, and you become a wage or salary earner, or on welfare –a modern day serf. Naturally, the guys with all the assets and capital income make the rules.

Fix the money system. Restore sound money. Neofeudalism will fade away, people will be able to afford houses again, and fertility will recover.

And the parasitic bureaucratic class would wither away:

Much of the work Greer describes as unproductive is considered highly productive because our exploitation of hydrocarbons and technology has generated such a vast surplus that we could spend it on symbolic work — meetings about meetings, compliance reports, marketing plans, projections, consulting, and so on, work that despite claims to the contrary has little to do with harvesting grain, connecting pipelines, replacing transformers, making beds, performing surgery or any other real-world work.

Try telling the priesthood of the temple gods that their work is symbolic. Ours is the most valuable labor, as we’re the ones keeping the whole thing glued together. If we stop, the gods will be angered and all will fail. Indeed.

“The gods will be angry unless you do as we say” game is a very old one

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.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

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: