How many missiles does Iran have left? By George Grylls in The Australian.

At the beginning of the conflict with Israel and the US, Iran had about 2500 ballistic missiles that could be fired from the back of trucks or from underground silos, according to the Alma Research Centre, an Israeli think tank.

That has been reduced to about 1000 missiles, it estimates in a new report. …

From launching dozens of ballistic missiles a day at the start of the three-week conflict, Tehran’s firing rate has dropped significantly. Now Iran is attacking Israel with about 10 missiles a day, suggesting that nearly a month of US and Israeli airstrikes has reduced Tehran’s ability to carry out retaliatory strikes. …

Iran can build more than a hundred a month:

Alma assesses that at the end of the 12-day war last year Iran was left with about 1500 missiles, but in the eight months that followed it was able to manufacture another 1000.

Or at least they could before the US and Israeli air-forces went after their manufacturing capabilities.

Hawks and doves got Iran wrong. By Walter Russel Mead in The Australian.

As the latest Gulf war intensifies and its economic consequences grow, two things seem clear. First, many Iran doves seriously underestimated the risks and costs of attempting to coexist with the regime. Second, many Iran hawks seriously underestimated the risks and costs of opposing Tehran’s drive for regional hegemony through military action. The result is a war that is more necessary than doves thought and harder to wage than hawks supposed.

Iran doves in past US administrations hoped that a mix of conciliation and deterrence would allow America to coexist with Iran. Those hopes reflected confidence that Iran’s sophisticated civil society would ultimately either overthrow the Islamic Republic or drive its evolution in a more moderate direction. …

The commitment of Tehran’s rulers to dominate the Gulf made long-term coexistence between Washington and the mullahs impossible. The Iranian regime was committed to a revolutionary religious vision and determined on economic and geopolitical grounds to seize control of the Gulf region to become a world power. Tehran was hellbent on developing military capabilities and networks that, at some point, would pose unacceptable threats to free navigation of the Gulf – and of global access to its fossil fuels and other commodities. …

So here we are. Despite military successes by air and sea, Israel and the US have so far been unable to keep the Gulf open or to protect the Gulf states from Iranian attacks. …

Internationally, allied recognition that American forces are defending a vital waterway on which their economies depend struggles with public distaste for the American President and doubts about his will and ability to win.

So far, the notion that Trump is taking his time in order to build leverage on the Europeans to go along with all his maritime plans is looking good.

Stop just blaming women for low birth rates — their partners aren’t exactly inspiring. By Poppy Sowerby at UnHerd.

Actual researchers had spent more than 10 seconds thinking about the sexual marketplace and discovered that the Zoomer men expected to sire the next generation were not exactly up to snuff….

Our future baby daddies were both desperately unprepared and desperately unprepossessing as potential mates. This delayed maturation of today’s men means that their adolescence now extends well into their twenties. “The average age of leaving home for a young man sits at 25, three years older than for young women.”

Of course, women often also find themselves in a state of suspended adolescence, reliant on parental funds and living in godforsaken houseshares with collections of cuddly toys — but the report found that male “readiness” for children was a critical factor for those women who were ready themselves. Its suggestions make perfect sense: “Start adulthood earlier — especially for men.” Reduce the school leaving age and the number of young people in higher education; get them, and especially the blokes — who are increasingly festering into a cohort of NEETs [Not in Education, Employment or Training] — into the workforce.

Parental dependence is emasculating, off-putting and disastrous for self-esteem; politicians who are quick to point the finger at feminism for driving women to look for baby substitutes at cat shelters should only be taken seriously when they consider the problem of male listlessness. Much effort has been expended on the project of “changing women’s minds” about having babies — but when we already know we want them, it’s time to start considering what, or who, is getting in the way.

For Zoomettes, the banquet of potential partners cheffed up by the NEET pandemic is unappetising indeed. Directionless dolts clog up dating apps, offering non-committal porn-infected sex interrupted by the periodic flushing of the loo by one of ten thousand housemates in his Flatbush flatshare. If you were us, would you have his child?

My suspicion is that many more women would be more receptive to the delights of family life if the pick of husbands weren’t limply balding their way through their thirties until their bands “really take off”. The thought often occurs to me when I run into other women picking up their contraceptives from the pharmacy. Who’d do otherwise? After all, if you’re dating a man whose lifestyle is essentially unchanged since their teens, his suggestion that you have a baby is like a 10-year-old telling you they really really really want a puppy. Who’s gonna be doing all the work?

We are all to blame for tanking birth rates — and we will all suffer the consequences. But the tradition of giving women a kicking as the perpetrators is looking shabbier by the day. …

It’s not that young women today don’t want children — ask them … and you’ll realise they do. It’s that they would be foolish to centre their lives around wanting them when the pool of potential partners is so desperately dank. Any government serious about helping those women who do want to become mothers must give up their “this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like” act and stop being squeamish about pro-maternal policy. There is nothing anti-feminist about bringing about conditions in which women who want children end up having them; the radical solution is to stop yelling at we twentysomethings and lick the leagues of would-be fathers into shape first.

Would Daniella Kruger want Mr Neet McNojob sulking around her house amid a rising pile of nappies? Me neither.

The AI Girlfriend Epidemic.

Extraordinary!

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

Kim Beazley did well:

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

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

Anthony Albanese was bad and dishonest:

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Angus Taylor was just as bad and evasive:

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

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

So what now?

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

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

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

Everything looks cheap next to the fraud-ridden NDIS.

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

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

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

Copying the Labor Party fell flat.

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

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

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

Grand coalition?

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Conquest’s Second Law:

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder:

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

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

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

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

Etc. etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Holocaust denial, only quicker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go, in 2026:

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Australians are suffering:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wokeness? No, that’s not it:

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

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

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

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

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

The big one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kellie Sloan in NSW (ex-ABC)

Ashton Hurn in South Australia

Jess Wilson in Victoria

Libby Mettam in Western Australia, until March 2025

 

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

It’s the type of woman that matters.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks for itself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The curse is broken. Japan is free now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

 

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