Leftist activists push Channel 9 into sacking Karl Stefanovich because he interviewed Pauline Hanson and Tommy Robinson

Leftist activists push Channel 9 into sacking Karl Stefanovich because he interviewed Pauline Hanson and Tommy Robinson. By Savanna Young in The Daily Mail.

Karl Stefanovic is reportedly set to resign from Nine following late-night talks amid the fallout from his controversial interview with Tommy Robinson.

The Today show star uploaded a controversial chat with the British far-right activist to his YouTube channel podcast, The Karl Stefanovic Show, on Tuesday, only to delete it hours later after facing widespread backlash [from his political opponents].

On Wednesday evening, The Sydney Morning Herald confirmed Stefanovic’s departure from Nine, indicating the decision was made in part to ‘defuse a major advertiser boycott.’ …

Meanwhile, activist group Mad F**king Witches (MFW) announced that it had launched a campaign against Stefanovic over the podcast with Robinson.

The grassroots organisation is known for launching advertising boycotts against media figures, having previously targeted Kyle Sandilands [who has just come out as a One Nation supporter]. …

The left don’t want us talking about certain topics:

Stefanovic — who has been branded ‘Joe Bogan’ thanks to his attempt at replicating the success of Joe Rogan’s podcast – sparked controversy when he published the interview with Robinson which discussed Islam, immigration and Australian politics.

By Wednesday morning, the interview had vanished from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and The Karl Stefanovic Show YouTube channel.

Marta Jay at The Daily Mail:

Pauline Hanson has assured Karl Stefanovic that he has a job with One Nation should he want it, after the Today host was dropped by Channel Nine on Wednesday. …

Hanson slammed Nine, saying the network would be ‘bloody stupid’ to sack Stefanovic.

‘They’ve gone so far to the left, Channel Nine, they’re making a big mistake,’ the senator said. …

Hanson had earlier backed her ‘good friend’ Karl by uploading his pulled interview with Robinson to her own YouTube channel.

Pauline Hanson put up one minute from the Tommy Robinson interview on her X account:

And put the full interview on her YouTube channel:

Karl has been cancelled by Australia’s ruling class. Welcome to the outsiders, Karl.

UPDATE: The Confidential Daily:

Karl Stefanovic interviewed the wrong bloke, on the wrong subjects, in the wrong tone, and Nine decided he had crossed the line.

Not a legal line. Not even a journalistic line, really. A cultural one.

Karl Stefanovic committed wrongthink.

Stefanovic’s great sin was not simply interviewing Tommy Robinson. Journalists have interviewed all sorts of people over the years. Dictators, terrorists, murderers, fraudsters, extremists, fanatics and every variety of political nutter have been given airtime when it suited a newsroom’s purpose.

No, Karl did something much worse. He treated Robinson like a guest. …

The interview covered immigration, Islam, multiculturalism, free speech and the media. In other words, the list of topics ordinary Australians are allowed to talk about at the kitchen table, in the ute, at work, or over a beer, but only in the correct way in public.

The approved script (as if you didn’t know): …

Mass immigration must always be a blessing. Multiculturalism must always be a triumph. Free speech must always be defended in theory and restricted in practice. Islam can be discussed only with trembling caution. And the media, naturally, must never be accused of being part of the problem.

Karl didn’t follow the approved script:

He didn’t scowl on cue. He didn’t perform the required denunciation before allowing his guest to speak. He didn’t treat Robinson like a radioactive parcel left on the studio floor.

Worse still, he apparently praised his “tenacity” and “courage”. Promotional footage showed the two men looking friendly in London.

That was the real outrage.

Not that the interview existed. Not really. The outrage was the tone. Karl was supposed to cross-examine, condemn, interrupt and posture. Instead, from what we’re told, he had a conversation. …

Cancelled, a high flier’s career up in smoke, and let that be a lesson to everyone else in the Australian media:

Nine did not have to endorse Robinson. Karl did not ask Nine to endorse Robinson. By Nine’s own account, this was an independent podcast. Yet once the right people were offended, independence suddenly counted for nothing.

This is how cancellation works now. It rarely comes with an official stamp. Nobody walks in wearing a black hood. There’s no formal announcement saying, “This man has been punished for unacceptable views.” …

Only Pauline Hanson called them out (i.e. showed leadership):

Pauline Hanson said plainly what plenty of others would only mutter once the door was shut. She accused Nine of trying to sack Stefanovic, called its management weak, and reposted the deleted interview herself.

That, naturally, annoyed the media class even more. The deleted thing was not supposed to reappear. The whole point of pulling it down was to make it disappear into the digital memory hole, where awkward material goes when powerful people decide the public cannot be trusted to watch and make up its own mind.

That is the trick now. They don’t ban interviews. They just pressure people until interviews vanish.

They don’t censor conversations. They just make sure anyone who has the wrong conversation pays a price.

Chalmers’ war on capitalists: Investors are abandoning Australia

Chalmers’ war on capitalists: Investors are abandoning Australia. By Dimitri Burshtein and Peter Swan.

How many Australian businesses must fail before another generation of politicians learns one of the oldest lessons in economics? State-directed planning and political capital allocation is a path to poverty not prosperity.

Capital is one of the most misunderstood things in our public debates. Politicians treat it as a fixed pile in a vault, waiting to be redistributed by the clever and the caring. It is nothing of the sort. Capital is patient money placed at risk on a promise about the future; a bet that the rules will still be the rules in ten years, that a contract signed today will be honoured tomorrow, that the government will not move the goalposts the moment an investment begins to pay off. Remove that confidence and the capital does not get redistributed. It just does not show up.

This is why sovereign risk matters, and it is the quiet catastrophe unfolding in Australia. Not a crash, just a slow bleeding away of the willingness of investors to commit their money.

The Albanese government’s record follows a clear pattern. The superannuation system: Division 296, arriving 1 July, levies an extra impost on larger balances. A tax the government was forced to redesign after first proposing to tax unrealised gains. Negative gearing and capital gains: perennially placed on the table, lifted off, modelled, leaked, denied, now hanging over every investment decision in the country. Each intervention is sold as fairness. Together they deliver one message to anyone with capital: whatever you build here, the government reserves the right to return for a larger slice once you have finished building it.

Then there is gas. Investors sank tens of billions into Australian projects on the understanding that they could sell what they produced at the price the market set. The government changed the terms after the fact with price caps, a mandatory code, rewriting the economics of projects already in the ground. You can argue the politics. What you cannot argue away is the signal. In Australia, the deal you struck is provisional. …

Say goodbye to investment and the capital for productivity improvements — because of sovereign risk caused by left wing government:

Foreign investors do not read Hansard. They do not follow which faction won which preselection. They run a screen across forty countries and flag Australia as elevated risk.

They remember that Australia keeps changing its rules: that signed contracts get reopened, that tax treatment shifts, that the government reserved the right to impose domestic reservation and price caps on gas projects already operational. So they file Australia alongside the economies where political caprice outranks the rule of law.

There will be no single moment of reckoning and no headline that captures it, and that is precisely the danger. A government can preside over the slow flight of capital and never see its own fingerprints on the wreckage, because the damage takes the form of things that simply never happen. The factory not built. The founder who took the idea to Singapore. The pension fund in Toronto that quietly trimmed its Australian weighting and moved on without a word.None of it bleeds in the quarterly figures. None of it can be undone by the next ministerial press release.

Confidence, once a country starts spending it, turns out to be the one form of capital no treasurer can borrow back. Somewhere on a screen in Tokyo or Seoul, Australia has already moved a few places down the list. No announcement. No media conference. Just a lower number beside a country that should know better.

Australia is going to get relatively poorer for several years ahead, because the big government team is ascendant — high taxes to pay for all those jobs and welfare for its supporters.

The current government makes the Hawke and Howard years look brilliant in comparison. We’re back at Whitlam-level craziness. Like many third word rulers, the Whitlam Government apparently didn’t understand sovereign risk.

Good Riddance to Tucker Carlson

Good Riddance to Tucker Carlson. By John Hinderaker at Powerline.

Carlson says he is leaving the Republican Party …::

“I’m out,” Carlson said on an episode of the “Can’t Be Censored” podcast … “And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.” … “I would not support the Republican Party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican Party,” Carlson said, adding that the GOP has “betrayed” voters by prioritizing Israel’s national security over America’s.

Carlson apparently thinks we have no national security interest in degrading the military power of an adversary whose mantra for decades has been “death to America,” that refers to us as “the Great Satan,” that has killed hundreds if not thousands of American servicemen, that has sought for many years to acquire both nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them to our shores.

Not to mention that Iran is the principal — almost the only — source of instability in the Middle East. Has any American president in the last 50 years questioned that we have a national security interest in peace in that region? …

Prediction: he’ll switch to the party of antisemitism:

Carlson said in the same interview that “he also won’t support Democrats and is unsure how he’ll vote moving forward.” I say: go ahead, Tucker, take the plunge. If anti-Semitism is the defining feature of your political philosophy, you have a natural home in the Democratic Party. “Right wing” commentator and fellow anti-Semite Nick Fuentes has already announced that he has become a Democrat. It is the natural next step. Watch for Carlson to take it before long.

Rabbi Michael Barclay at PJ Media:

Tucker has spent almost three years pushing an agenda of anti-Semitism, justifying Iran and Qatar, claiming that Qatar is safer for Christians than Israel (churches are not even allowed in Qatar), and attacking President Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, and America itself. Carlson has given platforms on his show to people who are conspiracy theory nuts, promoters of some of the worst hate in America, and those on the very outside fringe of society, such as white supremacist Nick Fuentes, Holocaust denier Darryl Cooper, and Ian Carroll, who believes that Jews are responsible for every evil in the world from 9/11 on.

Carlson has also repeatedly and increasingly demonstrated distinct signs of clinical mental illness during this time, and been disavowed and distanced by President Trump, who has called Tucker a “fool” and a “low IQ person”. …

As he has sunk into the realm of being a bad propaganda outlet, it has also become clear that Tucker’s attitudes havechanged subsequent to his interviews and visits to Iran and Qatar (where he has now bought a home).

Laura Loomer has written about Tucker being paid by Qatar, and calls him Tucker Qatarlson, a nickname picked up all over social media. Mark Levin calls him a “desperate man” who leaks and makes up stories; and that is really the best description of the current Tucker Carlson: desperate. Desperate for money, popularity, relevance, and obedience to his Islamic financiers (in addition to potential Qatari money he may currently be receiving; the Tucker Carlson Network was initially funded by an American Muslim), Tucker has become a caricature of himself and has lost credibility in the eyes of all but the most extreme in our society.

A shame. The man used to be brilliant at analyzing US political trends. As we noted several times, however, his feet turned to clay whenever he commented on things outside the US.

The left have a newfound love of Tucker now.

Aussie Judges Issues Secret Order Protecting Muslims Who Threatened to Kill Jews

Aussie Judges Issues Secret Order Protecting Muslims Who Threatened to Kill Jews. By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page.

You may remember this story of Muslims working in Australian hospitals threatening to kill Jews. …

Asked what would happen if an Israeli patient came into the hospital, [female nurse] Abu Lebdeh says: “I won’t treat them, I will kill them.”

 

 

This happened at Bankstown hospital. After the Muslim terrorist attack aimed at a Chanukah party at Bondi Beach, a Jewish victim was checked in under a fake name so she wouldn’t be harmed by the Muslim employees.

She was struck in the head by shrapnel and began bleeding heavily before she was admitted to Liverpool Hospital under her real name, with her surname and Jewish religion recorded.

“Next day, just before the operation, some administration staff came and she said, ‘We have to change your name’,” she said.

“They cut my (wristband) and put my new band on with ‘Karen Jones’ without any religions,” Ms Shikhverg told Sky News.

“In my opinion, they were afraid of staff (confronting me). They can’t trust their own staff,” she said.

“Now do Jewish people have to be afraid to go to (a) public hospital?”

So what happened to the nurses who made those threats on camera?

But if you assumed the system would give the Muslims a pass, you guessed correctly. It’s happened by way of a secret order which falsely classified the public social media interaction as an illicitly obtained ‘private conversation’ and blocked the video, and therefore the evidence, for holding them accountable. …

Why? Well, as the Australian op-ed correctly notes (and as much of the media misreported) the answer is secret. …

Why can’t it be published? This isn’t a judgement involving some classified information, but a widely published social media interaction. And yet it must be kept secret from us while ensuring that the case against them collapses. …

Consequences? Not for the Muslim nurses:

Patients will continue hiding out and hoping not to be murdered by Muslim hospital workers.

Bimini Plesser in The Australian:

Sarah Abu Lebdeh and Ahmad Rashad Nadir made global headlines last year after Israeli influencer Max Ilinski recorded their conversation in an online chatroom, in which Mr Nadir suggested he had sent Israeli patients to “hell” while Ms Abu Lebdeh allegedly told Mr Ilinski he was going to “die the most disgusting death”.

In an extraordinary ruling, NSW District Court judge Michael McHugh on Tuesday declared the viral video was inadmissible and could not form part of the evidence against the former nurses, as it was unlawful for Mr Ilinski to have recorded and shared the private conversation.

The lawyer who successfully argued a video of two Sydney nurses allegedly threatening to kill Israeli patients should be thrown out of evidence has warned prosecutors that any bid to have the evidence reintroduced would be “doomed to fail”.

Chris Merritt in The Australian on the secrecy

Normally, when judges make important decisions, they hand down judgments outlining their reasoning so everyone can see, hopefully, that justice has been done. But not so in this case. ….

Section 138 also says illegally obtained evidence can be still be used if “the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs undesirability of admitting the evidence”.

Rule of law? Our ruling class override it with their prejudices and self-interest.

hat-tip Matthew T.

Mixed race couples relentlessly displayed is social enforcement leading to demographic decline

Mixed race couples relentlessly displayed is social enforcement leading to demographic decline. By Cellina101.

Before reading further, open a new browser tab and type the search term “married white woman” into Google Images. Scroll through the first several rows of results. What do you see?

The output which is consistently replicated across different devices and geographic locations is a deluge of mixed-race couples. The output is overwhelmingly dominated by images of white women intimately paired with black or non-white men. To the casual observer passively consuming this digital output, the presentation establishes an immediate baseline for normalcy. The volume and priority of these specific demographic pairings create the distinct impression that such relationships are the standard, ubiquitous, and foundational reality of modern Western society.

 

 

Lies, lies, lies:

Yet, when we contrast this algorithmic simulation with reality, a massive discrepancy emerges. … Out of over 51 million married white women in the United States, less than 1% are married to black men.

Propaganda:

Despite this statistical rarity, the digital simulation feels entirely “normal” to the modern consumer because media giants like Google, alongside massive stock photography conglomerates like Getty Images and Shutterstock, consciously and relentlessly curate it that way. …

Deliberate:

It is an intentional act of social enforcement, by artificially elevating specific demographic pairings, media platforms execute a subtle but pervasive socio-cultural engineering project.

It can thus be argued that this engineered visual output serves a distinct ideological purpose: pushing European women toward demographic change and eroding the visual primacy of the homogeneous nuclear family that built and sustained Western nation-states for centuries. …

The native majority is conditioned to view their own demographic decline as an organic, inevitable, and morally righteous progression.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Standing armies lead to high-taxing bureaucracies, which squash liberty, innovation, and capitalism

Standing armies lead to high-taxing bureaucracies, which squash liberty, innovation, and capitalism. By Martin Durkin.

The best big picture explanation for today’s politics. An eight out of ten on the political incorrectness scale.

Clash of sexual civilisations

Clash of sexual civilisations. By Bettina Arndt.

It’s a pretty sick joke. A young man from Syria or Morocco or Afghanistan risks everything to reach Europe. He survives the crossing, the camps, the bureaucracy.

He arrives in a civilisation that surrounds him with female flesh on a scale his culture considers obscene — on billboards, on public transport, in the gym, on his phone. And every centimetre of it is legally mined — one wrong look, one misread signal, one drunken encounter, and he becomes not a man who made a mistake but a criminal.

 

 

The man is broke, he is foreign, and to the women surrounding him in their skimpy gym wear, he is either invisible or a threat — rarely anything in between. If, by some miracle, he stumbles into a relationship he may end up in a marriage where his wife holds every legal and cultural card — including the power to withdraw sex, his children, his assets and freedom.

He traded a society where men rule to arrive in one where men are at the bottom of one where women rule. A better life? In some ways, perhaps. But when it comes to the thing that matters most to young men, he may have made the worst trade of his life.

What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilisations in the grand geopolitical sense, but something more intimate and more combustible — a clash of sexual civilisations. Two utterly incompatible systems of rules about men, women, power, and desire — colliding on buses and street corners, in bars and bedrooms, and the consequences playing out in courtrooms and campus tribunals across the Western world. One system gives women all the power and calls it progress. The other gives men all the power and calls it God’s will. No one is talking honestly about what happens when they clash. …

Muslim community leader Mohammed Shafiq stated on the record: they believed “white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought.”

“If you leave meat uncovered on the street and a cat eats it, whose fault is it?” In her book,Prey: Immigration, Islam and the Erosion of Women’s Rights, the brilliant Ayaan Hirsi Ali quotes her Somalian grandmother in warning of the consequences of mass immigration to Europe from Muslim-majority countries. …

Western sexual culture has its own pathologies. A culture which encourages women to display their half-naked bodies in public — and then criminalises every male response, including the involuntary glance. A legal framework so aggressively expanded that the line between predatory behaviour and a misread signal has become genuinely unclear — not just to bewildered immigrants, but to men who grew up here. For a Western man who at least knows the rules, that is dangerous enough. For a man formed in a world where very different rules exist — it is a trap waiting to be sprung. …

Sexual harassment — “inappropriate staring or leering,” “indecent sexual jokes,” “inappropriate invitations to go out on a date” — is now formally classified as sexual violence under EU law, with individual countries steadily feeding ever-broader national definitions into the Eurostat data. Finland, for instance, redefined rape in 2023 instantly inflating its statistics without a single additional victim. What counts as a sexual crime has been steadily, quietly, and deliberately expanded — and a man arriving from Syria or Morocco or Afghanistan is about to get a very expensive education in what Western feminism has done to a statute book. …

Falling afoul of the feminist conviction machine:

Mass immigration also delivers a very different kind of man — the gentle, disoriented foreign student who stumbles blindly into legal minefields. …

Men like Chris, the Malay/Chinese tutor student dismissed by Melbourne university for various trivial accusations like placing a hand on a female student’s shoulder whilst herding students across a busy road. He’s now left the country.

Or Marcus,the Mexican doctor doing post-graduate research at a Sydney university who was suspended after a malicious false sexual assault accusation. Two years later, a jury took 20 minutes to dismiss the case following a two-week trial. Marcus has given up his medical career.

There are many others — from India, Indonesia, China, across Asia and beyond — too frightened to have their stories told. I have talked to enough of them to know that what destroys these young men is not just the outcome but the process — the speed with which they are presumed guilty, the contempt with which their evidence is dismissed, the ease with which a university can erase years of work and a lifetime of family sacrifice on the basis of one woman’s word.

Kangaroo court is too polite a term. These are conviction machines, built by ideologues and staffed by true believers, where the verdict is decided before the hearing begins. And the cruellest irony of all is that the foreign students caught in them came here trusting that Australia was a country where justice meant something. …

Stop pretending it’s all their fault:

A culture that maximises sexual provocation and then criminalises sexual response has no business congratulating itself on its enlightenment. We have lit the fuse, thrown open the borders, and then expressed shock at the body count. The least we can do is stop pretending we don’t know what we’ve done.

Russian culture and corruption is losing them the war in Ukraine

Russian culture and corruption is losing them the war in Ukraine. By Waterfronts, via Lawrence Person.

 

Once upon a time, the Russian military was supposed to be the second most powerful on Earth. Today, the Russian military isn’t even the most powerful military in Ukraine. …

From the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the nation’s armed forces have been subjected to a strange humiliation ritual, partly because of the cunning and innovation of their Ukrainian rivals, but partly because of the sheer bumbling idiocy of their own commanding officers. …

The situation has deteriorated even further in 2026. Russia is losing troops at an unprecedented rate, expending more lives, more munitions, and more state wealth. Even as they capture less and less territory each month, his battlefield commanders are making increasingly poor decisions, and they’re openly lying to their higher-ups when their attacks inevitably fall apart. …

In the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin and his inner circle are being fed a constant stream of false victories when on the front lines, Russia’s spring and summer offensive has fallen flat on its face. …

Moscow still hasn’t learned its lesson. Military planners and strategists all up and down the Russian military, from the unit level on the battlefield to Vladimir Putin himself, still base their decisions and expectations on an aggrandized version of the Russian military that simply does not exist. …

Rampant dishonesty:

Over time that problem is fused with another one. The fact that Russian leaders, again from the unit level all the way to the top, simply refuse to give each other honest assessments of what’s happening. At a certain point, those leaders realized that they could get away with reporting advances, victories, and other good news that didn’t actually exist. …

The problem often starts small on the front lines. A Russian army captain sends a small unit to plant a flag and takes a few selfies in a contested area before that unit is annihilated in drone strikes. And then the captain sends those selfies to his major, claiming that today his forces took the territory in the picture. That same day, the major gets several similar reports from other captains. So he reports to his colonel that the front line has moved up by a few hundred meters when in reality most of the forces under his command have not moved at all. …

That’s a throwaway example, of course, but you get the idea. And that news then travels up the chain until it reaches somebody like chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov. We put the spotlight on Gerasimov in particular, because this is how you get statements like the one he made this past April, when he claims that Russia had captured a total of 80 settlements and over 1700 square kilometers since the start of the year. According to independent war monitors, Gerasimov tripled the amount of territory that Russia had actually taken. And of course, he failed to measure the territory that Russia had lost. …

Even Russia’s milblogger class was calling bullshit in the aftermath. …

The groupthink of progress, that no one — out of realistic fears — dare dispute:

But those institutional miscommunications, combined with the Russian military’s inflated perception of itself, combine to form a third problem, a demand for forward progress at all costs. …

At this point in the war, commanders and higher-ups have gotten very used to the idea that their troops are consistently moving forward, consistently taking territory, and consistently getting Russia closer to victory. But now that lie has become too big to fail. And if individual Russian commanders were to report results that don’t align with that lie in places Russia wasn’t expecting, then they are at risk of being demoted, relieved of duty, or even worse. …

As a result, each level of Russian leadership places immense pressure on the next level below them, all the way down to the frontline soldiers. Because their commanders need to deliver forward progress. And because their commanders won’t get into any real trouble if they sacrifice more lives in exchange, those frontline troops are at immense risk of being ordered forward into incredibly risky assaults. …

Of course, it’s not unusual that a soldier on the front line of a major war would face some risk. But there’s a difference between being asked to advance as part of a coordinated push on a well-defined, well-scouted target and being told to sneak into a zone where there’s been no prior scouting and where Ukrainian surveillance and kamikaze drone coverage is expected to be overwhelming. Those are the kinds of situations that Russian soldiers are being ordered into. Not because there’s any expectation that they would succeed, but because their attempt gives their commanders enough plausible deniability to report success. …

Sometimes it works. But the costs of munitions, funds, supplies, and especially human life are so much greater than the value of what Russia’s actually capturing. …

Who dies first?

Nor does Russia particularly care which soldiers get sent to the meat grinder. More and more sources from within the Russian military report the troops are sent into assault units regardless of their other qualifications, including skilled recruits who could make meaningful contributions to enhance Russia’s overall situation. Soldiers with experience in electrical work, logistics management, and even the medical field, have been reassigned against their will to assault brigades, often without explanation. At times, those reassignments come after they were recruited into the military on the promise that they’d be working with their advanced skill set. …

At the best of times, Russian troops were being sent forward into these high-risk assaults with at least a few things going for them: A little bit of training and prep time, a decently well supplied sustainment infrastructure to keep them alive, a possibility of MedEvac if they’re wounded, and a possibility that reinforcements would soon join them if they survive. …

Today, though, that entire support infrastructure has been torn to shreds. Yet, the expectation of forward progress still remains. So, these soldiers are still ordered forward, but they’re overexposed, under-supplied, and isolated compared to what was already a bad situation. When they’re wounded, they aren’t evacuated. They die slow, horrific, predictable deaths. To the point that instead of the usual ratio of killed to wounded in modern war, one killed for every three wounded, Ukrainian assessment suggests that Russia’s balance looks more like two soldiers killed for every one wounded. …

Even worse, the soldiers who are wounded will often be sent back to combat. Every so often, video footage emerges from the front lines depicting soldiers on crutches or in wheelchairs bearing visible shrapnel wounds or dealing with limbs that won’t work like they’re supposed to, forced back into assault units where their death is all but certain.

The corruption in choosing who dies first:

Take an article published this April by The Economist, where a dozen Russian contract soldiers describe a system where low-level infantrymen will bribe their commanders for a position away from the front and then spend a high share of their remaining wages financing their commander’s lifestyle while carrying out unpaid labor on the side. …

As one soldier in that article described, troops often start giving up a portion of their paychecks to buy decent drones or body armor or other assets that might, you know, keep them alive. But then also, quote, ‘You’ll pay forever so they don’t send you to the meat grinder.’

Other Russian commanders have purportedly forced troops to pay exorbitant sums to stay alive and sometimes just to avoid being shot on the spot. …

According to recent reports by exiled Russian journalists, low-level commanders operate more like gang leaders than actual military personnel, in increasingly sophisticated structures that are informed by the high proportion of ex-convicts that now swell the Russian ranks. Often when new troops arrive, commanders confiscate their bank cards and ping codes and threaten violence against those who don’t comply. And when those soldiers are killed, they’re formally reported by their commanders as missing. A change that ensures that money will continue flowing to their accounts. …

Think of frontline soldiers as a pure revenue stream, and even some of Russia’s most asinine decisions start to make sense. When a soldier is wounded in combat, that soldier still receives a paycheck. And if they can be kept on the front lines, then the process of extortion can continue. …

When a higher skill Russian recruit shows up in one of those units, commanders know that they’re likely to have more money, partly because they’re going to be paid on a better contract, and partly because they probably have some form of savings squirreled away from their civilian life. Trap those soldiers in an assault unit, and there’s no limit to what they might be willing to pay in order to avoid the meat grinder. But if they seem as if they’ll cause trouble, then the meat grinder is right there for their commanders to use. …

Awful Russian culture (passed down through their Mongol ancestry?):

Those incentives also help explain increasing reports of physical torture of Russian soldiers by their own commanders on or near the front lines, including soldiers who’ve already been wounded. Our own Warfronts team has encountered footage of Russian troops who’ve had multiple limbs amputated due to combat wounds who were then cling-wrapped onto trees and extorted further. Videos like that can be sent to a soldier’s family who will then ends up paying even more to spare the life of a person who’s locked into conscription or contract by the Russian state. …

The Western tradition of military service demands leaders who will do just about anything for the men serving under them, while Russian officers torture their subordinates for money. …

Quoting researcher Alexandra Arapova [Russian families] are saying that literally we paid everything to have our father, brother, husband not to be killed. In many cases, superiors, they use torture to take money from the soldiers. …

As for the scale of the brutality, we can’t know for sure, but judging by the available information, this kind of treatment is everywhere. One Russian exile outlet, Radio Echo, obtained accounts from soldiers like these, and over a 6-month period in 2025, Radio Echo indicated that they had received almost 12,000 complaints of corruption and violence by Russian commanders against their own men. …

Dysfunctional army:

It’s here that we find the real root of Russia’s ongoing military incompetence. Where Ukraine has spent the last four years learning, adapting, and innovating on the battlefield, Russian generals, defense industrial elites, and low-level battlefield commanders have been building a deeply corrupt machine at every level of the Russian armed forces. That machine exists to extract wealth for the direct and personal benefit of people lucky enough to wield power at the expense of frontline soldiers who aren’t so fortunate.

Vladimir Putin’s military is overrun with people who don’t particularly care about conquering Ukraine as long as they know they’ll be set for life in the post-war Russia that comes next.

That explains a lot.

UK immigration: Protests and riots failed, but violence works: the lesson from Belfast

UK immigration: Protests and riots failed, but violence works: the lesson from Belfast. By John Carter.

We’re not advocating, but the facts speak plainly.

Last week there was a minor uprising in Belfast. Hadi Alodid, a gentlemen of Sudanese extraction, enriched the face of Stephen Ogilvie, a local bloke with special needs, providing him with extensive tribal scarring in a generous act of cross-cultural exchange, and only claiming two of his eyes in payment. The entire incident was caught on video. …

Belfast exploded the next day. Yes, I was surprised too. Not a city noted for its hard lads, Belfast.

The uprising was variously described as a protest and as a riot, but it was neither of these.

Protests and riots don’t work:

A protest is when an angry crowd gathers to chant some slogans and wave around some signs, pretending that their numbers are a display of power, and deluding themselves that Power will redress their grievances because a noisy lump of quivering biomass is somehow intimidating to Power.

A riot is an explosive release of emotional energy that results in some property destruction and futile confrontations with armoured riot police, typically ending with the rioters being rounded up and jailed.

In some cases, it’s true, protests and riots appear to produce political change, but this is almost invariably because Power has orchestrated these little carnivals in order to sanctify the policies it’s already decided upon under the guise of ‘bowing’ to ‘pressure’ from the ‘public’. (The Canadian government, by the way, has long since mastered a non-violent variant of this dark art: practically every ‘public policy research group’ in the country is funded by the government to pressure the government to do what the government already wants to do.) …

Not a protest, not a riot, but something quite different:

There were no signs being waved around in Belfast, no chanting of slogans.

While there was a great deal of violence, it was not random and senseless, but methodical and carefully targeted. It unfolded with the tight discipline of a coordinated military operation.

The day before the uprising started, a communique was sent out to local businesses, instructing them to close before the fun started. At the appointed hour loose formations of young men, indistinguishable in black hoodies, fanned out across the city.

Barricades were set up all over Belfast; these were lightly manned, reportedly often with minors, and seem to have been intended mainly to slow down the police. In a few places men in balaclavas established checkpoints, pulling out migrants when they found them and roughing them up.

Meanwhile, highly mobile groups of young men targeted houses, cars, and businesses known to belong to migrants, breaking their windows and firebombing them.

When there were civilians inside, they evicted them first: as far as I’ve heard, no one was killed, or even hospitalized. By the time emergency services arrived on the scene they’d already moved on to the next targets.

There do not seem to have been many direct confrontations with riot squads. There were a few videos of small numbers of skirmishers lobbing bricks or petrol bombs at police vehicles while using wheelie bins to shield themselves from a water cannon. It looked like they were mainly trying to keep the police occupied, so that the real work could proceed unimpeded elsewhere.

These young men had no interest in providing fodder for the media cycle. They left their phones at home in order to avoid being tracked. They kept themselves masked, and were at pains to politely discourage bystanders from recording them. …

This combination of identical black clothing, identity concealment, mobility, and property destruction are classic black bloc tactics. In North America black bloc is generally associated with Antifa, and as far I know, the tactical doctrine was first developed by anti-globalization activists at WTO meetings (remember when anti-globalization was a leftist position?) …

Due to the Troubles, the citizens of Northern Island were already organized:

The violence was largely contained to Belfast’s Protestant neighbourhoods, strongholds of loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. These were formed in response to the Irish Republican Army’s terrorism …

Some of the paramilitaries’ leadership were seen on the streets, although they did not participate directly, and seemed to be just observing. Officially the paramilitaries played no part in orchestrating the violence, which is a line that both the paramilitaries and the police are sticking to, but then of course they would: the leadership isn’t about to confess to criminal activity, and the authorities much prefer a narrative of a spontaneous eruption of disorganized racist thuggery because that doesn’t imply that they don’t actually have a monopoly on violence in Belfast. My working assumption is that this is nonsense, and that the uprising was in fact organized by the loyalist paramilitaries. …

The IRA does not seem to have played any part in this, and indeed the IRA’s communist boomer leadership actively discouraged Belfast’s Catholics from taking part. They could not, however, motivate their people to actively interfere with the loyalists: the Catholics seem to have mostly watched (there were reports that some of their young men joined in the fun, but who knows). …

The message:

The uprising in Belfast was not nihilistic violence for the sake of violence, though I’ve no doubt the lads were enjoying the opportunity for mayhem.

It was violence towards a specific political objective: driving the foreigners out.

  • Migrants whose domiciles were destroyed were directly deprived of housing.
  • Migrants who managed to avoid this were made to worry that they will be next.
  • Landlords taking government money to house migrants, or even thinking about doing so, now need to worry about the immediate cost of repairs and the ongoing expense of higher insurance premiums, making the Home Office’s lucre a lot less attractive.
  • Landlords also need to worry about escalation: reportedly, letters were circulated which heavily implied that bricks and petrol bombs were just the first step on the violence ladder, and that the paramilitaries would be quite happy to take more decisive measures against the landlords themselves should the message not be received.

All of this is very sad, and I don’t want to seem heartless. The immigrants whose houses were destroyed were probably innocent; there was one particularly touching video of a nurse from Ghana or somewhere. Unfortunately, that is the nature of these things. They were brought in by the government en masse as a form of biological warfare against the native population. The government wants them there, the people want them gone, and the government refuses to listen, so, this is what happens.

It worked:

Only 27 migrants were actually made homeless by the arson, but reportedly, quite a few are already clearing out on their own.

The British government quite naturally condemned the violence, organizing a rally against racism in the aftermath, but it also responded by instructing the media to emphasize that it would be cracking down on illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. Underneath the condemnation, there is a clear message to all of this: in this case, violence worked.

It worked last year, too:

That message has been sent before in Northern Ireland. Exactly one year to the day before the uprising in Belfast, there were riots in the small town of Ballymena after the courts let two gypsy boys off with delicate wrist taps for raping an Irish girl. The rioting went on for two weeks, and resulted in two thirds of the gypsy population clearing out. Again: violence worked.

English protestors failed epically:

Contrast Ballymena with the other major British protest movement last summer: the anti-migrant hotel protest in Epping, a London exurb populated largely by Londoners driven out of their city by diversity, which started when one of the migrants diversified a teenage girl. In contrast to the eruption in Ballymena, the protest in Epping was explicitly non-violent: the only violence came at the hands of the cops arresting people for flying Union Jacks.

The mothers of Epping spent months gathering outside the migrant hotel, holding signs and raising awareness. The council also fought the migrant hotel in the courts, and enjoyed early success when a judge found that the location was zoned as a hotel but not as a migrant dormitory, essentially telling the Home Office that they didn’t have a loicense for that. This legal victory was short-lived. The decision was overturned almost immediately by a higher court judge, who explicitly found that whatever the concerns of the people of Epping as to their children’s safety, these were outweighed by the human rights of the mystery meat that had washed up on Britain’s shores, and by the government’s interest in housing them.

The migrant hotel in Epping was eventually shut down, but this likely had more to do with the government’s switch to ‘Operation Scatter’ in which migrants were garrisoned in smaller houses all over the country, rather than concentrated in a few large centres, than it did with the government responding to the concerns of British subjects.

Plain facts:

In Ballymena and Belfast, violence worked; in Epping, peaceful protest did not. …

The British people have voted for lower immigration in essentially every election since the British establishment destroyed Enoch Powell, and every government they’ve voted into power, whether Labour or Tory, has increased immigration.

The British people have used social media to raise awareness of the problems caused by immigration, and the British establishment, whether Labour or Tory, responded by imprisoning more Britons for mean tweets in one year than the Soviet Politburo sent to gulags for political crimes throughout Brezhnev’s entire term.

They’ve used the courts to try and defend their rights, and the British establishment responded, lol, you don’t have rights, immigrants do.

The British people have patiently pursued every avenue for peaceful redress of their grievances, and have been shut down at every turn by an establishment that doesn’t want to hear it.

So:

As the Americans say, there are four boxes: soap box, jury box, ballot box, and ammo box. Whether the Brits as a whole can crack open the fourth box remains to be seen.

If the ruling class obstinately disobeys, infuriates, and endangers the electorate,  they’ve torn up their mandate to rule. Perhaps democracy can rescue the situation; let’s hope so.

Abolishing Multiculturalism

Abolishing Multiculturalism. By The Noticer.

Pauline Hanson … never pretended to be a White nationalist, and has consistently stated her rejection of White nationalism every time she’s been questioned on it. Say what you want about Pauline, for all her faults she has been ideologically consistent throughout her political career. …

If you want White nationalism, you will need an actual White nationalist party with an actual White nationalist leader. Some blokes tried that recently and the government listed them as a prohibited hate group. If their legal challenge to overturn this fails, Hanson has vowed to repeal the hate group law, which might be the only lifeline to decriminalising White nationalist organising in Australia. But neither Pauline nor her One Nation party will ever adopt White nationalism explicitly themselves. …

How about moving on from multiculturalism?

Multiculturalism is not simply the trivial presence of other cultural practises within Australia, this is a false impression the political establishment presents to obfuscate its political reality. “So you want to abolish multiculturalism? Well I guess that means no more Chinese takeaways for you chud!” The leftist commentators parroting this strawman are idiots.

In reality, multiculturalism is the institutionalisation of minority ethnic and religious lobbying. When Anthony Albanese or Tony Burke talk about “modern Australia” being “multicultural”, this is what they are actually defending.

Every time a new “hate speech” law is passed, or a new DEI regulation to discriminate against White people is adopted, it is done so at the recommendation of these minority ethnic and religious lobby groups. There is a whole department of government dealing with “Multicultural Affairs” which exists for the sole purpose of granting taxpayer money to these lobby groups and facilitating them telling the government to pass more hate speech laws and adopt more DEI regulations.

If Pauline Hanson is serious about abolishing multiculturalism, it can’t just be empty rhetoric about how people “need to assimilate” like we have heard for years from the Liberal Party whilst they’ve been complicit in funding and institutionalising this multicultural bureaucracy, a multicultural bureaucracy that has now morphed into a multicultural police state that jails people for offending or criticising the multicultural bureaucracy and its agenda.

Eliminate the parts of the bureaucracy that discriminate against whites and Jews:

One Nation, therefore, must commit to abolishing the entire bureaucratic regime of multiculturalism — all of these multicultural lobby groups need to be defunded and jettisoned from the political process. …

The multicultural bureaucracy only tolerates antiwhite anti-freedom leftist activists within its ranks, marginalising not just Jewish groups which refuse to toe the line, but also groups such as the British Australian Community which are never given a seat at the table even though they represent the largest ethnic group in the country!

Let’s have color blindness, and end the racism by our government (such as the Voice etc., cough cough). You’re Australian if you assimilate to the Australian culture, but don’t belong here if you cannot or will not assimilate. And, of course, mass migration is too fast to allow assimilation of all, so it must be stopped.

USAID money dried up, now European MEPs chant “Send Them Back”

USAID money dried up, now European MEPs chant “Send Them Back”. By Hélène de Lauzun at The European Conservative.

The announcement of the European Parliament’s final vote on the Return Directive was met with a burst of jubilation in the chamber, where energetic cries of “Send them back” rang out, reflecting the MEPs’ enthusiasm at having succeeded in passing the first genuine measure to seriously restrict immigration at the European level. On the opposite side of the chamber, MEPs responded to these exclamations with vigorous — though minority — cries of “Shame on you.”

The choice of words is not insignificant; some even see it as a foreshadowing — still a fantasy at this stage — of remigration.

Through a number of key measures, the directive drastically changes the landscape for the management of illegal immigration. Previously, an obligation to leave the territory remained a national decision. From now on, thanks to the Return Regulation, these decisions may be converted into a ‘European Return Order’ — an obligation to leave European territory. …

On the Left as well as in the centre, the prevailing mood was one of exaggeration and dramatisation. Abir Al-Sahlani, a left-wing MEP from the Renew group, said she had never felt “as unsafe in Parliament as she did after the vote.”

Flopping Aces:

Europe just experienced one of the fastest religious conversions in political history.

For years they called basic border enforcement “fascism.” They called deportation “cruel.” They called any suggestion of returning people who had no right to be there “far-right extremism.” NGOs and center-left politicians treated the very idea of stopping the invasion like it was a moral crime. They cashed the checks, ran the programs, and lectured the rest of us about compassion while the flow continued.

Then something changed.

Voters started punishing them. The American money tap (that sweet USAID slush fund) got turned off. And suddenly the same people who spent a decade calling enforcement racist are passing the strictest migration law in EU history … complete with return hubs in third countries, expanded detention powers, and home raids without warrants.

The same ministers who once clutched their pearls are now hugging each other on the parliament floor while chanting “send them back.”

It’s almost like none of it was ever about principle.

It was about cost. When open borders started costing them elections and free American money, the moral clarity arrived overnight. The “compassion” dried up the second it threatened their power and their funding. Everything before that? Just expensive theater paid for by someone else’s taxpayers.

They didn’t have a change of heart. They got hit in the wallet and at the ballot box at the same time. And like every other elite class in history, they immediately discovered that reality is suddenly very interesting when it starts hurting them personally.

Three things made these surprising “historic” reforms possible:

First, “far-right” (moderate conservative) parties have been ascendant in Europe, a trend that accelerated after President Trump’s re-election last year. Conservative and “reform” parties now make up about a third of all elected EU members.

Second, center-left parties — also about a third —  joined the conservatives to pass the new anti-migration policies. Only the far-left parties (Greens and socialists) opposed the new package and shouted “shame!” at their colleagues after the vote passed. …

Third, the center-left’s course correction from pro-migrant virtue-signaling to pro-sanity common sense followed continuous pressure from the U.S. over the last 18 months, which ceaselessly argued that Europe was destroying itself with its open-borders migration policies, and often linked them to America’s pullback from NATO. … A majority of EU voters now want ICE-like migration policies.

You might fairly ask why I linked this political tipping point in Europe to Trump’s re-election. After all, as the experts always remind us, correlation doesn’t prove causation. Maybe Trump’s election and the rise of sanity in Europe were both caused by some other third factor. To answer, I would point to one specific policy decision, the closure of USAID, and to one person, President Trump, over whom the EU leaders fawned at yesterday’s G7 Summit. …

Think-tank analysts estimate that up to $2.3 billion annually in U.S. aid ($23 billion every 10 years) was tied to Europe’s “migration management” work. USAID’s closure effectively zeroed this out, leaving a sudden, large gap in financing for development and protection projects in the countries of origin and transit.

In other words, USAID paid the countries where migrants came from, and it paid the countries through which they traveled on their way to Europe. No longer.

The USAID money spigot is closed. Now the EU is reversing those incentives — by paying origin countries to “host” their own migrants. And, whether it was through tariffs, NATO drawdowns, or energy markets, President Trump has beaten European politics in arm-wrestling.

Follow the money … all the way back to the American taxpayer.

Chaser:

Britain in immigration turmoil

Britain in immigration turmoil.

Wall Street Mav:

Rotherham where white young girls were gang raped by Pakistani men with impunity.

The police (also of Pakistani ethnicity) in Rotherham were complicit and joined in the rapes according to the victims.

 

The British Patriot:

Massive crowds of British patriots have flooded the streets of Birmingham to call for remigration.

Britain’s second-largest city now has over 340,000 Muslims.

 

Who will prevail? Will Islam conquer Britain? Find out in the next 30 years.

The left runs on taxpayer cash

The left runs on taxpayer cash. By Fugitive Caesar.

Leftists are getting angry because around 10-15 million Leftists are paid to do cushy high-paid fake jobs, based on credentials and a claim to unique technical authority.

The education sector over produces people who consider themselves “elite”. Those people then found ways to use government to get them good jobs — as in jobs that pay well, even if they are bullshit jobs. In so doing, these people took over the main party of the left in each western country.

Thus, they are strongly motivated by money and status. Big government is essential for their livelihood, and the livelihood of all their friends, so they need the leftist bureaucracy in power regardless of the cost to the rest of us..

Tldr: Too many chiefs and not enough Indians, and all those chiefs must (?) get paid.

Wall Street Apes:

Democrats are creating fake jobs for themselves and getting massive salaries. … The fake jobs are from companies funded by our tax dollars.

Example:

Texas Democrat Rep James Talarico has a second part time job as a “DEI consultant” and gets paid $83,333 per year … as a consultant for MAYA Consulting, now rebranded as VIDA Collaborative, which is a firm focused on “equitable education” initiatives rooted in DEI. It’s 100% a fake made up job, they do things like promoting “RaceTalks” and addressing “systemic barriers,” “white supremacy culture,” and “cisnormative assumptions.”

It’s all fake, obviously this is a fake made up job that was only invented to do things like launder our money.

But here’s where they criminal part comes in, they get taxpayer funding. MAYA Consulting, now VIDA Collaborative, has received substantial taxpayer money through contracts with the Texas Education Agency and individual Texas public school districts. …

The modus operandi:

Democrats give funding to these obviously fake companies promoting the typical nonsense …

Then these companies turn around and make Democrats “consultants” and pay them $80,000+ dollar per year.

Commenters:

90% of dems in politics don’t have/have never had real jobs. They don’t own businesses, never built, produced, serviced, been in retail. They are poli-sci majors, and prof gov leeches. Professional talkers. A class of useless people.

They hate Trump and Musk (especially DOGE!) with a burning passion because they threaten their money and status. Who wants to become a Sheryl Cowan (graphic at the top of this post)? Hence the rage of a privileged class.

The big government mateship dance: Linfox and Chris Bowen

The big government mateship dance: Linfox and Chris Bowen. By Craig Kelly.

Linfox’s Fox Group, owned by trucking magnate Lindsay Fox, donated $500,000 to the Australian Labor Party during the 2024-25 financial year. This contribution was part of a broader pattern of bipartisan giving by the logistics giant, which also provided an identical $500,000 donation to the Liberal Party in the same period.

This week, Chris Bowen handed $19.63 million of your hard-earned money straight to Linfox, the company owned by billionaire Lindsay Fox (net worth ~$6 billion), so they could buy 26 electric trucks.

That’s $775,000 per truck — taxpayer-funded. Nice.

 

 

If these electric trucks are so great as Bowen claims, why the hell does a billionaire need a $775,000 gift per vehicle from struggling taxpayers?

Why can’t Lindsay Fox reach into his own $6 billion pocket?

It’s rampant:

This is just the latest episode in Bowen‘s and Labor’s taxpayer-funded billionaire mateship program.

He’s already shovelled tens of millions to his other billionaire buddy, Twiggy Forrest.

Same script, different billionaire.

Jobs for the left:

Let’s be honest: Bowen isn’t “investing in the future.” He’s buying future job security.

He’s using public money to build favours and networks so that when Labor gets booted at the next election … he’ll land softly on some cushy board or consultancy gig funded by the very billionaires he’s busy enriching right now.

Hypocrisy:

Meanwhile, Labor has the gall to clutch their pearls and scream about Gina Rinehart supporting One Nation. The hypocrisy is beyond rancid.

  • Billionaires getting taxpayer handouts from Labor? That’s “strategic industry policy.”
  • Billionaires exercising free speech and supporting a conservative party? That’s a “threat to democracy.”

The big government mateship dance:

  1. Linfox donates $500,000 to the Labor Party.
  2. Labor minister uses government funds to subsidize Linfox $19.6m of trucks. (Linfox should have paid for them entirely on its own.)
  3. Linfox or someone will take good care of the Labor minister when he leaves politics.

Losers? Taxpayers, competitors to Linfox, trust and honesty, the free market and efficiency, the Australian economy, …