Media will never admit there was no insurrection

Media will never admit there was no insurrection. By Tucker Carlson.

First 15 mins:

The first draft of history is very often a lie. That’s not an accident. Partisans understand that history is a tool they can use to accumulate power. So they lie about something to suit their ends, they keep lying, and before long their lies are recorded as truth. They’re on Wikipedia, and your kids believe them. We’ve watched that happen all this year in real-time. We’re living through distorted history as we watch the events of January 6 described by everyone. …

A federal judge just rejected the Biden administration’s strenuous attempt to hide some of the surveillance footage from January 6. … This footage reveals that the first draft of history was a lie. An intentional distortion. A mirage created to control you. It was the work of a specific political party, it was the work of the Democratic party.

So it turns out, the vast majority of people inside the Capitol on January 6 were peaceful. They were not insurrectionists. They shouldn’t have been there, they weren’t trying to overthrow the government, that’s a total crock. And with that in mind, some of the other lies about January 6 start to make more sense. …

So here’s a rule of thumb going forward if you ever watch television again or read the newspaper: When they are absolutely insistent that you believe something, when they keep beating you over the head with the same talking point again and again, beware. There’s a reason they’re saying that. When all of them are using exactly the same line, maybe there’s a reason for that. Maybe it’s coordinated. Maybe they’re lying. In this case, they were lying.

That’s a common theme for virtually everything that happens in the news right now. Something happens, you’re not exactly sure what the outline is, you don’t know all the facts, nobody does, and all of a sudden, they hang a story on it that helps them politically, and they ram it down your throat day after day.

It used to be called propaganda. Now it’s so ubiquitous, I don’t know what to call it. Remember the lies you heard again and again about the McCloskeys, who were White supremacists, or the Covington kids, who were also White supremacists. Remember how they claimed George Floyd was choked to death, even though an autopsy showed he had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system and zero signs of suffocation. That’s what it said, we’re not making it up. What, medical reports don’t matter anymore? That’s true.

And remember what they said about the laptop showing that Hunter Biden was selling access to this father for years … [that it was Russian disinformation]. … These people are so shameless. They know they’re being used by liars and the Democratic party and the so-called intel community and they just mouth the words anyway. They say whatever they’re told to say. And then, of course, the tech community gets involved and shuts down all conversation about it. Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post for this reporting the truth. …

They all knew it was true at the time. They knew within hours of the first New York Post story that really was the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Everybody knew it. Everybody. Especially Joe Biden. His texts and emails were all over the laptop. Of course he knew they were real. He wrote them.

But, the media lied on his behalf, and Biden got elected because they covered for him. And now that he is President, they can admit it is, in fact, all true. Too late, it’s true.

Politico finally got around to confirming that every bit of the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop was absolutely accurate. It wasn’t Russian disinformation, it was totally real. When are they going to admit there was no insurrection? Never.

This is how modern politics is working in the US — shameless lying by the ruling class and the administrative state to stay in power. Presumably this will spread throughout the west.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The Covid Vaccine Pass Slippery Slope

The Covid Vaccine Pass Slippery Slope. By Eva Vlaardingerbroek.

Beginning tomorrow, September 25, everyone in the Netherlands above the age of 13 will need a “Digital Covid Certificate” in order to be allowed into restaurants, bars, theaters, cinemas, and concert halls. Basically, the things that make life enjoyable for most people, will be limited to those who are in possession of a Q.R. code that indicates they are either vaccinated, tested, or have recovered from Covid-19 within the past 160 days.

Something odd here. What are the globalists up to?

What is interesting — and, in my view, incredibly telling — about the Dutch situation in particular is that a whopping 85 percent of the Dutch population is currently already fully vaccinated. More than a year and a half into the Covid-crisis, it is estimated that 95 percent of the population has antibodies, and currently only 200 people are in the ICU. Yet it is at this very moment that our government decides to introduce the most far-reaching and invasive measure the Dutch have seen to date. This is only the beginning.

Apparently, the last 15 percent of the Dutch population needs to be jabbed — whatever it takes. The ones who, for whatever reason, choose not to be vaccinated are either doomed to the social life of a hermit or have to travel, sometimes quite far, to a certified test location to get a Q-tip shoved up their noses every single day. …

No end-conditions have been discussed:

Since there is no official or legal end-date tied to the enforcement of the Covid pass, there is no reason to believe that the Q.R.-society that we’re turning into won’t become more restrictive, let alone that it will disappear. …

Although highly inconvenient and time consuming, testing is currently still an option in the Netherlands and it is still “free” (i.e., paid for by taxpayers’ money). But not for long. The Dutch government has already announced that, sooner rather than later, people will have to start paying for their own tests …

It is also a given that the Covid pass won’t remain only used for “non-essential social and cultural facilities.” The Dutch government is currently looking for legal pathways to enforce vaccine passes in the workplace and for health care facilities, as is already the case in countries like France and Italy. As a result of this, many Italians who still refuse to get vaccinated are forced to take unpaid leave; it is a true Kafkaesque nightmare.

The justifications don’t make sense:

Legally, the enforcement of these Covid passes and the far-reaching consequences that they already have clearly form a grave breach of constitutional rights and civil liberties such as bodily integrity, the non-discrimination principle, and freedom of movement. It is often argued that these breaches do not technically form a legal ‘’violation’’ of our constitutional rights, because the breach is justified in view of public health. In my opinion, however, this is simply wrong.

First of all, if this line of argumentation would carelessly be accepted, any constitutional right could be set aside when the definition of a “justification” such as public health is stretched out far enough.

Although our government is of course well aware of the fact that vaccinated people can still get Covid and pass it on, they still aim to ostracize unvaccinated people and mark them as the enemies of public health. Just like President Joe Biden told American citizens that the government has “been patient, but our patience is wearing thin,” the Dutch minister of public health, Hugo de Jonge, stated that “the freedom of one group [those who do not wish to be vaccinated] cannot continue to threaten the freedom of another group [those who are vaccinated],” reminiscent of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian harm principle.

This type of divisive rhetoric by the government is incredibly dangerous. Our minister puts forward a completely false dilemma: These two groups do not threaten each other’s freedom. It is actually the government and the government only, here, that poses a fundamental threat to both groups’ freedom. …

Medical craziness enforced by bureaucrats. Why?

Plenty of people who aren’t afraid of the virus at all, or maybe have already had it and have natural immunity, have taken the vaccine because they fear the government and the social consequences of not being vaccinated more than they do the virus itself. Since when did we start to regard such behavior or choices as ‘’normal’’?

The future is here?

Frustratingly, only a very limited number of people in the West see what is really at stake here. Most fail to see that, once these Q.R. systems are enforced and people have become accustomed to them, these systems can be used for a variety of other purposes as well. It is most likely not a coincidence that a couple of weeks ago, suddenly, a nationwide poll was conducted to enquire how the Dutch viewed the possibility of a “personal carbon credit” system. Nevertheless, a large majority seems to believe — or want to believe — that all of this is for the common good, or that it is at least all temporary and won’t “get that far.”

Easier to protest now, before the system gets entrenched and before speech is further suppressed.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Stark reality of a two-tiered Australian society sinks in

Stark reality of a two-tiered Australian society sinks in. By Cameron Stewart.

Anti-vaxxers are being targeted by employers almost every day as a growing number of companies and organisations require their staff to be vaccinated to work. …

Pubs, restaurants and hospitality venues in NSW and Victoria also are preparing to lock out unvaccinated customers as those states close in on the national road map reopening targets of a 70 per cent and 80 per cent double-vaxxed population.

So far, the public and political mood in Australia is firmly weighted in favour of rewarding the vaccinated at the expense of those who are unvaccinated by choice.

The unvaccinated can protest:

But as the protests and the attacks on several Covid-19 vaccination hubs in Melbourne showed this week, many of the one in 10 Australians who say they will not get vaccinated do not intend to accept this two-tier society quietly. …

The Victorian government’s blanket edict for Covid-19 vaccinations for construction industry workers was always risky given that surveys show construction has the highest vaccination hesitancy rate of any industry at 35 per cent. …

By contrast, the NSW government chose not to mandate jabs for all construction workers but instead restricted work sites with an unvaccinated worker to 50 per cent capacity.

The unvaccinated become second-class citizens:

NSW will become the first example of this two-tier society from October 11 when the state is set to hit the initial 70 per cent target. From that day the vaccinated majority will be able to visit family and friends, dine out, drink in a pub, go to a hairdresser, and attend theatre and sporting events, although with limited numbers. The unvaccinated will receive none of these freedoms. …

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews says the road map for his state’s path out of lockdown also will be heavily weighted towards rewarding the vaccinated, leaving anti-vaxxers out in the cold. …

The NSW premier seems to be laboring under the illusion that vaccination will lead to herd immunity. As if. Under current technology, circulating covid means everyone gets it. The question is, when you get it are you vaccinated, ivermectined, in good shape with lots of vitamin D and zinc, or not?

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian says that even after her state passes the 80 per cent vaccination mark, anti-vaxxers cannot “let everybody else do the hard work and then turn up” for equal freedoms. …

The public mainly support the two tiers. Though that may be because they have been misinformed, and offered only the false choice of “vaccinate or nothing” rather than the outlawed choice of “vaccinate or ivermectin”:

Both Berejiklian and Andrews appear to have strong public support for rewarding the vaccinated at the expense of anti-vaxxers. Most people in Sydney and Melbourne are exhausted by their indefinite lockdowns and have little sympathy for those who remain unvaccinated by choice, especially if they delay their path to regaining freedoms.

A recent survey by YouGov found that two in three Australians support a so-called vaccine passport that people must produce to gain entry to sport venues, cinemas, nightclubs and restaurants. Only one in five people opposes such a move.

This was backed up by the Melbourne Institute’s latest findings that show 57 per cent to 68 per cent of Australians agree to excluding the unvaccinated from certain public events and activities. However, between 16 per cent and 23 per cent disagree with locking out the unvaccinated.

The Melbourne Institute found a similar proportion – 57 per cent – agree that busi­nesses have a right to deny service to the unvaccinated, while one in four disagrees with businesses refusing service to the unvaccinated. …

Vaccine hesitancy is continuing to decline, with the institute’s latest figures showing a fall from 20.3 per cent on August 20 to 16.7 per cent on September 12. This is down from 35.5 per cent in mid-May.

Of this 16.7 per cent, 7.3 per cent don’t know if they will eventually take the vaccine, while 9.4 per cent say they will not.

Confidential research by the federal Health Department this month and seen by The Australian shows an even sharper decline in vaccine hesitancy to just 10 per cent, with only 3 per cent saying they definitely would not get vaccinated. …

The vaccinated feel they need protection from the unvaccinated — but if the vaccinated are somewhat protected and can spread the disease, isn’t it the other way around? It is the unvaccinated who need protection from the vaccinated.

Those who support vaccine passports to allow fully vaccinated people to attend restaurants, pubs and sporting events say it serves two main purposes.

First, it is a powerful incentive for people to get vaccinated, especially those under 30 who are the most reluctant.

Second, vaccine passports, by excluding the unvaccinated, also have the effect of reducing transmission of the virus. Because an unvaccinated person is five times likelier to spread the virus, it is logical that transmission rates in social and sporting venues, as well as workplaces, will be far less if the unvaccinated are excluded. …

Some countries have not introduced vaccine passports, or have already ditched them:

England this month abruptly dropped its plans for an official vaccine passport, with members of Boris Johnson’s Conservative party calling it a hindrance to business and an infringement of civil liberties. …

This month Denmark dropped its vaccine passport, saying it was no longer necessary because the country was 75 per cent fully vaccinated. …

Australia’s new two-tier vaccination society is almost certainly going to be a temporary one. The costs on businesses and governments of enforcing the rules indefinitely would be exorbitant.

And when vaccination rates clearly have stalled and the virus is largely at bay, the unvaccinated at some point will have to be reintegrated into mainstream life.

How about legalizing ivermectin? It worked for India, and most of Africa, and everywhere else it’s been tried.

In vaccinated Britain, all my friends are getting COVID-19

In vaccinated Britain, all my friends are getting COVID-19. By Hans van Leeuwen.

Australia presses towards the coveted 80 per cent vaccination threshold, what’s it like to live in a country that has already got there? Probably not quite what you’d expect.

Take the week I’ve just had. On the sidelines of my son’s soccer game last weekend, one of the other parents tells me that she’d just got back from an extended family reunion in Wales, and nine out of 16 people came away with COVID-19. They were all double-vaccinated.

The next day, we ring some of my wife’s relatives to ask how their trip to Spain was. They both have COVID-19. The husband described it to me as “like the shittiest flu I’ve ever had”. They were both double-vaccinated. …

Vaccination does not mean the end of covid:

What vaccination means is that for most people, bar the elderly and clinically vulnerable, a potentially life-threatening illness becomes “the shittiest flu”. And suddenly, the pandemic loses its sting.

What’s really striking about London right now is that, although many people are having the same experience as me, nobody is really talking about it. COVID-19 often doesn’t feature in the morning news headlines. Daily press conferences are no longer held. This week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has quite possibly not mentioned coronavirus even once.

The case numbers have been ticking up this week: the 36,710 positive cases on Thursday was the highest in a fortnight, and the number is back above 30,000 every day. … Deaths associated with COVID-19 are still upward of 160 a day. But daily admissions to hospital have actually eased off into the 700s, for a total of 7588 altogether — almost the lowest this month. These numbers are individual tragedies, and they are certainly not trivial. But they are stable. …

Getting on with life, while covid picks some people off:

The number that is still climbing is the vaccination rate: 82.1 per cent of British people aged 16-plus are double-jabbed, and almost 90 per cent have had one dose.

There is still the possibility that things could go wrong. But with every passing week, the normalisation of COVID-19 is becoming more and more established in Britain.

Mask-wearing is dropping away very rapidly. Handshaking is common again. The streets of London are visibly, tangibly busier. People are congregating at indoor events.

At every party or reception I’ve been to, the atmosphere has been one of enthusiasm, even relief. Each one has had a vibe a bit like a wedding – no cliques, no VIPs talking only to each other, just everyone falling on each other, relishing conversation with strangers like thirsty men in a desert.

Travel rules have been simplified; it’s possible to go pretty much anywhere in Europe now with pretty minimal fuss, and people are doing so. …

There has also been good news on long COVID. In April, the Office of National Statistics estimated that one in 10 people might be suffering from long COVID; its latest, more comprehensive research suggests the figure could be fewer than one in 40. And double-vaccination is thought to halve the risk. …

Being vaccinated while covid circulates is a big step down for Australians. Until recently Australia has been basically free of covid and life went on normally — like pre-covid, in most places most of all the time (just not Melbourne).

What the British experiment does show Australia is that 80 per cent double-vaccination is not a pathway back to a pre-pandemic Eden.

It does not eliminate COVID-19. Almost the opposite: the disease is rife here, and will continue to be. But for most of us who are double-vaccinated, and who are not elderly or clinically vulnerable, COVID-19 has — for now — become more a source of inconvenience than a source of anxiety and fear.

The mainstream media narrative only ever compares the vaccination route to the alternative of covid-circulating-and-no-vaccines. It is never compared to the alternative of circulating covid but with widespread ivermectin use to create herd immunity and protect people from most of the harm. Who benefits?

The issue is similar to the issue of properly closing borders in the US and Europe — it was simply not discussed as a serious alternative. Who benefited?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Beer in hand, ‘very cool’ Morrison holds court on the global stage

Beer in hand, ‘very cool’ Morrison holds court on the global stage. By Adam Creighton.

A beaming Scott Morrison, beer in hand, held court at the Australian ambassador’s residence on Thursday night in Washington, confident his US trip would leave Australia stronger militarily and diplomatically, and reassured French pique over its lost submarine deal will prove to be water off a duck’s back.

From the US President to the Austrian Chancellor and the Swedish, Japanese and Indian prime ministers, leaders from across the political spectrum, Australia’s supercharged role in underpinning security in the Pacific was welcomed and appreciated. …

One European leader, according to a senior European embassy staffer, had even described the PM as “very cool”. …

France is miffed because Australia just joined a very exclusive club at their expense. Hanging out with the world’s current superpower, hobnobbing with the world’s previous superpower, and receiving the best in their nuclear submarine technology — Australia has arrived on the world stage.

The AUKUS pact that will see Australia acquire nuclear powered submarines, announced last week, thrust Australia into the US media cycle like never before, revealing our privileged position in American orbit. …

The President himself, far from the doddery caricature taking hold in the American public’s mind, was involved all the way. And he was methodical, alert and interested throughout discussions with the Prime Minister in New York and Washington, officials at the highest level insist.

Indeed, the UK and Australia were awaiting the President’s personal sign off on the submarine deal for weeks before the announcement on 16th September, which took even the best-informed talking heads in Washington by surprise. …

The praise was bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans feted the Prime Minister on Capitol Hill …


Will Australia’s submarines come from the UK or the US? Fierce competition between the UK and US defence industries looks set to kick off. …

Wherever the designs ultimately emerge, more UK or US nuclear submarines will be coming to Australia, manned by Australian navy personnel, far sooner than the first Australian-made sub emerges years down the track.

China, whose belligerence prompted AUKUS, already has the world’s largest navy. The aim of AUKUS is not to lease or rebadge existing nuclear powered submarines among the three Anglo powers but build more.

While France’s diplomatic clout appears diminished, Australia’s has been in the ascendant for years, a mix of savvy diplomacy and the reality being a resource rich nation in a key part of the world.


In a break from submarine chat, Mr Morrison visited the Federal Reserve, shocking chairman Jerome Powell with the fact the US was losing more people from Covid-19 every day than Australia had lost in the whole pandemic. More than 2,000 Americans died yesterday from Covid-19, up almost 30 per cent from a week ago.

It’s not through lack of effort in Washington at least, the most Covid-obsessed of all American cities. Australian journalists, all fully vaccinated, endured five separate Covid-19 tests on their five day trip, including two to go anywhere near the President, and a bewildering array of masking requirements.

If some in the US have been shocked by Australia’s increasingly tough Covid response, in DC it’s nothing but admiration.

That last point — and their anti-Biden stance — might explain why in the US some right wing commentators are so keen to traduce Australia by exaggerating the lockdown excesses, while misunderstanding and ignoring the successes of closing borders and elimination lockdowns. Too bad the US missed that chance — a border that stops covid also stops illegal immigration.

Australia’s woke ABC

Australia’s woke ABC. By Chris Kenny.

The mutation of our national debate into a dumbed-down, ideological sideshow could not have been demonstrated better this week.

On Sky News, Sharri Markson aired a world-leading forensic documentary examining the likely origin of Covid-19 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; but the following night on the over-resourced public broadcaster [the ABC] they used teenage smut and hateful slurs to mock the story and Sky News during a comedy/current ­affairs program (or current affairs/comedy, who can tell?) called Question Everything.

News Corp had funded groundbreaking journalism, and taxpayers funded lifelong adolescents revelling in their ignorance, spreading bile, and questioning nothing. And we wonder why the nation becomes more polarised, paranoid, and ill-informed.

The ABC follows the narrative unquestioningly.

Without action on the ABC, the Coalition is betraying its values every day. Forcing taxpayers to spend more than a billion dollars a year on an organisation that undermines our national interests rather than enhances them is indefensible.

On the night Scott Morrison announced the new US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine and defence technology partnership, the ABC 7.30 program turned over its analysis to leading pro-Beijing academic Hugh White and embittered former prime minister Kevin Rudd. If the ABC had outsourced the line-up to the Chinese embassy they might have come up with the same pair.

In Australia, the ABC is the main promoter of the narrative, the mothership of political correctness.

Overwhelming majority of US college students say shouting down a speaker is acceptable: survey

Overwhelming majority of US college students say shouting down a speaker is acceptable: survey. By Katelynn Richardson.

Sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker they disagree with is acceptable to shut down their talk, and another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech, according to a wide-scale survey released this week. …

Eighty percent of students reported that they self-censor viewpoints at least some of the time on campus, and another one-fifth of students reported that they do it quite often.

Are we sufficiently woke yet? No! Too much woke is never enough!

Ron DeSantis has emerged as America’s ‘shadow president’

Ron DeSantis has emerged as America’s ‘shadow president’. By Glenn Reynolds.

In many ways, DeSantis is serving as America’s shadow president.

In the Westminster parliamentary system of government, used in Britain and elsewhere, the opposition forms a shadow cabinet: A group of senior opposition-party members takes responsibility for issues facing various government departments. So there might be a shadow defense minister, who focuses on military issues, and the group might put together a “shadow budget.”

None of these activities has any direct impact on the actual Cabinet; the shadow government has no executive power. But it does provide a contrast to the ruling government and a source of criticism. It also cultivates people with some expertise, ready to take over the various offices when political power shifts.

America doesn’t use this system, but in a very real way we nonetheless have a shadow president in DeSantis. …

He has been doing an excellent job of drawing contrasts between his way and the approach taken by the Biden-Harris administration. …

DeSantis has opposed mandatory masking. .. Democrats, on the other hand, have been all masks, all the time — except when it comes to their own glitzy events, like the Emmys or former President Barack Obama’s birthday party, where the “sophisticated” attending crowd was deemed mask-exempt. (But not the servants.)

DeSantis has moved decisively elsewhere, as when he sent law enforcers from Florida to Texas to help the Lone Star State deal with a Biden-engineered crisis at the Mexican border. That sets up yet another contrast with the current administration, which has been letting that region groan under the weight of many thousands of illegal immigrants.

DeSantis has been antitax, pro-small-business and a strong opponent of defunding law enforcement, all in contrast with his opposition. …

Of course, being governor of Florida isn’t the same as being president of the United States. But DeSantis has been able to show the spirit, and sometimes the substance, of actions that a Republican president might take.

As the 2024 election grows nearer, Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will no doubt try harder to take DeSantis down. But the more attention they focus on him, the more he will stand as a shadow president, showing Americans what someone else might do in Biden’s place.

A lot younger and without many of the negatives of Trump.

The descent of the media into incredible bias

The descent of the media into incredible bias. By the Z-Man.

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was running for president, the people planning to vote for him were sure the media was biased against him. They focused only on the bad stuff and ignored the good stuff. The people voting for Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, thought the bias claim was absurd. They thought the media played it as fair as was possible in a matter of opinion. The big media players went out of their way to prove that they were just neutral observers reporting the facts.

It seems quaint today, but if you wrote your local newspaper complaining about unequal treatment, you could expect a reply pointing out the examples in the newspaper of both sides of the debate. If not a direct reply, there would be a length reply in the letters column addressing the issue. Newspaper columnists would often take the time to address the “alleged bias in the media”. Back then, it was important to the media that people thought they were neutral observers.


Fast forward twenty years and the people planning to vote for Bush still thought the media was biased, but by that point, conservatives were so sure of the bias they no longer felt a need to prove it. The center of gravity with regards to the media had shifted after the Clinton years. Even the people who were voting for Gore conceded that many parts of the media were biased, but their new line was that “right-wing” media, like Fox News and Drudge, was just as biased.

In twenty years, we moved from a world in which the consensus was that the media was mostly honest but a little biased to a world in which the consensus was the media was biased in favor of one side. …

By this point, the mass media was no longer trying to prove they were neutral observers.


Twenty years on from the Bush election, everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton looks at the media as the marketing department for the DNC. Further, the only people who think the media is not deliberately lying about everything are the nutters who watch conspiracy outlets like MSNBC or CNN.

The most popular “conservative” TV media performer is Tucker Carlson who dedicates a fair chunk of his airtime to pointing out the litany of lies that come from the mass media. …

As the left marches through the institutions, trust is collapsing:

Forty years ago, most people thought they could trust the important institutions of society. ..

Today,… few people trust the media…. Most people think the government is a blend of incompetence and dishonesty, but many still think the system can work with the right people in charge of it. Big business is another institution whose trust has collapsed, especially among right-wing people. …

Despite twenty years of failure, people still think the military can defeat any enemy if allowed to do their best. White people still proudly send their sons to fight. That is changing as it becomes clear that the people in charge are rabidly anti-white and jarringly incompetent. We may be in the midst of a great sea change in white attitudes about the military.

Leftists only appoint other leftists and personnel is policy — so it’s a ratchet. Once an institution has gone left it cannot be reformed and the only solution is to get rid of it and start again from scratch.

Why women want sugar daddies

Why women want sugar daddies. By Zoe Strimpel.

During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.

They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men ­had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them.

The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group. …

The new normal in the globalist ruling class:

Indeed, sugar daddy-baby “arrangements” are booming, with increasing numbers of female students in the UK and US advertising on sugar websites. Unlike traditional sex work, it’s popular among young women at elite institutions; destined for fine careers, they nonetheless see it as a time-efficient way to offload student debt and, as Molly, a 22-year sugar baby who read PPE at Oxford, told me, “get a taste of luxury”.

In 2019, nearly 1000 students at Cambridge were signed up to Seeking Arrangements, the top sugar-brokering site in the Anglosphere. [Cambridge has 20,000 students, so this is nearly 10% of the female students.] …

The rise of elite sugaring among young, extremely upwardly mobile women points to two profound and rather shocking shifts.

  • One: that dating, with all its messiness and the in-built possibility (if things go well) of an actual relationship — complete with compromise, give and take, and real intimacy — has imploded.
  • Two: that feminism has morphed from a movement with ideals — which envisioned, for instance, a socialist world in which women might be free from sex work — into a hard-nosed, misandric, mercenary pragmatism.

The fruits of feminism, which was never about what it says it was:

Feminists of the first wave looked for male allies to get laws changed. Those of the second wave, freeing themselves for the first time from the trappings of normative heterosexuality, had separatist instincts. But those of the present wave see men as pathetic, selfish, hard work — and only good for two things: sex and cash.

“All the sugar babies I know consider themselves feminists,” said Molly. “But it’s more misandry than feminism. It’s ‘men are scum’. Both parties sort of despise each other.”

Aria, 25, a Cornell graduate currently in law school in DC, has been on Seeking Arrangements for five years. She, too, despises her clients, telling me over WhatsApp video from a Balkan city: “Men are nothing. They’re just fucking idiots. The hardest thing about being a sugar baby is pretending to give a shit what these older men have to say. Older men are so archaic and out of it.”

For these women, the sex is the ok bit — the easy bit. Aria “can have sex with someone without having any feelings towards them. I don’t even have to like them to have sex with them. Being a sex worker: that’s nothing. I can always pretend. Sex is easy.” This sentiment, almost down to the word, is echoed among other sugar babies.

The callous terrain created by ten years of dating apps and misapplied “sex positivity” seems to have rendered physical intimacy a shiny token whose value lies in shifting the needle of power up or down, while the relationship of sex to things like romance or affection has been cauterised. …

Nowadays “women my age see all relationships as sexual labour,” says Molly. “Why not get paid for it?” She points out that Twitter is full of women who think men should pay a deposit before they go on a date with them. Aria put it more scathingly still: “Men have a dearth of people they can share their feelings with… Thanks a lot toxic masculinity. So if I’m performing all this emotional labour — if I have to listen to a man complain for an hour — I should get $500.”

Sex work has been transformed, or rather wishfully squeezed, into the same category as any form of work. At the same time, all relationships have been reduced to a form of sex work. …

“We want that financial security while we go after our goals. Everybody sells their body. Construction workers sell their bodies. What’s different?” …

How’s it working out for them?

MeToo was meant to free women in the professional sphere from being treated as objects. Instead, it seems to have encouraged them to sell their bodies for work-related advancement. Aria is happy: her sugar daddy is one of America’s top political lobbyists. From the outset, he asked: “How can I help you [professionally]?” …

However lucrative, helpful, easy, or apparently “empowered”, life as a sugar baby erodes a woman’s sense of self. But if the women are losing something wholesome, the men seem to be gaining, even gobbling it. After all, sugar daddying is about more than renting a hot body. It’s also about getting a friendly, sexy therapist; someone who will listen, even nurture. Sometimes the men just want friends. Aria’s political lobbyist prefers office gossip to sex, which fades into the background when they’re together, taking up “less than five minutes” of a three-hour session. …

But in the end the cost is high. Molly felt despair and had a breakdown after her sugar daddy paid off her student debt. She is still struggling with the long-term effects of seeing all relationships with men in terms of a sexual quid pro quo.

The lessons and evolved culture from thousands of years of experience is discarded by the globalist ruling class — because, as Saint Obama said, they are the people the world has been waiting for.

Nonsense. Reality will bite them on the arse soon enough.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

A Generation of American Men Give Up on College

A Generation of American Men Give Up on College. By Douglas Belkin.

Men are abandoning higher education in such numbers that they now trail female college students by record levels.

At the close of the 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high, and men 40.5%, …



Women make up 49% of the college-age population in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau….

American colleges, which are embroiled in debates over racial and gender equality, and working on ways to reduce sexual assault and harassment of women on campus, have yet to reach a consensus on what might slow the retreat of men from higher education.

Can’t say this, or the left shout you down and cancel you:

Some schools are quietly trying programs to enroll more men, but there is scant campus support for spending resources to boost male attendance and retention. …

Some of the schools extend offers to a higher percentage of male applicants, trying to get a closer balance of men and women. …

Ms. Delahunty said this kind of tacit affirmative action for boys has become “higher education’s dirty little secret,” practiced but not publicly acknowledged by many private universities where the gender balance has gone off-kilter. …

Systemic sexism, institutionalized by the left, actually exists — and they are proud of it:

Female students in the U.S. benefit from a support system established decades ago, spanning a period when women struggled to gain a foothold on college campuses. There are more than 500 women’s centers at schools nationwide. Most centers host clubs and organizations that work to help female students succeed. …

Jerlando Jackson, department chair, Education Leadership and Policy Analysis, at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Education, said few campuses have been willing to spend limited funds on male underachievement that would also benefit white men, risking criticism for assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages.

“As a country, we don’t have the tools yet to help white men who find themselves needing help,” Dr. Jackson said. “To be in a time when there are groups of white men that are falling through the cracks, it’s hard.”

Keith E. Smith, a mental-health counselor and men’s outreach coordinator at the University of Vermont, said that when he started working at the school in 2006 he found that men were much more likely to face consequences for the trouble they caused under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

In 2008, Mr. Smith proposed a men’s center to help male students succeed. The proposal drew criticism from women who asked, “Why would you give more resources to the most privileged group on campus,” he said. Funding wasn’t appropriated, he said, and the center was never built.

We all know that if the percentages of men and women were reversed, the feminists, media, bureaucracy and academia — the leftist establishment — would be in a mighty uproar and furiously take steps to “correct” it. We know this, because 60 years ago the situation was reversed and this is in fact what happened. Looks an awful lot like permanent anti-male bias.

Now take this lesson and apply it to the current push for “racial equality”. Do you think the left’s anti-white push will stop when some sort of numerical goals have been reached? Or ever?

How not to communicate: The left cannot say what it really stands for

How not to communicate: The left cannot say what it really stands for. By Sam Leith.

Many years ago, a tabloid newspaper played an unkind prank on the author of a very long and much talked-about literary novel. They sent a reporter to various bookshops to place a slip of paper into copies of the book 50 pages or so from the end. The slip said that if you phoned a particular phone number, the newspaper would pay you a fiver. Gleefully, some weeks later, they reported that nobody had telephoned to collect their prize — from which they deduced that despite its sales figures, practically nobody was actually reading the book to the end.

About halfway through reading [Britian’s opposition leader and Labor leader] Keir Starmer’s new pamphlet for the Fabian Society – The Road Ahead – I wondered idly whether a similar prank had been played. Somewhere in italic type, halfway through a paragraph on the penultimate page, perhaps there was a message: ‘The first person to call 1-800-KEIR gets to be Shadow Home Secretary.’ It’s the only explanation — that the document is a loyalty test aimed at a very small handful of close advisers — that I could see for such a thing to be published.

He said more in this infamous photo than in his 12,000 word manifesto

Brevity is the essence:

The essence of political communication is getting your message across to voters. Who on earth does Mr Starmer expect to read 12,000 words on his political vision? We live, as he will recognise, in an attention economy — where the hour or two he asks of his readers is in competition with, among other things, catching up with Vigil on iPlayer, going for a healthful country walk, or watching the old Farrow and Ball mouse-grey mellow in colour as it dries on your living-room wall.

The only people liable to read this pamphlet are people who obsessively love Keir Starmer, who won’t be persuaded by it, or people who obsessively hate Keir Starmer, who also won’t be persuaded by it. Or people who are being paid to read and write about it, like me, who will very much resent the time spent and probably do it in a slightly half-assed way, what with the whole eyes-glazing thing. …

That is what philosophers might call a category error and political communications experts would call flat incompetence. Say what you like about Dominic Cummings (everybody does, and he doesn’t mind a bit); he recognised that the attention-span of the average British voter will run to about three words. Those words don’t need to make much sense — indeed, emotive abstractions work best — but if you repeat them often enough, they’ll have some sort of effect.

Maybe he doesn’t actually want to say anything? The left’s support mainly comes from virtue signalers going along with the dominant political ideology, and from those who profit by bigger government. Neither of these can be mentioned out loud by any leftist politician, so why say anything? He’s just pretending to be serious:

The only thing striking about Starmer’s pamphlet is how ridden with cliches, how boring, how badly written it is. It is a groaning tumbril of dead metaphors trundling along the slow road to nowhere. I imagine that his retreat into mind-numbing rote phrases is, politically speaking, an effort to avoid saying anything very much at all. …

Whole paragraphs sail by …, saying as far as I can tell literally nothing at all. …

The supposed nub of this pamphlet – promised on the very first page and only delivered on the last one as bullet-points – is Sir Keir’s ‘Ten simple key principles to form a new agreement between Labour and the British people’. …

See if you can find one among those that adds up to a specific promise; one among those that contains an original thought or an original turn of phrase; indeed, see if you can find one among those that is not so vague that any politician or voter could agree with it.

Generic politicians want to be able to promise each voter whatever it is they want, but they don’t want other voters to know about the promises — both because they make incompatible promises to different groups, and because some groups get much sweeter deals than others.

So, in a communication that can be read by everyone, if their real pitch is granting money and privileges from government then they cannot say anything, really.