Who said white people don’t have culture?
The first car to park on the trailer wins , I’ve never been so invested in a sport like this pic.twitter.com/wIm7vsRqRE
— G-Block 🅱️aby (@Gxtso_) September 15, 2026
The first car to park on the trailer wins.
Via esr.
What the recent AI-doomsterism is really about. By Robert Malone.
The deeper story of Netflix is not simply that another American corporation drifted left, adopted DEI, and began producing programming that many Americans find politically tiresome. It is the story of how entertainment, politics, government, technology, and the management of information have gradually converged, with Barack Obama and the political network surrounding him appearing repeatedly at the intersections. …
Culture -> politics:
Netflix formally incorporated “inclusion” into its corporate culture in 2017. … Netflix explicitly connected representation inside the corporation with representation on the screen: who gets hired, who gets to tell stories, and who tells stories with which stories audiences ultimately see. … What critics later called “woke Netflix” was therefore not simply an accidental accumulation of unusually progressive writers and producers. Netflix itself described inclusion as part of the machinery through which content was created.
The most powerful cultural assumptions are often the ones the audience is not consciously debating at all. Ideas about race, sex, gender, marriage, government, capitalism, social democracy, American history, and social justice can be incorporated into entertainment until they simply become part of the fictional world being consumed.
The viewer never has to agree to attend the lecture because there appears to be no lecture. The action movie gets the viewer through the door. The cultural assumptions come with the subscription. …
The Obama network:
Obama’s presidency had ended years earlier, but the network had not. Political power had become institutional power, capable of surviving the individual administration that created it. …
On April 21, 2022, Obama delivered a major address [at Stanford] .. The subject was …. the architecture of information itself. Obama discussed algorithms, social media, disinformation, platform responsibility, Section 230, and the effect of digital information systems on democracy. …
“What does still nag at me, though, was my failure to fully appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories despite having spent years being a target of disinformation myself. Social media companies already make choices about what is or is not allowed on their platforms and how that content appears, both explicitly through content moderation and implicitly through algorithms. The problem is we often don’t know what principles govern those decisions in some cases, industry standards may replace or substitute for regulation, but regulation has to be part of the answer.”
The new censorship:
What this all establishes is a striking convergence: Obama was publicly calling for greater intervention in the digital information environment from within an institutional ecosystem already deeply involved in building mechanisms through which government, academia, and technology companies could identify, refer, moderate, suppress, or otherwise reduce the reach of information deemed false or harmful. …
The argument was presented in the reassuring vocabulary that has become familiar throughout the Western political establishment: democracy, safety, truth, responsible platforms, healthier discourse, misinformation, and protection from manipulation.
But underneath every one of those abstractions sits a very old and very dangerous political question. Who decides what constitutes misinformation? Who decides which speech is dangerous? Who determines what gets amplified, suppressed, demonetized, labeled, or removed? And what happens when the government officials, foundations, academics, corporations, and technology companies answering those questions overwhelmingly share the same political and cultural worldview? What happens when that viewpoint is skewed by globalism, leftist propaganda, and woke ideologies? …
For Americans whose speech was restricted, labeled, suppressed, or algorithmically buried during the COVID era [or the global warming debate, before that], the issue is not theoretical. The danger exists whenever government officials, politically aligned institutions, and enormously powerful information companies begin sharing assumptions about what constitutes dangerous information. No smoky room is required. No secret memorandum has to be signed. Institutional alignment can accomplish a remarkable amount when the people staffing government, foundations, universities, media companies, and technology platforms have already reached similar conclusions about what constitutes truth, misinformation, equity, democracy, social justice, and acceptable speech.
Religion -> culture -> politics:
“Politics is downstream from culture” is the famous quote attributed to Andrew Breitbart, the American media publisher and conservative commentator who passed away in 2012.
The phrase … posits that political outcomes are a result of prevailing cultural values, beliefs, and norms. Consequently, the doctrine argues that to effect meaningful political change, one must first shift the broader culture.
An axiom of this is that scientism has replaced religion, and this is associated with a priesthood of anointed physicians and scientists. And, as any theology student will attest, religion is upstream of culture.
These channels do not have to be centrally coordinated to reinforce one another. Politics determines rules. Information systems determine which arguments people encounter. Culture shapes many of the assumptions through which people interpret those arguments. One operates through elections and government. Another operates through algorithms, search, moderation, and information distribution. The third operates through stories, heroes, villains, historical narratives, children’s programming, documentaries, and entertainment. Taken together, they represent a far more sophisticated mechanism of cultural influence than anything Edward Bernays could have imagined when he wrote Propaganda nearly a century ago.
AI:
And now the same argument has arrived at artificial intelligence. In September 2026, …. Obama urged Democrats to make artificial intelligence a central part of their agenda and argued that, if Democrats regain control of the House after the midterm elections, they should establish a framework for a major public conversation about AI….
And a week later we got the current outbreak of AI doomerism, which is obviously a psyop:
Obama’s history makes a different question unavoidable: what exactly will be regulated?
Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming the machinery through which Americans search for information, summarize history, compare arguments, evaluate evidence, write, create media, and increasingly understand the world.
Regulation of AI therefore has implications extending far beyond whether a chatbot produces a dangerous recipe or a convincing deepfake. The rules governing AI can potentially influence the boundaries within which machines are permitted to answer questions at all. It will be and already is the next frontier in government censorship. …
Who benefits from regulation of AI?
OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and the other industry giants can afford armies of lawyers, compliance officers, safety researchers and government-relations specialists. A startup, university laboratory or independent developer cannot. Regulations requiring expensive testing, licensing and government approval can therefore protect the companies already dominating AI while making it far harder for new competitors to challenge them.
Government gains something too. An Obama political circle that has spent years arguing that the “information environment” must be managed and regulated now has an opportunity to help write the rules governing the technology that may soon become the world’s primary gateway to information. The extraordinary concentration of corporate and government power produced by their proposed solutions should scare us all.
Going global:
Nor is this confined to the United States. Europe has already moved much further toward regulating online speech and artificial intelligence through the Digital Services Act and AI Act. But the internet does not respect national borders. Global technology companies that want access to Europe’s 450 million consumers must comply with European rules, and it can be easier to build those restrictions into their global platforms than maintain entirely separate systems. The result is the so-called “Brussels Effect”: European regulators can influence what Americans see, what platforms permit, and how AI behaves without Americans ever voting for a single one of them.
Conclusion:
The Western world is deciding who will govern the information systems of the twenty-first century. Netflix initially looked like a story about an entertainment company that became political. It turns out to be a window into something much larger. Barack Obama’s post-presidential career has repeatedly converged on institutions that shape political leadership, popular culture, and the flow of information.
A government does not have to burn books to acquire enormous influence over political discourse. It can pressure platforms, define misinformation, regulate algorithms, establish rules for artificial intelligence, and encourage private institutions to police information according to standards government itself helped establish. At the same time, cultural institutions can normalize a political worldview through entertainment until ideas that were once controversial simply become the background assumptions of everyday life.
A 1930s book burning by national socialists
Each piece can be defended individually as reasonable. Netflix is only telling stories. … Stanford is only studying disinformation. The Obama Foundation is only training leaders. Government officials are only protecting people from misinformation. Regulators are only making AI safe. The political network is only helping Democratic candidates win elections. Perhaps every individual involved sincerely believes exactly that. The problem appears when all of these pieces are placed beside one another and the direction of travel becomes visible. The danger is not necessarily a conspiracy. The danger is a system in which the same political assumptions increasingly dominate the institutions that produce culture, define misinformation, regulate information technology, train political leadership, and determine the permissible boundaries of digital speech.
That is why the question of whether Netflix has become “woke” now seems almost quaint. Netflix is only one piece of a much larger struggle over who gets to shape the stories Americans hear, which information Americans find, and increasingly which answers their machines are permitted to give them.
Ronald Reagan famously warned that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. The modern threat to that freedom may not arrive wearing jackboots or carrying a list of banned books. It may arrive promising safety, inclusion, equity, responsible information, and the protection of democracy itself. Edward Bernays understood a century ago that the most effective propaganda does not feel like propaganda.
Completely unrelated:
🌿KEEP OFF THE GRASS! pic.twitter.com/JTHAfuWXrY
— Ari K (@arikuschnir) September 15, 2026
hat-tip Scott of the Pacific, Stephen Neil
Is Peace at Hand in Ukraine? By Niall Ferguson in The Free Press.
Speaking … at the opening of the YES conference in Kyiv on Friday, [Jared] Kushner said that the key elements of a peace agreement were largely in place, with the exception of “territory,” an allusion to the Donbas region. The other elements — security guarantees for Ukraine and a “deconfliction mechanism” — had been in place since the last trilateral meeting of Russian, Ukrainian, and U.S. representatives in Abu Dhabi in January.
“If Ukraine were willing to move back to Putin’s desired line,” Kushner said, “the rest of the deal would be ready.” ...
That is, of course, a very big “if,” given the consistent refusal of the Ukrainian government to accept territorial cessions. … [Kushner] elicited incredulous laughter when he said Putin was sincere about peace talks. However, he responded: “Everything looks impossible until right before it’s achieved.” …
Military:
A year ago, I was quite concerned about Ukraine’s thinly stretched armed forces. However, Ukraine’s advances in military technology have more than compensated for these vulnerabilities. …
Nevertheless, Russia has responded in ways that dispel any notion of a Ukrainian victory. Russia continues to strike Ukrainian cities every day with drones and missiles, while Ukraine’s air defenses are much less effective than a year ago. Not only is there a shortage of Patriot interceptors; Russia has also switched to jet-powered strike drones that are much harder to intercept. Moreover, the Ukrainians are fearful that Russia is close to deploying its own version of Starlink. …
Economic:
Both the Ukrainian and Russian economies are showing signs of strain, but the strain is greater in Ukraine.
From the outset, this war has been a contest between David and Goliath. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the Russian population is 4.4 times larger than Ukraine’s and the Russian economy is 11.8 times larger (on a current dollar basis). Ukraine’s growth has stalled this year. …
Russia’s fiscal situation is ugly but workable. …
Those who continue to talk about the outcome of the war being determined by a Russian economic crisis are missing the point. It is Ukraine that is much closer to a crisis. …
China:
Russia’s war effort relies increasingly on China, but it is made available on commercial terms, not as aid. Bilateral trade between Moscow and Beijing is on track to hit an all-time high of roughly $280 billion this year. Russia now relies on China for roughly 57 percent of its total imports, compared with 13 to 14 percent before the war. China supplies around 90 percent of Russia’s sanctioned tech imports. While Beijing stops short of sending finished military hardware, it provides billions in dual-use goods — microchips, drones, and tools. And China buys about 50 percent of all Russian crude oil exports, 37 percent of its exported coal, and 31 percent of its pipeline gas. It has even defied U.S. sanctions by ramping up imports from Russia’s newer Arctic LNG 2 project. Over the last two decades, Russia has also accumulated $169.3 billion in total debt to China.
To an extent that is underappreciated, the war in Ukraine is now a proxy war between the EU and China. The difference is that China makes a profit from backing Russia. …
Political:
This is a war between a fledgling democratic nation-state and a fascist empire. In this regard, too, it is not a fair fight. Putin’s opposition is either dead, in jail, or in exile. Not so Zelensky’s. …
Ordinary Ukrainians are thoroughly sick of this war and filled with foreboding as winter approaches. … Zelensky may need a ceasefire, but he would surely not survive politically if he relinquished territory Ukraine has succeeded in defending. …
The obvious path for Putin is simply to press on through the winter, waging total war against Ukraine and exploiting his advantages, …
The trends in European politics are not friendly to Ukraine. In France, Rassemblement National leader Marine Le Pen is the favorite to succeed Emmanuel Macron as French president. In Germany, the chancellorship of Friedrich Merz is crumbling as the Alternative für Deutschland gains ground in regional elections. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni risks being outflanked by the neo-fascist Roberto Vannacci’s Futuro Nazionale. All the European populist parties are skeptical about the war in Ukraine, if not overtly pro-Russian. …
The recent U.S. visitors to Moscow offered Putin a stark choice: “Press on with the war and we will continue to provide the Ukrainians with targeting intelligence; or settle this diplomatically and we can give you the kind of economic rehabilitation you will not get from anyone else.” As usual, the Kushner-Witkoff team approaches a classic diplomatic problem — how to end a war — with the techniques of the New York real estate market. In effect, the Ukrainians are being told to sell the remaining territory they control in Donetsk at an attractive price in the form of postwar funding for reconstruction and investment. …
The Americans seem to think Putin is finally ready for serious talks in which he would effectively concede the rump Ukraine’s right to a continued independent existence, minus Crimea and Donbas.
Great article, if you’re looking for a long read.
Immigration: It’s not just about numbers. By Celina101.
An extraordinary amount of our public life has been organised around identifying racism, denouncing racism and ensuring that everybody understands how thoroughly opposed to racism our major institutions are.
What does “racism” even mean? Most of us use the original meaning, the one implied by 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, that racism is treating people differently on the basis of their race.
But back when “Black Lives Matter” was raging, many on the left said that all whites are racists and all non-whites are not racist. And in 2024 the Australian left insisted that the Voice was not racist, and that to oppose it was racist, despite the Voice explicitly basing people’s political rights on their race — just like under Apartheid in South Africa, which the left used to describe as the epitome of racism. DEI obviously treats people differently according to their race (otherwise, why bother?), but the left claims DEI is “anti-racist”.
The left appear so confused about racism. But they’re not really. Lefties are careful never to define racism, but by amazing coincidence, all their opponents — always and everywhere — are guilty of racism.
The charge of racism was working until about five minutes ago, politically speaking. Once someone was called a “racist”, the person on the receiving end of the accusation was expected to spend the rest of the conversation explaining that they were a decent human being. Any argument that they were originally intent on making got lost beneath the much more urgent business of proving their innocence. …
There was a perfect case study of this in August on Radio National, when Barnaby Joyce spent half of his time trying to articulate why One Nation was not racist or homophobic.
This type of rhetoric wins over no one. The reassurance tour is a concession in itself, as your opponent still gets to decide which accusation you must spend your time answering instead of talking about your actual policies. Hanson’s political appeal depends in part on the impression that she will withstand their disapproval. …
Immigration:
[The left, represented here by The Guardian,] have the direction of these grievances completely backwards. They think economic grievance is being turned into racism, but what they’re actually witnessing is the reverse. What they call racism is being turned into economic grievance.
Many people object to immigration because they dislike the character of the demographic change itself. They care about who is coming, where they come from and what the country is becoming. For some, the objection is explicitly to non-white immigration. …
The difficult possibility for progressives is that concerns about demographic and cultural change have an independent political force among people the left still regards as its natural constituency. That is why the instruction to return to economics is so telling. In practice, it concedes that Hanson has an advantage on identity, then tries to move the conversation somewhere the Labor movement feels entitled to win.
It’s about culture, not skin color. But try getting a lefty to admit that.
White culture is a truth culture, which makes it distinct from nearly all other cultures, which are honor cultures (with some honorable exception to north east Asia). In honor culture, the tribe and status matter more than truth, so they are low-trust. In truth culture, principles and truth matter more than your group identity, so they are high trust, and doing business with strangers is easy. People of any culture can assimilate to white culture, in which case they are welcome in Australia because they fit in easily.
So how does the leftist Australian government deal with the upwelling over immigration?
Labor will crack down on backpackers, who are mainly from the UK and Europe, as part of immigration policy changes announced today. …
Labor is trying to cut European migration to protect Asian immigration.
Immigrants from honor cultures mostly vote left, because the left is fully into identity politics and handing out goodies on a tribal basis.
Why AfD is so successful. By Michael Arouet.
I had dinner with a friend from Germany tonight and asked why the AfD is so successful.
He told me about a 55-year-old German woman who lost her sight. Her disability allowance application was rejected, so she now has to work in a call center.
At the same time, a story went viral in Germany about a Syrian man with several wives and countless “children” pocketing €100k in welfare benefits, despite polygamy being illegal in Germany. €100k plus free rent and free healthcare, paid from the taxes of the blind woman working in the call center.
Commenters:
You missed the fact that the Syrian man collecting 100.000€/year in benefits because he has 32 children from 3 wives is also patriarch of a clan terrorizing Leipzig
Immigration: It’s not just about numbers.
Labor announces new immigration policy, essentially the same as its old immigration policy. By Peter van Onselen in The Daily Mail.
Tony Burke finally made it to the National Press Club this afternoon, to unveil Labor’s long awaited immigration reforms. …
It was that such a modest collection of measures took six weeks of cabinet warfare, political panic and public humiliation to finally produce. …
Denies mass immigration:
Burke got stuck into the idea that Australia is a mass migration country, dismissing the notion as ‘absurd’. …
A stunning graph shows just how much Australia’s population has grown compared to other nations:
Why? Because of mass migration. … And in the last quarter of a century it has accelerated the population well beyond the infrastructure capabilities to cope with it.
To suggest otherwise, as Burke did, is utterly absurd, and makes it harder to trust everything else he had to say today. …
Labor’s not cutting immigration significantly:
Burke’s plan is essentially a plan to meet the existing plan. Labor already forecast that net overseas migration would fall from around 300,000 to 225,000 by 2027-28. The measures announced on Thursday are designed to ensure reality finally conforms with that Treasury forecast. …
The permanent migration program remains at 185,000. The humanitarian intake remains at 20,000 (according to sources, Burke wanted to lower it but Prime Minister Albanese overruled him).
International student numbers are largely untouched. And the net overseas migration forecast of 225,000 hasn’t been lowered one little bit. …
Burke has merely announced regulatory changes designed to stop Labor overshooting its own target yet again. …
Skills or left-voters? One of these priorities is obviously a joke:
Australia is supposedly importing skills to fill shortages, yet doctors, engineers and other qualified professionals are driving Ubers or working in jobs that make little use of their expertise because recognition and licensing systems are slow, expensive and completely fragmented. …
More than 250,000 permanent migrants with qualifications in regulated professions are estimated to be working beneath their skill levels. Think about that. The economic cost has been put at around $9 billion annually.
Interesting:
“Africa (excl. South Africa)” includes Zimbabwe.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
The Great AI Debate Goes Political. By Edward Dowd.
Winter is coming for the AI industry, and the great houses are already drawing swords
- On one side sit OpenAI and Anthropic, wrapping themselves in the banner of “safety”…House Monopoly.
- On the other sit the accelerationists including David Sacks, President Trump, and a growing faction that wants the pathway cleared, not blocked…House Speed Racer.
The fight is being sold as existential risk versus national destiny. This is a battle for power, money, and control. The average citizen is not at the table. …
House Monopoly wants regulation by government to exclude competitors and thus rescue them financially:
Basically House Monopoly wants embedded evaluators inside the labs and common safety standards. Coordination that would require government blessing and, conveniently, an antitrust waiver so the two biggest closed model shops can sit in a room and decide how fast everyone else is allowed to run and regulate their competition out of existence. This is not altruism, rather this is regulatory capture.
The reasons for attempting this regulatory capture are simple … Open source models are putting real pricing pressure on the closed frontier systems. The closed system companies are burning cash with profitability nowhere in sight. Enterprises are finally asking about ROI [return on investment] and whether they want their data sitting inside OpenAI or Anthropic. Secondary market valuations are starting to crack. Growth is slowing and capex is increasingly getting harder to finance. …
House Monopoly wants a licensing cartel and a fusion of frontier AI with the administrative state for “safety reasons”…the digital jailer many have been warning about. …
House Speed Racer wants competition and to beat China:
House Speed Racer has not been subtle. Trump called the panic a hoax and a scam. He said the only guardrails AI needs are a strong president, that we already have criminal and regulatory power over these companies, and that whoever wins AI wins. Sacks, who has been in this fight longer than most, told Amodei and Altman they can pace themselves if they want, but stop pretending they need Washington to bless a cartel. Stop asking for the waiver. Stop dressing market protection as public salvation. …
House Speed Racer wants the throttle open because the alternative according to them is losing the race to China …
The left backs House Monopoly, MAGA backs House Speed Racer:
The alignment is political, and everyone in the room knows it.
The safety rhetoric travels most easily through Democratic networks, legacy NGOs, the parts of the administrative state that grow when fear grows and of course the MSM.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s handpicked super-woke globalists he thinks will save us from an AI apocalypse
The acceleration side is MAGA coded: beat China, build here, do not hand the future to Brussels-style bureaucrats or to companies that spent years positioning themselves as the moral opposition to the current administration. That camp is not wrong that a slowdown written by the current leaders is a gift to Beijing. However it is also not wrong that data center buildouts, power prices, and labor displacement are already landing on regular people who never got a vote. …
The future is very undecided:
The ultimate governor for both sides is the credit market and its willingness to fund this so far profitless endeavor. …
There are no easy choices in this situation. Real risks exist…models that can crack cyber security and wreak havoc are not science fiction. Alternatively steam rolling local communities into accepting data centers is not the path forward.
The Economist lies about Islam. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
On the cover of its latest edition, The Economist promises to uncover “the truth and the lies” about “Islam in Europe.”
The story it presents is, for the magazine’s readership, a reassuring one: a crisis of two extreme fringes fighting across a sensible middle. But this is a false framing that betrays the complexity of Islam in Europe it promises to untangle, just when honest understanding is urgently needed. Allow me to explain why.
The editors offer a soothing symmetry: on one side, a small minority of Islamist extremists; on the other, a small minority of far-right extremists. “Islam poses no serious danger,” declares the accompanying editorial. “But Islamism and the fear of Islam do.” Both are dangerous. Both must be resisted. In this formulation, the vast majority of Muslims and the vast majority of native Europeans are peaceable people caught between two fringes.
Unfortunately, that symmetry does not reflect reality …. Consider what would have to be true for the symmetry to hold.
- There would have to be, on the European far right, a creedal architecture of comparable depth to Islamic scripture and tradition … There is not. The European far right has no scripture. It has memes, manifestos, a handful of self-published tracts, and a scattering of ideologues who cite one another. …
- There would have to be a recruitment base of comparable size. On the Islamist side, the recruiting field is the young men of a global community of about two billion people, of whom the middle classes alone number in the hundreds of millions, all of them potentially reachable through mosques, Quran schools, satellite channels, and university Islamic societies that exist in every European city. On the far-right side, the recruiting field is a scattering of subcultures made up of football-hooligan networks, online gaming communities, and obscure political parties that have never, in any European country, produced a mass following since the 1930s. They are aggressively policed by every European state, security service, employer, and mainstream media outlet. The two recruiting fields are not remotely comparable.
- There would have to be money of comparable scale. The Islamist infrastructure has been resourced, for 50 years, by well over an estimated $75 billion to $100 billion of Gulf state and private funding. It builds mosques by the thousand. It funds television channels, publishing houses, university chairs, and international NGOs. On the far-right side there is no equivalent. …
- There would have to be state power behind it. The Islamist current has, in Iran, an entire state built on its logic … It has, in Qatar and Turkey, two states that use their diplomatic, financial, and media apparatus to support the movement globally. It has, in Saudi Arabia, a state that spent decades exporting the doctrine and that even now, under a modernizing crown prince, still funds a religious establishment shot through with it. It has the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 states that consistently defends the movement’s political priorities at the United Nations. There is no equivalent on the European far-right side …
- And there is one final asymmetry, the one that ought to settle the matter once and for all. There is no flight from Europe by anyone … as a consequence of European far-right violence. No Muslims, no Jews, no atheists, no ex-Muslims, no gay men and women are packing suitcases in Frankfurt or Manchester or Marseille and applying for asylum in Cairo or Islamabad or Algiers because European far-right militants have made their lives untenable at home. The traffic runs, on a massive scale, in the opposite direction, and it has run in the opposite direction for two generations. Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, Baha’is, Ahmadiyyas, ex-Muslims, secularists, feminists, gay men and women, and religious minorities of every description are leaving the Muslim-majority world in millions, and they are coming to Europe and the rest of the West. They come because Europe, whatever else it is, is not governed by the doctrinal architecture they are fleeing.
During the Cold War, we knew the Soviet propaganda about the wonders of communism was false because people risked their lives to cross from East Germany to West Germany, but no one went the other way. Same here.
The direction of migration by itself — that is, the votes of feet cast in their tens of millions by the very people who know both worlds –is a stronger empirical statement about the relative danger of the two phenomena than any Home Office report, academic study, or half-baked media essay will ever be.
Why is The Economist — a reliable spokes-publication for the globalists — so crazy when it comes to Islam?
The Economist … would not write today that the Chinese Communist Party and the Falun Gong are symmetrical authoritarianisms. In every other domain, this magazine understands that variables such as scale, state sponsorship, and institutional depth matter; that a movement with a coherent multigenerational strategy is not the same kind of thing as a collection of aggrieved amateurs. On this subject, uniquely, the analytical standards slip. It is worth asking why.
The answer, I suspect, is that the movement itself has spent decades constructing the very framework within which the Economist editorial was written. Its second prong, after the doctrinal one and before the militant one, is a soft-power infrastructure of charities, NGOs, media relations, lobbyists, legal-defense funds, and university programs whose principal purpose is to ensure that any serious criticism of the movement can be immediately reframed as Islamophobia against Muslims as a whole. The Economist delivers that framing on a plate.
When will they wake up? When Islam invades their comfy neighborhoods?
A reader adds:
Ayaan H. A. is totally right. It always amazes me, given her background and credentials, that the craven, weak, foolish western progressives don’t actually listen to her. I mean: she’d know, wouldn’t she? And they don’t — how could they? None of them has experience comparable to hers
It’s a good example of progressive westerners projecting themselves onto something which is completely different from them. “Muslims are people and we’re people therefore they’re just like us. So how can there be a problem?” It’s progressive westerners making things up, as usual. That’s very dangerous in the long run.
The big give-away that the progressives are totally wrong is the one-way traffic from Muslim countries to ours.
Is Any Vegetable Truly Innocent? By David Archibald.
Cucumbers come close. But first the background to this line of inquiry. The globalist psychopaths who spawned global warming, covid and the other preoccupations of ‘dark triad’ personality types have plenty of time on their hands to come up with new ways to torture the rest of us. The mischievous imps created this image of the actor Kevin Bacon in a bean suit:
The beans on display are navy, pinto, black and black-eyed peas. It is a campaign by a mob called Humane World for Animals … to encourage people to eat beans instead of meat once a week. It is a revival of the sumptuary laws of the Middle Ages, under which what you could eat depended upon your social status, reinforcing the social hierarchy.
It is a bad idea promoted by bad people, but just how bad could eating vegetables be? Let’s stick to the poisons and anti-nutrients in common vegetables:
- Oxalate is used by vegetables to control intracellular calcium levels. The needle-like crystals of oxalate also defend against being eaten by insects and animals.
- Phytates bind to iron, zinc, magnesium and calcium and reduce the body’s absorption of them from the gut. They are a defense against being eaten.
- Lectins act as defense proteins by binding to foreign carbohydrate structures. They can disrupt digestion in insects and herbivores. …
The reason why vegetarians have to spend a lot of time chewing is that they need to eat a lot of beans to get enough protein in absence of meat, while the phytates in all those beans stop the absorption of iron, zinc and magnesium. It is a similar story in wheat and rice. I remember 50 years ago when it was popular to eat brown rice instead of white rice because of the extra nutrients in the bran. It turns out that the ancients milled rice and wheat to remove the bran for a reason. They didn’t know why but they knew through empirical evidence that they should.
Giving up meat for beans is a bad idea, but don’t give up on plants altogether. Human cells have receptors for a wide range of plant molecules. … Prostate cancer incidence in Vietnam is one fortieth the US rate. The difference is not genetic; it is dietary. …
The Thais have Thai salad. The Vietnamese have pho, in which the chilli provides capsaicin, the bean sprouts provide coumarins and the mint provides the molecule carvone. A lot of cancers are caused not by what we eat, but by what we don’t eat.
Would you or your children want to go to this school? A teacher in an Australian government school writes:
A fellow teacher, a friend, one of the last permanents, just resigned without even completing the rest of the term. She took a job in the Catholic system.
About a fortnight ago, she was on a sport class and was refereeing a game. A year 7 male student disagreed with a decision and started intimidating her. He got right up into her face, put his hand on her shoulder and put his other hand in her face and told her to stop talking. She managed to push to get him suspended. Upon his return, it was made clear in writing to the staff that his mum wasn’t supportive of the suspension.
The first lesson back she had with the class, this boy and his friends staged a premeditated attack. Five of them approached her and all put their hands on her, circling her. And peppered her with questions in her face. Despite it being caught on CCTV, and despite it being planned and the second instance for the main boy, he wasn’t suspended again. Only two of the other boys were given verbal warnings.
hat-tip Phil
I have no intention of assimilating; there is no white culture. By Nyadol Nyuon, a Sudanese refugee and lawyer who appeared on the ABC’s national forum on migration.
This is a perfect example of an incompatible immigrant & why we must stop 3rd world immigration & remigrate hostile incompatible migrants.
This African immigrant moves to Australia & says that there is NO WHITE CULTURE & that she dislikes the term Anglo Celtic which is who…
— Lozzy B 🇦🇺𝕏 (@TruthFairy131) September 15, 2026
Actually there is a white culture. It is a truth culture, which evolved over the last few hundred years in Europe (and to a lesser extent in northeast Asia), and stands distinct from the honor culture that prevails almost everywhere else and for almost every time before that. Krzysztof Szczawinski takes a stab at describing white culture:
Western civilization is not an idea. It is a set of working arrangements, each of which took centuries to build and any of which can be lost in a generation:
1. Law that binds the ruler as well as the ruled.
2. Trial by evidence, not by authority.
3. Property the state cannot take at will.
4. Free exchange, and the prices that make it intelligible.
5. Science: the claim that reality is real, knowable, and open to correction by anyone with better evidence.
6. The individual conscience, which no institution owns.
7. The family: the only structure that transmits all of the above and invests in people who do not yet exist.
8. These are not Western by geography. They were built here, at great cost, and adopted elsewhere because they work.
What is being dismantled as honor culture reasserts itself:
9. Truth. Institutions built to establish facts now exist to protect narratives. Where evidence and narrative conflict, the evidence is managed. A society that cannot correct itself cannot steer.
10. Merit. “Who is best for this” is replaced by “who belongs in the room.” Position is allocated by credential, network, and demonstrated loyalty. This is not equality; it is the protection of incumbents in the language of equality. …
13. Free Speech. Not by law, mostly – by cost: employment, reputation, access. The result is a population that says one thing in public and another in private, and a growing number who have left public life entirely. …
Why white culture is eroding now (apart from immigration):
15. Accumulation. Every society builds layers of protected position. People who reach the top arrange the ladder behind them. Without periodic clearing, the layers thicken until the society is run by people it cannot remove.
16. Selection. An institution told to avoid scandal will select for people who avoid scandal, and those people prevent things rather than build them. No malice is required. Give an institution the wrong mission and it will perform it faithfully.
17. Therefore replacing individuals changes nothing. The same incentives produce the same people.
What can still be defended:
18. The law still mostly works. The scientific method is intact even where scientific institutions are not. Property holds. Several nations still know what they are and say so.
19. And the monopoly on distribution is broken. For the first time in a century, an argument can reach a continent without anyone’s permission.
What must be rebuilt:
20. The rotation of elites, so that position must be re-earned.
21. The presumption of freedom to act: punishment after harm, not permission before existence.
22. Institutions that transmit — schools, apprenticeships, prizes, families — rather than merely certify.
23. An authority that says publicly what is legitimate and what is corrupt, measured against a stated hierarchy of values. Nothing else on this list gets repaired while no one’s job is to name the problem out loud. …
The standard:
29. We will be judged by whether what we say turns out to be true. That is the whole authority available to us, and it is enough.
Woke lefties described white culture with a negative slant a few years ago for the Smithsonian in Washington:
What happens to Australia when we import thousands or millions of people like the woman in the video above? It changes.
This is a perfect example of an incompatible immigrant and why we must stop third world immigration and remigrate hostile incompatible migrants.
This African immigrant moves to Australia and says that there is NO WHITE CULTURE and that she dislikes the term Anglo Celtic, which is who ethnic Australians are.
Anglo Celtics literally founded, created and built Australia with their own hands.
These entitled, arrogant narcissistic immigrants come to our country to benefit off of the sacrifices, blood, sweat and tears of our people then openly disrespect us and our ancestors.
Then they have the nerve to tell us that our identity, people, culture and nation do not exist. …
These people do not respect Australians or our culture yet at the same time they demand that we respect their identity and their culture.
They come to our country tell us who we are and what our nation is then make demands that we accept their version of our identity and nation. …
Facts are stubborn things, but play no part in honor culture:
Statistically Africans are currently the most problematic and violent group of people in Victoria. This is a fact.
At only 2% of the population, they make up over 50% of the youth prison population for serious violent crimes.
In Melbourne, the biggest fear of most Aussies is waking up during the night to five Sudanese teens standing over our beds with machetes. We sleep with one eye open now.
Aussies in Melbourne are literally building panic rooms, fortifying their homes and hiring personal security to keep these people out.
UPDATE: Drew Pavlou:
I discovered that [Nyadol Nyuon, the woman in the video above] is in fact the daughter of a Sudanese warlord who abducted and enslaved hundreds of child soldiers, dozens of whom starved to death.
Human Rights Watch accused William Nyuon Bany of these horrific crimes against humanity in a September 1995 report titled ”Children in Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers.”
South Sudanese Australian lawyer Nyadol Nyuon posted Instagram photos celebrating her warlord father as late ONE WEEK before Australian state broadcaster ABC selected her to speak for the pro-migration side in a national migration debate.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
One Nation’s call for fewer immigrants.
Australians are screaming out for mass migration to be cut because they are doing it tough.
They can’t find a home, can’t get a hospital bed and spend every morning stuck in traffic. I’m listening to them, not economists who keep getting it wrong, bureaucrats, politicians or big business chasing cheap labour.
More than 150,000 Australians are homeless, living in cars, tents or couch surfing….
I want migration returned to sustainable levels so our quality of life can improve. …
The uniparty people all scream that we’ll be economically ruined without ever more immigrants to do all the jobs. This brilliantly made French piss-take is their essential argument — notice all the doctors and engineers!
*BRILLIANT*
The French made a short film about what could happen after all immigrants would follow the ‘_white, angry old man’s_’ advice to go back where they came from.* pic.twitter.com/sDtSiGKvjU— Leena-Palestine (@Leena53022916) September 12, 2026
The globalists say we need immigrants to do the low-paying jobs that Australians won’t do, such as casual farm labor. Well there’s a solution for that — and it’s exactly the point. Pay more and Australians will do all the jobs. Duh.
Mass immigration lowers wages, especially at the low end. Which lowers living standards for those who depend on wages, especially at the low end. It’s supply and demand. But guess who it benefits? Those who’s income is mostly asset appreciation, or have high end jobs, or jobs that are insulated from competition from migrants. (Oh, the people in favor of mass immigration!)
Mass immigration raises home prices and causes overcrowding of our infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, and schools.
And that’s just on the numbers, before considering which immigrants arrive. Do they come from truth cultures (i.e. whites, north east Asians) or honor cultures (the rest of the world)? Truth and honor cultures are incompatible — there is no multiculturalism possible. Truth cultures only arose in the last few hundreds years, after millions of years of evolution, but leaped ahead technologically. If truth culture nations are swamped with non-assimilated people sticking to their to their honor cultures (“my tribe is more important than the truth, there are only winners and losers, oppressed and oppressors, exploited and exploiters, might makes right”) then a new dark age begins as truth culture gets snuffed out.
One Nation’s immigration policy:
Don’t hear much in the media about the details of One Nation’s policy. Too busy hiding her policies, but playing gotcha with Pauline.
Honor or truth: Can we say that Australian Aboriginals were among the most primitive of races? By Craig Kelly.
It might be uncomfortable, but it’s the truth.
Around 20,000 years ago, as the Earth’s climate changed — as it has throughout history — sea levels rose, severing the land bridges that had once connected Australia to New Guinea and mainland Asia, and Australia’s Aboriginal peoples became isolated from the rest of humanity.
For thousands of generations they remained in extraordinary isolation, trapped (Antarctica aside) on one harshest inhabited continent on Earth.
Without domesticated animals for transport or agriculture, and particularly without horses or other beasts of burden, they lived in a harsh and unforgiving environment where survival itself demanded extraordinary resilience.
Separated from other civilisations for millennia, technological development remained comparatively limited.
No written language emerged, nor metallurgy or ceramics, and only simplest canoes and stone tools were used. And Australia appears to be the only inhabited continent where the bow and arrow was never developed or widely adopted.
Honor culture is creeping over Australia. For years now we have only been able to say positive things about Aboriginals. Many lies are told about Aboriginals in public, but there are encouraged by the ruling class because they are positive about Aboriginals. In an honor culture, status matters more than truth. The status of aboriginals must be raised, according to the ruling class. Even in truly racist ways (e.g. the Voice) or when it harms us (e.g. mandatory aboriginal maths in school).
But what Pauline Hanson said is true, or close enough (ok, it’s a nitpicker’s delight). In a truth culture, that’s enough to make it permissible to say, albeit impolite. In a truth culture, we act and make policies that accommodate the truth, not punish the truth tellers.
Honor culture means not hurting the feelings of the powerful or those the powerful choose to protect at any given moment. It is not compatible with truth culture.
Albanese’s mother’s housing is a legitimate issue because he’s spent 30 years boasting about it in public. By Ryan Daly.
Anthony Albanese spent 30 years selling the houso story. Pauline just asked why his mum kept the house for 65 years.
Albo just fronted the cameras emotional and steaming, slamming Pauline Hanson as “nasty and spiteful” for comments about his late mother.
He said he’s “stunned”, that Maryanne was “way out of Pauline Hanson’s league”, and that he’s “proud to be a houso”.
Fine.
No one is stopping him from being proud of “being a houso”
What Pauline actually said, months ago on Stefanovic, then again this week, is the bit they don’t want discussed:
“Public housing is a hand up, not a 65 year occupancy. You get help, then it should move on to the next family coming through”
That’s it. …
Albanese has used the Camperdown commission house story as a political prop for his entire career. Victory speeches. Interviews. Every time he needs the humbleorigin card.
The moment someone points out that scarce public housing shouldn’t be a lifetime tenancy while other Australians are in cars and tents, suddenly it’s an unforgivable attack on a dead woman.
Lozzy B. on the selling of the smear:
Meanwhile he calls Hanson dangerous, divisive and appealing to dark forces 🙄
A man that cries about a true statement made by another politician on national TV should not be leading a nation. Pathetic.
Albanese is not exactly addicted to telling the truth. He seems pretty comfortable with honor culture.