Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.
- The Deal That Isn't A Deal
- A Climate Model Built On Reality
- Importing Problems
- Europe's Great Unravelling
- Fire The Liar
Cartoon of the Day
Monday, 22 June 2026
Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 26 of 2026
Fire the Liar
Politics often changes slowly. Then, every so often, something snaps.
For nearly three decades, Pauline Hanson and One Nation occupied a small but persistent corner of Australian politics, typically polling around 5–6%. They were dismissed as a protest party with a loyal but limited following.
Not anymore.
Over the past six to nine months, One Nation's support has surged. Polls now place the party at around 30%, ahead of Labor and well ahead of the Coalition. Whether those numbers hold until the next election is another matter, but the political message is unmistakable: a growing number of Australians are looking elsewhere.
Why?
Because many Australians believe the country is moving in the wrong direction.
Energy bills continue to climb as governments pursue expensive climate policies. Government spending has fuelled inflation. Immigration has reached record levels while housing and infrastructure struggle to cope. Household incomes have gone backwards. Communities have watched years of antisemitic demonstrations following the October 7 atrocities with what many see as an inadequate government response. The return of ISIS brides, growing social division and concerns about Australia's cultural identity have added to a sense that the government is failing on too many fronts.
Against that backdrop, One Nation's message is remarkably simple.
Reduce government spending. Pursue the lowest-cost energy. Restart resource exploration. Cut immigration to sustainable levels. Be far more selective about where migrants come from. Stop dividing Australians by race or religion and apply the same rules to everyone.
Whether you agree with those policies or not, they are clear, consistent and easy to understand.
But the real political earthquake came with Labor's latest Budget.
After repeatedly ruling out changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing before the election, the government reversed course. It was not merely another policy shift—it was seen by many voters as a broken promise.
That perception has proven far more damaging than the policies themselves.
One Nation seized the moment with a brilliantly simple fundraising campaign: "Fire the Liar."
Within just two weeks, the campaign reportedly attracted more than 50,000 donors and raised almost $5 million. It even spawned a song.
That is more than a fundraising success. It is a measure of public anger.
This was not the government's first change of position, but it appears to have been the one that finally exhausted the electorate's patience. The budget became the straw that broke the camel's back.
Of course, there are still two years before Australians vote. Polls can change dramatically. One Nation will need candidates, volunteers and a much larger campaign organisation if it hopes to convert polling support into parliamentary seats.
Today's surge could fade as quickly as it arrived.
Or it could mark the beginning of a profound realignment in Australian politics.
Either way, one lesson should already be clear.
Voters will forgive mistakes.
They are far less willing to forgive broken promises.
And perhaps that is the healthiest development of all.
In a democracy, governments should never forget that elections are won on trust—and lost when that trust is broken.
Friday, 19 June 2026
Europe's Great Unravelling
One of the most thought-provoking articles I have read recently comes from the Gatestone Institute's "Is Saving Europe Still Possible?" by Guy Millière. Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, it raises a question that European leaders seem increasingly reluctant to confront.
The article focuses heavily on the dramatic rise in antisemitic attacks across Europe, particularly in Britain, where Jewish communities increasingly report feeling unsafe. It details attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools, businesses and individuals, arguing that these incidents are no longer isolated events but part of a broader social transformation. (Gatestone Institute)
Many commentators treat this explosion of antisemitism as the problem itself.
I think it is better understood as a symptom.
The deeper issue is that Europe has experienced decades of large-scale migration from parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia without requiring successful cultural integration into the values that made Western civilisation successful in the first place.
Western civilisation did not emerge by accident.
It was built over centuries upon Judeo-Christian ethics, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, individual liberty, private property, democratic government, respect for women, and the belief that rights belong to individuals rather than tribes or religious groups.
Those values created the freest, most prosperous and most tolerant societies in human history.
The concern raised by the Gatestone article is that Europe is steadily importing populations whose cultural traditions, in some cases, have developed very different views about religion, political authority, women's rights, free speech and the relationship between faith and the state. The author argues that political leaders have often been unwilling to acknowledge these differences openly or discuss the consequences of rapid demographic change. (Gatestone Institute)
The result, critics argue, has been rising social tension, growing pressure on public services, higher crime in some communities, increasing political polarisation and, most visibly since October 2023, an explosion of antisemitic demonstrations and violence. While the causes of crime and social unrest are complex and vary across countries, concerns about integration have become increasingly prominent in political debate across Europe. (Gatestone Institute)
The tragedy is that antisemitism is only the visible warning light on the dashboard.
If Europe loses confidence in the very principles that created modern liberal democracy, then everyone eventually loses—not only Jews, but women, religious minorities, political dissidents and ordinary citizens who expect equal treatment under the law.
A civilisation survives only while enough people believe it is worth preserving.
That does not mean rejecting immigration.
Europe has benefited enormously from migrants who embrace its laws, freedoms and institutions and who wish to become part of their adopted countries.
But immigration policy cannot simply be measured by the number of arrivals. It must also ask whether newcomers are integrating into the host society or whether the host society is gradually being transformed into something fundamentally different.
Every nation has not only the right but the responsibility to protect the institutions, culture and values that allowed it to flourish.
The real question facing Europe therefore is not whether it can tolerate diversity.
It always has.
The question is whether it still possesses enough confidence to defend the civilisation that made that diversity possible in the first place.
Whether one agrees entirely with Guy Millière's conclusions or not, his article deserves to be read because it asks a question that Europe can no longer afford to avoid.
Read the original article here:
Wednesday, 17 June 2026
Importing Problems
Whenever immigration is discussed, politicians immediately start talking about numbers. One hundred thousand. Five hundred thousand. A million.
The numbers do matter, but there is a more important question.
That question is what happens after they arrive.
If immigration leaves a country safer, more prosperous and more cohesive, then it has been a success.
If it leaves a country more divided, less safe and politically unstable, then it has been a failure.
It really is that simple.
Judge the Policy, Not the Intention
Every government has one fundamental responsibility. To protect the safety, freedom and well-being of its own citizens. Everything else comes second.
Immigration is therefore not a humanitarian exercise. It is a public policy. Like every public policy it should be judged by its results.
Has crime increased? Has terrorism increased? Has social cohesion improved or deteriorated? Do citizens feel safer or less safe?
These are measurable outcomes. They matter far more than the number of visas issued.
Europe Has Become the World's Largest Experiment
For years many European governments insisted that questioning migration policy was driven by prejudice.
Now reality has caught up.
Across Europe, anti-immigration parties are growing because millions of ordinary voters have concluded that their governments ignored obvious warning signs.
The recent unrest in Belfast is another example. Following the alleged stabbing of a local man by a Sudanese asylum seeker, widespread disorder erupted across parts of the city. The riots themselves were criminal and deserved condemnation, but they were also evidence of something deeper—a public that has lost confidence in its government's ability to manage immigration.
The same pattern can be seen elsewhere.
Violent crime involving some recent migrant communities. Terrorist attacks. Growing pressure on police. Parallel societies.
Then comes the inevitable reaction from a minority of the existing population—protests, riots, and sometimes retaliatory violence.
Governments end up importing two problems instead of one.
First, they import people who, in some cases, contribute disproportionately to crime, extremism or social conflict.
Second, they create the conditions in which a small but dangerous minority of their own citizens becomes radicalised in response.
Neither outcome benefits the peaceful majority on either side.
Denmark Chose a Different Path
One country looked at these outcomes and changed course.
The above graph shows the crime rate in Denmark by Nation of Origin for the period 2010-2021. The crime rate is significantly higher for migrants from Middle East and North Africa.
It is a clear warning. Not all migrants carry the same risk.
If a government's objective is to preserve a safe, stable and cohesive society, they must impose much tighter control over migration and much stronger expectations of integration.
That is exactly what governments are elected to do.
Australia Should Learn the Lesson
Australia is fortunate.
We still have the opportunity to learn from the experience of others before our problems become as entrenched.
The Bondi terrorist attack was a reminder that Australia is not somehow immune from the ideological and cultural conflicts affecting other Western nations.
Ignoring overseas evidence because it is politically uncomfortable is not compassion.
It is negligence.
Put Citizens First
None of this means every migrant is a criminal. That would be absurd.
However policy is never made for individuals. It is made for populations and probabilities. Insurance companies understand this. Public health authorities understand this. Governments should understand it too.
If repeated experience shows that migration from particular regions is consistently associated with higher risks of crime, terrorism or social conflict, responsible governments should take that evidence seriously when deciding future immigration policy.
Their first duty is not to maximise immigration. It is not to satisfy international opinion. It is not to avoid difficult conversations.
Their first duty is to protect the people who already live within their borders.
Migration should never be judged by good intentions.
It should always be judged by outcomes.
And when the outcomes are poor, good governments change the policy.
Tuesday, 16 June 2026
A Climate Model Built On Reality
For years we have been told that "the science is settled."
The public has been assured that climate models have spoken, the future is known, and all that remains is deciding how much economic pain we are willing to endure to prevent catastrophe.
There has always been one awkward problem with that narrative.
The models have not performed particularly well.
Many of the complex climate models used by the IPCC have consistently projected more warming than has actually occurred. Their forecasts are so diverse that some predict modest warming while others forecast climate disaster. If the science were truly settled, why do the models disagree so dramatically?
That is why a recent article titled "The Model That Works" on Watts Up With That caught my attention. It describes a climate model that takes a radically different approach. Instead of attempting to simulate every cloud, ocean current, weather pattern and atmospheric process on Earth, it focuses on a few key physical relationships that can actually be measured.
A Simpler View of Climate
The model begins with a straightforward idea.
Earth's temperature is determined by the balance between energy entering the system from the Sun and energy leaving the system back into space.
Two observable factors largely control this balance:
Albedo – how much incoming sunlight is reflected back into space.
Greenhouse factor – how much outgoing infrared radiation is trapped by the atmosphere.
More energy coming in than going out means warming.
More energy leaving than entering means cooling.
So far, this sounds like Climate Science 101.
The interesting part is that the model does not assume the climate system is static. Instead, it treats the atmosphere and oceans as an evolving system that continuously reorganises itself to move energy as efficiently as possible. The result is a dynamic model that appears to mirror how the real Earth behaves.
The Surprising Result
The author compared the model's output with actual observations of Earth's climate.
Instead of producing wildly divergent futures like many IPCC models, this simpler model closely tracks observed temperatures and climate patterns.
No model is perfect.
The author himself acknowledges that this is not a complete description of Earth's climate.
But it passes an important test.
It correlates with reality.
That alone makes it worthy of attention.
What Does It Say About CO₂?
This is where the story becomes particularly interesting.
The model suggests that the warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO₂ is likely toward the lower end of previous estimates. In climate jargon, it implies a lower "climate sensitivity" than many of the more alarming projections assume.
In plain English:
The amount CO₂ contributes to warming may be substantially less than the worst-case scenarios that dominate headlines.
That does not mean climate change is imaginary, but the climate catastrophe narrative is wrong.
The Good News
If this model is even approximately correct, the future looks very different from the one often presented by activists and politicians.
Instead of:
Runaway warming
Climate apocalypse
Economic collapse
Emergency measures to eliminate fossil fuels
We are looking at:
Gradual warming
Manageable adaptation
Continued technological progress
More time to develop practical energy solutions
It is a reason for rationality, and human beings are remarkably good at adapting to changing conditions. We always have been.
The Science Is Not Settled
Perhaps the most important lesson from this model is not the exact temperature forecast.
It is the reminder that science is never settled. Science advances by testing ideas against reality. When a model agrees with observations, scientists pay attention.
The model described by Watts Up With That may not be the final answer. Further testing and validation will be needed.
But it offers something increasingly rare in climate discussions: a reason for optimism.
If the model proves broadly correct, then the future is not one of climate apocalypse.
It is one of manageable change.
And perhaps that is the most important message of all.
The evidence increasingly suggests that humanity's future challenge may be adaptation, not survival.
That is a very different conversation from the one we have been hearing for the last twenty years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)