The Great Renewable Lie: Bowen’s Favourite Line is a Lie

It is hard to know whether to laugh or despair when Australia’s Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, alongside the PM Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers, repeats the same tired mantra:

“Renewables are the lowest cost form of energy generation.”

This line has become the centrepiece of Labor’s energy strategy — a strategy currently producing the highest electricity prices in Australian history, and now helping push inflation back up to 3.8%, with a staggering 37% rise in electricity prices in just 12 months.

If renewables are “the cheapest,” someone forgot to tell reality.

And as Bjørn Lomborg explained in a devastating interview with Dave Rubin, Bowen’s claim is not just misleading — it is fundamentally dishonest. The trick lies in what they don’t say.

The Insidious Half-Truth

Lomborg puts it bluntly:
People say wind and solar are cheap — and technically that can be true when the sun shines and the wind blows. Under perfect conditions, the cost of generating electricity is low.

But reality is not perfect.
And outside those ideal conditions, Lomborg says, renewables instantly become “the most expensive power on the planet — because you simply can’t get it.”

This is the part Bowen never mentions.

Electricity is not optional. Hospitals, refrigeration, manufacturing, traffic lights, water pumping, telecommunications — the entire modern economy — need power 24 hours a day, not just when the weather cooperates.

So the real question isn’t:
“Is solar cheap at noon on a sunny day?”

It’s:
“What does it cost to run a whole society on energy that only shows up part-time?”

And here the renewable fairytale collapses.

The More Renewables You Have, the Higher Your Bills Go

Lomborg cites global data showing a simple, uncomfortable truth:
Countries with very little wind and solar have cheap electricity.
Countries with lots of wind and solar have expensive electricity.

He explains the pattern clearly:

“You have China and India down here… the US a little higher… the EU all the way up there. There are no countries that have lots of solar and wind and cheap power.”

None.

This is not a coincidence. It is the unavoidable economic reality of intermittent energy:
When sunshine and breezes become the backbone of your grid, reliability disappears and backup becomes the dominant cost.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem.

The Battery Fantasy

Bowen and Albanese constantly talk about “firmed renewables” — wind and solar allegedly backed up by batteries.

But here’s the truth they will never say aloud.

To run the United States on solar alone, you would need batteries capable of storing three months of electricity — enough to get through cloudy weather, seasonal variation and multi-day lulls. Right now, the US has ten minutes of national battery storage.

Lomborg calculates the cost of batteries to fill that gap:
Around one-third of the entire US GDP — every year — just to maintain them.
This does not include the cost of the solar panels themselves, or the grid infrastructure. Just the batteries.

Bowen’s “cheap renewables” claim falls apart on this point alone.

You can have cheap solar at lunchtime.
Or you can have electricity at night.
But you cannot have “cheap renewables 24/7” — not with today’s technology, and not with anything on the horizon.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or dangerous.

Australia’s Crisis: The Results Are Already Here

Labor insists we must replace coal with wind and solar at breakneck speed.
The result?

• 37% increase in electricity costs in a year

• Industries shutting down because energy prices make them uncompetitive

• Predictable blackouts and emergency interventions

• Inflation rising again, driven partly by energy costs

• Households under financial stress while being told to “save the planet”

Meanwhile, Bowen looks straight at the camera and assures us:
“Renewables are the cheapest form of power.”

Only a politician could deliver a line so confidently while the evidence burns behind him.

What Bowen NEVER Tells You

1. Renewables are cheap only when they work.

2. They require massive backup — batteries, gas or coal — that doubles or triples system cost.

3. No country has ever run a reliable grid on wind and solar alone.

4. The more renewables a country installs, the higher electricity prices go.

5. Australia is repeating Europe’s mistakes — on purpose.

This is not “the lowest cost energy system.” 

It is the most expensive experiment ever attempted in Australian history.

What Australia Should Actually Do

Lomborg’s answer is simple and sane:

• Expand gas — cheap, abundant, low-emissions, reliable.

• Fast-track next-generation nuclear, as the advanced economies are doing.

• Keep some coal capacity until genuine alternatives exist.

• Invest modestly in R&D for future breakthroughs.

• Stop pretending batteries can replace baseload power.

Australia once had some of the cheapest electricity on earth.
Under Bowen and Albanese, we now have some of the fastest-rising prices in the developed world.
The cause is not mysterious.
It is not climate.
It is not Putin.
It is not the weather.

It is policy.

And the lie at the centre of that policy — that renewables are “the cheapest form of energy” — has now crippled our economy and hammered our cost of living.

The sooner we reject it, the sooner Australia can get back to being prosperous, competitive and sane.

________________________________________________________________

Here is the Lomborg interview referred to in the above.

Migration: It’s Not the Numbers — It’s the Outcomes That Matter

The immigration debate in Western countries has become strangely narrow. Governments talk endlessly about how many migrants should be admitted each year, as though any number is acceptable as long as the spreadsheet balances. What almost never gets discussed — and what truly matters — is who we are bringing in, and whether they actually integrate into the society that welcomes them.

Denmark has just offered the world something rare in today’s climate:
honesty.

A recent breakdown of Danish data by country of origin — covering crime, fiscal contribution, education and employment — shows a truth that Western political elites refuse to confront. Migration outcomes differ dramatically depending on where people come from. And the differences aren’t subtle.

Migrants from Europe, East Asia and other advanced economies tend to integrate well: high employment, strong educational outcomes, minimal crime, and often a positive fiscal contribution. But migrants from Africa and the Middle East show persistently higher crime rates, lower employment, poorer educational attainment, and long-term negative effects on public finances. Even second-generation outcomes lag substantially.

These are not opinions. They are data.
And ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.

The following table shows "Violent Crime Conviction Rate in Denmark by Nation of Origin, 2010-2021".  The red and orange bars show Middle Eastern and Other African migrants, highlightinh the significantly greater crime rate for these migrant groups.

The problem is not migration itself — it is the type of migration Western governments choose to pursue. We pretend all migrants are interchangeable, that backgrounds don’t matter, that culture is irrelevant, and that “assimilation” is an outdated concept. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that assimilation isn’t just desirable — it is essential. Without it, we don’t get multicultural harmony. We get parallel societies, rising welfare costs, entrenched disadvantage, and growing public resentment.

A serious country would look at this and ask hard questions:

• Are certain migrant groups thriving, or consistently struggling?

• Are the newcomers integrating into the host culture, or forming separate enclaves?

• Are they contributing economically — or relying disproportionately on welfare?

• Are crime rates rising or falling with each intake wave?

• Are we strengthening social cohesion — or eroding it?

These are not “racist” questions.
They are the basic due-diligence questions any nation should ask when deciding who gets to join its society.

Yet much of the Western political class seems terrified to ask them — let alone answer them. They fear that acknowledging differences in outcomes may offend activists, voters, or their own ideological commitments. And so the debate is smothered under clichés about “diversity” and “vibrancy,” while the actual results of poorly targeted migration continue to accumulate in our school systems, police statistics, and welfare budgets.

Denmark at least has the courage to look.
Other countries should do the same.

Migration can be one of the greatest strengths of a nation — but only when it is selective, thoughtful, and grounded in reality rather than wishful thinking. A country has every right to prefer migrants who are likely to integrate, contribute and embrace civic values. And it has every right — indeed, every responsibility — to limit or reform migration flows that repeatedly produce negative outcomes.

Pretending all migration is equal doesn’t make us kinder. It makes us foolish.

If we want migration to work, to genuinely enrich society rather than divide it, then we need to have the discussion our leaders keep avoiding:
Who is succeeding? Who is struggling? And why are we ignoring the difference?

Until we confront those questions honestly, we will continue importing problems we cannot solve — and exporting the social cohesion we once took for granted.

---

If 

Burqas, Bans and the Ban on Debate

Pauline Hanson walked into the Senate wearing a burqa — and was promptly banned from the chamber.

Fine. Agree or disagree with her stunt, that’s politics. But what happened next says far more about Australia in 2025 than it does about Hanson.

Because apparently, we’re now at the point where the issue itself can’t even be discussed.

Let me be clear: my concern here isn’t whether the burqa should be banned (though I personally think it should).
My concern is that the debate is being banned.

Avi Yemini captured the moment perfectly: outside the political media bubble, most people weren’t outraged by Hanson — they were laughing at the senators clutching their pearls. These are the same politicians who routinely use parliament as a stage for their own divisive props and lectures. Yet the moment they get a taste of their own medicine, suddenly they cry “unconstitutional!” and demand silence.

Unconstitutional?
For wearing a burqa?
If anything, the implied right to political communication protects exactly this kind of protest. The argument was so backwards it almost sounded like they were the ones wanting the burqa banned.

And here lies the hypocrisy:
The Senate had just shut down Hanson’s bill — the very bill that would have made her stunt illegal. In other words, they want the right to use parliament for their own theatrics, but they want to block others from making their point in the same way.

This isn’t about respect.
It isn’t about religion.
It isn’t even about Pauline Hanson.

It’s about the slow creep of cancel culture into the halls of parliament — a growing belief that certain topics simply cannot be discussed because the public might think the “wrong” thing if they’re allowed to hear the arguments.

A mature democracy debates ideas.
A fragile one bans them.

And judging by this episode, we’re heading in the wrong direction.

Here is Avi Yemini's take.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 48, 2025)

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Cost of Living: Democrat vs Republican
  
• ABC caught editing Trump, then Declares it Didn't - Judge for Yourself
  
• Censorship Creep:The New Western Trend to Silence Dissent
  
• How to Stop the West's Decline
  
• ChatGPT's predictions for the Next 10 years
  
• Burqas, Bans and Bans on Debate
  
• Migration: It's Not the Numbers - It's the Outcomes that Matter
  
• Anyone concerned about the dire warnings of imminent Climate Catastrophe must watch this summary of 32 false predictions made by Climate Zealots,

• The Great Renewable Lie: Bowen's Favourite Line is a Lie
  

 

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

The Next Ten Years: ChatGPT’s Top Predictions — The Good and the Bad

Every generation likes to imagine it lives at a turning point, but the next decade genuinely looks set to reshape our world — for better and for worse. Given we are entering the AI age, I thought I would ask AI to predict the trends that will most affect our lives in the coming decade. I asked for predictions of beneficial changes and 5 predictions of harmful changes. 

Below is a concise list of predictions generated by ChatGPT, based on current global trends, technological progress and historical patterns.

These aren’t prophecies, nor guarantees — simply informed forecasts from an AI model trained on vast global data.

Make of them what you will.

🔵 ChatGPT's Five Predictions That Will Benefit Society

1. AI-Driven Medical Breakthroughs

AI will outperform doctors in early detection of many diseases, catching cancers and heart problems long before symptoms appear.
Healthcare becomes faster, cheaper and more preventative.

2. Gene Therapy and Targeted Treatments Go Mainstream

mRNA and gene-editing tools move from experimental to widely accessible, offering genuine cures for inherited and chronic diseases.

3. Clean, Reliable Energy Becomes Cheaper

Advances in battery storage, solar efficiency and small modular reactors will reduce energy costs and stabilise power grids.

4. Personal AI Will Transform Productivity

Most professions will use personal AI assistants to automate admin, research and communication, boosting individual productivity dramatically.

5. Education Becomes Personalised and Universal

AI tutors will give every student access to near one-on-one learning, reducing educational inequality and helping people retrain throughout life.

🔴 ChatGPT's Five Predictions That Will Harm Society

1. Greater Social Fragmentation

Algorithmic personalisation will deepen ideological bubbles. Shared national narratives weaken, and public debate becomes even more polarised.

2. Mass Job Displacement

Automation and AI will replace millions of routine jobs faster than governments can design reskilling systems.
A large “left-behind” class emerges unless action is taken.

3. Escalating Government Censorship

Many Western governments will expand speech control under the banners of “safety” and “misinformation.”
Digital freedoms shrink.

4. AI-Powered Cybercrime Surge

Deepfakes, voice clones and automated scams become widespread, eroding trust in online communication and making fraud harder to detect.

5. Declining Birth Rates Trigger Instability

Falling fertility across the West leads to demographic stress, labour shortages, pension crises and political battles over immigration.

Final Thought

These predictions, generated by ChatGPT, offer a glimpse of the crossroads ahead: a decade of remarkable opportunity — and equally significant risk.
Which path we take depends, as always, on the choices we make today.

How to Stop the West's Decline

In a recent debate in Norway, Konstantin Kisin delivered one of the clearest, sharpest diagnoses of the West’s current malaise that I’ve heard in years. It was part warning, part wake-up call, and very much grounded in the perspective of someone who has lived both inside and outside Western civilisation.

Below is a summary of the key points he made. I’ll also include the full video for anyone who wants to watch the talk in its entirety — and trust me, it’s worth the time.

A Man Who Has Seen Decline Before

Kisin begins by framing his vantage point: born in the Soviet Union, raised in early-1990s Russia, and now living in the UK. He calls himself both an insider and an outsider — someone who recognises the signs of societal unraveling because he has seen it first-hand.

His early warning is blunt:
Western societies are heating up like the proverbial boiling frog — and many people don’t even notice.

The West Is in Decline — But Not Because It Must Be

Kisin rejects the comforting narrative that talk of “Western decline” is overblown. Instead, he notes that:

• Many in our own intellectual and media classes want the West to be in decline, because it validates an ideological narrative of Western guilt and historical sin.

• This worldview has become so internalised that societies are questioning their own right to survive and flourish.

But decline is not inevitable. It is a choice — or perhaps more accurately, the result of a lack of choice, a refusal to act.

How We Know Western Civilization Is Still the Best Game in Town

Kisin points out a simple, powerful metric:
Where do people risk their lives to go?

Millions of people are trying to get into Western nations. Almost no one is trying to get out.
Australia, the US, Britain — all see a one-way flow of migration. Whatever our flaws, the world is voting with its feet.

Courage Lost — The Beginning of Decline

Drawing on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous 1978 Harvard speech, Kisin argues that:

The West is suffering a collapse of courage — especially among its elites.

Political and intellectual leaders:

• avoid confrontation with powerful adversaries,

• but enforce rigid ideological compliance on their own populations,

• and increasingly pretend that weakness is a moral virtue.

This, he warns, is historically the first step toward decline.

The Economic Reality: We’re Getting Poorer

Kisin highlights a stark fact that many politicians conveniently ignore:

• GDP per capita (the measure that matters to ordinary people)

• has stagnated or declined across much of the West since 2007.

Countries like Britain, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece and many others are seeing:

• lower real incomes,

• shrinking opportunity,

• and worsening public services.

A key driver?
Governments chase GDP growth by importing more people, not by boosting productivity or innovation.

The result is “fake growth” that masks social strain and declining living standards.

Demography: The Decline No One Wants to Face

Western fertility rates are collapsing.
In Britain, the average woman now has fewer than 1.6 children — well below replacement.
The same is true across Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.

Kisin points out the uncomfortable truth:

• A society that doesn’t reproduce will inevitably rely on mass immigration.

• Without a shared identity and a common purpose, this becomes destabilising rather than enriching.

He stresses that low birth rates are cultural, economic, and spiritual issues rolled together — and ignoring them is not a viable strategy.

Loss of Shared Identity and Fear of Speaking Honestly

Kisin laments that Western societies are fragmenting into micro-identities:

• ethnic,

• religious,

• gender-based,

• sexual,

• political.

Instead of being Norwegian, British, American or Australian first, people increasingly define themselves as something else first and foremost.

And when it comes to difficult topics such as immigration, crime, integration or cultural cohesion, Kisin argues that:

• ordinary people are afraid to speak,

• the police are sometimes deployed against speech,

• and elites prefer to pretend everything is normal.

Without honesty, decline accelerates.

This Isn’t a War — It’s Something Much Harder

Kisin makes a striking point:
If the West were attacked like Ukraine or Israel, millions would rally to defend it.

But our current crisis is not a war — it is a slow, creeping malaise.
There is no enemy army to fight, no single event to galvanise the population.

That is precisely why it is so dangerous.

The People Get the Policies They Demand

Kisin argues that politicians are not the only ones at fault.
Western voters themselves:

• demand bigger governments,

• higher taxes,

• and more state control,

• while punishing any leader who proposes entrepreneurial reform.

Meanwhile, countries like Argentina (under Milei) and the US (under deregulation-focused administrations) show that people will rally around leaders who promise growth, ambition and bold change.

Europe, by comparison, prefers managerialism.

Rediscovering Who We Are

Kisin closes with a challenge:
The West became great not by bureaucracy or entitlement, but by daring, building, creating and dreaming big.

As he puts it:

“We’re supposed to reach for the stars, not into our neighbours’ pockets.”

Until we decide — consciously — to become a civilization that wants to succeed again, decline will continue.

Final Thought

Kisin’s message isn’t one of doom.
It’s a call to action — to recover confidence, ambition, honesty and courage.

The full video is below.
Whether you agree with him or not, it’s one of the clearest articulations of the West’s challenges you’ll hear this year.

Censorship Creep: The New Western Trend to Silence Dissent

Something remarkable — and disturbing — is happening across the Western world.

One after another, left-leaning governments have begun tightening their grip on speech. Not hate speech, not threats, not incitement — but speech, plain and simple. Opinions. Posts. Criticism.

In the past, censorship was something we associated with authoritarian regimes. Today it’s coming from governments that loudly celebrate “democracy,” “openness,” and “tolerance”… while quietly rewriting laws to decide which opinions citizens are allowed to express.

And it’s not just happening in one country. A pattern is emerging — Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and the EU — all moving in the same direction, all insisting it’s “for your safety.”

Someone needs protecting, that’s for sure — but it’s not the public. It’s the governments.

The UK: Jail Time for Tweets

The UK has some of the most aggressive speech-restriction laws in the Western world. Under the Communications Act and the Public Order Act, people have already been arrested, charged, and in some cases jailed for:

• Posting “offensive” jokes

• Misgendering someone

• Uploading song lyrics

• Sharing political criticism judged to cause “distress”

Police even warned citizens that “being offensive is an offence.” (Yes, that really happened.)

The new Online Safety Act goes even further — social media platforms must remove “harmful but legal” content or face massive fines. In other words: speech that is legal may still be banned. And if the platforms don’t throttle it, the government punishes them.

This is no longer about policing crime.
This is policing ideas.

Australia: The eSafety Commissioner and the Expanding Censorship Machine

Australia now finds itself at the centre of a free-speech storm thanks to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant — a bureaucrat with extraordinary powers to order global companies to take down posts she considers “harmful.” Not illegal, not criminal — just “harmful,” defined by her.

Recently, she imposed takedown demands on social media companies, at one point ordering them to blanket-block worldwide content because she believed Australians shouldn’t see it. When the platforms resisted, she escalated.

And now, ironically, it’s the United States stepping in to tell Australia to stop censoring Americans.

A recent Sky News discussion captures the tension perfectly. Here’s a key excerpt from aAndrew Bolt in his recent critique, (the full video is reproduced below.):

“…the only people who could save us from this insanity would be the Americans and that it would be the Trump administration who would ride to our rescue…
the Trump administration will not tolerate its allies… trampling all over Americans’ free speech, the First Amendment. They made it crystal clear.”

The discussion goes on to describe the chaos surrounding Australia’s incoming under-16 social-media ban, which even the government cannot explain, and which the eSafety Commissioner herself cannot defend under Senate questioning.

This is the hallmark of censorship regimes: sweeping powers, vague rules, and bureaucrats who can’t explain what they’re enforcing.

Canada: Trudeau’s War on Online Speech

Canada’s Bill C-11 and C-18 were the first warning shots — empowering regulators to control what Canadians see online and forcing platforms to boost government-approved content.

But what came next was worse: Bill C-63, the “Online Harms Act,” which creates:

• A digital “speech regulator”

• Criminal penalties for “hate” defined so broadly it can include political criticism

• Pre-crime speech laws — yes, Canadians can be punished for speech they might commit

Even lifelong Liberal supporters have warned that the bill transforms Canada into a “soft authoritarian” state.

New Zealand: Regulating Wrongthink

Under Ardern, NZ pushed the “Christchurch Call,” urging global censorship of “extremist content.” But like all these initiatives, “extremist” soon expanded to mean “content the government doesn’t like.”

The government now works directly with platforms to remove posts considered “harmful” — another subjective definition that conveniently includes criticism of the government.

Why Is This Happening?

It’s no mystery.
Left-leaning governments worldwide are adopting the same mindset:

1. Criticism is destabilising.

2. Social media spreads criticism quickly.

3. Therefore, social media must be controlled.

They rarely say this out loud. Instead, they invoke:

• “Safety”

• “Disinformation”

• “Community harm”

• “Extremism”

• “Misinformation”

These words are the Trojan horses of censorship.
The goal is not to protect democracy — it’s to protect those in power from democratic scrutiny.

And the more unpopular their policies become, the more aggressively they try to control the conversation.

The United States Throws a Lifeline

Ironically, the country many progressives love to scold — the U.S. — is now acting as the last major bulwark against global censorship.

Why?
Because unlike Australia, the UK, NZ, or Canada, the U.S. has the First Amendment — a constitutional brick wall preventing government control of political speech.

The incoming Trump administration has already warned allies, including Australia and the EU, that they must not censor Americans online. U.S. officials have made it “crystal clear” that they will not tolerate it.

This pressure is now the only meaningful obstacle slowing the spread of censorship laws worldwide.

Thank goodness for that.

Conclusion: Democracy Cannot Survive Without Dissent

Censorship doesn’t appear all at once — it creeps.
First “extremism,” then “disinformation,” then “harm,” then “offence.”

Soon, simply disagreeing with the government becomes dangerous.

That’s the direction much of the Western world is now heading — and it should alarm anyone who values open society.

But there is hope. Pushback is growing, and for the first time in years, the world’s most powerful defender of free speech — the United States — is applying pressure in the right direction.

And not a moment too soon.

Here is Andrew Bolt's recent video covering the US attempt at protecting the free speech of Americans from actions by Australia's eSafety Commissioner.

ABC caught editing Trump, then declares it didn't - Judge for yourself!

It looks like what began as a simple piece of media criticism has now morphed into a full-blown feud. Chris Kenny from Sky News has been on the ABC’s radar for years, but this latest episode has the distinct flavour of something personal. And judging by the ABC’s response, they aren’t backing down. In fact, they seem determined to dig in deeper.

The spark this time came from overseas.
Two BBC employees were fired after it was discovered that they had doctored Donald Trump’s comments during the Capitol events — selectively editing his speech to make it appear as though he was inciting violence. The BBC acted swiftly and decisively, recognising that once trust is lost, a news organisation has little left to stand on.

Chris Kenny reported on this and, quite reasonably, pointed out that the ABC had done something strikingly similar with Trump’s remarks during its own coverage in 2021. Their edit removed his explicit call for protesters to remain peaceful, subtly but significantly reframing his speech to fit the “incitement” narrative. The ABC’s clip, once uploaded, was widely shared, further entrenching the misrepresentation.

Yet, unlike the BBC, the ABC took no corrective action.
No staff suspended, no internal review announced, no apology issued.
Instead, they doubled down.

The ABC’s official line?
That their edit was “contextually appropriate” and did not mislead viewers.

In other words: Nothing to see here, move along.

Kenny, unsurprisingly, didn’t let that go. And here’s where the feud flares into the open. As soon as he highlighted the ABC’s inconsistency — and compared it to the BBC’s willingness to clean house — the ABC responded not with introspection, but with hostility. Kenny was accused of “attacking journalists”, “undermining trust in public broadcasting”, and of course, the familiar fallback: “right-wing outrage”.

But the core issue is not left vs right.
It’s not even Kenny vs the ABC.

It is accountability.

The BBC recognised that editing a politician’s speech in a way that alters its meaning is not journalism — it’s activism. And activism masquerading as news corrodes trust faster than any partisan commentator ever could.

The ABC, however, seems determined to cling to the belief that because it is the ABC — taxpayer-funded, self-anointed, institutionally righteous — it cannot possibly be guilty of the same sins it routinely condemns in others. This reflexive defensiveness reveals something deeper: the national broadcaster has become unable to admit error, even when the evidence is plain.

And that, ironically, proves Kenny’s point better than any Sky News segment ever could.

The ABC’s feud with Kenny is no longer about Trump, or an edited clip, or even a matter of professional standards. It has become a test — a mirror held up to the ABC’s claim of impartiality. And instead of facing what it sees, the ABC is choosing to attack the person holding the mirror.

If the BBC can sack staff for misleading editing, why can’t the ABC even acknowledge it happened?
Why is media accountability applauded when imposed on foreign broadcasters, but treated as an attack when applied at home?

These are uncomfortable questions for Aunty — and perhaps that’s why she’s so eager to shoot the messenger.

In the end, this story isn’t about Chris Kenny at all.
It’s about an institution that has grown so insulated, so convinced of its own virtue, that criticism no longer prompts reflection — only retaliation.

And that, sadly, is far more alarming than any Trump clip could ever be.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 47, 2025)

   

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

•  "There will be no phase B in Gaza"
• The Crumbling Climate Catastrophe Dogma

• Bias has consequences - except at the ABC
• When Low Cost Cures are Left to Die
• Bill Maher eviscerates Gavin Newsom watch this

• Cost of Living: Democrat vs Republican
  
• ABC caught editing Trump, then Declares it Didn't - Judge for Yourself
  
• Censorship Creep:The New Western Trend to Silence Dissent
  
• Dershowitz on the problems with releasing the Epstein files

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

"Affordability, anybody?

Mark Levin’s “Affordability, Anybody?” segment made a provocative claim: the states complaining most about the cost of living are often those run by Democrats, and indeed, many of the highest-cost states are governed by Democrats. In his video (see below) Mark highlighted a number of states and compared some components of the cost of living. I was curious to see whether his claim was true when examining all 50 states. 

Below is a 50-state cost-of-living bar chart (normalised so the lowest COLI state = 100). The chart is sorted with the lowest relative COLI at the top (Mississippi) and the highest at the bottom (Hawaii). The bars are colour-coded blue for Democrat-governor states and Red for Republican-governor states. 

Confirming Levin's claim, there are certainly more Red states at the top of the table and Blue states at the bottom. 

The bar chart was produced from the following table, that shows the states in Alphabetical Order. Notes are provided below to explain the source of the data.

Table of Relative Costs by State

Notes on the table:

• “Raw COLI” (Cost of Living Index) comes from WorldPopulationReview. (World Population Review)

• The “Relative Index” is calculated by taking each state's COLI, dividing by the lowest COLI state (Mississippi, COLI = 83.3) and multiplying by 100. That means Mississippi is set as 100, and every other state shows how much more expensive it is relative to Mississippi.

• The “Party” column uses the party of the current state governor (as of 2025) as a rough proxy for which party is “running” the state. (Wikipedia)

• Using the governor’s party is not a perfect measure of political control (doesn’t account for legislature or local regulation), but it’s a commonly used shorthand.

In conclusion 

No doubt, Democrats would be able to present some quite reasonable arguments against the simple conclusion that Blue states have a higher cost of living. But the evidence is certainly striking.

It is hard for Democrats to use the cost-of-living to beat up Republicans when it is predominantly their states that are suffering the most. It means that perhaps instead of complaining, they should look at what they could do to lower costs in their own states

Here is Mark Levin's video.

When Low-Cost Cures Are Left to Die

One of the great successes of modern medicine is the system that encourages pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs. Big Pharma invests billions in the hope of discovering a breakthrough — and if they succeed, the reward is patent protection. For around 15 years they enjoy exclusive rights to sell the drug, recoup their investment, and make the profits that fund the next round of innovation.

It’s an arrangement that has delivered extraordinary benefits to society. But it also has a serious, structural flaw that no one seems prepared to confront.

The Problem: No One Has an Incentive to Study Off-Patent Drugs

What happens when a cheap, long-existing medicine is found to have a new therapeutic effect?
Nothing.
And that’s precisely the problem.

Once a drug is off-patent, there is no financial incentive for any pharmaceutical company to spend hundreds of millions of dollars running new clinical trials. Even if those trials proved the drug could save lives, the company would have no way to recover the cost. Anyone could manufacture it. Anyone could sell it.

So promising treatments are simply left on the shelf — not because they don’t work, but because nobody stands to profit from proving that they do.

This isn’t a theoretical issue. We are surrounded by real-world examples.

COVID and the War on Repurposed Drugs

We saw a stark demonstration during COVID.

Drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine — long proven safe, widely used, inexpensive — showed early promise in lab studies and real-world data. Instead of curiosity or scientific urgency, the response from much of the medical establishment was hostility, dismissal, even censorship.

It is now impossible to ignore the fact that these medications posed a threat — not to public health, but to the pharmaceutical industry’s commercial interests. You can’t make billions selling a cheap generic. And if you have an expensive antiviral or mRNA platform in the pipeline, the last thing you want is competition from a repurposed drug you don’t own.

We all lived through the result: suppression, vilification, and a frantic insistence that only patented, high-priced solutions were acceptable.

Fenbendazole and Cancer — A Case Study in Missed Opportunities

Dr John Campbell's recent titled "Fenben and Cancer, your reports" (see below) is filled with heartfelt comments from real patients, carers, pharmacists, and doctors describing shocking outcomes: stage-four cancers reversing; terminal patients returning to work; aggressive tumors disappearing or shrinking dramatically.

Are these anecdotes? Yes.
Are they proof? Of course not.
But when you see hundreds of consistent accounts — and the only barrier to testing is money — the moral failure becomes obvious.

Fenbendazole is off-patent, cheap, and sold for animals. No pharma company will ever fund the large-scale trials needed to evaluate its efficacy in humans. So we’re stuck in limbo — with potentially life-saving treatments swirling in the fog of “unproven,” not because they’ve failed trials, but because no one will run the trials.

As Campbell says “People are dying while governments twiddle their thumbs.”

Lithium Orotate and Alzheimer’s — The Same Story, Again

The groundbreaking research showing the effects of low-dose Lithium Orotate on Alzheimer’s has rightly received attention. The results are astonishing — and could change millions of lives.

But it is an over-the-counter supplement.
No patent.
No billion-dollar profits.

So Big Pharma won’t touch it. Clinical trials — if they happen at all — rely on university labs, philanthropy, or visionary researchers willing to push against the economic grain.

The result?
Patients and families, who have nothing to lose, are quietly trying it themselves — while official medical systems wait, shrug, and do nothing.

Natural Remedies: The Evidence Doctors Never Hear

Another layer to this problem is how effective natural compounds receive almost no attention in mainstream medicine.

Take curcumin (from turmeric).
Strong anti-inflammatory.
Solid clinical evidence.
Safe, accessible, inexpensive.

In many cases it performs on par with conventional anti-inflammatory medications — yet most doctors are barely aware of the findings. Pharma companies will never promote it; it competes with products that actually make money. So patients simply never hear about it.

The System Is Broken — And People Pay the Price

This is not an anti-pharma rant. We need pharmaceutical innovation. We need strong companies pushing the boundaries of science.

But we also need a health system that doesn’t ignore treatments simply because they’re unprofitable.

Today, society has no mechanism to:

• fund clinical trials for off-patent drugs

• independently evaluate low-cost alternatives

• investigate promising repurposed medicines

• compare natural remedies to pharmaceuticals

• capture real-world treatment data from patients

The result is a distorted system where the most effective and most affordable treatments are often the least researched, least promoted, and least available.

This is unacceptable.

We Need Reform — And a New Model for Evidence

If the goal of healthcare is to improve health — not corporate profit — then society must create a public pathway for evaluating low-cost and off-patent treatments.

This could take the form of:

• a publicly funded clinical research fund

• a global registry of patient-reported outcomes

• independent trials run by universities

• AI-assisted analysis of real-world treatment data

• government incentives for repurposed drug research

Because in a sane system, a drug’s price should not determine whether its potential is studied.

Here is Dr Campbell's video that prompted this post.

The Coming Wave — How AI Will Redefine Reality

Artificial Intelligence is evolving faster than any technology in human history. What was once science fiction — machines that create, think, and even “feel” — is now taking shape before our eyes.

In a recent video titled “AI Is About To Break Reality! (30 Things You’re Not Ready For)”, YouTuber AI Samson explores thirty remarkable (and sometimes unsettling) predictions about where this technology is heading. From AI companions and robot workers to synthetic influencers and fully autonomous businesses, the world we know is being reshaped — rapidly, and in ways few imagined possible.

It’s not just about automation or convenience anymore. AI is beginning to influence how we think, love, govern, and create. As Samson points out, the real challenge will not be how fast AI grows, but whether humanity can adapt to it — ethically, emotionally, and intellectually.

This is a fascinating, sometimes alarming glimpse into the near future — and well worth watching.

🎥 Watch the full video below:
“AI Is About To Break Reality! (30 Things You’re Not Ready For)”

Bias Has Consequences — Except at the ABC

It seems the BBC has finally faced a reckoning. After years of growing criticism over political bias and selective reporting, both the Director General, Tim Davie, and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness, have resigned. The immediate cause? A manipulated edit of Donald Trump’s January 6 speech — the same type of deception that Australia’s ABC has been caught committing repeatedly.

In the BBC’s case, its flagship Panorama program spliced Trump’s words to suggest he incited violence. But when the full speech was later examined, it was clear that key sentences had been removed — including Trump’s call to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” It was a damning moment for an institution that prides itself on journalistic integrity.

And here’s the irony — or the disgrace. Our ABC committed the same sin in a Four Corners episode titled Downfall (2021). The edit was almost identical: removing the portion where Trump urged supporters to “cheer on” members of Congress, instead leaving viewers with the impression that his words directly fueled the Capitol riot. The intention was clear — narrative first, truth second.

Yet, unlike the BBC, where accountability finally caught up with its leaders, the ABC has faced no consequences whatsoever. As Chris Kenny pointed out in his recent Sky News editorial — “Journalistic Sin: ABC’s Misinformation and Political Bias Against Trump on Display” — ABC News boss Justin Stevens didn’t resign; he received a $110,000 pay rise.

This isn’t a one-off lapse. Kenny catalogues a pattern:

• The ABC’s years-long promotion of the discredited Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy;

• The manipulated footage in reports on Australian soldiers, where extra gunshots were literally added to video;

• A refusal to cover verified atrocities by Hamas when they conflicted with the network’s narrative.

Each of these would be scandal enough on its own. Taken together, they reveal a taxpayer-funded institution that believes it is beyond accountability, shielded by ideology and complacency.

In Britain, senior BBC leaders accepted responsibility — belatedly, but visibly. In Australia, the ABC’s leadership doubles down, dismissing criticism and congratulating itself on its “high standards of factual, accurate, and impartial storytelling.” Meanwhile, over $1.5 billion of public money is spent each year to sustain this self-serving echo chamber.

Australians deserve better. We deserve a public broadcaster that values truth over narrative, balance over bias, and humility over hubris. If the BBC’s crisis teaches us anything, it’s that accountability can — and must — reach even the most untouchable institutions.

Until it does, the ABC’s credibility will remain as hollow as the “truths” it edits to fit its own worldview.

Here is Chris Kenny's Editorial.

Neural Implants: The Promise and Peril

We’ve arrived at a juncture where science fiction is stepping into the operating theatre. The leap from external brain-interface devices to fully-embedded neural implants is no longer a distant fantasy—it’s seriously underway. Designed to monitor, modulate and even augment brain activity, these implants carry enormous potential—but also enormous ethical and societal risk.

The Aims of Neural Implant Technology

At its core, neural implant technology aims to do three things:

1. Monitor brain activity at high precision and over long periods—capturing the electrical, chemical and structural happenings of the living brain in real time.

2. Modulate or interface with those signals to treat neurological disorders—epilepsy, Parkinson’s, severe depression, paralysis, memory loss and more. By integrating with neural circuits, implants can act not just as sensors but as effectors.

3. Augment normal human cognition or ability—this is the most speculative but tantalising: memory enhancement, brain-machine interfaces, merged human-machine cognition. Some futurists talk openly of “cyborg upgrades.”

In short: from healing to enhancement. Neural implants are positioned as the next major shift in medicine and human capability.

The Potential Benefits

The benefits are both compelling and meaningful:

• Chronic disease treatment and relief: For people suffering from disorders currently deemed intractable—drug-resistant epilepsy, ALS, spinal cord injury, severe depression—neural implants offer pathways formerly closed.

• Long-term monitoring: A recent study from Cornell University highlights an implant called the “MOTE” (microscale optoelectronic tetherless electrode) that rests on a grain of salt and wirelessly recorded brain signals in a living animal for over one year. (interestingengineering.com)

• Minimally invasive and compact: Smaller implants reduce tissue damage, immune responses and surgical risks. The Cornell device uses wireless laser power to avoid bulky cables. (New Atlas)

• Expanded understanding of the brain: Continuous, high-resolution monitoring could open new vistas in neuroscience—sleep, learning, memory, degeneration, brain-machine interfaces.

• Potential for augmentation: Though further away, implants may allow humans to control machines with thought, restore lost function, or even boost cognition. For many this sounds like empowerment.

The Potential for Misuse

But with great power comes great risk. Neural implants also raise profound concerns:

• Privacy and autonomy: Once your brain is instrumented, who controls the data? Could your thoughts, moods or impulses be monitored, manipulated or harvested?

• Control and coercion: Implants designed for treatment might be repurposed for behaviour modification, surveillance, or “optimization” of human behaviour.

• Inequality and enhancement divides: If augmentation becomes available, will we see a dividing line between “augmented” and “unaugmented” humans? A new class structure based on neural capability?

• Medical risk and unintended consequences: Implants are invasive; immune reactions, long-term failure, infection, brain tissue damage—all real possibilities.

• Weaponisation: In theory, neural interfaces could become parts of military systems (neuro-enhanced soldiers) or targeted suppression devices.

• Ethical oversight lag: Technology often advances faster than regulation. We may be charging ahead without full public debate, legal frameworks or understanding of long-term effects.

In short: neural implants may transform humanity—but they also risk transforming it in unrecognised ways.

Current State of the Science

Where exactly are we today? A few key points:

• Miniaturisation and wireless power: The Cornell “MOTE” is about 300 µm long and 70 µm wide—smaller than a grain of salt—and powered via harmless red/infrared laser beams through brain tissue. (interestingengineering.com)

• Longevity and low invasiveness: In animal models (mice), the implant recorded neural spikes and synaptic activity in the barrel cortex over an entire year, while the animals remained healthy and active. (news.cornell.edu)

• MRI compatibility: One of the big limitations of earlier neural implants was incompatibility with MRI scans; the new device’s materials may allow safe MRI usage. (New Atlas)

• Therapeutic applications underway: Beyond monitoring, labs are working on closed-loop systems (monitor → detect abnormal brain activity → stimulate or correct response) for epilepsy, Parkinson’s, chronic migraine etc. (cnl.ece.cornell.edu)

• Human trials still limited: Most advances remain in pre-clinical (animal) or early human stages. True augmentation human implants remain speculative.

• Challenges remain: Power sourcing, data bandwidth, long-term biocompatibility, immune response, invasiveness, ethical protocols—these are non-trivial hurdles.

Why It Matters Now

This technology isn’t “in the future.” It’s appearing now. The recent science shows that neural implants are becoming smaller, safer, more durable—and more accessible. That means decisions we think of as “future ethics” are present day ethics.
The question isn’t if these devices will become widespread—it’s how, by whom, and under what regime of control.
If they succeed medically, they could relieve suffering and restore function. If misused, they could reshape society, autonomy and power in unprecedented ways.

Bottom Line

Neural implants sit at the intersection of medicine, neuroscience, technology and human identity. They promise to heal, to enhance—and potentially to control. The emerging science is real. The benefits substantial. The risks profound.
As this frontier advances, we must ask: Who owns our thoughts? Who controls the brain interface? Who profits? And how do we ensure that this technology serves humanity, rather than dominates it?

The future of the brain is already here. Let’s make sure we guide it—rather than get carried along.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 46, 2025)

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• UN Watch Research Shows: UNRWA=Hamas
  
• The Unseemly Demonisation of Ivermectin
  
• The Gaza peace plan is teetering, Read the opinion article in Israel Hayom "There will be no phase B in Gaza"
• The Crumbling Climate Catastrophe Dogma
  
• Bill Maher hits it out of the court again, humorous and incisive

• Neural Implants: The Promise and Peril
  
• Bias has consequences - except at the ABC
  
• The Coming Wave - How AI Will Redefine Reality
  
• When Low Cost Cures are Left to Die
  

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

The Crumbling Climate Catastrophe Dogma

For more than three decades, the world has been bombarded with dire warnings of climate apocalypse — cities sinking, species dying, forests burning, and food systems collapsing. Politicians, activists, and compliant media have built a doomsday industry on fear.

But as author and environmentalist Michael Shellenberger points out in his recent talk “7 Lies We Were Told About Climate Change,” the evidence simply doesn’t match the hysteria. What was once a scientific issue has become a moral crusade — and now, cracks are appearing in the facade.

Shellenberger’s seven points dismantle the pillars of the climate catastrophe narrative.

1. “Climate change is making disasters worse.”

The claim: floods, hurricanes, and wildfires are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
The reality: while media coverage has exploded, actual data show no upward trend in climate-related deaths. In fact, deaths from natural disasters have fallen by over 90% in the past century.
Yes, damage costs rise — but mostly because there’s more infrastructure and wealth in harm’s way, not because storms are more violent.

2. “Sea levels are rising dangerously.”

Sea levels have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age — roughly 20 cm per century — with no measurable acceleration in recent decades.
The much-publicized satellite data are inconsistent with tide gauge records, and the frightening “multi-meter rise” scenarios depend entirely on speculative computer models.
No major city is currently sinking beneath the waves — not Miami, not Venice, not Sydney.

3. “Polar bears are dying out.”

The opposite is true. Polar bear numbers have increased fivefold since the 1960s, from about 5,000 to 25,000–30,000.
Even as Arctic ice fluctuates, the species has adapted. Ironically, the polar bear has become a symbol of environmental collapse even while thriving.

4. “The Great Barrier Reef is dying.”

This myth persists despite hard evidence to the contrary.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science reported that coral cover is now at record highs across much of the reef.
Yes, coral bleaching events occur, but reefs recover naturally — they’ve survived ice ages, warm periods, and volcanic eruptions. What truly threatens them is pollution and overfishing, not CO₂.

5. “Fires are getting worse.”

Global wildfire activity has actually declined by around 25% over the past two decades, according to NASA satellite data.
Yes, we see horrific fires in California and Australia — but these are largely due to poor forest management and fuel buildup, not climate change.
When we stopped controlled burning and let forests choke with tinder, we built the conditions for disaster.

6. “Renewables can replace fossil fuels.”

This comforting illusion has been shattered by physics.
Solar and wind are intermittent and require massive backup from fossil fuels or nuclear power. They also demand enormous land use and rare minerals — often mined in poor countries under appalling conditions.
Europe’s energy crisis exposed this fantasy: when the wind stops blowing, reality bites.

7. “The science is settled.”

It isn’t — and never was.
Science doesn’t “settle.” It questions, revises, and evolves.
But today’s climate orthodoxy treats dissent as heresy. Even credible scientists who challenge alarmist claims are smeared or deplatformed.
As Shellenberger notes, what we face is not a scientific consensus, but an ideological conformity — a quasi-religious belief system that equates carbon with sin.

A Narrative Unraveling

Shellenberger’s critique is not about denying climate change. It’s about rejecting the apocalyptic exaggeration that has hijacked environmentalism. We can acknowledge that humans influence the climate — without surrendering to fear or authoritarian “solutions.”

Meanwhile, countries like Germany and Britain are quietly returning to coal and nuclear power, and climate conferences keep producing lofty pledges with negligible results.

The “climate emergency” has been politically profitable and emotionally satisfying — but it’s becoming scientifically indefensible.
The tide is turning. More scientists, journalists, and citizens are willing to say what many have long suspected: the catastrophe narrative was never about saving the planet. It was about control.

Here is the full video of ShellenBerger's interview.

The Unseemly Demonisation of Ivermectin

When history finally writes the story of COVID, the pandemic will not just be remembered for the virus itself, but for the way truth was smothered beneath corporate interests and bureaucratic arrogance. Few examples illustrate this better than the demonisation of Ivermectin — one of the most bizarre and tragic chapters in modern medicine.

From Nobel Prize to “Horse Paste”

Before 2020, Ivermectin was one of medicine’s quiet success stories — a Nobel Prize–winning antiparasitic used safely by millions around the world. It eradicated river blindness, treated scabies and intestinal worms, and was so trusted that it featured on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

Then COVID arrived.

In the scramble for treatments, some doctors noticed that Ivermectin seemed to show promise — not as a miracle cure, but as a cheap, safe antiviral with measurable benefit. Early studies were encouraging, and countries such as India, Mexico and Peru reported sharp drops in hospitalisations after introducing it.

Yet instead of curiosity, what followed was a coordinated smear campaign. The same drug hailed for decades as a medical breakthrough was suddenly ridiculed as “horse dewormer.” Doctors prescribing it were threatened. Pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions. Media outlets parroted the line that it was “dangerous” — ignoring decades of human use and the drug’s impeccable safety record.

The Power of the Patent

Why such hostility to a harmless, off-patent drug?

Because Ivermectin was cheap. Dirt cheap. There were no billions to be made from a 40-year-old molecule. And so, as Dr Pierre Kory and others have documented, Big Pharma — aided by public health authorities — quietly ensured that the narrative stayed fixed: new, patentable antivirals were “science,” while Ivermectin was “misinformation.”

Billions were poured into shiny new drugs that cost hundreds per dose. And yet, none matched the safety profile or affordability of Ivermectin. As Dr John Campbell’s recent video “John Takes Ivermectin” highlights, the irony is now painful — a respected medical educator, simply mentioning his own use of Ivermectin for what he believes was COVID, still feels compelled to whisper it like a secret.

The Evidence Today

The data now are overwhelming. As Campbell quotes from Dr Kory’s War on Ivermectin, there are over 90 controlled studies, involving more than 130,000 patients, showing statistically significant benefits — from reduced hospitalisation and faster recovery to lower mortality. Meta-analyses, the gold standard of medical evidence, confirm the effect, particularly when used early.

Yet, in the so-called “advanced” nations, Ivermectin remains effectively banned. Doctors who dare to prescribe it risk being reported or struck off. Even today, the medical establishment refuses to revisit its mistakes. The lie has been told for so long that admitting the truth would destroy credibility — and perhaps expose liability.

The Cost of Denial

In places like India, Ivermectin helped turn the tide. But in the West, thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — may have died unnecessarily while awaiting the next profitable drug. The tragedy is not just medical but moral. When ideology and profit dictate what counts as “science,” trust collapses — and medicine ceases to serve humanity.

Dr Campbell’s quiet confession is a reminder that courage still exists among clinicians. But his need for caution also shows how toxic this issue remains. The pandemic may be over, yet the censorship persists, and the lesson goes unlearned.

Where to From Here?

It is long past time for a reckoning. The studies are out there. The data are clear. What remains is accountability — and an honest re-evaluation of how regulators, academics and media allowed a life-saving treatment to be turned into a punchline.

The world deserves better than slogans and selective science. It deserves truth — even when it’s inconvenient, even when it’s not profitable.

---

“The war on Ivermectin,” as Dr Kory calls it, was never really about medicine.
It was about control. And in that war, truth was the first casualty.

Here is a recent video from Dr John Campbell recounting the Ivermectin saga.

UN Watch research shows UNRWA = Hamas

UN Watch research gathered over the last decade shows that UNRWA is not simply failing its humanitarian mandate — it is systematically compromised with hundreds of UNRWA employees having documented ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This infiltration of the agency raises serious questions about the neutrality, accountability and very purpose of a major United Nations relief body. (www.israelhayom.com)

The Key Findings

• The investigation suggests hundreds of UNRWA staffers have connections with Hamas or Islamic Jihad — far beyond a handful of bad actors. (www.israelhayom.com)

• The allegations include employees who allegedly participated in terror activities, used relief facilities or resources for militant purposes, or held dual roles as teachers/social workers and operatives. (Wikipedia)

• Israel has publicly demanded immediate action, arguing that UNRWA’s infiltration undermines its humanitarian legitimacy and allows terror groups to embed themselves in aid structures. (new.embassies.gov.il)

Why This Matters

For years, UNRWA has been the primary aid agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank. It receives billions of dollars of international funding and enjoys a high degree of trust. But if the allegations are true, the consequences are profound:

• Humanitarian Aid at Risk: If a relief organisation is compromised by terror affiliations, donor governments face a dilemma: continue funding and risk indirectly supporting militants, or cut funding — and risk leaving vulnerable civilians without aid.

• Neutrality Lost: The premise of humanitarian work relies on neutrality and impartiality. If UNRWA is operating as a cover or conduit for terror groups, it destroys that trust and opens aid operations to misuse and manipulation.

• Geopolitical Fallout: Many Western nations fund UNRWA. The revelations fuel arguments that UNRWA must either be reformed, replaced, or have its role radically re-evaluated. It also heightens Israel’s claims that terror and relief are intertwined in Gaza.

• Terror Infrastructure Hidden in Plain Sight: The idea that a teaching organisation, a social-service agency or a relief network could be used as a front for militant activity is chilling — and shows how sophisticated terror groups have become at embedding in civilian systems.

The Counter-Arguments

As always there are many counter arguments, including; - .

• UNRWA itself denies systematically aiding terror, and claims any affiliated staff are a small minority. (UNRWA)

• Some independent observers say that while there may be troubling links, the evidence of institutional complicity 'remains contested'

• Cutting or limiting UNRWA’s operations could have serious unintended consequences for civilian Palestinians who rely on it for basic services — healthcare, education, food aid — especially in a war-torn environment.

What Should Be Done

Given the stakes, it is time to disband the UNRWA. 

Specifically; -

1. Over a period of 12 months fully disband the UNRWA and transfer its functions to the UNHCR. There is no reason that Palestinian refugees require a UN agency separate from the rest of the world's refugees.

2. Establish multiple alternative aid agencies to operate within Gaza and the West Only by having a multplicyt of organisations can the possibility of future infiltration by Islamist be managed.

3. Encourage Donor Countries to continue humanitarian support. Given the past misuse of funds, Donor Countries will want better assurance that future funding will not be misappropriated.

Bottom Line

We are looking not just at mismanagement, but a fundamental subversion of what had been one of the largest humanitarian organisations in the Middle East. UNRWA infiltration by militant networks isn’t a side‐issue: it goes to the heart of whether we can trust relief agencies in conflict zones.

For readers, this is more than a geopolitical story. It matters for how we think about aid, how we fund relief, and how terror can exploit the very structures meant to help victims. It's a story about the war beneath the war — one that demands more attention than it has received so far.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/04/unrwa-terror-investigation-hamas-ties/