The ongoing White-Aboriginal Coup

Many observers, including me, warned in the past that Aboriginals, mostly reinvented White-Aboriginals, were agitating for a separatist, parasitic state. We were wrong. The objective, successfully being pursued, is to ensure that the recently concocted White-Aboriginal ideology permeates all corners of the Australian nation. We are talking about a government coup.

White-Aboriginal commissars oversee the implementation and enforce fidelity.

The Quadrant article by Robert Hill below raises the curtain on the sabotage of Australia’s universities. Quadrant Magazine and Quadrant Online are providing the best and most sustained commentary on the White-Aboriginal battlefront.

*****

Pagan smoking ceremony II

Knowing by Not Knowing

Robert Hill, Quadrant, 9 Feb 2026

Across the Australian university sector, Indigenous executive governance has become effectively mandatory. As of the most recent sector reporting, approximately 33 of Australia’s 37 public universities have installed a Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous), or a formally equivalent executive office, with the remainder either in transition or operating under substantively identical arrangements. This near-total saturation is not grounded in institutional necessity or disciplinary demand but in a presumption that Aboriginal “ways of knowing” must be embedded across all disciplines. It is asserted as self-justifying, a moral imperative that demands compliance rather than explanation.

These roles function less like heads of academic departments and more like central policy authorities. They set Indigenous strategies and compliance frameworks that apply across the entire institution, irrespective of discipline. Faculties are required to align with these frameworks in curriculum design, assessment standards, research priorities, and public communication, including the mandatory embedding of institution-approved Indigenous content across degree programs.

Crucially, this requirement is not optional for students. Indigenous content is not merely recommended or presented as contestable cultural material. Students are required to undertake prescribed Indigenous modules or units, to read specified material, and to pass assessments based on that material in order to progress or graduate, regardless of discipline. This compulsory curriculum embedding is the cornerstone of Indigenous executive governance: it is the primary mechanism through which institution-wide compliance is enforced. The content is typically presented as authoritative rather than evidentiary, and students are assessed on comprehension and acceptance rather than critical evaluation in the ordinary academic sense.

These offices also oversee or directly influence Indigenous admissions pathways, student support schemes, employment targets, and reconciliation compliance metrics — all of which now rank among universities’ highest institutional priorities. While presented as support mechanisms, they operate as binding governance instruments with enforceable expectations.

Read the rest HERE . . .

I’m under surveillance

My moral, social, and political views have never changed essentially. In fact, I have made it worse for myself with a long, unfinished study of the thought of Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism (my Edmund Burke section is still to be reposted). Whereas I was a Menzies conservative voter in the 1960s – like the majority of the Australian population – I am now categorised as ‘far right.’ And being a dogged member of the ‘far right’, I assume there is someone in one or other government security department daily examining my website.

Hello, you chaps, or should it be, hello, you gals. Catch me, if you can.

snitch line

Dobber Nation, Quadrant, Monica Wilkie, 14 Feb 2026

The Australian Federal Police have announced, inadvertently and in effect, that they have solved all crimes in Australia. We citizens need not worry about diversity terrorists, social cohesion, illicit tobacco dealers, spies, or any other shenanigans. That is the only conclusion, considering the Commonwealth wallopers have used their resources and Valentine’s Day to trawl for dobbers.

You may be tempted to call me a humourless killjoy. Well, how dare you! If there are people inside the AFP who think this post below is in any way appropriate, we are in trouble.

Our snitching culture was turbocharged during the spicy-cough lockdowns. Citizens were encouraged to report each another, and they did so in tattle-tailing droves, for heinous crimes such, well, going outside to alone on park benches and empty beaches. More generally, there are signs and urgings all over the place to pick up the phone ‘if you see something, say something’, to report suspicious activity and online wrongthink, whether in the form of jokes or bad opinions, to eSafety’s internet police.

Read the rest HERE . . .

Heterofatalism?

(Hint: men should read this – what new thing females are cooking up)

An article by Bianca Farmakis in today’s Australian is titled What Women Really Want. Then comes a subheading: The huge cultural sex shift we all missed. Then a brief description of the article:

‘Steamy gay male romances like Heated Rivalry and Pinion are not anomalies: women in their millions now prefer to watch men loving men on screen [presumably she means men having sex]. But what does this new “heterofatalism” reveal about female desire – and where will it lead?’

I suspect it reveals something bad about men – it’s always something bad about men, these days. And God knows to what catastrophe it will lead. My interest was piqued, and I did some searching. I found this article on Mentalzon:

What Is Heterofatalism and Why Does It Matter?

It’s a feeling that settles in quietly at first, then all at once: a profound, weary disappointment with men in the landscape of modern dating. This isn’t just about one bad date or a single failed relationship. It’s a deeper state of emotional exhaustion, a collapse of hope that has been named heterofatalism. This term captures the fatigue many women feel when their desires for a serious, emotionally invested partnership repeatedly crash against a wall of indifference. It’s not an organized movement, but a shared, unspoken sigh of resignation echoing in a world of shifting social norms and growing pressures.

The Roots of a Modern Malaise

The term itself is relatively new, first coined as “heteropessimism” by researcher Asa Seresin in 2019 to describe a general disappointment with the opposite sex. It has since evolved to more specifically articulate the female experience of disillusionment. The idea quickly found its footing in mainstream conversations, resonating with countless women who felt their experiences were finally being given a name.

This feeling isn’t confined to one corner of the globe; it’s a sentiment that crosses cultural boundaries. At its heart is a mismatch of expectations. Women may hope for emotional cornerstones like support, attention, and care, only to find their partners seem unwilling or unable to provide them. This isn’t just about grand romantic gestures; it’s about the fundamental building blocks of a healthy connection. When even these basics are missing, the result is a slow burn of despondency and resentment.

Of course, this dissatisfaction is a two-way street. Men, too, often express frustration, feeling judged against impossible standards. A cycle of mutual resentment can take hold, with both sides raising their guard and their expectations. But here, we’ll focus on the specific phenomenon of female disappointment and where it stems from.

Read the rest HERE . . .

There’s also this:

The ABC defends racism

Hugh Marks, ABC CEO, demonstrates here that the government-funded ABC is hopelessly and unapologetically in the control of the rabid Marxist left and that a responsible, fair-dealing government would withhold funding until the ABC is reorganised to fulfil its charter to cater to all sections of the Australian community.

The future of the ABC should be at the top of the list of priorities of parties wishing to govern Australia. There is much work to be done on this.

The Feminisation of everything

Helen Andrews’ article in Compact’s online magazine exploded on the internet in October 2025. Commentaries and interviews with Andrews followed rapidly. I will post links following this post. It is curious that, for the first time, I recently came across this quote from George Orwell’s 1984:

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”

Coincidentally, I recently found this shocking demonstration of the fundamental difference between male and female moral and political thinking HERE.

How many of us have had to give up talking to a screaming, overwrought female, as here with this poor man?

*****

The Great Feminization

Helen Andrews, COMPACT, 16 October 2025

In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.

The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.

The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. 

This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981). 

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

Read the rest HERE . . .

Feminism and marriage

Laura How

“Feminism has always been a force for good and equality.” Is that really true? In this conversation with retired Professor Janice Fiamengo, we examine feminism’s actual origins, its pervasive influence on modern relationships, and why so many men and women are waking up to a very different reality than what we’ve been told.

Professor Janice Fiamengo, creator of The Fiamengo Files video series and author of Sons of Feminism, joins me for an unflinching look at how feminist ideology has shaped our attitudes toward men, marriage, and family life. From classrooms teaching children that men are the problem, to therapy rooms filled with women who’ve been taught to fear and distrust their husbands, we explore how these ideas have taken root and what the cost has been to both sexes.

This conversation challenges the narrative that feminism’s only critics are those who hate women or want to deny them opportunities. Instead, we examine the historical record, question why certain perspectives have been suppressed, and ask what happens to societies that tell men they don’t matter.

Women destroy civilisations

The (Female) Elephant in the Room

Will we continue to pretend that female power does not lead to civilizational disaster?

Janice Fiamengo Oct 16, 2025

Liberty Leading the People | Description, History, & Facts | Britannica
Eugene Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People

Multiple surveys (see, for example, with thanks to James Nuzzohereherehereherehere and here) suggest that when women hold power, they pursue typically feminine preferences and policies. Female-led institutions become more oriented to social justice than objective truth. Feelings matter above facts, context above law, and victimhood above expertise.

Protecting and promoting the allegedly vulnerable—through censorship, shaming, coercion, or lawbreaking/lawfare—becomes a greater priority than excellence or impartiality. Truth-tellers find themselves cancelledNobel prize winners reduced to tearslaws and policies applied unequallywhite men accused and vilifiedcriminals cossettedmental illnesses affirmed, and destructive policies embraced. No one who has paid attention over the past 20 years can be surprised by the findings.

Shirtstorm / Shirtgate | Know Your Meme
Matt Taylor, eventually forced to apologize and cry in public for his sin of wearing an ‘inappropriate shirt’ in interview, after leading a team that put a probe on a comet in 2014

Moreover, our ability to discuss this feminine revolution in values is hampered by the very logic of the revolution, as I will show. Both women and men, deeply disinclined to “harm” women, fail to confront the problem adequately.

Two discussions of the subject—an essay by two social psychologists at Quillette and, more recently, a conference speech by a feisty conservative woman—draw a line under the seeming inevitability of the west’s collapse. Even faced with that alarming prospect, most pundits cannot bear to imagine an alternative to the female-led assault on our core institutions.

Cheering on Women’s Empowerment

Sex and the Academy

A 2022 article in Quillette, “Sex and the Academy,” provides a stark illustration of my thesis. The subtitle rules out the very conclusion the data supports, with the authors emphasizing that “The inclusion of women in higher education is a great achievement for Western liberal societies. How is this changing academic culture?”

The “great achievement,” as it turns out, will almost certainly be a lethal one.

The article was written by two academics, Cory Clark and Bo Winegard, both PhDs in social psychology. Winegard, a male scholar, had an unfortunate run-in with academic orthodoxy that led to his loss of employment; Clark, a female scholar, has a secure academic position. Both authors express enthusiasm for the takeover of academia by women even as they point out its damaging consequences. Neither one advocates any form of resistance, no matter how mild, to feminine academia’s assault on truth.

Read the rest here . . .