Dems stay seated when asked who would stand for the American people.
Those sitting, in the screengrab above, are Democrats. Who are not standing for the proposition, from president Trump, to "Stand up if you agree that the primary aim of our government is to help American citizens and not illegal aliens".
This is going to come back to bite them. Because it's literally their Oath of Office that they work for the American people.
While they have shown they cannot stand for that.
And then! And then! They stayed seated when the United States Gold Medal winning Ice Hockey Team entered the chamber. They did not even clap. For Gold Medal winners! That's just amazing, and horrible. My goodness.
You really have to hate your country to refuse to cheer your own team in the Olympics. Think about it! Your own team! Which last won a Gold Medal in 1980, in the "Miracle on Ice" win against the Soviet Union. Which, in those less frenetic times, EVERYONE celebrated.
The Dems may say something about "division". But let's remember. It was then Speaker of the House, the Democrate Nancy Pelosi who sat behind Trump and tore up her copy of his speech right in front of the camera. I was astounded, shocked and appalled. She got nowhere near the grief she should have got for such a horrid disrespect of the office.
And then there's the Democrat prankster Al Green, who, wielding his crazy cane, disrupts the Chamber every time. Who's disrupting things? Who's being divisive? Look in the mirror, Al, look in the mirror Nancy, look in the mirror Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib (the Jihad duo, who spent their time yelling at Trump; and calling the Hockey team the "KKK". Really!). You lot, you out of control Dems, are bringing the disgrace to the House of Representatives and have done so again the other night.
First time I’ve seen this guy, a Nigerian, aka Bantu Dude,, and his channel, Bantu City Diaries. First time I’ve seen this question asked so clearly and so bluntly.
Namely:
"Why is it that Africans can't or won't make things?"
They could just "Copy and Paste" existing technologies. Bantu Dude mentions lots that they could be making in Africa. But they don't. Why?
The question is asked and discussed, but it's not really answered by the Bantu Dude.
My one contribution: Tribalism. Everything in Africa comes down to the tribe. It's your most precious group after yourself and your family. Not easy to undo tribalism. Bantu Dude doesn't touch on this. Perhaps because he knows it's just too difficult. If it'd been easy to overcome, Africa would have done so long ago.
We did a car trip from Cape Town in South Africa to Cairo in Egypt, back in 2011. Here's the blog of that trip. We enjoyed it tremendously and I think of it often. Some thoughts on the vid above, based on our trip.
Gordie and me. With the Mighty Mustang. Table Mountain in background. Cape Town, 6 September 2011
Comments on the Bantu Dude's video, at the top:
Africans are friendly: yes. We found that. Especially from southern to middle Africa. The more north, around northern Ethiopia onwards, to Sudan, Somalia, there's more reserve. My theory: it's coz an ideology they follow.
Africans value education: Yes. We saw, every day, young kids, usually in crip uniforms, marching off to school. They absolutely try to get their kids to school if they can.
Africa is not crowded. Agreed. It's generally not crowded; though major cities are. The larger, the more dense and dirty. But there's plenty of land. We drove hour upon hour, through empty lands, both desert and fertile lands.
There were deserts, in Namibia and Angola where I thought: "the Israelis could turn this green".
There were rivers, lakes and land, in Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, where I thought: "the Chinese could turn these into food bowls".
The best roads in Africa that we drove on were built by the Chinese. I remember one lovely, lonely, long straight new highway through the Sudanese desert, all a kaleidoscope of oranges, reds, blues, khaki greens, and up the brown Nile. I so remember that day.
We drove at top speed. Foot to the metal. 100 mph, 110 mph, 120 mph as far as our old girl, a vintage vehicle would go, so fast the front kept lifting off the road, so you'd have no steerage for a disconcerting second or two, till you let it settle down. The speed made the trip even better.
So much of the desert is the same, you have to be fast to get the feeling of the changing desert, which it does -- change -- all the time, usually slowly; but at speed, it's like Kubrick's psychedelic scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey"... we on our own odyssey, over the crystal sands of a vast desert, flying along the one black asphalt strip, straight as a sudanese spear. Into the foothills of the Nile, past scenes from the Bible, white-clad children in a quarry, chipping stone. Sudanese slaves. Till we drop down to that Biblical river, the sluggish-brown Nile, palm-tree flanked, and feluccas, lateen-rigged, drifting lazily downstream.
When we asked why Africans hadn't helped build these roads, and others in Africa, we were told: "we wanted them to work with us, but they didn't. So we had to do it ourselves". That could just be an excuse. But we heard similar stories over and over, throughout Africa. Enough to think they were likely true. The Bantu Dude comments fit right in with this. "We're doing fine, boss; no need work hard on that road there". Kind of thing.
It's not true they won't build anything. With our car, a 50 year-old Ford Mustang, we could get any part repaired, or a bodgy-dodgy part made from scraps, on the spot. A Ford was the best car for Africa, because there's so many. Ditto Mercedes.
Any town we arrived in, any village, with a few cows, scrawny dogs and a few feral goats, has always got a "Hakim's Fix-it-Well Garage and Repairs" or a "Oil Be Back Car Repairs", that will make you a shock-absorber bush from an old tyre, or be happy to weld your broken tie rod. "Jus' in one short hour, sah". Those kind of shops are there, for sure. Just not the slightly bigger, slightly more ambitious factory, producing, say, paint, or... those shock absorber bushes we needed, let alone factories to make the shocks, or, heaven forfend, to build a whole car. That's the mystery that Bantu Dude is looking at.
Random fact: our route took us over some truly high elevation country. Like the middle of Ethiopia, at 12,000+ feet. Whole swathes of Africa are high elevation. I never knew that. Ethiopia was green-green when we drove through. Green. Not a hint of drought or famine of the past.
The Bantu Dude makes a point about relative populations on the earth in a century, given current birth trends: very few White people; very few Asians; lots and lots of Africans. So, he says, if Africans don't want to make things, or are not able to actually make things, or invent things, or improve technology, we're going to have an existential problem as homo sapiens.
Fareed Zakaria is a senior staffer at CNN. So his comments here really count. He and CNN are on the Dems side yet it's still it's strong criticism: of the Left. Of far-left Dems. Which is where many are positioned now, and many more are headed.
Fareed is one of the few on the Left who is willing to call out bad things, even when they're on the Left. He was one of the few Dems who had the guts to admit that all the pre-2024 election law cases against Trump were "lawfare". "They would not have happened if his name had not been Trump", he said.
This criticism of how the far Left, running major cities, has ruined them, is deserved. Many cities are now a big mess. That were not a mess a decade or two ago. IOW, becoming messy has been a result of policy. Specifically, far Left, soft-on-crime, soft-on-drugs*, tough-on-business policies.
In another video this morning, I hear long-time Democrat, Mark Hemingwaysay the same thing (and, related). As an ex Portland Oregon resident, he now mourns its downfall, the trashing of his once very special city.
Other cities out-west which have been infected with the far-Left "progressive" bug are LA, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego. In the middle of America there's Chicago. And out east, New York and Boston stand out.
This is definitely in the "Things I don't get" category. I don't get how a far-Left politician can ruin a city, then the residents go ahead and vote an even more Leftish replacement. That happened in Chicago, in LA, in San Francisco. Most lately in New York.
Apparently people simply do not see that there's a connection between the politicians they vote for, and the results of their voting.
Similarly, many will flee a state because they don't like it any more. That's happening right now in California. Many are fleeing to Texas, or Tennessee, or Florida. Where they proceed to vote Blue all over again. I just do not get it.
Similarly, many will flee a country because it's been horrible to them. And then go ahead and try to recreate the place they just fled. Clear example is the Somalis in Minnesota.
The Somali's Congressional rep in MN is the World's Greatest Ingrate, Ilhan Omar. She has been filmed saying that she's in Congress to "help Somalia". When her Oath of Office to the Congress of the United States requires her to work for the benefit of the United States. All while her Somali constituents proceed to replicate in Minnesota the Somali national sport of piracy -- looting, at latest count, $19 Billion from the American taxpayer. Under her blind eyes.
* ADDED: I was a "soft on drugs" guy, until I saw the results. I'd thought that decriminalisation would help everyone. In practice it harmed everyone. So I changed my mind. The Amsterdam soft-on-marijuana example is not relevant, because that was soft weed. It didn't include hard drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, meth, fentanyl, which drug sanctuary cities like Portland do.
If we see things change, we ought to be prepared to change our minds.
A famous quote often attributed to the economist John Maynard Keynes is:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I'm so bigoted that I don't agree with any of the beliefs set out in Islamic Sharia law.
All Sharia Law references below are from The Umdat al-Salik, "A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.
My bigotry about Women:
I'm such a bigot that I care about women. I don't think they should be oppressed. I don't think they should be second class citizens. I think women should have equal rights as men.
I'm so bigoted that I think women are treated badly in Islam; they are valued less than a man, their husbands may beat them if they are "disobedient", they must be veiled, they can't go out except with a male escort, all as Sharia demands.
I'm so bigoted that I hate that.
My bigotry about Homoseduality:
I'm such a bigot that I care about gays and the LGBT community. I don't think they should be bashed (as they are right nowin Australia). I don't think they should be discriminated against. I think they should be treated just like everyone else.
Goodness me, I'm such a bigot that I even think gays should not be lynched, or thrown off tall buildings, or hanged on cranes in the town square. That's just how much of a bigot I am! Basically, I'm such a bigot I don't hold with all the suppression and oppression of gay people in Islam, as Sharia demands.
My bigotry about Adultery:
I'm such a bigot I think adulterers should NOT be killed. Shunned for a while perhaps. Given a chilly shoulder for a time. But not killed. That's how much of a bigot about that I am. (also mea culpa on this one...).
I don't agree with Islamic Sharia law that "fornicators must be stoned to death", or that "there is no penalty for killing an adulterer". No, I simply do not agree with these or any other of the Sharia laws on adultery, as Sharia demands. Bigot!
My bigotry about Apostasy:
I'm such a bigot that I think if you decide you want to leave a religion, no matter which one, you should be able to do so. I don't think you should be killed if you leave a religion. What a bigot I am. I'm such a bigot that I'm offended by Islam law which requires apostates killed, as Sharia demands.
My bigotry about treatment of non-Muslims:
I'm so bigoted that I believe people should be free to believe whatever they like, or to believe in no God, as I do. I'm such a bigot, I'm an atheist. I recognise many people believe in a god. I'm such a bigot I don't believe, as Muslims do, that non-Muslims must be reviled, distained, shunned or killed. That's how bigoted I am. I don't go along with the Sharia demands on this one.
=================
We who believe as I do are labelled bigots. I've now made my "self-criticism". You can see just how bigoted I am. Perhaps I can be cured of my bigotry. Which would mean agreeing with Sharia law. It would mean believing that the Muslim immigration invasion into our western countries is an unalloyed good. That it only adds to the wonderful tapestry of diversity.
See if you can believe that. See if you can sign onto the Sharia project, as set out by Islam itself. I've summarised it for easy reference. To save us from our bigotry:
I've got to post this, because the guest, Shabbos Kestenbaum, who I've never heard of before today, makes the best case, the most clear case, the most persuasive case, for all that I've said here over the last decades.
Namely: that Islam is a threat to the West. Not all Muslims. OF COURSE. But enough of them, given their 2 Billion number, that it's a real danger to our western societies.
Of course not all Muslims are terrorists. But of course all terrorists are Muslims. LIke.. 97% of terrorist attacks since 911.
Not all Muslims want to destroy the West. But plenty of Muslims do.
As Kestenbaum says: we may not like this, but it's a fact. And it is, indeed, a fact.
There are no Jews in America, having come to the country since 1650, who have blown themselves up. There are plenty of Muslims who have.
Looking at the first 30 minutes or so of this vid will give a decent and true and proper and true pic of what's going on in the west with the onslaught of Islam.
"They pretend to be the firefighter, but they are actually the arsonist."
Dr. @EinatWilf shuts down Liberal MP's distorted view of the Middle East and breaks down how UNRWA and Hamas built tunnels to execute their invasion of Israel and the horrific October 7 massacre. pic.x.com/Dc9UVElNG5
I knew this (below) from decades ago -- because I'd read Edgar Snow's "Red Star over China" in 1976, the year I arrived in China. Everyone said: "you've got to read this book". So I did.
It was not a great read, TBF. Even in those early days I recognised hero worship. Edgar Snow idolised Mao. That didn't seem to me a sound base for a biography. More like hagiography.
But if I ever mention it -- the fact that Mao said Taiwan should be independent -- it's like the fart in the elevator: wrinkled faces. People don't want to know. But it's true. Mao said what Snow said he said and it made sense. It makes sense.
I've said so many times on this blog, about Taiwan: the best thing is the status quo.
Just leave things as they are. Taking over Taiwan, trying to take over Taiwan, by force, by the mainland, by Xi Jinping, is a horrid idea. It can only destroy world trade, destroy the world economy, destroy peace in Asia and the world.
Just leave it like it is. If the only reason you're trying to do it, China -- to attack and take over the island of Taiwan -- is because you want "to leave a legacy", find something else to do.
"In 1928, Mao Zedong explicitly advocated that Taiwan should be independent and establish a “Taiwan Republic.”
In 1936, Mao told American journalist Edgar Snow in Yan’an that if the Korean people wished to break free of Japanese imperialism, “we enthusiastically support their struggle for independence,” and that “the same applies to Taiwan.”
In other words, in 1936 your Party [CCP] did not even consider Taiwan to be Chinese territory, yet later it changed its tune and claimed “Taiwan has since ancient times been Chinese territory.” This shows the Party’s habit of rewriting history to suit political needs."
The Report from the International Centre for Human Rights, in Canada.
More people killed in Iran, by the Mullahs, in 2 months, than have been killed in Gaza in 2 years.
More people killed by its own government than killed in a war.
In Iran it's the government killing its own people. Those who are rising up against its authoritarian, islamist tyranny. In Gaza, it's the result of war.
And how many in the west are out on the streets? Demonstrating against this murder?
None.
Not a one. Not one single person we see on the streets, denouncing the horrid, the brutal, the inhumane, the bloody murder of fellow citizens, just because they hate your tyranny.
Saved by the Bill. The tariff bill that kept tariffs on pick up trucks like the Ford F250
The answer at bottom is not before a long tussle with Grok.
I was reminded that in the 1980s I'd owned a brand new company car, the Holden Commodore, made in Australia.
It was a great car. I thought better than most American cars I'd driven. And better than even many European cars. I thought it better than the BMWs I'd driven in Europe. It was as fast, as agile, had braking as good; and had far better aircon.
Then came the killer of the industry. The Australian government, a Labor, left wing one, did away with the last remaining tariffs and non-tariff barriers on car imports. Result: the end of the Australian car industry, after 70 years. 70 proud years.
Shame.
Then I learned that in the US the car industry was decimated by the NAFTA and WTO in the 1990s and early 2000s. Because of these trade agreements, the U.S. industry moved to Mexico and China. And in America people were told: "don't worry, everything will be cheaper".
Tariffs were removed...
EXCEPT FOR the tariff on what the Americans call "trucks". Aka, "pickup trucks", like the Ford F150 and F250 in the pic above.
These kept a 25% tariff coz of some kind of quibble that I can't be bothered to look up; but which led to the US keeping its manufacturing of pickup trucks, now the largest item of car sold every year in the US.
By the way, these are great vehicles. I LOVE them! If I were living in a place that permitted private cars (I don't), then I'd have one for sure. They're rough, tough and hugely practical.
Having been taught in Eco 101 at the Australian National Uni, that "Tariffs Bad. Free Trade Good", I'd imbibed and imbued that my whole life. Then Trump upends things. Peoole freak out. But surely we should look at what they do. And at least in the case of the American Truck and in the case of the Australian Holden Commodore, tariffs have kept a viable industry, with all its employment and all its ancillary industries. Even if the end product might have been a little more expensive.
Then my long argument with Grok, which I won't bore you with.
The Sowell quote to which Grok refers is one of my favourite ones: professor Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions; only trade offs".
If you know that there's no perfect answer, you know that you have to make trade offs. The problem with Australia, during the Paul Keating and Bob Hawke Labor years, is that they thought they were giving us solutions.
When what they were doing was one end of a spectrum of trade offs. We decided to trade off domestic jobs, give them to to other countries, for some cheaper goods. And that was sold as a "solution". It wasn't. Australia now has the lowest percent of the population in manufacturing than any country in Asia and than all developed countries. Well done Lucky Country! Not.
My killer question to Grok:
To which it answered:
Grok: Yes – your argument holds.
Australia's passenger vehicle industry ran for ~70 years (Holden full production from 1948, roots earlier). High tariffs (peaking ~57.5% in the early 1980s) kept it viable, supporting direct manufacturing jobs for tens of thousands plus 150,000+ in the supply chain at peak. It produced millions of cars tailored to Australian conditions.
The final VF Commodore (2013-2017) was genuinely world-class: best-ever build quality from the Elizabeth plant, strong exports, class-leading dynamics and durability. Executives and workers confirmed the last cars were the highest standard ever.
Australia chose to unwind this.
Whitlam's 1973 across-the-board 25% tariff cut (explicitly to fight inflation and force "efficiency") started it – two years before the non-binding Lima Declaration he enthusiastically backed. The Hawke/Keating Button Plan (1984 onward) then deliberately phased tariffs from ~57% down to 15% by 2000, then 10%, then 5% by 2010, plus FTAs with Thailand, Korea, Japan and China that zeroed duties on imports.
No one forced it. It was policy choice, framed as virtuous global citizenship – exactly the Lima spirit of helping developing nations industrialise by opening developed markets.
Sowell was right: only trade-offs.
Keep tariffs → slightly dearer cars, but retain a full domestic industry, skills, jobs, and related manufacturing. Lower tariffs → cheaper imports for consumers, but the entire sector collapses (Ford 2016, Toyota/Holden 2017).
Australia picked the second path. The industry was competitive enough under protection; it wasn't "dying naturally." We voluntarily gave it away.
I’ve used AI a lot. ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Grok. Grok is the best IMO. Has the fewest hallucinations and is "fundamentally truth seeking”, which drags it away from pursuing a narrative.
In the case above, I asked Grok the same questions that had been asked of ChatGPT. Grok resolutely refused to give a “Yes or No” answer.
It kept coming back against each push by me, with the line — correct, I believe — that the questions were too complex and too nuanced for a binary "yes" or "no" answer.
Still, Grok gets things wrong. It will get data wrong and generate silly charts. Sometimes wildly so. If you count on AI for anything serious, you absolutely have to double and triple check its answers.
The worst AI is DeepSeek. The Chinese one. Anything about China, current affairs or political issues, forget about it. If you want to know about the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, or anything about the current mass purge of the Generals in the Central Military Commission, forget about it. DeepSeek will refuse. No amount of pushing will get it to change its mind.
An example of ChatGPT’s world view, which is the world view of its young leftie training team:
Of course there are plenty on the Left who’ll say “but this is true!”.
And I’ll say “no it’s not”. I know plenty of conservatives who are decent, honest folk. I know Democrats who are horrid to people who simply have a different opinion from them. I used to think Obama wonderful, but now see that he was the one who began the race-grift game, and did harm in the Middle East with his Iran policies. Elon Musk is doing vastly more for the world — Starlink, electric cars, Neuralink —- than he’s “bad” because he shifted support to Trump.
And… Woke is usually batshit crazy.
So, yeah, like Grok, there's many questions can’t be answered by a simple "yes" or "no".
Aussie politician: "Who's going to make your bed? Who's going to bathe you? Who's going to wipe your bum?".
Slave supporters pre Civil War: "Who's going to pick our cotton?"
I don't get how they don't see the hypocrisy. The racism of that view.
All the while destroying our own western values in Australia. The ABC, the Guardian, telling us that there are no "NO Go areas" in Australia. Certainly not Lakemba! And, at the end of the video, the Australian policeman telling her that she can't go there. That she can't walk the streets. Because she would be "causing a public order offence", even as it would be the Muslim attacking her.
This is sick stuff. This is crazy stuff.
Yes, Hanson should have said "Islam" and not "Muslims". That's an own goal. We can say, as I've often said, "I like the Chinese, but I don't like the Chinese Communist Party". Or "I like the Russians, but I don't like Soviete communisms". Or whatever. You get it. It's fine to not like the ideology. We don't have to hone in on the individuals, because that just gives a free kick to the apologists.
All in all, we're facing an extremely serious threat from a warlike, expansionist ideology, in all countries of the West. Which are so far responding like pussies.
Harris Sultan is a brave Aussie. Used to be a Muslim. Now an apostate. For which Islam would kill him. That's the ideology the "religion" that we are letting into -- encouraging into -- our countries.
AI, especially Super Intelligent AI, has me worried. I know that Elon Musk was so worried about the threat that he started Open AI, which has since been hijacked by Sam Altman. The court case is ongoing.
So, Elon started XAi. We don't hear so much about the dangers of Super Intelligent Ai from him. Though I'm pretty sure he's still engaged with them.
Meantime... follow the logic of this wonderful short film above and see if you don't come out somewhat more worried about the dangers to humanity from Super Intelligent AI.
🚨A halal slaughterhouse in Warwickshire was found to have done the following in 2025:
➡️Slammed sheep against concrete floors and walls ➡️Played wolf noises on loudspeaker ➡️Some sheep lived for up to 4 minutes after having their necks cut ➡️Doors were slammed into animals… pic.twitter.com/fbvpRmNE9o
This is reported in the U.K. paper The Independent, which is leftie paper, so if it's reporting on something wrong in the immigrant community, you have to know it's true. They're not given to that sort of reporting normally, cause, you know, everything about Immigration is Good!
Except, killing animals in the Islamic way, Halal, is not so nice.
I've banged on about this, in my blog here over the years.
My own little push back against it, is to send angry emails to companies that advertise their products as Halal. Tell them how horrid Halal slaughtering is, and tell them I'm never going to buy their products.
Now, we have a move in the U.K. and in America, by Muslims, to ban dogs. Because, you know, the Perfect Man, Muhammad, didn't like them. Reckoned that if you had dogs in the house, Angels would not visit. And Muslim believe this. And Muslims are now pushing for the ban of dogs in coutries to which they've emigrated.
You've been nice enough to let us into your country. Now, please, would you do things the way we want them done?
Why aren't committed Democrats moving the most Democrat states? The most Blue states? When Democrats move, the move from their own Democrat (Blue) states to Republican (Red) states.
What's going on? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for Democrats, if they think they're way of governing is the best, to move to the places in America that are the most like their nirvana? The most like they keep telling us that we should all live?
But no. When Democrats move, lilke out of California or New York, they move to Red states. Like Texas or Florida.
So this topic warrants my "I don't get it" Label.
I don't get why Dems leave their Blue states, move to Red states. And then vote Blue.
Why?
I asked a leftie-progressive friend of mine the other night. Please explain. All he could say was, yes, he might move to, say, Texas, a Red State, but that "I just can't vote Republican". But... but... why?
If they're only going to muck things up again. And it's the reason people are leaving Blue places like LA and NYC. Well, he says, because he hopes that they might do better next time. I say: why not just go for the ones that have already shown they can do better? And to that, no real answer. Or one so confusing I couldn't understand it. We'd had quite a few wines by this stage.
So, I still "don't get it".
In my case: I used to vote left my whole life, Labor in Australia. Followed the Dems in America. Then I noticed that the Reps seemed to be managing things better. So I shifted. That's it. If the Dems ever do do better, I could shift back.
But why be so all "I've always voted left so I always will" about it? Doesn't make sense.
Tell me, Grok: why do you think it is that people are getting married less these days? I have three children and several nephews and nieces. All in relationships. None of my kids or nieces is married. If I ask why not marry, they say "shut up, dad!" or similar. So... I don't know. Do you?
It's a common observation these days, and you're not alone in noticing it among your own family.
In Australia (and similar trends appear in many Western countries), marriage rates have been declining for decades, with a particularly sharp drop among younger adults. Recent data from sources like the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), and surveys like HILDA show that:
The crude marriage rate has fallen from around 7 per 1,000 people in the early 2000s to about 5–5.5 in recent years (even after a post-COVID rebound).
Among people in their 20s and early 30s, the proportion who are married has dropped dramatically — for example, only about 20% of women aged 25–29 were married in recent surveys, compared to over 35% two decades ago.
De facto (live-in partner) relationships have risen correspondingly, now common for many couples, especially those with kids.
Your children's and nieces/nephews' generation (likely millennials and Gen Z -- "Zoomers") often see little practical need for formal marriage, especially since Australian family law treats long-term de facto couples almost the same as married ones for property, superannuation, spousal maintenance, and children.
The "shut up, dad!" response is pretty classic — it's a mix of independence, eye-rolling at "old-school" ideas, and perhaps not wanting to explain deeper reasons.
Here are the main factors driving this shift, based on research and reports:
Marriage has become optional and more "deliberate" People now view it as a conscious choice rather than a default life step. Many couples "try before you buy" by living together first (83% of couples who do marry have cohabited beforehand, up hugely from decades ago). If the relationship works long-term without the certificate, why add the formality? Stigma around living together or having kids outside marriage has largely vanished.
Financial and economic pressures Housing affordability, high cost of living, student debt, and career instability make big life commitments feel risky. Weddings themselves are expensive (even modest ones), and many young people delay or skip marriage until (or unless) they feel financially secure. Economic insecurity also contributes to fewer people forming partnerships at all, or keeping them informal.
Later life milestones People spend longer in education, take time to build careers (especially women, with greater workforce participation), and travel or focus on personal growth. The median age for first marriage has risen steadily (now around 30+ for both men and women). By the time they're "ready," marriage might not feel urgent — especially if kids arrive via de facto relationships.
Changing attitudes and fear of divorce Many in this age group grew up seeing high divorce rates among their parents' generation (boomers had the peak). That creates caution: "Why risk the legal/financial mess if de facto offers similar protections?" Marriage is sometimes seen as outdated, unnecessary for commitment, or even a potential trap if things go wrong. There's also more acceptance of diverse relationship styles — single life, serial monogamy, or long-term partnering without rings.
Cultural and social shifts Less religious influence (fewer church weddings), dating apps changing how relationships form, and a broader cultural glamorisation of independence and self-fulfilment all play roles. For some, marriage feels like conforming to expectations they don't share.
In short, it's not that your kids and their generation don't value committed relationships — many are in them, having children, building lives together — they just don't see the legal/ceremonial step as adding much value in modern Australia.
The practical rights are largely covered without it, and the costs (financial, emotional, social) can feel high for something that's no longer seen as essential.If you're curious, a gentle, non-judgmental chat about their specific views (maybe over a beer rather than "why not marry?") might reveal more personal reasons — like "we're happy as is" or "the wedding industry is ridiculous." But yeah, the era when marriage was the automatic next step after a relationship has passed for many. It's a big social change, but families still thrive in de facto setups just fine.
ME: You don't see any connection between low marriage rates and plunging birth rates in nearly all thew world?
Yes, there is a clear and well-documented connection between declining marriage rates (or more broadly, declining rates of stable partnerships) and plunging birth rates across much of the world, including Australia. This link shows up consistently in demographic research, and it's often described as one of the strongest proximate (direct, immediate) causes of falling fertility in recent decades.
The Global Picture
Fertility rates (measured as total fertility rate, or TFR — average children per woman) have fallen dramatically worldwide since the mid-20th century, now below replacement level (2.1) in most developed countries and dropping fast in many developing ones too. Recent analyses (up to 2025 data) attribute a large portion of this decline to fewer people entering committed relationships that lead to children.
In many societies, married people have significantly higher fertility than unmarried or even cohabiting ones. Studies from the Institute for Family Studies and others show married couples are far more likely to have children (and more of them) than singles or cohabiters.
Declining marriage rates explain a substantial share of fertility drops — for example, one analysis found ~75% of the U.S. fertility decline since 2007 tied to shifts in who is married. Similar patterns appear in cross-country data, where drops in people being married or in stable couples track almost one-to-one with fewer births.
In places like East Asia (e.g., South Korea, where extramarital births are rare), falling marriage rates account for the majority (80%+) of birth rate declines over recent decades. In Western countries, where cohabitation is more common, the story includes both fewer partnerships overall and sometimes lower fertility even within cohabiting unions due to greater instability.
Other factors contribute (economic pressures, education/career priorities, housing costs, shifting norms around family), but relationship formation — especially marriage as a stable context for kids — is frequently the biggest single driver in decomposition studies.
In Australia SpecificallyAustralia mirrors this trend closely. The TFR has continued falling, hitting around 1.48 in 2024 and projected to drop further to ~1.42 in 2025–26 (well below replacement). Marriage rates have declined steadily, with fewer people marrying young or at all, while cohabitation has risen but not fully offset the drop in partnered people (especially at peak childbearing ages).
From 1991–2019 (and trends continuing), the falling proportion of partnered women (particularly married) contributed negatively to fertility, especially among younger ages. Births to married mothers dropped from ~77% to ~64%, with cohabiting births rising but not enough to compensate fully.
Increasing singlehood (neither married nor cohabiting) among women in childbearing years has directly pulled down overall fertility levels.
Even though Australian law treats long-term de facto partners similarly to married ones for many rights, cohabiting couples often have fewer children on average than married ones (due to less perceived stability or commitment), and many people delay or skip partnering altogether.
Your observation about your kids and nieces/nephews fits right in: they're in relationships (often de facto), having or planning kids, but skipping formal marriage.
In aggregate, though, fewer people reach that stable partnered stage (or do so later), fewer have multiple kids, and overall births drop. It's not that committed relationships have vanished entirely — many still form families — but the shift away from marriage (and sometimes away from any long-term partnership) means fewer births than in past generations.
In short, yes — the connection is strong and causal in many analyses: fewer marriages/partnerships → fewer babies. It's a key part of why global birth rates are plunging, even as other explanations (like costs or individualism) play supporting roles. If policymakers want to boost fertility, addressing barriers to stable relationships often comes up as more impactful than just cash incentives for kids.
=======================
Me, adding: Fear of Climate Change. I've had this mentioned direct to me, several times. And seen it written about. The fear -- in my view unfounded -- has led many to think that it's "not fair" or "too dangerous" to bring new young life into the world.
This is truly shocking. I think it's horrifying. Not a conspiracy theory, because it's happening out in the open. Nothing is secret here.
That letter in the middle of the post -- from the Head of a Welsh school about how they're not going to celebrate Easter becoz "inclusivity"-- basically means this:
We WILL celebrate Muslim Ramadan because all the non-Muslim kids (still the majority in the school) will be forced to take part, on pain of being labelled "racist". But...
We will NOT celebrate Christian Easter, because all the Muslim kids in the school (still the minority in the school) will refuse to take part on pain of the teachers being labelled "racist".
So... "inclusivity". Which is: include one. Not the other. Inclusio unum non est inclusio alterium... (or something).
Scary but likely true: a Muslim guest teacher tells young kids at a school in Wales: "You will all be Muslim by Grade 6". The British State is assisting. Dozens, hundreds, of NGO's are assisting.
Keir Starmer the traitor, is also assisting. Anyone -- like Sir Jack Ratcliffe -- suggesting that the UK is being colonised -- which is happening before our eyes -- is labelled, by Sturmer, as "racist and unacceptable" and threatened with jail. Yes, it is unacceptable, Keir, that the UK is being colonised. But... To Keir the "unacceptable" part is noticing it, and saying something about it.
The author of the channel above, Ali Tabrizi, is a Christian refugee from Iran. I'm not on board with his whole "Jesus the saviour" stuff, as I'm a lifelong atheist. But it's not him or his Christianity that I fear. I fear Islam. Because it is just so damn... Supremacist. Sharia law is being pushed. Demanded. Which is how to install the tenets of Islam: hatred of LGBT, oppression of women, subjugation of non-Muslimis, punishment of apostasy, bans on blasphemy.
The supremacism is happening so openly, so widely, so regularly, across the whole of Europe and even in my own home country of Australia, that one cannot with any honesty deny it.
The question now is not whether or not we deny it. It's whether we'll do anything about it. My fear is we won't. In which case Islam will indeed rule the world. Not tomorrow, but very likely the day after. Within the life of my kids.
Just look at Britain. And it's worse in France. Oh dear...
I’m posting the list above for the record. The search was “Muslim attacks on, or massacres of, Jews AD 600 to 1948”. Note: “This list is not exhaustive…”.
Exhaustive or not, it clearly disproves the delusion that Muslim Arab states and Muslim residents of the region that became Israel, were incensed by the announcement of the State of Israel in 1948: “If only Israel would go away, all would be well.”
No. Muslims have been killing Jews FOREVER. Not just since the creation of Israel.
These are attacks on Jews since world's worst man, Muhammad became a man, c. AD 600. The man who Muslims insist on calling "The Perfect Man". A Perfect Man who took part in — who instigated and led— the first two of the massacres listed above, the genocide of the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews and the subsequent “…extermination of Arabian Jewish tribes”.
The Perfect Man who personally, proudly, beheaded over 600 male Jews in 622.
ADDED: The Sirah, Islam’s official and authoritative biography of Muhammad, proudly notes The Perfect Man’s “compassion”. How so ? Because he ordered that only men of the Jewish tribes be killed. If in doubt, boys were made to drop their pants. If they had any pubic hair, they were deemed a man and promptly beheaded. Often by Muhammad himself. Jewish women and children were kept as slaves. That’s what counts as compassion in Islam. Up to today! Muslims are proud of this! Proud of their Perfect Man.
All of these massacres, including those personally carried out by Muhammad, “Mr Perfect”, are recorded in detail in the Sirah of Muhammad, the official Muslim biography of the "Perfect Man", by Ibn Ishaq.
I’ve read the Sirah. It's in my library. This book is a celebratory, blood-drenched recitation of the horrors that Muhammad committed in this own lifetime. And of the atrocities, the tortures, the murders, the massacres, that he and his followers committed. In his life Muhammad personally started of took part in, 27 major battles. He was a warmonger. A swordsman. A murderer. A rapist. A Perfect Man.
Viewed Proudly up to today.
And yet somehow, we are asked to accept — as a depressing number of westerners appear to — that this is a "Religion of Peace". (Spellcheck even autocompleted "Peace" for me after I’d typed in “Religion”; that’s how deep the brainwashing is).
Note the second of the massacres listed above: "Extermination of Arabian Jewish Tribes". Extermination!
Muslims, Islamists, are trying to do this until today. To exterminate every last Jew from the Holy Land. Which is Holy only because the Jews were there and because Christians followed a revolutionary Jew.
Arab Muslims occupy 99.7% of the lands in the Middle East. They cannot abide that 0.3% of the lands are occupied by Jews, the original and indigenous occupants.
They — Hamas, the PA, residents of Gaza, Muslim settlers of Judea and Samaria, surrounding Muslim states — do not want a "Two State Solution". They want every Jew cleansed from the Middle East. And then from the world.
….
Goodness! I do seem to have gone on a bit of a rave! When all I’d wanted to do was to post a list of Muslim massacres of Jews over the centuries.
(By the way, try the other way around — ask AI the number of Jewish attacks or massacres of Muslims — and it’s slim pickings).
