Incoming Feed Items

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

Known as the “Silent Holocaust,” the genocide in Guatemala is seldom mentioned in modern history. The United States, with support from Israel, backed yet another violent crusade against an indigenous population as well as against communism. The Guatemalan genocide — preceded by a CIA-instigated coup d’état of the Guatemalen government in 1954 and the ensuing civil war — saw hundreds of thousands of the Mayan Indigenous peoples and alleged communists massacred or disappeared.

Zohran Mamdani’s recent conversation with Sadiq Khan should instill fear in the hearts of the average New York City voter. In the weeks since he defeated Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary in June, Mamdani has reportedly “been in touch with a number of progressive mayors,” including London’s.

During a “warm and collegial” phone call, Khan reportedly advised the young socialist from Queens to shift to the center. After winning the primary by pledging rent freezes and free buses, he urged Mamdani to reassure moderates in the same way that Khan himself did in 2016, after routing his fellow left-wing opponents before defeating the Conservative candidate in the London mayoral race.

Although Khan is not a leftist in the same sense as Mamdani or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, his tenure in London shows his alleged “centrism” can be just as damaging.

Keeping people safe is a basic responsibility of an elected leader—a test Khan is failing. London has a terrible knife problem. Almost one-third of the 50,000 violent and sexual crimes with knives reported in England and Wales last year occurred in the capital.

At the 2025 Panamerican Congress in Mexico City, held August 1st to 3rd, hosted by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her Morena Parliamentary Group, Canadian journalist Naomi Klein gave remarks at the Esperanza Iris theatre.

The author of The Shock Doctrine, No Logo, and most recently the memoir Doppelganger, presented remarks to delegations at the Panamerican Congress, an annual conference of progressive legislators from Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego, entitled: The Rise of End-of-the-World Fascism and Resistance from the Global South.

Click here to watch other political speeches from Álvaro García Linera, Clara Brugada, Ilhan Omar, Andrés Arauz, and Gerardo Pisarello at the 2025 Panamerican Congress, CDMX.

This article is read by Eunice Wong, a Juilliard-trained actor, featured on Audible's list of Best Women Narrators. Her work is on the annual Best Audiobooks lists of the New York Times, Audible, AudioFile, & Library Journal. www.eunicewong.actor

Text originally published July 28, 2025.

Andrew F. Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Jonathan Lee, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw

In the 1980s Jesse Jackson helped banish “Western Civ” from Stanford with a silly chant. Many colleges and universities that had not already done so followed suit.

But in the classical counterrevolution of the 21st century, Western civilization is back. The Great Books, long thought a relic of Mortimer Adler’s Cold War-era salesmanship, now guide the curriculum at many of the over 1,000 classical schools that have been founded over the past few decades, dozens of which are publicly funded charter schools. A new Great Books college sprouts up every year or so. Dead languages like Latin seem to be very much alive again.

Whether it is humanism, the medieval liberal arts, or even just memes about the Roman Empire, it turns out that Western Civ did indeed have to go—big.

The 21st-century classical counterrevolutionaries should not get high on their own supply, though. If their project ends up being a retread of the Mortimer Adler-Robert Hutchins show, they may be greeted by an even deeper abyss of failure than the ostracism Western Civ faced in the name of diversity that occurred with the rise of racial and gender studies.

On this special crossover episode of Follow the Money and After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Glenn Connley to discuss the Australian protests calling for more action to protect Palestinians, the momentum against the troubled AUKUS submarine pact, and Trump’s decision to fire his chief of labour statistics after job growth slowed.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 4 August 2025.

You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available for pre-order now via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Show notes:

Publisher’s note (Nathan Tankus): A while ago I got the permission of my friends at Bloomberg Oddlots to clean up and publish transcripts of episodes that they didn’t have the time or inclination to produce (Incidentally, you can check out the New York Times profile of Oddlots published yesterday). One episode that I thought was particularly important was their April 30th episode with former BLS Commissioner Bill Beach. 

A cut in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 75 per cent below 2005 levels would broadly align with the science – and strengthen Australia’s bid to host the 2026 United Nations climate conference.

Announcing a bigger number is one thing, though. How the government reaches it is another.

Australia’s current target under the international treaty on climate change, the Paris Agreement, is a 43 per cent cut in emissions by 2030. Progress is tracked through a set of climate accounts called the “inventory” and reported annually. Emissions from across the economy – including energy, transport, industry and land – are recorded, added up, and presented as a single figure.

The Australian government claims emissions for the year to December 2024 were 27 per cent below 2005 levels. But Australia’s emissions inventory is riddled with loopholes and unverifiable modelling that paints a misleading picture of progress. Just this week, United Nations Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell urged Australia not to settle for the bare minimum as it prepares to announce its 2035 target. “Bog standard is beneath you,” he said. “Don’t settle for what’s easy. Go for what’s smart by going big.” But bog standard would be an improvement on what’s happening now.

The profit motive is a great thing in the right industry.

But long ago we worked out that education wasn’t one of those industries. There is no profit motive driving school education in Australia.

Private schools in Australia are non-profit. They are run by school boards that are supposed to be focused on providing the best education for their students.

How does the government keep the for-profit sector out of school education? A for-profit school is ineligible for government funding.

We need to do the same for childcare.

The only priority of childcare providers should be the children in their care. They should not be distracted by the idea of keeping their shareholders happy.

The government is rushing its childcare changes through Parliament. It will use threats of funding cuts to ensure improvements to safety standards.

It’s a good move. Money talks in this industry.

But the heartbreaking stories out of Melbourne in recent weeks, which are driving these changes, could be a catalyst for significant long-term change.

Australia’s childcare industry is dominated by for-profit providers. They make up 70 per cent of the childcare industry, and 95 per cent of the growth in the industry is in the for-profit centres.

The expansion of government subsidies means that a childcare centre in the right urban location is a licence to print money.

In the 2025 federal election, Labor won a landslide victory. That victory reflects the strong preference Australians had for the Labor Government over the Liberal–National Opposition. In 100 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives, most voters preferred the Labor candidate to the Liberal or National one.

However, while Labor was preferred on preferences, only about 35% of Australians gave the party their first preference. Despite this, Labor won 62% of the seats. In other words, about five million of the fifteen million votes cast were “1 Labor”, but the party won 94 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.

Major parties win more seats than their share of the vote because only one member of Parliament (MP) represents each seat.

Other countries have similarly distorted results. For example, in the 2024 United Kingdom election the Labour Government won 34% of the vote and 63% of the seats. Significantly, the United Kingdom does not use preferential voting but rather first-past-the-post. If anything, Australia’s full preferential voting system reduces distortions.

An alternative to “winner takes all” is proportional representation, where parties and candidates win seats based on their share of the vote. Proportional representation allows for more diverse representation of parties and interests – as in the Australian Senate or the New Zealand Parliament.

At least on paper, DEI in the federal government is dead. On the very first day of his second presidency, Donald Trump issued a presidential action, “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” ending all diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.” Employees in DEI-specific positions were fired; DEI positions and offices were dismantled; and DEI training programs, newsletters, and promotion criteria were scrapped.

But it would be beyond naive to think that just because federal agencies are not currently promoting DEI that their workforces do not still widely hold the opinions they were encouraged to hold. Thousands of current federal employees participated in or supported DEI programs. Even those who might disagree were coerced to back DEI if they wanted to keep their jobs.

That for a party’s election campaign to be a success, the leaders would need to kiss the ring, and then News Corp’s coverage would decide the outcome of the campaign.

It was never true, but it was a truism for years.

In reality, News Corp would just see which way the wind was blowing and then back in the party that was already ahead, retconning its support as having MADE the government instead of just following the trend.

The strategy worked – for decades those in the political sphere would tell you of News Corp’s power in deciding elections and how the company, no matter how heinous or one-sided its coverage became, could not be ignored.

It became obvious that News Corp only ever had the perception of influence – rather than influence itself – once it switched its editorial position to campaigning for the conservatives, no matter what.

There have been countless state and federal elections where News Corp has thrown as much muck at Labor as possible and the full weight of its media influence at supporting the losers – the Coalition – and not moved the dial.

But the myth remains in many circles. News Corp cannot be ignored. Why? Because you have to make a play to be a player, even when the result is already known. Especially when it is already known.

Except for the US, which is its own basket case of mutable positions, Australia’s major allies will recognise Palestine when the United Nations General Assembly next meets in September.