Incoming Feed Items

The assassination of Charlie Kirk puts to rest the dreamy hope that President Trump’s 2024 election was the final word on identity politics in America. The revolutionary faction he defeated at the ballot box walks not by argument, but by faith. It is a faith that the innocent victims of the world cannot rest until the racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, extremists, fascists, authoritarians, Nazis—and now the (Israeli) colonizers—are purged.

For more than a decade, we called this faith “cancel culture.” But cancellation was never going to be enough. In the end, the dark inner logic of identity politics requires a literal purging of those identified as “toxins” from the body social. Identity politics is, as I have written, “the spiritual eugenics of our age.” To achieve this always-receding goal of purity, a scapegoat must be found upon whom to lay the sins of the world. Charlie Kirk became that scapegoat.

The Republican political victory of 2024 notwithstanding, identity politics remains the reigning theodicy in all of our public American institutions; it is the established church of the American elite, whose parishioners rage and mock the majority of impure American citizens, who themselves are awakening to its bloody logic. One America mourns a martyr for Christ. Another America celebrates the purging of a scapegoat.

In July 2025 the Journal of Australian Political Economy published a special issue (JAPE No.95) devoted to recollections and implications of 50 years of Political Economy courses at the University of Sydney.

One assumed that exposure to this specialist outlet would remain restricted to the faithful. But here it is referred to in Murdoch’s The Australian, 25 August 2025 – “Economy not just ‘numbers on a page’: PM sets reform guard rails”, and the editorial, “Good economic numbers all about living standards”.

The connecting link is a certain Anthony Albanese, contributor to the special issue with numerous other ex-students, on what ‘political economy’ means to him and his policy agenda. Both articles leverage the Albanese piece to throw in their two bits about the Labor Government’s contemporary productivity roundtable.

That’s one every four hours.

Based on data obtained from police in each state and territory, the paper reveals that at least 9,000 guns have been stolen since 2020 and over 44,000 since 2000.

The new report builds on previous research showing there are now over 4 million guns in Australia, more than before the Port Arthur killings, and the subsequent reforms under the Howard Government.

“Thousands of guns are flowing into the hands of criminals every year, putting Australians in danger,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“There are record numbers of guns in Australia and this research shows how easily they can fall into the hands of criminals.

“Theft of legal guns is the main source of illegal guns in Australia, not 3D printing or illegal imports. It’s pretty simple – the more legal guns there are in Australia, the more illegal guns there will be.

“Australia would be safer with fewer guns in the community overall, and governments need to work to reduce the number of guns in Australia and in each state and territory.

“State and federal governments have been complacent, perhaps believing that gun control in Australia was sorted by the Howard Government in the 1990s.

“This research shows that gun control and keeping the community safe requires ongoing efforts from all levels of government.

“Australians might be shocked to discover that the Howard-era National Firearms Agreement has still not been completed.

Australia’s total land value has soared past $10 trillion, according to new ABS data — yet ordinary workers continue to shoulder most of the nation’s tax load. Prosper Australia says the figures highlight the need to rebalance the tax system so that unearned gains from land and natural resources contribute their fair share. “Australia’s land […]

In August, The Australia Institute welcomed the Tasmanian Liberal Party’s promise to conduct an independent study into the salmon industry, pausing marine expansion while the review is carried out.

However, the Tasmanian Government’s Terms of Reference were finalised without public consultation. Moreover, the entire study will not provide any recommendations.

The Australia Institute has been conducting research into the salmon industry for a decade. It shows 7 in 10 Tasmanians support the 2022 Parliamentary Inquiry to reduce inshore fish farming and to stop it altogether in sensitive, sheltered, and biodiverse areas.

“The Terms of Reference were developed in secret, with no public consultation and amount to a stitch up for the foreign-owned salmon industry in Tasmania,” said Eloise Carr, director of The Australia Institute Tasmania.

“Unless they are changed and truly independent reviewers are appointed, the study risks being a complete waste of time and tax-payer money.

“The science is clear – we know the harm this industry is doing in its current form in Tasmania and globally. This study had the opportunity to deliver on the findings of previous inquiries, including the Tasmanian Parliamentary Inquiry, by recommending how to change the way this industry operates.

In his book, Cultivating Socialism: Venezuela, ALBA, and the Politics of Food Sovereignty, Rowan Lubbock provides a novel approach to understanding not only some of the shortcomings of ALBA as a revolutionary project, but beyond that, how food systems and emancipatory politics cannot be understood without looking at the multiscalarity of social relations. One of the key contributions of the book is to present a multiscalar approach to study food regimes, but also to broader dynamics of sovereignty and the ‘sovereignty problem’ the author highlights, one – in his words – which is rooted in sovereignty as ‘the right to exploit labour and the territorial organisation of social production’.

The federal government has taken a significant step to improve the equity and sustainability of the superannuation system, by increasing the earnings tax rate on large super balances. The October 13 announcement means the changes will bring in less revenue, but they will support low-income earners and protect against liquidity issues for some high-wealth individuals.  

What are the changes? 

Currently, earnings during the super accumulation phase are taxed at 15 per cent, regardless of the size of the super balance. While this system is simple to administer, it is out of step with the commonly accepted progressive tax and transfer system in Australia. 

On this episode of After America, Matt Duss joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Trump’s deployment of troops in the domestic United States, the administration’s attacks on Venezuela, negotiations over Gaza and Ukraine, and what it really means when the President makes a promise.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 24 October 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 now via Australia Institute Press.

Guest: Matt Duss, Executive Vice President, Center for International Policy // @mattduss

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

Show notes:

Trump’s tragedy: the US becomes an autocracy and the presidency, a dictatorship by Emma Shortis, The Conversation (October 2025)

Half of Americans are lonely and isolated—and artificial intelligence is stepping into the void.

Sam Altman just announced that OpenAI will soon provide erotica for sexually lonely adults. Mark Zuckerberg envisions a future where solitary people enjoy AI friends. According to the Harvard Business Review, the top uses for large language models are therapy and companionship.

It’s easy to see why this is happening. AI is always available, endlessly patient, and unfailingly agreeable. Millions now pour their secrets into silicon confidants, comforted by algorithms that respond with affirmation and tact. But what masquerades as friendship is, in fact, a dangerous substitute. AI therapy and friendship burrow us deeper into ourselves when what we most need is to reach out to others.

As Jordan Peterson once observed, “[O]bsessive concern with the self is indistinguishable from misery.” That is the trap of AI companionship.

This is a Premium piece of Notes on the Crises. 

Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was born and raised in Milledgeville Georgia, about a 100 miles away from Atlanta. She also shares a birth year with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, among other things, gave the federal government multiple tools to enforce the desegregation of public schools- including the denial of federal financial assistance. This is often referred to as “banning” racial segregation in public schools but Lisa Cook can attest to the fact that racial segregation and discrimination in Milledgeville Georgia’s public schools was alive and well during her early life, this legislation notwithstanding. The most dramatic anecdote in the public record about her experience at that time illustrates the messy reality:

Ensuring equality of opportunity in support of economic mobility remains one of the most profound and enduring challenges facing modern societies.

The pursuit of genuine mobility, where an individual’s prospects are not dictated by birth or circumstance, is central to any vision of a fair and dynamic society. Yet the path to achieving this ideal is anything but straightforward. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wisely observed:

“I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Following the announcement of Donald Trump’s ‘peace’ deal and the resulting ‘ceasefire’ there has been a lot of quiet commentary in legacy media circles about the future of the fifth estate.

“What are all these single-issue media critics going to do now that the issue is solved?” is the question being asked in newsrooms, as if now that the bombs have officially stopped dropping over civilians in Gaza (never mind that they haven’t), audiences will return to the legacy fold.

This question isn’t based in malice but a fundamental misunderstanding of what caused the schism in trust between audiences and media. It’s also not new. There has always been a level of distrust within newsrooms of people who undertake journalism away from the fold. It’s easy to dismiss renegades, even as the mainstream is forced to follow them.

Who gets to be a journalist — and who doesn’t

Who ‘gets’ to be a journalist has always been set by the mainstream – you must work for a masthead, a network or an established broadcaster to be counted as a ‘proper’ journalist. With one of those behind you, then it follows that everything you do is ‘journalism’.

Without the overhang of an established brand, then you are not a journalist. You’re something else. An activist. A ‘citizen’ journalist. A blogger. A podcaster. An influencer. A content creator. Someone ‘masquerading’ as a journalist. It doesn’t matter if you once worked for an established media outlet. You left. Whatever you’re doing now obviously can’t be considered ‘journalism’.

This is a question I used to ask my students, and only now realized I should ask FB friends. What’s a major political issue/narrative/belief/commitment on which you changed your mind, and what made you change your mind?