This article first appeared at ConfidentialDaily.com

For years, abortion has largely been treated as a settled issue in Australian politics.

Most major political parties preferred not to talk about it. Most journalists assumed the debate was over. Most Australians probably assumed that whatever abortion laws existed in their state were broadly similar to those elsewhere in the country.

Then Pauline Hanson’s One Nation walked straight back into the argument.

• The media has launched a coordinated attack on One Nation’s pro-life policies while often failing to explain what those policies actually are.

• One Nation is not proposing a blanket abortion ban but is focusing on issues such as late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion and protections for babies born alive.

• Polling suggests many Australians oppose late-term abortion and support safeguards that receive little attention in mainstream coverage.

• Broad polling questions about abortion access can conceal significant public concern about the outer limits of abortion laws.

• Australians deserve an honest debate about abortion laws rather than being told the issue is already settled.

In recent weeks, the party has come under fierce attack for its pro-life policies. Journalists, commentators and political opponents have accused One Nation of trying to roll back abortion rights and import American-style politics into Australia.

The backlash has been intense.

But amid all the outrage, something important has been missing from the discussion.

What exactly is One Nation proposing?

And do Australians really disagree with it as strongly as the media claims?

Those questions matter because much of the current debate has been built around a simple assumption: that Australians overwhelmingly support abortion and that any attempt to revisit abortion laws is automatically outside the mainstream.

Yet when you look beyond the headlines, the picture becomes far more complicated.

In fact, on some of the issues now being used to attack One Nation, there is evidence that many Australians may be closer to One Nation’s position than they realise.

One Nation’s policy is not a blanket ban on abortion.

The party acknowledges that human life begins in the womb and seeks to roll back what it describes as Australia’s most extreme abortion laws. Among other things, it wants to reduce gestational limits, ban sex-selective abortion, provide counselling and support for women considering abortion, protect babies born alive during abortion procedures, restore doctors’ conscience rights, ban the use of organs from aborted babies and improve abortion data reporting.

Whether you agree with those proposals or not, they are very different from the caricature often presented in media coverage.

The current controversy began because abortion laws in some Australian states allow abortions far later in pregnancy than many people realise.

Critics of One Nation argue these laws are necessary and should remain unchanged.

One Nation argues they have gone too far.

That disagreement is legitimate. It is precisely the kind of issue that should be debated openly in a democracy.

Instead, much of the public discussion has focused on portraying One Nation itself as beyond the pale.

The assumption underpinning that approach is that Australians overwhelmingly support the existing framework and would reject any attempt to introduce additional safeguards.

The polling suggests otherwise.

One of the most significant surveys conducted on these issues was carried out by YouGov Galaxy among Queensland voters.

The results paint a very different picture from the one usually presented in newspaper headlines.

Seventy-six per cent opposed abortion after 23 weeks of pregnancy.

Eighty-three per cent opposed sex-selective abortion.

Seventy per cent believed babies born alive following a late-term abortion should receive the same medical care as any other premature baby.

Eighty-eight per cent supported independent counselling for women considering abortion.

Seventy-four per cent supported conscience protections allowing doctors and nurses to refuse participation in abortion procedures.

Those are not fringe positions.

Nor are they confined to Queensland.

A Victorian poll conducted in 2023 found almost 70 per cent of respondents supported babies born alive after a late-term abortion being given medical care, rising to 87 per cent among those expressing a view.

The same poll found 74 per cent opposed abortion beyond 23 weeks of pregnancy.

These findings do not prove Australians are pro-life.

They do suggest, however, that many Australians are uncomfortable with some of the most extreme aspects of modern abortion law.

That distinction matters.

A common trick in this debate is to ask broad questions such as whether abortion should be legal or whether women should have access to abortion services.

Most Australians answer yes.

The media then often treats that answer as if it settles every other question.

Support for abortion in some circumstances becomes support for abortion in almost all circumstances.

Support for legal abortion becomes support for abortion right up to birth.

Support for healthcare becomes support for denying conscience rights to medical professionals.

The nuance disappears.

The difficult questions are avoided.

And anyone who raises them is labelled an extremist.

That may be politically convenient, but it is not intellectually honest.

The reality is that abortion is not one question.

It is a collection of questions.

Should abortions occur late in pregnancy?

Should an unborn child be aborted because it is the “wrong” sex?

Should a baby born alive after an abortion attempt receive medical care?

Should doctors be forced to participate in procedures they believe are morally wrong?

These are not crazy questions.

They are serious ethical questions.

They deserve serious answers.

Most importantly, they deserve public debate.

One Nation’s critics are free to disagree with its proposals.

That is how democracy works.

But pretending that nobody shares those concerns, or that the debate itself is somehow illegitimate, is something else entirely.

Australians are capable of discussing difficult moral questions.

They are capable of weighing competing arguments.

They are capable of deciding for themselves where the line should be drawn.

The real extremism may not be found in those who want to debate abortion laws.

It may be found in the growing insistence that those laws should never be questioned at all.

Because if the polling tells us anything, it is that many Australians remain deeply uncomfortable with late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, babies born alive being denied medical care and the erosion of conscience rights.

The media may not want that conversation.

But Australians deserve to have it.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

NOTE: Due to the large volume of emails I receive, it is not possible to email me and ask to be unsubscribed from this newsletter. You must do it yourself by following the simple processes listed below:

• How do I cancel my paid subscription on Substack?

• How do I unsubscribe from a free subscription?

Twenty-two years ago this week, a bloke from a small town in Colorado climbed into a bulldozer he’d spent months turning into an armoured fortress and made sure the world would remember his name.

• Marvin Heemeyer’s story has endured for twenty-two years because millions saw in him the frustration of an ordinary citizen battling institutions that seemed deaf to his concerns.

• Years of disputes over property access and local government decisions convinced Heemeyer that the system had failed to deliver fairness or justice.

• The sheer scale of the Killdozer incident captured global attention, yet the remarkable fact remains that no one else lost their life during the rampage.

• The lasting power of the story lies not in the machine itself, but in the uncomfortable questions it raises about accountability and public trust.

• When people lose faith that peaceful avenues for redress actually work, resentment festers and societies ignore those warning signs at their own peril.

Last week, on 4 June, the anniversary of Marvin Heemeyer’s death came and went with barely a mention. No retrospectives. No think-pieces. No earnest panel discussions on breakfast television. You’d hardly know one of the strangest and most talked-about acts of defiance in modern American history had happened at all.

And yet, say the word “Killdozer” and millions of people know exactly what you’re talking about.

That’s unusual in itself. Most local disputes disappear into dusty council records and fading newspaper archives. This one didn’t. Twenty-two years later, people are still talking about Marvin Heemeyer and his machine.

Heemeyer was a 52-year-old muffler shop owner in Granby, Colorado, a small mountain town where everyone knew everyone else’s business. For years he was caught up in fights with local officials and business interests over zoning decisions, road access and the future of his property. He believed he was being pushed out, stitched up by people with influence and ignored by those who were supposed to act fairly.

Anyone who’s dealt with a council bureaucracy knows the feeling. You ring up and get bounced from one department to another. You fill out the paperwork, pay the fees, lodge the objections and wait months for someone behind a desk to tell you no. Then you’re expected to smile politely and trust the process. And I say this as a former local government councillor of more than seven years.

Heemeyer quite rightly didn’t trust the process anymore.

He tried petitions. He made complaints. He argued his case. He recorded his thoughts in lengthy tapes that were later released to the public. Listening to them, what strikes you isn’t some cartoon villain cackling about revenge. It’s a man convinced that the system had stopped working for ordinary people like him.

Eventually, he decided he had nothing left to lose.

Over several months, working in secret, he transformed a Komatsu bulldozer into something extraordinary. Steel plating. Concrete sandwiched between armour. Cameras protected behind bullet-resistant coverings so he could see where he was going from inside the sealed cab. Once he climbed in, there was no easy way out.

And on 4 June 2004, he drove it through Granby.

He targeted buildings connected to the disputes that had consumed years of his life, the town hall, the local newspaper office and businesses linked to people he believed had wronged him. By the end of it, thirteen buildings had been damaged or destroyed.

Remarkably, nobody else was killed.

The bulldozer eventually became trapped beneath the collapsed remains of a building. Inside the machine, regrettably, Marvin Heemeyer took his own life.

That should have been the end of the story.

Instead, it became the beginning of something else.

People remember Killdozer because of the sheer absurdity of it. The image alone sounds like something dreamt up by Hollywood. But the story stuck around because of what people saw in it.

An independent tradesman. A veteran. A bloke trying to run his own business who became convinced that the people making decisions over his life weren’t interested in hearing him out.

You don’t have to agree with what Heemeyer did to understand why his story still resonates. Plenty of people do understand the anger. They’ve felt that slow, grinding frustration of dealing with institutions that seem untouchable and unaccountable.

How many Australians have sat across from some petty council bureaucrat wondering whether common sense ever entered the building? How many small business owners have watched new rules pile up year after year while being told it’s all for their own good? How many people have walked away from some bureaucratic nightmare thinking, “No one in charge actually has to live with the consequences of these decisions”?

That’s where the libertarian instinct comes from for a lot of people. Not from economics textbooks. Not from university lectures. From life.

From running a business, paying the bills and trying to build something of your own while feeling as though every year brings another form to fill out, another regulation to navigate and another official reminding you that they know best.

The reason the Killdozer story refuses to disappear is because it touches a nerve. Beneath the memes and the internet folklore sits an uncomfortable question that nobody in authority seems eager to answer.

What happens when people stop believing the normal channels work?

Societies don’t arrive at those moments overnight. Trust erodes bit by bit. People start to think the rules apply differently depending on who you are. They lose faith that anyone is listening. They stop believing they’ll get a fair go.

By then, the damage is already done.

Whether Marvin Heemeyer was a warning, a folk hero or simply a desperate man pushed to the limit depends largely on who’s telling the story. But the fact we’re still telling it twenty-two years later says something all by itself.

His anniversary slipped by with little fanfare this year. Maybe that’s because it’s easier to laugh at the memes or dismiss the whole thing as the act of a madman than to wrestle with the deeper unease underneath it.

People want to believe the institutions around them work fairly, that ordinary citizens can seek redress and be heard, and that power remains accountable to those it serves.

When enough people stop believing that, stories like Killdozer don’t disappear.

They endure.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

A Nation First Staff Writer

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

NOTE: Due to the large volume of emails I receive, it is not possible to email me and ask to be unsubscribed from this newsletter. You must do it yourself by following the simple processes listed below:

• How do I cancel my paid subscription on Substack?

• How do I unsubscribe from a free subscription?

Something strange has happened to the West.

I’m not talking about the normal ups and downs of politics. Every generation thinks the country’s going to the dogs. Every generation complains about the people in charge. That’s nothing new.

What’s new is the growing insistence that reality itself can be negotiated.

• The modern liberal West increasingly treats objective reality as something that can be redefined rather than recognised.

• Basic truths about sex, free speech and national identity are being replaced by ideological narratives.

• Abortion, euthanasia and mass immigration are presented as unquestionable goods while legitimate concerns are dismissed.

• Democratic principles appear to be celebrated only when voters support establishment-approved outcomes.

• Growing public resistance suggests the liberal consensus is weakening, but powerful institutions are unlikely to surrender their influence quietly.

For most of history, people argued about what should be done. Today, we’re increasingly arguing about what is. That’s a very different thing.

Take the debate over men and women.

For thousands of years, every civilisation that ever existed understood the difference. There were masculine women and feminine men. There were exceptions, oddities and outliers. But nobody seriously believed biological sex was simply a matter of personal declaration.

Now we’re expected to pretend otherwise. Not only pretend, but celebrate it.

Children are exposed to ideas about gender identity before they’re old enough to understand the consequences. Parents who raise concerns are treated as obstacles. Teachers, bureaucrats and activists assure us they’re simply helping vulnerable young people.

Maybe some genuinely believe that. I don’t doubt it.

What I find extraordinary is how quickly basic questions became unacceptable. Ask whether a child should be put on a pathway involving puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones and you’re accused of hatred. Point out that biological sex is real and you’re treated as though you’ve wandered into polite society carrying a dead rat.

Only now, after years of insisting everything was settled, are some institutions quietly backing away from their earlier certainty.

No apologies, of course.

The same thing has happened with free speech.

I grew up believing freedom of speech was one of those things that separated Western countries from authoritarian ones. You didn’t have to agree with somebody to defend their right to speak. In fact, that was the whole point.

These days, speech is increasingly treated like a dangerous substance that must be handled by experts.

Governments want powers to regulate what people see online. Bureaucrats concern themselves with misinformation. Journalists who spent years defending free expression suddenly discover exceptions whenever the wrong people are speaking.

It’s always presented as something reasonable. Something necessary.

Protecting people.

Keeping communities safe.

Defending democracy.

Funny how often censorship arrives carrying a noble mission statement.

Then there’s abortion.

I can still remember when even supporters of abortion would describe it as a sad reality, something unfortunate, something that should be rare.

That language has largely disappeared.

In England and Wales, nearly three out of every ten conceptions now end in abortion. Three in ten!

At the same time, we’re constantly told there’s a demographic crisis. Birth rates are collapsing. Populations are ageing. Governments are scrambling to find workers and taxpayers.

Nobody seems interested in discussing whether these things might be connected.

Perhaps they’re not. I think they are.

But the fact the question itself feels almost forbidden tells you something.

Euthanasia follows a similar pattern.

It begins with hard cases. The terminally ill. People suffering terribly. Most decent people can understand the compassion behind those arguments, even if they disagree.

Then the boundaries start moving.

The numbers rise. Eligibility expands. Another exception appears. Then another.

What was once sold as extraordinary gradually becomes ordinary.

Canada has become the example everyone points to, and for good reason. Assisted suicide has grown far beyond what many people originally imagined when the policy was first introduced.

Yet raising concerns often attracts the same response we’ve seen elsewhere. You’re accused of lacking compassion.

That’s become a familiar tactic. Redefine disagreement as cruelty and you never have to answer the argument.

Immigration might be the clearest example of all because people can see the effects with their own eyes.

You don’t need a university degree to notice what’s happened to housing. You don’t need an economist to explain why roads are busier, rents are higher and infrastructure struggles to keep up when population growth runs hot year after year.

Most Australians aren’t hostile to migrants. We’ve been a migrant country for generations.

What frustrates people is being told not to notice obvious consequences.

A young couple trying to buy their first home notices.

The family watching rent swallow more of their income notices.

The commuter stuck in traffic notices.

They also notice that a country is not merely a marketplace. It has a culture, a history and a character of its own. When large numbers of people arrive from cultures with values and traditions very different to those that shaped the West, it is perfectly reasonable to ask what effect that will have over time.

Then they’re informed that discussing any of it is somehow improper.

And finally we come to democracy.

This one still amazes me.

The same establishment that never stops talking about democracy seems increasingly nervous whenever voters start supporting parties outside the approved list.

When the public votes the right way, democracy is celebrated.

When they don’t, suddenly we’re told democracy itself is under threat.

Across Europe and elsewhere, we’ve seen growing efforts to isolate, marginalise or legally challenge populist movements. In Romania, an election was annulled amid allegations of foreign interference. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, it should concern anyone who values democratic legitimacy.

The pattern is becoming hard to ignore.

On issue after issue, words are starting to mean their opposite.

Censorship becomes safety.

Speech becomes harm.

Borders become prejudice.

Biology becomes identity.

Questioning authority becomes extremism.

Restricting political opponents becomes protecting democracy.

That, more than any individual policy, is what worries me.

A society can survive bad governments. It can survive economic downturns. It can survive poor leadership.

What becomes difficult is when a society starts losing confidence in the idea that objective reality exists independently of ideology.

The good news, if there is any, is that ordinary people seem to be pushing back.

You can see it across Europe. You can see it in Britain. You can see it here in Australia.

People aren’t necessarily becoming more radical. In many cases they’re simply refusing to go along with ideas that would have seemed absurd not very long ago.

Whether that changes anything remains to be seen.

The people running our institutions still hold a lot of power and they’re unlikely to hand it over gracefully. History suggests ruling classes rarely do.

Still, I get the sense that more and more people are willing to say what they actually think now. Not anonymously. Not in whispers. Out loud.

That’s usually where change starts.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

NOTE: Due to the large volume of emails I receive, it is not possible to email me and ask to be unsubscribed from this newsletter. You must do it yourself by following the simple processes listed below:

• How do I cancel my paid subscription on Substack?

• How do I unsubscribe from a free subscription?

This article by George Christensen was first published at ConfidentialDaily.com under the title “Having The Conversation That Was Once Forbidden”.

For years, Australians were told there were certain things decent people simply did not discuss.

Immigration. Integration. Culture. Whether every belief system arriving here is automatically suited …

Read more

I had a case of gout in my right foot yesterday, and it has carried on into today. It is absolutely excruciating.

I had planned to attend the Sydney Rally for Life outside NSW Parliament last night. I wanted to be there. I really did. But I could barely walk from my bed to my ensuite, let alone get out the door, travel into the city, and stand outside Parliament for an hour. At that point, standing at a rally would have been less a show of support and more a form of medieval torture.

People say gout is a self-inflicted affliction.

That has always struck me as a bit too neat. Too easy. Going by that logic, almost every affliction is self-inflicted in some way or another. The reason gout gets singled out, of course, is because it is often associated with overweight people and what they eat. Too many purines. Too much uric acid. Too much of this. Too much of that. The usual lecture.

In my case, I eliminated every possible food that could be blamed for the problem, and it made no real difference.

My gout attacks began in 2017, just after I had weight loss surgery. Funnily enough, there are studies out there suggesting that, at least in the short term, bariatric surgery and rapid weight loss can be linked with temporary increases in uric acid and gout attacks. So much for the simple little sermon about eating the wrong thing.

Thankfully, gout only comes to me once in a blue moon now. But when it comes, it comes like a lightning strike. My foot swells. I can barely walk without assistance. The pain is constant, sharp, grinding, maddening. You can’t sleep properly. You can’t think straight. You can’t do what you planned to do. One small part of the body gets inflamed, and suddenly the whole man is stuck.

A little problem shuts everything down.

And lying there, foot throbbing, angry that I could not attend the Rally for Life, I found myself thinking about our country.

• Gout in one small part of the body showed how quickly hidden trouble can bring everything to a halt.

• Australia has allowed moral poison to build up by treating unborn children as inconvenient and disposable.

• The Sydney Rally for Life mattered because some truths still need to be witnessed publicly.

• Sex-selective abortion exposes the brutal logic behind the wider abortion debate.

• A nation that will not defend its weakest members will eventually fail to defend anyone.

A slow build of something unseen had suddenly compounded, pretty much immobilising me.

That’s how a poison works, isn’t it?

Most of the time, you do not notice it building up. It sits under the surface. It accumulates quietly. People make excuses for it. The experts explain it away. Politicians learn to live with it. The media tells everyone to calm down. Then one day, the pain erupts, and suddenly the body is not healthy at all.

Australia has allowed a deep moral poison to build up in its bloodstream. It did not happen in one dramatic moment. It happened by inches. One compromise here. One bad law there. One cowardly vote. One media campaign. One activist's demand. One bureaucrat deciding ordinary people should not have a say. One polite little lie after another, all dressed up as compassion and progress.

Nowhere is that poison more obvious than in the way our lawmakers treat unborn children.

The Sydney Rally for Life was held outside NSW Parliament last night (Tuesday, 2 June), with pro-life Australians gathering to support legislation aimed at banning sex-selective abortion in New South Wales. The bill was introduced by Libertarian MLC John Ruddick and was due for debate in the Legislative Council the following day.

That is what I had planned to attend.

Not because rallies fix everything. They don’t. You and I both know that. Plenty of rallies come and go, and the politicians inside the building still find a way to ignore the people outside.

But some things still have to be said publicly. Some things have to be witnessed to in the open, even when the cameras are unkind and the sneering class has already made up its mind. Some lines have to be drawn where the politicians, the media, the activists and the bureaucrats can see them.

One of those truths is very simple: The unborn child matters. The child hidden in the womb matters. The baby who cannot speak, cannot vote, cannot march, cannot post online, cannot hire a lobbyist, cannot donate to a campaign, and cannot defend himself or herself still matters. In fact, that is precisely why this issue cuts so deeply. It exposes what sort of people we are becoming.

They tell us the unborn child is too small to matter. Too hidden. Too dependent. Too inconvenient. Too costly. Too disruptive to someone else’s plans.

That is the lie at the centre of the whole anti-life movement. Small means insignificant. Unseen means unworthy. Dependence cancels dignity.

No, it does not.

The smallest things are often the most important things. A heartbeat. A conscience. A wedding vow. A mother’s instinct. A father’s duty. A whispered prayer beside a hospital bed. A child in the womb.

These are not minor things. They are the foundations. And yet the modern world seems determined to mock the foundations while pretending it is building something better.

Family is treated as old-fashioned. Faith is treated as divisive. Motherhood is treated as limiting. Fatherhood is treated as suspect. Biology is treated as offensive. The unborn child is treated as a problem to be solved.

You cannot wage war on the foundations forever and expect the house to stand. You cannot poison the bloodstream forever and expect the body to keep moving. And you cannot destroy the innocent while telling yourself the nation is becoming kinder.

That is the thing about gout. The pain may arrive suddenly, but the build-up has usually been happening for a while. Something was accumulating. Something was wrong beneath the surface, even when everything looked manageable.

So it is with a nation.

We legalised abortion. Then we normalised it. Then we funded it. Then we demanded silence from anyone who objected. Then even the mildest pro-life measure was treated as some extremist threat to modern society.

And now, in New South Wales, we have reached the point where even saying “a baby should not be aborted because that baby is the wrong sex” becomes controversial.

What sort of Parliament hesitates over that? What sort of society needs to argue over that? What kind of moral condition are we in when a proposal to ban sex-selective abortion is treated by some as dangerous or oppressive?

Abortion is not healthcare. It is a disease. And, with this legislation, the body is reacting because pressure has been applied to a diseased area.

You can always tell when the pro-life movement has hit a nerve. The slogans come out. The activists turn up. The media framing begins. The word “rights” gets thrown around as though it ends every argument. Nervous politicians start looking over their shoulders. The professional class warns us not to go backwards.

Backwards? Is protecting an unborn child from being killed because of sex really backwards? Is saying a civilised society should defend its weakest members backwards? No. What is backwards is cruelty dressed up as compassion. What is backwards is pretending that a child’s worth depends on whether that child is wanted, convenient, planned, healthy, male or female.

The abortion lobby knows why this issue is dangerous to them. Sex-selective abortion exposes the rotten logic underneath the whole system. If the unborn child is just tissue, why does the reason matter? If the unborn child has no moral worth, why object to sex selection? If abortion is merely healthcare, why should anyone be troubled by it? But people are troubled by it. They should be.

Deep down, even many people who support abortion in general know there is something particularly ugly about killing a child because that child is a boy or a girl. That instinctive disgust is a crack in the wall. It lets the light in. It forces the question they never want asked.

Who is this child? Not what. Who. Once you ask that question honestly, the entire debate changes. If the unborn child is one of us, then this is not merely a medical procedure. It is not merely a private choice. It is not a tidy little political issue to be managed with careful talking points and conscience votes.

It is life and death. It is justice. It is whether people still have the courage to defend the innocent when defending them is unfashionable.

I could not stand outside NSW Parliament last night. That bothers me more than you might think. I wanted to stand with the people who were prepared to be seen, counted, mocked and smeared, and still say that life matters. But while I could not stand there physically, I can still stand. I can stand with my words. I can stand with my vote. I can stand with my voice.

So can you.

Maybe you were not at the rally either. You might have been working. You might have been putting kids to bed, caring for someone at home, driving back from a long shift, or just too far away from Sydney to get there. Maybe you did not even know it was happening. But you can still stand.

You can contact your MPs. You can tell them plainly that sex-selective abortion has no place in Australia. You can support the pro-life voices being attacked for daring to speak. You can share the truth with your family, your friends, your church, your local community. You can refuse to be shamed into silence by people whose whole argument depends on keeping the unborn child invisible.

That is what they want, after all.

They want the child unseen. They want the mother isolated. They want the father silent. They want the Christian embarrassed. They want the conservative intimidated. They want ordinary voters distracted, tired, and too busy to notice what is being done in their name. But a nation can only ignore pain for so long.

Maybe this moment in New South Wales is one of those painful moments where the country is being forced to feel what it has tried so hard to ignore. A nation that will not protect its unborn children will eventually fail to protect anyone. Not the elderly. Not the disabled. Not the sick. Not the poor. Not the inconvenient.

Once human life becomes negotiable, everything becomes negotiable. That is the poison. It has been building up for far too long, and it needs to be driven out of the system.

So do not let this pass as just another news item, another vote, another rally, another issue for someone else to worry about. This is not someone else’s fight. It is yours. It is mine. It is ours.

Speak up. Contact your representatives. Encourage those who stood outside Parliament. Pray for courage. Share the message where you can. And refuse, absolutely refuse, to accept the great lie that the smallest among us do not matter.

They matter to God. They matter to any civilisation worthy of the name. And they must matter to us.

A little problem can shut down the whole body. A little poison can cripple a man. And a little child, ignored and discarded by the powerful, can reveal the true condition of a nation’s soul.

Australia is in pain because Australia is not well. Healing begins when good people stop pretending the poison is normal.

On life, on truth, on the unborn child, we have to stand. Even if, like me, you have to do it temporarily on one foot.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

NOTE: Due to the large volume of emails I receive, it is not possible to email me and ask to be unsubscribed from this newsletter. You must do it yourself by following the simple processes listed below:

• How do I cancel my paid subscription on Substack?

• How do I unsubscribe from a free subscription?

This important article first appeared in Confidential Daily:

Australia still likes to think of itself as a country where people can live how they choose, say what they believe, and get on with their lives without the state breathing down their neck. Most ordinary Australians still believe that. You hear it in pubs, at weekend sport, over the back fence. People don’t want ideological warfare. They just want fairness.

Which is why this new Australian Christian Freedom Index will make many people uncomfortable.

• Australia is still meant to be a free country, but the Christian Freedom Index shows many Christians now feel pressured into silence.

• The report found that 92 percent of Christians believe it has become riskier to publicly express their faith than it was five years ago.

• Seventy-four laws now restrict aspects of Christian freedom across Australia, with Victoria standing out as the worst offender.

• Healthcare workers, teachers, pastors, and Christian schools are being squeezed by laws and workplace policies that punish ordinary religious belief.

• The real danger is the growing “silence gap”, where people censor themselves long before the state or their employer ever has to act.

Not because it’s hysterical or overblown, but because much of it rings true to what many Christians have quietly been feeling for years now. The difference is that somebody has finally gone and measured it properly. The report draws on responses from more than 10,800 Christians around the country, alongside a legislative audit and dozens of documented cases involving discrimination, workplace hostility, and legal pressure.

The numbers are hard to ignore.

Ninety-two per cent of respondents said it’s become riskier to publicly express Christian beliefs than it was five years ago. Seventy-three per cent said they feel pressure to keep their views to themselves, whether at work, online, or in public. Nearly half reported experiencing hostility, threats, or some form of exclusion because of their beliefs.

That’s an extraordinary thing in a country where Christianity is still the largest religion by a long way.

And before the usual media class starts rolling its eyes and muttering about persecution complexes, it’s worth actually looking at what’s happening in real life. Plenty of Australians have seen this shift firsthand. Teachers are watching what they say in staff rooms. Health workers keep quiet about their moral objections because they know HR departments aren’t exactly famous for nuance. Employees are told a small crucifix necklace is somehow offensive, while every other visible religious symbol gets celebrated in the name of diversity.

People notice the double standards. Even if they’re too cautious to say it publicly.

The report found 74 separate laws across Australian jurisdictions restricting aspects of Christian freedom, with nearly half introduced in just the past five years. That alone should raise eyebrows. Laws regulating prayer, speech, hiring practices, healthcare participation, and religious expression aren’t appearing out of nowhere. This is a broader cultural shift that’s been gathering pace for years, especially in parts of the country where politics has become completely consumed by activist ideology.

Victoria, unsurprisingly, tops the list as the most restrictive state for Christians. Anyone paying attention already suspected that. Melbourne used to pride itself on being laid-back and tolerant. Now it often feels like a city run by compliance officers and ideological busybodies. Pastors worry about what they can say. Christian schools are dragged through endless political fights over staffing and belief statements. Even private conversations around sexuality or prayer can attract scrutiny under so-called conversion laws.

A lot of ordinary people look at this stuff and think, hang on a second, when did common sense disappear?

The pressure is especially intense in healthcare and education, two sectors Christians helped build in this country long before governments became bloated administrative empires. According to the report, 92 percent of respondents believe Christian hospitals and healthcare workers are restricted or not free to operate according to their beliefs.

That’s not some abstract legal debate. It affects real people.

A Christian doctor who objects to euthanasia can still be forced into referral processes that violate their conscience. Nurses and healthcare workers know exactly how dangerous it can be to voice traditional beliefs inside large bureaucracies. Some simply keep their heads down. Others leave the profession entirely. You won’t hear much about them on the ABC, of course.

Then there’s the so-called “silence gap” the report identified. That part struck me more than anything else.

Only a quarter of respondents reported direct discrimination or exclusion. But almost three-quarters admitted they already censor themselves to avoid trouble. That’s how cultural pressure works now. You don’t necessarily need dramatic court cases or police knocking on doors. Most people will retreat long before it gets that far. They’ll stay quiet in meetings. Bite their tongue online. Avoid difficult conversations at work because mortgages need paying and children need feeding.

Australians used to mock that sort of atmosphere when it existed elsewhere.

Now we’re building it ourselves, one workplace policy at a time.

The report also makes a point that’s difficult to dismiss. Other faith communities rightly receive protection and public concern when they experience hostility or discrimination. Dedicated registers exist to track antisemitism and Islamophobia. Politicians line up to condemn attacks or abuse directed toward those groups, as they should.

But hostility towards Christians is often brushed off as either deserved or imaginary. Churches vandalised during the same-sex marriage debate barely rated attention. Public ridicule of Christians has become so normalised in entertainment and media that many people barely notice it anymore. There’s an assumption, especially among progressive elites, that Christianity is somehow the one belief system you can openly sneer at without consequence.

That sort of selective tolerance eventually poisons a society.

The recommendations in the report are actually pretty measured. They include protections for freedom of speech, conscience, and association, restoring hiring protections for faith-based schools, and ending compelled participation in abortion and assisted dying for healthcare workers with genuine objections. There’s also a proposal for a national register documenting anti-Christian incidents, mainly because right now nobody is properly tracking them.

None of that sounds radical to most Australians. It sounds fair.

What’s radical is the idea that religious belief should be tolerated only when it stays hidden inside church walls and never affects public life. It’s like containment.

And maybe that’s the bigger issue sitting underneath all this. A country that loses the ability to tolerate disagreement doesn’t stay free for very long. Today, the pressure lands on Christians because they’re unfashionable and politically safe to target. Tomorrow, it’ll be somebody else who refuses to repeat whatever slogans happen to dominate corporate HR seminars and inner-city activist circles that week.

You can already feel the country becoming more cautious, more brittle, and weirdly hostile to ordinary expressions of belief that would’ve barely raised an eyebrow twenty years ago.

A lot of Australians are tired of pretending they can’t see it.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

Anthony Albanese put out his annual “Sorry Day” message this week.

Another polished statement about healing, historical wrongs and reflecting on the past.

By this point, most Australians could probably write the script themselves because it’s the same thing every year.

The politicians say sorry, the media nods along solemnly, and ordinary Australians are once again expected to quietly absorb the message that there’s something morally wrong with them or their history.

I’m over it.

• Ordinary Australians should not be guilt-tripped over historical events they played no part in.

• Most Australians are more concerned about cost-of-living pressures than endless apology ceremonies and political lectures.

• Treating modern Australians as morally responsible for the past only creates resentment and division.

• Australia’s history should be acknowledged honestly without turning the country into a permanent guilt project.

• National unity depends on Australians seeing themselves as one people with a shared future, not competing racial groups.

I’m not sorry for being Australian. I’m not sorry for my ancestors either. And I don’t think millions of ordinary Australians should be made to feel guilty for things they never did, had no control over and weren’t even alive to witness.

What really frustrates people is that this stuff never seems to end. There’s always another apology, another ceremony, another lecture about the past. Meanwhile, most people I talk to in regional Queensland aren’t sitting around consumed by colonial guilt. They’re worried about whether they can afford groceries next week. They’re worried about power bills, rent, mortgages, insurance premiums and whether their kids will ever be able to buy a home.

That’s real life for Australians right now.

My own ancestors weren’t wealthy British aristocrats arriving here to rule over people. Some came here as convicts. Poor as dirt. Sent across the world against their will by the British Empire itself. They didn’t arrive in Australia living some grand life of privilege. They struggled, worked hard and tried to survive in a harsh country a long way from anywhere.

That’s the story for a lot of Australians, actually. Working-class people who built lives from scratch. Families who came here after wars, during economic hardship or simply chasing a better future. Yet somehow modern Australia increasingly talks as though ordinary people today inherited some sort of collective moral stain because of their ancestry.

Honestly, I think a lot of people are sick of hearing it.

Of course bad things happened in Australian history. Bad things happened throughout human history. Every country on Earth has ugly chapters in its past. Human civilisation itself is messy, violent and imperfect. But there’s a difference between acknowledging history and constantly reopening wounds in a way that keeps people divided and resentful.

And yes, resentful is exactly what this approach creates. You can already see it.

When people are endlessly told they’re privileged oppressors because of their skin colour or ancestry, eventually they switch off completely. Some become angry. Others just stop listening altogether. Then the people pushing these campaigns wonder why support starts collapsing and why Australians rejected things like the Voice referendum.

Most Australians actually want unity. Genuine unity. Not the kind that gets talked about at government-funded ceremonies while Australians are sorted into racial categories and expected to think of themselves that way forever. They want to feel like we’re all Australians together and that we share the same future regardless of where our ancestors came from.

That’s not radical. It’s normal.

I also think there’s a growing frustration with how Australian history is taught and talked about now. Too often it feels like this country is only discussed through the lens of shame and oppression. Young Australians are constantly told about what was wrong with Australia, but rarely about what was actually right with it. Rarely about the freedoms, stability and opportunities that made millions of people from around the world want to come here in the first place.

And despite all our faults, this is still one of the best countries on Earth to live in. Most Australians know that instinctively. That’s why people get angry when patriotism itself starts being treated like something embarrassing or suspicious.

I’m proud to be Australian. I don’t think that requires an apology.

That doesn’t mean pretending history was perfect. It doesn’t mean denying hardship or suffering. It just means refusing to carry personal guilt for events that happened generations before I was born. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable position and judging by the conversations happening around the country, plenty of Australians agree.

At some point this country needs to stop looking at itself as a collection of competing grievances and start acting like a nation again. A shared identity matters. National unity matters. A sense of belonging matters. Countries that lose those things usually don’t stay united for very long.

Australians are tired. Tired of being lectured. Tired of being divided by race. Tired of being told there’s something shameful about loving their country or taking pride in its achievements. Most people just want to get on with life, raise their families and live in a country that sees itself as one people rather than permanently broken into tribes arguing over the past.

That’s where I stand, anyway.

And no, I’m not sorry for it.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

A version of the following article first appeared in The Spectator Australia:

Anthony Albanese and Labor are rapidly burning through the one thing every government desperately needs to survive: public trust.

Quite frankly, Australians have every right to be furious at their government.

That fury is now being channelled into the growing movement at AlboMustGo.com, where about 20,000 Australians have already signed a petition demanding Parliament be dissolved and a fresh federal election held.

• Anthony Albanese and Labor are rapidly burning through public trust.

• Australians were promised no surprises before the election, only to be hit with sweeping tax changes afterwards.

• The AlboMustGo.com petition is growing because many voters feel they were conned.

• Cost-of-living pain, housing pressure, migration strain, energy prices and national security concerns are all feeding the anger.

• Once enough Australians believe they were deceived, the political spell can break very quickly.

Labor went to the election pretending to be a cautious, centrist government that would protect household budgets and avoid economic shocks. Albanese repeatedly ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Australians were told there would be no surprises.

Then the election ended. And suddenly, the same government unveiled sweeping tax changes hitting investors, trusts, family businesses, and wealth creation across the country.

Australians were conned. That is the growing sentiment, and the anger is spreading fast.

If these changes were so vital, so necessary, so urgent for the future of the country, why did Labor not have the guts to tell voters before polling day? That’s because Labor knew exactly how unpopular they would be.

That is why the AlboMustGo.com campaign is growing so quickly. Australians increasingly believe they voted for one thing and got something completely different instead. This is not just frustration over one budget measure. This is the collision point of years of mounting anger.

Australians are paying obscene grocery bills. Power prices remain crushing. Rent and mortgages are suffocating families. Young people are being locked out of home ownership altogether. Entire communities are buckling under record migration levels while infrastructure struggles to cope.

And what does the government keep serving up? More spin. More excuses. More lectures.

Treasury’s own modelling reportedly shows Labor’s housing tax changes could reduce dwelling supply compared to the baseline. Yet Australians are expected to believe this is some kind of housing affordability miracle.

People are not stupid. They can see what is happening. And they are increasingly sick of being treated like mugs by a political class that thinks carefully crafted talking points can hide reality.

Then there was the ISIS brides debacle. Women allegedly linked to ISIS were allowed back into Australia from Syrian camps, with some now facing serious allegations, including slavery offences and terrorism-related accusations. The government insists it did not ‘assist’ their return beyond legal obligations. Yet reports emerged showing authorities had been preparing for these returns for years.

Again, Australians are left with the same feeling: the full truth only ever seems to emerge after the government has already tried to manage the politics.

That pattern is becoming toxic for the Labor government. Whether it is tax policy, migration, censorship proposals, housing, energy or national security, the same impression keeps hardening in the public mind: this government says one thing before decisions are made and another thing afterwards. That destroys confidence. And once confidence goes, governments can unravel very quickly.

The political class still does not fully grasp how much resentment is building beneath the surface of the country right now. Australians feel financially cornered. They feel ignored. They feel manipulated. And more and more people are arriving at the conclusion that this government obtained power under false pretences.

That is what the AlboMustGo.com petition is really tapping into. Not just opposition to one Prime Minister. But growing anger at a government that promised moderation and stability, then delivered higher costs, weaker trust, greater pressure on housing, and a constant sense of national drift.

The petition has become a vehicle for Australians to say they have had enough. Enough excuses. Enough broken promises. Enough being treated like they are too stupid to notice what is happening around them. And if the political establishment continues to ignore that anger, the number of people signing AlboMustGo.com is only going to keep climbing.

The danger for the government is that once enough Australians conclude they have been deceived, the political spell breaks completely.

And when that happens, governments fall very fast.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

Two major polls released in the past week suggest Pauline Hanson’s One Nation could become the official Opposition after the next federal election. Both the RedBridge Group/Accent Research poll and DemosAU’s latest survey show the party not only decimating the Liberal-National Coalition but also making deep inroads into Labor’s working-class suburban heartlands.

I don’t entirely believe it. Not entirely, anyway.

That’s not to say I wouldn’t welcome it. I most certainly would! But after more than 25 years working at the coalface of Australian politics, one lesson stands out: the Australian public rarely embraces radical change in a single leap. We share that cautious temperament with our British forebears.

• Recent polls indicate One Nation could reduce the Liberal-National Coalition to a rump and become the official Opposition at the next federal election.

• Australian voters rarely embrace radical political change in one leap, making such dramatic poll projections unlikely without exceptional discipline.

• One Nation must prioritise winnable seats in rural, regional, and outer-suburban areas while securing strong candidates and substantial targeted funding to convert support into seats.

• The party is expected to win a significant number of seats but will likely fall just short of official Opposition status after the coming election.

• A One Nation government remains probable around 2030 if current trends continue and the major parties fail to address deepening economic and social challenges.

It is often said that Australia lags about a decade behind political trends in the United States and the United Kingdom. Thanks to social media, the 24-hour news cycle, podcasts, and livestreams, that gap has narrowed dramatically. Today, we are perhaps only 18 months behind.

Our Washminster system of government (essentially the British Westminster model with American-style titles for the House of Representatives and Senate) makes comparisons with the UK more apt than with the US. And right now, Australia’s political mood feels remarkably similar to Britain’s around the 2024 general election, or perhaps slightly further along.

At the end of 2024 and into early 2025, Reform UK was polling in a similar range to where One Nation sits today. In the 2024 election, Reform secured 14.3% of the national vote but won just five seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. A further 5–10 percentage point increase in their support could have delivered anywhere from dozens to over 200 seats, depending on geographic concentration. That proviso is important to note.

Australia’s preferential voting system presents different challenges, but the core problem remains the same. Even a consistent national 30% vote share could deliver One Nation zero seats in the House of Representatives if that support is spread too thinly. This was precisely Reform’s challenge in 2024 and, I suspect, mirrors One Nation’s current position.

The recent South Australian state election reinforces this point. One Nation outperformed the Liberals on the primary vote but secured fewer seats in the lower house, highlighting the punishing efficiency of first-preference concentration under our system.

What Reform has done successfully since 2024 is shift to disciplined targeting of winnable seats rather than chasing unwinnable ones — a hallmark of professional campaigning. Without a similar focus, One Nation risks winning fewer than 20 seats at the next federal election, mostly at the expense of the Nationals, some Liberals, and Labor seats in Queensland.

That remains my baseline prediction.

However... If One Nation executes a sharp targeting strategy now, it could secure a double-digit seat tally, potentially in the 20s or low 30s. The most promising terrain includes rural and regional Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, and working-class outer-suburban seats in Sydney, Melbourne, and South Australia. The challenge is that there are too many such seats to target effectively. Prioritisation will be everything.

Strong candidates with clean backgrounds are non-negotiable. So too is money. Australian politics, like its American counterpart, can be heavily influenced by campaign spending. As a political strategist, I can say with confidence that $800,000 (the current spending cap for a single seat) combined with a strong candidate could defeat an opponent running a standard $300,000 campaign in many marginal seats. (And, yes, $300,000 is the standard campaign cost these days!)

Targeted spending in must-win electorates will be decisive.

I expect One Nation’s momentum to continue. They could well be polling in the low 30s by election day. If they choose their battlegrounds wisely, a pathway exists not only to Opposition status but potentially to government, perhaps through a grand coalition with whatever remains of the Liberals and Nationals.

Yet our system is structurally biased toward the Labor–Liberal/National duopoly. Generous public funding formulas favour established parties, and incumbency brings taxpayer-funded advantages for uniparty politicians: generous communications budgets, advertising, and name recognition.

It is a formidable barrier.

My prediction is that One Nation will emerge with a significant bloc of seats, in the high teens, but fall short of official Opposition status. Post-election defections from disaffected Coalition conservatives could still tip the balance. (This scenario, unfortunately, points to Labor remaining in power for the rest of the decade.)

Either way, the election I am interested in is the one after the next. If current trends hold, Australia risks sliding into the same economic and social difficulties now confronting the UK. And just as Britain is headed toward a Reform government in the not-too-distant future, Australia circa 2030 will absolutely see a One Nation-led government.

The question is whether One Nation can professionalise fast enough to bring on the inevitable much sooner, or whether the system’s inertial drag will blunt their surge initially.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

A highly polarised society where ordinary people are squeezed by rising taxes and the cost of living, while their elites live in their own sheltered bubble, enjoying a detached, gilded existence. Borders are no longer secure as foreigners flood in, don’t integrate, and are slowly carving out their ethnic enclaves. This does not bother the government, which is more preoccupied with ideological victories over its opponents rather than addressing the worsening crisis.

This is something that could just as easily be said about the current West as about the last century of Rome. Powerful civilisations that have lasted centuries do not decline from external threats alone; they often succumb to internal rot that weakens them from within first.

• A deeply polarised society sees ordinary citizens crushed by rising taxes and living costs while detached elites enjoy a gilded existence in their protected bubble.

• Insecure borders allow mass immigration and ethnic enclaves to form as governments prioritise ideological battles over addressing the growing crisis.

• Powerful civilisations like Rome and the 20th-century West once triumphed through strong civic spirit and collective sacrifice, but that vital resolve has now faded.

• Despite superior wealth, technology, and military hardware, the modern West suffers from internal rot, complacency, and lost cohesion that weakens it against even weaker opponents.

• Burdened populations may eventually welcome external disruption when they no longer view their own system as a shared civilisation worth defending.

Early in Roman history, in its war against Carthage, the Romans would lose entire armies, only for more of its citizens to volunteer and fill the ranks. This collective resolve led the Romans to triumph over their enemies, a population that placed personal sacrifice above individual comfort to preserve the nation as a whole.

It is also why the early and mid-20th-century West was capable of such extraordinary collective mobilisation in moments of existential crisis. Think of the generation that fought during the World Wars and how they returned home and committed themselves to rebuilding their nations with a disciplined sense of duty and restraint, prioritizing national recovery above personal gain.

That kind of civic spirit is increasingly absent in the modern West, particularly among its leadership class. The same decay marked late Rome. Its population had become complacent, atomised, and driven by private gains over public responsibility.

By numbers and wealth, late Rome was a far more powerful state than it had been centuries earlier. However, its people lacked the same pride and spirit they once had. Generals backstabbed each other, soldiers would easily panic and retreat, and even the emperor’s personal guards would assassinate him if another contender promised them higher pay. This is why late Rome struggled against much weaker enemies, just as we, in the modern West, now fail to achieve military objectives against far weaker foes.

Physically, with our massive fleets, professional armies, control of tech and finance, and advanced infrastructure, the Western world still resembles an unmatched civilisational structure. But beneath that surface, the spirit and cohesion that once gave that power meaning and direction are steadily thinning. But internally, the spirit and cohesion that hold a civilization together are disappearing. We are isolated souls just existing inside a system that no longer recognises itself as a shared civilisation, no longer capable of articulating what it is, or what it exists to preserve.

Such a society quickly unravels under sustained pressure.

I remember reading accounts that, in various parts of the former Empire, ordinary people actually welcomed barbarian rule. So burdened had they been with taxes, instability, and the moral contradictions of their elites that they saw the Empire not as a home or identity worth defending, but as a machine imposed over them that kept them miserable.

Let us strive for a future where our Western world does not follow the same trajectory, and where future generations come to value, strengthen, and defend their identity rather than abandon or resent it.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

A Nation First Staff Writer

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

They got Thomas Massie.

Not because he was corrupt. Not because he sold out his district in Kentucky. Not because he lied to voters or betrayed his principles the second he arrived in Washington. No. They got him precisely because he refused to bend the knee.

• Thomas Massie was targeted because he refused to abandon his constitutional and anti-war principles.

• Trump helped destroy one of the few genuinely independent voices left in the Republican Party.

• The Israel lobby, AIPAC, and military-industrial complex punish politicians who challenge endless foreign intervention.

• Trump now demands obedience over integrity, even from solid America First conservative representatives.

• Massie should leave the Republican Party and run as a true America First independent candidate.

As of this morning, Thomas Massie has lost the Republican primary in Kentucky to a Trump-backed challenger after one of the most vicious and expensive political hit jobs in modern congressional history.

And every American who still believes politics should mean something ought to be furious.

Massie was one of the last men in Washington who actually voted the way he promised he would. Imagine that. In an era where politicians campaign as constitutional conservatives and govern like corporate puppets, Massie remained stubbornly, unapologetically consistent.

He opposed reckless foreign wars. He questioned intervention in Iran. He resisted the endless bipartisan addiction to military escalation abroad while American towns rot at home. He challenged the sacred cows nobody in Washington is supposed to touch. He demanded transparency around the Epstein files when others suddenly developed convenient amnesia. He refused to clap like a trained seal every time another foreign lobby demanded American money, American weapons, and ultimately American blood.

And for that, the machine came for him.

Donald Trump deserves enormous blame for this disgrace.

Yes, Trump transformed American politics in ways millions of patriots once celebrated. Yes, he shattered the old Republican establishment. But somewhere along the way, loyalty to America First was replaced with loyalty to Trump personally. The movement stopped being about principle and became about obedience.

That is exactly what happened to Thomas Massie.

Trump publicly smeared him, mocked him, and backed a challenger against him with the full force of the MAGA political machine. Why? Because Massie committed the ultimate sin in modern politics: Independent thought.

Independent thought is now treated as treason inside the Republican Party.

And then came the money. Mountains of it. Millions poured into Kentucky to destroy a man whose greatest crime was refusing to become another rubber stamp for the war industry, the Israel lobby, and its political enforcers.

The Israel lobby, primary via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) wields enormous influence in Washington.

Everybody knows it. Few politicians dare say it. Except Massie.

Massie was one of the rare Republicans willing to question unconditional foreign aid, endless military commitments overseas, and the suffocating grip lobbyists have over American foreign policy. That made him dangerous. Not dangerous to ordinary Americans. Dangerous to the network of donors, lobby groups, defence contractors, and political operatives who profit from permanent conflict in the Middle East.

So they targeted him.

The military-industrial complex benefits when constitutionalists like Massie disappear. AIPAC benefits. The permanent war class benefits. Lobbyists who treat Congress like an investment portfolio benefit. Every parasite feeding off endless global conflict benefits.

The average American? They lose again.

They lose representation. They lose honesty. They lose one of the very few politicians who still appeared to care about the Constitution more than cocktail party invitations in Washington.

And what does this say about the Republican Party now?

It says the GOP has become increasingly hostile to dissent, even conservative dissent. If you oppose interventionism, question foreign entanglements, or challenge politically untouchable interests, you are marked for destruction. It no longer matters how conservative you are. It no longer matters how faithfully you represent your voters. The only thing that matters is submission.

That should terrify every Republican voter in America.

Because if they can politically execute Thomas Massie, they can execute anyone.

The tragedy here is that Massie represented the best possible version of what the Republican Party claimed to stand for twenty years ago. Small government, constitutional restraint, fiscal sanity, anti-war realism, civil liberties, and actual accountability.

But Washington hates men like that. The donor class hates men like that. The arms dealers hate men like that. And the Israel lobby certainly hates men like that too.

So here’s the uncomfortable question nobody in conservative media wants to ask:

Why should Thomas Massie remain a Republican at all?

What exactly does he owe a party that just spent millions trying to politically annihilate him? Nothing.

Massie should walk away from the GOP immediately and run as a true American First independent.

Not a fake “centrist”. Not another consultant-manufactured independent designed to split votes. A real independent. A constitutional populist. An anti-war patriot. A liberty candidate who appeals to ordinary Americans sick of being lied to by both parties.

And you know what? He could build something enormous.

Think about the coalition waiting for someone like him. Republicans tired of endless wars and blind party worship. Libertarians desperate for a candidate who actually believes in limited government. Independents sick of corporate-controlled politics. Even anti-establishment Democrats who are exhausted by censorship, corruption, Wall Street influence, and forever wars.

Massie could unite people who agree on almost nothing except one simple principle. America should belong to Americans again. Not lobbyists. Not defence contractors. Not foreign interests. Not political cults.

Would the establishment panic? Absolutely.

Would both parties attack him? Relentlessly.

Would the media call him dangerous? Of course they would.

Good. That probably means he’s over the target.

The truth is this. Thomas Massie didn’t really lose yesterday. The Republican Party lost. It lost one of the few men in Washington who still appeared capable of integrity. And if Americans keep rewarding obedience over principle, they’ll wake up one day and realise Congress no longer represents citizens at all, only networks of money, influence, war, and fear.

Massie should not disappear quietly into retirement. He should fight. And millions of Americans, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and independent alike, should stand with him.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

There was always going to be a focus on the reply to a federal budget as woeful as that delivered by Jim Chalmers on behalf of the Albanese Government.

And for that, the mainstream media applied its focus to Angus Taylor.

Of course they did. The mainstream media has a script, and it goes like this: there are two parties in Australian politics, and the job of journalism is to referee between them. Labor proposes. The Liberals oppose. Repeat until the country collapses.

But something has shifted, and the numbers prove it.

A Roy Morgan snap poll taken the night of the budget, May 13 to 14, found One Nation on 32 per cent of the primary vote. Labor was behind them at 28.5 per cent. The Liberal-National Coalition, the “only alternative” the commentariat insists you hear from, was at 16.5 per cent. Barely ahead of the Greens.

One Nation is now the single largest political force in this country by primary vote. Almost double the support of the party that calls itself the Opposition. On a two-party-preferred basis, One Nation versus Labor is a dead heat, 49 to 51. A coin flip from government.

• The mainstream media still treats the Liberal Party as the only real opposition despite polling showing One Nation has overtaken both Labor and the Coalition as the country’s largest political force by primary vote.

• Labor’s budget piles on more debt, inflation and mortgage stress while offering Australians a token tax cut that is largely cancelled out by bracket creep.

• One Nation has presented a genuine governing agenda focused on ending bracket creep, reducing housing costs, cutting migration, supporting families and abandoning net zero policies.

• The major parties have united for years against policies that would return more money and economic freedom to ordinary Australians, proving the political establishment serves itself before the public.

• Pauline Hanson’s budget reply showed One Nation is no longer simply a protest movement but a serious alternative to the political “uniparty” that has dominated Australia for the past decade.

When One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson stood up in the Senate chamber on Thursday night to deliver her budget reply, maybe someone should have been paying attention. Not out of courtesy. Out of necessity. Because what she laid out wasn’t a protest speech. It was a governing agenda. And it’s the only one on offer that looks nothing like what we’ve had for the past decade.

First of all, let me tell you what the budget actually means for ordinary Australians.

Revenue up. Expenses up. Gross interest payments at $27 billion, heading to $40 billion. Another $100 billion in deficits over the forward estimates. Interest-bearing debt climbing another $300 billion to $1.3 trillion.

Almost 50,000 business insolvencies since Labor took office. Productivity at six-decade lows. Eight out of every ten new jobs now created by government because the private sector has given up. A million households in extreme mortgage stress after 15 interest rate hikes. GDP per capita falling in ten of the last thirteen quarters.

And Labor’s answer to all of this? Less than five dollars a week in tax relief, starting next year, conveniently timed for the election cycle. Sixty-eight cents a day. They want gratitude for sixty-eight cents a day while bracket creep quietly swallows the rest. As Pauline Hanson pointed out in her budget reply, it’s not a tax cut but a trap dressed up as one, the same trick they ran in 2022.

This is a government that profits from inflation. That’s what bracket creep is. The economy gets worse, your wages nominally go up, and you slip into a higher tax bracket without anyone voting for it. Labor collects the difference and calls it responsible budgeting.

Now. What would One Nation actually do?

Hanson was specific, and the contrast with the uniparty is stark.

On tax. One Nation has been trying for years to index income tax thresholds to inflation, ending bracket creep permanently. Labor voted against it. So did the Liberals. So did the Nationals. So did the Greens. Every one of them, all four major parties, united against giving working Australians thousands of dollars a year back in their own pockets. That tells you everything you need to know about whose interests they serve.

On housing. One Nation would slash the GST to zero on building materials for homes up to a million dollars in value, for five years. More than 40 per cent of the cost of building a new home is government taxes and compliance costs. If you want to fix housing affordability, you start there, not with another bureaucratic program, not with a grant scheme, not with negative gearing tweaks that just shuffle money between investors. You cut the cost of building. Radical, I know.

On migration. The budget reveals the game: the government expects to rake in $7.1 billion in visa application fees by 2029-30, up from $4.7 billion today. Elevated migration isn’t policy. It’s a business model. Canada cut migration sharply from 2024 and has since seen 18 straight months of falling rents and easing house prices. Hanson has been saying this for years. She was mocked for it. Canada proved her right.

On families. Income splitting for every family with at least one dependent child. A single earner on $120,000 with a stay-at-home partner would be around $9,500 a year better off. That’s real money. That’s the kind of thing that changes whether a family can survive on one income or not. It’s a direct answer to the question of why young Australians feel they can’t afford to raise children, because the tax system punishes them for trying.

On energy. Ditch net zero. Exit the Paris Agreement. Axe the climate change department, saving $30 billion. Back coal and gas. Fast-track energy project approvals to a maximum of six months. And next week, Hanson has flagged a bold new gas policy that will give Australians real equity in their own sovereign resources, so that dividends from our gas wealth actually help pay down the debt successive governments have racked up.

On agriculture and sovereignty. Ban foreign ownership of water. Limit foreign purchases of leasehold farmland to twenty-five years. Return balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Build new dams. Re-establish a federal rural lending fund to protect farmers through drought and disaster. Australia sits on some of the richest agricultural land on earth, and we’re selling the water that feeds it to foreign interests. One Nation is the only party saying enough.

On accountability. Snowy Hydro 2.0 has blown out 21 times, to $42 billion. Nobody has paid a price for it. Nobody. One Nation would ensure those responsible for white elephant projects, past, present and emerging, are no longer able to walk away free of consequence. What a concept.

Then Hanson said something that cut to the core of what this budget fight is really about.

She called out the perversity of a government and an opposition that believe they can change the weather, and are prepared to waste hundreds of billions trying, while dismissing the Bradfield scheme that could open the rich, dry soils of the western districts to irrigation and transform Australia’s agricultural potential. Two parties. One delusion. Zero alternatives.

The media will keep talking about what Angus Taylor thinks of the budget and what a government that he leads would do differently. As if the Liberal Party, sitting at 16.5 per cent, is still the relevant opposition in this country.

It isn’t.

The poll numbers say so. The Farrer by-election said so. The decade-long collapse in Coalition support said so. The country has moved on. The debate has moved on. The only thing that hasn’t moved on is the press gallery’s rolodex.

One Nation is no longer a protest vote. Not anymore. It’s a governing movement with policies, candidates, and a platform that is the most coherent alternative to the uniparty Australia has seen in a generation.

Senator Pauline Hanson stood up on Thursday night and delivered a budget reply speech worth reading in full. Australia just might be ready to listen.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

Tonight, (Tuesday 12 May), Cashflow for Conservatives goes live.

And judging by the response so far, a lot of Australians know something isn’t right.

They can see the pressure building around them.

Groceries.
Fuel.
Power.
Mortgage repayments.
Insurance.

Everything keeps going up… except breathing room.

That’s why so many people are stepping into this Cashflow for Conservatives event over the next three days.

Not because they want more theory.

But because they want practical ways to strengthen their financial position before things tighten further.

And frankly, they’re right to want that.

The economic pressure on ordinary households isn’t easing.

If anything, the signs are pointing in the other direction.

That’s exactly what we’ll be discussing tonight.

Cashflow for Conservatives
📅 Begins TONIGHT:
6pm Tuesday 12 May 2026

Over three days, you’ll be walked through three practical strategies people are already using right now to generate additional cash flow and put themselves in a stronger position.

Straight talk.
Practical action.
No fluff.

And if you attend live, you’ll also go into the draw to win $1,000 cash each day.

Click here now to secure your place before this event begins.

SECURE MY SPOT

A lot of people know tough times are coming.

Far fewer are actually preparing for them.

That choice matters.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

This starts tomorrow: Tuesday, 12 May 2026.

And by now, you’ve either been paying attention… or you haven’t.

Everything we’ve been talking about in Nation First is already happening.

Prices are rising. Pressure is building. And with global tensions where they are right now, it’s not easing any time soon.

If anything, it’s about to get worse.

The people who come out ahead in situations like this aren’t the ones who react late…

They’re the ones who prepare early.

The ones who take it seriously before things tighten further.

That’s exactly why I’m stepping into this over the next three days.

Cashflow for Conservatives
📅 Starts tomorrow:
Tuesday 14 May 2026
(and continues Wednesday & Thursday)

We’re going to break down what’s actually happening, and more importantly, walk through three practical strategies people are already using right now to create additional cash flow and put themselves in a stronger position.

No spin. No distractions. Just what’s working.

And if you attend live, you’ll also go into the draw to win $1,000 cash each day.

Secure your place by clicking here or on the button below.

SECURE YOUR PLACE

You don’t need to panic.

But ignoring this won’t protect you.

What you do next matters.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

NOTE: This article first appeared in ConfidentialDaily.com

The political class might soon realise that the Farrer earthquake might not be a one-off.

Because now they have a new problem.

Flynn MP Colin Boyce is publicly flirting with defecting to One Nation.

Read more

The political map is being torn up in front of our eyes.

The old loyalties are dying. Fast.

• One Nation’s victory in the Farrer by-election has shattered assumptions about permanent Coalition dominance in regional Australia.

• Reform UK and Great Yarmouth First are proving the same populist revolt is spreading rapidly across Britain.

• Working-class, regional and middle-income voters increasingly believe the major parties no longer represent their interests.

• Younger and middle-aged voters are breaking away from inherited political loyalties far faster than older generations.

• Australia and Britain are entering a far more volatile political era where outsider parties can rise with extraordinary speed.

Official Australian Electoral Commission figures now show One Nation’s David Farley on 57.33 per cent of the preferred vote in yesterday’s Farrer by-election, with postals still to be counted. But the result is over. One Nation has won. And not just by a little bit either.

That matters because Farrer was not supposed to fall.

This was a seat the Liberals and Nationals had held forever. A vast regional electorate where the Coalition machine once operated almost automatically. The assumption inside Canberra was always that regional conservative voters might grumble, complain, threaten protest votes for a while, but eventually they would “come home” to the Liberals and Nationals when it mattered.

Farrer just shattered that assumption.

And what makes this more significant is that it is not happening in isolation. Across Britain this past week, Reform UK has ripped through old political strongholds with extraordinary force, smashing both Labour and Conservative voting blocs in local elections and proving that millions of voters no longer feel bound by old tribal loyalties. Even smaller insurgent movements are now breaking through. In Great Yarmouth, the Great Yarmouth First movement, linked to Rupert Lowe’s Restore UK, swept every single seat it contested across Norfolk County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council.

Different countries. Different electoral systems. Same political trend.

The establishment keeps trying to interpret these movements as temporary protest votes. But this is becoming something much deeper than protest. We are watching the collapse of political inheritance.

For decades, voting patterns were almost cultural rituals passed down through families. Your parents voted Labor so you voted Labor. Your grandparents backed the Coalition so you stayed loyal too. Large sections of the working class automatically voted Left. Regional voters defaulted to conservative establishment parties. Many middle-class voters stayed locked inside predictable political habits because that was simply “what people like us do”.

That old structure is breaking apart.

The new political divide is no longer neatly economic. It is cultural, institutional and emotional. More and more voters believe the political class itself has become detached from the nation it governs. They look at rising crime, collapsing housing affordability, strained infrastructure, cultural fragmentation, censorship, declining living standards and political elites obsessed with global priorities while ordinary citizens struggle to stay afloat.

And they increasingly conclude that both major parties helped create the mess.

That is why parties like One Nation and Reform are growing. Not because every voter agrees with every policy detail. Not because every candidate is flawless. But because these parties increasingly represent resistance to a political class that many voters no longer trust.

In Australia, this trend may become especially powerful in regional and outer suburban electorates. They are sick of mass migration, the housing crisis, soaring power prices, bureaucratic arrogance and being lectured constantly by media commentators and inner-city activists who often seem openly contemptuous of their values and concerns.

And importantly, the demographic shifts are changing too.

The voter most likely to shift right-populist today is not just the old conservative voter. In fact, polls show that baby boomers (those roughly 60 and above) are the likeliest to keep voting along traditional two-party lines and mostly for the so-called conservative wing of the two-party system, that is the Liberals and Nationals in Australia, and the Tories in the UK.

The real movement is increasingly coming from younger working-age voters, regional Australians, tradies, self-employed operators, middle-income families and especially men under 50 who feel politically homeless inside the current system.

That creates enormous long-term instability for the establishment parties.

Because once voting habits stop being inherited, politics becomes far more volatile. Seats once considered permanently safe suddenly become competitive. Voters become willing to swing dramatically between elections. And outsider parties no longer need decades to build support. They can rise extremely quickly if public frustration reaches critical mass.

That is exactly what the old parties are now confronting.

The Liberals and Nationals increasingly face a structural problem across regional Australia because many voters no longer see them as genuinely conservative. Labor in Australia and Labour in Britain both face a similar crisis because huge sections of their traditional working-class base no longer believe the parties represents workers at all. Across the Western world, parties built for the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s are now trying to govern electorates that have fundamentally changed.

And many voters have simply stopped believing the old slogans.

Voters are no longer thinking about who their mum and dad voted for. They’re no longer concerned with which party is supposed to represent them. They’re no longer believe hoary old lines like Labor is for the workers, the Liberals are for small business and the Nationals are for the farmers. All that is bygone political spin detached from lived reality.

Instead, voters just want to know who is prepared to fight for them.

That is the future now rushing toward Australian and British politics. Not stable two-party management. Not predictable electoral loyalty. But an increasingly fragmented, populist and anti-establishment political era where millions of voters are actively searching for alternatives outside the old system.

The Farrer by-election may end up being one of the moments when even the political establishment in Australia finally realised the realignment had already begun.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

The victory by One Nation candidate David Farley in Farrer was not supposed to happen like this.

Not by this margin. Not under these circumstances. And certainly not with the sheer amount of political firepower unleashed against One Nation during the campaign.

• David Farley’s victory was remarkable because One Nation entered the race carrying significant political vulnerabilities.

• One Nation was attacked simultaneously by Climate 200 activists, the media, and Coalition forces targeting Farley’s immigration record.

• The Nationals strategically attacked Farley from the Right, recognising immigration as One Nation’s most sensitive issue.

• The result showed many regional Australians are no longer voting loyally for the Coalition out of habit.

• One Nation now faces pressure to ensure David Farley remains firmly aligned with the anti-mass migration position voters backed.

That is what makes the result in Farrer so politically significant. Because this was not a clean, textbook insurgent victory with a flawless outsider candidate gliding to office untouched by controversy. Far from it. Farley entered the race carrying vulnerabilities that should have made the path far harder for One Nation.

His political past was heavily scrutinised. His previous comments and disagreements on immigration created obvious openings against a party whose strongest political identity is opposition to mass migration. The Nationals immediately recognised that weakness and strategically attacked him from the Right, hammering the immigration issue hard throughout the campaign. That was politically clever. Normally, that kind of pressure fractures a populist insurgency campaign. Particularly in a regional seat where conservative voters can be wary of instability or internal contradictions. But that was only one front in the war against One Nation.

At the very same time, the Left-wing activist machine descended on Farrer with predictable force. Climate 200 money flooded into the campaign. GetUp! activists mobilised heavily. Media attacks rolled out day after day. One Nation was hit simultaneously from both ideological directions. The Coalition attacked them from the conservative flank while activist groups and sections of the media attacked them from the progressive flank.

The goal was obvious: politically isolate One Nation and frighten conservative voters back into the safety of the old two-party structure. Instead, the opposite happened. Farley still won heavily. And that fact should deeply concern both major parties.

Because what happened in Farrer was not merely a protest vote. It was not simply dissatisfaction with Labor. It was something broader and potentially more dangerous for the political establishment. Large numbers of Australians are no longer voting loyally. They are voting angrily.

For decades, many regional conservative voters remained attached to the Coalition by instinct and habit. Even when frustration mounted, many still saw the Liberals and Nationals as the default political home for people concerned about borders, national identity, economic pressure and regional decline. That old loyalty is beginning to fracture. And Farrer may become one of the clearest signs yet that parts of regional Australia are entering a new political phase.

The political establishment increasingly struggles to understand the depth of frustration building outside inner-city Australia. People see housing affordability collapsing. They see mass migration continuing despite enormous pressure on infrastructure, services and communities. They see regional Australians lectured constantly by media figures, political insiders and activist networks who often appear disconnected from the realities facing ordinary working families.

And increasingly, they feel neither major party is genuinely listening. That creates fertile conditions for populist insurgencies. The more aggressively the political and media class attacks those movements, the more some voters interpret the attacks as proof that the movement threatens established power structures.

That dynamic was clearly visible in Farrer. But One Nation should not misread this result either. Winning a breakthrough seat is one thing. Holding credibility after victory is another entirely.

The challenge for David Farley now is straightforward but politically critical: he must remain aligned with the issues voters associate with One Nation in the first place, particularly immigration and population pressure. Voters did not back One Nation because they wanted another politician who would gradually soften, drift or assimilate into Canberra culture after entering Parliament.

They voted for disruption. They voted for resistance to the political consensus. They voted because they wanted representation that fundamentally differed from the cautious managerial politics dominating the major parties.

That expectation now carries enormous political weight. If One Nation wants Farrer to become the beginning of a lasting realignment rather than a one-off protest result, the party cannot afford to lose clarity on the issues that drove voters toward it. Because Farrer was more than a by-election result. It was a warning shot from regional Australia.

And both the establishment and One Nation itself should pay close attention to what voters were trying to say.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

The Farrer by-election should have been routine.

Safe Liberal territory. A sprawling regional electorate across southern New South Wales where elections are normally managed, predictable and politely dull. The sort of seat where the political class turns up for the obligatory photo opportunity, shakes a few hands at the local showgrounds and then heads back to Canberra confident the result is already locked away.

Instead, Farrer has become a political street fight.

NOTE: This article originally appeared on ConfidentialDaily.com

• The Farrer by-election has become a national showdown between the political establishment and a growing populist revolt centred around One Nation.

• Despite relentless attacks from activist groups, major parties and hostile media coverage, One Nation remains competitive because many voters no longer trust establishment narratives.

• Climate 200-backed independent Michelle Milthorpe is presented as a grassroots regional candidate while benefiting from the same professional activist machinery seen in inner-city Teal campaigns.

• GetUp!, media commentators and establishment politicians are unintentionally strengthening the backlash by appearing to lecture and manage regional voters rather than represent them.

• Rising living costs, housing pressures, immigration concerns and collapsing trust in institutions are driving a broader regional revolt that could fundamentally destabilise Australian politics.

Activists are pouring into the electorate. Climate 200-linked campaign structures are operating at full throttle. GetUp! has mobilised heavily against One Nation. Liberal and National Party operatives are tearing strips off Pauline Hanson’s candidate while sections of the media churn out daily scandal coverage with almost missionary enthusiasm. The sheer scale of the establishment response tells you everything you need to know about how nervous they have become.

Because despite all of it, One Nation is still competitive.

That is the real story of this by-election. Not that One Nation candidate David Farley has run a flawless campaign. He plainly has not. Not that every criticism levelled against him is fabricated. Some are entirely fair. The extraordinary part is that after weeks of coordinated attacks, negative headlines, activist pressure and political pile-ons, a large bloc of voters still appears willing to back him anyway.

That is what has Canberra rattled.

To understand why, you first need to understand what this contest has become. This is no longer a normal fight between Left and Right. Labor barely matters in Farrer. The real battle is between the old political order and a growing populist revolt against it. On one side sit the familiar institutional forces: Liberal strategists, National Party operators, Climate 200 activists, GetUp! campaigners, media commentators and the broader ecosystem of professional political management that now dominates Australian public life.

On the other side sits a rough-edged insurgency campaign fuelled by frustration, resentment and a belief that ordinary Australians have been politically abandoned.

The by-election was triggered after former Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley vacated the seat. Under ordinary circumstances, the Liberals would expect to retain Farrer comfortably. But polling over recent weeks changed the complexion of the race dramatically. Several surveys suggested the Liberal primary vote had collapsed while both One Nation and Climate 200-backed independent Michelle Milthorpe surged into genuine contention.

That transformed a sleepy by-election into a national political alarm bell.

Suddenly the activist networks switched on. GetUp! reportedly raised more than half a million dollars specifically to stop One Nation from winning the seat. Climate 200-linked support flowed heavily into Milthorpe’s operation. The media focus intensified. The attacks on Farley escalated. What had initially looked like a local contest rapidly became a coordinated national campaign to crush a populist insurgency before it could gain momentum.

And this is where the Milthorpe operation becomes politically revealing.

Milthorpe has spent the campaign desperately trying to dodge the “Teal” label while benefiting from the exact activist infrastructure Australians now associate with Climate 200 operations. The branding may be regional. The machinery behind it is not. Voters are being asked to believe this is some spontaneous grassroots uprising while professional campaign networks, activist money and carefully curated media treatment conveniently materialise around her campaign like clockwork.

It is the same political template Australians have already seen rolled out in wealthy inner-city seats. Slick messaging. Poll-tested language. Sanitised identity politics wrapped in “community consultation” rhetoric. A candidate carefully marketed as independent while operating inside a broader activist ecosystem with very obvious ideological leanings. Only now the same formula has been shoved into an Akubra and driven through regional NSW pretending to be authentically local.

A lot of voters can smell the artificiality from a mile away.

That is one of the great miscalculations being made by activist strategists and metropolitan commentators covering this race. Regional Australians are perfectly capable of supporting independents when they believe those candidates genuinely emerge from the community. But many also possess a finely tuned instinct for manufactured political branding. They know the difference between local representation and a professionally assembled activist project disguised as community spontaneity.

Then there is GetUp!, which has once again demonstrated its remarkable ability to motivate conservative voters by simply existing. Nothing hardens regional resistance faster than the arrival of progressive activist groups lecturing voters about the moral necessity of defeating the “wrong” candidate. Every attack ad becomes free advertising. Every sanctimonious media segment reinforces the suspicion that ordinary voters are being managed rather than represented.

The harder the establishment pushes, the stronger the backlash becomes.

That same dynamic exploded during the now infamous confrontation involving Liberal senator James Paterson and an elderly One Nation volunteer outside a polling booth. Footage of the altercation spread rapidly online after Paterson filmed the man during an argument over anti-Farley campaign signage. Within hours, sections of the political and media class were framing the incident as another example of dangerous populist behaviour and political extremism.

But many ordinary voters watching the footage saw something quite different.

They saw a senior Liberal operative inserting himself into a heated confrontation during an already toxic campaign and then appearing shocked when tempers boiled over. The point is not whether the altercation was ideal. It obviously was not. The point is that establishment politicians and media figures consistently misread public sentiment because they still assume voters trust their framing of events.

Increasingly, they do not.

That same collapse in institutional trust explains why the attacks on David Farley have failed to destroy the One Nation campaign. Farley has vulnerabilities. Real ones. His political history is messy, some of his comments on immigration have created obvious problems and parts of the campaign have lacked discipline. Under the old rules of Australian politics, that combination of controversies would normally end an insurgent candidacy before polling day even arrived.

But the old rules are breaking down.

Voters increasingly suspect coordinated political pile-ons. They notice when establishment parties, activist groups and media organisations all converge on the same target at the same time. They see selective outrage. They detect double standards. And many have started asking themselves a simple question: if the entire political establishment is trying this hard to destroy one candidate, what exactly are they so frightened of?

That question matters because One Nation’s support in places like Farrer is no longer primarily ideological. It is emotional. People are exhausted by rising living costs, collapsing housing affordability, soaring power bills and endless political lectures from people who appear insulated from the consequences of their own policies. They are tired of being told that concerns about immigration, regional decline, cultural change or economic insecurity are somehow illegitimate or morally suspect.

Most of all, they are tired of being treated as a problem to be managed whenever they push back.

That frustration is now feeding a broader political revolt across parts of regional Australia. Not a perfectly organised revolt. Not an especially polished one either. But a revolt nonetheless. One Nation has become the primary vehicle for that anger not because it is flawless, but because millions of voters increasingly view the major parties as interchangeable managers of national decline.

And that is why Farrer matters.

If One Nation can win a regional seat despite coordinated attacks from the Liberals, Nationals, Climate 200, GetUp!, hostile media coverage and a series of campaign controversies, then Australian politics may be entering a far more unstable era than the establishment currently understands. Because once voters stop fearing elite disapproval, the old mechanisms of political control begin to fail very quickly.

The political class still believes this is temporary anger. A protest vote. A passing tantrum from dissatisfied conservatives.

They may be looking at the early stages of something much bigger.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

For years, I’ve been warning about where this country is heading.

Less freedom.
More control.
Higher costs for ordinary Australians.

And now you’re watching it play out in real time.

Fuel prices rising again.
Food getting more expensive every week.
Power bills that keep climbing.

And if you think it’s just you feeling the squeeze… official inflation is still sitting at 4.6%.

That’s the “official” number.

Most households know it feels a lot higher.

This isn’t a coincidence.

It’s what happens when poor decisions, global instability, and weak leadership collide.

And with tensions escalating in the Middle East and oil prices already moving, the next round of pressure isn’t coming…

It’s already starting.

You’ll feel it at the supermarket.
At the petrol pump.
In every bill that lands in your inbox.

The problem is, most people still think they’ve got time.

They don’t.

And the people who wait are usually the ones who pay the highest price later.

That’s why I’m stepping into this next week.

Not to speculate.

But to show you what’s actually happening, and what people are already doing right now to protect themselves and create additional cash flow in the middle of it.

Cashflow for Conservatives

📅 Live next week:
Tuesday 12 May 2026
Wednesday 13 May 2026
Thursday 14 May 2026

Over three days, you’ll be walked through three practical strategies that are already working in the current environment.

No theory.
No spin.
Just what’s being done right now by people who aren’t waiting around.

And if you attend live, you’ll also go into the draw to win $1,000 cash each day.

Secure your place here:

YES! SECURE MY SPOT.

You don’t need to panic.

But you do need to take this seriously.

What you do next matters.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

Most politicians won’t touch the issues that actually matter right now because they’re too risky, too unpopular, or too real.

In this conversation with the Australian Taxpayers Alliance, I sat down with economist Dr John Humphreys and Gene Tunney to dig into exactly those issues, the ones Canberra keeps dancing around.

Read more