Muslim Misbehavior

The best people at their holiest place

If this is how they behave in Mecca, just imagine how they behave in your city.

Muslim culture often and famously segregates the sexes.  Yet both Tawaf (circumambulation of the Kaaba) and Istilam (touching the Black Stone at the southeast corner of the Kaaba) are not segregated.  One wonders why?

Such good and devout people.  Allahu akbar.

Surely the question that comes to mind is:  What is wrong with these people?  And whatever answer I contemplate and whatever the answer may be, there is no doubt in my mind that Google will not allow it to be discussed on this platform.  They already exclude this website from Google Search.  So do your own thinking on this question.  This Youtuber, Harris Sultan, an ex-Muslim, now atheist, comes as close to this question as I think we are likely to get.

But I think I can add without risk of removal, that Islam suffers from a lack of confidence.  We see this lack of confidence in its history, its culture, its (lack of) accomplishments, and ultimately, in its doctrine.  Only an ideology that truly lacks confidence and belief in itself would mandate death for apostasy.  I would say it is the lack of confidence that defines the core of Islam and explains much of its behavior.

Meanwhile, back in the United Kingdom:

The famously well-mannered British people can only take so much.  How does this not lead to war or collapse, or both?

This first thing the British people must do is overthrow their government.  It must start here.  In the global history of democracy, have we ever seen supposedly elected officials and really the whole of government ignore the will of their own citizens so completely.  Government officials must pay for what they have done to the nation.  Round them up and try them for treason.

At the same time, ninety percent of the Muslims must be returned to their native countries.  Yes, force will be necessary.  Obviously, no new entries should be allowed.  This too will require the use of force.  If you find this idea troubling, I understand.  But these people are not immigrants; they are invaders.  The British public must wake up to this fact.

For anyone who says, well that just cannot be done.  You are wrong, you just have to decide to do it.  Once the British have the will, it can be done.  If the British people do not develop the will, their country will perish.

This is an existential decision.

But to be realistic, I do not believe that the British people will address this at all.  And therefore, I think we will see the fall of Britain in my life time.  If you are a British citizen, my sincere advice to you is to emigrate to the United States as soon as possible.  There is no where else to go.
𓐵

Why Are Gay Men Losing Support?

Stop the show

The backdrop, and the backstop, for today's gay community seems to be gay marriage.  We constantly hear, Oh they want to revoke our right to be married.  So we must support this and that, etc.  But what I see is married gay men who do not seem to really want to be married.  Oh they want the right to marry, they just do not want to act the part.

Here is a question:  What percentage of married gay men are in these so-called open marriages?  It does not matter if you are straight or gay, an open marriage is not a marriage.  If you want to have sex with a random and continuous parade of other people, stop pretending to be married.  It is MINO, Marriage In Name Only.  The reported statistics and rationales are revealing; and my guess is that these escapades are severely underreported among gay men.  The boys are only playing house.

Americans grudgingly accepted gay men's redefinition of marriage.  But now they are making a mockery of it.  Fine boys; this hurts no one more than yourselves.  Surely, this alone, costs your community huge public support.  I also notice that this does not seem to be a thing among the lesbians.  We simply must acknowledge the rampant promiscuity among some unknowable, but significant percentage of gay men.  This is just a fact.

If gay men want to turn around the accelerating decline in their public support, they must separate from their more promiscuous enthusiasts, separate the LGB from the alphabet crazies, and also separate from what Amir calls the gay vibe.  I call it the gay show.  Because I do not think it is real; it is a show.  This is where and why ordinary people reach gay fatigue.  We are tired to death of the show.  You say you are normal, so act normal.  Like Amir says towards the end of his video, most people do not mind gay folks, we just want normal gays, without the show.  He worries that the show might cost him his rights as a normal gay man.  Yeah, I can see that.

Let me add something else about the show and the fatigue.  Perhaps it is only my perception, but this is what I have noticed increasingly in the last few years.  Some gay men, not all, but a noticeable number, are very proud of their newly acquired right to be their true selves.  And if other people do not like it, well, there is nothing they can do about it.

So we get:  Here I am, sharing your spaces, in all my flamboyant fabulousness.  They flaunt it for no other reason than they can; it is an entitlement.  What I think is happening is that they have this subversive desire to throw it in our faces; and so they proudly play up the show.  Oh they couch it within their inflated effeminate demeanor, but make no mistake, it is an in your face sort of attitude.

If you pay close attention, you can see it.  I have received knowing looks, even smirks, from gay men, who have noticed me observing them.  Yes perhaps, they think I am exactly the audience they want to reach with their power play show.  But I think it is more than that.  They seem to know, that I know, that it is in fact, a show.  Maybe I am reading too much into it, but watch closely and decide for yourself.

I think ordinary people, gay marriage supporting people, just hate the newly exaggerated show.  We are tired of it.  And the whole gay community will suffer for it.

𓐵

Return to Sanity with Project Gutenberg

More thoughtful and compelling than social media

Michael Hart founded Project Gutenberg in 1971.  The first document he added was The Declaration of Independence, in December of 1971.  It remains book Number One on the site.  Since then, he and his volunteers have added 79,245 additional titles (as of today).  And since the birth of the internet, the project has made all of these titles accessible to everyone.  So if you want to read John Milton's Paradise Lost, you can find it there, in full, for free.  It is book Number 20, and has been available since 1991.

It was not until 1989 that Hart had ten documents on the service.  Book Number 10 is the King James Version of the Bible.  An early novel was Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Book 11, added in 2008.  Other early additions include Moby Dick, Peter Pan, Aesop's Fables, and Thomas Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter.

You get the idea.  Classics, and long out of copyright.  I am not sure why the book numbers do not exactly line up chronologically.  But if I had to guess I would say that early on, the book numbers were assigned before the transcription was undertaken, or finished anyway.

In any case, I guess I have known about Project Gutenberg almost as long as I have known that the internet was a thing.  But for me, it was a bit of a novelty.  I confess, I am not the biggest reader of classic literature.  But if I ever took a hankering to read Charles Dickens' Bleak House, I knew where to find it.

And this went on for many years, really until recently.  You see, I am more of a nonfiction reader, which tends to be recently-published and very much under copyright.  And thus, not available on Project Gutenberg.  On the other hand, I do enjoy a good mystery.  And what has happened over the last twenty years is that many of the early twentieth century mystery classics have fallen out of copyright and entered the public domain.  That means Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Edgar Wallace, etc.  You can now find early works by all of these authors on Project Gutenberg.

You can also find works by P. G. Wodehouse, G. K. Chesterton, E. M. Forster, Ellery Queen, Margery Allingham, John Buchan, and Arthur Conan Doyle.

As an aside, I am struck by how many authors used their initials in the early twentieth century.  Others include H. P. Lovecraft, T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, D. H. Lawrence, A. A. Milne, H. G. Wells, J. M. Barrie, L. M. Montgomery, H. L. Mencken, and A. E. Housman.  In that day, I can understand why female writers might have wished to hide their sex behind their initials.  But for the men?  I guess even creative types can fall prey to fashionable trends.  Anyway, find all of these on Project Gutenberg.

It is worth noting that just because a work has entered the public domain does not mean that it will automatically be added to Project Gutenberg.  I am not at all sure how they choose their additions, but I am pretty sure that one of their volunteers somewhere must be interested in the work enough to transcribe it.  They do not appear to use scans...as of yet.

So far there are seventeen works by Agatha Christie.  She published eighty books, so there are many to follow as they enter the public domain.  I have gone back and read a few of these, and not surprisingly, they hold up well.

Before we leave Project Gutenberg, I would like to point out the number of classic economics texts available on the site.  Works by Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, Charles Mackay, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, Frédéric Bastiat, and T. R. Malthus, among many others.  There are also market classics like the Edwin Lefevre classic Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, Walter Bagehot's Lombard Street, and Henry Clews' Fifty Years in Wall Street.

Of course, these writers are in my area of interest, but I think it is fair to say that you can find the classic works in all fields on the site.  For instance, here is Fannie Farmer's Cook Book (1910 version; revised from the original 1896 version).  Still a worthy addition for any kitchen.

So if you find yourself endlessly scrolling social media, let me point you to this alternative.  I use the Apple Books app, both on my Mac and iPhone.  It is almost as easy to use as the Kindle software (I do not have a Kindle device), including, vitally, remembering where you are in any particular volume across devices.

𓐵

Tattoo Nose Ring Marketing

Have marketers been captured by their own behavior?

Vivaia is a Chinese ladies' shoe brand.  And the below image is a screenshot from a video ad I captured on Youtube.  The shoes look fine and I have no doubt they are affordable, and maybe even a good deal.

But here, could we just focus on the marketing itself.  Rather than use a beautiful young model, this is obviously meant to appear to be just an ordinary consumer talking about these shoes in her kitchen.  Right?  We see this a lot today.  So that is not very interesting.

What I do find interesting is that the company has decided to use a tatted-up lady with a nose ring.  Which to me signals that the company believes their core consumer audience are tatted-up ladies with nose rings.  Right?  Because God knows if you are trying to appeal to ladies with no tats and no nose ring, the last thing you are going to do is use a tatted-up lady with a nose ring.  Continues below....



So either the Chinese company believes this to be the right strategy because this look truly represents their audience, or the company believes this to be the right strategy because they only believe that this look represents their audience.  That is, they have either read their market correctly or they only think they have.

And look at the age of this presenter.  These shoes are clearly marketed to middle-aged ladies.  So here is my question, how many middle-aged women look like that?  And if you were to do a poll or focus group, how many would approve of the tats & nose ring mien?

Really, I am just wondering.  But what really scares me is that maybe the Chinese company is correct.  And this ad campaign is not as stupid as it looks to me.

For context, here is a wider screenshot:

Now, I would be remiss if I did not point out that if you go to the Vivaia website, there is not a tattoo in sight, much less any nose rings.  It is an absolutely beautiful site, that markets ladies' shoes with beautiful young models.  Just as one would expect.

This means, that the video ad that I have seen on at least five separate occasions across at least three different Youtube channels, is directed at a broad Youtube audience.  This would make sense if I was watching Youtube videos that appeal to tatted-up ladies with nose rings.  And I just don't think that is the case.  Quite the opposite in fact.

So if the target market does not find this appealing, why are the marketers doing this?  Could it be that the marketing people themselves are tatted-up ladies with nose rings?  And they assume this is a more common practice than reality supports?  Does it become sort of a marketer's projection or self-delusion?

But it gets worse.  In researching this piece, I visited the Vivaia website.  I found their shoes to be appealing.  The kind of thing my wife might purchase.  So the tatted-up lady with the nose ring not only misses the target market, but intentionally or not, she is actively working to reduce it.  Why are they doing this?  I need Rory Sutherland to explain it to me.

It is bewildering.

Let me just end by saying that I did find the TikTok influencer they are using for this ad.  But the how does not explain the why.

𓐵

Boghossian and Weinstein on Arday and Related Topics

Burn it all down

The irony, as these two point out, is that Jason Arday could be the singular individual who could save the academy.  Sadly, he will choose not to do so.

Boghossian has a non-profit which encourages people to stop donating to their own alma mater.  Seems long overdue.  I like Weinstein's idea:  Send ten percent of whatever you would have otherwise donated, to your alma mater, to Boghossian's National Progress Alliance.  Surely, they will make better use of it than Harvard, Stanford, Duke, Michigan, Wake Forest, UNC, and the various other religious institutions and their Bolshevik priests, formerly known as academia.  Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule calls these institutions progressive seminaries.  He adds:  Does anyone not realize what they are?  Quite so.

Update, 15 August 2026

Jason Arday was found dead yesterday, Friday, 14 August 2026.  According to police, his death was unexpected, but not suspicious.  He was 41.  Reeks of suicide, and if that turns out to be true, I will blame Cambridge University and all of the academics that helped put Arday into this position.

Exit questions:  Are we to believe that Jason Arday was a one-of-a-kind phenomenon?  Or, if we were to look, would we find similar frauds all across academia?  While I am inclined to believe that no one in academia is going to look, it is worth remembering that it was a fellow academic that brought Arday's fictions to light.  Much to the chagrin of the academic establishment.  Moving forward, let's hope this becomes a cottage industry in academic quarters.

𓐵

Weak Muslims and a Cowardly West

Boghossian:  Europe is in hospice

Muslim culture and ideas are clearly weak.  But the West is so cowardly that it will be overrun by the adherents of this weak and insecure religion.  This is not the fault of the Muslims, but rather the fault of cowardly westerners.  I would add that it is too late for Europe.  Short of mass re-migration, Europe as a Western society is done.

In the US, we will watch Europe fall.  But the question is:  Will we learn the appropriate lessons?  It is doubtful.  Because we have the same type of cowardly elites and leaders that they have in Europe.  The only difference, the only reason we are behind Europe's Islamization, is our fortunate geography.

No matter what we think about the Chinese government, for all its numerous faults, they will resist Islam.  Japan as well.  It is interesting to consider:  What nations will be free of Islam in a hundred years?

Here's Arynne Wexler doing her thing:

𓐵

Entitlement Culture

The tow truck driver knows more about entitlement than any lefty academic

The race-based entitlement that academics peddle is questionable at best.  This is what true entitlement looks like.

It is worth pointing out that the illegally-parked vehicle owners are not the customers of the towing company.  No, the towing company's customer is the property owner.  I think that all the back and forth with the vehicle owners is just for good Youtube content.  I mean, why else bother?  But for us, it does offer a great peek at American entitlement culture.

And sadly, you see this in all public facing businesses.  This is just an extreme example.  In any case, I would argue that entitlement has gotten worse in the last few decades.  I wish some academic would study the causes.  But they are so wrapped up in race and grievance that they pay no attention to the actual entitlement all around us.

Just pay attention; entitlement is everywhere.  People are entitled to tips for no real service.  Others are entitled to tip nothing for actual service.  Parents are entitled to take their unsupervised, misbehaving children everywhere.  Passengers are entitled to take the seat of their choice on airplanes.  So-called influencers are entitled to free stuff and service.  And if we back up just a few years to the time of Covid, just think about the entitlement that people had to tell perfect strangers what to do.  Going to the grocery store was walking through an entitlement minefield.

Today we see people using smartphones without headphones or earbuds.  Some blast music in public on their bluetooth speakers.  Patrons refuse to get off their smartphones when dealing with a cashier, waiter, etc.  Or on public transportation.  The social expectation of respect for others is dead.

Truly, the only way to avoid disrespect for others is to avoid public spaces.  We do try.  And here is something interesting:  There is a class dynamic to this entitlement problem.  Counterintuitive though it may be, higher class environments have less entitlement.  In my observation, entitlement culture is a lower class problem.  And it is intentional.  The mid and upper classes know that it is best to take calls outside, or not at all.  Lower class people have a need to inflict their noise and other entitlements on the people around them.  Why is that?

Anyway, it is getting worse.  What is going on?

𓐵

The Unhinged Alphabet Show

When did "pride" become so hateful?

Arielle Scarcella:  At what point does "pride" stop being about pride, and start being performance art for the unhinged?



It is a show, and if you do not approve of the show, there is something wrong with you, not the shameless, deranged performers.  Scarcella says that "pride" is not about pride; rather, it is performance art for the unhinged.  In other words, it is a freak show.  But I think it is much worse than that.  I submit that the show is about asserting power and dominance:  You cannot stop me and you should keep your mouth shut.

Beyond that, a large part of the Alphabet Show is sheer narcissism.  It is:  Look at me!  Look at me!  Look at me!  They should not worry; try as we might, they cannot be missed.
𓐵

Cultural Insanity

Are the alphabet people crazy?



I lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina for many years.  And there is something about academic communities that attracts unstable people.  I will let someone else explain why that is, but it is a fact.  So living in this sort of place, you encounter lots of crazy people.  It is just part of the life there.

And one thing I noticed about these people, whatever their individual problems, you never know what is going to set them off.  And almost all of them have the potential to become violent.  So it is best just to stay away from them.

This has become my attitude with so-called trans people, and really, with much of the alphabet community.  These people are often crazy and it is just a good idea to stay away from them.  You can easily sense the violence lurking just beneath the surface.

For instance, this guy strikes me as having the potential for violence.  I mean, he is seething; you can tell he might erupt at any moment.  I do not want him in my restaurant (he likes to film himself in restaurants), interacting with my staff, and near my other customers.

I think the problem here is one of perceived respect.  The alphabet people demand the respect that they feel society owes them.  And if they perceive that someone is not sufficiently providing it, well, their response is unknowable.  This is made all the more unpredictable because, it is true, many of us do not and cannot respect them.

But the perceived lack of respect is only the first layer.  When this is not forthcoming, the alphabet people move to control.  You will call me by my preferred pronouns, or else.  You will allow me to swim on the girl's team, or else.  You will not consider me a pervert if I had anonymous sex with two hundred men so far this year, or else.

This or else is typically some form of social control, or group outrage, or cancellation.   It is interesting to note that they demand respect from others and control of others.  Surely they would have an easier road if they left the rest of us out of their lifestyles?  But again, when this effort fails, the response is unknowable.  The threat of violence is always present.

Now, is the problem all of the alphabet people?  I do not think so.  For instance, the lesbians and the bisexuals seem relatively normal.  And some percentage of the gay community seems normal.  Although what that percentage is, I have no idea.  But if you are a gay man, playing dress up and dancing for little kids, you sir, are not normal.

The remainder of the alphabet people do seem some degree of crazy.  While there is no definitive list of the various types of alphabet people, Grok makes a start.  You will note that "furry" is not a sexual orientation or gender identity.  Good to know.

My sincere advice:  Stay away from them.

𓐵

Five Open Questions

I have long been a supporter of Israel.  See here, here, and here.  There are others.  I continue to believe that Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself as any other nation.  But today I have some questions that I can no longer ignore.

1.  Who killed JFK?

2.  Who killed Charlie Kirk?

3.  What happened on 9/11?

4.  What happened to the USS Liberty in 1967?

5.  Why were Israeli Defense Forces pulled off the border with Gaza on 7 October 2023 in the exact area where Hamas attacked?

Kennedy was assassinated 63 years ago this November.  Why not release all of the files?  I do not know the answer to that question.  But surely one possible answer is that doing this would cause harm to Israel.  Yes of course, even today.  No matter what you think of this theory, I think we can all agree that Kennedy was not killed with Arlen Specter's magic bullet.  If Israel was not involved, release the files and let us see what happened.  I am talking to you Donald Trump.

And do we really believe that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a 22-year-old, trans-furry goofball, with an old hunting rifle that would have taken Kirk's head off?

Engineers say the World Trade Center buildings should not have fallen on 9/11.  Certainly not Tower Seven.  Are they lying or is the government lying?

The USS Liberty, a gray naval vessel flying the American flag was mistaken for an Egyptian warship?  By Israel?  Really?

The point of this post is not to probe each of the above questions.  There's more than enough of that on the internet and I invite you to do your own research.

No, the point is:  The US government is lying about the first four of these questions.  Not sure why, but it is clear they are lying.  What would cause them to do so?  At some point the cumulative dubiousness of these open questions becomes unavoidable.  And they all seem to trace back to Israel.

I include the fifth question because it is so very odd.  So odd that it stinks.  Could the Israeli government have known about the impending attack, and therefore chose to let it happen?  And why would they do that?  Is everything that happened in the subsequent months and years the answer to that question?  Could the Israeli government be that evil?

Should we not now reconsider the first four questions based on our consideration of Question Five?

It is interesting to note that the US response, in the immediate aftermath of all of these incidents, was to act in a way that benefited Israel.  So allow me to just ask the obvious question bluntly:

Could it be that the Israeli government engineered all of these incidents in order to engender support from the American government and the American public?  Or to influence US policy in the Middle East?

I know, I know, such a question is antisemitic.  But like the term racist, the term antisemitic has been abused to the point that it no longer means much.  Criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitic, any more than criticism of the government of Congo is racist.  Or criticism of the government of France is anti-Gallic.

The point of calling people antisemitic is not to call out genuine bigotry.  Rather it is to stop inconvenient questions.

Call me whatever you like.  But answer my damn questions.

𓐵