South Africa 2026

When I was coming of age, in the seventies and eighties, my parents taught me that the apartheid regime in South Africa was racist and evil.  When I went off to college in 1985, I found fellow students protesting the South African government and US investment in the country.  They set up encampments on the quad calling for the university to divest from this segregated country and its racist ruling white minority government.

I never joined the protests.  Not because I was unsympathetic to the cause, but because I saw the protests as less about the injustice in South Africa, and more about the protesters' need to protest.  And importantly, to be seen protesting.  If it had not been this issue, it would have been something else.  Anything else.  That was my immediate impression, and I still hold it to this day, forty years later.

And we all know the history.  Apartheid ended in South Africa in 1994.  And I bet most of those protestors never gave the country another thought.

Right?  Well.  Here is South African, Winston Sterzel:

Now Winston blames the communist ANC.  And sure communism may play a part.  But the real problem is corruption.  This is true in most third world hellscapes.  Whether a government leans left or leans right, it is the culture of corruption that results in what you see in this video.

What most people do not understand about corruption is this:  You do not find corruption only at the top.  No, corruption permeates society from top to bottom.  You cannot only say things like, they have a corrupt government or they are corrupt crony capitalists or corrupt communists.  Because where you have those things, I assure you, the cab drivers and the street vendors are also corrupt.  Corruption is not an elite issue; rather it is a cultural failing.

Returning to communism, it is interesting that it seems to take hold most easily in corrupt cultures.  I do not think this is an accident.  Something for nothing, provided by somebody else is appealing to the corruption-minded.

I am not saying that apartheid was a good system.  And I am certainly not calling for its return.  But today, the citizens of South Africa have no one to blame for the failings of their country except themselves and the leaders they vote for.  They have the government and the society that they want.  They have the government and society that they deserve.

So that's okay then.
𓐵

Islamic Immigration into Europe

Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim, and the Cameraman

Boghossian and Ibrahim talk about why Europe is dying, but about ninety minutes in, their cameraman injects himself into the conversation, with a real time demonstration of suicidal empathy.  The argument of the left on full display.  And they allow the cameraman to make his points.  Then after quizzing the cameraman on what exactly he believes, Boghossian makes the point the we are going to get the Europe that the cameraman is championing.  The cameraman seems to be okay with that because he does not believe that Islam offers any danger to Europe.  And besides, Muslims are too low of a percentage of the overall population to make much difference.

Listening to the cameraman, I could not help but reflect that this is what millions of Europeans believe.  They either don't think about this at all, or they believe what the cameraman believes.  And there is no reasoning with the cameraman because he has his doctrine and his dogma, and these convictions are immune to reason.  As with any religion.

I love the way Boghossian dealt with this guy.  He did not argue with him.  He let the cameraman make his points, and then he simply asked a few questions to clarify what the guy believed.  And here, if you do not understand the reality of Islam and European political leadership, you might think that the cameraman got the better of Boghossian and Ibrahim.  But I think Boghossian is well aware of who is watching, both in the live audience and online.  And to those people, the cameraman is simply yet another naive leftist.  So Boghossian just let him dig his hole.

Ordinarily I would say that this was painful to watch.  But it was not.  Watching this was like watching someone predict a train wreck without realizing that is what they are doing, but you know with certainty that they are correct.  By the time that the bien-pensants wake from their trance, it will be too late.

What this shows is that suicidal empathy is a choice.  A warmly embraced and welcome choice.  It is also a bit smug; you hear this in the cameraman's responses:  He looks down on Boghossian and Ibrahim for their obvious bigotry.

This is not entertaining; this is a snuff film.

𓐵

David Starkey and David Betz

Civil War:  The Somewheres versus the Anywheres and the Muslims



The above videio is from earlier this month.  I have posted David Betz videos twice before in the last year:  Here with Louise Perry (audio only), and here with the Triggernometry guys.  Further, I have collected notable Betz videos on this topic here.

For residents of Britain, I see four possibilities.  One, you can stay and fight.  Two, leave now, before the violence begins.  Three, stay and work towards peaceful subjugation.  Not because you want subjugation, but because you believe in coexistence.  Of course you do.  Four, denial.  This is the Keir Starmer approach.  And millions of Anywheres share it.  They will bear the brunt of the violence, and as the cause of this problem, they surely deserve it.

In the end, options three and four will be one and the same.  Ultimately the deniers will die in the coming violence or submit to Islam, which arguably, they already have.  When you are willingly giving over your daughters for rape, you have already submitted.

But wait, one might argue that Keir Starmer and his ilk are not giving over their own daughters for rape.  Right?  But that is the whole point:  They are giving over the daughters of the Somewheres.  And before they fed the Somewhere daughters to the immigrant rapists, they let uncountable numbers of these consanguineous monsters into the country.  And rape is but one part of the cultural conflict.

This is the reason I say they, the Anywheres, deserve it.  What did they think would happen?  No, they did not think at all.  But they love to tell people how clever they are; just ask them.  After all, they are citizens of the world.

So for we of lesser intellect, but with perhaps a modicum of common sense, only the first two possibilities are viable.  Stay and fight, or flee.  But make up your mind quickly; both options require planning.

If you choose to stay and fight, one does wonder if, in fact, there is going to be a fight?  If recent history is anything to go by, submission will be more palatable for most.  So if you stay and fight, I do not think you will be joining the fight.

No, if you stay, you will have to start the fight.

𓐵

The Center Cannot Hold

The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming!  Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight:  somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Thanks to Heather Heying; she reads the poem here.  While written in 1919 and first published in 1920, it could have been written this morning.  See gyre definition; and that is only the beginning of the poem.  To say that the poem has aged well is an understatement.  Along with W.H. Auden's Funeral Blues (1938) and Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night (1951), it is a masterpiece of the twentieth century.  William Butler Yeats won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1923.

𓐵

Black Names

The truth about black names



I am not sure when this was filmed; it came up in my Youtube feed today.  Both Jesse and Larry are much older now.  But it is still so relevant.  I think parents can accomplish their goal without going crazy.  I once knew a gal named Kenya and I always thought that was beautiful and unique, and elegant and spellable.  Note to parents, maybe don't go with Djibouti.
𓐵

The Tipping Point is Near

Boghossian:  Enablers, you are going to get what you deserve



It is long past time to admit that there are vanishingly few moderate and/or good Muslims.  The absolute best they, as a group, will ever do is remain silent in the face of Islamic misconduct.  And more generally, the misconduct of people who also happen to be Muslim.  Before you berate me for this observation, watch the above video with Lubna Zaidi.

Just as with our political class, where it is not the politicians that are the problem; rather, it is the voters.  It is not the Muslims that are the problem.  Rather, it is what Boghossian and Zaidi label, their enablers.  Typically, but not exclusively, from the left.  They tolerate or even allow the misconduct, and then turn a blind eye to it.

Stop pretending.  Stop the wishful thinking.  Stop the suicidal empathy.  It is time to be serious.

* Apologies to Malcolm Gladwell and Ray Kurzweil.
𓐵

The Story of the Hole

Scene from The West Wing



20 December 2000  I remember this scene and this story.  Actually, I have never forgotten it.  The West Wing writers, Peter Parnell and Aaron Sorkin, adapted the story from an old Alcoholics Anonymous parable.  But I like how they expanded it to friendship more generally.
𓐵

Theater of the Absurd

Milo:  It is not a sexuality...it is a trauma response



I have never given much thought to homosexuality.  And I have never understood it.  But I have always thought that there is something inauthentic about it.  That is, many gay people, well gay men, seem to relish the theater of it; they make it a production.  Everything from the effeminate affectation to the exaggerated campy social performance in its various presentations.  Oh honey, we have all seen the entire repertoire of gay theater.

Of course, not all of them are like this.  But for the men who put on the gay show, really you have to ask, is any of that real?  Well this Milo interview comes as close to explaining homosexuality as I have ever seen.

And yes, Milo comes with his own version of the show.  Here, watching Milo Yiannopoulos, it looks like he is on something.  I mean more so than when we used to see him a decade ago.  But if we can, and we should, set that aside, he makes some wildly interesting, honest, and I believe accurate, points.  Even if his demeanor and conversational style is largely theater, and whether he is doped-up or not, he is an astute observer on this topic.

Like I said, I have never given this topic much thought.  I have never been terribly close to it.  But once, when I was in college, during the AIDS crisis, a friend asked me what I thought about homosexuality.  I remember saying to her, well, I think it is a choice.  She was aghast, and asked, but why would anyone choose to be gay?  My response was, I think it is a form of rebellion.  Parental rebellion or family rebellion, or maybe even something broader.  But it is something reactive rather than innate.

She was even more aghast, but I added, plus it has the added benefit of making one a victim.  This was before the whole victim identity nonsense and she just could not believe that one would or could purposefully identify as a victim.  To what end?  She asked.  Well, there is a kind of status in victimhood.  And it gives you a kind of shield against criticism.

She had to think about that.  But then she asked me the question that I could not answer:  If it is a choice, when did you decide that you were straight?

Bam!

That was it, right?  There was no answer to that question.  Conversation over.

And I really never thought about it again.

Sure, I met gay people over the years.  But from the time of that conversation, my attitude was, hey, you do you.

But about twenty years later something happened.  I met no less than three men, roughly my age, who had married women and had children, and then after long marriages, came out as gay.  All three subsequently divorced.  And I thought back to our conversation twenty years earlier.  Wait, if they are born that way, then whether or not they were ready and willing to accept their homosexuality and/or go public with it, they surely had chosen to be straight.  Or at least had chosen to act straight and live as straight.  Right?

Well no; I was told, because people wrestle with this internally and sometimes it takes decades to accept who you are.  But be that as it may, it seemed to me that there was a choice being made.  And then later reversed.

But this was impolitic, and not really an area of interest for me, so I pretty much kept my opinion to myself.  And it was easy enough to continue with the you do you attitude.

And so I did, again for years.  But over the decades homosexuality, and its various dispositions and alphabetic permutations, have continued to grow.  If you make the argument that this proves that it is not innate, the bien-pensants respond with, well today more people feel they can be open about who they really are.  So they dismiss the social contagion and slippery slope arguments outright.  And if that does not work, they will tell you how offensive these arguments are, and eventually they will get around to calling you a bigot.  Of course.

So still, today, I want to take the you do you attitude.  I want to.  But the numbers have exploded, young people are clearly confused, schools are encouraging alternative sexualities and then hiding the results from parents, we are mutilating children, gender confusion has swept all aspects of society, we are producing record levels of surrogate children, and more broadly, we are accepting of these children in gay households.  And while the causes are uncertain, testosterone levels are in free fall.

It is probably worth remembering that Milo was cancelled in 2016-2017 because he had the audacity to describe how predatory gay men prey on underage boys.  Some say he seemed to condone it.  But was it untrue?  Or has it changed?  Or was Milo just being honest?  Likewise, is he being honest about the rampant promiscuity of the gay lifestyle?  Even in the supposedly married gay households?  Does this conduct stop when children are introduced?  Judge these questions for yourself.

Obviously our society and culture has become more gay and continues to move in that direction.  Ask yourself, is this healthy?  Gay acceptance has gone from, we just want to be treated equally and get married like everyone else, to the gay lifestyle, here I mean the aggregate of the whole spectrum of alphabet people, and its effect on society, is completely beyond criticism.  This is not an overstatement; when they are mutilating children with impunity, their conduct is beyond criticism.  And that is the very least we can say about it.

So, it has gotten to the point that I think we need to take a considered look at the topic.  Believe me, love him or hate him, we could do a lot worse than Milo as a starting point.

𓐵

Philippine Culture in One Photo

The most typically Filipino thing I have ever been able to photograph

What do we see in this photo?  On the far left, we see a rice field with newly planted rice seedlings.  If you look carefully, above the green rice field, you can see an as yet unplanted field.  In the middle, we see an irrigation ditch that services these same rice fields and many others.  To the right of the ditch, we see dirt dredged out of the ditch with a backhoe.  And finally, on the far right, we see a concrete road.

As you can see, irrigation workers have dredged the ditch and left the dirt in the margin (or if you prefer, on the road shoulder).  In any other place, the workers would have used the backhoe to move the dirt into an awaiting truck, to be hauled off to some place in need of fill.  Believe me, the Philippines has no shortage of places that could use the extra fill.

But as you can see, that is not what they have done.  They have left the dredged dirt in the margin.  Where, because of the road, it can only go one way:  Back into the ditch.  And with the amount of rain we see in the Philippines, that will not take long at all.  It was raining when I took this photograph.

Again, what is this?  Many people consider Filipinos to be lazy.  But that is not true; I see extremely hard working Filipinos every day.  That rice field was planted by hand; back-breaking work.  And believe me, the guys I saw dredging this ditch are not lazy.  I passed them working on this project many times.  But what is this?  I mean seriously.

We are going to all the trouble to increase the flow and capacity of the irrigation ditch, but then we are going to leave the excavated dirt where it can only flow right back into the ditch that we just worked so hard to clear.  Practically immediately.

And how often is this done?  I mean, if the excavated dirt was trucked away, would this need to be done again?  Maybe once a decade, or so.

What is that?

Before we go, one final note.  Look again at that dirt.  That is grade A volcanic top soil.  I know North Carolina coastal plains farmers who would kill for dirt like that.  Just one example of the many natural resources of the Philippines.  Judging by natural resources alone, the Philippines should be a rich country.  But it is the culture that keeps it poor.

𓐵

Candace Owens is Correct

About the Charlie Kirk assassination

Yesterday, on The Megyn Kelly Show, referring to the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation, Kelly asked Kash Patel about the text messages between the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, and his roommate/boyfriend.  She says many people think the messages sound kind of fake.  Patel sidesteps the question by saying that it is up to the Utah prosecutors to make the determination as to whether any evidence is credible.

Who wrote this?

But are these messages authentic?  Let's have a look.

I do not believe that twenty-two-year-old males (straight or gay) talk like this, and they certainly do not text like this.  I will highlight the most relevant words in yellow.  No, this was written by someone else.  To me, it sounds like an older law enforcement type and it also sounds like a woman.

And if this text exchange is a fabrication, surely the whole investigation is factitious.  For your reference, here is the actual indictment from which I pulled this.

Decide for yourself:

	Robinson:		I am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.
	Roommate:		you weren’t the one who did it right????
	Robinson:		I am, I’m sorry
	Roommate:		I thought they caught the person?
	Robinson:		no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.
	Roommate:		Why?
	Robinson:		Why did I do it?
	Roommate:		Yeah
	Robinson:		I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.
	Roommate:		How long have you been planning this?
	Robinson:		a bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it
	Robinson:		I’m wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. … I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with. … I might have to abandon it and hope they don’t find prints. how the fuck will I explain losing it to my old man. … only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. … remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see “notices bulge uwu” on fox new I might have a stroke alright im gonna have to leave it, that really fucking sucks. … judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope ;
	Robinson:		delete this exchange
	Robinson:		my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.
	Robinson:		since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.
	Robinson:		Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.
	Robinson:		you are all I worry about love
	Roommate:		I’m much more worried about you
	Robinson:		don’t talk to the media please. don’t take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

Who texts like this?  Older people.  In fact, the whole exchange reads like an older person pretending to text like two young people.  But of course this is just my own speculation.  But who uses the word vehicle?  Law enforcement.  Who says change outfits?  Women.

Are we really to believe that Robinson would call his 2019 Dodge Challenger a vehicle?  He would say car or even Challenger.  One vehicle lingering?  Come on, be serious.

Beyond that, I think it is rather convenient, too convenient, that in this text message exchange, Robinson admits guilt, admits his motive, and admits engraving the bullets.  It is like a cop's dream exchange, and I cannot help but wonder if that is not exactly what it is.

Sadly, Megyn Kelly did not press Patel on this question.  But is he covering for someone or something?  I guess it would have been rude for Kelly to press him with:  So one of your people did not fabricate these messages?  But that is exactly what needs to happen.  I certainly hope the defense counsel is not worried about sounding rude.  If you are interested, click through to the Megyn Kelly video; this question comes at 29:55.

I thought these messages sounded suspicious when they were first released back in the middle of September.  At the time, Candace Owens said the same thing.  And so I let that be the end of it for me.  I had thought that someone else would end up posting just what I did above.  But to my knowledge, no one has.  Even Owens has not posted the texts in this fashion.  But now we have the Director of the FBI being evasive on the subject.  So I just decided to post this after yesterday's Megyn Kelly Show and his non-answer.

The FBI would like nothing more than to hang this assassination on some dumb kid in order to head off any further questions.  Questions like the ones Candace Owens is now asking.  So if this text exchange is a fabrication, Owens' questions go from being mildly interesting and wildly entertaining theories to something real and malignant.  And we can't have that, can we?

Now finally, for anyone who might say, this text exchange cannot be a fabrication because that would be easy for the defense team to prove in court.  Maybe so, maybe not; but let's assume that it would be easy to prove the fabrication....

Then it will not reach trial because Tyler Robinson will die in prison beforehand.  Let us not forget that Donald Trump was in office when Jeffrey Epstein died in prison.

Now, about the ballistics....

𓐵