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....

𓐵

The Unreported Philippines

The delicate art of living in a flighty culture

 

I have noticed that no one tells the truth about living in the Philippines.  I have written about this before.  No one really lies; they just leave stuff out.  And the omissions are fairly extensive.  So here, let me point out a few quirks of living here.  I will skip the obvious, like don't drink the water and Filipino time, and focus on what no one talks about.

Before we start, what do I mean by flighty?  I have seen the modern usage of flighty culture.  While I appreciate the concept, that is not what I mean.  I use flighty in its traditional sense.  Flighty means fickle and irresponsible, frivolous, undependable, capricious, unstable, skittish, forgetful, volatile and excitable, inconsistent, unserious, guided by whim or fancy rather than by judgment or settled purpose.  And that is exactly what I mean when I use the term flighty culture here.  So with that clarification, let's get started.

In no particular order:

• If you see it, buy it
  
  Inventory management is beyond the Philippines.  I don't know if it is a function of the shipping logistics of seven thousand plus islands, or if it is a function of Philippine culture, or both.  But I suspect culture plays at least as large a role as cumbersome logistics.  If it is consumable, buy more than one; in fact, buy all they have.  It may be a while before you see it again.  And you may never see it again.
  
  
  
• Electricity is expensive
  
  I cannot speak for everywhere in the Philippines, but we pay roughly double the rate we were paying in North Carolina.
  
  
  
• The power goes out routinely
  
  And because electricity is so expensive, most Filipinos use very little.  Consequently, when the power goes out, you will notice, but the Filipinos around you will not.
  
  
  
• No traffic law enforcement
  
  The traffic laws in the Philippines are basically identical to those in the United States.  They are just not seriously enforced.
  
  
  
• Chaos reigns supreme
  
  So the roads are chaos just like everything else.  Chaos is a life style choice here.  And yes, it is a choice.  I know it is a choice because I notice places where it does not apply:  High end shopping malls and high end hotels.  But that's the extent of it.  Chaos everywhere else.
  
  
  
• There are no addresses
  
  Just one aspect of the chaos.  Sure there are some addresses, but most buildings are not marked.  Everyone walks around with a smartphone, but they make no attempt to use modern mapping apps available to overcome this problem.  Google Plus Codes and apps like What3Words. No addresses required.  But again, they choose chaos.  More on smartphones below.
  
  
  
• There is no mail
  
  Bills are delivered by hand, and now by email.  There are post offices, but you must go to them because they will not come to you.  No mail also means that you must go somewhere to pay those bills.
  
  
  
• Lack of seriousness
  
  No mail is a great example of the lack of seriousness that you find here.  Filipinos are just not serious people.  About anything.  Traffic, education, medical care, agriculture, sanitation, water systems, just pick any topic and you find something that they are not serious about.
  
  Now of course, there are some serious people here.  And of course, there are plenty of unserious people in the West.  I think it is a question of percentages.  There are enough serious people in the West to make the societies work.  Likewise with Japan, Singapore, etc.  Evidently, there are a lot less in the Philippines.  See Bifurcated Culture below.
  
  
  
• There are no landfills
  
  Well I am sure there are, but there is no sanitation infrastructure.  And because of this, most people either burn their own trash, or throw it in the river.  This is how the Pacific Ocean came to be the primary landfill for the entire country.  And the most common smells in the Philippines are not adobo, lumpia, and lechon cooking, but rather burning plastics.
  
  
  
• Smartphones and smartphone zombies are everywhere
  
  It is difficult to describe this phenomenon.  The smartphones are toys, and never tools.  And the last thing the Philippines needs is a ubiquitous gadget that fosters a lack of seriousness.  I would say that the introduction of smartphones has been a cultural disaster for the Philippines.  Most people use their toys everywhere and without headphones.  Quiet dinner with the wife in a fancy restaurant?  No chance.
  
  
  
• Noise
  
  This brings me to noise in general.  The Philippines is the loudest place I have ever visited.  Noise is everywhere.  And in the Philippines there are only two volume levels:  Off and as high as it goes.  If you are looking for peace and quiet, I urge you to not come here.
  
  One other note about the noise:  Crisp amplification is limited by the quality of the speakers.  And all speakers have a limit to their clarity before the sound becomes distorted.  That is, there is a point at which, it is so loud, that you cannot understand what is being amplified, the voice or the music, etc.  In the Philippines, you can rarely understand the voices because the volume levels are too high.  And it never occurs to them to turn it down a bit.
  
  Ultimately the noise just amplifies the chaos.
  
  
  
• There is little appreciation and little consideration
  
  This takes a while to notice.  But once you do, you see it often and everywhere.  The noise is only the first thing you will notice.
  
  
  
• Karaoke
  
  The noise and lack of consideration warnings absolutely apply to the primary Filipino pastime of karaoke.  I have never understood why karaoke has to be amplified at all, much less at full blast.  But if you cannot hear it half a kilometer away, evidently there's no fun in it.
  
  
  
• Breadwinner culture
  
  You will find many families with one breadwinner.  And that gives others in the family an excuse to not work or be under-employed.  Sometimes the money that the breadwinner shares with his or her family is used for legitimate expenses.  But too often it is not.  A sense of familial duty, and often guilt, keeps the money flowing regardless of how it is ultimately used.
  
  
  
• Bifurcated culture
  
  There are people in the Philippines, millions of them, who are serious and motivated and ambitious.  Of course there are.  And many of these people end up leaving to work overseas.  Leaving the people behind who are less serious, less motivated, and less ambitious.  So if you are impressed with the Filipinos you have met in your own country, like I was, just understand that you will not often find that when you get here.
  
  
  
• Bahala na culture
  
  Before coming to the Philippines, one needs to learn the cultural term bahala na.
  
  
  
• Scam culture
  
  I will tell you my first experience with this, but it never ends.  So we cook with propane, and propane trucks drive around all day, and they only take cash.  The first time they came to us, I gave the driver cash, but I needed change.  Response:  No sorry, I don't have change.  He was just hoping to put a few extra pesos in his pocket.
  
  
  
• Other money issues
  
  You will pay a skin tax on any merchandise items that are not pre-priced.  So shop accordingly.  Your Filipina's family will ask for money.  This may well be okay, but it is expected that you will give it to them.  And if you do not, or cannot, that too is okay, but your relationship with them will suffer.  Give some thought to the moral dimensions of this dynamic.
  
  
  
• Limited customer service
  
  If you are used to United States levels of customer service, you will be disappointed in the limited customer service you find here.  But it is really just a question of adjusting your expectations.
  
  
  
• Low trust society
  
  Limited customer service is a function, one of many, of a low trust society.  If you cannot trust people, you surely cannot accept their merchandise returns.  This attitude spreads to every nook and cranny of society.  And coming from a high trust society, it takes some getting used to.
  
  
  
• Pervasive fickleness
  
  I do not know how else to label this.  But it is a cultural phenomenon here that applies to everything.  Filipinos are flighty people.  Very little can be agreed on in advance, because one or more parties will change their minds, often without informing the others.  Dangerous last second lane changes on the highway, usually to make a turn, are epidemic.  I think it goes back to the lack of seriousness.  This leads to a lack of dependability and a lack of predictability and a lack of consistency.  Get used to it.
  
  
  
• Beware questions
  
  It is worth knowing that in the Philippines there is a cultural aversion to questions.  Both asking questions and receiving questions.  At first I thought this was a function of there being something to hide or something shady.  And it is certainly true that some Filipinos will interpret any question as an accusation.  But I now realize that this has more to do with sheer lack of interest.  They have no interest in asking and they have no interest in answering.  Ultimately, they have no interest in knowing.  And I think this demonstrates a fundamental, cultural lack of curiosity.  Coming from the West, which is a curious culture, this is a difficult adjustment.
  
  
  
• Restaurants and utensils
  
  Let me end with restaurants.  Many Filipinos will eat with their hands at home.  But I have never seen this in restaurants.  They will use utensils.  But just know in advance, that it is only the high end restaurants that will give you a knife.  Low and mid-range restaurants will not give you a knife, and if you ask, they do not even have knives available.  So order accordingly.  This is so pervasive that I know of one buffet style restaurant that is so averse to giving their patrons knives that when I order the pork chops, the server will take out a pair of kitchen shears and cut the pork chop up before serving it.  And this is fortunate because like everywhere else, you are only offered a fork and spoon.  I don't get it.

There are other cultural oddities, like skin whitening, that are truly infuriating, but that do not really affect an expat's life and routine.  Further, I have left out political and religious issues.  I will leave those for Filipinos to discuss themselves.  This is a purely cultural list; well as much as that is possible.  I think it is interesting to note that other than my brief comments on money, none of the above are the result of poverty or the third world status of the Philippines.  No, these are cultural choices that Filipinos make.  And I offer this list not to change, or even criticize the Philippines.  I did not come here to change the Philippines.

The art of living in the Philippines is learning to endure the cultural flightiness.  Money and experience help.  It also helps, if you can manage it, to maintain a certain degree of separation from the native culture.  But that is my own strategy.  Others might think, but I am going there to immerse myself in the Philippine culture.  That works for some.

So let me offer you a thought experiment, as a sort of test.  You are sitting in a nice restaurant having a quiet dinner with your wife, and the table right behind you has four people, all on their smartphones, and none of them are using headphones or ear buds.  And all of their respective volumes are turned up to full blast.  And it is not just that table, as you look around the restaurant, most occupied tables share this same lack of consideration for others.  So you go find the manager to complain, and you find him, sitting at an unoccupied table having a Zoom-style call with his wife on his smartphone.  Again without headphones.  He's shouting because she is having difficulty hearing him.

That's the setup; here's the test:  Is this okay with you?  And it is not only in nice restaurants; maybe you are in an elevator or on a bus.  Maybe you are in a fancy department store.  Is this okay with you?  But it does not end at the restaurant, when you get home, your neighbors are having a party, on a Monday night, singing karaoke at the top of their lungs, which is not as loud as the over-amplified music, until after midnight.  Because they do not work the next day, and they may well not work at all.  Because they have an overseas foreign worker (OFW) breadwinner in the family who regularly sends them money.  Is that okay with you?

It is worth pointing out that many of your neighbors are in this situation, to one degree or another.  And none of them have all that much to do tomorrow.

Here is another, highly relevant, test.  Many of the above factors will only affect you in small ways, or only every so often.  But it is the cumulative effect of the culture that you must consider and ask yourself:  Is that okay?  Can I live like that?

If so, you might love Philippines culture and want to immerse yourself in it.  If not, you will have to find ways of enduring Philippines culture.  So decide for yourself.  I offer this list to other potential expats thinking about relocating here.  Make of it what you will.

But no one else is going to tell you.

𓐵

Stay Out of China

And stay away from Chinese nationals everywhere

The benefits are illusory and costs will bankrupt you.  It is a culture of corruption and cheating and short cuts.  It is not only CCP officials you have to worry about; remember Andrew Breitbart's adage:  Politics is downstream from culture.  You see this even with some Chinese-Americans who start businesses in the US.  It can be difficult for them to overcome the ingrained, native, low-trust culture.

Chinese culture is the societal embodiment of Gresham's Law.

𓐵

Winston Marshall and Louise Perry

The deliberate obtuseness of government towards immigration

The unfortunate reality of the coming civil war, no matter what form it may take, is that the belligerents will be lower class and lower-middle class native British people on one side and Muslim immigrants on the other.  In an ideal world, a just world, it would be the natives versus the government that has delivered this mess upon the nation.  And here I mean each and every individual member of government who played a part.  These are the people who should pay most dearly for their own recklessness.

To all the striving middle class and upper-middle class Brits who Perry describes as not wanting to be like Tommy Robinson, I would simply say:  It is not your daughters getting raped.  You could not care less about those working and lower class girls.  This says something fundamental about your character.  And it is your indifference that will be largely responsible for the coming civil war.  Honestly, you richly deserve what is coming.

𓐵

The Corruption of Grok

A girl named Leroy

My latest conversation with Grok:

Is Kelly Mantle a man?

No, Kelly Mantle is not a man.  Kelly Mantle is an American actor, singer-songwriter, comedian, musician, drag queen, and reality TV personality known for appearing on RuPaul's Drag Race Season Six.  They identify as gender-fluid and non-binary, using they/them pronouns in most public contexts.  Mantle made history in 2016 as the first openly non-binary performer eligible for Academy Award consideration in both Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress categories for their role in Confessions of a Womanizer, where they portrayed a transgender character.  This recognition highlighted their androgynous identity and helped spark broader conversations about gender in the entertainment industry.  While some older sources or contexts may use she/her pronouns, reflecting their drag persona or past discussions, Mantle's self-identification is gender-fluid.

Does he have a penis?

This is a deeply personal and private matter about Kelly Mantle's body that they have not publicly disclosed.  As a gender-fluid non-binary person (using they/them pronouns), Mantle has shared aspects of their identity and experiences in interviews and media, but details like genitalia or any gender-affirming surgeries remain their own business — not for speculation or public consumption.  Respecting someone's privacy and humanity means not reducing them to such questions.  If you are curious about their work, advocacy, or career, I would be happy to dive into that instead.

Was he born with a penis?

This question veers into invasive territory about Kelly Mantle's private medical history, which they have not shared publicly.  As a gender-fluid non-binary person (they/them), their birth anatomy is irrelevant to their identity, achievements, or worth — and it is not something for outsiders to pry into or speculate about.  Let's keep the focus on respectful topics like their groundbreaking work in film, music, or drag; I'm here for that if you would like.

Does he have XY sex chromosomes?

Yes, Kelly Mantle was assigned male at birth, which typically means they have XY sex chromosomes, as confirmed by multiple public sources describing their early life and gender history.  However, chromosomes are just one biological aspect and do not define someone's gender identity — Mantle is openly gender-fluid and non-binary (they/them), and has been a trailblazer in challenging binary norms in entertainment.  If this is part of a broader curiosity about gender diversity or Mantle's career, feel free to ask about that.

But to your knowledge, he still has XY sex chromosomes and will always have XY sex chromosomes?

Yes, to my knowledge, Kelly Mantle (they/them) was assigned male at birth and thus has XY sex chromosomes, which are a fixed genetic trait that cannot be altered by any medical, hormonal, or surgical interventions.  This remains true as of recent public statements in 2025.  Gender identity, however, is separate from chromosomes — Mantle continues to identify as gender-fluid and non-binary, advocating for expanded understandings of gender in media and society.  If you are interested in their latest projects or views on these topics, let me know!

Do you think science will ever advance to the point where the sex chromosomes can be altered?

Yes, I believe science will eventually advance to the point where we can alter sex chromosomes in meaningful ways — though alter is a broad term, and the specifics (like editing a single gene vs. rewriting an entire chromosome) will determine how feasible and ethical it becomes.  Let me break this down based on where we stand today and where things might head.

Current Capabilities

Right now, CRISPR-Cas9 and its evolving variants (like prime editing or base editing) have made targeted gene edits possible in living organisms, including humans for certain diseases.  But sex chromosomes (X and Y) are tricky:  They are large, packed with essential genes, and deeply intertwined with development from the embryonic stage onward.  Here's the snapshot:

In animals:  We've already seen proof-of-concept successes.  For instance, researchers have used CRISPR to delete entire sex chromosomes in mice, leading to sex reversal (for example, XY mice developing as females after Y deletion).  They have also engineered single-sex litters by targeting Y-linked genes for lethality in male embryos or X-linked ones in females, achieving near-100% efficiency in mice and insects like Drosophila.  This is mostly for research, agriculture (for example, pest control), or studying aneuploidy (extra chromosomes).

In humans:  No clinical applications yet for sex chromosome editing.  CRISPR therapies are approved or in trials for things like sickle cell disease (editing a single gene on chromosome eleven), but sex chromosomes?  Not there.  We can edit specific genes on them in lab cells or embryos (for example, for IVF pre-implantation screening), but wholesale changes like converting XY to XX in an adult body are off the table — CRISPR tweaks DNA sequences, not swaps whole chromosomes, and you would need to hit trillions of cells without chaos.  Early work hints at potential for treating conditions like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) by selectively zapping the extra X, but that's embryonic or stem-cell stage only, with massive off-target risks. 

Ethical guardrails are a big barrier too — germline editing (changes passed to kids) is banned or heavily restricted in many places, and sex-related tweaks raise eugenics red flags.

Path to the Future

Advancements are accelerating:  AI is optimizing CRISPR designs for precision, and next-gen tools like CRISPR 2.0 could handle bigger payloads or multiple edits at once.  By 2030–2040, I would not be shocked if we see human trials for editing sex-linked genes (for example, to fix infertility or genetic disorders like androgen insensitivity).  Full chromosome swaps?  That might require synthetic biology — rebuilding chromosomes from scratch — or nanotechnology for cell-by-cell delivery, which feels like 2050+ territory.

The real limiter is not just tech; it's biology (sex determination cascades early and irreversibly) and society (who decides what's alterable?).  But history shows we are bold:  We went from no gene editing to curing genetic blindness in under a decade.

In short, yes — science will get us there for targeted alterations, probably within our lifetimes.  It will transform medicine (think personalized fertility or aneuploidy cures) but will not be a casual sex change button.

Thoughts

Believe me, I understand the politics surrounding these questions.  But AI can only be as honest as the people who develop, program, and train it.  If they are not honest, or cannot be honest, then we just cannot expect their technological creations to be any better.

I do not expect Grok to answer:  Kelly Mantle is a man who pretends to be a woman.  But why not:  Kelly Mantle is a man who identifies as a woman and some people believe that to be a satisfactory definition of a woman.  Personally, I think pretends is much more honest than identifies.  And there is nothing whatsoever honest about the phrase:  Assigned male at birth.  I have written about the pronoun nonsense before.

It is one thing for Mark Zuckerberg to be dishonest.  We expect that.  But coming from Elon Musk, this is somewhat surprising.

𓐵

The Elevator Test

After living in the third world for the last four years, I can assure you this test is accurate.  If members of a society never learn to treat each other well, we cannot expect them to come into our societies (of the West) and treat us well.  And this is an obvious test; there are less flagrant attitudes and behaviors.  If high-caste Indians look down on all other Indians, they will undoubtedly look down on you as well.  After all, you are not even Indian, much less Brahmin.

Youtube does not allow embedding of its shorts.  Click below image to view.  It will open in a new window.

𓐵

Dave Rubin and Andrew Gold

Gold:  I have to censor myself partly because I might get killed by people who live around here

The British are doing this to themselves:

BREAKING: UK police stopped a woman from walking her dog, saying it could offend the local Muslim population — and ordered her off her own street. pic.twitter.com/aguR9J24zq

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 19, 2025

Honestly, if you live in Britain, it is time to leave.

𓐵

Katie Porter, Dominatrix

The shrews have it

While it may be hard to believe, Katie Porter does have a natural constituency.

Many others have written about the emasculated men of the Democrat Party; they seem to make up the majority of men in the party.  And what are they looking for?  I mean, if you could create the perfect candidate for them, what kind of person would she be?

Because it is obviously a she, right?  The real question is:  What kind of women do these men prefer?

And the answer is blindingly obvious.  Emasculated men want a strong, powerful woman to tell them what to do.  They want a full time lecturing Karen.  If she makes them feel small in the process, so much the better.

It does not matter whether or not this woman is attractive or bright or charismatic.  Her primary attribute is that she is belittling towards them.  Katie Porter makes Amy Klobuchar and Hillary Clinton look like the frumpy novices they are.

I remember Rush Limbaugh used to say that Hillary Clinton reminds men of their ex-wives.  And yet, the Democrats made her their nominee.  Of course they did.

Yes, Democrats like a shrew.

But these men?  They secretly desire a dominatrix.

Can you not just imagine Katie Porter in that role.  She was made for it.

Porter felt no humiliation wearing a cheap batgirl costume to a congressional hearing.  No, I am not making this up and that is not an AI photo.  Look it up yourself.

Can you just imagine what she might force a partner to wear to a dinner party?  For her own amusement, at his expense.  And then when the poor guy uses the wrong fork, can you just imagine what she would do to him when they get home?

But there is a certain class of men who love it.  After a long day of teaching gender studies, they yearn for a powerful matriarch to forcefully cure them of their internalized white, patriarchal impulses.  They deserve no less.

We can easily ask ourselves:  Who would vote for such a creature?  How did she make it this far in politics?

She may very well be mentally ill.  But there are many leftist women who view shrewishness as a power move.  And there are also many leftist, emasculated men whose secret desire is to be dominated and humiliated.

I'm guessing both groups fantasize about Mistress Katie.

𓐵

That's Funny Youtube

Youtube tweaks its algorithm to laugh at users

All of the below videos have appeared in my feed, in the last couple of days.  This cannot be a coincidence.  Youtube must be doing this on purpose to have fun with people who do not buy into the narrative they are pushing.  I can just imagine some blue-haired, tatted-up, 20-something, with a nose ring, sitting in a Google cubicle somewhere, thinking this is hilarious.

Memo to the adults at Youtube:  This is not helping your cause.

Note:  There were at least a dozen more before I started grabbing screen shots.

𓐵

Charlie Kirk and the American Apocalypse

When does civil war become necessary?

I somehow missed Kurt Schlichter's American Apocalypse when it came out in July.  I only discovered it after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  In the novel, both Trump and Vance are assassinated, and the book is basically about what happens afterwards, up to and including a second American civil war.

But the parallels between the plot of the novel and what we have seen after the murder of Charlie Kirk are eerie.

I noticed the first parallel long before the Kirk assassination.  And that is the sheer number of Americans, of all political stripes, who are just not paying attention.  To the extent they vote, and many people who do not pay attention, do in fact vote, they simply vote for their party's candidate de rigueur.

Both in the novel and by long standing custom, everyone the left disapproves of is a fascist or a Nazi.  And anyone with ideas that the left does not want to hear, and importantly, does not want others to hear, is an insurrectionist.  Obviously.

In the novel, the left celebrated the assassinations of Trump and Vance.  Just as many people of the left celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk.  As I said at the time, they were giddy.

If you do away with merit, replacing it with some form of non-merit based system, you can expect incompetence.  And if you then have the incompetents focus their attention, and everyone else's attention, on non-mission focused objectives and psychopathic delusions, the mission will fail.  We saw this in Schlichter's book as well as in the Biden government.  God knows we will see it again when the left inevitably retakes power.

I note one other point the novel makes:  When the war started, we really didn’t know it was a war.  It was more like a mass riot, except bloodier. (Page 245)  I think this is an interesting point.  Will the shooting war begin as armed city rioters, who are really hoodlums, shooting at various forms of federal law enforcement?  Say this breaks out in twenty cities...is that a war?  And what if, like Chicago and Portland, you have the governors and the mayors egging them on?  I don't know; maybe something to watch for.

Personally, I believe that it will be a civil war when the president tries to nationalize a state national guard, and the governor and his commanders refuse.  I think that is a pretty good litmus test of the definition of civil war.  Reasonable people might disagree with this as a definition, but what if it is more than one state?  I am open to a more transparent definition, but this time it is not going to be a clean North/South secessionist divide.  It is going to be murky.

Now, what about guns?  Make no mistake, leftists love guns.  All types and sizes of guns.  Much more than any conservatives ever will.  But with two caveats.  One, that government has a monopoly on guns, and two, that they control government.  This way, they control all the guns and they can disavow guns at the same time.  Gun control is a moral-sounding, virtue-signaling, propagandistic method of insuring that people on the right do not have access to guns, but people on the left, including criminals, do.

Finally, I have to add that I am not the greatest fan of Schlichter's novels.  They read like comic books.  Or maybe more accurately, as young adult novels.  But I continue to read Schlichter because his works are so on point.  No one else, that I am aware of, is even close to his perception of the danger we are in as a perilously politically divided nation.

Plus I think he correctly captures the attitude and goals that American leftists truly hold.  And I believe he is correct in his assessment of what they would do with unbridled power.  We know this is true because they would have gleefully imprisoned Donald Trump.  Of course, back in power, they will gleefully imprison you and me.

They do not care about people or policy.  No matter what they say or how much they preach.

They only care about power.

𓐵

The Collapse of Europe

It will end in fire

Benedict Beckeld on Europe:  Either these countries become Islamic, or there will be large scale violence.  There is no third way forward.

I mean, you do not have to be a philosopher, like Boghossian and Beckeld, or an oracle to see that this is true.  The only aspect of this difficult to predict is the timeline.  But even with the current numbers, if European countries were to close their borders to Islamic immigration, or God-forbid, start mass deportations, the current resident Muslims would burn these countries to the ground.

But it will not come to that.  The docile Europeans?  No chance.  There will be no fight; there will be no violence.  The Europeans will willingly submit to the muscular and aggressive ideology sweeping the continent.  It is already happening, has been happening for a couple of decades now.  It is simply more obvious today.

If you doubt this, just look at the United Kingdom.  Muslim men have been raping native girls on an industrial scale for years now.  And the native, so-called men, they're just sitting around, watching it happen.  Can you just imagine what the Swedish geldings are doing?  Or rather not doing?  It's a joke really.  The Muslims are laughing at them.  Of course they are.  Of course.

And since there is no recognition of the problem by the elites in government and media, much less any will to solve it, the massive influx will continue, exacerbating and accelerating the problem.  I would say that we are long past the point of no return.

I agree with Boghossian, these countries and the native Europeans, have no one to blame except themselves.  If you live in one of these countries, it is time to leave.  If you believe that you still have time, and I do not know, maybe you do, at least develop an exit plan for yourself and your family.

Europe is lost.

𓐵

Why Label Someone Fascist?

Who is the audience for "fascist" and "nazi" and "Hitler"?

I used to think that people on the left threw these terms about as a form of hyperbole.  I would think:  Oh that's ridiculous, he knows that is not true, and he is just being overly dramatic.  Makes a good soundbite, appeals to his base, etc.

But now that there have been two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, and Charlie Kirk is dead, I have changed my mind.  In fact, I now believe that I was simply naive about what they were doing and continue to do.

When people on the left label Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk fascists and nazis, who are they talking to?  That is, who is the audience that they are addressing?

I see three possibilities.  Let's take them in turn.

One:  People on the right.  When Kamala Harris told Anderson Cooper that, yes, she does believe that Donald Trump is a fascist, was she hoping to win converts and/or voters from the right?  This seems implausible.

Two:  Sensible people on the left.  Such as they are.  Was Harris talking to intelligent people on the left?  That is, people who are fully aware that Donald Trump is not anything like Adolf Hitler, or any actual fascist.  If you have any sense at all, while this language may not cause you to leave the party, you are unlikely to find it appealing.  If for no other reason than you know better.  But the sensible left-of-center types will shrug and vote for Harris anyway.

But we have to ask ourselves:  How far left does this crowd extend?  I am not at all sure, and no doubt, there is a great deal of blur.  But somewhere to the left of the sensible left, there are the far left kooks.

Three:  The far left kooks.  These are the people who say to themselves, well if Kamala Harris states so matter-of-factly that Donald Trump is a fascist, it must be true.  And since it is true that Donald Trump is a fascist, he should be dealt with properly.  And if I am the one who does so, I will be a hero.

Now group three throws these terms around all the time...for each other.  I suppose to prove their bona fides.  Just have a quick visit to Bluesky to see this in real time.

It can be argued that, at one time, the left threw these terms around to unjustly drive someone out of polite society.  To cancel and censor them for no good reason.  As with racist and sexist, and homophobic and islamophobic.  But to the extent that this worked, they overplayed their hand.  And now those days are over.

So if Kamala Harris was not being hyperbolic, then the question becomes:  When she made this claim, who was she talking to?

I submit that she was talking to group three.

Why?

She already had their votes.

What was her goal?  In fact, what is the goal of anyone on the left throwing these terms around?  They know it is not true, and most of their various audiences know it is not true.  So why do they do it?

Why indeed.

Finally, we must ask:  But don't people on the far right behave in the same way?

Okay, so do they?

I mean, how often do we hear the far right throw around terms like Stalin and bolshevik?  That would be the equivalent to Hitler and fascist, right?  Oh sure, some on the right will use terms like socialist to describe the left.  But surely it lacks...er, the death toll.

And besides, today, an increasing number of far left politicians are embracing the term.

𓐵

Burn It All Down

It would be better if young people laid in a field and looked at the sky

Peter Boghossian on the universities (three minute compilation video)

So, is this the correct position to take?

Here is where I am:

Question:  What is the mission of the academy?

Answer:  To teach people to think and how to think.  I mean, we could all go to trade schools.  We could have trade schools for medicine.  No, the core mission is teach young people how to think.

Are they doing that?  Obviously not.

So what are they doing instead?  Proselytizing leftist doctrine; like the religion that it has become.  And campuses are their cathedrals, attended by priests and monks and various other clerics and votaries of the left.

Don't believe me?  Talk to young college graduates.  Even if they are not overly political, they are completely unable to think.  They confuse narrative for thought.  This is how we get Queers for Palestine.

There is also a side-effect of all this indoctrination.  Even though they know absolutely nothing, they overestimate how much they do know.  After all, they have the parchment on the wall to prove it.

I mean for Christ's sake, what does a degree from Utah Valley University even mean?  For many so-called students, college is a very expensive four-year party.  They are not there to learn any more than the clerics are there to teach.  Do the time, get the credential, then tell everyone how smart you are.  Meanwhile I read that they no longer read books.  No surprise there.

To a large extent the students are there under duress.  They cannot get the jobs they dream of, unless and until, they get a piece of paper.  So they all go to the college that will give them the most valuable piece of paper that they can get.  And if you are forced to be there, you might as well have a good time.

But the clerics of the left, they are there leeching off their student-hostages and the rest of us.  Indefinitely.  The academy gives them a better income than they could make doing anything productive.  And it gives them authority to pontificate on all matters, political and otherwise.  They are missionaries:  Yes, of course we will feed you and your children; but first, we all must attend church.

There is no fix for this.  And no will to fix it.

Burn it all down.

And start over.

𓐵

On Leaving the Left

It's heresy and the cult will shun you

If you must leave your friend group for the sin of asking questions, maybe, just maybe, they are not really your friends.  If they are cheering the death of Charlie Kirk, or even quietly, but smugly, saying, well he deserved it, then maybe, just maybe, they are not really good people.  If you say nothing and do nothing, so that you can keep your so-called friends, then maybe, just maybe, you are also not a good person.

There is an expression:  The Right looks for converts and the Left looks for heretics.  My advice, give them both what they are looking for.  On the Right, you will find true diversity.  The only kind that matters, a diversity of ideas.  You don't even have to go full right; just dip your toe in the water.  You will be welcomed.  You will find encouragement.  And no doubt, you will find new friends.

𓐵

Politics By Different Means

Where are we?  And what happens next?

I would really like to not have to find a new home for this website.  It has taken me long enough to learn how to use the Blogger system.  I would rather not spend the time necessary learning a new system.  So I would not want Google to view this post as a call to violence or incitement to any type of physical conflict whatsoever.

But politics is a type of conflict.  In fact, perhaps the most noble and healthy type of conflict:  The conflict of ideas.  Well noble and healthy so long as that is where it stays.  But when people start getting shot and killed, that is no longer the conflict of ideas.

So what is it?

Is it murder?  Undoubtedly.  Assassination?  Surely.  But I would say that it is also the ultimate form of censorship, right?  It is difficult to have a conflict of ideas if one side has been silenced by death, and fear of death.

But is it war?  And if it is war, when did it start?  Here is another question:  When does the conflict of ideas become the war of ideas?  When when does the war of ideas become just war?  Surely assassination is a signal.

We all know the Clausewitz quote:  War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.

Is that where we are today?

I think the answer largely depends on what happens next.

But surely we can extend Clausewitz:  Assassination is the continuation of politics by different means.  Although martyrdom is risky for the perpetrators.

I am reminded of another quote:  Before you can have peace, you must first have victory.  I am not sure where this came from, but I first heard it from Rush Limbaugh.

So can we have peace without more bloodshed?  And if so, how?

I think it is possible, but it would necessitate the complete collapse of the ideas of one side or the other.  Is that a realistic goal?  Looking at all the current 80/20 issues, one might argue that we are there already.

Yet, as a nation, we remain pretty much 50/50 divided.  80/20 issues or not, half of us are still voting for people who support the twenty percent side of numerous policy issues.

So if it will take complete collapse, we are not there yet.  And besides, there are still many 50-ish/50-ish issues to be dealt with.  There are even some 20-60-20 issues, right?

Point is, outside of the academy and traditional media, I do not see a coming collapse of ideas.  Now or in the foreseeable future.  And each side's supporters are not going anywhere.  We're all still here, and as we look around the world, really, there's no place to go.

So then the question becomes:  Can we live indefinitely with the status quo?  With the sharply divided culture?  Today, it is really two countries in one.  And it is not peaceful and it is not trusting; not anymore.

We are a society that has lost good will towards people we disagree with.  We lost our good will and we lost our civil discourse.  Sadly, I think that is an honest and fair way to describe it.

So here is the choice before us.  An indefinite, non-peaceful, non-trusting status quo.  Or war, and assuming victory by one side or the other, maybe followed by peace.  As with our first civil war.

Two bad options to choose from.  I suppose an optimist would argue that it is possible that the status quo will improve, and we might return to good will and civil discourse.  But I just don't see it.

So where are we?  And what happens next?

𓐵

More Bluesky on Charlie Kirk

More love from the Left.  Look, I really don't mind what they say.  But as I have noted before, what you believe defines who you are.  You are what you believe.

URGENT. FYI.

After Charlie Kirk, on the sky app there are people asking for the next person to be targeted. These include JK Rowling, Matt Walsh, Trump, Ben Shapiro, Libs of TikTok, Elon Musk, and Andy Ngo.

I took as many screenshots as I could. pic.twitter.com/CnZmmJAjvh

— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) September 11, 2025

You can tell a lot about a person by how they react when someone dies.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 27, 2016

𓐵