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

𓐵

Bluesky on Charlie Kirk

𓐵

Missed Trump, Got Kirk

Who is next?

Make no mistake about it, they want to kill you.  And me.  And anyone else who opposes their radical agenda.

Now, who is they?  Well it is not just those two guys with guns.  Have you listened to how the left talks these days?  They rage and they condescend.  Often they are angry and radical.  And most importantly, they are intolerant of any views differing from their own.  They do not want to engage in honest debate; they want to cancel and banish.  And if they cannot do that, well, then what?

And the smug moral superiority that they all seem to share.  Surely this encourages the whole leftist spectrum to act more radically.  I mean, they are on the correct side of history.  And we on the right are evil.  Just ask them.

Their moral superiority is a form of self-deception.  And lack of confidence in their principles.  But they are too self-assured to question their own views.  And yes, anyone on the left who does question will be banished; it is for this reason that the thoughtful people on the left, such as they are, keep quiet.

I once told a leftist friend of mine that I see more intellectual diversity on the right than on the left.  She laughed at me.  Of course.

Mark my words, they will use this incident to push for gun control.  Just imagine, kill a right-wing activist with a gun and then argue that we need to get rid of guns.

It is the hypocrisy of the left, about everything, that we all notice.  John Kerry and his private jets; Hillary Clinton and her many guns.

So this is, I believe, a true turning point.  Things will either get radically better or radically worse.  I cannot predict which.  But I know one thing for sure:  Hold on to your guns.  You might need them.

One final thought on this.  Murder is the ultimate form of censorship.  The left will be all too happy if we on the right stop talking because we are afraid that we too might be shot.  In the leftist mind, the ends absolutely justify the means.  And I think, to some extent this will work.  Tucker, Candace, Elon, Ben Shapiro, Megyn Kelly; what are these people, and many others, going to do now?  I notice Brandon Tatum also holds Kirk-style events on campus.  None of these guys, no matter how famous they are, can afford Secret Service level protection.

The left will be all too happy if theirs becomes the only narrative:  Yes, yes, this is terrible, a tragedy, see we told you about guns, etc.  But yes absolutely, we need to trans kids in schools without the knowledge of their parents.  See, no one disagrees with that.

They're giddy tonight.
𓐵

DarkHorse on a Dark World

Fake experts and fake women

I started paying attention to Bret Weinstein at the time of the woke kerfuffle at Evergreen State College back in 2017.  But what I could not have known at that time was that it would be Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying, who would largely guide my family and me through the Covid era.  I will always be grateful for their honesty in an immensely dishonest time.  There were others of course, but Weinstein and Heying did the heavy lifting.

Along with their Covid analysis, their commentary, on the public health universe, big pharma, the trans-agenda, and many other topics in which our expert classes have failed us, has been nearly as valuable.  It was Weinstein and Heying who introduced me to the scourge of institutional capture and the idea of a shadowy Goliath.

If you look at the world today, the chaos that surrounds us, the complete incompetence of government and its institutions, and the mission failure of our education establishment, I urge you to start watching DarkHorse.  This episode, Number 293, is a fine place to start.

𓐵

Carlson and Knowles

Hateful menopausal ladies and their gay sidekicks



Like Richard Dawkins, I am an atheist and a cultural Christian.  Really, is there any other legitimate choice?  I mean, you can be a Christian or a Jew, but if not, what are your choices?  No matter what you may think of other religions, they are all objectively inferior to Christianity and Judaism.  All of them.  Certainly the modern religion of puritanical leftist ideology is detrimental to human understanding and progress, and individual mental health.

I say this as someone who stands back from the Christian church and looks at it and also looks at the alternatives.  As an objective observer, it is impossible to believe that Islam offers a preferable life path.  Let's murder all the gay people?  And anyone who might leave the faith?  Please.  I mean, they reason like angry toddlers.  And even if I, as a Muslim, would not do this myself (note, because of something beyond my own religious convictions), I support, directly or indirectly, those who do.

Let us be serious and stop pretending that there are redeeming qualities in the Islamic faith system.  Say it with me:  My apostate friends and family, and my gay friends and family, and any and all apostates, from any religion, and any and all homosexuals, should not be put to death.  If you cannot say this publicly, your convictions are inferior.  Period.

And I say this as someone who is, at best, ambivalent about gay demeanor and behavior, and honestly about gay people themselves.  Ambivalent at best, and sometimes quite a bit less generous than that.  However, I do not think that they should be killed.  No genuinely moral person does.  And no genuinely moral religion calls for such.

But here, I only use Islam because it is the largest alternative to Christianity.  This logic applies to all non-Christian, non-Jewish religions.  Asian religions may not murder apostates, but they tend to be morally ambiguous.

Certainly there are questionable elements in the Christian and Jewish faiths as well.  But I submit to you, dear reader, that they are the best of the many alternatives.  Certainly as Jews and Christians practice their respective faiths today.  And whether you are a believer in the Divine, or not, Christianity and Judaism do allow each of us to pick and choose what to practice and believe without fear of, well, death.

So as a moral person, your choices are:  Be a Christian, be a Jew, or be an atheist and a cultural Judeo-Christian.  That's it.  And yes, if you were born in India or China or Saudi-Arabia, this admonition still applies to you.  I mean, what are the alternatives?  Be an atheist and a cultural Muslim?  What does that even mean?  Again, okay, you, yourself, do not murder the apostates.  Perhaps it is more plausible to be a cultural Hindu.  But I submit if you are an atheist and a cultural Hindu and a moral person, you have been greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas.

Anyway, all of this to merely explain that even as an atheist, I can appreciate a discussion of the role of the Church in our culture.  And how I would rather live in a culture dominated by Christianity than any other religion.  Most especially the religion of puritanical leftist ideology.  Just look at the United Kingdom to see a society where the role of the Church is now, basically, nonexistent, replaced by leftist ideology and Islam.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, almost all people, including most atheists, need faith in something.  And if it is not going to be Christianity, it is most likely going to be something significantly worse.

𓐵

Candace and Brigitte and Emmanuel

Candace Owens is on the verge of becoming the next Princess Diana

That is, the most famous woman in the world.

I have written about Owens previously.  I find her position on Israel and October 7th to be noxious and anti-semitic.  Nevertheless she is a colorful character.  She was the only journalist, that I know of, who honestly tried to explore Kamala Harris' family background, before last year's election.  With her video series, A Shot in the Dark, Owens is Big Pharma enemy number one.  And now, she is taking on the President of France and his First Lady.

I am not going to recap the story here.  If you are interested, go watch the Owens' series Becoming Brigitte.  But the long and the short of it is that Owens believes that Brigitte Macron is a man.  And she has been broadcasting this globally for some period of time.

And evidently Macron and his partner want her to stop.  First, they asked President Trump to personally intervene.  He did and Owens agreed to pause the discussion for a few months.  But she did not agree to stop, and now the pause is over.  So the Macron's have sued her, in the US, for defamation.  That's right, the President of France is suing a Tennessee podcaster working out of her basement.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Now, I have no idea whether or not Brigitte was born a male.  But it seems easy enough to refute.  Just take a blood test.  Or as Owens requests, just supply some photos from your early life.  But the Macron's have presented no evidence.

The whole thing reminds me of Trump and Barack Obama's birth certificate.  Obama did not provide anything until he figured he could do maximum damage to Trump.  Then, bam.  Is this the game that the Macron's are playing?

Maybe.  But in the meantime they are doing more damage to themselves than anything else.  Why?

Could it actually be true that Brigitte Macron is a man?  I have watched the Owens' series, and yes, she makes a compelling case.  She is not the lunatic conspiracy theorist that the Macron's would have the world believe.  Owens believes that the Macron's only filed the lawsuit as a public relations stunt, and that they will absolutely drop the case prior to discovery.  I think this is probably correct; discovery would be too delicious.

Whether or not Brigitte is a man, the Macron's do not want anyone looking too closely at their history, for any reason.  Brigitte was one of Emmanuel's high school teachers and she was twenty-five years older than him.  Was it some type of grooming?  Of course it was; the question is did the grooming breach some legal standard?  Did Brigitte sexually abuse Emmanuel when he was a minor?  What else might one ask about?  I mean even the libertine French have their limits.  No, no, they want this to go away.  Yesterday.  And if they could prove Owens wrong, they would have already quashed the nonsense.

So there are several options to consider:

One, Owens is somehow proven wrong and found defamatory.  Whether in court or by the press.  Owens will lose her reputation and career.  This is a problem ...for the Macron's.  I think Candace would be all too happy to simply raise her four children and tend her garden.  If the Macron's think they can bully her, like a good little French provinciale, well, bon chance with that.

Two, the Macron's somehow manage to stay quiet and threaten any and all other doubters.  I do not really think this is a viable option; Owens will just continue to make a lot of noise.  And the way the Macron's have behaved and continue to behave just ensures that everyone is watching.  Macron may be the President of France, but evidently he is not very clever.  And he is certainly no match for Owens.  It would be painful to watch except the Macron's are so very haughty and arrogant about the whole thing.

Three, it comes out that Brigitte Macron is a man.  Emmanuel Macron would be forced to resign in disgrace.  Not because he is gay, but for the years long massive coverup.  And Candace Owens will become the most famous woman since Princess Diana.  This is the most likely scenario.  Believe me, if this plays out, Candace will not have any trouble buying handbags in Europe.

There is a fourth option.  The Macron's may try to silence Owens outside of a courtroom.  She might have a car accident or some other such misfortune.  No, wait, I do not want to also be sued for defamation:  Mon dieu, the Macron's are such good people; I'm sure they would never do such a thing.
𓐵

The Great Pyramid

It is time to end the greatest pyramid scheme of all time

The West needs fewer children, not more.

The economics of western retirement are largely based on the long held assumption that there will always be more young people than old people.  The young people spend and pay taxes that support the older folks.  Clearly for this to work, there must be more young people than old people.  Social security works on this principle, but so do all private retirement plans.  If you and millions of your cohorts are living off of dividends, there sure better be lots of young people purchasing everything from t-shirts to automobiles to houses.

This my friends is a classic pyramid scheme.  And like so many of the greatest frauds, it is done right in front of our eyes, out in the open.

This is why governments are so concerned about fertility rates.  The pyramid scheme cannot continue without births outpacing deaths.  At 1.6 births per woman, the US rate is much less than the replacement rate of 2.1.  That's bad.  But even at 2.1, that's not enough to keep the pyramid scheme going.  You cannot have one or two working people supporting each retiree.  How many does it take?  I don't know, but more than that.

Fewer children not more

I am not an adherent of the religion of man made climate change.  But like most rational people, I do consider myself to be an environmentalist.  That's it, this is not a post about environmentalism and how evil the oil companies are.  But just as a general proposition, can we not all agree that there is a limit to how many people can inhabit the earth?  Have we reached that limit?  I have no idea.  But Elon, no one needs six children, much less twelve or fourteen.

And the costs.  The cost of raising children has risen dramatically.  It is clear to me that this is due to the ever increasing size of government and governmental regulations.  And sadly, large governments intruding into every aspect of your life are not going away.

So people are having less children and will continue to have less children for the foreseeable future.  And that means that voluntarily or involuntarily, the great pyramid will come to an end.  First it will become top-heavy, and then it will collapse.  We can sit around and wait for that to happen, or we can move away from the scheme altogether.

But first, I think we need to acknowledge the success of this pyramid scheme to date.  Since the turn of the last century it has worked beautifully.  But during this time period the western world grew rich and bountiful and people had lots of children.  If this was to continue, we could continue to rely on the pyramid.

But I submit that the fewer children that we are seeing today is the primary signal that our abundance has plateaued.  Bet on the pyramid if you like, but we cannot rely on it.

What are the alternatives?  Because I do not believe it is any one thing.

For people who scream the loudest about climate change, the one thing I always want to ask is:  How many children do you have?  If climate change is the problem you believe it to be, surely having less children, having less people in the world burning carbon, is an obvious solution.  Let's work to increase green space per capita.  Why does no one ever talk about that?

And I am not kidding here; fewer people using the same or less resources would go a long way towards helping the environment and improving our standard of living.  For people who believe that we should import people to make up for the lower fertility rate, I say:  That defeats the purpose of having less children.  And besides, today's immigrants are not interested in contributing to western culture and lifestyle, and have little or no loyalty to our nations.  The truth is, they cost us more than they contribute.  No, they are not a good solution.

But I am not completely opposed to immigration.  Offer the best and brightest entry and an easy path to citizenship.  But we must confirm that each immigrant has an affinity for our culture.  If not, tell me again, why do you want to come here?  If Juan is going to live and work here for some time and then go home, he has no loyalty to our nation.  And if the guy's name is Jihad; I assure you, his parents did not name him inner struggle.  

One expense that has gone through the roof and surely affects the fertility rate is housing.  More people and flat or almost flat housing stock means higher costs.  Most of the responsibility for this lies with government and their senseless regulations.  It is really not complicated:  If you want cheaper housing, build more of it.  Not a hundred units here and there.  Ten million more units.  For a start.

And all you so-called environmentalists, don't get mad at the developers.  Direct your always irrational rage at those responsible:  The people having all the children.

Cultural Factors

On a cultural level, we should reconsider the stigma of intergenerational housing.  Yes, have your parents move in with you and help with your children.  It is a win for all.  In countries with no social security, this is a common arrangement.  Each family should look at this with an open mind.  Sure we all want to move out from our parents as soon as possible.  But when you get to be thirty-five, with a child, maybe two, and aging parents with limited income, surely you should view this differently.

Another cultural factor is the welfare state.  We simply must encourage people to be part of the productive economy.  Yes, again, having fewer children is part of the solution.  This is common sense:  Each child should add to your expenses, not your income.  Please, stop and read that again.

While we are on cultural factors, we should reconsider higher education.  Our decades long fascination with sending ever more high school graduates to college has been a societal disaster.  What has it yielded?  Fat institutions disinterested in their basic mission, high student debt, and let's face it, an extremely high percentage of useless graduates.  Like housing expenses, one effect of high student/graduate debt is a lower fertility rate.  This factor is multiplied by all the useless degrees.  Again:  We simply must encourage people to be part of the productive economy.

I am sure there are many other cultural factors, but here I would like us to consider one more:  The secularization of the West.  Religious people tend to have more children than non-religious people.  And the continuing secularization of the West surely drives the fertility rate down.  Evidently leftist politics do not provide the same incentives to have children as one finds in the divine, or say, the Catholic church.  Who knew?

Now technology must and will play a role in solving this problem.  If we have a smaller percentage of the population working, we must improve worker productivity.  Here I think we can look to Japan (fertility rate 1.2) and Korea (0.72) for technological solutions.  But here again, we need fewer children, not more.  We cannot need both more high productivity-producing technology and more workers.  No the goal is fewer workers, collectively using less natural resources, and each of us being much more productive.

One hopes that fewer people would mean less collective energy usage.  And it might.  But all this high-productivity technology will probably mean higher energy needs in the aggregate.  Certainly more electricity will be needed.  Burn coal?  Natural gas?  Bad for the environment.  Rely on renewables?  For now, that's just childish dogma.  Look at the situation in Germany.

No the answer is blindingly obvious:  Build more nuclear.  This may not be a perfect solution, but I have yet to hear a better one.

Now since Paul Ehrlich's disastrous 1968 book, The Population Bomb, the consensus has been that more people is better and sustainable.  Let's keep the pyramid strong.  It is worth noting that the people most supportive of this idea benefit from it the most.  Government types.

So it is not without great risk to genuinely support a population decline.  But fewer people means more resources per person.  It also means the pyramid will no longer work.  Surely we can live without it.  We can live better without it.

And what choice do we have?

𓐵

Truth Will Out?

Maybe.  We can only hope that Bongino and Patel follow through with this.  Bondi does not impress.  Can Bongino and Gabbard save the republic?  Call me skeptical.

As of 5:00 AM, Sunday, 27 July 2025:  12.5 million views.  Let's hope he means it.

𓐵

Principles of Zionism

Why support Israel

I am not Jewish and have no desire to become Jewish.

I am not Christian nor Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.

I am not an adherent of any of the numerous religions scattered about the world.

I do believe that almost all people practice some religion formally or informally, or at least adhere to religious principles to varying degrees.  Religion seems to be a human imperative across cultures.

This includes almost all people who are self-declared atheists.  They may not believe in a supreme deity or deities, but most of them absolutely practice other forms of religion, and follow the doctrines and dogma of those religions.

I am a skeptic of all forms of religious faith, including these atheistic religious ideologies.

I first clarify the religious question because my support for Israel is not based on any religious beliefs.

So with that, I am a committed Zionist.

I believe that the Jewish people have a right to live in the area we today call Israel and I believe that these people have a right to a state of their own.  Why?

I believe that it is a benefit for all of humanity that this state exists.

And further, I believe that Christians of any stripe should be supportive of the idea that their sacred places are administered by the Jewish state of Israel, rather than any conceivable alternative.  If nothing else, the state of Israel insures freedom of movement into and out of the birthplace of Christendom.

I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as any other state.

I believe that if a state, any state, is attacked by combatants out of uniform, using innocents as shields, and taking civilian hostages, women and children, then that state will, out of necessity, have to use unconventional tactics to counter-attack.

If collateral damage is high, the culpability for this lies exclusively with the attacking combatants and their cowardly form of warfare.

If one blames the state that is so attacked then one fails to offer that state the same sovereignty, respect, and agency that one would offer any other state.

If you single out the so attacked state as unable to respond to such an attack, you can only have personal animus towards the people of that state.

For what other reason would you wish to limit their available responses?

Israel really has only two possible responses:  Conduct the counter-attack as they have or surrender.

If your family and friends and neighbors were so attacked, would you surrender?  What if you knew beyond doubt that if you surrender, there would be more attacks?

There is a name for this double standard:

Antisemitism.

𓐵

The Collapse of Competence

The Fantasy Politics of Europe

Yesterday David Betz discussed the coming civil war in Great Britain.  Today Philip Pilkington discusses the fantasy politics of the EU and how they have led to the terminal decline of Europe (his language).

It reminds me of George Leef's book on this topic from 2022.  The lesson is that the left is never serious about policy.  They only spout policy points to achieve and maintain power.  And what is the end result?  What happens when we take that power play to its logical conclusion?

Europe is about to find out.

𓐵

Civil War Comes to Great Britain

David Betz:  

What I think I’m here to do is to explain to you why you’re in actually quite immediate peril from this thing called civil war.



I have mentioned David Betz's theory before.  What strikes me about this discussion, although he does not put it this way directly, is how there is a large and growing subpopulation in Britain that has no loyalty or commitment to the nation itself.  And they have very different ideas about how society should work.

They are aided by an also large subpopulation of native Britons, establishment types, with a misguided and harmful idea of the future of the country.  And without doubt, the establishment has no interest in forcing the the first group to acclimate to British norms, much less interest in deporting them in mass.  The establish is so wedded to this idea that they allow the first group to rape the daughters of non-establishment native Britons with impunity.

The civil war will be these two groups versus non-establishment types who still hold loyalty and commitment to the history and traditions of the nation, but have lost faith in government and institutions.  This tends to happen when you have a large non-native population collectively raping your daughters.  What other possible outcome is there?

I have no doubt that Betz is correct.  This war has already started.

Also, a prediction:  The British government will attempt to silence Betz, sooner rather than later.  His arrest, for something, anything, would not surprise me.  If necessary, they'll find child porn on his computer.
𓐵

The Epstein Question

I think I can distill the whole Epstein affair and coverup down to one question:

Are we expected to believe that it was only Prince Andrew who participated with Jeffrey Epstein in his misadventures?

No matter what Epstein was up to; no matter if he was working alone or at the behest of some intelligence agency, it seems very odd to me that this is the one person that he, or they, would target.

But yes, that does seem to be what they, the Trump administration and the previous administrations, would have us believe.

I have never heard any media type, or even any internet new media type, ask the question this way.

Why is that?

Contrary to Trump's delusions, he did not create MAGA.  He merely labeled it.  Prior to Trump's entry into the political sphere, there was a large group of disaffected voters that had grown disillusioned with politics and the governing class over the last two or three decades.

I cannot know whether Trump saw this or not, but either way, he provided an answer to this group's call.  I do not mean to underestimate his role; he gave them an identity and he gave them unity.  But make no mistake about it, they were here before Trump arrived.

And after the government's shameful Covid response, if there is any one situation that highlights this group's problem with our governing class, it is the Epstein coverup.  But I do think Trump is correct about one thing:  I do not think anyone really cares about Epstein.

No, what we care about is having a government that is responsive to voters.  And justice.  And transparency.  Epstein just sums up the entire problem.  If Trump believes that he can sweep it under the rug, as he did in his first term, and like Biden and Obama before him, he has another thing coming.

No matter the fallout, this should be corrected.  But will it be?  I doubt it.  The most we will get is a limited hangout.  And given Trump's overly defensive and tone-deaf responses of late, we might not even get that.

𓐵