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.  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.

𓐵

Oval Misdirection

A short story

Part One

The Oval Office

Early March, after the inauguration...

POTUS:  Welcome to the White House, Jim.  May I call you Jim?

Jim:  Absolutely Mr. President.  Thanks for having me.

POTUS:  Have you been here before?

Jim:  I have been to the White House many times, but only once before to the Oval Office.  Almost exactly four years ago.

POTUS:  Yes that's right; you came to see my predecessor, shortly after he took office.

Jim:  Yes, he let me have a look through that box on the coffee table there.

POTUS:  I'm sorry?

Jim:  Well, Mr. President, as best I can tell, that's the very same box he showed me.

POTUS:  Oh I see.  Yes, it's a fascinating historical archive.  A bit risqué for my taste.

Jim said nothing.

POTUS:  Yet, he never found a use for it.  I wonder why?

Jim:  I'm surprised to see it.  I thought he would have taken it with him.

POTUS:  Well we all know he was losing it at the end of his term.  I found the box in my study, the one in the residence, with the classified files only accessible to the sitting president.  He probably just forgot it.  But I do wonder why he did not turn it over to the Department of Justice earlier?

Jim:  Yeah, well, I paid him to make it go away.

POTUS:  You should have paid him to give you the box.

Jim:  I did try Mr. President.

POTUS:  Bribing a president, can you imagine?  How much did you pay him?

Jim:  I'd rather not say.

POTUS:  Well you know Jim, before he lost his marbles, he did add the financial records of that transaction to the box.  It's all in there.

Jim:  So you know what I paid him.

POTUS:  Yes Jim, I do.  You got off cheap.

Jim:  Well you know, if you've never had real money, it's hard to know what real money is.

POTUS:  Yeah, I can see that.

They were both quiet for a moment.

POTUS:  Jim, you know that I know what real money is.

Again Jim said nothing.

POTUS:  Let's come back to that.  I have another question.

Jim:  Okay.

POTUS:  How did you two get the people who filled the box with its contents to keep quiet about it?  Oh, and other people in his administration who knew about it?

Jim:  Yeah, that was my idea.  Your predecessor and I agreed that he would just tell everyone in his administration that it was a long term top secret intelligence operation.  He would keep it vague, but shut down any further investigation, or even discussion.  I mean government types...no one wants to lose their precious security clearance.

The President nodded slowly.

Jim:  He also leaked this possibility to a number of internet conspiracy types, as sort of a back door explanation for dropping the matter.  These were not leaks exactly, more like breadcrumbs that they could stumble upon.

POTUS:  Very clever.  And of course, he never mentioned exactly what agency was running this operation.  It may have been one of ours or it may have been foreign.

Jim:  Yes, that may have been the most ingenious part of the subterfuge.

POTUS:  What about your friend, the principal player who died in prison.

Jim:  He was never my friend Mr. President.  He recorded me...betrayed me.

POTUS:  Okay, your associate.  You should have listened to your ex-wife about that guy.

Jim:  Indeed.

POTUS:  And?

Jim:  Well intelligence assets sometimes die.  It is not unexpected.  So that worked out okay.

POTUS:  And his lady friend, also in prison?

Jim:  Are you kidding, she was the very first person to find out he was dead.  She does not want to suffer a similar fate.

POTUS:  The box says you had him killed.

Jim:  Well he also knew what real money is.  And besides, he proved himself to be...untrustworthy.  Something had to be done.

They looked at each other.  A minute passed.

Jim:  Are you going to let me have the box?

POTUS:  Yes Jim, I don't see why not.

Jim:  What is it going to cost me?

POTUS:  Fifty billion dollars.

Jim:  That is about a third of everything I have.

POTUS:  Yes Jim, but this time, you get the box.  Besides, you'll still be one of the richest men in the world.  Good to keep up appearances and all.  No one will be the wiser.

Jim:  And you'll keep the misdirection in place?

POTUS:  My predecessor did all the work.  I don't have to do anything except keep quiet about it.

Jim:  And your people?  Your attorney general seems to be a bit of a loose cannon.

POTUS:  Well, she likes to see herself on television.  But you know, without intending to, she's been great at obfuscating this whole thing.

Jim:  And the others?

POTUS:  So long as I keep quiet about it, my people will react just like my predecessor's people.  It's all need to know.  And what they don't know, what they cannot even imagine, is that no one knows.  It's the perfect secret...one that does not actually exist.

They both let that sink in.

Jim:  Undoubtedly you have other boxes belonging to other men...

POTUS:  I will not confirm or deny, but I needed to start with you.

They sat there.

POTUS:  Do we have a deal?

Jim:  Yes Mr. President.

POTUS:  The transfer details are there in the envelope beside the box.

Jim:  It will take time for me to get that much cash together.

POTUS:  No doubt; you have until the end of the month.

Jim:  May I come back to collect the box myself?  I don't really trust anyone with it.

POTUS:  Sure Jim.  Let's schedule a dinner for the first.  I have lots of dinners with lots of people.  I'll invite the vice president.  It will be a robust, but cordial exchange of ideas.  Again, no one will be the wiser.

Jim:  Thank you Mr. President.

Part Two

After Jim leaves, Smiley enters from the President's adjoining private study.

POTUS:  Did you hear all that?

Smiley:  Yes, the mics worked fine.  I wish you would have let me record it all.

POTUS:  Are you kidding?  Then you'd have me on tape.  I just wanted you to hear what he said.  Why does Jim think he killed the guy?

Smiley:  Well back when they were engaged in their shenanigans, Jim got to know the principal's head of security.

POTUS:  So?

Smiley:  He was one of ours as well.

POTUS:  And?

Smiley:  Like I said they got to be close.  And when Jim thought he needed to get rid of the principal, he approached this guy.

POTUS:  So what happened?

Smiley:  Well the head of security told him he could take care of it for the right price.

POTUS:  And did he?

Smiley:  You know, I've always thought it bad form to assassinate our own assets.  That's a Russian move.

POTUS:  So what really happened?

Smiley:  We faked his death.

POTUS:  He's alive?  Where is he?

Smiley:  Well after extensive plastic surgery, he's been living quietly as a retired American banker.  In Paris.

POTUS:  So let me get this straight.  Jim thinks he killed the principal.  But since he was one of yours, you faked his death, and he's living in Paris?

Smiley:  Yes, quite freely.  We chose France because, you know, the French have a much more libertine attitude towards all this kind of stuff.  Just if it ever comes to that; don't think it will.

POTUS:  But Jim thinks he successfully engineered his death?

Smiley:  Well I was not sure about that until your conversation with him just now.

POTUS:  And the money Jim just agreed to pay me?

Smiley:  I would not feel any guilt about that...you did see what was in that box.

They were quiet for a moment.

Smiley:  You are going to honor our agreement?

POTUS:  Yes Smiley, you get ten percent.

Smiley:  On all the boxes?

POTUS:  Yes of course.  But I do have a final question.  This operation, was there ever any legitimate national security interest involved?  Or at least hoped for?

Smiley:  Well on operations like this, you never know ahead of time.  You just have to see what develops.  In this case, nothing ever developed.  In the end, it became just another garden-variety extortion ring.

POTUS:  That worked out well for us.

Smiley:  Indeed.

POTUS:  That perfect secret business...my God, that was genius.  Where did you get that?

Smiley:  Oh that...I read it in a John le Carré novel.

𓐵

Ghetto Fatigue

Black people talk common sense about ghetto culture

Zarria Simmons

Amala Ekpunobi

Anton Daniels

Brandon Tatum

Jason Whitlock

Kevin & Keith Hodge

Amir Odom

Rogan Smith

Carmen Jaycee

𓐵

Email in 2025?

Is email hate justified?

Everyone seems to hate email for different reasons.  It may be 2025, but it seems like email hate has always been with us.

Here is a 2017 interview with perhaps the most famous email hater, Paul Jones.

And I really do not have any qualms with his arguments, then or now.  But my question is and has always been:  But what is better?

Is there a way to communicate universally without having to set up a Facebook page, or some type of group chat, or coordinate the various communications apps that various people and organizations use?

The answer for the last thirty years, and still today, is yes.  Email.  Only email.

The closest thing to the ease of email is SMS text messaging.  And I don't know about you, but if it is anything even slightly complex, text messaging is just more trouble than it is worth.

Even email does not lend itself to extremely complex issues.  I tell people, if it is that complex, expect a phone call.  Yes, you read that correctly.  And of course, the most complex issues still, in 2025, require...wait for it...a meeting.

My younger clients often pushed back on this, especially the phone calls.  But I would say to them:  I am not going to discuss something as complicated and nuanced as a real estate transaction via text message.  I mean the contract alone is twenty pages long.  Take my calls, or hire someone else.  And always, by the end of it, they had seen the light.

So let's take these universal communication methods in order, for dealing with complexity, from most complex to least complex.

1. Meeting
2. Phone call (here, perhaps we can add videoconferencing)
3. Email
4. SMS text

Yes, I am leaving out postal letters; also a perfectly acceptable universal communication method.  But I am assuming some element of modern urgency.  If that does not exist, letter-writing should be added to the above.  And while we are on truly outdated methods, when I started my career, one wrote memoranda.  Yes, on paper.  Does anyone still do that?  I always loved a good memo.  Maybe that explains my extended attachment to email.

But why are other apps not included?  Because they are not universal and perhaps never will be.  The closest app that might work is Signal, and that is only because most security-minded people already use it.  But if your company uses Slack, and your customer does not, what are you going to do?  Even the videoconferencing, which I have included, requires coordination on what system we will be using and what time we will be using it.  And, the associated learning curb.

In fact, there is a learning curb for all apps.  And I suppose there is a learning curb for the above four, but most of us absorb these pretty early on.

It is the universality of email that is so valuable.  And the email haters don't seem to grasp this.

There is a second feature of email that I also believe to be valuable.  An email does not have to conform to any particular app's structure and parameters.  An email is like starting with a blank sheet of paper.

When we have an app that I can use to reach anyone with any message, we can then add a number five.  It may be 2025, but I still do not see that alternative.

Are there things we can do to make email more palatable and efficient?  Let's break it down.

• To alleviate the spam problem, use white & black lists.  As a still current email user, I will say that this works like a charm.  But it does require an initial time investment to set it up.  The upside is that I get maybe one spam email in my inbox per week.
• Treat email like a fast letter, rather than a slow phone call.  Send emails at any time, but only check your emails and/or respond when it suits you.  I think if we applied this rule to all forms of communication, we'd all be quite a bit happier.
• Only communicate with people who know how to write.  My question would be:  Do you really want to do business with someone who does not know how to write?  They will have other issues as well.
• Be prepared to mix and match communication methods.  For instance:  Yep got your text, but I'll have to respond in an email/phone call, etc.  Sure there is utility in keeping a chain of communication together.  But I would say efficiency is probably more important.  It is easy to ask a question via text; the answer may require a two-page response, not to mention any follow-up questions.  Text-only fans ignore this issue.
• In fact, it seems to me that the people most unhappy with email view it like a phone call, with lots of back and forth.  And it can be that.  But if we are trying to be efficient, would not an actual phone call be better?
• I have absolutely nothing against texts or chat apps.  But these suffer from a right now factor.  Once you accept that this is not necessary for email, its utility goes through the roof.  Respond in an hour, respond when you get back to your desk, respond after a trip to the basement archives, respond tomorrow, you get the idea.  Remember, fast letter, not slow phone call.
• If you want to text me about where we are meeting for lunch, great.  But if you seriously expect to discuss something more complicated via text, it only means that you are not serious.  Any yes, many people, perhaps most people, are not serious about anything.
• If others expect you to respond to their emails as you would to a phone call or a chat, just don't.  And see what happens.  If it is truly that urgent, you will get a call or a text.  If your boss expects immediate responses from his emails, likely he has other unreasonable expectations as well.  It is not about email.
• The overall point is that in the ecosystem of communications, email remains a useful tool.  And those who abandon it lose the use of that tool.
• We still have letters and phone calls.  And while we may have new tools in our tool belt, we still have access to these.  Why?  Because they continue to be useful.  I bet even Paul Jones takes the occasional phone call.

Many of the problems that we associate with email are not actually about email.  They are rather about unreasonable expectations and inconsiderate users.  If other users abuse the tool, that does not mean that you must.  And it does not mean that you somehow must tolerate their abuse.  Just don't.

𓐵

The First Education Mayor

Why would younger voters elect Zohran Mamdani?

And more broadly, why have younger voters moved so far to the left?  Far enough to elect a socialist.

Here is Mamdani's platform.  He is not using the term socialist just to appeal to the young.  No, no, he is a flat out socialist.  Good for him.

My question is why would anyone vote for that?

Well, to support someone this far left, one has to be completely unable to think critically.  And critical thinking is a skill that is no longer taught to young people.  At least not in public schools.  And certainly not at the university level.  It is not the K-12 teachers fault; they, too, never learned to think critically.  So we have a generation of non-thinking educators teaching young people.  If the students don't get critical thought at home, they will just never get it at all.

This has been going on for generations now.  Each new generation one step further removed from the ability to think.  To the point where we are now:  No one can think at all.

So if you have a mayoral candidate who says all the emotionally appealing things, then obviously he the best guy for the job.  I mean, of course, rents should be frozen; anyone against that is selfish.  Of course, the city should open city-owned grocery stores; anyone against that does not care about poor families.  Right?  You get the idea.

Mamdani owes his win of the Democratic nomination to the education establishment, primarily to university schools of education.  He is the first real Education Mayoral Candidate.

And I do not think this is limited to New York City.  I suspect this is the primary reason for the Democratic Party's drift to the far left, nationwide.  This has been, and continues to be, a generational project among leftists:  Staff schools of education with ideological leftists, produce unthinking teachers, who produce even more unthinking young people, who then graduate into unthinking voters.

These schools are not really schools of education.  I do not think they actually give a hoot about education.  No, they are Schools of Youth Indoctrination.  And they have been wildly successful.

We saw proof of this last year with nearly half the country voting for the completely incompetent and inarticulate Kamala Harris.  No Harris may not be a socialist, but only the fully indoctrinated could vote for such a gibbering dimwit.  Sooner or later we will see a socialist elected to high office.  With Mamdani, we are watching this in real time.

Subjugated Capitalism

Is it possible to fight back?  Yes and no.  No, if you live in New York City, be prepared for the type of socialist utopia we have seen repeatedly over the last one hundred years.  The way these governments hang on, from Scandinavia to France to South America, is that they subjugate the capitalists to pay for the socialism that the majority of voters think they want.  Often times, as in Scandinavia, the capitalists are willing participants.

What happens in stable socialist societies is that the socialists reach an accommodation with the capitalists.  The socialists consume nearly all of the wealth that the capitalists produce, and with their bureaucratic leviathan and endless regulations, they ensure that the capitalists face little to no competition.  The entrenched capitalists acquiesce, and purr like well-feed kitty cats.  This produces a stagnant society, with little entrepreneurship or innovation, but one in which the socialists and the capitalists can coexist.

It becomes a sort of voluntary servitude:  The capitalists produce the wealth, and the socialists consume it.  What's more, you have to be willing to accept all the inefficiencies and outright graft that inevitably comes with socialist control.

So-called democratic socialism cannot produce the wealth required to fund itself and continue bribing the electorate.  Short of natural resources, socialism cannot produce any wealth long term.  So it is imperative for the socialists to retain the services of the capitalists.  It is the only way they can maintain power, which is their only real goal.

If you doubt this thesis, just look at China.  Where did the nation's current wealth come from?  It sure wasn't communism that provided it.  Yet the communists have been able to retain power and get rich themselves...by allowing some degree of capitalism and keeping the capitalists enslaved.  This subjugated capitalism is the party trick that the Soviet Union never learned, and that is why they ultimately failed.

What should you do?

Mamdani's nomination is the leper's bell of the approaching looters.  If you are unwilling to accept such an arrangement, what should you do?

Leave.  Take your taxes, your family, your business and any jobs it creates, your vote, and even your mere presence and go somewhere, anywhere, where you are appreciated and supported.

Leave before the income tax doubles.  Leave before the wealth taxes.  Leave before an intersectional tax code.  Leave before the reparations.  Leave before the inevitable exit taxes, already proposed in California, and I predict soon coming to New York City.

If Mamdani successfully opens city-owned grocery stores, of course with no sales tax, how long will it be until he triples the sales tax at privately owned grocery stores?  Supposedly to fund the people's stores.

Certainly he will implement congestion pricing.  But I predict it will not only apply to entering vehicles, but to mileage.  In the confines of Manhattan, would a dollar a mile be unexpected?  Two dollars?  I mean the space is quite limited and the planet is suffocating as we speak.  Naturally, he and his minions will be exempt because they are carrying out the important work of serving the public.  Quietly, ex-mayors will also be exempt, for their service.

On top of taxes, his fees and regulations will become impossibly burdensome.  So let's allow New York City voters to fully enjoy the government they elect.  But without our productivity.

Just leave.

They'll be fine.

𓐵

The Leftists of Bluesky

He's not talking about Xi:

Came across this person.  She seems nice.


𓐵

The Leftists of Bluesky

The Dirty Dozen

Most social media is inundated with cat photos and videos.  Bluesky?  There are rats.  Lots of rats.  No seriously.

Photos and links after the jump:  Click Read more below.  I just could not leave a bunch of rat photos on this page.

Cute huh?

Well that is a baker's dozen and I have to stop.

It is worth noting that I did not go looking for these posts.  No, no, these came up organically the very first time I browsed the Bluesky Discover feed.  Now some on the left will surely argue:  But that is because there are so many science-types on Bluesky.  But these do not really look like lab rats.  And before Bluesky, I never saw this on Twitter.  I think more probably it is because, on Bluesky, the leftists feel more at home to be themselves.  And I'm not saying that is all bad; it can be rather educational.

There are lots of cats as well.  Since we find no viewpoint diversity on Bluesky, is it any surprise that they do offer extreme pet photo diversity?  Hey, the left will take its diversity where they can find it.  I am waiting to see someone post their pet cockroaches.

Be assured that if someone tells you about their pet rat, and offers cute photos for your pleasure, there is something seriously wrong with that person.

China is a Scam

Winston describes Chinese EV cars, and the entire Chinese automotive industry, as a scam.  And while this is clearly true, the important point, which he infers but does not come out with directly, is that this is how everything in China works.  It is not an exaggeration to say that everything in China is some sort of scam.

Here in the Philippines, we are seeing an ever increasing number of Chinese branded cars on the road.  I have no doubt that the Philippines is one of the countries where, as Winston mentions, China is dumping cars.

As an aside, recently I saw a new GWM (Great Wall Motor – a Chinese manufacturer that Winston mentions in the video), diesel pickup in a shopping mall.  The list price was almost 40 percent less than the very similar Toyota Hilux.  Sure this will vary by product and features.  But of course, Filipinos are flocking to these brands.

I will add one other thing about the GWM display in the mall.  The cars were lavishly decorated with the most beautiful women, er...product specialists.  When the feminists chased Don Draper out of New York, he fled to China.  And as Don likes to say:  When you place a beautiful woman next to any product, people tend to forget the most important questions.

Because electricity is so expensive here, most of these vehicles are not electric.  But we do see some.  To the best of our ability, we never park near one of these.

No, you cannot avoid all Chinese products.  But we have a strict rule regarding Chinese products.  We do not buy anything made in China that has the potential to kill you.  So, no food, no cars, no lithium batteries, etc.  But yes, the fly swatter I bought last week was made in China.

We will make an exception to this rule if the product is an American brand.  For example, Apple is not going to damage its reputation because of Chinese shenanigans.  So sure, much of their stuff is made in China; but under closely supervised quality control.  I am less sure of some American firms manufacturing in China.  Are Chinese-manufactured Doritos safe?  I would assume so, but why take the chance.

Now if you think this perspective is a bit harsh, here is a Shawn Ryan clip, about six months old.  Really, the whole country is just a great big scam, and often dangerous.  I have written about this before.  So how should we handle China?  We should isolate them like any other pariah state.  Maybe this cannot be done diplomatically, but we can certainly isolate them economically.

The Chinese cannot do anything on their own.  They need to steal, and scam, and cheat.  This is deeply ingrained within their culture.  If we do not allow it, they will flounder.  All we have to do is:  Nothing.  Just stay out of China and stop buying Chinese goods.  The world will be a better place.

𓐵

Proposal: Gold Bank

The benefits of cryptocurrency without all the nonsense

Here's what we do.  Let's start a bank where all deposits and withdrawals are made in gold bullion.  Each depositor's balance will be listed as gold weight on deposit.  And let us place our depository someplace safe, like Switzerland.

Before we start pondering the logistical nightmare of such an arrangement, what with delivery, assaying (verification), acceptance, etc., let us consider one other simple possibility.  How about this?  Deposits can be made in any major currency, and that currency will, immediately on deposit, be used to purchase gold at the then current market price.  So for example, if you deposit one thousand dollars, your account will then reflect not the one thousand dollars, but rather that amount in gold bullion.

The bank will issue each account holder checkbooks and debit cards, which will allow customers to spend their funds as with any bank.  Spend ten dollars at Walmart, and your account will reflect a ten-dollar reduction in your deposited gold weight.  Need cash to pay your babysitter?  Debit cards will work in the ATM.

The bank will purchase and sell gold daily on the open market to facilitate deposits and withdrawals.  Since the bank is buying and selling based on the collective needs of all depositors, the bank would receive the best possible commissions and spreads on these transactions.  Then of course, these expenses would be shared among deposit holders based on their respective transactions.  It is worth noting that to the extent that deposits and withdrawals match, the only cost to the bank would be the bookkeeping charge of moving funds from one account to another.

The bank will maintain a high percentage of gold in its depository.  Maybe 85%.  The remaining gold deposits would be holdings of various gold instruments like ETFs.  This is to insure quick and inexpensive purchases and sales.

The benefit of such an arrangement is that funds are maintained in bullion and not dollars or any other currency.  These deposits are therefore immune to the irresponsibility of modern governments and the fragility of their respective currencies.

Start your own gold bank

Individuals can limit their exposure to the dollar in a similar fashion.  Invest in gold ETFs and move investment income into these ETFs, and keep funds there, rather than in dollars.  It is the same if you get a paycheck; roll your dollars into gold ETFs.

First Bank of Blockchain

This model is deposit/withdraw/spend in dollars (or any government-sponsored currency) and store in gold.  But clearly, and perhaps more easily, this could also be done with cryptocurrency.  Why has no one has thought to do this?  If the crypto folks want to be taken seriously, they need to get rid of the Sam Bankman-Fried type grifters, and bring in some serious players.

One certain takeaway from the Trump-Musk split and the Big Beautiful Bill is that relative to the US dollar, gold is the safer store of long term value.  Sure there may be some minor fluctuations here and there.  But for now this is a political certainty:  There is zero will among US politicians to control dollar-denominated US government debt.  At this point I think it is safe to say:  The US national debt will never be paid off.  Never.  Even if, magically, the politicians develop the will, at this point they lack the ability.

What does this mean?  Three possibilities.  One, the politicians will devalue the dollar.  Think one new dollar for ten old dollars.  Two, the politicians will attempt to monetize the debt by a long term policy of increasing and sustaining inflation.  Basically it is devaluing the dollar in slow motion.  Three, at some point the bond and currency markets will force a dollar devaluation.  Since the politicians are not going to address the debt in any meaningful way, one of these three, or some combination, is inevitable.

One thing US politicians will not abide is default.  At least not in name.  But devaluation, however it comes, is a form of default.  So yes, sooner or later, the US government will default on its obligations.

Individuals can prepare for this by:  Not owning debt.  Especially not government debt, but I would add, do not own any dollar-denominated debt.  If you own dollar-denominated bonds, get rid of them.  If the state of New York owes you one thousand dollars, in the form of a bond, they will be delighted to pay you back in devalued dollars.  And this is true for any and every bond issuer.

So no bonds and no dollars.  Do own real estate, gold, common stocks.  Although I would avoid equities of businesses that own a lot of debt, that is banks and other lenders.  If you are not a believer in gold, fine.  But keep your rents and dividends in gold short term until you are able to reinvest.  In terms of which common stocks to own, I would focus on companies with an economic franchise as defined by Warren Buffett.

Speaking of Mr. Buffett, he is sitting on all this cash ($350 billion) and is, famously, no fan of gold.  Surely you are not disagreeing with the oracle of Omaha?

But how much better is cash than gold?  Cash suffers the same basic problem as gold:  A store of value without income.  Gold provides no income and cash only offers slightly more than none.  The reason Buffett maintains cash is in order to move quickly into the market at a time of his choosing.  Also this:  One might remember that the only reason cash offers any income at all is the fact that almost all cash is stored in, invested in, some form of debt.

Mr. Buffett was born in 1930.  His life has spanned the length of US hegemony.  And surely that affects how he sees the world.  Buffett may be old, but the man is not stupid.  My guess is that he will attempt to relieve himself of all that cash (into some hard, income-producing assets) before the coming monetary collapse (whether fast or slow).  He is betting that the stock market will collapse before the dollar.  The history of American hegemony tells him this is a good bet.

I am not so sure.

Current US national debt is $273,500 per household.  Household net worth is around $176,500.  A figure which of course does not include national debt.  You can do your own math.

Here's Grok:

As of December 2024, the U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP is approximately 124%.  This is based on data indicating the national debt reached $36.22 trillion, with a nominal GDP of around $29.2 trillion.  At the end of World War II in 1946, the debt-to-GDP ratio was about 106%, with a public debt of $241.86 billion against a smaller GDP.

The current ratio of 124% is notably higher than the post-WWII peak of 106%.  The increase reflects significant government spending during recent events like the COVID-19 pandemic, which drove debt levels up, compared to the post-WWII period where economic growth, primary budget surpluses, and inflation helped reduce the ratio over time.

In other words, we have the highest government debt level in modern history, no political will to reduce it, and actually no will to reduce its continued growth.  For all the left-wing hate of Donald Trump, one might note that he is not, and has never been, a fiscal conservative.

Maybe Mr. Buffett is correct.  But if the stock market does collapse with this level of national debt, what are the odds that the dollar will collapse along with the stock market?

𓐵