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.

𓐵