Entitlement Culture

The tow truck driver knows more about entitlement than any lefty academic

The race-based entitlement that academics peddle is questionable at best.  This is what true entitlement looks like.

It is worth pointing out that the illegally-parked vehicle owners are not the customers of the towing company.  No, the towing company's customer is the property owner.  I think that all the back and forth with the vehicle owners is just for good Youtube content.  I mean, why else bother?  But for us, it does offer a great peek at American entitlement culture.

And sadly, you see this in all public facing businesses.  This is just an extreme example.  In any case, I would argue that entitlement has gotten worse in the last few decades.  I wish some academic would study the causes.  But they are so wrapped up in race and grievance that they pay no attention to the actual entitlement all around us.

Just pay attention; entitlement is everywhere.  People are entitled to tips for no real service.  Others are entitled to tip nothing for actual service.  Parents are entitled to take their unsupervised, misbehaving children everywhere.  Passengers are entitled to take the seat of their choice on airplanes.  So-called influencers are entitled to free stuff and service.  And if we back up just a few years to the time of Covid, just think about the entitlement that people had to tell perfect strangers what to do.  Going to the grocery store was walking through an entitlement minefield.

Today we see people using smartphones without headphones or earbuds.  Some blast music in public on their bluetooth speakers.  Patrons refuse to get off their smartphones when dealing with a cashier, waiter, etc.  Or on public transportation.  The social expectation of respect for others is dead.

Truly, the only way to avoid disrespect for others is to avoid public spaces.  We do try.  And here is something interesting:  There is a class dynamic to this entitlement problem.  Counterintuitive though it may be, higher class environments have less entitlement.  In my observation, entitlement culture is a lower class problem.  And it is intentional.  The mid and upper classes know that it is best to take calls outside, or not at all.  Lower class people have a need to inflict their noise and other entitlements on the people around them.  Why is that?

Anyway, it is getting worse.  What is going on?

𓐵

Pride and Prejudice and Promiscuity

Gay men are not like the rest of us

Yes of course, the men attending a gay pride parade are perhaps overachievers in the field of sexual conquest.  But the stereotype of the promiscuous gay man is long established and accurate.  Do not pretend otherwise.

Gay men want to be treated like everyone else; get married like everyone else; these days, have children like everyone else.  But don't kid yourselves, they are not like everyone else.

I'm pretty liberal about gay people and the gay lifestyle; they can do whatever they like, both in and out of the bedroom.  But this level of promiscuity does not lend itself to marriage and children, not to mention public health.

Yes, these debates are over.  But maybe they need a second, more realistic, look.

The public has largely accepted what gay men do.  Even if most of us do not really want to think about it.  But if a heterosexual man has this many sexual partners, most people would consider that licentious and degenerate.  Here, even the term partner is out of place.  These are not partners in any sense of the imagination.  But I do not know a better term to describe the person on the other side of a daily, one-off, anonymous, sexual encounter.  Of any type.

Well there is slut, right?  But call a gay man a slut and his response is likely to be:  Oh honey, you are so right.  You don't know the half of it.  Look at the men in the above video; they are proud of it.

Regarding a heterosexual man with that amount of sexual activity, some will surely envy his sexual prowess.  But they will also call him a womanizer or a player; and no one is going to consider him marriage material.  But is the heterosexual male slut also proud?  Yeah maybe.  But how many of these guys are there versus what is really normalization on the gay side.

I recently watched the Netflix remake of Alan Alda's The Four Seasons.  And today of course, it includes a married gay couple.  Okay fine.  But in the series, the gay couple pick up an anonymous stranger and take him back to their hotel room to have sex.  Like this is normal.

That is not normal.  I mean it may be normal gay behavior and I do not care if that is what you want to get up to.  Have at it.  But it is not normal marriage behavior.  And this is not the first time I have seen this in a television series.  I saw one production a couple of years ago where the requisite gay couple had multiple outside partners.  Hollywood has decided that this is, in fact, normal and the rest of us should get on board with it.

Now, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that some small number of heterosexual married couples also have so-called open relationships.  But here too, let us not pretend this is normal marriage behavior.  I will add what I always think about when someone is unfaithful to their spouse:  If you do not want to be married, just do not be married.  It is not as complicated as people sometimes want it to be.

Like I said, I do not care what anyone does.  But let us not pretend that gay men are like us.  And if this is normal behavior for you, straight or gay, maybe marriage is not your thing.

𓐵

Have You Ever Actually Watched Any Of His Debates?

The left is an intolerant religion and proud of it

I do not know if this is real or not; I hope it is.  But even if it is not, I think it makes a fair point.  Popular culture, media, and the education establishment endlessly foist left-of-center views on people from the right.  And those on the left need not ever entertain any views from the right.  They are actually proud of this.

Since Charlie Kirk's death, the organization he founded has gone off the rails.  I think he was naive about the people he surrounded himself with; including his own wife.  But that should not diminish his own contributions.  The question asked here is paramount.
𓐵

Two Trump Supporters Grow Cold

When Trump lost the Carlson brothers, he lost the Right

Watch the whole thing, but the last twenty minutes are truly revealing.

Open questions:  Before his assassination, was Trump about to lose Charlie Kirk's support as well?  Why is the FBI only pretending to investigate Kirk's death?  Who wrote the now famous Tyler Robinson text messages?  Why all the subterfuge surrounding the Kirk assassination?  And most importantly, why does Trump allow Benjamin Netanyahu such latitude to prosecute the Iran war as he sees fit, even though Israel is clearly the very junior partner in this endeavor?

𓐵

Grammar is a Signal

WSJ:  There's an inverse correlation between power and proper grammar

That's pretty much the long and the short of the whole article (archive).  But I would add that there is a correlation between proper grammar and respect.  So when did power come to mean a lack of respect?

I am a terrible self-editor, but I do make every effort to not make, and certainly not send, grammatical or spelling errors.  But according to The Wall Street Journal, in 2026, this makes me some kind of toady.

Have we become so blasé about written communications that we fail to comprehend that there is an etiquettical dimension to the process?  Or do we just no longer care?

I mean even if I am communicating with a subordinate, I will make every effort to write properly.  I might even make more of an effort, because I would not want them to think I am illiterate, right?  That would be shameful.  Or at least embarrassing.

Well...no.

The authors of this piece seem to be saying that we demonstrate our power by using bad grammar.  Or at the very least, power gives us permission to dispense with proper grammar and editing.  Personally, I think they have been reading way too much Foucault.

But this much is clearly true.  People today like to assume that whomever they are communicating with will not assume that they are illiterate.  The correspondent will simply assume that they are busy or blame the technology or whatever.  Or, they assume that the correspondent will simply believe that they just cannot be bothered.  So there is no embarrassment much less shame.

Is that the message that we want to send?  And if it is, what does that say about us?  Here's a question:  What would your grandmother have thought about your grandfather if his love letters were full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes?  Maybe you would not be here.

No, consistently bad grammar and spelling is a signal.  He just cannot be bothered.  That's the signal.

Here's my question:  What else is he not bothered about?

If you believe that bad grammar signals something else; maybe it does.  It could represent any number of signals.  But all of them are bad.

And if etiquettical is not a word, I will be ashamed.

𓐵

The Story of the Hole

Scene from The West Wing



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

Stay Out of China

And stay away from Chinese nationals everywhere

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

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

𓐵

Winston Marshall and Louise Perry

The deliberate obtuseness of government towards immigration

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

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

𓐵

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.

𓐵

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

𓐵

High Caste Lecture

I like to play this game. Every time an Indian origin kid in the West signals their progressive virtue in woke-speak -- from 'yoga is cultural appropriation' to anti-colonialism takes -- I google their last name for caste origins. 10 times out of 10 it is South Indian Brahmin.… https://t.co/DDntpmGaLi

— Zubin (@ZMadon) May 31, 2025

Of course, you Untouchables Deplorables who voted for Trump should listen to your betters.

via Instapundit

𓐵

The Path Out of Poverty

Maybe this path will not work for everyone.  But if you are reasonably intelligent and ambitious, this is the way.

• Get as much education as you can.
  
  
• At a minimum, you must learn and use proper English.  This is true no matter where you are.  If you are rich in Malaysia or Guatemala or Kenya, fine, you don't need English.  But if you are poor, master English.
  
  
• Get a job.  If there are no jobs, then you must make your own; find a need and fill it.  Do what needs done; haul water for your neighbors, plant the rice, whatever.  Do not wait for the work to come to you; you must go find the work.
  
  
• Do not have children.
  
  
• Find a partner doing likewise.  Do not look for a partner to raise your children.  Instead look for a life partner.  This is a subtle but important distinction.  Yes, children are a part of life; for many the most important part.  And no, it is not fair, but if you are poor, you simply cannot afford children.  And they will keep you poor.  So make your choice.
  
  
• Also regarding children, you must break from the mindset that only your children can and will care for you in your old age.  Once you breakout of the jail of the poverty-minded, you will discover that you can and should take care of yourself in your old age.  This view of children as retirement is a big part of what keeps people poor; because this mindset encourages people to have children they cannot afford.
  
  
• Get married.  But don't be in a rush.  Only get married if and when you find the right one.
  
  
• Still do not have children.
  
  
• Focus on your (two) careers; make something of yourselves.
  
  
• Never lie, never look for shortcuts.  These are popular strategies of the poverty-minded.  Be honest or stay poor.
  
  
• Along the way, read everything you can, both fiction and nonfiction.  You must learn to learn and learn to think.  These are skills that most poor people just never develop.
  
  
• Also learn to be considerate, grateful, friendly, respectful, and quiet.  Yes, be quiet.  If you think these attributes are beneath you, okay fine, stay poor.
  
  
• Do not surround yourself with poverty-minded people.  Leave them behind.  Leaving poverty most often involves leaving your community.
  
  
• Be faithful to your spouse.
  
  
• Only then should the two of you even consider children.

Yes, it is this simple.  If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying to you – To serve their own interests, not yours.  The primary key to this path is to have children only when and if you can afford it.  If you cannot manage this, again okay fine, stay poor.  I realize this advice may run counter to the teachings of your faith and/or the desires of your family.  You simply must put these influences aside until you, and you alone, are ready.

And yes, of course this applies in the United States as well.  I have written on that specifically here.

𓐵

Schumer's Photo

The real problem with Chuck Schumer's Father's Day photo

My question is:  If the man will lie about something this simple and innocent and commonplace, can you just imagine what else he would (and does) lie about?  The answer can only be:  Just about everything.

And of course, he's bad enough.  But for the life of me, I just cannot imagine the type of person who would vote for someone like this.  Repeatedly.  As bad as he is, Schumer's not the real problem.  You are.

You absolutely have the government you deserve.  And I can only take solace in the fact that it is going to get worse...for you.  As the Instapundits like to say (quoting H.L. Mencken):  Gooder and harder.  You deserve it all.

𓐵

Maybe it's the Hair

FTX head honcho, Sam Bankman-Fried (left) and WeWork boss, Adam Neumann (right)

Am I the only one who notices that an adult haircut might be some type of indicator of... er, financial responsibility?  I mean seriously, would you invest money with these guys?

You cannot use the same logic based on what they wear.  We've seen photos of both of these guys in business attire.  They are willing to put on a coat and tie when necessary.  But they are unwilling to get a proper haircut.  Maybe we should pay attention to that.

I have written previously about all the beards.
𓐵

Trashy America

Will Smith, Chris Rock, and the Rules of the Street

I remember Will Smith from the Fresh Prince days.  I did not really watch the show, but I would see it occasionally, and Smith was indeed very funny.  But he really came to my attention with the 1993 film Six Degrees of Separation.  His performance was dazzling.  But over the last thirty years, I stopped going to the movies.  And I rarely see any of the blockbusters or blockbuster-wannabe's that command the likes of the movie star that Will Smith has become.  The one exception was the 2007 film I Am Legend.  It was no Six Degrees, but it was another excellent performance and, at the time, an interesting script.  Today I would argue that I Am Legend is a must see film, especially for all the little Covid totalitarians.

In any case, to the extent that I think about movies and Hollywood, which is very little, I have always maintained a high opinion of Smith as an actor.  Of course, as with all actors, I have no idea of what kind of man he is.  I am vaguely aware that he and his wife have some sort of unconventional marriage.  But I don't follow any of that closely enough to know the details.

I don't think I have ever watched the Academy Awards.  Perhaps once as an adolescent.  And Sunday night was no exception.  The truth is, I did not even know it was happening.  And even now, I would not typically know that it had happened.  Except that, within hours, it appeared on my favorite website, Instapundit.  Even there I would have ignored it but for the fact that this is not the sort of material that normally appears on the site.  So something highly unusual must have happened.  Earthquake was my first thought.

No need to rehash the details here.

Now, if you have an occasion to spend time with our criminal elements in their natural habitat, I would like to give you one little piece of advice on how to comport yourself.  Be respectful.  Not obsequious, just respectful.  If circumstances call for firmness, fine, be respectfully firm.  To everyone.  Especially to those who don't deserve it.  Why?  Because respect is a big deal in these quarters and any perceived disrespect may lead to violence.  If you are a big guy with a gun, maybe it does not matter.  But if you are a small guy with no gun, use some common sense.  Oh and one more thing, leave your wife at home.

Is it right?  Maybe not.  But hey, this is the street.  And they have their own rules.  When in Rome....

Besides, when you get back home, to your safe neighborhood, in your safe, law-abiding community, you can get back to your normal self.  You can hit that new restaurant that just opened, maybe take in a movie, visit the wine bar on Main Street.  Or hey, maybe a comedy club.  And you don't have to worry about the rules of the street.

Right?

Well no.  In America in 2022, the rules of the street are now just the rules.

I did not care enough to write about this incident until I noticed who was getting all the support.  And it was not Chris Rock.  So it's not only that Will Smith is a thug who lives by the rules of the street, it is that most Americans are on his side.

And don't think I'm letting women off the hook here.  There is no doubt that Smith was egged on by his wife.  She felt aggrieved by a comedian, so she sent her man to defend her honor.  Violently.  She loved it; of course she did.  I have witnessed this dynamic myself, and it is becoming more common.  Can there be any doubt that America is in cultural regression?

I heard Jesse Watters on Fox News ask:  What if instead of Will Smith, it had been, say for instance, Mel Gibson?  Would Americans be equally supportive of a white man attacking a black man over a harmless joke?  Where is the real privilege?

And yes, it was harmless.  Perhaps ill-chosen, but certainly not malicious.  The fact that Will and Jada Pinkett Smith did not recognize this immediately, and their graceless response, speaks volumes about their character.  And the character of all of their supporters.

Graceless?  Let's call it what it is:  Trashy.  I can think of no other word for it.

No one doubts how beautiful she is.  Certainly not Chris Rock.  One possible graceful response?  Jada should have stood up and taken a bow.  Given the fact that most people in that room seemed to know that she has alopecia, she would have received a standing ovation.  Look, it's simple baldness, not cancer; but never-mind that.  Instead she showed us her all too common ugly side.  Her genuine side.

Sadly, this whole episode is a vivid reflection of America in 2022.

I have said it before and I will say it again:  These are not my people.

𓐵

The Complete Hypocrisy of the Left

Every time I encounter some lefty-type preaching their sanctimonious drivel, I compliment them on some article of clothing they happen to be wearing.  They are always completely oblivious to the irony.

Better yet, tell them how much you like their Volvo.  Or their Subaru.  Or even their Prius.  They'll eat it up.

What?  You got a new Tesla?  It's lovely!

Yes comrades, you too, benefit from capitalism.  Otherwise, you'd be driving a Lada-like contraption with faulty brakes and dressing like a North Korean.

Now I'm sure the good folks at North Face are not socialists.  Rather, no doubt, they consider themselves to be responsible capitalists.  Right?  The problem is they are complete hypocrites.  As are almost all left-of-center types.

What?  You don't like three-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?  Well, you voted for it.

𓐵

Team Fearless on Integrity

Recently I have written several pieces on integrity.  Today, this pops up on my YouTube home page.  From Team Fearless.

I'm not really big on motivational talks and whatnot.  So many of them include an element of hucksterism.  The real estate business is full of motivational hucksterism.  And many brokers eat it up.  The irony.

But I think this would be great for adolescents.
𓐵

First They Came for the Christians

First they came for the Christians

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Christian

Then they came for the economists and the historians

And I did not speak out

Because I was not an economist or a historian

Then they came for the police officers

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a police officer

Then they came for the Trump voters

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Trump voter

Then they came for the gun owners

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a gun owner

Then they came for the small business types

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a small business type

Then they came for the Israelis

And I did not speak out

Because I was not an Israeli

Then they came for the West

The Western canon, classical music, the Old Masters,

the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, 

Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Winston Churchill,

And the best that Western Civilization has

Bequeathed to us all

Then they came for the independent thinkers

And those who veered off narrative:

Roseanne Barr, Gina Carano, Bari Weiss,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dave Rubin, James Damore,

Bret Weinstein, Karlyn Borysenko, Jodi Shaw,

J.K. Rowling, Maajid Nawaz, Roger Scruton,

Many others

Then they came for the First Amendment

And there was no one left to defend it

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

Apologies to Martin Niemöller

𓐵

The White Pebble

Who do you want to be?

*** Click if not crisp ***

From the brilliant Hugh MacLeod.

I'm not religious at all.  In fact, I'm an atheist and an anti-theist.  But what does it matter?  MacLeod's question is:  Who are you, really?  I might change it to:  Who do you want to be?

~~~

I have been giving a lot of thought to integrity.  Not just professional integrity, but more generally, living a high integrity life.  And being honest with ourselves and others.

There's been a lot of discussion of emotional intelligence since Daniel Goleman's 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence, appeared.  But there is less discussion on emotional integrity.  If you run this Google search, you'll find lots of mushy, feel-good, self-help type articles.  I can't say that I found any of them very helpful.

I did find this definition:

Emotional integrity is the courage to acknowledge one’s true feelings, wants and desires without judging them with the societal lens.  In essence, it is about being 100% honest with oneself.  If one is just emotionally intelligent without being emotionally honest, the benefit will at best be temporary and skin deep.

I find the idea of emotional integrity appealing.  But I'm not really happy with this definition.  My concern is that this can be selfish, right?  If we are honest, yes of course, feelings, wants, and desires can be selfish.  But actions need not be.  It seems to me that acknowledging selfishness should be part of the process.

We all have selfish desires now and again.  Of course we do.  But while we can and should acknowledge these, I don't think mere acknowledgement is the only thing that matters.  It is not enough.  What matters more is how we comport ourselves in the face of our own desires.  While some of us can transcend selfishness, most of us are less saintly, and have to act appropriately in spite of it.  That takes real integrity.

It is worth remembering that it is not only our own well-being or fulfillment or even happiness that matters.  Yes, we want and deserve these qualities.  But at what cost?  Integrity demands that we consider others and the consequences of our actions.

But I do like his courage to acknowledge line.

So let me take a stab at my own definition:

Emotional Integrity:  The courage to acknowledge one’s true feelings, wants, and desires, to ourselves and to others, and not being afraid to act unselfishly on those emotions.  Even if misunderstood or not shared or not reciprocated by others.

That is a pretty high standard.

𓐵