They Are Lying!

What happened on 11 September 2001?

The Kennedy assassination, 9/11, the Covid pandemic and so-called vaccine, 10/7, the Epstein files, the Charlie Kirk assassination.  They are lying about it all.  I discussed four of these questions here.  Weinstein goes on:  We do not have an FBI to investigate, we do not have an academy to study, and we do not have a press to report.  What we have instead are sham entities and professionals which pretend to serve these functions.  But dissemble at every level.

This speech is so on target that it makes me somewhat embarrassed to ever have quibbled with Weinstein about politics.
𓐵

Are We Witnessing the Start of Britain's Civil War?

Winston Marshall asks the question



Perhaps it would be in poor taste to advocate for a civil war in someone else's country, but Marshall is all British.  And surely he has a right to ask the question.  I am going to follow his answer closely.
𓐵

Chinese Dereliction and Deflection

Stay out of China

If it was up to the Chinese organizers, this driver would be dead.



This video is about a GT series race in Shanghai, China, this past weekend.  For those like me who did not know, GT racing looks very much like Formula One.  Though Gemini tells me it is not quite as fast.  But even if you are not a fan of this sport, you must watch this video.  It is about Chinese culture more than car racing.

What is so important about this race situation is that, as an international event, the Chinese cannot hide or cover-up what happened.  So it offers a real time window into Chinese shortcut culture.  David Zhang has more on this.

You cannot even walk down a sidewalk in China without worrying that you are going to die in a sinkhole or the building facade next to you is going to collapse or they added arsenic to your food as a preservative.

Without a doubt, this is what happened at the Wuhan lab.  Just imagine their hospitals, their nuclear plants, their aviation system, railroads, etc.  The Three Gorges Dam.  Can you just imagine these clowns in a war?

If the West would just stop supporting China, the country would collapse based on its own incompetence and failed leadership.  Stop investing in the country, stop buying their products, and do not even visit the place.  If your sport holds an event in China, that would make an excellent week to take off.  If you are involved in any auto racing, why would you ever consider going to China?

If you are involved in any activity that relies on the Chinese government or other institution for safety, why would you take such a risk?  Of course this means any activity whatsoever in China.  Any transportation, any food, any healthcare, etc.  That hotel your event booked?  Might be very pretty, but it is not built to proper building code standards.  They even have a term for it, tofu-dreg construction.

No one needs China; it is China that needs us.

The whole country is a scam.

𓐵

The Delusions of the Left

Even in 2026, people believe this...

From Reddit:




I saw this on Instapundit yesterday.

This is my personal view of how such a society would look.  He leaves out all the death camps.  I guarantee that this guy votes.  Think he is a one-off?  The DSA is taking over the Democrat party.  They all believe some version of this.

I think we are watching the end of democracy.  Surely democracy requires a certain level of education and critical thinking skills.  When that no longer exists, what will be the result?  I do not believe it will be communism, these people are far too stupid.  But it will be some sort of totalitarian government.  Perhaps, as in all historical cases, it will be some dictator or junta using communism, and its useful idiots, as a mask for their own unlimited power.

I will tell you something else that democracy requires:  Sobriety.  Yet how many people today are on some psychiatric prescription drug or even multiple drugs?  Should we really be allowing these doped-up zombies to vote?  Our drug dealers, er, I mean our physicians, could say, Sure, I will prescribe you an anti-anxiety drug (can we really call them medications?), but that requires that I report you to the Board of Elections for suspension from the voter rolls, until you come off of it.

Yes I realize this is pure fantasy, but it is an excellent thought experiment.  Who are our voters today?  Uneducated, unthinking, doped-up automatons.  Ask yourself, Am I one of these voters?

I think the easiest shortcut answer is:  Did you take the Covid so-called vaccine?  That is, did you participate in the global mRNA experiment?  If so, then yes, you are in this category.  God help us; around eighty percent of us did take the jab.  If you want to be somewhat more generous, it was only around fifty percent who took the jab willingly and enthusiastically.  That is, not under duress or mandate.  God knows we all ran into these folks at the supermarket.  How do you think they vote?

Now, let's return to our communist friend above.  Do we think he got the jab?  Well, his god, the state, told him it was the thing to do.  So we know he did.  But that is not all.  His god also told him that everyone needs the jab.  So he would have been tickled to death to round up unvaccinated people like my family and me, and put us in concentration camps.  No doubt, he would have viewed these as death camps (remember, it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated).  But what he really wanted was for two big goons in leather trench coats to hold us down while some Mengele-like figure jabbed us without consent.  Because who are we to defy his god?

This uneducated, unthinking, doped-up population that we have created over the last sixty years...

Cui bono?

𓐵

The Fall of the United Kingdom

What must happen for Britain to remain Great

Here we talk about the United Kingdom.  But understand that this could be Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, or Sweden.  Most of Europe is suffering from the same problem:  Islam in the West.  Or, Islam in dar al-harb (Arabic for house of war).  Yes, the Muslims consider this war.  The most generous translation of dar al-harb is area outside of Muslim control.  Okay fine, but what are the implications of that?

The famously well-mannered British people can only take so much.  How does this not lead to war or collapse, or both?

This first thing the British people must do is overthrow their government.  Peacefully Google, of course.  But it must start here.  In the global history of democracy, have we ever seen supposedly elected officials, and really the whole of government, ignore the will of their own citizens so completely.  Government officials must pay for what they have done to the nation.  Arrest them and try them for treason.

They may be "elected," but they clearly are not representing you.

Watch the above video.  The next scheduled election in the United Kingdom is August 2029.  That is three years from now.  I cannot imagine a scenario where Labor would call for early elections that they know full well that they will lose.  No, they will cling to power until the end.  Who they install as Prime Minister is of little consequence.  Starmer, Burnham, does it matter?  And remember, the Tories were no better.

So let me ask you:  Do you want to take the chance that your daughter will not be raped before then?  You must act today.  What choice do you have?

At the same time, ninety percent of the Muslims must be returned to their native countries.  Obviously, no new arrivals should be allowed.  If you find this idea troubling, I understand.  But these people are not immigrants in any traditional or good faith sense of the term.  No, they are invaders.  The British public must wake up to this fact.

For anyone who says, well that just cannot be done.  You are wrong, you just have to decide to do it.  Once the British have the will, it can be done.  If the British people do not develop the will, their nation will perish.

Are we not now watching the nation perish before our very eyes?

This is an existential decision.

But to be realistic, I do not believe that the British people will address this at all.  Sadly, most people in the United Kingdom do not seem to understand what is happening all around them.

We can explain it to them, but we cannot understand it for them.

Therefore, I think we will see the fall of Britain in my life time.  Maybe even before the 2029 elections.  If you are a British citizen, my sincere advice to you is to emigrate to the United States as soon as possible.  There really is no other place to go.

But wait, you say:  I want to stay and fight for my country.  Peacefully, of course.  But know this, you will have to start the fight yourself.  Because your Labor and Tory supporting neighbors have their heads in the sand.  And they will nervously jail you for even making comments like I have made here.  So you, yourself, must start the revolution.

Or leave.
𓐵

Part 3 of 3

Islam in the West

Covid Update

Weinstein:  We are dealing with monsters

Referring to the entire episode (the virus origins, the pandemic, and the hapless and heavy-handed response), Weinstein labels it mass murder and calls for a Nuremberg trial.  This was and continues to be organized crime on a global scale.  Everyone involved should go to jail.

But we all know that no one is going to be held accountable.  The only way that the world might demand accountability is if the death toll were to skyrocket all these years later.  Part of the problem is that very few who received the mRNA so-called "vaccine" want to admit, to themselves or otherwise, what an ill-conceived decision that was.  And how many people allowed their children to receive this?  Who wants to admit that kind of error?

So the criminals remain largely in place.  And without doubt, they will do it again.

𓐵

What Do We Want For Our Country?

Is widespread prosperity the goal?

When I was very young, my even younger brother asked our two grandfathers, What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?  Now, one grandfather was a Democrat and one was a Republican.  And here we all sat together for this little conversation.  My Republican grandfather answered first.  Well I would say that we all want the same things, but we disagree on how to achieve them.  Obviously he was being diplomatic, but this left a lasting impression, and I more or less believed it for many years.

But I can no longer believe this.  I am 59 years old, and I have been following politics and culture since I was in high school.  If the above sentiment was ever true, it is certainly not true today.  Dear reader, let me ask you:  Do left-of-center types and right-of-center types (I no longer use the party labels) want the same thing?  Perhaps it is just me, but I do not think they do.

So while I appreciate what Peter Boghossian is doing, and I appreciated what Charlie Kirk tried to do, my question is this:  What is the point of these conversations when the goals are so diametrically opposed?  It is kind of like slavery:  At some point, there is nothing left to talk about.

The problem is that not only do we have different goals.  But we have different perceptions of the goals of the other side.

I think we can boil it down like this:

    The right would define their goal as:  Widespread prosperity

    The left would define their goal as:  Universal equality

    But how would the left define the goal of the right:  Prosperity for few

    And how would the right define the goal of the left:  Power for few

So where is the truth?  Well the truth depends on where you sit.  Yes of course I believe in absolute truth.  I believe the right-of-center types are correct, both in the description of their own goal and in their perception of the goal of the left.  But any left-of-center type will make the exact opposite claim to truth.

The left may be delusional, but you have to remember that the left is a religion.  And like any religion, their doctrine is their truth.

So like 1860, really, what is there left to talk about?  I am not calling for war.  But it seems to me that we must admit reality.  These two sides will not, and perhaps cannot, be reconciled.  We can have a separation, which has already begun.  I predict this will accelerate.  But a chaotic civil war at some point seems just has likely.

𓐵

Pharmaceutical Evil

Ethical drug companies are anything but ethical

And of course, governments assist their villainous behavior.  Today, post Covid, we must acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry is much worse than the tobacco industry.  If for no other reason than it affects more people.  But the truth is these firms are knowingly working against public and individual health in order to produce long term customers for their recently patented, expensive drugs.

Over the decades, I became skeptical of Big Pharma.  At first, I think it was all the creepy ads.  But later I noticed how physicians seemed to morph into little more than drug dealers.  Paid by us, their patients, and/or our insurance companies, but also handsomely paid by Big Pharma as well.

And by the time Covid came along, the grift was up.  At least for me.  But sadly not for most.  And today, the racket continues.  If during or after Covid, you were late to recognize the grift, only to do so in hindsight, welcome.  I myself did not learn about the complete lack of proper testing for any vaccines, until after Covid, and after I received a number of recommended vaccines for international travel.  But at this point, if you do not see the grift for what it is, you are recklessly naive regarding your own and your family's health.

As for the mRNA so-called vaccines, we still do not know what that was about.  What we do know absolutely is that they were not designed as a vaccine against Covid.  Are there any other vaccines that do not immunize against their target disease?  Any?  As Bret Weinstein recently pointed out, if these drugs were not designed to create immunity, perhaps they were purposefully designed to create some future vulnerability.  What other reason could there be to insist that every person on this planet receive multiple doses of this poison?

Pure evil.

𓐵

The Lowe-Down on Britain

Rupert Lowe asks:  Is the British government a criminal enterprise?

Lowe says that change can be driven through the ballot box.  Well as a politician, he would have to say that, right?  But as in California and Minnesota, I'm not at all sure that will work any more.

Lowe thinks that people will vote for things to get worse before they get better.  That is wishful thinking; I do not believe that people will do that.  Collapse is inevitable.

I mean in Britain you have an elite class and a government class who absolutely refuse to hold rapists accountable.  Mind you, over decades.  They minimize it, they dismiss it, they hide it.  And it doing so, they prove themselves worse than the actual rapists.  It is, in fact, criminal.

Can the government at large be guilty of accessory and/or obstruction?  Or aiding and abetting?  Because that is exactly what happened.  And Keir Starmer was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

And this is before we get to the vast crimes of the Covid "pandemic" response.  Weinstein wonders aloud if the mRNA "vaccines" were not designed to create immunity (which so clearly, they were not), but rather purposefully designed to create some future vulnerability.  To what, we cannot yet know.  But given the players involved, this clearly is a possibility.  This would certainly explain the unhinged enthusiasm for the jab from the powers that be.

Whether designed for immunity or future vulnerability, my question is, what other alternatives are there?

Well there is pure profit.  But to me, that does not adequately explain the multi-government fervor, both domestically and internationally.  And the punishments for noncompliance.  The governmental actions and supposed reactions were unexplained, dark, and sinister.  We may not know the tree, but we sure saw the fruit.  It was not merely profit-driven; just my opinion.

In any case, these same people are in charge of the election processes.  So my question is:  Have we reached the end of functional democracy?

I think we have.  These people must be dislodged and prosecuted.  Keir Starmer must be jailed.  Along with many thousands of his ilk.  And now, I hear that Andy Burnham will be even worse.

But how will this happen?

The answer is obvious.

𓐵

The United Kingdom Today

Do not lay the blame at the feet of the immigrants.  Of course, they should be removed, but they are who and what they are.  No, the blame lies with the elites and their government minions.  They must pay dearly for what they have done to the country.

𓐵

What Should Be Done?

Under what circumstances is it okay to publicly call for civil war?

Is that ever allowed in polite society?

In the United Kingdom, it is not any one event or situation, but the cumulative actions and attitude of those in charge.  Over, say, the last decade or so.  The government, the courts, the police, all of them.  It should be noted that this situation has evolved under both of the two major political parties, first under the Conservatives and now under Labour.  Is it not time to remove them?

The problem stretches beyond government.  It is really the elites, who are immune to the consequences of unchecked immigration, versus the working and middle classes, who are forced to suffer the actual consequences.  Because the immigrants do not live and work among the elites; rather they burrow down with the working classes.

The elites and their government henchmen are responsible for the rape and murder of the lower classes.  It may be the immigrants doing the actual raping and killing, but clearly it is the elites who are responsible.  And they are completely cavalier about it.  The only question I really have is:  How long are the people of Great Britain going to put up with this?  How many daughters have to be raped and how many sons have to die?

Believe me, if it was the sons and daughters of the elites, this problem would have been solved years ago.  But they could not care less about the sons and daughters of their inferiors.  They look down their noses, call them racists, and put Tommy Robinson in jail.  When will it be enough?

Of course, I am not British and it is not for me to say.  But if any government acts this way, regardless of how it is installed, should something not be done about it?

I'm asking.

I hope the British will as well.
𓐵

Peter Boghossian Interviews David Seymour

"One thing we know about the state is that it's generally incompetent."

Nominally, this is an interview about New Zealand.  But David Seymour, the current Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, offers a case study in the kind of thinking we desperately need in every western democracy.

The biggest problem for New Zealand, and for all western democracies, is that the Jacinda Ardern and Kamala Harris and Angela Merkel types will be back in charge before we know it.  And while these three examples are all women, they are as power-hungry as their male counterparts.  Say Keir Starmer, Gavin Newsom, and Tim Walz.  These people only care about power; not good public policy.  They weaponize the suicidal empathy of their voters to achieve and maintain their own power.  That's the whole game.

And power-consumed leftists win because people on the right do not know how to fight.  The right believes that the fight is with the leftist politicians.  So they talk about how incompetent Tim Walz is.  But the real fight is with the people who have voted for Walz and would vote for him again.

Let's take an example.  Donald Trump loves New York City.  Of course he does; it is his home.  But last year, the good people of NYC elected a socialist mayor.  They need to pay for that decision.  They, the voters.  And it needs to hurt.  So when New York asks for the inevitable bailout, the answer must be no.  The same for Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis and California.  End the deduction for state and local taxes.  Or at least cap them.  The fight is not with Mamdani; it is with his voters.

So long as voters never pay for the consequences of their votes, they will continue to behave in an irresponsible manner.  Mamdani and newly elected Seattle mayor Katie Wilson are power-hungry fools; but we all know exactly what they are.  The people who voted for them also know what they are.  They, the voters, must pay dearly for their decisions.

But the right will not do this; has never done this.  They wring their hands, and complain about the slow but sure leftward drift of the country.  They criticize Zohran Mamdani and Brandon Johnson.

Stop trying to win over the suicidal empathy crowd.  You are never going to win them over.  Instead, start talking about how stupid they are.  And it is so easy to cite examples.  Think for example:  The Trump campaign ad about Harris is for They/Them; Donald Trump is for you.  More like this.  Much more.

How about:  Stop funding Somalia you morons.  Okay, clean it up a bit, add a little context, but that needs to be the message.  Or:  Wait, you want boys on the girl's volleyball team; what is wrong with you?  No, of course you will not win over someone who does want this.  Rather, you will win everyone else.

I would go max on voter ID.  Start with buying alcohol and cigarettes.  But find the most stupid thing that people need an ID for, and compare that to voting.  Also, voting machine manipulation compared to the numerous internet hacking cases.  High taxes are a bit more difficult, but not if you link them to stupid spending cases.  And if they want to confiscate the wealth of billionaires, remind the public that billionaires can choose where they live.  Billionaires choose where they live, you morons.

You get the idea; do not be afraid to point out stupidity.  Relish it, roll in it.  For God's sake, learn how to fight.  And learn who exactly you should be fighting.

𓐵

Epistemic Humility on Display

Goliath expanded

It was Bret Weinstein, during the Covid response episode, who first introduced me to the contemporary metaphorical concept of Goliath.  It may be a metaphor, but it represents something real.  This is clearly true even if we cannot identify exactly what that something is.  Matthew 7:16 taught us to know a tree by its fruit.  Using this lesson, we may not know exactly what Goliath represents, but we can know its purpose by what it does.  The purpose of any system is what it does.  And today, I think we can broaden Matthew:  By its fruit, we know it exists.

There is much in this two part conversation that I disagree with; there is much more that I do agree with.  Plus, I also share many of Weinstein and Carlson's open questions.  In any case, if you want to be smarter about what is going on in the world today, have a listen.




𓐵

Candace Owens is Correct

About the Charlie Kirk assassination

Yesterday, on The Megyn Kelly Show, referring to the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation, Kelly asked Kash Patel about the text messages between the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, and his roommate/boyfriend.  She says many people think the messages sound kind of fake.  Patel sidesteps the question by saying that it is up to the Utah prosecutors to make the determination as to whether any evidence is credible.

Who wrote this?

But are these messages authentic?  Let's have a look.

I do not believe that twenty-two-year-old males (straight or gay) talk like this, and they certainly do not text like this.  I will highlight the most relevant words in yellow.  No, this was written by someone else.  To me, it sounds like an older law enforcement type and it also sounds like a woman.

And if this text exchange is a fabrication, surely the whole investigation is factitious.  For your reference, here is the actual indictment from which I pulled this.

Decide for yourself:

	Robinson:		I am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.
	Roommate:		you weren’t the one who did it right????
	Robinson:		I am, I’m sorry
	Roommate:		I thought they caught the person?
	Robinson:		no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.
	Roommate:		Why?
	Robinson:		Why did I do it?
	Roommate:		Yeah
	Robinson:		I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.
	Roommate:		How long have you been planning this?
	Robinson:		a bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it
	Robinson:		I’m wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. … I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with. … I might have to abandon it and hope they don’t find prints. how the fuck will I explain losing it to my old man. … only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. … remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see “notices bulge uwu” on fox new I might have a stroke alright im gonna have to leave it, that really fucking sucks. … judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope ;
	Robinson:		delete this exchange
	Robinson:		my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.
	Robinson:		since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.
	Robinson:		Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.
	Robinson:		you are all I worry about love
	Roommate:		I’m much more worried about you
	Robinson:		don’t talk to the media please. don’t take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

Who texts like this?  Older people.  In fact, the whole exchange reads like an older person pretending to text like two young people.  But of course this is just my own speculation.  But who uses the word vehicle?  Law enforcement.  Who says change outfits?  Women.

Are we really to believe that Robinson would call his 2019 Dodge Challenger a vehicle?  He would say car or even Challenger.  One vehicle lingering?  Come on, be serious.

Beyond that, I think it is rather convenient, too convenient, that in this text message exchange, Robinson admits guilt, admits his motive, and admits engraving the bullets.  It is like a cop's dream exchange, and I cannot help but wonder if that is not exactly what it is.

Sadly, Megyn Kelly did not press Patel on this question.  But is he covering for someone or something?  I guess it would have been rude for Kelly to press him with:  So one of your people did not fabricate these messages?  But that is exactly what needs to happen.  I certainly hope the defense counsel is not worried about sounding rude.  If you are interested, click through to the Megyn Kelly video; this question comes at 29:55.

I thought these messages sounded suspicious when they were first released back in the middle of September.  At the time, Candace Owens said the same thing.  And so I let that be the end of it for me.  I had thought that someone else would end up posting just what I did above.  But to my knowledge, no one has.  Even Owens has not posted the texts in this fashion.  But now we have the Director of the FBI being evasive on the subject.  So I just decided to post this after yesterday's Megyn Kelly Show and his non-answer.

The FBI would like nothing more than to hang this assassination on some dumb kid in order to head off any further questions.  Questions like the ones Candace Owens is now asking.  So if this text exchange is a fabrication, Owens' questions go from being mildly interesting and wildly entertaining theories to something real and malignant.  And we can't have that, can we?

Now finally, for anyone who might say, this text exchange cannot be a fabrication because that would be easy for the defense team to prove in court.  Maybe so, maybe not; but let's assume that it would be easy to prove the fabrication....

Then it will not reach trial because Tyler Robinson will die in prison beforehand.  Let us not forget that Donald Trump was in office when Jeffrey Epstein died in prison.

Now, about the ballistics....

𓐵

Dave Rubin and Andrew Gold

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

The British are doing this to themselves:

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

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 19, 2025

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

𓐵

Charlie Kirk and the American Apocalypse

When does civil war become necessary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They only care about power.

𓐵

Candace and Brigitte and Emmanuel

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

That is, the most famous woman in the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there are several options to consider:

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

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

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

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

The Great Pyramid

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

The West needs fewer children, not more.

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

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

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

Fewer children not more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what choice do we have?

𓐵

Truth Will Out?

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

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

𓐵

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.
𓐵