I was laid off a couple of months ago, and it’s given me time to reflect on the nature and value of work. What kind of work should we do, which kinds are most important, and how do we balance our career with our personal lives? The recent 82nd anniversary of the storming of the beaches of Normandy on June 6th reminded me of my grandparents, who both played roles in the conflict. While my grandfather was a medic attached to artillery on the Western front, my grandmother worked at the Grumman factory assembling TBF Avenger bombers that mainly flew in the Pacific theater. This was a moment in history where working in a factory provided a clear value toward the war effort, and the success of Allied forces. It struck me that most modern day types of work do not have the same obvious contributions to the flourishing of humanity. This is not to say that selling textbooks or delivering Amazon packages is a waste of time, or that people who do these jobs are useless; but rather, I wonder what value do those roles provide to us spiritually as individuals and workers? Can we (humans) spend our lives toiling away in careers and jobs that “don’t really matter”, and still feel fulfilled and live meaningful lives?

The biggest expense every person must pay in order to do work, is their time. Our time on Earth is limited, and so every minute we spend doing something costs us a very finite resource we cannot replenish. Early on in my career, I was focused on trading as little of my time as possible for the most amount of money. This money allows me to pay the bills, go on vacation, and have health insurance. But as I get older, I feel that my valuation of raw capital decreases, and the value of my time increases, and subsequently my valuation of the work I do changes. If money isn’t necessarily the most important thing I’m looking to get out of the work I do, what is?

For starters, I want to feel good about the work I do. Does the time I spend make the world a better place? Many careers in non-profits and even for-profit corporations have mission statements focused on the improvement of human welfare or environmental sustainability or some other altruistic merit. But even more than the overarching long-term organizational goals, does the day-to-day activity make the world a better place? Perhaps underpaid teachers and police officers sustain their dedication and work ethic because their daily activities have a direct and helpful impact on the people around them. I know in my own life, hearing someone say “thank you” is enough of a reward for completing some task, like delivering a load of firewood to someone in need or mowing your neighbors lawn while they are unable.

Another thing I look to get out of my work is a feeling of satisfaction. Primarily, a sense that I have mastered a certain ability or achieved competency at a certain task. Becoming a top sales manager was a challenging experience that demanded improvising and innovating. By completing a practical task that produces an observable and obvious value to society, I suspect humans can find a sense of value in their work. Ultimately, I find myself willing to complete almost any task that puts food on the table. Perhaps the real work worth doing is that which sustains our lives and those of the people around us. Even if it means delivering packages, selling textbooks, or flipping burgers. After all, if the people around us are what really matter, and the jobs we work help us sustain them, then that is by definition work that matters.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Putting away the dinner leftovers earlier this week, I placed a Tupperware full of cooked spinach in the cabinet with the other empty containers. This was an accident, of course. I was distracted by a mountain of dirty dishes, a screaming toddler, and a news podcast playing on the Bluetooth speaker. The next morning, my wife walked into the kitchen and found it. She turned to me with a puzzled look, “Did I do this?” Her curiosity was well warranted. As two perpetually sleep-deprived parents, we often misplace or forget things in our daily lives. After she tossed the spinach in the trash, it hit me that the first question in this bizarre saga was figuring out who was at fault. Our instinct as humans is to understand the origin of mistakes because it helps us prevent making them in the future. My saint of a wife was not accusatory in any way, but rather trying to understand how some pan-fried spinach ended up sitting overnight in the cupboard.

I don’t blame her for asking, though, we know fault matters in life, especially when it comes to legality. Whoever’s at fault for a car accident, for instance, will be held liable by insurance companies. Similarly, a divorce that occurs outside of the “no-fault” designation will inevitably lead to court-mandated support payments. It strikes me as crucial that the most valuable interpersonal relationships we have need to operate on a basis of limiting any focus on fault for things that may be less than ideal.

When I find the TV remote in the recycling bin, or the toilet paper unraveled in a pile on the bathroom floor, I have trained myself to accept that a certain toddler is behaving exactly as he should. Getting mad at a loved one for something they didn’t mean to do, didn’t know better than to do, or did by accident has no positive outcome. When it comes to the suburban household and the nuclear family, it turns out that our capacity to accept a situation for what it is, and not be upset at whoever’s at fault, is, in my opinion, the key to sticking together.

So the next time your wife asks you, “Was this my fault?”, or “Did you do this?”

You’ll know the real answer: “It doesn’t matter.”

P.S. (It was my fault)

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Elon Musk has managed to be the first human to build his net worth to roughly $1 trillion dollars. The timing of the news was apropos, with many Americans already celebrating America’s 250th anniversary by tuning in to the UFC fight on the White House lawn. It was an energetic spectacle, with fighter jets soaring overhead and the American underdog fighter Justin Gaethje winning his fight in a decisive victory. Many critics have attacked the event as uncouth and unprofessional for an administration to host in an official capacity. What many don’t realize, is that the tradition of hand-to-hand combat on the White House campus goes all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt, who famously held full-contact sparring sessions inside the White House with military aides, young officers, and professional fighters.

The timing was perfect because the event was a celebration of what Roosevelt would call “the man inside the arena”. Elon Musk may have some uncomfortable opinions, some unconventional practices, and a Twitter addiction. But regardless of your political convictions, it cannot be disputed that he is an effective businessman and an obvious doer. From delivering Falcon heavy rockets to NASA, to scaling EV technology through Tesla, and creating brain scanning technology via Neuralink, Elon’s businesses have all made a real and lasting impact on the world, even if his critics don’t want to admit it. As Roosevelt once said, “The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic.” Speaking of critics, Elizabeth Warren decided his accomplishment was the perfect time to call for a ‘wealth tax’ from the back of her chauffeured Escalade.

It’s worth noting that Warren has been calling for a wealth tax for years, but hasn’t once proposed reducing or eliminating income taxes for the very school teachers she talks about in this video. It’s a clue that she isn’t really concerned with fairness or making sure people pay their ‘fair share’. She sees wealth as a zero sum game, where if one person has a lot of wealth, it’s because they stole that wealth from other people. But that’s not how economic growth works, or how wealth is generated. A great example is this regular employee at SpaceX, Juan Hernandez, who is a welder that became an instant millionaire once the company went public.

The U.S. stock market is the single most democratic and effective tool of wealth creation anywhere in the world. If you start early enough, you can become wealthy by the time you retire by setting aside a small amount of money every month. If someone starts working at 25 years old making $60,000 per year, and invests 10% of their income in the S&P 500 index, they would most likely be a millionaire by the time they are 65. How is that possible? It’s mainly because of the wealth generated by companies like Tesla and SpaceX, who drive markets and job creation over many decades.

If you have a 401k, a Roth, or any other investment, you should be rooting for Musk’s success. His fate is financially tied to every American portfolio. If you are upset that Musk pays a lower effective tax rate compared to a school teacher, you may want to consider the political advocacy for a flat tax rate, or the elimination of tax burdens from the bottom 50% or earners, as Jeff Bezos proposed.

What the past week has revealed is two different Americas. One in which the successful are lauded for their accomplishments, encouraged to forge onward, and do so with great pride in their nation and communities. And the other America, which is ever-critical, envious, and seeks to solve poverty by capping prosperity. Let’s hope that Warren fails in her mission to tax wealth, so we can all retire with our SpaceX funded portfolio.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Depending on which news network you watch, you may have heard differing reports regarding the trial and prosecution of Karmelo Anthony, who murdered a white 17-year-old student at Memorial High School in April of 2025. Because of the racial dynamics of the case, it appears that various stakeholders and onlookers perceive the reality of what happened very differently depending on their own preconceived racial notions. Here are some interesting inconsistencies I noticed depending on which coverage I tuned in to.

Claim: The Surveillance Video Was Not Relevant

According to NewsNation, the athletic track surveillance footage was so grainy and far away during rainy weather, that the reporter doubted whether it would be decisive to either side in the court case.

“This video from what I saw, the question I have, is will they be able to enhance it and to zoom in? Because what I saw happened very quickly and there was no obvious altercation before. It could be a case where both sides will see what they want to see.” -Rich McHugh, NewsNation

With the guilty verdict arriving from the jury with less than three hours of deliberation, we now know many of the witnesses called by the defense were contradicted by the security footage. One witness, for instance, had initially claimed that Karmelo was surrounded by athletes of the opposing team, and they were acting aggressively towards him. The footage was apparently clear enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the entire jury that the only crowd that gathered was around the victim, Austin Metcalf, after he had been stabbed by Anthony. A second witness called by the defense claimed to have seen the moments leading up the stabbing, but the footage was clear enough to show he was not facing the tent leading up to the incident. It appears that the surveillance footage was actually quite relevant to the prosecution and conviction, yet some media reports were hoping to convince us otherwise.

Claim: Austin Metcalf Attacked Karmelo Anthony

One of the primary arguments made by the defense was that Anthony acted in self-defense. If he had feared for his life and Metcalf had initiated life-threatening violence against him, then the stabbing would have been justified. This led some major news outlets to claim early on that Metcalf has seriously physically attacked Anthony.

“Anthony was in the tent, was asked to leave, he was being confronted and in some ways intimidated and provoked by larger athletes. And he was fearful for his life and pulled out that knife and used it because he thought he was going to be harmed.” -Areva Martin, CNN

During the trial, 21 different witnesses were called by the prosecution, with all 21 claiming that while Metcalf had indeed approached Anthony, he only lightly pressed his hands into his shoulders. It was a light enough touch that Anthony did not appear to lose his balance or even sway backwards. The jury viewed this as non-life threatening action, and so the self-defense claim was rejected by the jury. This light shove was also reportedly captured in the surveillance footage, although that video has not been released to the public, and likely won’t be. It is notable that Areva Martin made that claim on CNN after the guilty verdict, and after the testimonies in the case were made public. Yet, she continues to claim that Metcalf was the aggressor. I’m not sure what motive she has for making this claim, but I assume it is to foment racial tensions for political gain.

Claim: It Was An All White Jury

Another claim is that the jury selection intentionally excluded three potential jurors because they were black. According to independent outlets, two of the potential jurors were teachers, which led the prosecution to correctly argue that teachers may have preferential views towards students, which both Metcalf and Anthony were at the time of the stabbing. The third potential black juror was excluded because he said he would "...have a hard time putting a brother in jail."

After the guilty verdict, CBS aired an interview with Anthony’s parents repeating the false claim that the jury was “all white”.

“You have a young black man who has now been charged with the murder of a young white man by an all white jury in Texas. We know there are facts and challenges to the inclusion of black jurors by the defense attorneys for Anthony, and those challenges were not recognized by the court.” -Areva Martin, CNN

Media reports indicate “Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern individuals” were on the jury, including a woman in a hijab. Other reports indicate at least one of the Asian individuals was Indian. It’s interesting to note that Hispanics in particular are often referred to as “brown people” when news media and politicians are objecting to the enforcement of immigration laws. However, when a Hispanic participates in a prosecution seen as racially-charged, suddenly they are considered white.

I think my biggest takeaway from this murder trial has been the realization that many Americans are now operating in a reality where racial identity is the primary arbiter of what an individual believes to be true. Right and wrong, good and evil, good guy and bad guy, are all viewed through a racial lens- making any nuanced determination of guilt or innocence virtually impossible. It even motivates people into believing a diverse jury is all white, or that the victim is really the perpetrator. In the end, it breeds resentment and hate, which we should all be dismayed to see.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Warning: All Topics Are Controversial

Every time a controversial event occurs in the United States, the mainstream media covers the story in a way that is beneficial to their preferred political party and corporate sponsors. The coverage utilizes language that portrays news stories in different lights to either overly dramatize or overly downplay certain events, with the motive to either incite outrage or quell it, depending on which is politically beneficial. Among these news coverages is a term that should trigger an immediate red flag to any discerning viewer, that being “so-called”. Once you hear this term on your next newscast, you won’t be able to unhear it. Here are just a few examples.

The So-Called “Don’t Say Gay Bill”

The Lie:

In 2022, the mainstream news sounded the proverbial alarm over a new Florida bill that would “stigmatize queer identities, isolate LGBTQ+ youth, and create a hostile school environment.” The prevailing narrative was that school teachers and educators would be banned from discussing any and all references to homosexuality and LGBT issues, hence the name “Don’t Say Gay Bill”. It would also lead to Nazi-esque book bans in Florida school libraries, in order to erase LGBT representation from curriculum.

The Reality:

Florida’s HB1557 bill was actually called “Parental Rights In Education Bill”, and far from attacking or stigmatizing any specific 2SLGBTQIA+ people (2-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, plus), it actually sought to ensure that curriculum was age-appropriate. Not only does the law require that instruction on these topics in higher grade levels be “age-appropriate” or “developmentally appropriate” (meaning LGBT topics are still discussed), it also required schools to notify parents of any changes to a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. As a parent, I cannot imagine my child expressing signs of gender dysphoria or suicidal ideation, and NOT having the school inform me. Sadly, this has happened in California numerous times.

While critics claim that any censorship is akin to “book banning”, the truth is that all schools must ensure that curriculum is age appropriate and not licentious. They would hopefully never allow pornography, after all. Well, here are a couple pages from the book titled Gender Queer, that was made available to some ELEMENTARY school students across the country.

Even an adult section at a public library must inevitably exclude certain titles. Obviously, not every book ever printed can be included in a free public library, let alone an elementary school library. I believe we should exclude books that discuss “vagina slime”, or are otherwise clearly degenerate and inappropriate, which is part of what the Florida bill accomplished. It’s important to note that school teachers in Florida can still discuss gay identity in the context of history, civil rights, and other educational contexts. So they can, in fact, still say “gay”.

The So-Called “Conversion Therapy Laws”

Read more

Supranatural: Greek. Beyond or transcending the laws of nature.

With the decline of religiosity in the modern era, the societal need for greater meaning has led many individuals to embrace political movements as their higher authority. One key aspect of most religions is the belief in supernatural occurrences. As someone who has dipped their toes in the waters of Christianity, I understand the need for faith in the improbable in order for institutions to maintain legitimacy. The resurrection of Christ is of course the most famous example of a supernatural occurrence. While there is no direct evidence of Christ’s rise from the grave (aside maybe from the shroud of Turin), there is ample indirect evidence found within the plethora of first-hand accounts and eyewitness testimonies. This overwhelming and vast amount of well-preserved documentation lends itself well to the believability of the event. However, there are a couple of reasons why many Christians don’t convert to the oldest and most popular sect - Catholicism. A foundational pillar of Catholicism is the sacrament of the Eucharist. According to Catholic doctrine, during the Mass, the bread and wine undergo a miraculous change called transubstantiation. While the physical appearance, taste, and texture remain the same, the underlying reality - the “substance” - completely transforms into the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. So while the chemical makeup of these inanimate objects would be no different in a laboratory test, the Catholic faith teaches that the underlying spiritual reality of these objects has been completely replaced. As both a spiritual person, and a person of reason and logic, I have a difficult time accepting that the wafers and wine become spiritual embodiments of Jesus. But there is one modern supernatural belief that is perhaps even less believable.

The Left’s Eucharist

Leftists and progressive advocates generally view gender identity as distinct from biological sex, meaning a person’s deeply held internal sense of being a woman is what defines their gender, rather than biological markers or an arbitrary requirement for medical procedures. From the progressive and mainstream psychological perspective, a person who transitions is a woman because the word “woman” refers to a social and psychological gender identity, not a biological sex. Gender identity is determined through self-reporting and psychological assessment, rather than a physical medical test. From a strictly physical and materialist perspective, it is a factual statement that gender identity does not exist as an independent, tangible object that can be weighed, measured, or physically isolated in a laboratory. Leftists argue that thoughts, feelings, and identities are the result of physical neural pathways and biochemical reactions in the brain. Therefore, while we lack the technology to “read” a gender identity via a scan, the internal experience itself is a product of a physical organ (the brain) and is real to the person experiencing it. However, philosophically and structurally, the two arguments follow the exact same logic regarding the limits of scientific testing.

In both cases, you have a debate where one side relies on external, physical evidence and the other side relies on an invisible, internal reality. A scientist can test the consecrated bread from your church’s morning Mass in a laboratory, and the results will show 100% bread molecules and DNA. From a purely materialist perspective, it is just bread. However, a Catholic believes the fundamental reality (the substance) has completely changed into Jesus, a transformation that science cannot detect. Similarly, scientist can test a transgender “woman’s” DNA, and the results will show XY chromosomes and male biology. From a purely scientific perspective, the sex is male. However, a progressive believes the fundamental internal reality (the gender identity) is a woman, an internal state that physical medical tests cannot detect. I believe it’s therefore fair to state that transgenderism has become the religion of the Left. Like any religion, it requires faith that supernatural transformations occur outside the realm of measurement and materialist evidence.

Et Veritas

Ultimately, both of these massive cultural and philosophical belief systems exist because human beings disagree on how to define truth. One school of thought argues that material, physical reality is supreme. If the laboratory test says it is bread, it is bread. If the DNA test says it is male, it is male. Anything else is an illusion, a misunderstanding, or a matter of faith. Another school of thought argues that there is a invisible reality that reigns supreme. They believe that physical matter does not always tell the whole story, and that the true essence of an object (through faith) or a person (through psychology) can exist directly at odds with what our eyes can see.

Supposedly, approximately more than 500 people saw Jesus alive after his resurrection. But we still have to ask ourselves, do we believe the first hand accounts of our ancestors?

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

As a young man I was once hopeful and optimistic that society’s issues could easily be solved, if only we had the courage to pass common-sense legislation. With every election cycle comes the predictable promises from politicians that they can solve all your problems. They tell us that highly complex issues can be solved by either throwing more money at them, or by passing pork-filled legislation that needs to be rammed through Congress immediately. Here are some reminders that this is not only rarely true, but the opposite usually occurs - pain is inflicted on the vast majority of citizens who bear the cost of naïve policies.

The Affordable Care Act

In December of 2008, the cultural and political atmosphere of the nation reflected the hopeful and optimistic messaging that got Barack Obama elected in a decisive victory. You could feel the positivity from friends and neighbors, especially in the immediate days after the election. By the summer of 2009, I remember driving to work in my Dad’s old Saab, listening to NPR. The breaking news was a bill in the early stages of being drafted, called the Affordable Care Act. I heard Obama’s voice playing on the FM radio, it was absolutely inspiring. His speech included rhetoric like this:

"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold." -Barack Obama, June 6, 2009

“We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.” - Barack Obama, October 4, 2008

“What you’ll find is that your Doctor, or network, or hospital, is probably in-network (ACA) and will increase access for most Americans” - Barack Obama, March 14, 2014

When I heard his words, I believed him, and truly thought the legislation could bring about positive change. The harsh reality is that the ACA was poorly designed, hastily written, and a gross overreach of federal government authority. People weigh the value of insurance against the likelihood they’ll need to use it, and young people view the price of health insurance to be astronomically high compared to what they believe is the very low likelihood that they’ll need to see a doctor. The ACA tried to address this issue by threatening tax refunds, but the penalty was low enough, and the cost of healthcare high enough, that most young people opted to pay the uninsured penalty. Before the Act even took effect many people warned that this would lead to a death spiral where a disproportionate number of those paying the premiums would be people with chronic health conditions who were virtually guaranteed to use more in benefits than they were paying in premiums. This would drive premiums up (it did), and lead to thinner policies with astronomically high deductibles (it did). Insurers would leave the marketplace (they did), leaving some areas with few or no insurers offering policies through the marketplace. The Act was an overreach because the federal government never had the authority to force states to accept the Medicaid expansion, nor did they have the authority to impose a penalty on people for not buying insurance.

Here is the reality of what happened once the ACA was passed:

• Up to 9.3 million people lost their coverage during the first open enrollment period.

• As many as 214,000 doctors opted-out of participating in Obamacare exchange plans.

• Premiums increased by about 60% in the first four years.

• Insurance premium amounts varied in increase from $2,524 for an individual between the ages of 31 and 40 to $12,040 for a family headed by someone over age 60.

• Hundreds of thousands of health care providers opted-out of Obamacare exchange plans.

• Obamacare did not protect patients from bankruptcy. Research from a left-leaning organization found no evidence Obamacare reduced the proportion of bankruptcies driven by medical debt.

• Obamacare did not protect patients from dying. A 2019 study found there was no reduction in mortality for those that participated in Obamacare, meaning that enrollment in Obamacare had the same impact as having other forms of coverage or no coverage at all.

• Average per-person healthcare spending has more than doubled since 2008, while family employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have also more than doubled, hitting an average of $26,993 per year.

Spirit Airlines Anti-Trust Bust

In April of 2022, JetBlue proposed the acquisition of Spirit Airlines in order to rival a previously planned merger between Spirit and Frontier. By March of 2023, the Biden DOJ sued to block the merger. They claimed that Spirit Airlines provided valuable competition in a very expensive market, so their absorption into JetBlue would eliminate a low-cost option for consumers. They claimed the merger was illegal under federal anti-trust laws, because it would create too much of a monopoly.

Here is the reality of what happened once the Spirit/JetBlue merger was blocked:

• The immediate dissolution of the airline resulted in the termination of approximately 14,000 direct Spirit employees (including pilots, flight attendants, and corporate staff) and thousands of third-party contractors whose livelihoods depended on the carrier.

• Without JetBlue’s $3.8 billion injection, a weakened Spirit could not manage its massive debt pile.

• Because the shutdown happened with virtually zero notice, operations ground to a halt overnight. This stranded thousands of travelers at airports and left millions of existing ticket holders with useless bookings, forcing them to pursue chargebacks through credit card companies.

• The original goal of blocking the merger was to prevent JetBlue from raising Spirit’s low fares. Instead, Spirit's total removal from the market completely eliminated America's largest ultra-low-cost pioneer, causing airfares to surge nationwide.

• Following Spirit Airlines’ sudden liquidation on May 2, 2026, average U.S. domestic airfares for the summer surged by 27% compared to last year.

No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law by George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. The act introduced strict, test-based accountability to American public schools in order to reduce disparities between lower-performing and higher-performing students and districts. It was truly a pioneering piece of legislation in the pursuit of equity, and the results have been staggering.

Here is the reality of what happened once the NCLB Act was passed:

• Schools drastically reduced instruction time for subjects not featured on state standardized tests.

• Art, music, history, physical education, and foreign languages were frequently downsized or entirely eliminated to maximize time for reading and math.

• Teachers shifted from fostering critical thinking and deep comprehension to drilling students on specific test-taking strategies.

• To avoid federal penalties, several states actively lowered their passing benchmarks to make exams easier, and even today many schools keep passing struggling students along to the next grade to keep their enrollment data looking as stable as possible.

• High pressure, low morale, and the threat of job loss based on student scores caused massive teacher attrition and a national shortage.

• The pressure to hit unrealistic targets led to massive cheating scandals nationwide, where administrators and teachers actively altered student answer sheets.

And Much Much More

These three examples are only a proverbial drop in a massive bucket of policies that have had horrid unintended consequences. Cash For Clunkers, The Patriot Act, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and much much more. We should all be wary the next time a politician gets on national TV and promises to solve any issue with a simple piece of legislation. Let's instead call for reserved and calculated changes that unarguably improve the daily lives of everyday Americans. Automating yearly tax filings, increasing standard deductions, and regulating artificial intelligence are all massively popular bipartisan goals that could immediately benefit the American people. American just needs to demand it.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

The advent of Artificial Intelligence has caused panic among workers in various industries, and for good reason. There’s a very real probability that millions of white-collar workers will be replaced in the near future. Some people I’ve talked to are not worried about losing their jobs, either because they serve a function that can’t be practically replaced by a computer, or they work in an industry that is relatively insulated from automation, such as defense contractors. But the truth is that we should all be mindful of the development of AI, and take it into consideration when deciding where to live and who to vote for. That’s because job replacement is only one aspect of the looming threat.

Climate Change, Or Human Welfare?

In the span of just a few years, Bill Gates’ messaging on the seriousness of climate change has completely shifted. In a speech at Harvard University five years ago, he said:

“Climate change will make life essentially unlivable at the Equator by the end of the century, leading to the instability of hundreds of millions of people trying to get out of those regions where a lot of the world’s population is, and particularly the poorest in the world… Avoiding climate disaster will be one of the greatest challenges humans have taken on.” -Gates, February 22, 2021

Meanwhile, the Bill Gates of today has a different outlook.

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization… Fortunately for us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. Our climate strategies need to prioritize human welfare. This may seem obvious—who could be against improving our lives?—but sometimes human welfare takes a backseat to lowering emissions, with bad consequences… we should measure success by our impact on human welfare more than our impact on global temperature.” -Gates, October 29, 2025

We’re suddenly obligated to pursue human welfare, and even things like reducing carbon emissions shouldn’t happen if it has a negative impact on human welfare. This rhetoric shift towards the fight for human welfare instead of against climate change, at surface level, is a positive thing. Obviously, human welfare should always be society’s priority, and the threat of climate change has never been as serious as governments and corporations would have you believe. But I’m willing to bet this notable change in messaging isn’t due to Gates’ discovery of research that changed his opinion. No, I doubt he read anything by climate researchers like Patrick J. Michaels or David Legates. Instead, this sudden change is motivated by something far more insidious. Gates still retains an ownership stake in Microsoft, and as it happens, the company is currently heavily investing in AI and data centers.

Human Welfare: AKA Public Good

Companies like Microsoft don’t want environmentalists and climate change activists to stand in the way of their data centers, which is one reason his messaging has changed. Also consider that ‘human welfare’, or ‘the public good’, is the standard requirement to initiate a claim of eminent domain. If the government can demonstrate that your home stands in the way of “the public good”, they can seize your home and property. Historically, public utilities like power companies would often petition the government for land seizure in order to provide electricity to an entire town or region. Oil and gas companies frequently use eminent domain to acquire private land for pipelines, storage tanks, and related infrastructure. But increasingly, we’re seeing AI companies pursue eminent domain claims in order to expand. Even if you feel your job is safe from AI, consider that your house may not be. More than a dozen farmers in Kentucky recently received threats that eminent domain would be used to seize their land for a data center.

Data centers can strain power grids, drain local water supplies, contaminate soil and fragment wildlife habitat…

…Not everyone is holding out; some Mason county farmers have agreed to sell if the project proceeds. “You can’t blame them,” Grosser acknowledges. “Giving them 10 million bucks for a farm?”

Those who refuse to sell say the utility company has warned it may invoke eminent domain – the government power to seize private property for public use. The threat isn’t empty: Dominion Energy used it against a Virginia farmer last April.

-Credit, ABC News

But do AI data centers produce a public benefit in the same way that a power plant or gas company does? In my opinion, the answer is obvious - no. Using ChatGPT to help write a blog post or complete a school report is not in the same public interest as having running water or a functioning electrical grid. Ironically, data centers often compromise water quality in the regions they inhabit, and electrical costs for citizens who live nearby always skyrocket. If anything, the argument can be made that AI data centers harm human welfare. And that’s an argument we should urge our government representatives to make on our behalf.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Watching reality TV with my wife, I noticed how often swear words had to be bleeped out. A leftover censorship tool from publicly broadcasted reality TV of the 1990’s, the infamous bleep started with Jerry Springer and spread to all major reality shows. Shows like Below Deck, which is what we were watching at the time, still have to use these bleeps in order to conform with FCC guidelines on decency if they are broadcast publicly. I don’t watch much TV, and when I do, it’s not reality TV. Since the advent of Netflix, I had gotten so accustomed to hearing foul language without censorship that hearing a bleep actually felt surprising. But what child or teenager isn’t already exposed to excessive swearing on the platforms they most certainly use more often than broadcast TV? Netflix, HBO, Prime Video, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook - they all allow foul language, and these are the apps the youth spend all their time on today. While most apps technically censor content for children, kids often bypass safety filters by claiming they are over 18, with some studies showing rates of over 80% on certain platforms.

Researchers also now tell us that the average age of porn exposure is around 8 years old. Yet our Desperate Housewives episodes still bleep out the f-bomb? At first it doesn’t make sense, until you realize we are surrounded by regulations, customs, and processes that were designed for an entirely different version of people, and thus, a different country. A few years ago I visited Red Rocks Amphitheater in Colorado, a state that had just legalized recreational marijuana use. As I hiked around the stadium and some beautiful trails, I noticed various “no littering” signs posted about the park. Being a major tourist attraction in the area, the park was filled with families and young children running around. Yet standing at the peak of one of the trails soaking in the view, were two young men smoking a marijuana joint. The smell was atrocious, and many of the foreign tourists (from more civilized countries) were visibly disturbed. The irony was one of the “no littering” signs nailed to the post beside them. In that moment it struck me how absurd our laws have become that smoking a joint in front of little kids is totally fine, but tossing it on the ground would be a crime.

Consider the advent of Flock cameras, which are now using AI to track your vehicle movements on every major roadway in the country. A private corporation is storing this information and selling it to law enforcement on a regular basis, yet a police officer must have probable cause before pulling you over. This creates another absurd dichotomy where the surveillance state exists alongside our fourth amendment protections that were created decades ago.

I believe the sad reality is that the vast majority of children are no longer allotted an innocent and swear-free childhood in this country, and our fourth amendment right to privacy went out the window the day the first Flock camera went up. Our laws and physical/digital infrastructure no longer reflect the society we have become, and the culture that we have unfortunately transformed into.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

Estimated Read Time: Medium - About 6 Minutes

Stories are the most dangerous technology created by mankind. A weapon can destroy a city, a story can destroy a culture’s capacity to rebuild one. Society needs stories to shape its outlook and values, to inspire and encourage people to greatness. The modern role of media and entertainment is no longer to pursue artistic visions that inspire people to greatness or tell a thrilling story. It’s to push a certain (often political) message. That messaging then takes priority over the artistic vision, often at its expense. Even in cases where the artistry is considered relatively high level, the political messaging totally kills the emotional impact of the film. While great art appeals to every human, terrible art is only embraced by the few who share its niche messaging.

The Art Is Secondary To “The Message”

Watching the new hit TV show The Pitt, I was met with an excruciating scene where a young boy blew off two of his fingers with a firework. Because alcohol was involved and the legal guardian was a sibling, Child Protective Services comes in to do an investigation. While questioning the older sister, she tells her sob story of why their parents aren’t in the picture. The frenetic pace of the show came to an abrupt stop so we could get a 10 minute lecture about how the evil ICE agents deported their parents back to Haiti. Regardless of where you stand on immigration enforcement as a political matter, can we not all agree this scene is poorly written, poorly acted, and so obviously pushes an agenda that it kills any chance of actually being persuasive?

It’s notable that no patients in the show are victims of illegal immigrants in any way. No, the complex reality of illegal immigration is distilled into a farcical and cartoonish plot beat that is so predictable and one-sided, it will make your eyes roll to the back of your head. The very next scene features a patient dealing with PCOS, who is told by a doctor that it is a really tricky diagnosis. The patient, a Black woman, shoots back at her that it sounds like an excuse for lazy doctoring and that no one listens to Black women. At this point my eyes were rolling into the stratosphere. The sad part is the show was otherwise really great, and relatively apolitical until this episode. It’s really sad that the messaging of modern politics supersedes the desire for creators to just make great art. Amazingly, every jerk in the show also happens to be white. What are the odds?

Parasitic Ideology

Think of the 2019 movie Parasite, where a poor family infiltrates the home and lives of a wealthy family. It features great acting, great cinematography, a tense music score - all of the ingredients needed for a great movie. It even won the Academy Award for Best Picture. But by the end of the movie it’s clearly a depressing, anti-capitalist slog with only one boring message: wealth inequality is bad. Never mind the fact that the absolute poverty rate in South Korea is one of the lowest in the world, never mind the fact that their communist neighbor to the north employs the political machinations the Parasite director and Hollywood celebrities no doubt embrace, and is one of the most despotic countries in existence. Never mind the fact that in 1950 over half the population of South Korea lived in absolute poverty, and now thanks to free global economic trade it’s only 0.2%. The movie practically says “Ignore your lying eyes. Embrace our left-wing economic political message.”

But that’s the real ‘tell’ as to whether a piece of media is actually great or just appears to be. Regardless of whether it’s left or right wing political slant, if you finish a film and feel like you’ve been lectured to, rather than inspired or enticed into thinking deeply about a topic, you can be sure that movie not only sucks as art but is also pure propaganda. It’s the same reason Christian rock music sucks, you’re literally being preached to. Somewhere in Hong Kong, Milton Friedman’s ghost looks on, wondering how American Media and Politicians have mustered the gall to not just make terrible “art”, but to use it to push the most dangerous ideology known to mankind.

It Kills Your Heroes And Wears Their Faces

Luke Skywalker is arguably one of the most recognizable characters in movie history. Even after Darth Vader killed his father-figure, obliterated entire planets, and sought to rule the galaxy with an iron fist, Luke’s heroic journey famously led him to forgive his father in his dying moments. Anakin’s ultimate return to the light side demonstrates the Christian concept of redemption, offering hope that no one is beyond forgiveness. The message of forgiving the sins of your father is deeply rooted in Christian mythos, which George Lucas openly admits in his behind-the-scenes production videos. Anakin was also a messianic figure from a fatherless birth, Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrifices himself so that the light side can fight on, and Han converts from scoundrel smuggler to faithful servant of the light. These themes inspired a generation of young people and generated a multi-billion dollar franchise.

After being purchased by Disney in 2012, we have gotten Star Wars stories such as The Force Awakens, where Luke is now depicted as a washed-up old hermit who’s abandoned everyone he loved. His limitless hope and optimism is replaced with apathy and callousness. The very idea that definitive good exists and is worth pursuing is tossed into the ocean (literally). Luke refuses to train Rey because he is checked out of silly conflicts like good vs evil. Long gone is the wise black-clad Jedi Knight from the finale of Return of The Jedi. In his place exists a hollowed out facsimile of Luke, one that embraces the depressing and atheist outlook of modern progressivism. Good and evil are subjective, nothing really matters, and the only truth that exists is the one you tell yourself.

Then in 2024 we got the critically acclaimed yet audience detested TV show Star Wars: Acolyte. In this fanciful imagining, a pair of twin sisters are born in a fatherless birth (sound familiar?), though this time as a result of the pagan chants of a coven of witches. The two sisters are played by one actress but depicted as opposite ends of the “force”. Osha is generally considered the light side sister, a young padawan and former member of the Jedi order, while Mae is the dark side sister, depicted as a dangerous warrior out for revenge. The story depicts the organized Jedi order (a stand-in for organized religion) as the bad guys. And the final episode has Osha killing her father-figure named Sol for his crimes against Aniseya, her “mother witch”. No forgiveness, compassion, or understanding. She smashes the patriarchy instead.

The heroes of Star Wars have been executed and replaced with poor replicas that have totally lost the moral and emotional appeal. These franchises are husks of their original selves, co-opted by champagne socialists in California whose only desire is for the rest of the world to share their modern enlightened sensibilities. The twin sisters in The Acolyte didn’t hesitate to kill their father figure for his sins, and moved on instantly. A similar trend has happened in everything from Star Trek, to Lord of The Rings, and even Snow White. The male characters in these modern remakes are all either unimportant or incompetent, while the female leads are all fearless and strong. What impact will that have on future generations of American men?

The newest HBO trailer for a reboot of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone depicts the famous Professor Severus Snape as a black man. This race swap within arguably the most beloved fantasy series in American culture has triggered a cascade of criticism throughout the entertainment industry. This casting actually changes the story quite a bit. Severus Snape’s character arc in the novels is defined by persecution at the hands of James Potter, and this cruelty drives him towards the Death Eaters and Voldemort. These precursor treatments early in the novels, along with the rejection from Lily Potter, shape him into the dark and mysterious character we all know him as. However, when Severus is a black man, and his tormenters are white, the complexity of the story collapses. The audience will no longer perceive the persecution as simple school-yard bullying but rather as a racially motivated hate-crime. James Potter stops being a complicated figure who was cruel as a teen but developed into a good man, and becomes more of a KKK wizard rather than a magical one. Harry’s struggle with accepting that his father was once a bully gets traded out for simple disgust of his bigoted Dad.

You Become What You Do… And Consume

Aristotle believed that virtue is formed through habituation. You become what you practice, and what you repeatedly consume. Food, social interactions, and moral stories are all things we must consume not once in a while but everyday in order to materialize into a moral people. Movies and video games are a moral exercise our brains engage in every time we turn on the TV.

“The entertainment industry has chosen to tell stories of moral ambiguity without good and evil, for reasons that don’t involve sophistication but have more to do with convenience and cowardice. Morally grey characters are easier to write, and don’t require sacrifice and growth. Great characters who change or grow requires a writer who understands human nature. Moral ambiguity also produces lowered expectations. If no mainstream characters show restraint, courage, moral clarity, or sacrifice, then no leader or institution will be held to that standard in reality either. The morally grey narrative of modern media is not a reflection of the real world. It is a conditioning program with a goal of teaching young audiences that everyone is corrupt, that idealism is naïve, goodness is performative, and the only honest position is cynicism.”

-The Real Fake Wizard YouTube Channel

Moral ambiguity also allows writers to keep stories going indefinitely. Without a defined character arc, they can keep milking their franchises into the ground instead of creating new IPs. For all the admonishment of colonization, Hollywood directors and celebrities are always happy to invade your favorite media franchise and insert their political and ideological narratives. They always promise “faithfulness to the source material”, but they never keep these promises. If you have children and hope to share your enthusiasm for Harry Potter or Star Wars, do them a favor, and abstain from showing them any film from after 2012.

Sitting on the couch last weekend watching the reality TV show, Love Is Blind, with my wife, one of the contestants decided to not marry her boyfriend. Her main reasoning was that she felt she deserved better. Apparently she felt the spark between them had dwindled, and his head-over-heels behavior had dissipated after they had moved in together and lived with each other in an apartment for a few months. The poor lady is going to have a hard time finding a husband that meets her requirements, but I wished her luck and moved on with my day.

A while later I opened X to see a post by a former developer for the failed live-service video game Highguard. Within their manifesto they blamed content creators, gamer culture, professional critics, and just about everyone but themselves for the failure of their video game.

"Even if Highguard had a rocky launch, our independent, self-published, dev-led studio full of passionate people just trying to make a fun game, with zero AI, and zero corporate oversight… deserved better than this. We deserved the bare minimum of not having our downfall be gleefully manifested."

-Josh Sobel, former Highguard dev

I am one of over two million people who downloaded and played Highguard. The game didn’t fail because of content creators or pre-release humiliation rituals. It failed because the game was boring. I decided to close the X app and scroll through a couple Instagram reels. I immediately came across a woman complaining that her college degree did not instantly lead her to a life of wealth and prosperity. She claimed her degree and daily commitment to her job meant she deserved to be able to afford to own a home, but her starting salary out of school did not provide enough money. I scrolled to the next post, and Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar is on TV introducing the DIGNIDAD Act, saying it’s what 10 million illegal immigrants deserve.

Let’s put aside the fact that it’s rife with loopholes and leniency that would undoubtedly be exploited. Many Republicans support the bill, because they don’t actually represent their constituents. Do all illegal immigrants deserve automatic amnesty? In order for someone to deserve something, someone else has to owe that thing to them. The idea that American citizens owe anything to citizens of other nations is illogical. If anything, the U.S. government should focus on what its own citizens deserve. How many Americans have been killed by foreign truck drivers who can’t even read our street signs? How many of us have car insurance premiums spike because half the people on the road drive like they are still in their home countries? How many Americans avoid public transit or going for a jog because they don’t want to be the next Laken Riley?

As I closed social media for the day and started writing this post, I couldn’t help but feel like I was going crazy. Why does it seem like everyone in the world is only focused on what they feel they deserve out of life, out of other people, and out of the economy? To deserve something means to earn it. Do we all deserve everything we want simply because we want it? To quote Clint Eastwood, “deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it.” Obsessing over how unfair everything is, and how you aren’t being handed what you think you deserve will not accomplish anything. Quite the opposite, ruminating on what you believe you’re owed actively takes your time and energy away from working towards achieving your goals.

Our country has transformed over the last 40 years from one that focuses on what it can earn, to what it deserves. The truth is we must work with the reality we are dealt. In a sense, we all get what we deserve, which is nothing at all.

As the Joker once said, “You get what you ****ing deserve!”

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.

As I write this article, the United States is suffering from a devastatingly high cost of living, airport TSA lines are about 8 hours long, we are currently at war with Iran, and our Department of Homeland Security is not funded. Yes, the organization whose sole purpose is to thwart terrorist threats on American soil is not funded while we are simultaneously at war with an Islamic country in the Middle East. It’s no surprise then that as of this writing we’ve had five terrorist attacks in 2026.

• Michigan Synagogue Attack (March 2026): A man rammed his car into a synagogue, which was assessed by the FBI as a Hezbollah-inspired act.

• NYC Bombing Attempt (March 7, 2026): Two individuals were apprehended after attempting to detonate bombs at a New York City demonstration, with ties to ISIS suggested.

• Old Dominion University Shooting (March 2026): A gunman, previously connected to ISIS, opened fire on campus in Virginia.

• MacDill Air Force Base Plot (April 2026): Siblings were connected to a foiled explosive device attack at the Tampa, Florida facility.

• New Orleans Truck Attack (January 2026): 15 dead, and two police officers wounded in shootout with the driver, who was killed. An ISIS flag was flown from truck.

The Muslim population in the U.S. has more than doubled since 9/11/2001, and yet our Congressional representatives are on vacation at Disney World while terrorist-aligned entities activate across the country. If the Patriot Act forced us to relinquish our privacy, the least the government could do is provide some security. But lo and behold, it can’t even do that. In fact, even if the TSA was funded, it has a 95% failure rate. Republicans hold the majority in Congress and the Presidency, yet they refuse to force through any meaningful legislation, refuse to fund DHS, and refuse to pass the SAVE Act.

The shooter at Old Dominion last month, Mohammod Jalloh, remained a naturalized U.S. citizen even after being found guilty for providing material support for ISIS in 2017. One may wonder why his citizenship wasn’t revoked after doing the one thing that should earn him a one way ticket back to his home country of Sierra Leone. Trump was President, after all, and his CBP officers would have had full authority to deport him. Perhaps Miles Taylor, Trump’s DHS director at the time, who infamously authored the New York Times op-ed titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration”, is responsible for orders keeping him in the U.S. Either way, it’s clear that the Republican party is not just dysfunctional, but is as corrupt as their political rivals.

Republican candidates frequently run on promises to cut the deficit, shrink government, and keep us out of foreign wars. But Bush and Trump have both failed on delivering on any of these. The reality is that most Republican (and Democrat) politicians don’t actually represent their constituents. It’s why a political movement like ‘Yes We Can’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ can gain a fervent following only to completely disappoint their most passionate supporters. Politicians actually represent their wealthy donors, primarily the corporations who stand to profit from an excess supply of labor, from war in the Middle East, and from increased government spending. Things could change if we remove big money from elections, return the power to declare war to Congress, or institute term limits. Until then, we can expect the status quo.

Last week on March 28th, 2026, an alleged 7 million people marched at the “No Kings” protests. I don’t like Trump, and I look forward to the day he is no longer in the political realm. But the idea that he’s a King makes no logical sense. While the Republican party is corrupt and dysfunctional, it’s also hypocritical to support the Democrat party and march in these protests. Here’s why.

#1. Trump Won The Popular Vote

Kings are generally not voted into power. They historically gained power by virtue of being born into a monarchal political system, seized power through violent means, or maneuvered politically though royal marriages or land purchases. There is only one instance I can think of where a King was elected, Haakon VII of Norway. After Norway separated from Sweden in 1905, the government held a public referendum and citizens voted 79% in favor of inviting Prince Carl of Denmark to be King Haakon VII. King Haakon was already a Prince, and was hand-picked by the Norwegian government as the only option. It was not an open race where anyone else could join, you could only vote Yes/No. So even this exception is not a wholehearted example of Monarchy by ballot box. He was also the exception, not the rule. In other words, a King who was voted into power is an oxymoron. When a free democratic process is used to determine the elected head of an executive government, they are by definition not a King. The very fact that Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote means he isn’t a King, and the fact that he’ll be termed out in 2028 means he can never be one.

#2. The People Protesting Coronated Their Candidate

There was a remarkable moment in the run-up to the Presidential election in the summer of 2024. Biden quit on a Sunday. By Tuesday, the Democrat party’s queen was crowned. No primary. Ne debate. No ballot. Three days before people marched last week, every Senate Democrat voted against photo ID to vote. Talk about hypocrisy. But that’s how Democrats plan to keep power without wearing a crown. As the saying goes, “accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it, to sow confusion.”

#3. An Authoritarian King Would Not Permit Protest

The reason I started this blog is because on September 10th, 2025, a man named Charlie Kirk was peacefully debating college students in Utah when a deranged leftist shot him in the throat. Charlie was murdered for advocating for traditional values and mostly main-stream political ideas. For this, he was executed, and many Democrats and leftists celebrated his death. People danced on TikTok and exclaimed how happy they were a father was wiped off the face of the earth. When people wore Charlie’s “Freedom” shirt and marched to support him, they were assaulted too.

The violence used to suppress free speech is alarmingly concentrated on one side of the political isle. 75% of liberal students say preventing a speaker from talking is justified. 34% say using violence to stop them is acceptable. Kings decide what speech is allowed. If we really had a King, the “7 million” people who marched last week would have been met with bombs and bullets. But there is only one kind of person that gets a bullet when exercising their first amendment, and it’s a conservative.

#4. A Chinese Member of the CCP Is Funding The Protests

Neville Roy Singham is a former American tech mogul who fled to China and joined the Chinese Communist Party to escape justice in the U.S. Recent reports indicate he has been funneling millions of dollars to NGO’s and political activist groups to seed turmoil in American politics. In addition to fueling the anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unrest, and the Black Lives Matter riots, he is also being linked to the No Kings group that organized the protests. The No Kings website states “this is America, and power belongs to the people - not to wannabe kings or their billionaire cronies.” Apparently, they don’t see the irony of their signs, staffing, transportation, and everything else, being covered by a Chinese billionaire.

“Mr. Singham is actively fueling CCP propaganda and financing indoctrination efforts abroad by providing hundreds of millions of dollars to groups that mix progressive advocacy with CCP talking points. Despite this foreign activity and engagement with CCP-tied organizations across the world, Mr. Singham’s American-based nonprofit organizations continue to do business as usual, supporting political activity and pro-CCP propaganda.”

-Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo.

And it’s not just the Chinese communists funding these protests. Many domestic communists like George Soros fund them too. Here are some financial numbers that may shock you.

Beware The Herd

A good rule for life is to be wary of joining and aligning with causes that are powered by the emotional outrage of a large group of people. Buying into a political or moral movement carries with it an extreme amount of risk, as people’s capacity for violence and irrationality increase when they are in large groups. As Tommy Lee Jones once said: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it”. From the Salem witch trials, to Mao’s cultural revolution, mass hysteria is a real phenomenon that can overcome the senses of any compassionate and empathetic person. The emcee at the Minnesota's No Kings rally, Lizz Winstead, accidently had a “mask off moment”. Here she commands the crowd, “You can check your ego about what you want to do, and listen to the (No Kings) leadership, and when they tell you what they need done, you do that.” You would almost think it was satire, as she stands at a podium that says No Kings and declares “what we need is pack mules".

It’s not that I oppose people protesting generally. This country has the spirit of protest built into its DNA. My concern is more long-term oriented. As a child I fondly remember sitting on my mothers lap and reading the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. America needs two strong political parties to check each other. Unfortunately for us, Democrats have been crying wolf since 2016. From false accusations of Russian collusion, to false reports of election manipulation, false stories of Trump tear gassing protestors for a photo op at Saint Johns, and more - many people feel Democrats and left-wing media have squandered all credibility. I fear when a real threat comes along, especially if it has an ‘R’ next to its name, we won’t be in any position to heed the warnings.

Chuck Schumer. In office 46 years. Longer than Stalin.

Steny Hoyer. In office 45 years. Longer than Mao.

Mitch McConnell. 42 years. 5x longer than Napoleon.

Nancy Pelosi. 39 years. Longer than Henry VIII.

Maxine Waters. 35 years. Longer than Mussolini.

Bernie Sanders. 35 years. Triple Hitler’s reign.

Trump: 5 years and 3 month, won the popular and electoral vote. But he’s the King. Yea, right.

-Stan Price

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing legal arguments from the Trump administration on changing the eligibility of naturalized citizens. On March 28th, 2025, Italy changed its laws regarding the naturalization of Italian citizens based on descent, limiting eligibility to applicants with a parent or grandparent born in Italy. Their new law requires applicants to show stronger ties to Italy, limits remote ancestry, and mandates that future applications be centralized in Rome, with many in-person requirements. The law is facing challenges regarding its constitutionality, similar to the Trump administration changes, with appeal hearings set for 2026 which may influence final outcomes. But that begs the question, what is a citizen? And is Italy in the wrong for changing how it defines one?

Soil And Soul Combined

While a nation is a defined plot of land with borders and laws, citizens are the human souls that make a country what it actually is. To understand this practically and not just abstractly, imagine that every American in the U.S. was lifted and placed down in some other place, say, within the borders of Thailand. Simultaneously, imagine every Thai citizen was plucked into the air and placed within the borders of the U.S. Even though the roads, borders, and architecture are unchanged, America would no longer be the same country. Thailand would also no longer be Thailand. The humans within each respective area would fundamentally impact and change the environment within a few days - if not hours. It is therefore obvious and self-evident that a country is not just defined by its geographical borders but by the people who constitute it.

The founding fathers of the U.S. knew this, and they knew that it’s in the self-interest of every nation to ensure that the people within its borders are not just loyal to the homeland, but have the prerogative to adopt the values and culture as well. It’s why new American citizens are sworn to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and laws, bearing true faith and allegiance. While Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson generally supported immigration and valued its importance for economic growth, the importance of maintaining a cohesive culture was also understood. Language, music, religion, and other cultural aspects make up the foundation of the identity of a nation’s people. When I was in business school, we were taught that the concept that immigrants entering into a new nation were expected to adopt these values was called assimilation. While the teachings of assimilation may have fallen out of favor over the last 15 years, a new framework of thinking about immigration has dominated the mainstream.

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the (previous) Message, would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.”

-Alexander Hamilton

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

-Thomas Jefferson

The United States is now sparsely referred to as a “melting pot.” Instead, academics and politicians now push for all immigrants to retain their country of origin’s cultural values and ideals. This stems from the post-modern idea that all cultures are equal and deserve to be retained in perpetuity, but this is not only incorrect but dangerous. Some cultures pose a real threat to the stability and safety of western societies. The below video shows three South African men explaining the tactic known as “jack-rolling”, where one man rapes a woman and “rolls” her to the next man. It’s hard to know exactly how frequent these gang rapes occur in South Africa because they are under-reported. When they are, the perpetrators typically receive light punishments. This a great example of a cultural custom that should be excluded from the American diaspora, along with child marriages, animal sacrifice, and other evil acts.

The now famous quip “import the third world, become the third world”, has grown in popularity but lacks the nuance to explain why certain types of immigration have negative effects. I am an immigrant myself, and a healthy influx of new citizenry is vital to the flourishing of any great nation. It’s also possible for a strong nation to retain its “little Italie’s” and its “Chinatowns”, while expecting that the citizens within these neighborhoods uphold a baseline standard of decorum, behavior, and cultural participation. All cultures are not equal, and if we’re smart, we’ll incorporate those of general virtue within our cultural tapestry, and withhold those that degrade it.

Cogs Vs Beings

The fact is that humans are not interchangeable economic units. Many people defend mass migration by claiming that migrants are willing to work jobs that American citizens are unwilling to do. This claim ignores two realities. One is that there are millions of unemployed Americans who would be willing to fill these labor roles, even at the federal minimum wage. The second reality is that these U.S. workers are not hired because profit-focused corporations are happy to violate employment laws and hire illegal immigrants. The hiring of these immigrants naturally drives down the wages that would otherwise be offered to American workers. In other words, it’s not that immigrants are filling a labor market void left by lazy Americans, but rather immigrant workers prevent a labor demand that would otherwise raise wages. Companies like Tyson or General Mills would be forced to increase wages if their access to near slave-level labor was repatriated.

But there’s a third reality that defenders of mass migration don’t talk about. And that’s the fact that supplanting one human within a civilizational system that shares none of its cultural values and ideals fundamentally denies the humanity not just of the immigrant, but of the people who constitute the host country. It’s the equivalent to some politician unlocking your front door and allowing every homeless vagrant to enter your home and raid your fridge. On the other hand, if a homeless man asks to enter politely, and you do a background check, and they behave with fine manners and follow your house rules (no shoes on the carpet!), then by all means they have respected not just your humanity, but their own.

“Manners Maketh Man”

-Bishop William of Wykeham

Forza Italia

While immigration is an important driver of economic growth, there are a handful of things that are more fundamental to society than its annual GDP growth. Individual safety, national security, cultural cohesion, civil tranquility, and institutional trust are prerequisites for peace and prosperity that must come first. When you consider the realities that any nation must contend with, it’s understandable why Italy has recently changed its citizenship laws. The right of a people to self-determination includes the power to determine how their citizenry is obtained and defined. Italy’s new laws were not decreed by a king or dictator, but passed by the majority of the elected legislature and upheld by the courts. I suspect that the U.S. Supreme Court will similarly rule that Congress must act in order to change the naturalization process here. Italy seeks to preserve its sovereignty by making sure the populace retains some form of shared culture, and that doesn’t appear to me to be a bad thing.

Just kidding!

April Fools!

Estimated Read Time: Short - About 3 minutes.

Take a moment and picture in your head one of your ancestral relatives from about 200 years ago. Perhaps you imagine a farmer in tattered overalls, plowing a field until they’re exhausted. Maybe you envision a blacksmith or horse farrier, surrounded by dung piles and operating out of a rudimentary barn. Now imagine you are able to walk up and meet them. You say hello and they reply with a strange accent, or perhaps in another language entirely. Now that you have a picture of this ancestor in your head, ask yourself, do you think they’re smarter or dumber than you?

There’s a strong chance you imagined them being less intelligent than yourself. After all, if you handed them a smartphone, they wouldn’t have the faintest idea of what the device does, how to operate it, or how it works. Binary computer code, cell tower microwave radio frequencies, silicon based microprocessors - these are all materials and engineering concepts that are vastly more complicated and harder to conceptualize than the quaint farming and equine equipment of the 1700’s. But does that actually mean you’re smarter than this humble ancestor that stands before you?

The Flynn Effect

The Flynn Effect refers to the long-term, substantial increase in intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century, averaging about 3 IQ points per decade. Named after researcher James Flynn, this trend suggests that environmental factors, rather than genetics, dictate the intellectual capabilities of a given population. Improving nutrition, increased access to education, smaller family sizes, and reduced environmental threats have allowed humans to train more in abstract and theoretical thinking rather than practical and concrete logic.

While we may test better in terms of IQ, it’s important to remember that an IQ test is just one type of measuring stick. A person in the early 1800s likely possessed superior “practical intelligence” for their environment, focusing on skills like animal tracking, celestial navigation, or mastering manual crafts like sewing. In other words, our brains have developed from young ages to solve very different problems compared to our ancestors, but our hardware remains unchanged. In cases where our ancestors did have access to quality nutrition and education, we find that they were actually quite intelligent and capable of abstract thought.

Lawyer, Soldier, Congressman

Henry Joel Scudder is one of my ancestors, born in Northport, Long Island in 1778. He graduated from Trinity College in Hartford in 1846, and opened his law office in New York City in 1848. After fighting in the Civil War, he was elected to the Forty-third Congress as a republican in the House representing New York constituents. There is a high probability that Henry had an IQ equal to or higher than myself, even though I have the benefit of living in the 21st century with modern technology and the advantages of instantaneous information. The writings and musings of well-educated and well-nourished people of the past suggest that the statistical increases in population IQ over the 20th century are due to greater access to resources and not a change in our biological hardware. In other words, our ancestors had the same intellectual capacity as we do, the bell-curve was just a little to the left due to their environmental conditions.

Starting in the 1990’s, IQ’s have started to slightly decrease leading to the reversal of the Flynn Effect. Researchers debate the causes, while there is some evidence that the advent of smartphones and social media have contributed to the reduction in our intelligence. If this trend continues, we may live in a world where our ancestors were smarter than us on average. Although we have access to more advanced technology, information, and nutrition, we shouldn’t think of our ancestors as dumb or simple-minded. Many great minds of the past contributed to science, philosophy, and engineering in incredible ways. Our path to learning is just a a fair bit easier.

Estimated Read Time: Short - About 4 Minutes

Ever since I was a child, my father would heat our home with an 18th-century ‘overnighter’ wood stove. Living in New England meant long and cold winters, so we’d burn about 4 cords of wood per year along with using the electric baseboard heat. (Each cord is about 4 feet high, 4 feet wide, and 8 feet long, for those of you not into lumbering). This meant that we spent many weekends throughout the year cutting down trees in order to stock up for the winter. Chain-sawing a tree down, hauling it home, splitting it, and stacking it onto plywood pallets covered with tarp was a rite of passage in my family. I hated it at the time, especially on a hot July day with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees. As a teenage boy, I would rather have been doing anything else with my time. As an adult, I can’t appreciate enough the lessons I learned.

From grocery delivery and online therapy to removing failure grades from public schools, our society treats struggle as a design flaw rather than a biological necessity. The reality is that struggle is inevitable. As Milton Friedman once said, “there’s no such thing as free lunch.” During one particularly bad blizzard, our home lost power - meaning our electric baseboard heat no longer worked. While this would be a dangerous situation for most families, our old-school wood stove kept us warm for two days until power was restored. That was the first lesson I learned. No matter how comfortable and easy modern technology can make our lives, it’s crucial to retain some forms of self-sufficiency. Being self-sufficient is an integral part of having any real autonomy. Our ancestors knew this as they trekked across the Great Plains and tamed the wilderness. Our society’s ‘slow death’ is the loss of our pioneer spirit: our ability to endure discomfort, take risks, and deal with turmoil. We’ve become dependent on Big Tech, Big Government, and Big Pharma to make our lives livable.

The second lesson came after taking a long hiatus from the sawing, hoisting, and splitting of those massive oak trees. I had gone off to college for my freshman year, my first time not living at home. I felt relieved I was now free of the grueling labor for several months. I also didn’t take part in athletics so I could focus on my grades. Returning home for winter break, I was drafted back into service, and immediately realized how weak I had become. After just a few hours, my muscles were sore, I felt dehydrated, and I was out of breath. The physical strength I had developed over the years had mostly dissipated.

As we finished loading the oak logs that evening in the snowy woods, the third lesson came just as unexpectedly. Our trailer, now full of weight, caused our two-wheel-drive vehicle to become stranded. Both drive tires lacked enough traction and ended up spinning themselves deep into the snow. We were cold, tired, hungry, and the sun was setting. Most people would probably panic, abandon their vehicle, and head out to the main road on foot to get help. My dad, on the other hand, stayed calm and thought through the situation. We didn’t have a winch, so getting the car free would require some creativity. He carefully went through our supplies and found two plastic snow shovels. He bent down next to one of the tires and dug out the snow in front of it by hand, then placed a shovel in the opening he made. He repeated this process on the other side, got in the car, and put it in drive. The wheels lurched forward, and rolled onto the plastic, now having enough traction to get out of the icy ruts. I realized that along with the physical aspect of resiliency, you need to have mental and emotional fortitude.

There’s no doubt every person will have struggle in their life, the only question is which struggles we will face, and how we will face them. When all else fails and there’s no cavalry coming, we need to step up to the plate as individuals. And so these are the three things we should all do to make sure we aren’t frail. Engage in some form of manual labor in our lives, especially if it helps us be self-sufficient. Learn to work on your car, fix furniture, mend clothing, or cut firewood. (Or operate an indoor propane heater, for those of us without wood stoves). Second, we should maintain some form of physical discipline. Lift heavy, hit the Peloton, or go for a run. Lastly, we should take a page from Winston Churchill’s style of leadership and stay stoic, even when things are at their worst. As he once said, “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

The Drama

Last week in a pre-race interview, seven time Formula 1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton was asked about his thoughts of bringing a Grand Prix race back to the African continent. His answer included, “I don’t like that the rest of the world owns so much of it (Africa) and takes so much from it, and no one speaks about it. I’m really hoping that those that are running those different countries all unite and come together and take it back. That’s what I want to see. Take it back from the French, take it back from the Spanish, take it back from the Portuguese, and take it back from the British.”

His comments sparked mass backlash online, leading many to ask how he would feel if Europeans said that about Africans who migrated and owned property in France and Britain? But this backlash actually misses the real point he was trying to make. I don’t think Lewis was trying to call for a racial expulsion of white Europeans (like in South Africa and Zimbabwe). Rather, he was calling for African nations to end their economic exploitation by corporations who are based in wealthy European countries. He’s really arguing for an ‘Africa First’ economic policy. Make Africa Great Again, if you will. Lewis is also a millionaire and wears a red hat all the time. Coincidence? Who knows. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts advocating for African tariffs in order to level the trade deficit.

The Paradox

Technologies meant to save the planet’s future are currently anchored in a labor and extraction model that looks hauntingly like the 19th century colonial occupation model. Wind turbines, storage batteries, electric vehicles, and solar panels all require rare earth minerals like copper, cobalt, and coltan, which are primarily sourced in African countries like Namibia and the Congo. The Congo in particular is the ultimate “resource curse” case study because these very minerals that should make it the wealthiest nation on earth are the drivers of its instability.

It started in 1890 when King Leopold II decided to start harvesting the rubber vines in order to fuel his corporation that manufactured inflatable tires. At the time, the King was the sole owner of the land and utilized brutal methods such as forced labor and tax quotas creating the “red rubber trade” that peaked in 1910. In 2026, the cycle persists. High global demand from companies like Tesla and Apple creates incentives for armed actors to seize mines. Rebel groups like M23 use physical violence to keep child slave labor and indentured servitude in use. They also ignore environmental regulations and siphon off the money coming in from these corporations in order to fund more conflicts in Africa. This echoes colonial extraction, where resources were stripped without local reinvestment, but now it’s compounded by the “green transition”. Our demand for smartphones and EVs mirrors the 19th-century rubber boom, where international demand for a resource bypasses the local population and funds armed conflict instead of schools and hospitals. The paradox is that the green technology that’s supposed to bring about social equity and environmental preservation is actually causing serious harm to both.

Lewis’ Real Mistake

The real reason Lewis Hamilton took so much backlash is due to the fact that all of the countries he listed in his interview are populated by predominantly white or fair-skinned people, giving the impression that his opinion is racially motivated. If he had included China in his list of countries who should be kicked out of owning African land, he would have saved face. Chinese firms dominate mining in Africa, and their lack of concern with human rights violations and environmental damage makes them the primary culprit of African destitution. In fact, China controls roughly 90% of mining operations in The Congo, and they established this dominance of the rare mineral supply chain using their insidious Belt and Road Initiative. This ‘debt-trap’ infrastructure investment is exponentially more harmful to African nations than the old colonial rubber extraction scheme. While some of the roads and shipping ports are technically leased (with some contracts extending over 99 years), in many cases the Chinese outright demand full ownership in perpetuity. Without owning these vital ports and roads, African nations are essentially forfeiting any chance of benefitting from future economic prosperity.

Believing that Africa should prioritize their own well-being and prosperity makes sense. It’s the same messaging that got Donald Trump elected. Foreign exploitation is allowed to happen in Africa because they lack competent and structured government leadership that values a nationalist agenda. Instead, the corrupt officials and warlords primarily seek self-enrichment and power.

While Hamilton’s comments came off as racially motivated and controversial, I think his heart is in the right place. He knows that foreign exploitation is one of the reasons Africa remains underdeveloped. He just didn’t do a great job communicating it. As the saying goes, “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.”

Perseverance (noun) - continued effort to do or achieve something, even when it is difficult or takes a long time.

In January of 1915, Ernest Shackleton’s ship, The Endurance, became frozen in an ice floe off the coast of Antarctica. For one year and four months, Shackleton and his men survived starvation, frostbite, and deadly seas. At one point in the final hike on foot across South Georgia Island, two of Shackleton’s men, Frank Worsley and Tom Crean, fell asleep after walking in the bitter cold for 24 hours straight. Shackleton immediately realized they would all die if they stopped to rest. He allowed his men to sleep for five minutes, then woke them up and told them they had slept for half an hour. This boost of morale and small break allowed them to finish the grueling 40 mile trek across unmapped mountains and glaciers, finally arriving to the safety of a whaling station. Their survival wasn’t just about endurance, as their ship name suggests; it was about perseverance.

In a world of TikTok and instant gratification, perseverance is a personality trait that’s quickly becoming extinct. It’s a human quality critical for the prosperity of any civilization. Overcoming great odds, triumphing over setbacks and failure, and obsessively pursuing success are what led to the invention of the printing press, the discovery of penicillin, and the landing of a man on the moon. The three main ingredients of perseverance are patience, focus, and determination.

Patience is critical because any long-term success requires waiting. Great feats can require waiting for enough money to start a venture, for the results of a series of tests, or for the economic climate to shift to a more opportune outlook. People today are increasingly impatient, according to recent research, most likely caused by on-demand technology and instant gratification. Studies show that over half of consumers will not wait more than 3 minutes in a store. Impatience is also a major driver of faster and more aggressive behavior on the road too. A 2025 study found that over 90% of drivers admit to aggressive driving, primarily to reach destinations faster. “Compared to the first study conducted in 2016, self-reports of honking in anger are up 47 percent and cutting other cars off is up 67 percent.” Our lack of patience not only means our daily lives are worse, but that our ability to accomplish long-term goals is severely diminished.

Another trait that is vital to long-term success is staying focused. In fact, staying focused on a goal even while you’re waiting patiently for part of your plan to come to fruition can be the difference between making it or breaking it. Short-form digital content (like TikTok or Reels) trains the brain to expect a “dopamine hit” every few seconds, making longer, slower activities feel under-stimulating. As a result, research shows that the average attention span has shrunk to about 40 seconds. Could you imagine the Houston control operators at NASA getting distracted by TikTok every 40 seconds while Neil was trying to land on the moon?

And finally, you need determination. Even when you’re failing miserably, continuing on is a necessity for greatness. When someone mentions the Wright brothers, we all immediately picture their legendary biplane that achieved first flight on the sandy beaches of North Carolina. Most people don’t realize the brothers went through a massive iterative process, experimenting with and refining over 1,000 different gliders in 1902 alone, before finally achieving powered flight in 1903. If they had given up after their 7th or even 8th major crash, they would not have achieved their glory and fame. They stayed determined despite the setbacks and great personal risk of early flights.

Many people I meet in life have goals or dreams that have gone unaccomplished for years. In many cases, they may lack the ability or motivation to even begin an endeavor. But once you get started, perseverance is the secret sauce that leads to success. Ernest Shackleton didn’t give up after he survived his ordeal on the Endurance. In September of 1921, he set out on his fourth attempt to cross Antarctica aboard a ship called the Quest. Unfortunately, on January 5, 1922, while the ship was moored at South Georgia (the same island where he had sought help years earlier), he died of a fatal heart attack at age 47. While I believe his perseverance was heroic, many people may only see stubbornness. Perhaps the only difference is whether or not success is eventually achieved. The type of man Shackleton embodied is becoming increasingly rare, and is even a historical oddity at this point. But these types of people are still out there, and they’re behind every great innovation and accomplishment across the globe. We should all strive to channel a little more Shackleton in our everyday lives.

Read Time: Medium - About 6 minutes

Americans have noticed a trend in international news in recent years. Oppressive policies have been implemented against citizens to an alarming degree across the West. Marco Rubio’s recent speech at the Munich Security Conference last week about uniting the West against the threat of managed decline received overwhelming applause from European diplomats. Here are all the ways our allies have fallen.

Canada

Canada has squandered generations worth of wealth, refusing to harvest the vast natural resources within their borders in order to prevent climate change and respect indigenous land. Canada is now poorer than Alabama, going from the world’s 9th richest country to 27th over the last 10 years, according to the Global Quality of Life Index. However, their economic decline is not the worst of their problems. The peak COVID years unearthed a distinct authoritarian trend in Canadian politics under Justin Trudeau. Churches were forcibly shuttered, family gatherings were raided by police, and a peaceful gathering of truckers was targeted by federal authorities. In the end, bank accounts were frozen, massive police responses broke up family dinners, and the Canadian people suffered. Add to this the recent atrocity that is the Medical Aid In Dying program, or MAID, and you have a recipe for the modern day Fourth Reich. In fact, assisted suicide has become so prevalent in Canada that as of 2024, 1 in 20 Canadians now die from this program, and the numbers are most likely even more dire as of 2026.

Canadian police arresting a family for gathering during New Years Eve 2021. Their crime? Six people in attendance.

Canadians often boast about their free healthcare, but stories like that of Mrs. B shed light on just how much “care” the Canadian government puts in “healthcare”. Mrs. B was an elderly woman in her 80’s dealing with ongoing health complications following a heart surgery. She required constant ongoing care due to her physical and functional decline, so she put in a request for hospice/palliative care. The request was denied by unnamed officials within the regional health system after she failed to meet the hospice criteria for end-of-life care. Apparently, she wasn’t close enough to death for the government to offer her care.

At that point, Mrs. B’s husband then reportedly asked for an urgent MAID assessment, which was quickly approved. She was euthanized within 48 hours. Stories like this are becoming extremely common in Canada. Other stories, like that of Kiano Vafaeian, show that being elderly is not a requirement for state sanctioned murder. He was euthanized at the age of 26.

Even if you aren’t looking to be euthanized, you will have a long wait to receive care. Canadian healthcare wait times have reached record highs, with a median of 28.6 to 30 weeks from general practitioner referral to treatment in 2024–2025, which is over 220% longer than in 1993. Over 3.7 million people are waiting for care, with emergency departments experiencing severe backlogs and some specialists reporting wait times exceeding 36 months. Reports indicate that over 23,000 people died while waiting for care in a single year. In fact in 2025, more than 105,000 people travelled outside of Canada to receive life-saving or life-altering care.

Mexico

In Peter Schweizer’s recent book, The Invisible Coup, he details how the Mexican drug cartels buy influence in U.S. politics through NGO’s, paid political activism, and campaign contributions. He alleges that Mexico uses its network of consulates, along with education programs and migrant outreach, to exert influence within U.S. borders, acting as a sovereign entity on American soil. The cartels fund politicians amenable to open borders because human and drug trafficking ranks among the most profitable industries for nefarious Mexican operatives (to the tune of billions of dollars). Given enough time, naturalized citizens and organizations representing Mexican interests will be able to significantly sway elections in states like New Mexico and Texas even more than they do now.

The recent strikes in Puerto Vallarta were a critical blow against the Jalisco cartel. Like the multi-headed Hydra of Greek mythos, another boss will inevitably take over. The U.S. must remain vigilant against the threat at its southern border, because unlike terrorist states like Jordan and Iran, Mexico is not an ocean away. We share a border with Mexico, notably the province of Tamaulipas, which is under a “Do Not Travel” advisory due to cartel terrorism. The U.S. State department recommends you hire armed security and get your will sorted before entering Tamaulipas, and it borders one of our most populace states.

United Kingdom

A recent story of a Scottish teenager wielding an axe and a hatchet to defend her young sister went super viral. This one incident gained massive traction due to the notoriety of massive gang rape groups that are springing up across the UK. In most cases, police and other government authorities are unwilling or unable to pursue justice for these heinous crimes. The most famous of these incidents involved the grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades. Add to the mass rape and Islamic migration a fervent rash of censorship, and we quickly see our closest civilizational sibling falling destitute.

People in the UK are now frequently arrested for expressing opinions on social media or flying the Union Jack. The impending Banter Ban will eliminate the last vestiges of free expression within pubs and private spaces. The UK is currently in dire trouble, and a victim of inadequate leadership. Some good news for the Tommies comes from political activist and millionaire Rupert Lowe, who recently announced the formation of Restore Britain, a new conservative party he hopes will be a course correction. He vows to deport illegal migrants, ban sharia law, and cut overbearing regulations in order to return to a high trust society.

Australia

Australia’s troubles are similar to all the others on this list. As of February 2026, their economy is characterized by an increase in inflation that has forced a recent increase in interest rates. High cost of living, stagnant incomes, and elevated inflation combined with a large welfare system are causing total government spending to reach 38% of GDP. Along with economic troubles, social unrest has occurred due to mass migration, leading to a series of nationwide protests and heightened social tensions. Approximately 32.3% of the Australian population (8.6 million people) was born overseas as of 2024, the highest proportion since 1892. Recent polling shows that 71% of Australians support a temporary pause on new migration until infrastructure and housing supply can catch up with population growth.

France

A common refrain among friends and family who visit Paris for vacation or work is now “it’s not like it used to be”. Like London or Barcelona, but to an even higher degree, Paris now has an unsustainable population of migrants seeking asylum and shelter. Tent cities in Paris, primarily occupied by refugees and migrants, are a persistent issue, with encampments frequently appearing along the Seine, in northern districts, and near metro stations like Stalingrad. Despite regular police evictions and dismantling, these camps quickly reform, driven by a shortage of housing for asylum seekers. This compounds issues with their struggling welfare system, which is suffering a severe and worsening financial crisis. Violent crime like homicides and theft, as well as property crimes and burglaries are at 10 year highs. Without serious sweeping changes, France will continue to decline.

Germany

Similar to France, Germany’s aging population, stagnating economy, and mass migration are jeopardizing it’s future. To fund welfare, infrastructure, and defense, Germany plans to borrow €180 billion in 2026 - the second-highest level in its post-war history. Migration has also been the primary catalyst for significant social unrest and political polarization in Germany over the last decade, reaching a fever pitch in 2024 after deadly knife attacks and car-rammings. These incidents have culminated with a recent YouGov poll showing 81% of Germans believe illegal immigration over the last decade has been too high. Another 75% say illegal migration has been bad for Germany. Fortunately, their recent policy changes with regards to immigration enforcement and welfare funding are steps in the right direction.

America

Standing alone at the gates of freedom stands one country in stubborn defiance. The same rebellious spirit that threw tea in the Boston harbor needs to act decisively to prevent the outcomes we see across the globe. We certainly have our own problems, from healthcare costs to our own forms of government overreach. But there is no other nation on Earth that protects the right to free expression and self-preservation quite like the United States.

This opinion is an effort to create a civilized discourse. If you support this mission, please subscribe - even for free. It really helps me out.