Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
My wife asked me why I was doing the dishes while sitting down.

Told her it's because I can't stand doing it.


My friends from New York talk about how tough their schools were.

I’m not impressed.

I'm from Texas.

My school had its own coroner.

We used to write essays like: “What I want to be IF I grow up...”


At the doctor's waiting room a man was sitting opposite a mother and her little daughter.

He asks the little girl, "Hi there, and how old are you?"

The little girl showed him 4 fingers to indicate she is 4 years old.

The man says, "That is nice, but can't you talk?"

The little girl replies, "Yes I can, can't you count?"


I fell asleep last night reading old magazines.

Woke up this morning with back issues.


Everyone, please don't ride with me if you're going to scream and grab the dashboard every time I run off the road.

It makes me nervous.

Quote of the Times;
“Reliance on a single foreign supplier can leave a nation vulnerable to extortion and intimidation. That’s why we congratulate European states such as Poland for leading the construction of a Baltic pipeline so that nations are not dependent on Russia to meet their energy needs. Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers.” – President Trump in 2018

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Triumph and Terror of Wang Huning by N.S. Lyons

One day in August 2021, Zhao Wei disappeared. For one of China’s best-known actresses to physically vanish from public view would have been enough to cause a stir on its own. But Zhao’s disappearing act was far more thorough: overnight, she was erased from the internet. Her Weibo social media page, with its 86 million followers, went offline, as did fan sites dedicated to her. Searches for her many films and television shows returned no results on streaming sites. Zhao’s name was scrubbed from the credits of projects she had appeared in or directed, replaced with a blank space. Online discussions uttering her name were censored. Suddenly, little trace remained that the 45-year-old celebrity had ever existed.

She wasn’t alone. Other Chinese entertainers also began to vanish as Chinese government regulators announced a “heightened crackdown” intended to dispense with “vulgar internet celebrities” promoting lascivious lifestyles and to “resolve the problem of chaos” created by online fandom culture. Those imitating the effeminate or androgynous aesthetics of Korean boyband stars—colorfully referred to as “xiao xian rou,” or “little fresh meat”—were next to go, with the government vowing to “resolutely put an end to sissy men” appearing on the screens of China’s impressionable youth.

Zhao and her unfortunate compatriots in the entertainment industry were caught up in something far larger than themselves: a sudden wave of new government policies that are currently upending Chinese life in what state media has characterized as a “profound transformation” of the country. Officially referred to as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “Common Prosperity” campaign, this transformation is proceeding along two parallel lines: a vast regulatory crackdown roiling the private sector economy and a broader moralistic effort to reengineer Chinese culture from the top down.

But why is this “profound transformation” happening? And why now? Most analysis has focused on one man: Xi and his seemingly endless personal obsession with political control. The overlooked answer, however, is that this is indeed the culmination of decades of thinking and planning by a very powerful man—but that man is not Xi Jinping.

The Grey Eminence

Wang Huning much prefers the shadows to the limelight. An insomniac and workaholic, former friends and colleagues describe the bespectacled, soft-spoken political theorist as introverted and obsessively discreet. It took former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin’s repeated entreaties to convince the brilliant then-young academic—who spoke wistfully of following the traditional path of a Confucian scholar, aloof from politics—to give up academia in the early 1990s and join the Chinese Communist Party regime instead. When he finally did so, Wang cut off nearly all contact with his former connections, stopped publishing and speaking publicly, and implemented a strict policy of never speaking to foreigners at all. Behind this veil of carefully cultivated opacity, it’s unsurprising that so few people in the West know of Wang, let alone know him personally.

Yet Wang Huning is arguably the single most influential “public intellectual” alive today.

A member of the CCP’s seven-man Politburo Standing Committee, he is China’s top ideological theorist, quietly credited as being the “ideas man” behind each of Xi’s signature political concepts, including the “China Dream,” the anti-corruption campaign, the Belt and Road Initiative, a more assertive foreign policy, and even “Xi Jinping Thought.” Scrutinize any photograph of Xi on an important trip or at a key meeting and one is likely to spot Wang there in the background, never far from the leader’s side.

Wang has thus earned comparisons to famous figures of Chinese history like Zhuge Liang and Han Fei (historians dub the latter “China’s Machiavelli”) who similarly served behind the throne as powerful strategic advisers and consiglieres—a position referred to in Chinese literature as dishi: “Emperor’s Teacher.” Such a figure is just as readily recognizable in the West as an éminence grise (“grey eminence”), in the tradition of Tremblay, Talleyrand, Metternich, Kissinger, or Vladimir Putin adviser Vladislav Surkov.

But what is singularly remarkable about Wang is that he’s managed to serve in this role of court philosopher to not just one, but all three of China’s previous top leaders, including as the pen behind Jiang Zemin’s signature “Three Represents” policy and Hu Jintao’s “Harmonious Society.”

In the brutally cutthroat world of CCP factional politics, this is an unprecedented feat. Wang was recruited into the party by Jiang’s “Shanghai Gang,” a rival faction that Xi worked to ruthlessly purge after coming to power in 2012; many prominent members, like former security chief Zhou Yongkang and former vice security minister Sun Lijun, have ended up in prison. Meanwhile, Hu Jintao’s Communist Youth League Faction has also been heavily marginalized as Xi’s faction has consolidated control. Yet Wang Huning remains. More than any other, it is this fact that reveals the depth of his impeccable political cunning.

And the fingerprints of China’s Grey Eminence on the Common Prosperity campaign are unmistakable. While it’s hard to be certain what Wang really believes today inside his black box, he was once an immensely prolific author, publishing nearly 20 books along with numerous essays. And the obvious continuity between the thought in those works and what’s happening in China today says something fascinating about how Beijing has come to perceive the world through the eyes of Wang Huning.

Cultural Competence

While other Chinese teenagers spent the tumultuous years of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) “sent down to the countryside” to dig ditches and work on farms, Wang Huning studied French at an elite foreign-language training school near his hometown of Shanghai, spending his days reading banned foreign literary classics secured for him by his teachers. Born in 1955 to a revolutionary family from Shandong, he was a sickly, bookish youth; this, along with his family’s connections, seems to have secured him a pass from hard labor.

When China’s shuttered universities reopened in 1978, following the commencement of “reform and opening” by Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping, Wang was among the first to take the restored national university entrance exam, competing with millions for a chance to return to higher learning. He passed so spectacularly that Shanghai’s Fudan University, one of China’s top institutions, admitted him into its prestigious international politics master’s program despite having never completed a bachelor’s degree.

The thesis work he completed at Fudan, which would become his first book, traced the development of the Western concept of national sovereignty from antiquity to the present day—including from Gilgamesh through Socrates, Aristotle, Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Hegel, and Marx—and contrasted it with Chinese conceptions of the idea. The work would become the foundation for many of his future theories of the nation-state and international relations.

But Wang was also beginning to pick up the strands of what would become another core thread of his life’s work: the necessary centrality of culture, tradition, and value structures to political stability.

Wang elaborated on these ideas in a 1988 essay, “The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture,” which would become one of his most cited works. In it, he argued that the CCP must urgently consider how society’s “software” (culture, values, attitudes) shapes political destiny as much as its “hardware” (economics, systems, institutions). While seemingly a straightforward idea, this was notably a daring break from the materialism of orthodox Marxism.

Examining China in the midst of Deng’s rapid opening to the world, Wang perceived a country “in a state of transformation” from “an economy of production to an economy of consumption,” while evolving “from a spiritually oriented culture to a materially oriented culture,” and “from a collectivist culture to an individualistic culture.”

Meanwhile, he believed that the modernization of “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” was effectively leaving China without any real cultural direction at all. “There are no core values in China’s most recent structure,” he warned. This could serve only to dissolve societal and political cohesion.

That, he said, was untenable. Warning that “the components of the political culture shaped by the Cultural Revolution came to be divorced from the source that gave birth to this culture, as well as from social demands, social values, and social relations”—and thus “the results of the adoption of Marxism were not always positive”—he argued that, “Since 1949, we have criticized the core values of the classical and modern structures, but have not paid enough attention to shaping our own core values.” Therefore: “we must create core values.” Ideally, he concluded, “We must combine the flexibility of [China’s] traditional values with the modern spirit [both Western and Marxist].”

But at this point, like many during those heady years of reform and opening, he remained hopeful that liberalism could play a positive role in China, writing that his recommendations could allow “the components of the modern structure that embody the spirit of modern democracy and humanism [to] find the support they need to take root and grow.”

That would soon change.

A Dark Vision

Also in 1988, Wang—having risen with unprecedented speed to become Fudan’s youngest full professor at age 30—won a coveted scholarship (facilitated by the American Political Science Association) to spend six months in the United States as a visiting scholar. Profoundly curious about America, Wang took full advantage, wandering about the country like a sort of latter-day Chinese Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting more than 30 cities and nearly 20 universities.

What he found deeply disturbed him, permanently shifting his view of the West and the consequences of its ideas.

Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity.

But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.”

Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”

Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.

Once idealistic about America, at the start of 1989 the young Wang returned to China and, promoted to Dean of Fudan’s International Politics Department, became a leading opponent of liberalization.

He began to argue that China had to resist global liberal influence and become a culturally unified and self-confident nation governed by a strong, centralized party-state. He would develop these ideas into what has become known as China’s “Neo-Authoritarian” movement—though Wang never used the term, identifying himself with China’s “Neo-Conservatives.” This reflected his desire to blend Marxist socialism with traditional Chinese Confucian values and Legalist political thought, maximalist Western ideas of state sovereignty and power, and nationalism in order to synthesize a new basis for long-term stability and growth immune to Western liberalism.

“He was most concerned with the question of how to manage China,” one former Fudan student recalls. “He was suggesting that a strong, centralized state is necessary to hold this society together. He spent every night in his office and didn’t do anything else.”

Wang’s timing couldn’t have been more auspicious. Only months after his return, China’s own emerging contradictions exploded into view in the form of student protests in Tiananmen Square. After PLA tanks crushed the dreams of liberal democracy sprouting in China, CCP leadership began searching desperately for a new political model on which to secure the regime. They soon turned to Wang Huning.

When Wang won national acclaim by leading a university debate team to victory in an international competition in Singapore in 1993, he caught the attention of Jiang Zemin, who had become party leader after Tiananmen. Wang, having defeated National Taiwan University by arguing that human nature is inherently evil, foreshadowed that, “While Western modern civilization can bring material prosperity, it doesn’t necessarily lead to improvement in character.” Jiang plucked him from the university and, at the age of 40, he was granted a leadership position in the CCP’s secretive Central Policy Research Office, putting him on an inside track into the highest echelons of power.

Wang Huning’s Nightmare

From the smug point of view of millions who now inhabit the Chinese internet, Wang’s dark vision of American dissolution was nothing less than prophetic. When they look to the U.S., they no longer see a beacon of liberal democracy standing as an admired symbol of a better future. That was the impression of those who created the famous “Goddess of Democracy,” with her paper-mâché torch held aloft before the Gate of Heavenly Peace.

Instead, they see Wang’s America: deindustrialization, rural decay, over-financialization, out of control asset prices, and the emergence of a self-perpetuating rentier elite; powerful tech monopolies able to crush any upstart competitors operating effectively beyond the scope of government; immense economic inequality, chronic unemployment, addiction, homelessness, and crime; cultural chaos, historical nihilism, family breakdown, and plunging fertility rates; societal despair, spiritual malaise, social isolation, and skyrocketing rates of mental health issues; a loss of national unity and purpose in the face of decadence and barely concealed self-loathing; vast internal divisions, racial tensions, riots, political violence, and a country that increasingly seems close to coming apart.

As a tumultuous 2020 roiled American politics, Chinese people began turning to Wang’s America Against America for answers. And when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, the book flew off the shelves. Out-of-print copies began selling for as much as $2,500 on Chinese e-commerce sites.

But Wang is unlikely to be savoring the acclaim, because his worst fear has become reality: the “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” he identified in America seems to have successfully jumped the Pacific. Despite all his and Xi’s success in draconian suppression of political liberalism, many of the same problems Wang observed in America have nonetheless emerged to ravage China over the last decade as the country progressively embraced a more neoliberal capitalist economic model.

“Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” has rapidly transformed China into one of the most economically unequal societies on earth. It now boasts a Gini Coefficient of, officially, around 0.47, worse than the U.S.’s 0.41. The wealthiest 1% of the population now holds around 31% of the country’s wealth (not far behind the 35% in the U.S.). But most people in China remain relatively poor: some 600 million still subsist on a monthly income of less than 1,000 yuan ($155) a month.

Meanwhile, Chinese tech giants have established monopoly positions even more robust than their U.S. counterparts, often with market shares nearing 90%. Corporate employment frequently features an exhausting “996” (9am to 9pm, 6 days a week) schedule. Others labor among struggling legions trapped by up-front debts in the vast system of modern-day indentured servitude that is the Chinese “gig economy.” Up to 400 million Chinese are forecast to enjoy the liberation of such “self-employment” by 2036, according to Alibaba.

The job market for China’s ever-expanding pool of university graduates is so competitive that “graduation equals unemployment” is a societal meme (the two words share a common Chinese character). And as young people have flocked to urban metropoles to search for employment, rural regions have been drained and left to decay, while centuries of communal extended family life have been upended in a generation, leaving the elderly to rely on the state for marginal care. In the cities, young people have been priced out of the property market by a red-hot asset bubble.

Meanwhile, contrary to trite Western assumptions of an inherently communal Chinese culture, the sense of atomization and low social trust in China has become so acute that it’s led to periodic bouts of anguished societal soul-searching after oddly regular instances in which injured individuals have been left to die on the street by passers-by habitually distrustful of being scammed.

Feeling alone and unable to get ahead in a ruthlessly consumerist society, Chinese youth increasingly describe existing in a state of nihilistic despair encapsulated by the online slang term neijuan (“involution”), which describes a “turning inward” by individuals and society due to a prevalent sense of being stuck in a draining rat race where everyone inevitably loses. This despair has manifested itself in a movement known as tangping, or “lying flat,” in which people attempt to escape that rat race by doing the absolute bare minimum amount of work required to live, becoming modern ascetics.

In this environment, China’s fertility rate has collapsed to 1.3 children per woman as of 2020—below Japan and above only South Korea as the lowest in the world—plunging its economic future into crisis. Ending family size limits and government attempts to persuade families to have more children have been met with incredulity and ridicule by Chinese young people as being “totally out of touch” with economic and social reality. “Do they not yet know that most young people are exhausted just supporting themselves?” asked one typically viral post on social media. It’s true that, given China’s cut-throat education system, raising even one child costs a huge sum: estimates range between $30,000 (about seven times the annual salary of the average citizen) and $115,000, depending on location.

But even those Chinese youth who could afford to have kids have found they enjoy a new lifestyle: the coveted DINK (“Double Income, No Kids”) life, in which well-educated young couples (married or not) spend all that extra cash on themselves. As one thoroughly liberated 27-year-old man with a vasectomy once explained to The New York Times: “For our generation, children aren’t a necessity…Now we can live without any burdens. So why not invest our spiritual and economic resources on our own lives?”

So while Americans have today given up the old dream of liberalizing China, they should maybe look a little closer. It’s true that China never remotely liberalized—if you consider liberalism to be all about democratic elections, a free press, and respect for human rights. But many political thinkers would argue there is more to a comprehensive definition of modern liberalism than that. Instead, they would identify liberalism’s essential telos as being the liberation of the individual from all limiting ties of place, tradition, religion, associations, and relationships, along with all the material limits of nature, in pursuit of the radical autonomy of the modern “consumer.”

From this perspective, China has been thoroughly liberalized, and the picture of what’s happening to Chinese society begins to look far more like Wang’s nightmare of a liberal culture consumed by nihilistic individualism and commodification.

The Grand Experiment

It is in this context that Wang Huning appears to have won a long-running debate within the Chinese system about what’s now required for the People’s Republic of China to endure. The era of tolerance for unfettered economic and cultural liberalism in China is over.

According to a leaked account by one of his old friends, Xi has found himself, like Wang, “repulsed by the all-encompassing commercialization of Chinese society, with its attendant nouveaux riches, official corruption, loss of values, dignity, and self-respect, and such ‘moral evils’ as drugs and prostitution.” Wang has now seemingly convinced Xi that they have no choice but to take drastic action to head off existential threats to social order being generated by Western-style economic and cultural liberal-capitalism—threats nearly identical to those that scourge the U.S.

This intervention has taken the form of the Common Prosperity campaign, with Xi declaring in January that “We absolutely must not allow the gap between rich and poor to get wider,” and warning that “achieving common prosperity is not only an economic issue, but also a major political issue related to the party’s governing foundations.”

This is why anti-monopoly investigations have hit China’s top technology firms with billions of dollars in fines and forced restructurings and strict new data rules have curtailed China’s internet and social media companies. It’s why record-breaking IPOs have been put on hold and corporations ordered to improve labor conditions, with “996” overtime requirements made illegal and pay raised for gig workers. It’s why the government killed off the private tutoring sector overnight and capped property rental price increases. It’s why the government has announced “excessively high incomes” are to be “adjusted.”

And it’s why celebrities like Zhao Wei have been disappearing, why Chinese minors have been banned from playing the “spiritual opium” of video games for more than three hours per week, why LGBT groups have been scrubbed from the internet, and why abortion restrictions have been significantly tightened. As one nationalist article promoted across state media explained, if the liberal West’s “tittytainment strategy” is allowed to succeed in causing China’s “young generation lose their toughness and virility then we will fall…just like the Soviet Union did.” The purpose of Xi’s “profound transformation” is to ensure that “the cultural market will no longer be a paradise for sissy stars, and news and public opinion will no longer be in a position of worshipping Western culture.”

In the end, the campaign represents Wang Huning’s triumph and his terror. It’s thirty years of his thought on culture made manifest in policy.

On one hand, it is worth viewing honestly the level of economic, technological, cultural, and political upheaval the West is currently experiencing and considering whether he may have accurately diagnosed a common undercurrent spreading through our globalized world. On the other, the odds that his gambit to engineer new societal values can succeed seems doubtful, considering the many failures of history’s other would-be “engineers of the soul.”

The best simple proxy to measure this effort in coming years is likely to be demographics. For reasons not entirely clear, many countries around the world now face the same challenge: fertility rates that have fallen below the replacement rate as they’ve developed into advanced economies. This has occurred across a diverse array of political systems, and shows little sign of moderating. Besides immigration, a wide range of policies have now been tried in attempts to raise birth rates, from increased public funding of childcare services to “pro-natal” tax credits for families with children. None have been consistently successful, sparking anguished debate in some quarters on whether losing the will to survive and reproduce is simply a fundamental factor of modernity. But if any country can succeed in reversing this trend, no matter the brute-force effort required, it is likely to be China.

Either way, our world is witnessing a grand experiment that’s now underway: China and the West, facing very similar societal problems, have now, thanks to Wang Huning, embarked on radically different approaches to addressing them. And with China increasingly challenging the United States for a position of global geopolitical and ideological leadership, the conclusion of this experiment could very well shape the global future of governance for the century ahead.

N.S. Lyons is an analyst and writer living and working in Washington, D.C. He is the author of The Upheaval.

News of the Times;
Being an adult is apparently about being tired, telling people how tired you are, and listening to other adults say how tired they are.


You can say, "Have a good day" and people take it well.

Say, "Enjoy the next 24 hours" and you sound threatening?



When I'm behind a slow car, I always steer a little to the right so the people behind me can see that it’s not my fault.

Group projects back in school were never meant to teach you teamwork; they were meant to teach you how to handle the incompetence of co-workers in the workplace.

Respect people who wear glasses, they paid money to see you.

You just have to take life one "Are you F***ng kidding me?" at a time.

My mind is like someone emptied the kitchen junk drawer on a trampoline.

Autopsy Club Meets Saturday at 6-Its Open Mike Night.

My advice to buyers when they like the house but their spouse doesn't: new spouses are easier to find in this market than houses.

Old age comes at a bad time; when you finally know everything, you start forgetting everything you know.

Yeah, I think I've hit the age where I now understand why people on game shows were so excited to win an appliance.

It's now officially the season of "I'll pay you back when I get my tax refund."


An elderly couple in church.

She says, "I just let out a silent fart. What should I do?"

The husband replies, "Get new batteries for your hearing aids."


I put maple syrup on my wife's shopping list.

Now it’s all sticky.

Quote of the Times;
“Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history, mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power.” - P.J. O’Rourke

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Real State of the Union by Simon Black

My fellow Americans.

Now that my approval ratings are roughly at the same level as my blood pressure, i.e. barely detectable, and my credibility is nonexistent, I thought I might actually try being honest for a change about the real State of the Union.

Just over a year ago when I took oath of office, I talked about “the common objects we love that define us as Americans. . . Opportunity. Security. Liberty. Dignity. Respect. Honor. And yes, the truth.”

So let me describe to you the State of our Union in those terms:

First, opportunity.

Under my leadership, inflation has reached a 40+ year high and shows no signs of abating.

I’ve also demonstrated how serious I am about fighting inflation by re-appointing the very same Federal Reserve officials who created the inflation to begin with, to another four-year term.

Further, the supply chain crisis we engineered from our cascading failures of labor policy, environmental policy, trade policy, monetary policy, and public health policy, also shows little sign of resolving.

We’ve also been instrumental in destroying the labor market and making it virtually impossible to find workers.

Plus my administration continues to impose new regulations by the day, threaten new taxes, and put out unintelligible public health policies, that make things especially difficult for small and medium-sized businesses.

But at least Pfizer’s profits are at a record high.

Second, security.

Our southern border was overwhelmed with countless migrants almost literally the moment I took office. We continue to ignore this growing crisis.

Similarly, we choose to ignore soaring rates of murder in America’s cities.

As Commander-in-Chief, I ordered the US military to hastily withdraw from Afghanistan without sufficient time to make adequate preparations. As a result, the entire world witnessed one of the most disgraceful, shameful events in US history as we left behind our citizens, our allies, and tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded military equipment to our sworn enemy.

I tried making up for this personal and national humiliation by trying to outmaneuver Vladimir Putin over Ukraine.

My son Hunter and I obviously have a soft spot for Ukraine. But my real priority was using Putin’s military buildup as an opportunity to appear strong again, and hopefully boost my sagging poll numbers.

Despite my years of foreign policy experience, I failed to foresee the consequences of provoking Putin, pushing him into a corner, and essentially daring him to invade.

(And now, by the way, as we are pushing Russia out of the SWIFT international banking platform, I am also failing to foresee the obvious risk of Putin hacking it. But more on that another time…)

You may recall that, while I was hiding in my basement during the 2020 Presidential campaign, I promised voters a “steady hand” when it came to diplomacy and national security.

Well, this is what 5 decades of government experience gets you.

Third, liberty.

We continue to foster a climate where the government tells you what you’re supposed to believe, what you have to put in your body, and how you’re allowed to educate your children.

We think nothing of imposing illegal, unconstitutional mandates, and handing public health bureaucrats the authority to regulate everything from nationwide commerce to the entire US housing market.

Justin Trudeau recently set a fantastic example for us to follow when it comes to individual freedom, and so we’re working hard to become Canada as quickly as possible.

Fourth, dignity and respect.

I promised the American people unity in my inaugural address. I said that “we must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.”

Naturally I have completely abandoned that promise. Not only have I failed to rein in the intolerant, out-of-control leftist puritans waging cultural genocide across America, but I set a clear example for them by labeling my ideological opponents as White Supremacists.

I call legislation I don’t like “Jim Crow 2.0”. And I encourage federal police agencies to investigate parents who don’t want Critical Race Theory taught to their children in public schools.

Fifth, honor.

My short time in office has brought extreme dishonor upon the reputation of the United States. In addition to the humiliation in Afghanistan, the rest of the world must be in shock as they see the constant chaos and absurdity of our government.

We are more consumed by pronouns than progress. We publicly embrace Marxist ideologies. We push our intelligence agencies to prioritize diversity and inclusion over national security. We deliberately undercut our ally—the French—to do a submarine deal with Australia that provided absolutely zero benefit to our nation.

And just recently our public debt reached a whopping $30 trillion… which hardly brings any honor or esteem to our nation.

Last but not least, truth.

I told Americans last year during my inauguration that “each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans. . . to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

That’s why my administration has worked diligently to suppress free speech. We believe that #science has only one authority figure, and anyone who disagrees with his eminence, Lord Protector Fauci, is guilty of misinformation.

For that reason we enlisted the support of Big Tech to remove posts and terminate user accounts upon our request.

We claim that we love democracy so much, yet we continue to assert federal control over state and local elections. One of our goals is to squash any state law requiring voters to present valid identification before being allowed to cast their ballots.

Requiring identification would help reduce voter fraud and increase election security. But we like voter fraud… so we’re opposed to any identification requirement and label them as racist.

We also rely on the mainstream media, which absurdly claims to be objective and unbiased, to reinforce our ridiculous propaganda. They do so willingly and voluntarily, refraining from holding me accountable or asking any difficult questions whatsoever.

This, my fellow Americans, is the real State of our Union.

And if you feel a bit down about the State of our Union, just remember-- I’ll still be President for another 3 years, 10 months, 19 days. We have a looooong way to go.

News of the Times;
Children are like pancakes.

The first one always comes out a little weird.


I used to be a math teacher.

I quit though.

Had too many problems.



Time to get up and get going, today's bad decisions aren't going to make themselves.

A foot of new snow, yes, but at least you can't see the dog poop anymore!

Bon Jovi must be ¾ of the way there by now.

There are times I wish I had a clone, but then I realize I could never live with that jerk.

Why the heck do underwear and socks come in resealable bags, but potato chips don't?

I just cannot believe I have to be an adult the rest of my life.

My family told me to get help with my drinking, so I hired a bartender.

I'm tired of winter. I want to fast-forward to complaining about how hot it is.

My high school was so small, we had drivers education and sex education in the same car.

I haven't sold a single copy of my autobiography, that's the story of my life.


I went by the house I grew up in and asked if I could go in and look around.

They said no and slammed the door in my face!

Parents can be real jerks.


Why did the banana go to the doctor?

He wasn't peeling well.

Quote of the Times;
“The data Pfizer was forced to release showed a 3% mortality rate for the vaccines, which is 12 times the COVID death rate.” - Attorney Thomas Renz

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why? by Robert Bridge

The reaction to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, no matter what you think about it, has exposed the West’s double standards

The West has taken an extreme stance against Russia over its invasion in Ukraine. This reaction exposes a high degree of hypocrisy considering that US-led wars abroad never received the punitive response they deserved.

If the current events in Ukraine have proven anything, it’s that the United States and its transatlantic partners are able to run roughshod across a shell-shocked planet – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few of the hotspots – with almost total impunity. Meanwhile, Russia and Vladimir Putin are being portrayed in nearly every mainstream media publication today as the second coming of Nazi Germany for their actions in Ukraine.

First, let’s be clear about something. Hypocrisy and double standards alone do not provide justification for the opening of hostilities by any country. In other words, just because NATO-bloc countries have been tearing a path of wanton destruction around the globe since 2001 without serious consequences, this does not give Russia, or any country, moral license to behave in a similar manner. There must be a convincing reason for a country to authorize the use of force, thereby committing itself to what could be considered ‘a just war’. Thus, the question: Can Russia’s actions today be considered ‘just’ or, at the very least, understandable? I will leave that answer up to the reader’s better judgment, but it would be idle not to consider some important details.

Only to the consumers of mainstream media fast food would it come as a surprise that Moscow has been warning on NATO expansion for well over a decade. In his now-famous speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Vladimir Putin poignantly asked the assembled global powerbrokers point blank, “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?” Later in the speech, he said that expanding military assets smack up to the Russian border “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”

Not only were the Russian leader’s concerns met with the predictable amount of disregard amid the deafening sound of crickets, NATO has gone on to bestow membership on four more countries since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). As a thought experiment that even a dolt could conduct, imagine Washington’s reaction if Moscow were building a continuously expanding military bloc in South America, for example.

The real cause for Moscow’s alarm, however, came when the US and NATO began flooding neighboring Ukraine with a dazzling array of sophisticated weaponry amid calls for membership in the military bloc. What on earth could go wrong? In Moscow’s mind, Ukraine was beginning to pose an existential threat to Russia.

In December, Moscow, quickly nearing the end of its patience, delivered draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding they halt any further military expansion eastwards, including by the accession of Ukraine or any other states. It included the explicit statement that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.” Once again, Russia’s proposals were met with arrogance and indifference by Western leaders.

While people will have varying opinions as to the shocking actions that Moscow took next, nobody can say they were not warned. After all, it’s not like Russia woke up on February 24 and suddenly decided it was a wonderful day to start a military operation on the territory of Ukraine. So yes, an argument could be made that Russia had concern for its own security as a justification for its actions. Unfortunately, the same thing may be more difficult to say for the United States and its NATO minions with regards to their belligerent behavior over the course of the last two decades.

Consider the most notorious example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This disastrous war, which the Western media hacks have chalked up as an unfortunate ‘intelligence failure’, represents one of the most egregious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. Without delving too deep into the murky details, the United States, having just suffered the attacks of 9/11, accused Saddam Hussein of Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Yet, instead of working in close cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq attempting to verify the claims, the US, together with the UK, Australia, and Poland, launched a ‘shock-and-awe’ bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. In a flash, over a million innocent Iraqis suffered death, injury, or displacement by this flagrant violation of international law.

The Center for Public Integrity reported that the Bush administration, in its effort to bolster public support for the impending carnage, made over 900 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the US and its allies. Yet somehow the Western media, which has become the most rabid proliferator for military aggression bar none, failed to find any flaw in the argument for war – that is, until after the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.

It might be expected, in a more perfect world, that the US and its allies were subjected to some stiff sanctions in the wake of this protracted eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocents. In fact, there were sanctions, just not against the United States. Ironically, the only sanctions that resulted from this crazy military adventure were against France, a NATO member that had declined the invitation, together with Germany, to participate in the Iraqi bloodbath. The global hyper-power is not used to such rejection, especially from its purported friends.

American politicians, self-assured in their Godlike exceptionalism, demanded a boycott of French wine and bottled water due to the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to war in Iraq. Other agitators for war betrayed their lack of seriousness by insisting that the popular menu item known as ‘French Fries’ be substituted with the name ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. So the lack of French Bordeaux, together with the tedious redrafting of restaurant menus, seems to have been the only real inconveniences the US and NATO suffered for indiscriminately destroying millions of lives.

Now compare this kid gloves approach to the US and its allies to the current situation involving Ukraine, where the scales of justice are clearly weighed down against Russia, and despite its not unreasonable warnings that it was feeling threatened by NATO advances. Whatever a person may think about the conflict now raging between Russia and Ukraine, it cannot be denied that the hypocrisy and double standards being leveled against Russia by its perennial detractors is as shocking as it is predictable. The difference today, however, is that bombs are going off.

Aside from the severe sanctioning of Russian individuals and the Russian economy, perhaps best summed up by the French economy minister, who said his country is committed to waging “a total economic and financial war on Russia,” there has been a deeply disturbing effort to silence news and information coming from those Russian sources that might give the Western public the option of seeing Moscow's motivations. On Tuesday, March 1, YouTube decided to block the channels of RT and Sputnik for all European users, thereby allowing the Western world to seize another chunk of the global narrative.

Considering the way that Russia has been vilified in the ‘empire of lies’, as Vladimir Putin dubbed the land of his politically motivated persecutors, some may believe that Russia deserves the non-stop threats it is now receiving. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This sort of global grandstanding, which resembles some sort of mindless virtue-signaling campaign now so popular in liberal capitals, aside from unnecessarily inflaming an already volatile situation, assumes that Russia is totally wrong, period.

Such a reckless approach, which leaves no room for debate, no room for discussion, no room for seeing Russia’s side in this extremely complex situation, only guarantees further standoffs, if not full-blown global war, further down the road. Unless the West is actively seeking the outbreak of World War III, it would be advisable to stop the hideous hypocrisy and double standards against Russia and patiently listen to its opinions and version of events (even ones presented by foreign media). It’s not as unbelievable as some people may wish to believe.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.

News of the Times;
If Russia invaded Turkey from behind, would Greece help?


The doctor told me I had only six months to live, so I shot him dead.

The judge gave me fifteen years.

Problem solved.


Why are married women heavier than single women?

Single women come home, see what’s in the fridge and go to bed.

Married women come home, see what’s in bed and go to the fridge.


How many Irishmen does it take to change a lightbulb?


One to hold the bulb, and one to drink until the room starts spinning.


Police have confirmed that the man who tragically fell from the roof of an 18 floor nightclub...

was not a bouncer.

Quote of the Times;
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O’Rourke

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Unknown Hoya and the Shadow Projection of the Left by Mark Judge

“How does it feel to have the entire world projecting its shadow onto you?”

That’s what my friend and editor said to me in the fall of 2018.

I was the focus of one of the nastiest political hits in American history. I’ve written about the ordeal for the past several years, and there is going to be a book about it in the fall. In summation, before I move on to other subjects, I wanted to address a larger spiritual reality of what happened.

What the leftist politicians, the opposition researchers, and the media in 2018 took part in was an epic example of what is called “shadow projection.” It’s a concept of Jungian psychology that refers to blaming others for the very things of which you are guilty—of casting onto them your own lust, jealousy, rage, etc. Jung’s concept has gained currency in recent years with the rise of rage in the West and the arrival of cancel culture and Twitter mobs. The world is now a free-fire zone of shadow projection.

A clear example is CNN. The network which sold itself as the center of decency and truth was actually a cesspit of affairs, sexual abuse, and on-camera wankery. CNN was one of the main squadrons in the blitzkrieg that tried to destroy me in 2018.

On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump announced his intention to nominate Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. More than two months later, a woman named Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982 when we were all in high school. The media went crazy, even going through our high school yearbook. An extortionist and future convicted felon named Michael Avenatti produced a woman named Julie Swetnick, who claimed that Brett and I had attended 10 parties in high school where girls were drugged and gang raped. Swetnick claimed that she herself was the victim of a gang rape.

Avenatti, who was on CNN practically nonstop in 2018, just got sent away to prison for two-and-a-half years. His crime was extorting a woman named Stephanie Clifford. So while Avenatti was accusing us of gang rape it was he who was, in reality, screwing over an innocent woman. In the psychology dictionary under “Shadow Projection” there should be a picture of Michael Avenatti.

It’s important to clarify that when talking about the shadow, Carl Jung emphasized it is crucial not to ignore or suppress our own shadows. Instead, we should integrate them into our psyche. “The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality,” Jung wrote, “for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.”

“Bringing the shadow to consciousness,’’ analyst Liliane Frey-Rohn once observed, ‘‘is a psychological problem of the highest moral significance. It demands that the individual hold himself accountable not only for what happens to him, but also for what he projects . . . Without the conscious inclusion of the shadow in daily life there cannot be a positive relationship to other people, or to the creative sources in the soul; there cannot be an individual relationship to the Divine.’’

In other words, own your own stuff or you will blame others for it. In Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche, Robert A. Johnson argues that some of the best-integrated people have been Christian saints and monks. After years of prayer and wrestling with darker instincts, they have achieved an equipoise that allows them to own their shadows. This isn’t the same as facilitating sin or evil. It’s living with the knowledge of your own flaws and defects and owning them.

“Today, whole businesses are devoted to containing our shadow for us,” Johnson writes. “Newspapers offer us a daily allotment of disasters, crimes, and horrors to feed our shadow nature outwardly when it should be incorporated into each of us as an integral part of our personalities.”

In 2018, the media was in a shadow-projecting frenzy, howling about my high school friends and our keg parties, sex, and wild 1980s lifestyle. I remember an interesting challenge to them that came from an unusual source—“Saturday Night Live.” No, I’m not talking about the Matt Damon sketch when Damon played Brett. Rather, it was a sketch where Adam Driver, playing me in the 1980s, goes to a crazy party where people skinny dip, do drugs, and hook up. At different points the picture freezes to reveal what became of these people. Several of them, in fact some of the most indulgent partiers, had futures as anchors in the liberal media. In other words, they became shadow-projecting hypocrites.

Especially funny in retrospect is how the media went after The Unknown Hoya, an underground newspaper I helped run at Georgetown Prep. Ian Shapira described The Unknown Hoya in the Washington Post:

The Unknown Hoya, an underground newspaper at Georgetown Preparatory School in the early 1980s, prided itself on its coverage of the crude. One issue featured a photo of a student vomiting into a toilet and an article laced with slurs against girls at the nearby Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md. The same issue also pitched a new school song that included a joke about rape and paeans to kegs of beer. Another issue reportedly carried photos of a bachelor party the seniors threw for a teacher that featured a stripper.

Aside from the charge that we joked about rape, which is false, the dark picture Shipira tries to paint really depicts a fairly normal example adolescent boys wrestling with their shadows. As Robert Bly argued in his A Little Book about the Human Shadow, it is essential that boys encounter and deal with their shadows in order to achieve any kind of spiritual maturity and wisdom. Without this process, they become people like Jim Acosta—all surface, no soul.

In 2018, CNN aired an exposé about some short videos I had directed. My work had been good enough to be used by an American Idol contestant, and was even complemented by Alec Baldwin. (I might not want that endorsement now.) What did CNN focus on? The idea that I liked to shoot “fresh-faced and buxom young women.” Yes, I like pretty and buxom women. I probably need to be sent to a reeducation camp.

In 2018 I had a friend compare my situation to Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. I had been minding my own business when this Ring of Power fell into my lap. In my case, the ring was knowledge about Brett Kavanaugh.

The thing is, there was no secret knowledge. It was all projection by opposition researchers like Avenatti. My situation was not Tolkien, it was A Wizard of Earthsea, the science fiction novel by Ursula K. LeGuin that tells the story of the young wizard Ged. He is focused on learning “to gain power” with his magic (like so many of us as adolescent boys), so much so that he casts a spell to summon the dead. It unleashes a shadow.

As he first reads about the spell, Ged “saw that something was crouching beside the closed door, a shapeless blot of shadow darker than the darkness.” The master wizard Ogion then enters, dispelling what he later calls only “the shadow of a shadow.” Orion then questions young Ged: “Have you never thought how danger must surround power as shadow does light?”

Ged travels to an island called Roke—on a ship named Shadow—but his refusal to integrate his own shadow leads to a terrible eruption. As Jung observed, “the less [the shadow] is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.” Despite being warned by a new instructor, The Master Hand, that “[t]he world is in balance,” Ged argues that “surely a wizard . . . was powerful enough to do what he pleased, and balance the world as seemed best to him, and drive back darkness with his own light.” Ged uses a spell to summon a spirit from the dead, but the spell unleashes something else, described by Le Guin as a shadow “the size of a young child [with] no head or face.” The shadow attacks Ged, who barely survives.

Ged spends the rest of the A Wizard of Earthsea learning to integrate his shadow. Eventually, he recognizes it as part of himself. Near the end of the story, Ged sees his shadow in a corner of the deck on his boat. He is no longer afraid. He accepts that he is encountering a part of himself.

News of the Times;
A co-worker asked me, “Could you be any more annoying?”

So the next day I wore tap shoes to work.


People who cheat on their taxes disgust me.

This is not the kind of world I want to raise my 23 dependents in.


Harley Davidson announced it is closing a major production plant due to declining sales.

Here are the main reasons given why Millennials don't ride motorcycles:

1. Can't get their phone to their ear with a helmet on.

2. They don't get a trophy and a recognition plaque just for buying one.

3. Don't have enough muscle to hold the bike up when stopped.

4. Motorcycles lack air conditioning.

5. They can't afford one because they spent 12 years in college trying to get educated.

6. Fresh air allergies.

7. The handle bars have buttons and levers and cannot be controlled by touch-screen.

8. You have to shift manually and use something called a clutch.

9. It's too hard to take selfies while riding.

10. They don't come with training wheels like their bicycles did.

11. Their nose rings interfere with the face shield.

12. When they stop, a light breeze might blow exhaust in their face.

13. It could rain on them and expose them to non-soft water.

14. They might scare their therapy dog, and then the dog would need therapy.


A new study says that fear is contagious.

I was afraid of that.


Why didn't the sun go to college?

Because it already has a million degrees.

Quote of the Times;
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P.J. O’Rourke

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Shaping the Perfect Subjects by Pedro Gonzalez

The managerial class wants to replace America’s core demographic with one it can more easily control.

In 2005, Professor Nicholas Shackel analyzed a series of deceptive rhetorical maneuvers used to proselytize failed post-modern ideas. Among these, he identified the “motte-and-bailey doctrine,” which takes its name from a medieval castle-defense system: peasants would flee from an indefensible courtyard area—a bailey—up into a fortified tower—the motte—during an attack.

An individual is guilty of the motte-and-bailey in a debate when he conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easily defensible (motte) and the other controversial and untenable (bailey). The debater advances the second, far more radical position until it comes under attack, at which point he retreats to a defense of the motte by insisting that this was his claim all along, effectively reframing the bailey as a straw man invented by his opponent. If this move is successful, the controversial—and real—position goes unassailed while the critic appears unreasonable.

The most consequential example of motte-and-bailey tactics in our time is the debate over the Great Replacement, i.e., the racial and cultural dispossession of America’s historic, European-descended stock. The dominant powers in the United States endorse and actively hasten this dispossession, while simultaneously denying its existence altogether.

That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is

Calls for the political, cultural, and physical marginalization, replacement, and even death of white people have become mainstream in the United States and elsewhere in the West. But when advocates of the Great Replacement are confronted with criticism, they retreat to the motte, cloaking their real positions behind the rhetorical walls of “diversity and inclusion” language, which, they insist, is merely metaphorical and harmless. In what Michael Anton has coined the “celebration parallax,” radicals alternatively insist to their critics that they do not aspire to the extreme goals they are accused of, then strategically advance and celebrate those goals among their champions, who deploy innocuous lines about “equity” and “diversity” when challenged. This pattern is displayed by or receives the support of corporate, political, media, and academic elites.

In an article called “When Is It OK to Kill Whites?” Tommy Curry, a black associate professor specializing in critical race theory at Texas A&M University, declared that “in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die.” That conclusion follows logically from Curry’s diagnosis of the white race’s condition. In a YouTube interview, he said that history shows Whites are irreparably bigoted, and therefore attempting to reason with them is futile. But when these anti-white remarks were reported in The American Conservative, Curry complained that it was all taken out of context and that “white supremacists” had consequently threatened his life. He said that criticism of his statements about killing and marginalizing incurably malicious Whites only “demonstrates the very real danger of anti-Black racism for Black people in universities.” Curry’s department colleagues wrote an op-ed defending his assigned role “to teach and research in critical race theory, an area where he is an acknowledged expert,” calling on Texas A&M to unequivocally defend him.

At Yale, an academic named Aruna Khilanani fantasized to students about joyfully shooting white people in the head during a lecture where she also bemoaned the futility of reasoning with Whites. Like Curry, she said it was all just a “metaphor to evoke emotion” after her comments sparked public outrage. Most recently, Brittney Cooper, a black professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies at Rutgers, said that white people can’t afford to have children and “kind of deserve it.”

“I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate,” Cooper said. “You know, their thinking is so murky and spiritually bankrupt about power that they…they fear this really existentially letting go of power because they cannot imagine another way to be,” she added. Cooper concluded that the ideal solution would be to “take these motherf**kers out,” before insisting that she doesn’t advocate violence. The discussion, “Unpacking the Attacks on Critical Race Theory,” was hosted by the Root Institute in partnership with Target and Fidelity Investments, one of the largest asset managers in the world. That’s not at all surprising; State Street Global Advisors, another one of the world’s largest investment firms, now requires leaders to ask permission before hiring white men as part of a “diversity” initiative.

The most consistent and remarkable feature of the Great Replacement is that its advocates simultaneously deny, cheer, and conceal their true positions. On June 24, 2018, Charles Blow, a black New York Times columnist, reported contentedly that Whites “have been the majority of people considered United States citizens since this country was founded, but that period is rapidly drawing to a close.” Blow would denounce the Great Replacement in April 2021 as a “racist, anti-Semitic, patriarchal and conspiratorial ‘white replacement theory,’” only to celebrate “the shrinking of the white population and the explosion of the nonwhite” evinced by census data in August 2021. Blow has even called for a “reverse Great Migration” to the south for the express purpose of replacing Whites.

In an article titled, “We Can Replace Them,” Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote that “America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.” Roger Cohen followed up with a similar argument in the Times in “Trump’s Last Stand for White America” on the eve of the 2020 election. He opened by quoting demonstrators at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville who reportedly chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” Goldberg named her piece from the previous year as a play on that chant. It was designed to provoke and conflate opponents of her position with extremists, essentially creating a trap where to disagree is to commit an act of bigotry.

Occasionally, the mask comes off entirely, as illustrated in a tweet by Morgan J. Freeman. “Why can’t Republicans just accept that the ‘whiteness’ they so very cherish will be bred out of the human race?” he wrote. Freeman is a self-described “human rights and racial justice advocate,” and yet here he essentially celebrated the United Nations’ textbook definition of genocide: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Not a Bug but a Feature

It is hard to name all the ways local, state, and federal governments sanction racial discrimination that disadvantages and displaces Whites. In grants, subsidies, contracts, and employment, the establishment regularly incorporates racial preferences, quotas, and agendas. That Whites are excluded from them, punished for failing to comply with them, and disadvantaged in opportunities by them makes these policies of de facto discrimination.

Even after the Afghanistan catastrophe, the Pentagon’s priority is making the armed forces less white. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that the military must increase opportunity and improve advancement for black service members, including among Air Force pilots and in the most senior ranks. Bishop Garrison, the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense on Human Capital and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion issues, recently pushed critical race theory on a panel at the Center for a New American Security. “Diversity” must inform every aspect of the military’s recruiting, promotion, operations, and policy implementation process, Garrison told CNAS, which has received funding from every major defense contractor, Wall Street’s biggest banks, several foreign governments, and George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation.

In 94%-white Vermont, Governor Phill Scott recently appointed the state’s first executive director of racial equity, a black woman named Xusana Davis. According to the governor’s press release, she “will work with state government agencies and departments to identify and address systemic racial disparities and support the state’s efforts to expand and bring diversity to Vermont’s overall population.” Last year, Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram Live that “southern states are not red states, they are suppressed states.” The New York termagant pointed to “multi-racial” and “multi-cultural” grassroots mobilization in Georgia that led to Democrats taking control of the Senate as proof. In other words, states are not truly free and democratic and, therefore, politically legitimate unless they are “diverse” or are committed to “diversity.”

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act effectively legalized discrimination on a national level through what has essentially been affirmative action for non-European immigration. The same people who inanely compare the framers to illegal aliens, insist there is no difference between European and non-European immigration, and dismiss the implications of America’s radical, rapid demographic transformation, occasionally cop to believing that race really does matter when it comes to immigration: “The people who moved here after the 1965 act made the United States a truly multicultural nation,” wrote Tom Gjelten in an NPR article entitled “Influx Of Non-European Immigrants Defines America Today.” Will we ever see such advocacy efforts on behalf of Whites when they are reduced to a minority nationally, as they already have been in California? To ask the question is to invite ridicule from the diversity commissars, who simultaneously deny and champion these demographic realities that carry the imprimatur of the regime.

Led by Ocasio-Cortez, 34 Democrats sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last year that characterized policies enabling mass immigration as racial justice. That approach appears to be informing the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing immigration crisis. “Under cover of darkness, every night the federal government is transporting illegal migrants as fast as it can away from the border on secret charter flights into unsuspecting communities around the country,” the New York Post reported on Jan. 26. “Officials have lied and obstructed the few journalists who have tried to reveal the truth.” On February 9, journalist Spencer Brown noted that under Biden, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services removed from its mission statement mention of “lawful immigration,” “protecting Americans,” or “securing the homeland.” USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou said the new statement “reflects the inclusive character of both our country and this agency” and “America’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility today and for generations to come.”

And though they regularly put on a show blasting Democrat’s immigration policies, Republicans more or less agree with mass immigration: they just want it to happen “legally.” Led by Florida Republican Representative Maria Salazar, six House Republicans introduced legislation on February 8 to provide amnesty for 11 to 22 million illegal aliens. Another set of Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Rick Scott (R-FL), are also in talks with Democrats about a separate amnesty proposal. The last time the GOP sold the public a compromise of amnesty in exchange for security was President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bill utterly failed in a saner and more functional America than today’s, and its amnesty provision triggered what the New York Times condemned as “one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government.” Any such “compromise” today would have similar or worse results.

All this is to say that the degree to which the governing bodies of the United States and other Western countries are actively involved in vilifying and replacing the very people who constitute their core demographic is unprecedented in human history. For all its evils, China does not actively try to humiliate, shame, and dispossess the Han people. Thus, a better question than how the Great Replacement works is why? The best model for approaching this problem is through the classical theory of elites.

Managerial Oversight

Regardless of whether a society formally considers itself a republic or a democracy, it is organized minorities—alternatively referred to as “elites” or a “ruling class”—that have a hold over what is known as “social forces,” and thus real power. For elites theorist Gaetano Mosca, social forces can be anything from an ideology to natural resources or a technology which becomes vital to the retention and exercise of power at a given time and place in history. Land in one epoch, semiconductors in another; paganism in one, and Christianity in the next: The organized groups with control over social forces, along with their allies, generally become a society’s elites or ruling class.

In elite theory, control over the state—the formal political apparatus—is only one means of power and control. Other bases include the economy and culture: the “instruments of production and exchange,” and the instruments of information and values. Elites in different sectors do compete, but they ultimately have more in common with one another than the groups, ideas, and agendas that they are fundamentally united in excluding and marginalizing. The modern or “managerial elites,” as political theorist James Burnham named them, who emerged from the ashes of the 20th century, are also distinct from previous elites in major ways. Burnham’s disciple, the late Chronicles columnist Sam Francis, explains:

Unlike earlier elites such as the English gentry, Boston brahmins, or local and regional elites in 19th-century America, the [ruling class] does not depend on intermarriage or inheritance, despite its members’ cohabitation and eventual intermarriage and their efforts to set their offspring up in advantageous positions. Indeed, the [ruling class] doesn’t even rely on the family, which is why it tends to scorn family and kinship bonds of all kinds.

Rather, Francis wrote, the ruling class “depends on its proficiency in managerial and technical skills…and their applications to organized political, economic, and cultural affairs.” Instead of kinship bonds, its power derives from the dependence of the modern economy, culture, government, and politics on the skills that are the domain of the professional-managerial class. These skills are critical to the operation of public bureaucracies, financial institutions, foundations, mass media, mass labor unions, political parties, and educational institutions that form the organs and nerve centers of mass democracy. “Proficiency in these skills cannot be acquired or transmitted through kinship but only by ‘merit,’” Francis added, “which presupposes not only intellectual abilities but also various personality traits that enable the ‘meritorious’ to work and play well with others in immense bureaucratized organizations where following established routines and adhering to established organizational norms of thought and behavior are the minimal requirements for survival and advancement.”

The nature of the managerial elite’s power renders dependence on family connections, traditional religion, morals, manners, and all forms of particularism not only obsolete but into obstacles to its own interests. “Such institutions,” wrote Francis, “do not recognize managerial proficiency and personalities as the only valuable characteristics of an elite, and they permit the competition of alternative elites that could rival” the ruling class. But every elite needs an ideology or “political formula” that expresses and justifies its interests while discrediting and pathologizing those of other groups and the institutions that support them. In our time, that formula is not “wokeism,” but simply liberalism, which has long united advocates of “multiculturalism” and corporate interests with political elites. Journalist David Rieff wrote in 1993:

The reality is that no serious player in the business world has anything but the most vestigial or sentimental interest in Western civilization, as it is roughly understood by campus radicals and conservatives alike. What each side’s argument fails to take into account is that capitalism is the bull in the china shop of human history. The market economy, now global in scale, is by its nature corrosive of all established hierarchies and certainties, up to and including—in a world now more than 50 percent non-white and in which the most promising markets lie in Asia—white racism and male domination. If any group has embraced the rallying cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go,” it is the world business elite.

These days, managerial liberalism presumes to include as “white racism” the desire of Whites to not be reduced to minorities in their own countries.

“The world has moved on,” Rieff adds: “capital and labor are mobile; and with each passing year national borders, not to speak of national identities, become less relevant to consciousness or to commerce.” Moreover, he accurately notes that “diversity” necessarily involves the destruction of particularity and standards—which is perfectly consistent with corporate interests. “For if all art is deemed as good as all other art, and, for that matter,” he writes, “if the point of art is not greatness but the production of works of art that reflect the culture and aspirations of various ethnic, sexual, or racial subgroups within a society, then one is in a position to increase supply almost at will in order to meet increases in demand.”

The transformation of nations into what seem to be open-air shopping complexes with militaries is lauded by the more libertarian-minded as a positive good. However, these boosters omit the connection between immigration and the growth of government in the West. More honest libertarians like Murray Rothbard have observed that the “welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance.” They, in turn, are protected by and provide the justification for ever-expanding “anti-discrimination” rules and regulations enforced by the state. Similarly, an analysis by left-wing CUNY Queens College Professor Francesc Ortega found “that political support for redistribution will remain strong in the US and in other high-immigration countries, provided that immigrants and their children can continue to access citizenship (voting rights) within a reasonably short period of time.” Conversely, Ortega added, “if immigrants do not vote political support for redistribution will erode and may eventually lead to drastic reductions in the size of the welfare state.” Thus, it’s only natural that the incumbent elite undermines the salience of citizenship.

Starting on January 9, 2023, New York City plans to enfranchise legal permanent residents, those with work visas, and “illegal aliens under federal protection, such as asylum seekers and DACA designees,” the New York Post reported. “Foreign citizens could invade the US-Mexico ‘border,’ penetrate America without permission, request asylum, fly to Westchester Airport aboard one of Joe Biden’s free, clandestine, late-night flights, cab it to Manhattan and—after 30 days—cast ballots beside Gotham’s voters who were born in the USA,” according to the Post. Even if it is derailed, the legislation established a dangerous model of what can be accomplished by other localities or even the federal government.

The political formula of managerial liberalism justifies deconstructing and replacing the institutions, ideas, and groups associated with the bygone world outlined by Rieff, which are condemned as discriminatory, particular, and unduly restrictive. Citizenship is a relic of the dark ages, a barrier on the road toward the universal regime.

Importantly, Burnham and Francis did not view political formulas as cases of ruling class cynicism. As Mosca understood, political formulas are not “mere quackeries aptly invented to trick the masses into obedience. Anyone who viewed them in that light would fall into grave error.” This is what the conservative and Marxist critiques tends to miss. “The truth is that they answer a real need in man’s social nature,” Mosca wrote, “and this need, so universally felt, of governing and knowing that one is governed not on the basis of mere material or intellectual force, but on the basis of a moral principle, has beyond any doubt a practical and a real importance.”

In other words, sometimes these formulas can take on lives of their own, and those who abide by them and advance them are not necessarily doing so out of calculated interest or fraud—though some certainly do—but because they place one on the “right side of history.” Those who have bought into this political formula have also allied themselves with nonWhites. It is true, as many have noted, that some of this has entailed convincing lower-status nonWhites that they have more in common with Raymond McGuire, a black former executive at Citigroup, than they do with Whites in similar strata. However, this ignores real racial tensions, regardless of the basis of their legitimacy, in this country upon which elites have amassed fortunes and empires by enlarging and amplifying them. Whites who condemn their “unenlightened” counterparts for rejecting real or performative ethnomasochism are the most repulsive of all.

Replace the Elites

The Great Replacement, then, is a symptom of this political formula, which represents the interests of the elites and their allies who view America’s Whites and the institutions with which they are associated as obstacles to their dominance. The process of replacement is akin to something like changing the “base”—the materials and resources of a society—to alter the “superstructure,” the organization of human life that includes the ideology, norms, and identities of a people.

Although conservatives and some liberals think “American values” are universal, evidence suggests that the survival of many foundational cultural and political assumptions depends at least in part on the continued survival of Whites. Consider that a Pew Research Center survey found 75% of blacks, 72% of Asians, and 65% of Hispanics say gun laws should be stricter compared to only 45% of white people. White evangelical Protestants are the country’s socially conservative core on culture war issues from sex and gender to transgenderism. Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely than white Americans to believe hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%), and policing politically correct speech and behavior only empowers the managerial regime.

To be sure, this is not to say that ideas unique to certain cultures cannot be transmitted regardless of race. Rather it is to insist on the basic truth that a people functions as a carrier of culture. The ideas that arise from a culture have their best chance of survival so long as the people from whom they’ve sprung remain physically and psychically intact. As Thomas West wrote in The Political Theory of the American Founding: “It is unlikely that the American Revolution could have succeeded without something like the Anglo-American people with their distinctive ethnic character, religion, and legal heritage.” Natural rights, West concludes, “are not enough.” Moreover, while immigration is not inherently good or bad, the status quo is only increasing political polarization.

A study published in the academic journal Kyklos noted what seems obvious: “immigration from culturally distant countries…reduces political stability compared to immigration from culturally similar countries.” But another consequence is that the national security apparatus grows in anticipation of instability. Consider that the Department of Homeland Security views “white supremacists”—essentially anyone who disagrees with mass immigration—as “the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.” The Defense Department has also warned about the scarecrow white supremacy. All this, of course, means the regime must spend more and surveil more to quell real or perceived political instability.

More to the point, changing the demographic base of a country will change the character of its social institutions and political structure. This is a rational objective for the “coalition of the ascendant” and their elite allies; it only speaks to their cowardice and duplicity that they cannot always admit to their goals. The Great Replacement is not in itself a political philosophy but one major outcome of a governing elite’s political formula. Opposing that formula will require formulating a countervailing movement that expresses and justifies a competing set of beliefs, moral principles, norms, cultural inheritances, and institutions.

A confrontation with the prevailing ruling class will also require explicitly addressing and rejecting anti-white discrimination, because Whites still constitute the largest political base receptive to such a formula. There is no need to mince words here for fear of alienating others: nonWhites and immigrants who do not wish to live in the awful new world that is clawing its way out of the rotting husk of the old will come along as a matter of course.

There are signs everywhere of raw, inchoate energy from which we can begin to derive such a movement. In a video leaked on January 28, border patrol agents were seen criticizing Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz, whom they accused of becoming an irresponsible bureaucrat not even capable of saying the phrase “illegal alien” out of political correctness. “For evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” an unidentified agent said. “Good men are doing nothing. You’re allowing illegal aliens to be dropped off in communities,” the agent added. According to journalist Ali Bradley, border agents turned their backs on Secretary Mayorkas as he toured the border two days before, and the Washington Examiner reported that there had been a “heated exchange.”

That energy is also manifesting in parents militating against critical race and gender curriculum in schools. Critical race theory, after all, justifies the Great Replacement and the regime it serves: the widespread and organic resistance to it suggests that the American populace instinctively understands and opposes what the ruling class is doing. The situation is bleak but not hopeless, and the question is not whether our enemies are too strong. It is whether we will find the discipline to avoid distraction and co-optation, and retain the determination to judge, condemn, and disempower the managerial regime.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.