Is Epstein following in the long tradition of secret societies of rulers, perhaps cannibalistic?

Is Epstein following in the long tradition of secret societies of rulers, perhaps cannibalistic? By Thomas Peermohamed Lambert at UnHerd.

Native Canadian example:

In 1886, a young German anthropologist named Franz Boas landed in British Columbia, with the intention of studying the indigenous peoples as they began their ritual preparations for winter. … Almost nightly, the Kwakiutl gathered in their long, rectangular houses to dance into the small hours of the morning, until the sun showed itself again. …

The longer Boas spent among the Kwakiutl, though, the more he became convinced that the strangest and most shocking rituals were held behind closed doors, only accessible to those with considerable wealth and long periods of purificatory seclusion behind them. He asked a few villagers about the rumours though: no one seemed to want to talk. They did have a name, though, for the select group of men in the village who were allowed to attend them: the “Hamatsa” — meaning, the “cannibals”.

Boas spent the next decade exploring the Pacific Northwest region. The more indigenous peoples he visited, the more he became convinced that all of them had equivalent, secret brotherhoods. There were “Cannibal Societies” among Kwakiutl, the Bella Coola, and the Tsimshian peoples, not to mention “Grizzly Bear Societies” and “Wolf Societies” who were rumoured to eat human flesh, too. …

Boas began to suspect that they were all connected: what other anthropologists had believed were multiple different peoples were perhaps better thought of as just two different groups: a scared, confused rank and file, and a secretive, cannibalistic elite.

For several decades, Boas’s discovery languished in the pages of relatively obscure ethnographies. Those anthropologists who encountered it tended to treat secret, cannibalistic cults as a quirk of the Pacific Northwest: a strange outgrowth of the totem religions of the region, and certainly not something with any wider sociological significance. …

More and more examples emerged:

Then, in 1902, a colonial administrator named P.A. Talbot began to notice some strikingly similar patterns in the region he had been tasked with governing in British Nigeria.

Talbot was first alerted to the fact that there might be a strange, second power system operating in his fiefdom by the road closures. Masked figures kept appearing on public highways and demanding they be shut for unspecified, ritual purposes. Soon they began to commandeer other public spaces: markets, town squares. … Over time, he uncovered the truth: the masked men belonged to a shadowy group known as the “Ekkpo,” or “Leopard Society”, which had “usurped practically all the functions of government”, regulating trade, adjudicating disputes, imposing fines, and executing people they found guilty of non-observance of public rites, or having witnessed private ones. …

The Leopard Society was a kind of state-within-a-state, their power maintained by a vast network of secretive rituals: mock beheadings, staged resurrections, feats of bodily invulnerability — not to mention, of course, cannibalistic sacrifices. Within a few years, colonial officials across West and Central Africa had begun to notice similar features in their own territories: in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the secretive Poro society wormed its way into just about every important political position with initiates sacrificing their own first-born sons to reach the highest ranks; in Rwanda, the Kubwanda Society maintained secret lodges outside villages where they plotted techniques for taking over political power.

Secret societies for ruling by fear turned out to have evolved nearly everywhere, a universal phenomenon for societies bigger than very primitive tribes but less advanced than formal kings and emperors:

By 1950, anthropologists were discovering secret societies on every continent on the planet: the Suque in Melanesia, with their mass sacrifices of pigs; the clown-fraternities of the American Southwest, with their black-and-white body paint; the “bear cults” among the Ainu of Japan, with their hidden feasts of ursine flesh. What Boas had thought was a relatively isolated phenomenon confined to a few fishing peoples in British Columbia was starting to look like a human universal. …

The “wisdom” guarded by the secret societies was pretty variable — and in many cases, initiates didn’t even really seem to know what the secret they were guarding actually was. In fact, what all human societies seemed to require was not a particular kind of secret ritual or rite, but an excuse for secrecy itself.

The next breakthrough came in the Nineties, when archaeologists in France and Italy began to notice some strange patterns in the Palaeolithic cave dwellings that littered the Northern Mediterranean. With surprising regularity, they noticed, there would be smaller caves, positioned a little way away from the main dwellings with hidden apertures, with unusual concentrations of cultic artefacts, and — entirely unheard of in other dwellings from the period — evidence of cannibalistic human sacrifice.

What was more, such dwellings tended to belong to very specific types of peoples. The cannibal cults invariably seemed to emerge in “transegalitarian” societies — that is, societies who were caught somewhere between flat, egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands and stratified, feudal societies with established hereditary classes. In such societies, the archaeologist Brian Hayden explains, everything was up for grabs: greedy “aggrandisers” needed to recruit deputies and cronies, and quickly; but in the absence of standing armies and sophisticated ruling-class ideologies about the importance of giving tithes to the local baron or paying back one’s student loan, they needed to get creative.

Perhaps, the archaeologists began to suspect, all the machinery of terror was simply a way of solving a technical problem of government: how to cleave apart a group of people who formerly believed themselves to be bound together in structures of reciprocal obligation. Masked ceremonies and mock-beheadings to terrify those excluded.

The awful secrets that bind members of the secret societies:

Cannibalistic ceremonies to lock in the initiates. After all, were you really going to go crawling back to your family for forgiveness when you had just sacrificed your first-born son? …

Secret societies are not just a vestige of older, quirkier times; they remain one of the most empirically sound explanations we have for why groups that have hitherto been bound together by bonds of community and family suddenly explode into hierarchy. Indeed, they are perhaps best thought of as social technologies for creating hierarchies.

Epstein:

In an important sense, the Epstein revelations are simply the latest chapter in the ancient history of secret societies designed to enforce boundaries between a cosy elite and a terrified rank and file.

The evidence — the testimonies of all those underage girls trafficked for sex, the trapdoor into the ocean, the torture video, the suspicious order of 300 gallons of sulphuric acid the day after Epstein’s indictment — certainly seems grisly enough to guarantee a similar kind of bond of secrecy among those involved.

What is more, Epstein really does seem to have had a coterie of powerful people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt against all evidence: not just among the celebrities who flocked to him long after his conviction, but also, perhaps, in institutions like the FBI, which gave him peculiarly lenient plea deal back in 2007, not to mention the virtually unprecedented guarantee of “immunity for all co-conspirators”.

But in a sense, it is the more feverish rumours, like the cannibalistic orgies in the upstairs rooms of pizza restaurants posited by QAnon, that are most telling of Epstein’s sociological significance. Suddenly, spontaneously, people with no familiarity with the Hamatsa, the Ekkpo or the Poro, are devising imagery straight out of the ethnographies of Boas and Talbot. It is as if ordinary people know, instinctively, that the greater the inequality, the stranger and more occult the rituals that reinforce it need to be. …

Even today, it is hard to spend too much time among politicians and barristers in London without noticing, say, the preponderance of freemasons in the livery companies of the City of London, or the tendency of entire political dynasties to be drawn from the alumni of Oxford drinking societies with humiliatingly macabre initiation ceremonies involving dead pigs. As hard as it might be to imagine some horsehair-wigged judge staging the mock-execution of an infant, Ekkpo-style, our most venerable institutions do seem very good at devising ways of getting their members ensnared in a web of each other’s humiliating secrets, even without an Epstein to orchestrate it all. …

Now the secret societies in the West rule more openly, striking fear into the peasants:

But perhaps this conspiratorial reading misses the most important way in which our liberal institutions have begun to function like secret societies. After all, far more potent than the way these institutions operate behind closed doors is the way they operate out in the open — specifically, the way they strike fear into those who do not belong to the elite guild.

Take the law, for instance. Reading over the Epstein files, one of the most shocking things one discovers is that for Epstein and his affiliates the whole function of the legal system seemed to be to frighten and bully those who did not really understand it. Epstein appears to have been serenely comfortable using his lawyers to hound and pester people who fell afoul of him: for him, with the best lawyers in the world on retainer, a few dozen lawsuits were easily navigable; for his victims, with normal jobs and families and no savings to pay for counsel, just one lawsuit could quite plausibly ruin their lives. This technique — using what are supposed to be neutral procedures for administering justice as a punishment in their own right — is so widely acknowledged today that it even has a nickname in America: the SLAPP, or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”. But we should not be seduced by the jargon into thinking this is anything new. The underlying logic is exactly the same as the Hamatsa and the Ekkpo: the law is a secret guild, that works in the service of initiates, and terrifies everyone else.

All that vague hate speech legislation? Same idea:

This logic seems to be increasingly popular among politicians, too. In the UK, our political class seems to be gleefully shedding the Enlightenment commitment to accessibility and transparency in legislative affairs and embracing the occult techniques of the Ekkpo. …

Now ask yourself: what are these bills meant to achieve? What any of these legal widgets really means is a secret …It doesn’t matter. You are not supposed to obey rules like these. You are meant to cower before them in holy terror. …

Conclusion:

If there is some small good that comes from the Epstein case, it will be that it has helped us to recapture some of that strangeness.

For the first time in decades, people seem to be viscerally, instinctively aware that when it comes down to it, power is never actually about laws and regulations and procedures.

It is about what goes on in hidden caves and smoky rooms. It is about the infinite terror of what we do not understand, and the suspicion, even if we cannot prove it, that the person ordering us around might just have a taste for human flesh.

How the world really works.

Pauline’s ‘good Muslims’ comment twisted out of context by legacy media

Pauline’s ‘good Muslims’ comment twisted out of context by legacy media. By Mark Powell in The Spectator.

Senator Pauline Hanson recently made headlines for comments she made about radical Islam’s incompatibility with the values of Western democracies such as Australia. While many in the media have taken her words out of context to imply that she said there were ‘no good Muslims’, it is important to listen to what she actually said. …

Senator Hanson: … I’ve got no time for the radical Islam, their religion concerns me because of what it says in the Quran. They hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about.

You know, you say, ‘O there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry, how can you tell me there are good Muslims if jihad is ever called …

What’s a good Muslim?

  • Hanson was saying it’s “someone who obeys the Quran.” Which implies that Muslims can be good people if they do not follow the Quran too closely.
  • The legacy media imply she meant “a good person”, and that therefore she was saying no Muslims are good people.

Where would the narrative people be without lying and twisting the words of their opponents?

Uh oh:

What does it mean though for someone who submits to the religion of Islam to live as a good Muslim? In particular, will the practice of their Islamic faith result in them seeking to ultimately implement Sharia law upon the rest of society such as the wearing of a burqa for all women? In short, will these ‘good Muslims’ seek to express their faith theocratically as they have done so repeatedly in history, and are currently still doing throughout the world?

This is where it is crucial to understand the symbiotic relationship between ‘Islam’ and ‘Sharia’. As the Middle East expert and author Dr Raymond Ibrahim helpfully explains … the term ‘Islam’ is the descriptive name of the religion, ‘Sharia’ is the prescriptive way of upholding it.

 

 

Ibrahim:

Here at last we come to the root problem. The Muslim way of life is in many respects antithetical to the Western way of life. Not least in the latter was — at least in its origins — based on the Christian way of life.

Think about it. Hate for, discrimination against and jihad on non-Muslims, wife beating, polygamy, even sex slavery, draconian punishments for including execution of those who blaspheme against Muhammad, or try to apostatise from Islam.

All of these are part of Sharia. That is all of these are part of the Muslim way of and to life no less than Islam’s so-called five pillars, prayer, fasting, etc.

In short, to be a practising Muslim is to be a Sharia-compliant Muslim. They are one and the same.

Powell again:

Are there morally upright citizens in Australia who are Muslim? Of course there are! But are those who are good Muslims — just like someone might be a ‘good’ Catholic or a ‘good’ Jew — actually good for the nation state of Australia?

Well, that’s a very uncomfortable question, but it is also an increasingly important debate that we clearly need to have.

Especially if we believe that criticism of Islam does not nullify the core democratic value of free speech.

And only Pauline Hanson had the courage to wade in headfirst.

ISIS brides: Australian citizens or not?

ISIS brides: Australian citizens or not? By Peter Van Onselen.

Anthony Albanese has tried to draw a line under the ISIS brides debate in a way that will satisfy almost nobody.

In a radio interview this morning, the Prime Minister restated the government’s political message: it will not assist the ‘wives of foreign fighters’ and their children to leave the Kurdish run camps in northern Syria.

But he also made something else clear as well. He won’t do any more, legislatively or operationally, to stop them coming here, if they can find a way to do so on their own.

Albo says the ‘full force of the law’ has already been applied ‘to the extent that we can’ to stop them, and that anything stronger risks being ‘knocked over in the High Court’. …

Judgement:

Refuse to help, concede returning is still possible, then blame the Constitution. That’s Albo wiping his hands of responsibility. It’s pathetic. …

It sounds muscular, but in practice it is an admission that prevention has been abandoned. It’s not good enough.

This controversy — in a confused, implicit way — gets to the meaning of what it means to be an Australian citizen. Is citizenship a bit of paper, a set of beliefs, or bloodlines going back at least decades?

If the ISIS brides are truly Australian citizens, then Australia should try and help them, and welcome them back.

But they are traitors, having chosen to support a murderous radical Islamic ideology over Australia. They cancelled their citizenship by adopting contrary beliefs. Perhaps they need to go and live in an Islamic country — perhaps Turkey.

The ISIS brides are Australian on paper, and some of them are Australian on bloodlines, but fail badly on beliefs.

For the left, citizenship is just paper. That way they can import millions of immigrants, who can vote in Australian elections yet have very different beliefs to existing Australians. The fact that Albanese has to pretend that ISIS brides are not “proper” citizens no doubt reflects Labor’s polling on the issue.

Two Liberal Ex-Leaders Call for Discrimination in Immigration

Two Liberal Ex-Leaders Call for Discrimination in Immigration. By Lachlan Leeming in The Australian.

Tony Abbott and Josh Frydenberg have both said Australia’s immigration program needs a drastic shake up, with the latter saying it should discriminate against those unwilling to accept Australian values.

Tony Abbott

“We have imported division. It’s very difficult for someone who believes…a caliphate or sharia law or…the leading role of the communist party, it’s very difficult for someone who sincerely believes that to honestly subscribe to the Australian citizenship oath,” Mr Abbott said, adding the country needs a “big reconsideration of our immigration program”

Mr Frydenberg added Australia’s “legal immigration program” needs to be treated “as a matter of self-defence”.

“I do believe….we need to move to a immigration policy which does discriminate,” Mr Frydenberg said.

“It discriminates on the basis of what’s in the national interest, and that is the type of person that we want in this country. It’s not a right to come to this country. It’s a privilege to come to this country, and we need to emphasize that. I thought Angus Taylor put it well when he said the numbers are too high and the standards are too low.

The Overton window is shifting, as One Nation’s polling numbers shoot up.

The Liberal Party is now articulating principles that can give the electorate what it wants. Islam is framed as one example among many (“someone who believes…a caliphate or sharia law or…the leading role of the communist party”). The Liberals do it with softer diplomatic language, quite different to the blunter language of Pauline Hanson, but will eventually arrive at much the same destination.

The big conundrum for the left — who want to continue with multiculturalism and mass migration and therefore need to stifle conflict by enacting hate speech laws — is that there is no hate speech law that outlaws dangerous speech that does not also outlaw the Koran and therefore Islam.

The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis

The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis. By Citirini and Alap Shah.

Nominal GDP repeatedly printed mid-to-high single-digit annualized growth. Productivity was booming. Real output per hour rose at rates not seen since the 1950s, driven by AI agents that don’t sleep, take sick days or require health insurance. …

Two years. That’s all it took to get from “contained” and “sector-specific” to an economy that no longer resembles the one any of us grew up in. …

The owners of compute saw their wealth explode as labor costs vanished. Meanwhile, real wage growth collapsed. Despite the administration’s repeated boasts of record productivity, white-collar workers lost jobs to machines and were forced into lower-paying roles.

When cracks began appearing in the consumer economy, economic pundits popularized the phrase “Ghost GDP“: output that shows up in the national accounts but never circulates through the real economy. …

It should have been clear all along that a single GPU cluster in North Dakota generating the output previously attributed to 10,000 white-collar workers in midtown Manhattan is more economic pandemic than economic panacea. …

The human-centric consumer economy, 70% of GDP at the time, withered. We probably could have figured this out sooner if we just asked how much money machines spend on discretionary goods. (Hint: it’s zero.) …

The human intelligence displacement spiral:

White-collar workers saw their earnings power (and, rationally, their spending) structurally impaired. Their incomes were the bedrock of the $13 trillion mortgage market …

With stocks down 40-60% and boards demanding answers, the AI-threatened companies did the only thing they could. Cut headcount, redeploy the savings into AI tools, use those tools to maintain output with lower costs.

Each company’s individual response was rational. The collective result was catastrophic. Every dollar saved on headcount flowed into AI capability that made the next round of job cuts possible. …

Zero friction eliminates the intermediating humans:

By early 2027, LLM usage had become default. People were using AI agents who didn’t even know what an AI agent was, in the same way people who never learned what “cloud computing” was used streaming services. They thought of it the same way they thought of autocomplete or spell-check – a thing their phone just did now. …

They ran in the background according to the user’s preferences. Commerce stopped being a series of discrete human decisions and became a continuous optimization process, running 24/7 on behalf of every connected consumer. …

Over the past fifty years, the U.S. economy built a giant rent-extraction layer on top of human limitations: things take time, patience runs out, brand familiarity substitutes for diligence, and most people are willing to accept a bad price to avoid more clicks. Trillions of dollars of enterprise value depended on those constraints persisting.

It started out simple enough. Agents removed friction.

Subscriptions and memberships that passively renewed despite months of disuse. Introductory pricing that sneakily doubled after the trial period. Each one was rebranded as a hostage situation that agents could negotiate. The average customer lifetime value, the metric the entire subscription economy was built on, distinctly declined.

Consumer agents began to change how nearly all consumer transactions worked.

Humans don’t really have the time to price-match across five competing platforms before buying a box of protein bars. Machines do.

Travel booking platforms were an early casualty, because they were the simplest. By Q4 2026, our agents could assemble a complete itinerary (flights, hotels, ground transport, loyalty optimization, budget constraints, refunds) faster and cheaper than any platform.

Insurance renewals, where the entire renewal model depended on policyholder inertia, were reformed. Agents that re-shop your coverage annually dismantled the 15-20% of premiums that insurers earned from passive renewals.

Financial advice. Tax prep. Routine legal work. Any category where the service provider’s value proposition was ultimately “I will navigate complexity that you find tedious” was disrupted, as the agents found nothing tedious. …

Even places we thought insulated by the value of human relationships proved fragile. Real estate, where buyers had tolerated 5-6% commissions for decades because of information asymmetry between agent and consumer, crumbled once AI agents equipped with MLS access and decades of transaction data could replicate the knowledge base instantly. A sell-side piece from March 2027 titled it “agent on agent violence”. The median buy-side commission in major metros had compressed from 2.5-3% to under 1%, and a growing share of transactions were closing with no human agent on the buy side at all.

We had overestimated the value of “human relationships”. Turns out that a lot of what people called relationships was simply friction with a friendly face.

That was just the start of the disruption for the intermediation layer. Successful companies had spent billions to effectively exploit quirks of consumer behavior and human psychology that didn’t matter anymore.

Machines optimizing for price and fit do not care about your favorite app or the websites you’ve been habitually opening for the last four years, nor feel the pull of a well-designed checkout experience. They don’t get tired and accept the easiest option or default to “I always just order from here”.

That destroyed a particular kind of moat: habitual intermediation.

DoorDash (DASH US) was the poster child.

Coding agents had collapsed the barrier to entry for launching a delivery app. A competent developer could deploy a functional competitor in weeks, and dozens did, enticing drivers away from DoorDash and Uber Eats by passing 90-95% of the delivery fee through to the driver. Multi-app dashboards let gig workers track incoming jobs from twenty or thirty platforms at once, eliminating the lock-in that the incumbents depended on. The market fragmented overnight and margins compressed to nearly nothing.

Agents accelerated both sides of the destruction. They enabled the competitors and then they used them. The DoorDash moat was literally “you’re hungry, you’re lazy, this is the app on your home screen.” An agent doesn’t have a home screen. It checks DoorDash, Uber Eats, the restaurant’s own site, and twenty new vibe-coded alternatives so it can pick the lowest fee and fastest delivery every time.

Habitual app loyalty, the entire basis of the business model, simply didn’t exist for a machine. …

Lower purchasing costs:

The biggest way to repeatedly save the user money (especially when agents started transacting among themselves) was to eliminate fees. In machine-to-machine commerce, the 2-3% card interchange rate became an obvious target.

Agents went looking for faster and cheaper options than cards. Most settled on using stablecoins via Solana or Ethereum L2s, where settlement was near-instant and the transaction cost was measured in fractions of a penny.

 

 

Their moats were made of friction. And friction was going to zero.

White collar workers are displaced:

The US economy is a white-collar services economy. White-collar workers represented 50% of employment and drove roughly 75% of discretionary consumer spending. …

“Technological innovation destroys jobs and then creates even more”. This was the most popular and convincing counter-argument at the time. It was popular and convincing because it’d been right for two centuries. Even if we couldn’t conceive of what the future jobs would be, they would surely arrive. …

[But] AI is now a general intelligence that improves at the very tasks humans would redeploy to. Displaced coders cannot simply move to “AI management” because AI is already capable of that. …

A company that had been spending $100M a year on employees and $5M on AI now spent $70M on employees and $20M on AI. AI investment increased by multiples, but it occurred as a reduction in total operating costs. Every company’s AI budget grew while its overall spending shrank. …

Displaced white-collar workers did not sit idle. They downshifted. Many took lower-paying service sector and gig economy jobs, which increased labor supply in those segments and compressed wages there too.

A friend of ours was a senior product manager at Salesforce in 2025. Title, health insurance, 401k, $180,000 a year. She lost her job in the third round of layoffs. After six months of searching, she started driving for Uber. Her earnings dropped to $45,000. The point is less the individual story and more the second-order math. Multiply this dynamic by a few hundred thousand workers across every major metro. …

Labor’s share of GDP declined from 64% in 1974 to 56% in 2024, a four-decade grind lower driven by globalization, automation, and the steady erosion of worker bargaining power. In the four years since AI began its exponential improvement, that has dropped to 46%. The sharpest decline on record. …

Protest the new villains?

The Occupy Silicon Valley movement has been emblematic of wider dissatisfaction. Last month, demonstrators blockaded the entrances to Anthropic and OpenAI’s San Francisco offices for three weeks straight.  …

Their founders and early investors have accumulated wealth at a pace that makes the Gilded Age look tame. The gains from the productivity boom accruing almost entirely to the owners of compute and the shareholders of the labs that ran on it has magnified US inequality to unprecedented levels. …

It’s hard to imagine the public hating anyone more than the bankers in the fallout of the GFC, but the AI labs are making a run at it. …

Every side has their own villain, but the real villain is time.

AI capability is evolving faster than institutions can adapt. The policy response is moving at the pace of ideology, not reality. …

Human intelligence? Who cares?

For the entirety of modern economic history, human intelligence has been the scarce input. Capital was abundant (or at least, replicable). Natural resources were finite but substitutable. Technology improved slowly enough that humans could adapt. Intelligence, the ability to analyze, decide, create, persuade, and coordinate, was the thing that could not be replicated at scale.

Human intelligence derived its inherent premium from its scarcity. Every institution in our economy, from the labor market to the mortgage market to the tax code, was designed for a world in which that assumption held.

We are now experiencing the unwind of that premium. Machine intelligence is now a competent and rapidly improving substitute for human intelligence across a growing range of tasks. The financial system, optimized over decades for a world of scarce human minds, is repricing. That repricing is painful, disorderly, and far from complete.

hat-tip Jeremy

Wokeness arises when institutions become female dominated, because women are biologically hardwired differently to men

Wokeness arises when institutions become female dominated, because women are biologically hardwired differently to men. By Camus.

Helen Andrews’ provocative thesis: The rise of “wokeness” in 2020 wasn’t random mass hysteria — it was institutions becoming majority-female for the first time.

In this 2:32 clip she argues:

– Women tend to prioritize consensus, relationships, and keeping everyone happy

– Men tend to prioritize facts, rules, and justice

– Wokeness mirrors the former approach applied to power structures

Key timing coincidence:

– Law schools tipped majority-female in 2016

– New York Times workforce majority-female in 2018

– Medical schools, white-collar college-educated workers, and management roles all shifted heavily female in the same window

– 2020 explosion of institutional wokeness followed right behind

She’s not blaming women — she’s saying demographic change in elite institutions created conditions for a new moral style to dominate.

 

 

 

Remember how woke and left-wing Twitter was, and how that stopped when Musk took over and renamed it X?

The left has turned against AI

The left has turned against AI. By John Carter.

The left has turned against AI because they correctly sense that it will strip mine their power bases.

Their strongest argument for the third world flood is that we need people to do the jobs white people aren’t interested in. In practice, that’s driving trucks, driving Ubers, delivering food, working in food services, and writing shit code. Self-driving cars make all the driving jobs redundant, robots will probably be able to flip burgers, chatbots can write shit code. Which means there’s no argument not to send them all back that isn’t “but it would be mean” …

The lower 80% of the professional-managerial class (PMC) is finished, unless they can trick or bully us into paying them for existing:

Professional-managerial jobs are mostly bullshit fake email jobs, and everyone knows it. Everyone also knows they’re already letting ChatGPT do their work for them. There’s already no good argument for not firing 95% of administrative and clerical staff at large corporations and public sector bureaucracies. The jobs were always fake, yes, but LLMs rip away the fig leaf of plausible deniability. No really, what are we paying you for?

Libtard status is to a large degree based on university degrees. Again AI is annihilating this, because everyone knows students are CheatGPTing their ways through programs that everyone already knew were largely meaningless. Default assumption for the class of 2026 will be that AI completed all their coursework for them.

AI is eating the social status and the jobs of the PMC, while destroying the economic argument for their pet project of replacement migration.

Who wins from AI?

The people being empowered by AI tend to be either tech moguls (the industrial bourgeoisie) who own the data centres, or the genuinely creative classes (entrepreneurs, freelancers, artists) who can use AI to do all the clerical grunt work you used to need a large organization to handle.

The bourgeoisie are something of a disempowered aristocracy, very much shoved to the side by the managerial class. Entrepreneurs are the most economically oppressed class in society. Both feel themselves to be carrying a huge parasite burden, which not only sucks their wealth away towards unproductive and even destructive uses, but constrains their action via the anarchotyrannical webwork of rules and regulations the managerialists have woven. …

Their cultural power will soon but be a distant memory:

Entertainment media is another field where the left will take a huge hit. AI generated TV shows and movies made by individual creators will eat Hollywood alive. The intracultural dominance that the left has achieved by locking down the bureaucratic structure of large production studios will become meaningless very quickly. This will rip money out of their pockets, but more importantly destroy their cultural power.

Raw gimme-dat:

There isn’t much the left can do about this. They can try to demonize the use of AI, but that’s going to be a long term effective strategy.

Their only real play is to make a big push for a massive new system of parasitism. Hence UBI, but also all the mad stuff like unrealized capital gains taxes, the hate towards billionaires in general and Musk specifically, the argument that the rich need to pay their fair share etc. If they lose their sinecures, they’ll demand tribute.

If they get it, they’ll be able to devote themselves full time to left wing activism. That will make the leftist problem 100x worse than it already is.

The left is becoming the party of the “oppressed,” which in modern parlance really means those less able to compete economically, which in turn effectively means those groups with lower average IQs. The left is fast becoming the party of the stupid, criminals, fraudsters, and the gimme-dats. So of course they hate whites, Musk, Israel, Trump, merit, accountability, AI, etc. etc.

Short Pieces

Short Pieces.

Wall Street Apes:

 

This is Ramadan prayer in New York City.

Muslims do not do this in their home countries. They only come out in masses to pray in public spaces in the countries they are conquering.

End Wokeness: Islamic preacher in Times Square:

With us, all the haram here gets eradicated. We ARE a threat.

 

 

Katherine Deves Morgan:

Imagine if Christians surrounded mosques, blocked roads to pray, handed out Bibles outside them, urged women to ditch hijabs, or sent nuns into Muslim classrooms preaching “Jesus is Lord”

We’d be jailed for “hate”

Asymmetrical “multiculturalism” must end.

Japanese PM, recently reelected with larger majority:

 

How much fraud is never enough? End Wokeness and Lori Creed:

Somali community in MN is now demanding reparations over ICE trauma.

The audacity of these people to make such brazen demands after they’ve stolen and abused the Welfare programs of billions in taxpayer dollars.

 

 

Please, where can the West get more people like this? The West needs them. Millions of them!

Heritage American:

Can we stop pretending they are American? I don’t care if they have papers, they aren’t American.

Alexander Marshall, on another roll:

Imagine a political system that says ‘it’s totally fine’ for a left-wing senator to threaten to burn Parliament to the ground [that would be Lidia Thorpe] — but tries to arrest Pauline Hanson for her concerns about Islamic terrorism. …

— Who built modern Australia?

Our ancestors arrived with nothing and built Australia from the ground up.

You have a cushy, high-paid job because my ancestors died in poverty and hardship. How dare you be so disrespectful. You are not fit for power.

Are we proud of our ancestors? Absolutely.

They were the most extraordinary people to walk the earth. Their achievements remain unparalleled in the history of our species.

We must work to ensure that their stories are remembered, and their advancements are built on — not lost.

— Media logic:

Riddle me this.

It is claimed the Liberals are losing votes because they’re ‘moving to the right’.

Yet One Nation is out-polling everyone — from the right.

Both can’t be true.

Yet ‘serious’ political journalists refuse to address the inconsistency in their logic.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Why are Canadians now poorer than Alabamans? How did Justin Trudeau get his $400 million?

Why are Canadians now poorer than Alabamans? How did Justin Trudeau get his $400 million?

Canada’s GDP per capita is $54,236 USD (nominal, 2023), according to data from the World Bank and OECD, adjusted using an average exchange rate of 1.3495 USD per CAD.

Alabama’s GDP per capita is $54,753 USD (nominal, 2022), based on U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

 

 

Coddled Affluent Professional:

It’s important to understand that progressive technocracy has become a looting operation.

It’s just connected people feeding at the trough.

You could argue that’s always been the case but now nothing gets built. There’s nothing to show for it. Not even a Boss Tweed Courthouse. Instead, imaginary things like ‘social justice’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ are the outputs used to justify the theft.

Jason James: (Isn’t this like Australia?)

It’s funny watching Canadian legacy media wake from their stupor and wonder what happened “out of nowhere.” Here’s a quick list to help them gain a better understanding:

2016-Ongoing: Phoenix Pay System
New federal payroll system. Costs quadrupled mysteriously. More costs to fix the quadrupled costs. Actual cost unknown because spending wasn’t tracked.

2018: Chrysler Bailout
Liberals wrote off a $2.6 billion loan to Chrysler for unknown reasons. No recovery of funds.

2020: WE Charity Contract
$912 million student grant program contract awarded to WE Charity. Contract cancelled when Trudeau’s family were found to be receiving payouts from WE. $30 million in initial costs unrecovered. …

2020-2021: Unaccounted Pandemic Spending
$600 billion in unaccounted pandemic spending in 2020-21. …

2024: Cricket Protein Plant
$42 million lost on one facility. …

Interest costs $53.7 billion.

$300 million on passport redesign.

Plus billions funneled into Canada’s perpetually failing state-funded media.

And this is just what’s documented. Who knows how much money was laundered and embezzled into offshore accounts over the last 11 years?

During his time as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau’s personal net worth grew from $7 million to upwards for $400 million on a $400,000 per year salary.

Canada might be poorer than Alabama but Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party definitely aren’t.

So far Australia has somewhat avoided the Canadian problem due to buoyant iron ore prices — which will be coming down soon because the Chinese are just now opening mega iron ore mines in Guinea, in West Africa.

Or maybe it’s happening already, hidden by our media who are more partisan and less curious. Our GDP per capita has been dropping for the last few years. (Australia’s GDP per capita in 2024 was $64,407 USD, according to the World Bank data cited by Trading Economics.)

Tim Koltek:

While I’m sure Justin Trudeau is a wonderful father to his kids, the real issue for me boils down to one word: qualification. How was he qualified to run a company — let alone an entire country like Canada? Sure, he comes from impressive stock, but he never ran a business, never managed large groups of people beyond his time as a high school teacher, and never had to handle budgets, make tough calls on trust, or learn when to stop trusting.

Like Anthony Albanese, the globalist class chose someone of modest talent, via positive media coverage, who would execute their agenda. Won’t rock the boat by thinking too hard, amenable to being softly persuaded with unearned wealth, and an ideologue who remained loyal to the programming of his youth.

 

The plot to topple the next Right-wing government has already begun

The plot to topple the next Right-wing government has already begun. By Allister Heath in The Telegraph.

Allister has been the Editor of The Sunday Telegraph since 2017 so probably knows more about British politics than almost anyone, and Britain is a particularly interesting part of the Anglosphere because it has undergone more population replacement and is about to revolt.

Britain is not merely broken: it has been hacked to pieces by a nihilistic ruling class committed to dismembering our society.

The methodical ruthlessness of the Left-wing barbarians responsible, the relentlessness of their vandalism, the thoroughness of their infiltration of our institutions is such that it will take at least a decade for a future Right-wing Government to rebuild the UK, as well as extraordinary competence, planning and strategic nous. …

Almost every important decision of the past 36 years [since Thatcher fell] … will need to be reversed if Britain is to be saved. …

The long list of self-inflicted catastrophes:

The principal calamities include:

  • the pocketing of a non-existent Cold War dividend and a belief that armed conflict and the need for resilience were obsolete;
  • New Labour’s constitutional and judicial putsches; the rise of command and control welfarism and mass redistribution under Gordon Brown;
  • Tony Blair’s decision to open borders and drastically increase immigration, combined with the spread of critical theory and anti-Western self-hatred, a process turbocharged by the Tories;
  • the embrace of net zero, anti-developmentalism and anti-consumerism;
  • the turn against free markets, exacerbated by a misreading of the financial crisis;
  • the abandonment of monetary and fiscal probity, culminating in the quantitative easing bonanza during Covid;
  • the displacement of religious observance by secular ideologies such as Gaia worship, NHS idolatry and wokery;
  • the decline of marriage, the crisis of masculinity, the surge in loneliness and the baby bust;
  • the embrace of lockdowns and authoritarianism;
  • and the rejection of democracy, freedom, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence and free speech.

Our economy has been crippled by record tax and spend and a regulatory overload, with virtually zero per capita GDP growth, target-busting inflation, massive government debts and youth unemployment of 15.3 per cent, above the European average for the first time. Major and William Hague were right that the minimum wage would eventually kill jobs, and Blair and Brown wrong.

The repudiation of Thatcherism has been catastrophic. We are taxed beyond the Laffer curve’s peak, 6.5 million are on out of work benefits while millions of immigrants have been allowed to move here, the student wage premium is declining, universities are turning into economically useless indoctrination camps, and the skilled, entrepreneurial and ambitious are leaving. The City of London has lost its mojo. Industry has been destroyed by energy costs and regulations. Housebuilding is being euthanised.

Our Armed Forces are starved of resources at a time when Germany and Poland are rearming, and are desperately behind on AI, drones and missile defence. Our much-vaunted tolerance lies in shreds, with sickening Jew-hunts reminiscent of the 1290s or 1930s on the streets of Brighton and Sheffield. We are soft on Islamism and sectarian politics have become normalised.

When a properly rightwing government is re-elected:

Reversing this nightmarish inheritance will be exceptionally difficult. …

It’s not just the volume of controversial and complex legislation required that could overwhelm a Right-wing Government. The third sector has never been this powerful, and the universities, legal profession and the arts never been so Left-wing. The propaganda will be intense. Even worse, Labour will leave behind an apparatus of state that has never been more progressive or less committed to democracy.

The new government will face the equivalent of an army of clandestine agents and saboteurs embedded in every institution. Hostile civil servants and quangocrats will deploy any tool, any lie, to halt the counter-revolution, from lawfare to strike action. …

Strategy — Protect the wealth of the middle classes and they will support a right wing government that rolls back the catastrophes:

Sensible compromises are necessary. French populists have been defeated repeatedly because the middle classes feared for their money under a Marine Le Pen presidency or a euro Frexit: the British Right must never lose the support of prosperous Middle England. It must always protect their wealth.

Ensuring it cannot be attacked on macroeconomics will give a Right-wing government the latitude to fight back on every other front.

The barney will be awesome:

It will certainly be vicious. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and United Nations conventions, vital policies, will be met by a campaign to render the UK an international pariah.

Abrogating the Equalities Act will infuriate the Left, while slashing welfare and ending gold-plated public sector pensions will lead to a 21st-century version of the miners’ strikes by the nation’s bureaucrats.

There will be endless judicial activism and a constitutional crisis will surely be engineered. Sir Keir Starmer’s Brexit betrayals will need to be reversed, triggering a trade war with Brussels.

An Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Gavin Newsom presidency in the United States will be weaponised against a Faragiste or Badenochite British government, with sanctions a possibility.

Naive Right-wingers must stop underestimating the viciousness and power of the status quo forces arranged against them. Winning the election will be tough but merely an early battle in a lengthy war to seize control of a hostile, blue-pilled British state, supported by a radicalised establishment.

Trump had little idea in 2016 of how corrupt, nasty, parasitical and leftwing the system had become.

Rupert Lowe’s Powellite revolution

Rupert Lowe’s Powellite revolution. By Rob Lownie in UnHerd.

Rupert Lowe deals in the politics of return: illegal immigrants are going back, and so is Britain. The Great Yarmouth MP, formerly of Reform UK, has now launched Restore Britain as a new political party, and on Wednesday evening claimed that it had passed 70,000 members. …

Lowe sums up his political outlook: “I think the state is bad, and I think the individual is good.” …

Immigration:

One area where the state has undoubtedly failed, in Lowe’s eyes, is on the matter of immigration. While [Nigel Farage’s] Reform has pledged to deport all illegal immigrants, Restore wants to go further. Lowe has promised to scrap the asylum system entirely, also stating last week that “legal immigration will almost come to a complete halt.” The goal is not just to halt migrant influxes but to reverse them. “Net zero immigration is weak, weak, weak. It is insufficient and it is too late,” he said in the speech with which he launched the party. “The barbarians are already in the gates.”

The remedy, Lowe warns, will be “incredibly painful”: a characteristically abrasive verdict. It is one thing to criticise quangos, and quite another to say that “we must crush parasitic Britain.” And as for the dissonance between government and individual? “The state has definitively become the enemy of the people.”

Like Enoch Powell:

In his doom-laden pronouncements, Lowe resembles no British political figure so closely as Enoch Powell, whose 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech has led a radioactive afterlife in the national consciousness. …

Powell has been a political lodestar of sorts for Nigel Farage, Lowe’s bête noire and former boss who suspended him last year over dubious accusations of bullying. …

Yet, in his beliefs as well as his rhetoric, Lowe is a more obviously Powellite figure than Farage. He’s more interested in reducing the size of the state, is resistant to Reform’s nationalising impulses, and is less vulnerable than his rival to charges of “socialism”.

In many ways, Restore is the more conservative project, given that its central mission is to return Britain — in more explicit terms than Farage has dared — to a glorious past from its Blairite present. When it comes to presentation, Farage and Lowe — tweed-clad former public schoolboys with past lives in the City — are far closer to one another than they are to the intense, prodigiously academic Powell….

Where Lowe differs from Farage, though, is that he has done less to distance himself from figures and ideas which might be classed as far-Right. While the Reform leader has condemned Tommy Robinson for “stir[ring] up hatred” and stated that the activist has no place in his party, Lowe has praised Robinson’s campaigning against grooming gangs cover-ups. …

Who is British?

In an interview in December 2024, Lowe said that “I don’t care about people’s religion or their colour,” but Restore has taken a far more robust approach to Islam than Reform has.

Lowe is set on “resisting the relentless creep of radical Islam”, and his new party’s platform includes policies on outlawing the burqa, sharia courts and halal slaughter. Some of its senior figures also champion an especially muscular Christianity. For instance, Lowe’s campaigns director Charlie Downes, a Catholic convert, declared this week: “Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith.” …

Starved of publicity by the legacy media:

Capturing wider support, of course, is a different proposition. According to polling from this week, 92% of Britons are unable to name Lowe when shown a picture of him. He is popular among his constituents, viewed as a committed and unpretentious champion for Great Yarmouth, but he has a majority of less than 1,500….

Many Reform people are crossing to Restore, and alliances might e made:

Lowe could receive extra ammunition from an alliance with another of Farage’s jilted exes: Ben Habib. Having served as co-deputy leader for Reform, Habib was demoted in favour of Richard Tice, and quit the party in November 2024. The following spring he referred to Lowe’s treatment by Farage as an “injustice”, subsequently setting up a new party of his own, Advance UK, in June.

On Saturday, Habib extended an open offer to Lowe to merge their two parties. Lowe politely demurred by suggesting that Habib join Restore, which “would be stronger with you in it”. …

Elon Musk likes him:

Advance [received] outsized publicity thanks to endorsements from Robinson and Elon Musk. But the Tesla mogul, as well as boosting Habib’s party, has in recent days cheered on the progress of Restore Britain. On Wednesday afternoon, he went so far as to accuse Reform of being “Nazis” because “THEY are the ones who want race extinction.” As the world’s richest man, armed with 234 million pliant X followers, Musk’s overseas influence is considerable; his amplification of posts about the grooming gangs helped push the Government into ordering a national inquiry. 

Musk is widely reviled among British voters, but his support — both X-based and financial — could boost Restore’s international profile and increase the chance of collaboration with like-minded parties such as Alternative for Germany and Spain’s Vox. Farage endorsed the AfD in 2017 but has, in recent years, kept a deliberate distance. There is a gap here for Lowe to exploit as anti-immigration groups build ties around Europe: these are parties which are gaining influence but which are still considered too dangerous by Reform and the Tories. 

Is Farage just a lighter strain of globalism?

While Farage might think he flies in the face of such squeamishness, and that he is dismantling the “uniparty” consensus, Restore supporters believe he instead represents little more than a continuation of the New Labour-inflected order which has governed Britain for the past three decades [and that] Reform’s senior figures “basically agree that the vision Blair had for Britain was admirable and desirable” … “it will come to pass that Farage is the Regime’s lifeline, not its nemesis.”

Overton window on the run:

The UK’s Overton window has undeniably shifted on immigration. … Almost half of Britons say they would support an agenda in which no new immigrants are admitted to the country and large numbers of recent arrivals are required to leave.  …

It’s easy to forget that, even after “Rivers of Blood”, Powell was immensely popular. Polls carried out shortly after the speech demonstrated that a majority of the British public agreed with his assessment of race relations. In 2002 he was voted one of the 100 greatest Britons ever. On his death, the Telegraph wrote that he “would survive more surely than any other British politician of the 20th century except Winston Churchill”.

Restore’s launch video. Rupert Lowe is not charismatic, or an everyman like Farage.

40 – 80 million views already

 

Rupert Lowe:

Restore Britain is clear here. We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

That will apply retrospectively.

 

UPDATE: Even Reform polls are being won by Rupert Lowe:

Restore’s Manifesto

Restore’s Manifesto. By Rupert Lowe, who recently launched the Restore Party in the UK because Nigel Farage’s Reform Party wasn’t strong enough on immigration. Mildly edited for length.

Every illegal migrant will be deported. No questions asked. The boats will stop….

Legal migrants will be expected to work, contribute, speak our language and respect our way of life. If they don’t do that, they’ll be asked to leave.

If they hate us, and wish to do us harm — they will leave.

We support net negative immigration. Taking ultra-skilled migrants who will give far more than they take in small and manageable numbers, but shutting off entire visa routes from countries that are proven to supply us with miscreants and takers.

Those foreign individuals who are here, who work hard, who contribute to society will absolutely be welcome.

But we will not allow millions of foreigners, mainly from the third world, to take the piss.

If a foreign national is unable to support themselves financially, it is not our problem. They should leave. We should not pay for their benefits, their social housing, their NHS care. …

They will go home. Millions will go. …

Dual nationals who want to blow us up will have their British citizenship stripped, and deported. If they rape young girls, they will have their citizenship stripped, and deported.

The spouse visa system will be eased, to allow citizens of non-red list countries to join their British partners.

There are underhand attempts to misrepresent our position. Ignore it. Send them this post. …

This is not controversial. This is certainly not ‘neo-nazi’ as Reform claim. This is the position of the vast majority of the British people, and they finally have a political party representing that view now.

Restore Britain.