Polls: Support for Gay Marriage drops. Was the Trans Issue the Poison Pill?

Polls: Support for Gay Marriage drops. Was the Trans Issue the Poison Pill? By Scott Pinsker at PJ Media.

An eye-opening new Gallup poll: …

Between 1996 and 2022, the percentage of U.S. adults in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage increased by 44 points, from 27% to 71%. In 2024, the figure dipped to 69%, and it has shown a marginal decline each year since.

Gallup first asked about the morality of same-sex relations in 2001, when 40% said they were morally acceptable. By 2022, 71% held that view, before a sharp drop to 64% in 2023, holding at about that level during the past three years.

When Gallup first asked about changing one’s gender in 2021, 46% found it morally acceptable, and 51% found it morally wrong. Today, those numbers stand at 38% and 57%, respectively. …

In 2022, 87% of Dems supported same-sex marriages; today it’s still 87%. As for the morality of same-sex relationships, in Gallup’s analysis, there was “no meaningful change among Democrats (now at 81%).”

The one issue where the Democrats changed the most was on trans rights, where support dropped by 7 points!

Dylan Mulvaney was the turning point for trans:

The tide began to turn against the LGBTQ movement in early 2023. Before then, it was nothing but gains; all the momentum was theirs.

And not-so-coincidentally, 2023 was also the year when — among (many) other things — Bud Light showcased transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in its ill-fated ad campaign.

 

The reason for accepting LGB:

The secret to LGBTQ’s earlier acceptance was a very clever, two-prong PR campaign: Bigotry is wrong (“Love is love!”) and gay people are no different than anyone else.

Opposing racism, sexism, and bigotry is drilled into our heads at a very young age, so the first half was an easy sell. … And with gay people so ubiquitous — they’re in your family, my family, and the rest of society — we didn’t want to hurt the people we cared about. We want the best for ALL our friends and family. …

Trans too?

At first, the trans movement piggybacked on gay marriage’s PR messaging: Trans people are just like you and me. Your children could be trans. Anyone could be trans! Don’t you want the best for your children?

This messaging was synthesized into the snappy soundbite, “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?” (And vice-versa, of course.) It gave audiences a binary, Patrick Henry-inspired choice: Transition or death. …

We heard the media’s messaging and saw a slew of warm, glowing, positive portrayals of trans people — especially children. Trans children were everywhere!

Megyn Kelly went on national TV and said, “it is possible to transition [children] socially, with love and support and acceptance within a family and a community.” …

From 2010 through 2022, most Americans gave the trans movement the benefit of the doubt: If this is what it takes to prevent kids from committing suicide, well, being trans is certainly better than the alternative.

But then:

The trans movement overreached.

We saw male-to-female MMA fighter Fallon Fox shatter the orbital bone of “her” female opponent — and was heralded by OutSports as “the bravest athlete in history.” We heard countless accounts of scared little girls who didn’t want to share their locker rooms, bathrooms, and school showers with biological males — and were promptly derided as bigots and bullies. Young men were told they were “transphobic” if they didn’t want to date a “girl” with testicles and a penis.

Instead of “protecting children,” the trans movement did the opposite, displaying a callous indifference to the safety, traditions, and integrity of all other groups and institutions.

Trans people were given carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted, and anyone who disagreed was blackballed from polite society.

This wasn’t equality; it was supremacy — with the trans movement at the top.

It grew increasingly creepy and Orwellian, with the satire site Babylon Bee banned from Twitter (now X) for “misgendering” trans political appointee Rachel Levine. And the Babylon Bee was far from alone.

Disagreeing with someone’s choice of pronouns could, quite literally, get you demonetized and barred for life from social media!

Unhappy, nihilistic, and dangerous:

Then a weird connection between trans and gun violence began to emerge. There was the Tumbler Ridge school shooting in February 2026. The Annunciation Catholic School mass shooting in August 2025. The 2023 Nashville school shooting. And, of course, the assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson, who was (allegedly) motivated by his trans lover.

Instead of perceiving trans people as victims, they were increasingly seen as perpetrators. For a group that’s less than 1% of the population, they certainly seemed overrepresented in shocking acts of violence. …

The scam dissolved as people noticed:

Little by little, Americans noticed that we didn’t see too many trans kids in our own families or neighborhoods — but among Hollywood celebrities, they were practically everywhere. And they often appeared in clusters that were statistically improbable, such as Oscar-winning movie star Marcia Gay Harden’s three children, one of whom is gay, the other is non-binary, and the third is “gender fluid.” And Harden wasn’t the only celeb with trans kids …

The trans movement seemed less based on a rigid, immovable biological reality about gender, and more a byproduct of peer pressure, mental vulnerabilities, and “social contagions.” …

An extremely harmful social contagion, as explained by Chloe Cole:

The American people have woken up from the obvious lie of transgenderism.

There is no excuse for the mutilation of young people. Members of Congress who still defend it should have to look parents in the eye and explain why their child’s healthy body is now a commodity.

 

Why LGB is accepted, but trans is not:

The “social contagion” association was a PR killer because gay and lesbian people gained public acceptance AFTER we decided that sexual orientation wasn’t a choice; it’s hardwired into our personalities. Therefore, it’s not something that can be “willed away.”

Like it or not, this is how gay and straight people are born.

But what if it’s not? What if a large percentage of the trans community was comprised of confused, lost souls who are desperate for a sense of belonging?

The trans movement tried to have it both ways: Gender was a “social construct” that didn’t matter anyway — yet so intrinsic to our identity, why, preventing a boy from identifying as a girl would drive him/her to suicide.

Eventually, the American people had enough: The cognitive dissonance was simply too great. …

The collapse of support for trans is pulling down LGB as well:

And because the LGBTQ movement bundled itself under a unified banner rainbow — it literally stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, TRANSGENDER, and queer — when one pillar collapsed, there was an inevitable ripple effect. It undermined public acceptance of the entire LGBTQ community.

And now, according to Gallup, LGBTQ acceptance is at its lowest level since 2016.

History will show that the trans movement was a PR poison pill that set the LGBTQ movement back at least a decade. All that goodwill — and a generation of positive PR — was squandered at the altar of transitioning children.

If the trendlines continue, same-sex marriage will probably be on the chopping block by 2030.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society? Excessive feminism

Why Men Are Walking Away From Liberal Society? Excessive feminism. By ZeroHedge.

Recent surveys paint what might seem like an apocalyptic picture:

  • In the US, around 45% of men ages 18-25 do not approach women anymore to engage in dating or relationships.
  • Over 42% of all men have no interest in seeking out women for relationships or casual dates.
  • Around 30% of men over 40 years old have never been married and are not necessarily seeking marriage. …

Men are not lonely, they are deliberately refusing to participate in order to make a point. What we are witnessing is perhaps the most substantial mass boycott of liberal ideology in history as men go more conservative.

On relationships, all men’s voices are cancelled:

It’s a boycott the establishment media does not want to acknowledge….

A recent expose by The Guardian … regurgitate[d] the old standby excuses: Men are afraid of women because of lack of emotional intelligence. Men are having trouble navigating the new world of fluid gender roles and women’s independence. Men are being lured into “toxic masculinity” by conservative movements, etc. …

But they never ask those men what it is about conservatism that attracts them. Why? Because they don’t want to hear the answer. They don’t care what men have to say. So instead, they gather up a gaggle of female psychologists, jilted women and woke beta male activists and ask them “What is going on with men these days?”

Given too much power out of politeness:

The idea of self improvement and striving for success has become the rallying cry for many men lost in the sea of the post “Me Too” world. It makes perfect sense. After a decade of feminist militancy and narratives painting men as walking time bombs on the verge of exploding into a deadly rage, men are no longer asking for validation from society or from women. Instead, they have set their own goals and measure their achievements according to their own peace of mind.

The power of the woke movement and feminists is in their ability to insert themselves into the role of judge and jury. They do this by claiming constant victimhood, which they say earns them access to the halls of power and influence. When the media talks about masculinity from an anthropological standpoint, they talk to the self-appointed woke experts (mostly women).

When they do ask men, it’s usually from a liberal standpoint. When they ask conservative men, they ignore the answers and attack the honest responses. …

The idea of “toxic masculinity” is a woke feminist fallacy; a creation meant to shame men for their natural behaviors, their normal biological roles and the inherent ways they deal with the world.

The important thing to remember is that feminism has not been about equality for decades. Women have had social equality and legal superiority over men in the west for some time now.

Rather, feminism is about keeping men in line and under control to prevent any rebellion against the liberal epoch. After all, women have no inherent power. They gain power by convincing men to give their power away through government. By convincing men to behave in the name of modern civility. …

Masculinity and patriarchy is the left-wing version of “original sin”; a great crime against humanity that can only be defeated when men and women come together…and submit to feminism. Which means, men have to hand over all their power as the source of this great evil. Men have to accept proper “management” to avoid falling into their darker ways. If only these men would prostrate themselves before the benevolent woke gods and beg for forgiveness, then the world would be a much better place.

But why would they? The idea that they get something in return is a proven lie. They get no redemption, no peace. Why not simply step on the neck of feminism, destroy it and take control? It would be easy. The only thing stopping this from happening is the hope most men have for a logical and reasonable discourse — the hope of honest reconciliation. As long as feminism exists, however, this is never going to happen. …

When the left-wing media opines on the lost generation of men, what they’re really doing is pretending to have empathy while scrambling to circumvent a full blown male rebellion against the liberal order.

“Me too” was too much, “believe all women” was way too much:

The “Me Too” movement was presented as a reckoning over abuse against women in professional spaces, but it ultimately became a power grab in which liberal women leveraged fake outrage to elevate the idea of “guilty until proven innocent.” It weaponized mob justice against men as a way to steal jobs women didn’t earn or deserve, and steal political power they had no moral capacity to handle.

It’s no mistake that the Me Too motto was “Believe all women.” That’s a radioactive level of power.

Sisters are doing it for themselves … because no one else wants to

Sisters are doing it for themselves … because no one else wants to. By Bettina Arndt.

The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic – inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture, and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible, and less than a real man.

Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame, and the yoke comes off.

Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

The trend is not confined to America. Australian men’s workforce participation has fallen from around 79% in 1978 to approximately 71% today (see below), while similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK and Canada. …

Here’s why:

What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition.

If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal.

The modern woman: a prospectus:

  • They are the most miserable, anxious, and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material.
  • Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem.
  • Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt.
  • They’ve gone full throttle left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently.
  • They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories.
  • Yet their hypergamy (desire to marry up) is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn.
  • The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag.
  • They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting.

What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life? …

Crisis:

Ehrenreich feared in 1983 that if the shame mechanism collapsed, male productivity would follow. She was right.

What she could not have anticipated was the other half of the equation — that the feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it. The yoke is off. The men have looked at what’s on offer. And many have, with considerable rationality, decided to go and play video games instead.

Not all women, by any means, but far too many.

IQ tests don’t measure what’s most valuable

IQ tests don’t measure what’s most valuable. By Devon Erikson.

Mensa et al:

When I was young, some time in the 20th century, someone informed me that my score on a certain academic admissions test qualified me for membership in something called the “Pi Society”.

I believe it no longer exists, but it was something like MENSA.

Being skeptical, but curious, I went down a very deep early-internet rabbit of “high-IQ societies”. There were quite a few of them. …

After some sniffing around, I had a general impression of what these groups mostly did, which was… make IQ tests, and take the IQ tests that other members made.

At which point, I had a key realization. These people weren’t the best and brightest on the planet. They were logic puzzle hobbyists. Which explained why I had never heard of any of them outside of the high-IQ society context. Because making logic puzzles isn’t exactly a trillion dollar global industry.

What do you want to measure?

Now, none of this implies that IQ isn’t real (it is), or that it isn’t important (it is), or that IQ tests don’t measure it effectively (they usually do).

The point is, they don’t measure it directly. They can’t. They measure the performance of skills which highly correlate to it. Like solving logic puzzles.

IQ is an invisible beast that casts a shadow in sunlight. You can’t see it, but the shadow proves it is there. You can measure the one by measuring the other, but your results can always be distorted by lighting conditions.

Solving logic puzzles correlates very well to IQ, but it’s also a skill on its own, which can be practiced. Or influenced by other skills and knowledge.

Example:

Whether you can solve it or not correlates to intelligence, yes.

But since I have a degree in computer science, it’s very easy for me to say “XOR”, and just be done with it.

Someone just as intelligent as me, but with no such background, would have to go through more steps. He would have to invent the concept of “XOR” on the spot before solving the puzzle. The question would be harder for him, and easier for me.

So, these super-IQs of 200 or more, attained on tests specially designed to make such results possible, might have a limited amount to do with inherent IQ as we understand it, and more to do with a practiced skill at taking IQ tests.

A test of this sort might accurately rate (or underrate) someone who comes in cold, and vastly overrate someone who enjoys logic puzzles instead of, say, designing and building rockets.

All the tests are flawed (e.g. the Flynn effect):

Now, there is a field of psychometrics, which is devoted to minimizing these sorts of effects, but having gone down that rabbit hole, too, I can tell you that success that area is much more limited than those working on it would have you believe.

In other words, any metric can become a target, and when it is a target, it begins to lose effectiveness as a metric. …

Actionable takeaway:

Because there is a point, somewhere up in the IQ stratosphere, where those aspects of IQ which are easily measured (logic puzzles) diverge from those aspects of IQ which we care about (rockets).

A logic puzzle is ultimately a question of intent. What is the intended answer by the human puzzle designer?

But we don’t care about intelligence in order to solve logic puzzles. We care about intelligence in order to solve natural problems. And natural problems have no intent. They weren’t designed by a human.

So when we give Alan and Bob an IQ test, and Alan scores 115 while Bob scores 130, we know that Bob should get the rocket-design job, and Alan should go be a doctor or a lawyer or something.

But the same is not necessarily true between 145 and 160, and even less necessarily true between 160 and 175 (which is beyond the range of standard tests anyway).

Conclusion is that there’s no point in giving Elon Musk an IQ test. And don’t try to replace him with Mary Vos Savant [highest recorded IQ in the Guinness Book of World Records], ’cause you won’t like the results.

Bonus extra:

This is why IQ tests don’t work too well on really smart people. Because sorta smart people tend to give the expected answer.

And really smart people tend to point out that the question is wrong, and start arguing with the test, or trying to correct it, thereby making the test impossible to grade and annoying everyone.

The expected answer to this is 72. Because 2*2*2 = 8 and 5*5*2 = 50, so 6*6*2 = 72.

But the (really) correct answer is “I don’t know.” Because what you have is two points on a 3 dimensional graph (x,y) -> z. … An infinite number of contiguous surfaces can be drawn in three dimensions that encompass these points (2,2,8) and (5,5,50).

Each of these surfaces can be described by its own formula. Some of them will also touch (6,6,72). But others of them will touch (6,6, {something else entirely}) instead.

This might sound really, really pedantic. But it’s not.

Everyone knows that the expected answer is the simple one, but that’s only on a test… a fake artificial made up problem.

The real world:

When we start trying to do this in the real world, which, after all is what this “IQ” thing is actually for, then using the same kind of “IQ test thinking” can get you in trouble. …

But Devon, I hear some of you ask, doesn’t the principle of Occam’s Razor demand that we fit the simplest curve?

No. No, it does not. It does not require that we select the simplest possible answer, given what we have currently seen. It requires that we prefer hypotheses that make fewer assumption to those that make more.

These are two different things entirely.

If I see one black sheep, the simplest hypothesis is that all sheep are black.

The hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions is that at least one sheep is black on at least one side.

You will note which of these is correct.

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to questions on IQ test. But questions on an IQ test only matter as much as they are relevant to the actual universe... Where ideas like this are very relevant indeed.

The blob mops up after the murder of Henry Nowak

The blob mops up after the murder of Henry Nowak. By John Carter.

After the trial Nowak’s father gave a press conference. He acknowledged the dichotomy between his son’s rough handling by the police, and the kid gloves with which Digwa was treated: not only did the police default to believing the brown man’s complaint of racism over the white kid’s insistence that he’d been stabbed, but when they finally arrested Digwa, they didn’t even cuff him.

But then???

After this, however, Mr. Nowak emphasized that his son was a kind, tolerant man who would never want his death to be used to stoke hatred and division, and that the public’s focus should be on the government’s efforts to combat “knife crime”, which is a nice vague racially ambiguous term from which any indication of agency has been safely removed. Sure enough, regimoids from Prime Minister Starmer on down immediately picked up on the motif of knife crime, while throwing Mr. Nowak’s admonitions against divisive rhetoric in the faces of “far-right agitators” such as Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson, or Rupert Lowe in an attempt to shame their opponents into silence.

 

 

The statement prepared by Nowak’s father didn’t sound like the words of a man whose heart had been split asunder with grief by the murder of his boy, but then, such statements never do. You would expect such fathers to get in front of the cameras with righteous fury burning in their eyes, calling for bloody retribution. Yet they are always calm and collected, at most a bit morose, perhaps they wipe away a tear, and they always, always take care to stress that their child’s death should not be the occasion for revenge. Don’t look back in anger, we must come together to heal, thoughts and prayers, please respect the wishes of our family in this time of grief, and so on.

The script is familiar because it is, in fact, a script. The first tell is that it sounds like something written by ChatGPT, which is to say like a bland communique from the androids at head office. In this case, the other tell is that Mr. Nowak even took the time to thank the police force’s Family Liaison Officer for her support.

In the US, a shadowy organization known as the Community Relations Service has operated since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law1. This organization is essentially an X-Files for black crime, with secrecy privileges rivalling those of the FBI.

Its agents, known as facilitators, show up on the doorsteps of white families whose children were murdered by Protected Americans, and works to ensure that their grief does not inflame ‘community tensions’. Exactly how they do this is unknown. My suspicion is that they start by appealing to the high-minded civic feeling of the family, under the assumption that they are good liberals who want to do ‘the right thing’. If they need some more cajoling, doubtless there are implied threats of prosecution for jury tampering, hate speech, disturbing the public order, and so on. Whatever it is that they do, they seem to be very good at their jobs. It would be shocking if the the United Kingdom did not have a functional equivalent: probably the Family Liaison Officers embedded within local police forces, probably backed up by nudge units at the national level. …

The lefty paid-protestors moved in:

Before the verdict came in, there was a vigil for Henry Nowak. Supporters came to lay wreathes, say a few words, and hold a minute of silence.

Counter-protesters from “Stand Up To Racism” showed up to screech at them, ‘drowning out’ the minute of silence with the kind of gracious civility that only spiteful mutants can demonstrate. Their mass-produced signage is a good indication that their presence was anything but organic. Someone paid for them. Probably someone in Whitehall.

 

 

The silent treatment (which is failing this time):

The inverted parallels with Fentanyl Floyd are obvious, and have been made by many, but I’m going to harp on them anyhow.

Floyd was a career felon and drug addict who died because he swallowed a fistful of street drugs to avoid getting caught with them after police arrived to arrest him for trying to buy a banana with a counterfeit bill; he resisted arrest, and was put in a standard restraint, which involved the officer kneeling on his neck, a perfectly safe manoeuvre that could not actually have cut off his blood supply. His last words were “I can’t breathe”, because he was OD’ing on fentanyl. This led to the largest hysterical outburst of deranged paramoralistic virtue-signalling in history, as a result of which officer Derek Chauvin was subjected to a kangaroo court as the international scapegoat for the sins of the white race, and imprisoned for life, because he’d had the bad luck to be in the vicinity of the violent pavement ape’s drug OD.

Henry Nowak was a sweet-natured young white kid who died because he was stabbed in the chest by a brown-skinned psycho, and because the literal systemic racism written into explicit police policy resulted in delayed medical treatment along with degrading treatment in his final moments of life. The establishment’s response to this outrage was to ignore it. …

 

Lying by omission

 

And the lies:

 

It’s really a war between whites:

One of the striking aspects of the footage out of Southampton is that almost all of the people involved – the Digwas aside – are white. The protesters: white! The police: white! The politicians: white!

Racial minorities are present in this discourse more as a theoretical concept than as an active agent. …  Racial strife in Southampton, as almost everywhere else in the Western world, is not really a matter of discord between racial others and white people, although of course this is always a factor to a certain degree.

The more fundamental conflict is intrawhite: between traitor whites of the parasitic shitlib professional-managerial class, and the patriot whites of the productive and more conservative working and entrepreneurial classes.

Follow the money and power:

Traitor whites use foreign imports as a means of tyrannizing, oppressing, and stealing from their opponents. This works in a number of ways….

Immigrants tend to use social welfare systems at higher rates, which provides the traitor whites with the opportunity to profit from administering resource redistribution from the productive whites towards their imported clients.

The same socioeconomic underperformance guaranteed by human biodiversity that leads to higher rates of crime and welfare usage also justifies interventions in the name of fixing racial discrimination, which is the only acceptable explanation for socioeconomic underperformance as traitor white ideology consigns human biodiversity to unforgivable thoughtcrime. These anti-discrimination interventions are a rich source of traitor white employment all on their own, while also providing them with the opportunity to deny education and employment to patriot whites, who are simultaneously ground down by the high taxes necessary to support social welfare programs, the low wages that result from the labour surplus provided by high immigration, and the high cost of housing that results from immigration boosting demand for real estat …

The asset-owning rentier class might not like the high taxes, they love the cheap labour and expensive real estate, which keeps them onside within the parasite coalition.

Best of all, because the civic religion propagated and upheld by traitor whites elevates “racism” to the sin of sins, all they have to do to silence their political opposition is to call them “racists”. They avoid criticism by hiding behind their client groups, insisting that any criticism of the regime’s policies is motivated by the small-minded bigotry of hearts full of hatred for the colour of the skin. That tactic worked very well for a very long time.

Unfortunately for the traitor whites, they’ve yanked on the racism lever so long, so often, and so hard that they have now broken it clean off. The old wordspells stopped working sometime over the last few years. …

Without race politics, the traitor whites have no income and no power:

Race politics are the feeding tube they use to suck their blood-meals out of the body politic.

Quite apart from that, there is simply no way for them to extricate themselves from their moral culpability: they’re all on record, in emails, in memos, in policy documents, in public statements, on their social media accounts, advocating for all of this, insisting on it, demanding it, cheering for it. There’s no way out for them. Keeping this system going is existential.

That’s why their tone is increasingly panicked, desperate, pleading. The choir they preach to is shrinking. The part of the population with acquired immunity is growing, and so is that population’s righteous fury. The political centre is collapsing, and their institutional power continues largely by inertia, even as the institutions themselves crumble. Their supporters consist almost exclusively of the old, of women, and of various grades of low-quality human capital dredged up from the worst parts of the white gene pool and the dregs of the third world. Their opponents are increasingly fearless. The rioters in Southampton didn’t bother wearing masks: no doubt they understand quite well that regime intelligence officers will be poring over video recordings to identify rioters, who will doubtless be charged with public order offences, just as happened during the Southport riots two summers ago, but they don’t seem to care.

And a bleak future:

When this ends, most of the invaders will be remigrated back where they came from, and for the migrants that will be the end of the matter. …

The traitors who facilitated the multicultural experiment, however … who threw open the gates to the invasion … who held the native population’s hands behind their backs so the invaders could prey upon them … who reduced their own people to humiliating servitude … well they can’t be deported, can they?

The Deep Moral Failure of AI

The Deep Moral Failure of AI. By Tyler Austin Harper at The Atlantic.

I don’t know what else to call it when companies market digital girlfriends to the heartsick and young. Or when they hawk robot companions to the lonely and old. Or when a billionaire explains that he intends to sell intelligence — trained on humanity’s stolen intellectual property — back to us as a utility, like electricity or water.

These developments are not just wrong. They feel to me like something deeper and darker. “I met the banker and it felt like sin,” Patterson Hood croons in the great Drive-By Truckers song “Sinkhole.” I’d substitute chatbot for banker.

The acknowledged problems:

Technology journalists, academic experts, and activists typically emphasize the AI industry’s prodigious environmental toll, its reliance on intellectual-property theft, its exacerbation of racialized algorithmic bias, its use in dangerous autonomous weapons systems, its role in warrantless surveillance, its exploitation of cheap foreign-labor markets, its upending of the domestic labor market at home, and the like. …

They are measurable harms that can be quantified, and that regulations and policy can be built around.

The deeper problem:

Even if all of these concrete problems with AI were magically solved …  we would still be left with a technology that radically unsettles many traditional conceptions of human dignity and meaning, and that threatens to outsource the most interesting aspects of our life and labor to machines.

This is what the most thoughtful Christian critics are able to see. [The social critic Ivan Illich] wrote in 1971, when the rise of the computer was the primary technological concern, that man “attempts to create the world in his image, to build a totally man-made environment, and then discovers that he can do so only on the condition of constantly remaking himself to fit it.” He concluded, “We now must face the fact that man himself is at stake.”

Today, AI puts “man” even more at stake, as many of Silicon Valley’s leaders attempt to bring about a digital successor species, based on the belief that humanity’s evolutionary destiny is to usher in a higher form of intelligence.

What is humanity for?

Defending humanity against its digital doppelgänger requires having a positive conception of what humanity is in the first place. As the pope writes in his encyclical, “Technological progress — valuable in itself — requires careful discernment of the anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues.” …

Christianity has a clear “anthropological vision,” asserting that the purpose of the human species is to exist in the image of its creator, to love God and one another, and to spread life on Earth and steward its creatures. …

ChatGPT was not made in the image of God …

If secularists flinch at calling this taking — what Pope Leo calls Big Tech’s “dehumanizing ambition” — a sin, they’ll need to find another word for it.

What is money for?

David Archibald:

The International Space Station didn’t actually do anything.

The F-35 program could be abandoned tomorrow.

The AI thing will lower costs and thus improve our standard of living. Which will offset the reduction coming from a higher cost of energy.

Those without AI, and nuclear to power that AI, will be at a considerable disadvantage which will be measured in a lower standard of living.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The harm of DEI: a generation of talented men wasted

The harm of DEI: a generation of talented men wasted. By Captive Dreamer.

I don’t think people have fully registered how societally detrimental DEI has been in business, government, and education. Anti-White hiring policies that locked out an entire generational cohort of talented men, replacing them with unqualified leftist political foot soldiers.

John Carter:

On four levels: first, by packing the institutions with talentless mediocrities; second, by depriving institutions of the gifts of the talented; third, by wasting training and education on people who could not benefit from it; fourth, by failing to cultivate those who could take advantage from those opportunities.

Commenters:

I know people who were blocked by the racist ATC screening process. It crushed them. Faith in themselves gone. Multiply that by a hundred million and you get a lost civilization.

Hmmm. And now our institutions are incompetent.

When the Australian Elite Failed

When the Australian Elite Failed. By Nick Cater at Quadrant.

Every prime minister since Howard has struggled to find the middle ground, a position that will satisfy the competing visions within their own parties, let alone the nation as a whole.

It has not helped that the political class’s judgment has been skewed by the environment in which it operates, surrounded by the graduate class that predominates in the bureaucracy and the media.

Their bluff:

The moral force that holds elite arguments in place, sanctioning those who dare to offer discordant evidence, reinforces the hegemony of conventional wisdom backed by experts. The elite’s superior rhetorical skills and its all-access pass to media platforms give it a seemingly unassailable advantage in civic debate.

It is little wonder that the elite’s vision on contentious issues like climate change, the republic and Aboriginal rights is perceived as the majority opinion, the position held by sensible people opposed by an ignorant few.

Bluff called:

Pauline Hanson entered politics with a practical, commonsense outlook, untarnished by higher education. Her principal anger was not towards migrants, as those who were quick to label her as racist supposed. It was towards the enforcers of political correctness. …

Hanson’s maiden speech attained instant notoriety. Her principal complaint was that a self-appointed elite had stolen the agenda, without a legitimate mandate, and had denied middle Australia any say on the disruptive issue of multiculturalism. “For far too long, ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties,” she said. “I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished.”

Over the years, Hanson’s policy agenda has broadened. Climate change, transgender rights, Aboriginal rights and woke adventurism in all its forms are connected by a common thread. Radical changes to Australian life have been implemented unilaterally by an elite that assumes extra-parliamentary authority to reshape the nation according to its vision.

Covid revealed that our elites had become incompetent (too much DEI?) and untrustworthy:

The Covid epidemic proved a turning point as governments, state and federal, accelerated along the road to tyranny. The declaration of a crisis became the justification for illiberal measures enforced by decree. Dissent was declared dangerous, contrary to expert opinion, an incitement to sceptics to disobey the rules, and a real and present threat to the well-being of the general community.

Like her earlier declarations on multiculturalism, Hanson’s interventions during the pandemic appear uncontroversial today. Yet in August 2021, her claim that the vaccines had “not been properly tested” and the government was using lockdowns to bully people into being jabbed were the subject of outrage in the mainstream press, including The Australian, which headlined its report: “Pauline Hanson argues people should have the right to catch Covid and die”.

The brutal suppression of public protests, a torrent of lies, and the scapegoating of the unvaccinated, endorsed by the political establishment backed by mainstream media, became a breeding ground for dissent. The extent of the erosion of trust in officialdom has been barely recognised by the political establishment, even to this day.

Since 95 per cent of the population had taken the vaccine, the elite arrogantly assumed that discontent was limited to a small bunch of nutters. They did not factor in that many had been vaccinated with extreme reluctance, that jobs had been lost and businesses destroyed and that the lockdowns had placed an intolerable burden on the population, which rose disproportionately the deeper one ventured into the suburbs. …

The Voice revealed who the majority really were:

Albanese’s strategic blunder in holding a referendum on the Voice to Parliament emboldened middle Australia. A progressive pet project had been put to the vote, granting Australians a rare opportunity to express what they really thought without fear of retribution under the cover of the ballot box.

The scale of the referendum defeat — 60 per cent to 40 per cent –pierced the vanity of the elite establishment, who had assumed that their vision was shared by all sensible people. Among the dissenters, however, it was the defeat not just of a narrow constitutional amendment, but of the whole woke shouting match.

It provided comprehensive evidence that they were on the side of the majority, not just a maverick few.

Trump, Farage/Lowe, Hanson. Populism is the response to incompetent rule by the political class. No wonder the political class hates “populism.”

Pro tip: Follow the money, from taxpayer to members of the elite.

Majority Politics and Protecting Minorities

Majority Politics and Protecting Minorities. By Saigou.

Bro, let’s stop pretending.

Muslims make up about 25% of the entire world’s population — over 2 billion people across 50+ countries.

Japanese people? About 1.4% of the world. One single country. Shinto exists only in Japan.

So when people say “Japan should prioritize minorities and be more accommodating to Islam,” who exactly are we talking about?

The global majority is coming to one of the world’s smallest ethnic and religious groups and demanding that Japan change its culture, food, and traditions for them.

That’s not “protecting minorities.” That’s the majority trying to colonize a tiny minority.

Japan has every right to protect its own people and culture first.

If Muslims want to live under Islamic rules, they already have dozens of countries where they can do that. They don’t need to come to Japan and turn it into another one.

Perfectly said. Like haiku!

Pride month? Not in Trump’s USA.

Pride month? Not in Trump’s USA. By The Calvin Coolidge Project.

The Trump Administration has officially declined to issue a proclamation recognizing Pride Month for the second year in a row.

Under Biden, US Embassies around the world flew pride flags:

U.S. Embassy Seoul, 2021

The back-reaction now:

Commenters:

Good. It’s ridiculous to celebrate someone’s sexuality. Especially for a whole month. …

You have to admit, a whole month celebrating a group of people just because of who they’re attracted to sexually seems a bit ridiculous. …

Why do we need to recognize and celebrate, for an entire month, a group whose identification is solely based on who they chose to share a bed with? And to be clear, I have a lot of gay friends who I love dearly. …

There aren’t enough months to designate for everything people do when they pull their pants down. …

I have had Rainbow fatigue for many, many years. …

Well we also don’t have any:

  • White Pride Month
  • American Pride Month
  • Veterans Pride Month
  • Disabled/Handicapped People Month

(Forgive me, Chemo brain has me struggling to remember if any other races besides Black have a Pride Month dedicated to them.)

Etc. etc. All these woke symbols must be wound back some or all. Here in Australia, the welcome-to-country ceremonies need to be wound way back, if only because they are so very boring.

Henry Nowak protests are growing

Henry Nowak protests are growing.

When we started the Wentworth Report in 2016, anti-white violent outrages by immigrants behaving badly (and yes, 90% of terrorism worldwide is by Muslims) were only once a week or so — or at least, as reported on the Web. Few websites reported anything, so as part of our remit to draw attention to things the media choose not to talk about, we ran many of them, or at least the major ones.

But they have become more and more common, overwhelmingly so. Increasingly, many websites or accounts report on them, especially since Elon Musk liberated Twitter/X. There are many per week.

We could fill a much bigger blog reporting solely on such outrages. But there are many other issues that interest us. So, we gradually retreated to just mentioning the very major outrages, then only the more egregious Australian ones. We’ll leave the continuous stream of outrages to other sites.

We haven’t mentioned the Henry Nowak murder in the UK until now, but it has become huge. It’s like George Floyd, only everything is inverted and this time it actually was a murder. A nastier single incident of immigrant and institutional nastiness would be hard to concoct.

 

Murdered on Dec. 3. Kept out of the news until now.

 

It’s all over the web, so look it up if you haven’t seen it. But now it is spilling into the political arena, a turning point that is going to affect policy, so we’ll run some material that we think is interesting.

Protests against the police by white crowds in Southampton are becoming mildly violent after police antagonize the crowd.

 

A crowd is protesting outside the Digwa (the murderer) home:

Protestors demand the police take a knee for Henry Nowak, like they did for George Floyd:

 

Protestors are hunting police and throwing plastic garage bins at them:

 

John Carter on widespread blame:

Every time one of their pets pops off and ends someone, it’s always an “isolated incident”, “mental illness” or “knife crime” or whatever.

Every time one of their pets gets into trouble it’s an indictment of the entire system and justification for the revolution.

If the pet happened to be born locally, he suddenly becomes “one of us”, so it certainly has nothing to do with “immigration”, no.

The truth is Henry Nowak was murdered by a large number of people. Most of them white. Digwa might have wielded the blade, but he had one in the first place because traitor whites in the courts and the legislature gave Sikhs a special carveout when they disarmed everyone else, most especially whites.

Digwa’s family was in the UK because traitor whites in the government let them in.

The traitor whites in the police force defaulted to believing Digwa’s accusation of “racism”, and ignoring Nowak’s plea for help, because they prioritized the ‘race action plan’ above all other considerations, which was implemented and enforced by traitor whites.

The ‘race action plan’ was created because whites had been conditioned to treat racism as worse than absolutely anything, and once again it was traitor whites in journalism, entertainment, academia, and the state who performed this conditioning.

Every single one of them is guilty of Nowak’s death.

That guilt spread out over millions of people doesn’t necessarily come to much individually. But then you add up all of the other whites who have been robbed, raped, beaten, and murdered over the decades, and eventually you come to the conclusion that there is more than enough guilt at the per capita level to justify sending every single one of you to the gallows.

Imagine if a black or Muslim community somewhere in the Western world was rioting at this level. It would be a major scandal. What dastardly white unfairness drove the darlings to protest so?

The major political issue here is that the police took the allegation of racism more seriously than a stabbing, their bullshit diversity training automatically discriminating against the white victim. This two-tier, anti-white policing is the dominant, explosive political issue — again.

The British establishment that wept for Floyd has been conspicuously quiet about Nowak.

 

 

Notice there’s no perfectly manicured signs. No Public sector union banners.

Just unmanufactured genuine outrage at the horrific injustice. The ordinary people have finally had enough.

UPDATE: Here comes the censorship:

 

Nigel Farage (Reform):

I wrote yesterday to the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, requesting a review of the sentence given to the killer, which fell below the recommended minimum for such a sustained, aggressive, murderous assault.

He was jailed for life for a minimum of 21 years. In my view, his crime merits a whole-life tariff.

Above all, however, Britain needs to undergo a broader cultural change.

We must end the anti-white prejudice that has been allowed to fester. We must assert, without apology, that White lives matter too. DEI initiatives and positive discrimination must be scrapped. No ifs, no buts. …

Unfortunately, the Labour Party is simply unable to confront uncomfortable truths about race and diversity. These issues are too deeply ingrained in the party’s institutional culture.

Rupert Lowe (Restore):

We must remove those third world migrants who put their ‘clan’ above all else, including our British rule of law.

If that means entire clans are deported, then that is what must happen. ….

A Labour MP, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, has attacked Restore Britain in Parliament for our push to get the Kirpan [Sikh traditional knife, which Sikhs are allowed to carry in the UK for religious reasons!] banned in public spaces.

Under a Restore Britain Government, all will be equal.

Un-British religious practices will not be tolerated or accepted. …

Halal slaughter, banned. The kirpan, banned, Kosher slaughter, banned. The burqa, banned. All of it, banned.

This is Britain — we do things our way.

Matt Walsh:

There’s never been anything like the Henry Nowak case where the victim is non-white and the assailant is white, and the police respond the way they did. That whole combination of events could really only happen to a white person. The BLM narrative is the exact opposite of reality.

Matt Goodwin:

Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is downstream of anti-white racism. Extend his sentence. Deport the mother. Have a full police inquiry. Root out all woke “DEI” policies that promote minorities while claiming whites are “racist”.

Storming the West — literally

Storming the West — literally. By Geiger Capital.

Spain’s far-left PM Pedro Sanchez gave amnesty and citizenship to 500,000 illegal immigrants, and now hordes of unvetted African men are storming the border.

It looks like a scene from World War Z.

 

Commenters:

He’s solidifying his power. He’s importing his voters. This is the eventuality if leftist get their way. …

These oligarchical leaders are going to push folks so far until the people start pushing back! We are reaching a boiling point in may places around the world as any sense of normalcy has been thrown out the window! …

China would shoot them and their soldiers would know they would never be punished, they know they would be punished if they failed to do their job and shoot them….

Under the Schengen Treaty, they are free to roam to the nearest EU country that offers the best benefits. …

Can you blame them? This idiot was offering permanent residency with huge benefits. Of course this is what is going to happen!

Why the West Is Replacing Its White Population

Why the West Is Replacing Its White Population. By Ricardo Duchesne at The Unz Review.

The Great Replacement is now almost locked in.

This is not because of a grand conspiracy … Nor is it simply the result of excessive “suicidal empathy” or … elites refusing to accept race realism or the critique of the equality thesis.

My thesis is that the large-scale demographic replacement of White European populations is the logical and nearly inevitable outcome of the fusion between

(i) liberal universalism, which delegitimizes ethnic particularism and prohibits state preference for one culture in favor of diversity and value pluralism

(ii) post-Fordist capitalist optimization [Fordism is the old 20th-century industrial system associated with Henry Ford], which demands flexible, low-cost, compliant non-Western labor, expanding global markets, and short-to-medium-term gains.

Together, these two self-reinforcing logics have created a dynamic, high-level equilibrium and path-dependent civilizational trap that is quite effective at delivering GDP growth, opportunities for elite status, rewards for loyalty, and moral validation, yet systematically undermines the long-term demographic and cultural foundations of European societies.

This system exploits the historically peculiar “WEIRD” psychology of Whites (low ethnocentrism, impersonal trust, impartiality) while empowering groups operating on kin-selection and ethnic nepotism …

The West is both a capitalist and a liberal civilization. This economic system and this ideology developed together and are now fused into a single, self-reinforcing system.

In the Fordist phase (roughly 1945–1975), this fusion largely benefited native White populations, delivering broad-based affluence, rising real wages, high homeownership, and stable family-oriented communities within relatively homogeneous nations still anchored by pre-liberal norms.

However, the crisis of Fordism in the 1970s activated a transition to a post-Fordist multicultural and limbic capitalist regime. [Limbic capitalism refers to industries that profit by targeting the brain’s reward, pleasure, craving, and habit systems — the “limbic” parts of the brain — which encourage excessive consumption or addiction: processed food, gambling, alcohol, drugs, pornography, social media, gaming, advertising, etc.]

In this new order, liberalism’s universalistic drive and capitalism’s optimizing logic reinforce each other: the former delegitimizes ethnic particularism and cultural continuity, while the latter demands flexible, low-cost non-Western labor to deal with structural shortages. The system thus favors both diversity as a moral good and certain immigrant personality traits that optimize post-Fordist production.

Yet this regime harbors a deep structural contradiction: it rests upon the historically peculiar “weird” psychology of European peoples, including low ethnocentrism, high impersonal trust, and impartiality, while empowering non-Western groups that operate according to particularistic kin-selection and ethnic nepotism.

The result is a system that is biologically and culturally incompatible with the long-term survival and civilizational creativity of European peoples in their homelands. …

Why Asian labor is preferred:

Capitalism will strive to optimize in whatever political setting it is allowed to operate. This may lead some to assume that it has no inherent ethnic preference. There is no question, however, that in the post-Fordist era, liberal capitalism has shown a clear preference both for diversity and for certain cognitive and personality traits that are statistically more common among East Asians (particularly ethnic Chinese) and Indians.

I am not thinking only of its obvious preference for the cheaper labor found in the non-Western world. In so-called large settler nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and America, it has also shown a preference for high-tech workers who are “more goal-oriented” in their motives; more focused on pure careerism, repetitive technical tasks, strong compliance, and relatively low political inclinations or intellectual and cultural interests beyond one’s specialization and work requirements.

It views East Asians as exceptionally efficient (“low-friction inputs”) for post-Fordist technical tasks such as coding, algorithm design, lab work, and incremental optimization.

White populations tend to be viewed as less efficient in this narrow respect because they exhibit greater personality differentiation, broader interests, higher openness to experience, and a stronger tendency toward political, philosophical, and societal engagement. While these White traits were historically crucial in driving revolutionary scientific breakthroughs, major innovations, and grand societal projects, they are less optimal for the narrow, high-volume, high-conformity demands of today’s hyperspecialized post-Fordist AI economy.

Liberal capitalism is currently selecting for traits that optimize short-to-medium-term economic returns at the cost of the long-term civilizational creativity of the West and its cultural survival. …

Indian migrants are particularly attractive because they are more compliant and geographically mobile than native Whites with comparable education. Lacking deep community roots or established family ties in the West, they accept irregular and intense schedules more readily. There are no entrenched mortgages, local schools, or unions associated with the importation of fresh Indian migrants. This entails less political or social pushback when companies adjust to new market signals or replace workers with AI.

The cost savings are substantial: firms can hire a senior Indian developer in the US or Canada on work visas for $30,000–$50,000 per year, in contrast to $150,000–$200,000 for a similarly qualified American worker. Their narrow education, total focus on STEM degrees, compliance, and one-dimensional desire for money have made Indians quite useful as employees in limbic capitalist sectors such as social media, e-commerce, gaming, streaming, and AI-driven engagement.

To fix a problem, first understand it and describe it accurately.

Our new aristocracy

Our new aristocracy. By Damien Coates in The Spectator.

Did you know?

A few weeks ago, Senator Dave Sharma used Senate Estimates to question why a government-appointed fuel security coordinator was being paid the equivalent of almost $1 million a year.

Most Australians had probably never heard of the role. Many would struggle to explain what a fuel security coordinator actually does. Yet instinctively, they understood something else: whatever this is, it isn’t ordinary life.

That reaction says something important about modern Australia.

An aristocracy?

For most of history, societies had aristocracies. Kings, nobles and landed elites occupied a world far removed from the people they governed. They enjoyed privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens and exercised influence over institutions that shaped national life.

We like to think we abolished all that. In reality, we may have simply reinvented it.

The old aristocracy wore crowns, inherited titles, and lived in palaces.

The new aristocracy wears lanyards, holds postgraduate qualifications, and works from government departments, regulatory agencies, universities, publicly funded organisations and sprawling bureaucracies. …

Trust is fraying:

What Australians have always distrusted is privilege. Particularly privilege that pretends not to be privilege.

The owner of a successful construction company who earns a fortune rarely attracts much resentment. He built something. He employed people. He took risks. Australians understand that bargain.

But a growing number of people look at modern institutions and see something very different. They see departmental secretaries earning salaries most taxpayers can scarcely imagine. They see agency heads, regulators, university executives, consultants, and publicly funded administrators occupying positions of extraordinary comfort while presiding over outcomes that appear to be getting worse rather than better. [They took no risks.]

  • Housing is less affordable.
  • Infrastructure is under strain.
  • Energy costs are rising.
  • Government is larger than ever.

Yet the managerial class continues to expand.

In Australia, almost one in five workers is now employed directly by government. Around that sits an even larger ecosystem of consultants, regulators, policy advisers, university administrators, NGO executives, and publicly funded professionals. Together, they constitute a class that exercises enormous influence over public life while often remaining insulated from the consequences of the decisions they make. …

 

 

Above it all, insulated by oodles of low-risk taxpayer money:

The people deciding housing policy generally own homes.

The people advocating population growth rarely compete for rental properties in outer suburbs.

The people designing energy policy seldom worry about whether they can afford next month’s power bill.

The people making decisions increasingly inhabit a different Australia from the people living with those decisions. And ordinary Australians know it.

That is why comparisons with the monarchy are more instructive than many realise.

For example, PM Anthony Albanese, who only ever worked for the Labor Party, has had multiple properties:

 

The pretending is particularly irritating:

The British monarchy never pretended to be ordinary. Its legitimacy was built upon distance. Kings did not claim to understand the daily struggles of farmers and labourers. Aristocrats did not pretend they were simply average citizens temporarily entrusted with power.

The divide was obvious.

Modern elites often ask for something far more ambitious. They seek the authority that comes from expertise while simultaneously demanding the trust that comes from relatability.

Increasingly, they enjoy neither.

Politicians tell voters they understand housing stress while owning multiple properties. Bureaucrats explain the necessity of policies whose consequences they rarely experience firsthand. Institutional leaders speak constantly about community while living lives increasingly disconnected from the communities they govern.

The problem is not that elites exist. Every successful society has elites. The problem is that modern elites frequently deny they are elites at all.

They speak the language of equality while occupying positions of extraordinary privilege. They present themselves as representatives of ordinary Australians while inhabiting professional and economic worlds that bear little resemblance to ordinary life. …

Populism is the tell that the elites are failing:

The rise of populist movements, the collapse of confidence in institutions and the growing hostility toward experts are not random developments. They are symptoms of a widening gap between those who exercise authority and those expected to accept it.

Democracies ultimately depend upon legitimacy. Legitimacy depends upon trust. And trust becomes difficult to sustain when large numbers of people conclude that those making decisions no longer understand the country they are governing.

And the recent tax changes didn’t help. The elite keeps swelling, so they need ever more tax income: