W³P Lives: 2026

Thursday, April 2, 2026

Our Own Ruling Class Desperately Wants to Lose This War

Townhall

What’s more treacherous and treasonous than wishing your own country gets defeated in war, especially by a bunch of goat-molesting seventh-century pagan savages whose primitive mindset is matched only by their grotesque perversions? Well, the disgusting perversions part is merely a collateral reasonwhy members of America’s donkey party seem to have such an affinity for Iran’s rulers – the mullahs, with their bizarre bestiality and grotesque handmaiden dogma, and the San Francisco Democrats, with their furry-friendly gender-spazz grossness, collectively share the worst figurative collective browser in the history of ever. Yet, it’s more than their joint commitment to degeneracy that binds them together in a desire for America to lose this campaign. The Democrats hate America, and they think it will help them politically if America can be humiliated. But more than that, seeing America lose also satisfies the evil lurking inside them.

It’s not just about Donald Trump. That’s where people get confused. Oh, they hate Donald Trump, to be sure. He is aesthetically displeasing to them, rejecting their carefully curated image of what it means to be in the American ruling class. It’s not just his style, but his attitude. They find him vulgar and crude because he ignores their complex and emasculating social conventions that enforce collectivist commie conformity. They also hate him because he has money, and much of our ruling class really doesn’t – for example, most regime media scribblers would double their income if only they knew how to do plumbing or drive a truck. There’s a gulf between their prestige and their pay, and Trump’s flagrant celebration of his own riches generates the greenest of envy.

But they also hate him because he’s a class traitor. He understands them because he was one of them until he got tired of them, and he has nothing but contempt for them. He knows they’re weak, stupid, and greedy, and he won’t honor their pretensions to intelligence and competence. Trump was a guy who had to build tall buildings. He either did it right, or the buildings fell. His opponents build nothing. They talk and write. They suffer no consequences for failure, and his critique of their fecklessness is the closest they’ll get to accountability. They hate him for that.

But that’s all personal. That’s why they hate Trump as an individual. But Donald Trump also operates as an avatar for the normal Americans he represents. What the ruling caste really hates is you. They hate normal people. They hate people who devote themselves to faith, family, and the Flag. They have to. They need to hate you because, through hating you, these unaccomplished hacks find a purpose and meaning. They don’t go out and slay dragons. They go out and nag people on Twitter. We, on the other hand, largely live real lives. Many of us are veterans – and we have seen it get real. Occasionally, someone in the ruling class does a tour in the Army and milks it forever – Happy March 29th, Vietnam Veterans Day, to the hero of the Tet Offensive, Senator Dick Blumenthal! – but being in the military is dirty and icky, and you’re stuck with people who are also dirty and icky. You know, Americans.

They do jobs where they talk and despise Americans who have jobs where they sweat. Remember, among our ruling class, the ultimate gig is to sit and run your mouth. Look, there’s nothing wrong with running your mouth for a job – I do it – but if that’s the only thing you’ve ever done, that breaks your mind. I’ve worked at McDonald’s, been fired from Denny’s for gross incompetence, been a private in the army, and jockeyed rental cars at San Francisco Airport, where everyone in the lot was either a college student on break or a convict on parole. Your past is probably similarly colorful. But the color of our ruling class’s past is flat white. They went to the University of College, then they started writing somewhere, and that’s it. They never sweat, never bled, and probably never drove a car with a stick shift or a V8.

We are not the same. They were the student government geeks and drama dorks in high school. As all adults know, adulthood is simply high school writ large. Much of our ruling class is collectively trying to get revenge on us for never getting invited to drink Coors behind the gym in high school.

Barack Obama gave the game away with his clinging to their guns and religion quote, as did Hillary Clinton with her basket of deplorables gaffe. Our ruling class, to which the Democrats are devoted – the party hasn’t been a workingman’s party since back when everybody agreed that a man can’t menstruate – distinguishes itself by its great self-regard rather than by its great achievements. It has no great achievements. What has our ruling class achieved in the last 60 years? Vietnam? The Iranian Revolution? The Iraq War? The Wall Street collapse? Obamacare? Grindr? Our ruling class has failed and everything. Is there anyone out there who thinks the world is better now than it was in the 80s? Certainly not anyone who lived in the 80s. Sure, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, but that was despite our ruling class, thanks to the efforts of Ronald Reagan, who is a lot Trumpier than the Trump haters will ever give him credit for. Yet despite failure after failure after failure, our ruling class still believes they are geniuses.

We, normal people, know the truth, and our failure to genuflect to our alleged betters grates at them. How dare we! We, normal people, are the essence of America, and that makes our ruling class hate America. It seems strange that they would hate what they seek to rule over, but Satan does, so why not The Squad? Understand that they are powered by an all-encompassing contempt for people like you and me, and our patriotism and love of country require that these people despise their own country. America is bad, they believe, built on a foundation of racism, genocide, and transphobia, and all sorts of other badnesses. Since none of them has a religion, this ideology has to serve as a substitute. We are their heretics, their demons, their anti-wokes, and they want us to pay.

Which means they want our country to pay. They were positively giddy when a lucky drone shot killed a half-dozen Americans. They were delighted when a random missile hit took out one aircraft on the ground in Saudi Arabia. They are hoping against hope that they can somehow turn a military campaign of unprecedented skill and daring into a disaster. In the first few days of this war, we decapitated the entire Iranian government. We shattered their nuclear program. We destroyed their air force, sank their navy, and generally blew the snot out of anything worth blowing the snot out of. Our planes fly through their skies unmolested. The Democrats and their allies among the disaffected grifter class are reduced to claiming that Iran’s ability to fire the occasional missile indicates America has been completely defeated. They are aided in this propaganda initiative by the regime media, which got the memo. They must turn this victory into defeat, and they’re trying to do it. They’re not doing it very well, in the sense that anyone who is not a complete moron sees through it. But then again, nearly half of America voted for Kamala Harris, so America has a significant moron problem.

They want us to lose because they think America, and therefore Americans, deserve defeat. They also want Trump to lose because they think it’s going to help them politically. So, we now have our ruling class largely rooting for these retrograde barbarians to somehow pull victory from the jaws of defeat. And the regime media will help; no matter how this ends, all the networks and the newspapers are going to tell you that this war was a failure. But you know how you know it’s not a failure? Because there’s no head ayatollah running around. The former one got blasted to bits. His son probably did too; right now, his legendary impotence is the least of his medical concerns. Oh, and the fact that all of Iran’s ships are resting at the bottom of the ocean, there are no planes left, and they can only squeeze off a couple of shots from random drone and rocket launchers every day, is a pretty good indicator of victory. Never in history has there been such a comprehensive defeat of an entire modern nation in such a short time.

Still, people in our own country wish for our defeat, and if those wishes aren’t granted, they’ll try to manufacture a defeat. It’s bizarre to see so many Americans so eager for America to lose, but that’s where we are right now. We’ve got Americans who want Americans to lose a war to a generational enemy with American blood on its paws. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they have no shame. Shame goes hand in hand with accountability, and they can’t accept the idea that they are accountable to anyone other than their own class. But just remember what’s happening here. Remember how much they must hate you to want their own country to be defeated by a bunch of fanatical freaks. And govern yourself accordingly.

Iranians reel from U.S.-Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure

Some residents say they’re witness to increasing numbers of strikes on residential buildings

A man holds in place a protective helmet on the head of a child as other motorists take shelter from an incoming missile attack in a ditch on the side of the highway in Latrun on April 1, 2026. Photo by MARCO LONGARI /AFP via Getty Images

No, Sorry, the War Doesn’t Mean ‘Renewables’ Will Replace Oil

No, Sorry, the War Doesn’t Mean ‘Renewables’ Will Replace Oil

As war fuels new climate urgency, the numbers show renewables still cannot replace the energy that powers modern civilization.

Edward Ring for American Greatness

Right on schedule, the climate activists and their corporate backers are capitalizing on wartime fuel shortages to claim that now, finally, we can get serious about fighting climate change. On March 15, The New York Times weighed in with an article titled “How War in Iran Could Remake the Global Energy Landscape.” Claiming the oil crisis could “spur countries to invest in wind, solar, and other renewables,” the article quotes UN “Climate Chief” Simon Stiell, saying, “If there was ever a moment to accelerate that energy transition, this is the time.”

This is the same Simon Stiell who, in April 2024, claimed that the energy industry had only two years left “to save the world” by making “dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions, and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift.”

It’s difficult to know where to begin in the face of such ghoulish opportunism. Increasing numbers of credible observers have begun to question the apocalyptic urgency of the climate emergency narrative, but now that refineries are blowing up and ships are sinking in the Persian Gulf, there’s a new compelling reason to accelerate the transition to “renewables.”

So, now that the climate industrial complex discovers new momentum thanks to a catastrophic war, maybe, by the numbers, it’s also time for another reality check.

We can start by acknowledging that there is a direct connection between energy and prosperity. If we accept that premise, then here’s an immutable fact based on data reported in the 2025 edition of the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy: For everyone on earth to have access to half the energy per capita that Americans consume, global energy production will have to more than double.

To document that fact, about a year ago, in an in-depth analysis titled “The Delusions of Davos and Dubai,” I reported per capita gigajoules of energy consumption in the world, comparing Americans to the global average, and related that to total global energy consumption, measured in exajoules. Not much has changed.

Yearly per capita energy use by Americans, according to updated 2024 data, averaged 268 gigajoules. The UN estimates the global population will peak later this century at 10.3 billion people. If every one of them consumed an average of 134 gigajoules—half what Americans consume—the total energy required worldwide to deliver that much energy would be 1,381 exajoules. In 2025, total energy production in the world was 592 exajoules.

When it comes to delivering enough energy to assure prosperity around the world, that’s what we’re up against. Proponents of renewables often also support new technologies to deliver energy more efficiently. They’re right, and that’s why the 1,381 exajoules that we’re going to need someday will amount to half as much energy as Americans consume per person. Can we do even better? Deliver efficiency gains of more than 50 percent? OK. Fine. Let’s set our total global energy production goal at 1,000 exajoules. That’s a good round number, and it’s the minimum amount of energy we’re going to need.

The real question is how, since renewables are evidently our future, will they fill the gap, much less contribute to massive increases in global energy production, if oil, natural gas, and coal are removed from our energy landscape?

Here’s how those exajoules stacked up by fuel source in 2024. Of the 592 exajoules produced (EJs), 199 came from oil, 165 came from coal, and 149 came from natural gas. That constitutes 87 percent of all energy consumed. The share of global energy produced by oil, coal, and gas is rising, not falling. Nuclear energy produced 31 EJs, hydroelectricity produced 16, and “renewables” altogether produced 33 EJs, but five of those were from biofuel.

So let’s imagine we’re going to come up with 1,000 exajoules of energy to power global civilization mid-century, and let’s suppose we’re going to do that without the 513 EJs we currently get from oil, coal, and gas. We can rule out biofuel as a major contributor. There are already over 400,000 square miles of biofuel plantations in the world, where total arable farmland only totals around six million square miles. Biofuel production has devastated rainforests throughout the tropics, from Brazil to Indonesia. Even doubling biofuel production would wreak a catastrophe on the environment and only bring us 10 exajoules out of the 1,000 that are needed. The same goes for hydroelectric energy. It is difficult to imagine even doubling output; most of the best rivers have already been harnessed for hydroelectricity. Figure hydroelectric potential maxes at around 30 EJs. If biofuel and hydroelectricity—both problematic if vastly expanded—could be doubled in capacity, we would still have 960 EJs to go.

That brings us to our remaining wild cards: nuclear, geothermal, solar, and wind. Shall we double our nuclear power output? Or triple it, which was the goal set at the COP28 summit? Let’s be wildly ambitious and anticipate nuclear power becoming common. Small modular reactors, thorium reactors, innovation galore, and voilà, we will have more than quintupled our nuclear output. That means we are now producing 200 EJs per year (160 nuclear, 30 hydroelectric, and 10 biofuel). We still have to go find another 800 EJs of power, and we’re left with geothermal, wind, and solar.

We can debate the scalability of these three sources of energy all we like, but the chances they expand from 28 EJs today to 800 EJs by mid-century are slim. It would require output to expand by 30 times. Do we actually expect to construct 30 times as many wind farms, 30 times as many solar farms, and 30 times as many battery farms as we have today? Let’s not forget that all this conversion to electricity isn’t finished once we successfully generate that much power, even if it were possible. There are the batteries, stationary and mobile, and an entire infrastructure that has run on combustible fuels.

Solutions commonly offered are revealed upon analysis to be glib. Shall we create hydrogen via electrolysis? Then throw away improved efficiency. Electrolysis only extracts, best case, about 70 percent of the electricity in the form of hydrogen. If the hydrogen is then turned back into electricity using a fuel cell, once again, only 70 percent of the energy in the hydrogen turns back into electricity. And, of course, it takes another 10 percent of energy input to compress the hydrogen into usable storage. Worse still, hydrogen can’t be moved through existing pipelines, as the metal becomes brittle from exposure to pure hydrogen. And what about geothermal? Current worldwide electrical production from geothermal is estimated at 0.4 EJs. It has potential, but it has a long way to go.

All these facts are known. Replacing oil, coal, and gas would require a massive surge in mining because clean‑energy technologies use far more mineral resources. Onshore wind farms require about nine times more mineral input per megawatt than gas‑fired plants. Wind, solar, batteries, and grid infrastructure require, for example, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, rare earth elements, and copper in quantities that are already stretched. The idea that we can scale our extraction of these minerals by a factor of 30 is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyone confronting these numbers honestly must wonder how proponents of renewable energy can possibly demand that, within only a decade or two, we shall stop using fossil fuels. Perhaps much of the true motivation of the special interests promoting renewables is as old as humanity and is to be expected: a desire for power and profit. There is no credible moral case for renewables, because if they begin to serve more than a niche of the world’s energy needs, they will then inflict environmental harm that rivals or exceeds anything we’ve yet seen from oil, coal, or natural gas.

The math is simple and immutable. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere. Someday, somehow, technological innovations will displace them, but it may take centuries. When politicians, pundits, and the marketing arms of renewable developers use the “climate emergency,” or a terrifying war, as their justification to, for example, industrialize the supposedly off-limits California coast with thousands of floating windmills, each of them a thousand feet tall, consuming an obscene amount of resources, costing an obscene amount of money, and wreaking an obscene genocide on cetaceans and other marine life, see them for who they are: either ghoulish opportunists who exploit fear to further their own aggrandizement or innumerate fanatics whose good intentions pave a road to hell.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature,

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of.

No politics or divisive posts on this thread.

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time.

If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril

The Federalist

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.

While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.

But if the justices harbor any consideration of keeping the 14th Amendment migration train running by upholding the current bastardization of the amendment, it will signal to the American people the illegitimacy of even the highest legal authority in the land, ostensibly with a 6-3 conservative majority.

A SCOTUS decision to uphold birthright citizenship as currently applied would communicate that it means to follow in the footsteps of successive presidential administrations and Congresses, selling Americans’ jobs, land, and promises of freedom to the highest bidder, or simply giving them away to foreigners who cross the border illegally. Whereas many view the head of the judicial branch as a safeguard, upholding the Constitution when the executive branch and Congress overstep their bounds, a majority decision affirming unbounded birthright citizenship would suggest they too have no regard for the people who have a right to be here, and whose futures depend on the end of mass migration.

In his opening remarks, Sauer brought up the reality of “birth tourism,” pregnant foreigners coming to the United States in order to give birth on American soil and obtain citizenship with an anchor baby, who is automatically granted full citizenship under the current 14th Amendment framework. The issue is prominent in China, where there are actual businesses — reportedly more than 1,000 — that exist for achieving that goal, as Sauer pointed out.

Sauer’s introduction of the issue of birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism’s prominence. Sauer cited the high number of such operations, stating,” No one knows for sure,” adding, “We are in a new world now.” Roberts seemed to reply flippantly: “It’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Roberts has consistently postured himself as the chief justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court. He is suspected to have sided with majorities he may not actually agree with, in order to make the ruling more acceptable to the American people (a 6-3 decision is more convincing than a 5-4 decision, as the argument goes).

That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber-stamp citizenship.

If the conclusion from the Supreme Court is that any country on earth can lay claim to the American homeland, so long as they send enough people to give birth here, then Americans will have no choice but to reject that notion out of hand. Such a decision would further deteriorate confidence in the Supreme Court, leading the American people to reject it as a legitimate authority on the Constitution altogether.

Is the 51st State Dream Closer to Reality? A Secession Movement in Canada Is Gaining Traction

Checking in on the activities in America’s hat, Canada, some head-turning developments may toss our chapeau askew. There is growing passion in one province, looking to separate itself from the nation, and, for a refreshing change, this time it is not the persnickety Parisian-influenced Quebecois. This is a development we here in the States should welcome.

In Alberta, the North of the Border version of Texas, there is a legitimate effort underway to see if they can conceivably separate from the rest of the country. There has been an ongoing animosity towards the actions of the central government moving steadily towards the left wing, and the Albertans have been arriving at a less-than-Canadian polite position.

The talk took on a serious tone last summer, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith came out publicly to say that while she was not promoting the secession movement, she recognized there were many issues her province had with the treatment from Ottawa. Smith declared that while she was not looking to put the measure on the ballot, she would not block it if the people responded.

“To be clear from the outset, our government will not be putting a vote on separation from Canada on the referendum ballot; however, if there is a successful citizen-led referendum petition that is able to gather the requisite number of signatures requesting such a question to be put to a referendum, our government will respect the democratic process and include that question on the 2026 provincial referendum ballot as well."

The people responded. As of this week, well ahead of expectations, the movement leaders said they have compiled the requisite threshold on their petition effort to have the measure on the ballot. A May 2 deadline has easily been reached, and this has sent political tremors through the country. They are also assured to exceed the predicted level of disqualified signatures. This stands to reason when you see how, in the frigid climes of January, large numbers of Albertans were arriving at locations to queue up in the snow to jot their “Jean Hancock” on the petition proposal.

Now, to be clear, this is still going to be an up-snowbank effort. Polling has shown that there is still a clear majority against secession, with that number currently trending at around 70 percent. But that has been shrinking from previous highs, in the 80 percent range. Much of that has to do with the messaging. When you hear from those behind this effort, it is not the rantings of emotional minds. (I reference back to the numerous attempts made in Quebec.)

Jeffrey Rath is the lawyer who is behind the Alberta Prosperity project, and he sounds beyond rational in his explanation of things. Rather than a frothing and whooping pro-Trump monologue, he delivers a sound game plan, and even states that independence is the priority, over an emotional rush into the American tent.

How can you not see the sense in opposing sending more of their resources to China? But noteworthy too is his saying that this entire effort would not have moved forward without the aid of the Trump administration. That he has been in contact with U.S. players is significant, and it is not simply bluster. Scott Bessent is on record saying that we as a nation would be amenable to seeing an independent Alberta.

Adding to the desire to split off is the growing presence in Canada of the activist hyper-leftist factions. Recently, the NDP (New Democratic Party) held meetings in Alberta, and the display was something else.

At the sparsely attended meeting, they handed out cards to members of various social groups to claim differing levels of privilege. In this clip, we see one delegate complaining about being upstaged by another member who did not hold the appropriate card and moved ahead when speaking. Then watch as the leader of this conference instructs those wanting to speak to do so orderly, but then nearly chokes at the podium before catching “themself” when saying the need to stand in a “straight” line. (GASP!)

Looking at this lot of insufferable posturing scolds, you understand the pragmatic thinkers in Alberta wanting to cut out and head off on their own. That clip serves as the perfect rationale for the tagline used in this separatist movement: “We’re Done”.

We Really Can Get Rid of the United Nations Now

Hypocrisy — and amnesia — continues to reign among the kleptocrats in Turtle Bay.

Scott McKay for American Spectator

Hypocrisy — and amnesia — continues to reign among the kleptocrats in Turtle Bay.

If ever there was any doubt as to the utterly worthless character of the United Nations — the universe’s premier wretched hive of scum and villainy — that was put to bed on Wednesday of last week.

The end, not that there shouldn’t already have been an end, came when the successor regime to the West African Ashanti Kingdom — that being the nation of Ghana — proposed a resolution indicating that the trans-Atlantic slave trade from the 15th through the 19th centuries was the worst sin against humanity, and called for reparations to be paid.

And the vote was 123-3 in favor, with 52 abstentions.

You probably already heard about this idiocy. If you haven’t, here’s the link to the resolution. Don’t drink anything while you’re reading. You might spit it all over your screen.

The three nations voting against the Ghanaian gambit were Israel, Argentina, and the United States. Most of the 52 abstentions were European and other Western countries (the U.K., Canada, Japan, etc.).

Hilariously, the Arab and African countries that have engaged in slave trading both before and since the flowering of the trans-Atlantic flesh market were the bulk of the 123 “yes” votes.

This column will offer no defense to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was indeed a terrible sin committed against humanity, one which the United States and its citizens have paid an awful price in blood and treasure — a price a certain political party, which started a civil war over the preservation of slavery, does everything it can to force our people to continue paying. (RELATED: Democrats Silent on Party Paying Reparations for Slavery)

In fact, no nation has spent more money attempting (perhaps largely in vain) to remedy the effects of the slave trade than has America. Certainly, no nation has spent more blood — some 600,000 dead, in fact, from 1861-65 — in putting a stop to slavery. Furthermore, it was the rapid onset of mechanization, perfected by Americans as the Industrial Revolution took hold, which made slavery obsolete. We should not fail to recognize that until American-style capitalism (though predated to an extent in England, Germany, and some other European countries) entered the scene, virtually every society on earth made use of slave labor to do the work most wouldn’t do. Until American-style capitalism came along, there was no incentive for people to invent machines and processes that obviated the need for masses of laborers.

There is an old story attributed to Milton Friedman from his travels in Asia, but which has roots much earlier, which goes like this: Friedman was shown a large government road-building project. Thousands of workers were breaking their backs digging with shovels, with no heavy machinery in sight. So Friedman asked his government host why they weren’t using tractors, bulldozers, or other equipment that could speed things up. And the official replied: “You don’t understand — this is a jobs program. We want to create as much employment as possible.”

Friedman shot back: “Oh, I see. I thought you were trying to build a road! If it’s jobs you want, then why don’t you take away their shovels and give them spoons instead?”

The point being that pre-industrialization, the key to prosperity for those with the power was to employ as many strong backs as possible in whatever project — war, construction, sex, etc. — was on the menu. Until the Western capitalist came along and showed that there were multiple paths to prosperity, and developed technology at an expanding pace to prove the equation, slavery, and the gross inefficiency and mortal sin it involved, was the only game in town.

Milton Friedman was the Western capitalist questioning the pre-industrial mindset and exposing it for its backwardness. Add the absence of a wage for those laborers, and you understand why, in pre-capitalist societies, slavery was universal.

And it was universal.

But the idea that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was worse than the trans-Saharan slave trade, or the Barbary slave trade, the Ottoman slave trade in southern and eastern Europe, the various Asian slave trading networks, or the Arab slave trade of East Africa (most of the major ports along the East African coast were set up by Arab slave traders, after all), when those lasted much longer and almost certainly involved more victims, is, in a word, stupid. Dumber still is the idea that any of these ought to be pitted against each other, as the Ghanaians and the rest of the Third World kleptocrats at the U.N. would have it.

And Ghana needs to keep its national mouth good and shut.

Let’s remember a few things here.

Let’s first remember that the transatlantic slave trade was a joint international enterprise — not unlike the United Nations, actually. The Portuguese, British, Dutch, French, Spanish, and even Danes bought slaves at African coastal forts, yes. Almost none of them came ashore for the purchases, and it just about never happened that the slave traders actually captured anybody.

Somebody else did that.

And that somebody looked just like the diplomats and government officials from Ghana.

Roughly 12.5 million Africans, almost all of them from West Africa, were trafficked to the Western Hemisphere by those European slave traders. Eighty to 90 percent of them were caught — through wars, raids, judicial punishments, and other means — and brought to the slave ships by other Africans.

The rest were mostly caught by Arab slave traders who had been in the game since Muhammad’s friends broke out of the Arabian Peninsula.

In fact, the name Ghana came from those Arab slave traders who predated the Portuguese. This is a country that literally chose an Arab slave-trading name as the name for its country, and it wants to lecture others about slavery.

Perhaps we should defer to the Ghanaians’ expertise as the sales agents for the slave trade for the vast majority of their history.

And the sales agents for the international slave trade made out like bandits. Slaves were traded for guns, gunpowder, textiles, rum, and all kinds of manufactured goods that a primitive kingdom needs to inflict tyranny on the local tribesmen. As such, there were some very big winners in the slave trade.

Among them were…

The Ashanti (Asante) Empire in what is now Ghana: One of the biggest suppliers. The Ashanti built enormous wealth and military power from the trade and fought wars specifically to capture slaves for sale. Go and look at a map of the Ashanti Empire, and it’s basically Ghana.
Kingdom of Dahomey, which is essentially modern Benin, right next door — and Dahomey is the capital of Benin: Dahomey was famous for its annual “slave raids” and female Amazon warriors, most of whom were essentially slaves to the king; Dahomey kings openly resisted British abolition efforts in the early 19th century because the kingdom’s economy depended on the slave trade.
Oyo Empire (Nigeria): In constant war against Dahomey over the slave trade. Not that the Oyo wanted to end it; they wanted to control it. The Oyo were slavers, but they were also best known as middlemen, organizing caravans and negotiating prices with Europeans.

You’ll see an awful lot of Afrocentric types, the kinds of people who demand reparations for slavery, trundling around in kente cloth. The next time you see one, ask him or her why he/she is promoting the African slave trade. Kente is the cultural signifier of, principally, the Ashanti Empire. It’s more or less the same thing as people decrying genocide while wearing a swastika hat.

And it isn’t like these people were only trading slaves to the Europeans. The trans-Saharan slave trade involved far more people for far longer — in fact, there are slave markets involving sub-Saharan Africans going on in places like Libya today — with some of the same people.

But such belly-laugh contradictions have never bothered any of the creeps plying their trade at Turtle Bay.

The hypocrisy involved here, of the descendants of the Ashanti somehow sitting in judgment principally of the U.S. (when a plurality — some 40 percent of all souls trafficked to the New World — were transported by Portugal to Brazil and not the United States), is a classic U.N. offense against rationality. It’s on par with giving Iran and Cuba control of the organization’s human rights commission.

And don’t kid yourself. This flapdoodle comes as no coincidence in light of President Trump’s reticence to continue funding the various grift operations and scams the UN has been running. That’s just short of explicit in the ridiculous speech that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who can’t be forgotten fast enough, gave last week… (RELATED: Sovereignty First)

Enough of this.

The United Nations is no longer a serious forum for international debate or conflict resolution, if it ever was one. It’s a relic of the Cold War, which has done more harm than good, and it is right that Trump has stopped payment on that check.

What’s next is to evict the U.N. from that prime Manhattan real estate and use the land to ease the housing crunch in New York — not that Zohran Mamdani won’t handle that problem with brutal efficiency, given the raft of kleptocratic policies he’s brought to City Hall there. Or turn it into a landfill. Or build the Giants and Jets a stadium. It doesn’t matter.

Boot the diplomats out, raze the site, start over with something more honest.

Perhaps Ghana can be the U.N.’s next host country. That would be a just reward for the 123 countries voting yes to this idiotic resolution.

New Pressure on Iran As US Ally Reportedly Ready to Move Militarily in the Strait

It looks like our Gulf allies are braver than our European allies when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Of course, Iran is closer and right in their face, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has had enough of being fired on by Iran. They've actually been hit more times than Israel, and they're not happy about it. They've said they support our military actions against the Iranian regime. They previously had been considering escorting ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

But now they're reportedly willing to go further. They're stepping up not just with words, but with force, if need be, to open the Strait.

The United Arab Emirates is pushing for the US to forcefully reopen the Strait of Hormuz and is willing to assist in such a military operation, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night.
The report said the Gulf state is also seeking a UN Security Council Resolution that would green-light such an operation, as it faces continued Iranian attacks.
An Emirati official told the Journal that the country’s diplomats have urged the US, along with unspecified European and Asian military powers, to establish a coalition to forcefully open Hormuz, and the UAE is looking into what military contributions it can make to help break Iran’s grip on the strait.

The UAE foreign ministry didn't deny it and said there was a “broad global consensus that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz must be preserved.” It's completely understandable, given their situation. The Gulf States want to make sure that Iran is checked so they don't do this again. They don't want to keep having to deal with getting hit with missiles. They don't trust the Iranian regime.

So this reported military move by the UAE increases the options the U.S. has, should we need them, but it also ramps up the pressure on Iran that they're not just going to be able to roll over everybody in trying to control the Strait. Trump has indicated we've largely hit our military objectives of Operation Epic Fury, so we'll have to see what the next move is. We've been pounding them into next week, so their military capacity has been severely degraded, including their navy and ability to defend themselves in the Strait.

The answer, of course, when it comes to the Strait, is to have the world come together on a continuing effort to keep it open to stop Iran from making trouble and ensure the free flow. The United Nations is generally useless, but put a U.N. force there. Plus, expand on the other options to bypass the Strait to diminish its importance in the world for the future. Remove the play from the terrorist handbook, then they don't have much they can do besides rant and post AI videos on X, and they can't do this again.