Friday, April 24, 2026

Patriots of the World, Unite!


Irish farmers and truckers are blocking major thoroughfares as part of growing protests against their government’s mass immigration policies, “green energy” regulations, and “climate change” taxes.  Miles-long convoys of German drivers have blockaded the streets surrounding Chancellor Merz’s residence in Berlin to demand his removal from office.  In Manchester thousands of patriotic Brits continue to take to the streets with a sea of white flags bearing red crosses — Saint George’s Cross, the national flag of England.  

Across Europe, similar protests against mass immigration, costly bureaucratic regulations, and economically suicidal energy policies pop up without much warning and quickly take over national highways and city streets.  One of the common and visually striking features of these protests is the multitude of national flags.  From one set of eyes staring at the array of protesters waving their country’s flags in the air, the scene looks like a never-ending quilt of unbridled patriotism.  

For the most part, European and North American corporate newsrooms refuse to cover these newsworthy protests.  Their concerted efforts to hide what is happening across the West stand in contrast to the ways they actively promote small gatherings of NGO-funded provocateurs pushing globalism’s favorite pet projects: calling white people “racist,” supporting taxpayer-funded abortion, threatening to murder “populists,” calling for the end of private property, demanding amnesty for illegal aliens, and equating the use of hydrocarbon fuels to genocide.  

When the Soros family or other globalist billionaires pay rioters to take to the streets, corporate newsrooms (often owned, directly or indirectly, by the same billionaires paying for the street theater) cover the anti-Western mayhem as if globalist temper tantrums were exotic breaking news (when, in reality, Western citizens are keenly aware that globalists excel at whining, breaking things, trespassing, stealing, and assaulting people).  When pro-illegal immigration crowds show up to burn the national flags of Great Britain, France, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, news cameras catch the action.  When those same throngs of foreigners wave the flags of their home countries, news cameras record the scene as if it were some righteous and historic fight for “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”  When the peoples of Europe whose ancestors have lived on the continent for several thousand years wave the flags of their political states, however, “reporters” pretend that the assembly of citizens is doing nothing but “promoting hate.”

What an interesting time to be alive.  For all of human history, when a group of foreigners occupied the territorial home of another people and waved the emblems of their foreign states in the faces of the natives, we recognized that event as an “invasion.”  Today, Western governments — stewing in the poisons of globalism and advancing a religion of self-immolation — treat invaders as citizens and citizens as nuisances.  Across Europe, North America, and Australasia, globalist governments have lowered their drawbridges for outsiders while throwing insiders into the moats.  It is easy to imagine French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, or European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hiding in medieval castle keeps while instructing self-loathing guards to fire arrows only at the people waving French, British, or European flags.  How else would one expect European “leaders” to behave when European governments allow foreigners to rape and murder citizens while arresting citizens who object to being raped and murdered?  More and more citizens are recognizing the total disregard that globalist governments have for their safety.

This “awakening” that is happening throughout the West — wherein ordinary citizens have begun to rebel against their governments’ suicidal policies — is picking up steam.  It seems to reflect a social consciousness that is increasingly aware that home governments have long been behaving as enemies.  “Enemy” is a strong word reserved for those who oppose us with great hostility or malice.  Generally, “enemies” lie on the other side of a country’s borders or across entire oceans.  But when Western governments invite mortal enemies inside their nations’ borders, those governments aid and abet the very people who wish us harm.  Traditionally, we call government officeholders who betray citizens “traitors.”  Traitors, of course, are enemies, too.

Globalism, by design, works to destroy national borders.  Its proponents pursue this goal through increasingly overt ways.  In Europe, the Schengen treaties and rules incorporated into European Union law have eliminated internal border controls between most countries.  Originally touted as a way to allow the citizens of European nations to travel freely throughout the continent, it was always a mass migration weapon that has enabled globalists to flood the discrete nations of Europe with foreigners from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.  In North America, the United Nations and globalist-funded NGOs spend billions of dollars each year in assisting migrants from South and Central America to travel through Mexico and flood the United States.  In both Europe and North America, the same wealthy, powerful globalists pursue one goal: to replace native citizens with so many foreign peoples that it becomes impossible for any nation to maintain a distinct identity.  

Globalists are internationalists.  They seek to create a new world order with global government, international agencies, and international law.  One way to accomplish these objectives is to erase national borders and to invite an international population to resettle inside a formerly sovereign nation.  By doing so, both foreign allegiances and international laws are injected into the domestic governing system, whether the native population desires that result or not.

Just as the devil is the father of lies, globalism is the philosophy of liars.  Those liars call illegal immigrants “asylum seekers.”  They call foreigners who are financially dependent on government welfare “contributors,” “taxpayers,” and “economic boons.”  They call citizens who wish to enforce their country’s borders and protect their country’s culture “racists,” “bigots,” “fascists,” “Nazis,” and “xenophobes” (as if foreigners are known for flocking to racist, bigoted, fascist lands filled with Nazis who discriminate against outsiders).  Globalist liars pretend that borders are antiquated relics of “colonialism” and “imperialism,” even though it is foreigners who are colonizing nations by building little ethnic empires that refuse to assimilate.  

At some point, the people being slowly conquered through the one-two punch of “open borders” and “mass migration” (or what we might call “globalist-assisted national suicide”) were going to look around and realize that the countries they once knew are quickly disappearing.  If current trends continue, the ten largest cities in the United Kingdom will have Muslim majorities within the next few decades.  Similar trends are completely upending the demographics and cultures of France, Germany, Spain, and every other European nation that traded sovereignty for the Trojan Horse of the Schengen Agreement.  

In the United States, Minnesota and Maine have Somali enclaves that have become so politically powerful that Minneapolis Mayor (and Democrat Party globalist) Jacob Frey delivered parts of his victory speech last November in the Somali tongue.  While globalist liars demonize Americans as “colonizers,” Somalis (with the help of their globalist patrons and Minnesota Democrats’ fondness for welfare fraud) have actually colonized what once was one of the “whitest” regions of the nation.  Whenever illegal aliens commit crimes in the United States, globalist prosecutors sweep those crimes under the rug, globalist newsrooms pretend they never happened, and globalist politicians repeat ad nauseam, “Diversity is our strength.”  

“Diversity” can be a strength.  It is nice to have a diverse collection of weapons when under attack.  A diverse collection of experts is helpful when designing architectural marvels, such as giant walls.  It is not likely, however, that many people behind a castle’s gates have ever looked at an approaching army and concluded, “We won’t survive without more diversity.”  People who are interested in protecting their civilizations do not invite other civilizations to take over their castles.  

Globalists, however, are at war with Western civilization.  Those liars betray us all.  They are our enemies.


Podcast thread for April 24

 


Normalize taking screen breaks during off days

What Is So Difficult to Understand About Unconditional Surrender?


Iran might go to this surrender baby-tantrum style but they will still go. What other option do they truly have?


As the Iranian war comes to a head -- one way or another it is going to end soon -- the Iranians state they refuse to surrender or even negotiate under threat. I understand their desire, but sadly for them, reality is stacked against them.

As an analogy, imagine having an older brother who wants to physically dominate you and make you cry uncle. Many have had this experience. You don’t want to give in. You want to fight back. But sooner or later you will cry uncle or your brother will tear your arm out of its socket. That doesn’t do it? Then he’ll do the other arm and then move on to other targets. Trust me, sooner or later you are going to surrender. Just the way it is. 

The Iranians find themselves in a similar position. They want to fight. They want to say no. But sooner or later the pain will become too great and they will surrender. Food, clean water, and electricity will soon be far more important than this or that revolutionary slogan.

Of course, they don’t want to do this. Does anyone really think in WWII Imperial Japan and Germany willingly surrendered? Or that they were happy about their reality? Heck no. Did many want to fight to the death? Sure. But unconditional surrender was the only way to stop the pain, so they chose that over complete and total destruction.

Iran might go to this surrender baby-tantrum style but they will still go. What other option do they truly have? Regardless of what our Iranian-cheering media and Democrat traitors might be telling you, this war is effectively over and has been for weeks.

The only limiting factors are how much pain we are willing to inflict and how much pain they can endure before giving in. Just like that older brother. Unless we foolishly quit, there is only one way for it to end.

And sure, they will try to get in a few hits before going down, that is to be expected. They might even score a few and give us a bloody nose or two but that in no way will influence their demise.

There is one wild card that will determine the degree of destruction coming their way. Do Iranians view themselves as Iranians first or Islamic revolutionaries first?

In WWII, the Japanese loved their country. This love of country is what drove them to unconditional surrender. The end of the war for them was obvious for months. The only question was how would they end it.

Always remember, the loser determines when a fight is over, not the winner.

A couple atomic weapons later and the Japanese made the wise choice to save their country and countrymen. We did not allow them to save face. All the cards were with us, so why should we negotiate about anything. The emperor -- whom many Japanese considered divine -- would come on bended knee whether he wanted to or not. Sound familiar, Iran?

Or consider the Germans. They too loved their country and saw the writing on the wall; the war was lost. Towards the end, Hitler did push the idea they had some secret super-weapon that had been kept in reserve just in case it was needed. The super-weapon did not appear, as it did not exist, and the Nazis simply wanted justification for continuing to send young boys and old men to die at the front.

The Iranians are saying the same thing today. Why haven’t they already unleashed this super-weapon? Probably because it doesn’t exist and they want to provide motivation for their people to keep fighting and dying even though the outcome is already settled.

If the Iranians love their country they will curse and spit, but they will surrender. And unless we choose to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, it can and should be unconditional. No face saving. We have absolutely no reason to seek compromise on anything.

The only wild card is do they fundamentally consider themselves Iranians or Islamic revolutionaries? I do not know this answer. But the past 50 years does not provide comfort. If they had truly considered themselves proud Persians, they wouldn’t have turned over a centuries old Persian culture to Arab Islamists.

So will they surrender in an attempt to save their country -- like Japan and Germany -- or fight to the bitter end, destroying Iran in the process, as they have no allegiance to the country of Iran or its people?

I’d guess there are folks in both camps in Iran. I hope they make the right choice and like Japan and Germany choose to join the other peace-loving nations in world. But if they don’t, I have no problem letting them wallow in their own crapulence for the next 50 years. 

Hell is coming to pay them a visit in a day or two. And what we destroy will not be fixed and rebuilt anytime soon. I hope they make the right choice but I, and my fellow citizens, can live with whatever direction it goes.

But just like having that older brother, they will cry uncle sooner or later. 

And as a side note, after this is over and they lie licking their wounds, they should thank Allah on a daily basis that they were conquered and surrendered to the only country in the history of man that will willingly leave after victory.


NYT Now Promoting 'Microlooting' as Social Justice

NYT Now Promoting 'Microlooting' as Social Justice

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File

It's pretty clear that one of the greatest threats to the left is social trust. 

I can say that with such confidence because just about everything the left does erodes it. Our public school teachers are encouraged to trans kids behind their parents' backs, government programs openly promote fraud, and prosecutors and liberals always side with criminals. 

So it shouldn't surprise me that Hasan Piker is the darling of the media, and that the New York Times featured Piker and Jia Tolentino, a writer at The New Yorker, to describe their love for stealing. 

Stealing, you see, is a form of promoting social justice, just as open borders, decarceration, DEI, rioting, assaulting law enforcement officers, and killing health care executives are. 

Yes, you heard that right. The Times' favorite Democrat also explained how Luigi Mangione murdering Brian Thompson was really totally justified. 

Spiegelman: But then when you feel this much anger — and it doesn’t feel like there’s hope for it to be changed in a regulatory way — I think that’s when you get to things like Luigi Mangione, who is accused of killing the C.E.O. of United Healthcare, and there being an outpouring of glee for murder online, because it feels like, finally, someone can actually do something about health care.

I think 41 percent of Gen Z-ers felt that murder was morally justified. But it’s scary to be in a society where people feel that murder is morally justified. And I’m curious how we thread that line.

Piker: Yeah. Friedrich Engels wrote about the concept of social murder. And Brian Thompson, as the United Healthcare C.E.O., was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder. The systematized forms of violence, the structural violence of poverty, the for-profit, paywalled system of health care in this country — and the consequences of that are tremendous amounts of pain, tremendous amounts of violence, tremendous amounts of deaths. And that was a fascinating story for me, because Americans are very draconian about crime and punishment. They’re very black and white on this issue.

And yet, because of the pervasive pain that the private health care system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place. Even before they knew who the shooter was or what the motive was, we had universalized this pain so much so that virtually every American has a similar experience. A shared experience, where they have a loved one who spent their last days — instead of spending them with their family — spending it on the phone, talking to their health care provider to maybe get a little bit of economic respite so they don’t carry on medical debt for their next generation, for their next of kin.

That’s a harrowing process for a lot of people. And for them, that is murder; for them, that is torture. And that is the reason why, I think, the reaction to Luigi Mangione, especially by younger generations, was not so negative.

Yep, just a normal conversation at the New York Times, whose newsroom erupted in rage and fear that the paper allowed a U.S. senator to write an Op/Ed, and which fired the editor who approved it. 

And that Op/Ed? It argued that allowing people to riot and look was wrong. 

You can't make it up. Total moral inversion. 


Piker:
 Yes.

Tolentino: I would not be logistically capable of executing such a fact, but would I cheer on every news story of people that I see doing it? Absolutely.

Piker: I think it’s cool. We’ve got to get back to cool crimes like that: bank robberies, stealing priceless artifacts, things of that nature. I feel like that’s way cooler than the 7,000th new cryptocurrency scheme that people are engaging in.

Spiegelman: Would you steal from Whole Foods?

Tolentino: Yes. And I have, under very specific circumstances. I will say, I think that stealing from a big box store — I’ll just state my platform — it’s neither very significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest or direct action. But I did steal from Whole Foods on several occasions.

I’ve been involved in a neighborhood mutual aid group since 2021. And so every week I would go get groceries for Miss Nancy, my now family friend who lived nearby, and she wanted to go to Whole Foods. She wanted food from Whole Foods. And I was like, OK, great. And so I’d be getting Miss Nancy all of her groceries, and then I would finish, and I’d be like, oh my God, four lemons, I forgot four lemons. And on several occasions I was like, I’m just going to go back, grab those four lemons and get the hell out.

It's apparently now called "microlooting" and is perfectly acceptable because the system is oppressive. 

No, I am not kidding. Capitalism and property are evils that must be eliminated, so stealing is a form of #resistance or something. 

Piker: I’m pro stealing from big corporations, because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers. However, one thing that might even help your ethical dilemma is the fact that the automated process that they design, these companies know will increase shrink, right?

So it’s actually factored in. The lemons that you stole are factored into the bottom line of these mega-corporations regardless. And they still end up having increased profit margins, because they no longer have to pay the cashiers that they used to hire, as opposed to this automated system, knowing full well that people are still going to be able to steal a lot more efficiently, as a matter of fact, through the automated process.

Tolentino: Totally. I was looking things up, and shrinkage is roughly equal internally as externally. These companies expect it from their employees that they are disenfranchising constantly.

Spiegelman: But what about the argument that if everyone just starts stealing wantonly from these self-checkout machines, Whole Foods will eventually raise the prices?

Piker: Yeah, chaos. Full chaos. Let’s go. I mean, look, I’m in favor of fast and free buses and also government-owned storefronts. And two of those policies, the mayor of this beautiful city is currently working on.

Spiegelman: Would you encourage stealing in the same way from a Zohran Mamdani-run, city-owned grocery store with lower prices, and why?

Piker: No, I would not, because I feel like that’s taxpayer-funded, it’s union labor, and the prices are also adjusted regardless.

Tolentino: I think that hypothetical is interesting, right? Because if you look at it from a categorical imperative type thing, what if everybody did this? The converse is, oh, what if every major grocery chain stole from workers and consumers? And that is basically true, right? It speaks to the thing where harm committed by the individual, strangely, continually draws more ire than the same harm being committed by a structure. And so I kind of am inclined toward this. Everyone, try it. See what happens.

This is why, in urban areas, everything is behind a plexiglass shield. 

Piker and Tolentino are two of the most privileged people in the entire world. They have access to things that average people in the United States, no less the third world, can only dream about. 

And they are complaining about the system. As they sit down with a New York Times reporter in a nice room, discussing how the system oppresses everyone. 

For God's sake. If you ask the average person they claim to be fighting for, they would, to a person, condemn the very behavior that these communists are valorizing. 

I propose an experiment: send a million liberals to an island, each with a million dollars, and allow them to build a society. We can even help them by building the infrastructure of a city, and then let them figure out how to run it without police, businesses, and all the things they claim are unjust. 

Let them have open borders. We can ship all the illegal aliens there that they want. Give them all the homeless people they know so well how to help. Want Haitians? Somalians? Syrians? 

Have at it. And enjoy your MS-13 and Tren de Aragua pals too. 

I'm sure it would be paradise. 


🎭 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. 


The Media Weren’t ‘Truth-Seeking’ Under Biden, So Why Should We Take Them Seriously Now?



When the Atlantic magazine trots out one of its mostly anonymous defamation pieces against President Trump or one of his allies, it should be conventional wisdom now that its purpose is purely political. Keep in mind what former Washington Post editor Marty Baron said in a speech last week — more or less that the dying media was untrustworthy for the duration of the Biden administration.

The Atlantic put one of those pieces out last week with a bunch of unseemly allegations related to FBI Director Kash Patel, like that he’s a drunkard and a paranoid putting America’s national security at risk. “They said that the problems with his conduct go well beyond what has been previously known, and include both conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences,” the piece of content said. “His behavior has often alarmed officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice, even as he won support from the White House for his eager participation in Trump’s effort to turn federal law enforcement against the president’s perceived political enemies.”

Unnamed “officials” (bureaucrats) are often “alarmed” when they have a boss who might prevent them from kneecapping Trump’s agenda. We’ve seen it across the federal departments, about Trump’s appointees, in both of the president’s terms.

It’s worth saying that even if Patel is all the things alleged, the FBI is such an infected, corrupted agency that having a lush leading it is the least of its problems. In any event, a place like the Atlantic assessing whether the head of the FBI is capable of the job is truly awe-inspiring when it, along with the rest of the dying corporate media, did everything they could to defend and excuse Joe Biden — even though everyone else could see the former president was struggling to just stay awake.

Marty Baron, the highly overrated ex-Washington Post editor, addressed that fact at an event which — without a flicker of irony — intended to honor journalism. “Each of us probably can point to other instances where we went astray,” he said. “Here’s one to think about: Did we live up to our truth-seeking mission early this decade as we saw Joe Biden struggling cognitively and physically while holding the most powerful position on earth? I don’t believe we did. Did some among us shy from aggressively exploring his intellectual acuity and physical health for fear of aiding Donald Trump’s campaign and alienating loyal readers, viewers and listeners? My guess is yes. … One thing is for sure: Our credibility was damaged.”

But even more brazenly, the dying media defended and excused Biden’s abysmal policy record, which was absolute hell. Prices were up, but they told voters that wasn’t real. Crime was up, and they said that was also imaginary. After Biden allowed millions of foreigners into the country, the media said illegal border crossings were actually down.

If those were the type of lies they were willing to perpetuate, literally telling voters that reality wasn’t real, how could they possibly recover? Baron’s admission comes an election too late. Where’s the evidence that the dying media are doing anything different? They continue to lie, mislead, and manipulate, provably. And you can be sure that Baron would have never said such a thing had the Democrat won in 2024. Only now that it comes with no price can anyone in his business say, Yeah, we were trying to influence the election when we denied that the president was talking to dead people in public. But hey, it is what it is.

They’re capable of the same thing now. There’s no reason to trust what they say.


The SPLC Is A Hedge Fund With A Dumb Anti-Racism Newsletter


At the SPLC, Moser wrote, staff joked that they would keep at their work ‘Until justice rolls down like dollars.’



Following the federal fraud indictment of the purportedly anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center, the usual voices on the braindead political left have depicted the controversy as a mean right-wing attack on left-wing virtue.

The SPLC has due process rights, and the fraud charges have to be proved in court. But before you fall for the sob story about Mean Orange Man attacking the allegedly scrappy anti-racism warriors, take a look at the SPLC’s Form 990. That’s the financial disclosure form that non-profit corporations have to file with the IRS every year. Here’s the latest, which is archived on the ProPublica website. Filed in 2025, it covers the period ending in October of 2024. With about $129 million a year in both revenue and expenses, the SPLC reported total assets of, read this number carefully, $786,768,246.

They’re closing in on an $800 million nest egg. On pg. 11 of the Form 990, you’ll find that they have close to $750 million of that money invested in securities. They own corporate stocks and they’re mad about racism, in that order.

There’s a reason the watchdog organization CharityWatch gives the SPLC an F as a charity: They keep doing aggressive fundraising while they have far more money than they need to pay for their actual work.

It gets worse if you look more closely. The SPLC’s 2024 consolidated financial statements are available on their website, and show more clearly what $129 million a year in expenses looks like. The Southern Poverty Law Center is, first, a legal organization founded to do things like sue the KKK. But look at pg. 7 of their financial report, which is the eleventh page of the PDF file. Salaries, just under $47 million. “Case costs,” listed under the “legal services” column: $1,297,737, a little under $1.3 million.

For a famed organization of anti-racism investigators, they also list this amount for “investigation”: $45,217 in investigations related to legal services, $124,659 in other investigative costs. Less than $200,000.

You’ll find individual salaries for key employees deep in the Form 990 linked above, in the appendix called Schedule J. Here’s a sample:

So $45,000 in investigative support for litigation, $522,740 in salary and benefits for the CEO.

The SPLC has been mired in scandal for years, and the legacy media that now pretends to be shocked by the indictments has spent decades advancing those scandals. Much of the controversy has come from the left, particularly as former SPLC staffers questioned the integrity of the organization that had employed them. In an insider account published in the distinctly progressive New Yorker magazine in 2019, former SPLC staffer Bob Moser wrote that he and his colleagues used to revise the Martin Luther King, Jr. quote that called for justice to “roll down like waters.” At the SPLC, Moser wrote, staff joked that they would keep at their work “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”

Urgently raising funds while standing on a mountain of cash, the SPLC does supposed anti-racist work like this

… publishing hysterical press releases to warn that the SAVE America Act is designed to disenfranchise everyone who doesn’t have a passport or a birth certificate immediately in hand. “Millions of voters retain their right to vote for now.” Lazy demagoguery plus a $750 million portfolio of corporate equities. How socially important.

There’s not much mystery about what the SPLC has become. Don’t fall for the fake victim narrative.


Leftists Excited to Begin Cannibalizing the Elderly

Leftists Excited to Begin Cannibalizing the Elderly

AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda

Did you live a self-reliant, constructive life? Did you play by the rules, work hard, raise your kids to be productive members of society, save up, and arrive in seniority well-provisioned for your well-earned golden years?

Sucker!

If you simply reverse the direction of each of the Ten Commandments, you arrive at the leftist version. Among these is the Marxist tenet of weaponized envy — Thou shalt covet — and its corollary, Thou shalt steal.

Socialist-communists are always on the lookout for ways to play the many against the few so they can pillage the minority, enriching themselves while throwing crumbs to their useful-idiot foot soldiers. And right now, they are taking aim at senior citizens who saved their pennies so they might enjoy their retirements.

An opinion-setting column appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday. Entitled “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential,” it was penned by Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale who has a book coming out called Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth — and What to Do About It (emphasis added, because that’s the scary part).

In his column, Moyn makes perfunctory efforts to calm readers’ fears about his intentions. “‘Ageism’ identifies an enduring phenomenon: the mistreatment of older people for no reason other than being older,” he soothes. “Americans in middle age and beyond are routinely passed over for opportunities because of the irrelevant fact of a number on paper or how they act and look after getting older.”

And yet, “In today’s world, the unfair discrimination they cite coexists with a different kind of unfairness: a gerontocratic society in which the old control ever more power and wealth, leading to overrepresentation in political life and unequal power in social life.”

That’s right: It’s unfair to keep what you earned and to exercise your civic duty to vote and be engaged.

Naturally, that leads Moyn to conclude: “It is not ageist to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities — it is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice.”

No, it’s not “ageist” to ask that — it’s Marxist.

“Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they might not live to see it,” Moyn placates, before ratcheting up his rhetoric: “But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices.”

A second column, in the May 2026 issue of The Atlantic, is an even more direct attack. It’s titled “An Oligarchy of Old People.” Recall that socialist stars AOC and Bernie Sanders just completed their so-called Fighting Oligarchy Tour, and author Idrees Kahloon could not make it much clearer that “Old People” are the enemy. The opening salvo is an ugly comparison of elderly people who lived successful lives to dictators: “Gerontocracy has always thrived in undemocratic places—Communist people’s republics, Gulf monarchies—where only death could pry power from the ruling elders.” Well, then, I guess we know where Kahloon stands on the subject.

Kahloon points out that high-level politicians and the most engaged voters tend to be over 50. This seems only natural to me, and generally desirable, as leaders ought to have some life experience and wisdom.

But Moyn gives away the game when he complains that these powerful old people have the wrong political preferences:

Some of the excessive power that the aging have amassed harms society, as they enjoy advantages to the detriment of others. That power hurts a large number of elderly Americans themselves. Crucial priorities for the future, like creativity and dynamism, environmental remediation, immigration policies and tax fairness also suffer under gerontocracy. Older Americans favor restrictions on immigration most, even when they need immigrant caregivers most. Likewise, there is a correlation between age and resistance to policies to halt the overheating of the planet or raise funds for education and other civic purposes.

Both authors lay on the envy-mongering. Here's Kahloon:

Although political gerontocracy has operated overtly, the rising economic power of the elderly has escaped much notice. Over the past 40 or so years, American wealth has grown ever more concentrated among the oldest generations. In 1989, Americans over age 55 held 56 percent of it; today they hold 74 percent. During that same period, the share of wealth held by Americans under 40 has shrunk by nearly half, from 12 to 6.6 percent. The color of money is now gray.

Both authors bemoan the fact that 55-and-up-year-olds own the most expensive real estate and hold the most powerful jobs. Except for the ones who don’t, who are thus also harmed by the greedy successful elderly hoarding their “accumulated housing, jobs and wealth,” as Moyn describes it. So much for passing down one’s legacy to one’s children or favorite charities, I suppose. Whatever — the elderly have-nots are simply more bodies to add to the push to loot the elderly haves.

The lefties are still in the build-up-the-narrative phase of this eat-the-(old)-rich campaign, during which they traditionally rabble rouse enough people to build pressure for policy changes. But they are already laying out the blueprint for how to rob the comfortably retired of their influence, possessions, and autonomy.

Moyn, who wrote a whole book on the subject, sketches it out:

It is not ageist, either, to begin to save our democracy from gerontocracy. Proposals range from making it easier to cast a ballot — since current requirements routinely hurt younger voters who move around a lot — to institutionalizing mandatory voting. A bigger fix might lower the voting age.

It is not ageist, finally, to impose policies to transfer jobs, houses and wealth down the generational chain. There are ways of doing so indirectly, by reversing the effects of the tax revolts that have uncoincidentally marked America’s gerontocratic age, ever since California’s Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

There are also direct ways of recognizing that age affects opportunity and resources. The most obvious is to reinstitute mandatory retirement in those employment sectors (especially white-collar work) where generational renewal has been obstructed for years.

In housing, besides circumventing the disproportionately high elder participation in town meetings where land-use decisions are made, I advocate a progressive tax on older homeowners to incentivize them to downsize rather than retain. The longer you stay, the more you should have to pay. The funds could allow for new construction and other projects of intergenerational justice, especially educational ones that prioritize unleashing our young people into the creative prime of life.

You hear that, old people? Get the hell out of the way! Give the mob your jobs, homes, and savings! Fear not: They will take care of you in the nice institutions they will put you in.

Until they decide you are in the way again.




Detroit Is So Far Gone, Officials Are Begging Criminals Not to Steal These

Detroit Is So Far Gone, Officials Are Begging Criminals Not to Steal These


There was a time when Detroit was a great American city. The heart of the U.S. auto industry, Detroit peaked with almost 2 million residents. Today, it's population is less than 700,000 and crime is higher. Crime is so bad, in fact, that city officials are now asking criminals not to steal the city's fire hydrants for the brass components.

Chuck Simms, Detroit's Executive Fire Commissioner, spoke to the media about the problem.

"It's not only a theft of the fire hydrant, but it's a theft of our citizens, our residents, our firefighters, and public safety in general," Simms said. "It's totally unacceptable. Fire hydrants are a very important part of our infrastructure and no matter how fast we get to a fire, if we don't have an operable fire hydrant, it takes seconds and even minutes away from us maybe saving lives."

"The problem is, whoever's doing this is doing multiple hydrants in a row," said Sam Smalley, the DWSD Deputy Director. "So when DFD shows up, they're not going to have a hydrant for 600 or 900 feet. Which puts people's lives at risk."

The criminals don't care, of course.

Yes, it is. These thieves should end up in jail for a long time. That'll put an end to the theft.

Exactly what that's like.

Because that culture doesn't tolerate theft.

This, of course, is sarcasm. But Sorbo nails the Left's mentality on theft, which snowballs into the theft of critical infrastructure.

It's like a swarm of locusts.