This sentence is the perfect example of liberal manipulation:

It starts with the favorite liberal idea that any disagreement with the progressivist agenda is rooted in hatred. This gets to such a ludicrous point that not wanting war becomes labeled hate. Yes, pacifists are such a hateful bunch. Totally makes sense. I’m clearly burning with hatred for Jews, of whom I am one, if I don’t want my country to go to war.

Then there’s the idea that not wanting the US to go to war with Iran means you are defending the country’s regime. That one can despise a regime—like I despise the regime in Mexico, for example—and be simultaneously opposed to dropping bombs on Mexico City doesn’t seem to occur to these people. I’m not even talking about the more complex idea of respecting national sovereignty. Mexico (Russia, Iran, North Korea) should be as nutty as they wish within their national borders. Dropping bombs on people’s heads because you don’t appreciate their customs leaves us with no argument to explain why those who disapprove of our culture shouldn’t drop bombs on us. We live in a large and complicated world. People differ greatly from each other. Are we planning to murder everybody who disagrees with the readers of the New York Times? Because that doesn’t sound like a plan filled with love and tolerance.

This brings us to the argument about women’s hair. You know a liberal by an intense preoccupation with hair. They bring up hair way more often than is justified by any form of logic and reason. But the idea that it’s ok to invade in order to dictate to people far, far away what they should do with their hair is very cuckoo. I have no clue whether the majority of Iranian women is pro or anti-hijab. I can safely assume, however, that they are very pro-staying alive. “Yes, they are now dead but at least nobody is forcing them to wear a hijab” does not sound like a great tradeoff.

I have also noticed that the people we invade with the purpose of improving their lives always end up hating us. Look at Latin America in the aftermath of the Cold War. They hate us. We were trying to save them from socialism, and I deeply hate socialism. I hate the burqa, too. But I’m not ready to say, “let’s go murder some people to prevent them from doing these things I dislike.”

I despise the Iranian mullahs. I believe that they are total garbage. But guess what? I’m pretty confident that if the mullahs knew about my existence, they wouldn’t be huge fans of me either. What’s next? Might makes right? Whoever has the military capacity to murder everybody else should go and do it?

Border Patrol agents didn’t release a single migrant into the US last month — a staggering drop after the Biden administration allowed 62,000 illegal crossers in the country in May 2024.

https://nypost.com/2025/06/17/us-news/border-agents-didnt-release-a-single-illegal-migrant-into-the-us-last-month-border-patrol/

Curiously, this result was achieved without the “bipartisan border bill” we heard so much about.

This suggests three questions:

1. What other supposedly intractable problems have easy solutions that we aren’t allowed to see? I suggest my preceding post as one possibility.
2. What is the logic behind believing the politicians and the media who repeated the expression “bipartisan border bill” like parrots about other subjects?
3. Why are these 62,000 people still in the country? Nobody can reasonably claim that they have put roots and have nowhere to go back to.

There’s no need to sell off public land “for housing” when we have one city after another looking like abandoned trash heaps. Parts of St Louis look like a war zone. Remove the gangs, rebuild, and you’ll have plenty of housing. Instead, we have pretty much given up on urban life to cater to the ideological fads of a small bunch of very confused people.

A war with Iran will not liberate the burqaed Iranian women. But it will give millions of them an excuse to move to Europe.

This has to be said:

Unconditional U.S. support causes a corrupting effect on the Israeli politics stripping it of every incentive to normalise its relations with neighbours and with its own subject, non-citizen population numbering millions

— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) June 19, 2025

I understand that he’s tendentious on this subject but he’s not wrong.

A virus infected all of the Earth’s animals, and they can’t be consumed anymore. Eating human flesh is legalized, and well-ordered, state-controlled cannibalism becomes the norm. Of course, we all now know that viruses can be used as an excuse for wide-scale societal modifications. In Agustina Bazterrica’s novel Tender Is the Flesh, the virus is a fiction created to advance a global depopulation program.

How does a society decide who is a human human and who is not so much and is fit to be eaten? What is a valuable life? And which lives can be sacrificed to the comforts of the more valuable ones? The premise of Bazterrica’s novel becomes less far-fetched when we remember that we have long accepted the volitional nature of the value of human life. If you don’t agree, I refer you to the recent legislation in Great Britain legalizing abortion at any stage of pregnancy. There is absolutely nothing different but the will of the mother between the babies who will be born and those who will be discarded. Bazterrica makes it very clear that she’s thinking about this analogy by placing the question of babies—which ones are treasured and why—at the heart of the novel.

This is a short book but it grapples with some of the most difficult questions of our times. Euthanasia, infertility, climate alarmism, fear of pandemics, hypocritical feminism. It’s a powerful novel but I can’t recommend it to anybody who doesn’t have a very strong stomach. I’ve felt nauseous for two days because the descriptions in the book are very graphic.

I discovered Bazterrica by pure chance at the bookstore yesterday. I didn’t expect much because a female Argentinean author in her fifties is, inevitably, very left-wing. The good news is that talent is stronger than the idiocy of even the most committed artist. And this is a talented book.

The university is closed for the federal holiday but I breached the perimeter and penetrated into the building through the loading dock. I’m here completely alone. The entire building is mine. I walk around in empty hallways loudly doing my German exercises.

I was trying to read an article about innovative teaching in elementary schools. But the article was written so poorly that I started to doubt if its author ever completed third grade. For reasons I fail to grasp, people who teach kids to read tend to hate the English language. The article used the following expressions:

• We delivered reading instruction
• Coming out of COVID, our students’ learning gaps were wide
• Our diverse learners needed diverse instruction
• That shift in mindset was the beginning of everything
• Nobody learns at exactly the same pace. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s powerful
• It’s focused, intentional, and impactful
• Our most vulnerable learners
• The number of students identified as at-risk has dropped by 25 points, with 19 of those points occurring this year
• We saw the potential to align our practices with how children actually learn to read

People who align practices are almost as obnoxious as the ones who amplify voices. And all these insufferable individuals flock to teaching.

Here’s the article, and believe me, I only took a minute sample of its extraordinary writing style.

This NYTimes article about kid summer camps is not paywalled and highly entertaining. It describes extremely pretentious people and their similarly pretentious concerns. I’m sharing so that people could have a quiet chuckle over these rich weirdos.

Republican Senator Mike Lee is attempting to sell 3 million acres of public lands across 11 states. pic.twitter.com/Lp70cNs94O

— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 18, 2025

This is a terrible idea. I’m so tired of stupid neoliberalism everywhere one turns.