In response to Elon Musk’s criticism regarding the handling of grooming gangs in the UK, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a speech that seemed to attack every aspect of a make believe “far right” while shockingly ignoring the veracity of the actual claims. Instead of vociferously arguing that either the story was made up, or that it is being handled by his administration, Starmer instead decided to bizarrely attack Elon personally, while taking a page out of the Stalin’s and other communist leader’s playbooks, called “convenient nationalism.”

For decades, communists and far leftists around the world have preached the supposed values of both multiculturalism and globalism. Yet, when their power bases within those countries are threatened in any way, suddenly they revert to what we typically would classify as historically right wing nationalism. In his speech, and in the most recent days since, Starmer and his surrogates suddenly have a new-found appreciation for nationalism. When someone abroad says something they do not like or that threatens their power, suddenly global interconnectivity and trade becomes a bad thing. They have now erected strict informational and digital boundaries around their beloved Britain, while going so far as to advocate for physical boundaries and even abandoning their security partnership with the United States! Funny, isn’t it? The same people who claim to be “proponents” of globalism suddenly retreat to nationalistic talking points with strict boundaries around their respective countries when their power within those countries is threatened. So much for global interconnectivity. This can be called “convenient nationalism” — a nationalism that can only be invoked by globalists to guard their power bases within their countries when globalism no longer serves their interests.

This, of course, is not the first time leftists retreat to nationalism when it is convenient for them to do so. History is littered with such examples. Stalin’s policy of “socialism in one country” led directly to the murder and death of millions of Ukrainians and fellow Eastern Europeans, and was “justified” so long as the confiscation of resources benefited the Russian citizens, and by extension his standing as their leader. Mao Zedong, while advocating for global proletarian revolution, also used Chinese nationalism extensively, especially during the Sino-Japanese War and the Korean War. He promoted the idea of “New Democracy” which combined Marxist-Leninist ideology with Chinese cultural and national identity. Fidel Castro and his surrogates, both in Cuba and abroad, often spoke of Cuba’s desire for nationalistic pride, blending his supposed Marxist-Leninist rhetoric with Cuban nationalism. The nationalistic pride was okay to use here if it meant resisting “imperial America,” which really meant the Cuban opposition at home that he did not like, and which was ironically advocating for global free trade and not nationalization of industry.

Convenient nationalism is a tactic that has been used for decades by leftists when their power bases in their respective countries are threatened. They advocate for globalism and multiculturalism *but only if it suits their power interests.* And, when their socialist policies inevitably fail and cause widespread scarcity, or if their power is directly threatened, they immediately fall back to “nationalistic pride” and assuring that others outside of their little bubble don’t “meddle in their affairs.” Of course, Mr. Starmer was fine with sending his surrogates to the United States to actively campaign for Kamala Harris, in a blatant state-sponsored election interference attempt. But remember, it’s (D)ifferent if it’s a leftist. Suddenly, Labour and the far left are nationalistic when it comes to gatekeeping their power base, but want to actively export their inferior-in-every-way economic and social models to the rest of the world. And you should be ok with that if you know what’s good for you!

On July 5, 1787 our founding fathers gathered to officially ordain a new method of deciding representation in the Legislative branch. For months prior, they had been contentiously debating the merits and demerits of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. The Virginia Plan, proposed by Edmund Randolph, advocated for a bicameral legislative body, however it argued for BOTH houses to be based solely on population. This plan said the people should vote for the Lower House of Representatives (but still based on population, so more populous states got more representation), and then those members themselves of the Lower House would vote to elect members of the Upper House of Representatives (not entirely dissimilar from the vastly inferior British parliamentary system).

Predictably, representatives from less populous states vehemently opposed the Virginia Plan. They came up with an alternative, whereby there would be only one legislative body (unicameral), and each state would ELECT ONLY 1 REPRESENTATIVE EACH. If the New Jersey Plan were in effect today, we would have only a Senate with 50 members (1 state 1 Senator) and no House of Representatives. Predictably again, representatives from more populous states objected and said they should have more representation than less populous states. So what happened? What did the founders ultimately end up doing?

They ended up with the Great Compromise of 1787. The founders decided to develop a bicameral body for the legislative branch, that satisfied the demands of BOTH populous and less populous states. The Great Compromise established a House of Representatives that WOULD be based on population, meaning that states with more people would have more representation in the House of Representatives than less populous states. However, the Great Compromise also established the Senate. The Senate is irrespective of population, and each state ONLY GETS 2 Senators, regardless of population. In this ingenious way, BOTH populous and less populous states got what they wanted, and we as a country got quite literally the greatest form of democratic representation to ever exist, balancing perfectly the needs of its citizens with the natural rights of states.

Several months later, the founders met again in September of 1787 to decide the best method for electing the President, or leader of the Executive branch. Now, for anyone with half a functioning brain, we can guess, without looking, that the approach the founders took for this endeavor would likely very closely resemble the approach they took to establish the Legislative branch (outlined above). And the people with at least half a functioning brain would be correct! The founders took almost the EXACT SAME APPROACH as they did with establishing the Legislative branch. On September 16, 1787 the founders came up with the Electoral College, which is the Executive branch corollary to the Great Compromise that established the bicameral congress. JUST LIKE the Great Compromise, the Electoral College balances the needs of more populous states with the needs of less populous states. It is quite literally a simple weighted system, where states get points commensurate with the population they have. For example, if Connecticut had 10% of the population of the United States, it would get 10% of the Electoral College vote for President. Again, to anyone with half a functioning brain that understands the Untied States is a UNION OF STATES, this is the PERFECT SOLUTION. Even today, people unnecessarily complicate the Electoral College so they can attempt to discredit it (unsuccessfully). There are 538 total “points” or electors (based on 435 House Members + 100 Senators + 3 D.C. Electors = 538), and simply put if your state has say 8% of the United States’ population, then you get 8% of 538 votes, or roughly 43 points. To anyone that’s taken basic elementary school arithmetic, this system makes perfect sense. States that are more populous get more representation to choose the President, but states that have less representation aren’t entirely frozen out of the election process.

This week, as Democrats continue to reel from their historic election collapse, that included losing the popular vote by the way, three dumbass Senators (Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin, and Peter Welch) are attempting to abolish our perfect election system THROUGH LEGISLATION. Before we even get to why this is a joke of an idea, let me remind the genius senators that the Electoral College is part of the Constitution, specifically outlined in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution, and FURTHER established by Amendments 12 and 23. This means that ANY CHANGE to the Electoral College MUST BE BY AMENDMENT, AND CANNOT BE CHANGED BY SIMPLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. That, our ENTIRE SYSTEM is based on this compromise that established the Electoral College, and ANY ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY DISCARD THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD BE MET WITH THE IMMEDIATE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. You do not get to change the most fundamental part of our Republic and Constitution, by decree, 250 years after the country was established and NOT EXPECT REVOLUTION.

Secondly, I would remind the proponents of abolishing the Electoral College of the New Jersey Plan. Remember, one side of the country argued for 1 State, 1 Vote representation. And, quite frankly, given that we are UNION OF STATES, and that EACH STATE HAD TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 State 1 Vote makes a lot more sense than pure democracy (ie > 50% of the national popular vote). So if anyone argues to abolish the Electoral College in favor of pure popular vote, first of all we dissolve the Union immediately, but also what those proponents don’t understand is we can then say, with MORE LEGITIMACY, that the President should be elected by POPULAR STAE VOTE. That is, whoever wins the majority of STATES, wins the Presidency. We currently have 50 states in our Union, so that would mean whoever wins 26/50 states (a majority) would be elected President. If this were the case, Republicans would have a big advantage over Democratic candidates for Presidency.

In fact, if you go back to 1948, ONLY BILL CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA AND LYNDON JOHNSON WON THE MAJORITY OF STATES. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kennedy in 1960 won the Presidency DESPITE WINNING FEWER STATES THAN THEIR OPPONENT. And in 2012, Barack Obama won the statistically closest state majority he could win over Mitt Romney (26 states to 24). The point here is that, for those that argue to abolish the Electoral College (Again firstly we would immediately dissolve the Union, but assuming that doesn’t happen for argument’s sake) WE CAN ARGUE WITH MORE LEGITIMACY THAT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED BY A 1 STATE 1 VOTE VOTING SYSTEM SINCE WE ARE A UNION OF STATES. And if that were the case, the advantage of the most populous states like California and New York would be completely erased.

So, to these three dumbass senators Durbin, Welch and Schatz, I say BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. I also say that the party that told us we must “protect our democracy at all costs” has now argued to abolish the Senate, pack the Supreme Court, and abolish the Electoral College so they can get back into power, sorry I mean to “restore our bureaucracy ” lol. These criminals are actively attempting to QUITE LITERALLY TEAR DOWN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN RULE OVER THE ASHES. To these evil, “full on retards,” I say, WE WILL MOVE TO IMMEDIATELY DISSOLVE THE UNION IF YOU KEEP PUSHING FOR THIS, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE CAN JUST AS EASILY ADOPT A 1 STATE 1 VOTE VOTING SYSTEM AS WE CAN ADOPT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE VOTING SYSTEM.

Our system is quite literally perfectly balanced, the product of not only intense well-intentioned deliberation, but also the product of the greatest minds to ever exist. Now, instead of those geniuses, we have certified dumbasses like Dick Durbin and Peter Welch attempting to guide us by the nose. These certified morons should remember that ANY ATTEMPT TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WILL BE MET WITH AN IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINED EFFORT BY THE PEOPLE TO ABOLISH THE UNION ALTOGETHER, in addition to their proposal being vastly inferior to the 1 State 1 Vote voting system.

European leaders continue to beat the drum of war, in a desperate attempt to reclaim relevance in a world that has left them behind. Europe is now fighting for the 3rd spot in the continental rankings, now firmly behind Asia in every economic measure. If I were a betting man, I would bet that even some South American countries, specifically those like Argentina and yes, El Salvador, will overtake major EU countries in terms of income per capita, and generally higher standards of living in the next 20 years.

Europe is a continent that still believes in serfdom. They, by and large, do not believe in the laws of supply and demand. What the people need can be provided by an omnipotent monarch, whether that person is called a King or a Kaiser or a Tsar, Europeans have a difficult time understanding how the means of production and distribution could possibly not be centralized. This has led to a population in perpetual decline. Try and name a single European company that was founded in the last 10 years. 20 years? 50 years? 100 years???? The only European companies the world is generally aware of are automobile companies founded in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Europe, the same families that were the wealthiest 200 years ago are still the “industrialists” today. By contrast, in the beautiful capitalist jungle that is the United States of America, “old winners” are constantly replaced by newcomers. The wealthiest Americans of 100 years ago, even the Rockefellers, are no longer relevant here nor are they even among the wealthiest Americans anymore. Now it’s all about Musk and Bezos. And in 50 years, they too will be replaced by deserving newcomers, unlike in Europe.

This desperate attempt to cling to 20th century models of economic and political philosophy has all but guaranteed Europe will continue its slide into third world territory, in terms of declining income per capita and declining standards of living. As innovation continues to be punished, while taxation and war continue to be encouraged, the people will eventually be completely broke and have no choice but to re-launch the perpetual land war days Europe is famous for. Take a look at just electricity prices in Europe, let alone all the other insanely priced utilities:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country

European socialists keep their population poor by stealing nearly their entire paycheck in the form if direct taxation, and whatever money is not stolen directly is taken in the form of artificially inflated utility, food and consumer prices (See above). Not only do Europeans PAY MORE of their paychecks, they also MAKE FAR LESS than Americans, even when taking social transfers into account! The image below flies directly in the face of those who say “oh but Europe is good because it takes from the rich and gives to the poor!” No, European politicians take from everyone and simply steal it. This not only makes them poorer in the short run, it completely destroys any incentive to innovate and improve the standards of living of Europeans in the long run. This increasing disparity can be seen in the growing difference in incomes; the EU average income is $41,500 while the United States is $62,300! That means the average American makes nearly 50% MORE THAN THE AVERAGE EUROPEAN IN INCOME, AND WE PAY LESS IN TAXES, AND WE HAVE FAR CHEAPER UTILITIES LIKE ELECTRICITY!

Europe has nothing to offer the world but mafia style shakedowns and land wars. In the name of “fighting climate change” (remember the climate has been changing on every observable planet, moon and star for the entire 13 billion year history of the universe, but sure humans caused it) European socialists will ban every form of energy so that the price of energy (electricity, gas, or any form of energy) become so high that the people can barely afford to live. This keeps them poor and docile, ready to be turned into minced meat for the umpteenth time in European history for the privilege of borderline retarded socialist midget warmongers. I would not be surprised if within the next 10 years, we in America start to see those “help a starving child in Africa” commercials, except it will be for children in England and France who can’t afford to eat because of continued socialism. They are, in a sense, already doing this. They are just framing it as “Ukraine aid.”

Now, realizing that they have become entirely irrelevant in the world, Europeans, in combination with US State Department officials, did everything in their power to instigate an invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin. Why? Because land wars are the only thing Europe knows, and the only thing that could make a US national security expert relevant in the world. Because if it hadn’t been for Putin, not one person in the world would give a shit about the dilapidated, dying museum that is Western Europe. The world is moving toward more permissionless commerce, not less. With the unbelievable technological progress happening in the world, nobody cares anymore about the “glory of Europe saving the world from fascism blah blah blah.” News flash, Hitler’s been dead for 70+ years! And nobody has seriously threatened Europe since, including Putin. Where was the global outrage when he took Ossetia, and the Crimea? Ukraine is nothing but an artificially created conflict for a bunch of public policy majors to justify their loser career choices. Nobody gives a shit about an “international relations expert.” The world now idolizes entrepreneurs and inventors, not generals and warmongers. But Europe hates commerce and capitalism, so this is the only thing they know how to do. As such, all of Western Europe owes Putin a big fat kiss for giving them exactly what they wanted and making them relevant again, if only for this short period of time.

This suicide mission Europe is currently on is due to their undying narcissism and IT WILL drag us into world war if we let it. The likes of France, England and Germany, having been made irrelevant by superior capitalist economies around Asia and the world, will escalate the conflict in Ukraine exponentially if they think it will bring them back the glory days of Europe, even though those aforementioned glory days are literal world wars. They think it will make them important and relevant again, regardless of how many millions of lives are lost. If Ukraine and Western Europe insist on Ukrainian NATO membership, the United States should say fine have it your way, and IMMEDIATELY withdraw from the suicide pact alliance that is NATO. Western Europe is only motivated by reclaiming European glory on the world stage, no matter how many millions of lives they destroy. The United States MUST WITHDRAW FROM NATO NOW, and let Europe carry out its narcissistic fueled suicide mission to reclaim European glory through war, the only thing they know how to do.

Jim Vandehei, the CEO of subscriber-hemorrhaging Axios, compared himself and other journalists to neurosurgeons in a hilarious (for us, not him), although unsurprising rant. Vandehei summed up the voluntary delusion that he and other broadcast journalism majors have lived in for the past several years. The unearned hubris of legacy media “journalists” has finally now, after decades of artificially being inflated, been popped. However, evidently even the CEO of Axios is unable to see what the TRUE reason is for his business’s inevitable failure (as well as that of all legacy media). Hint, it’s not because of any one person.

For decades, Americans were forced to consume information through one of three legacy media outlets: NBC, ABC, and CBS. These stations would inform Americans of the news, or so they thought. What was really happening was a COUPLED PRODUCT was being sold as a SINGLE PRODUCT to the American people. The news networks would BREAK THE NEWS, but then also then give their OPINIONS on it as if it were part of the news itself. This dual role was intentionally misrepresented as ONE PRODUCT, or ONE ROLE by the legacy media itself. However, technological progress has FORCEFULLY DIVORCED these products. The only sad part is the likes of Vandehei doesn’t seem to realize what’s happening in his own industry, and that more importantly it IS NOT CAUSED BY ANY ONE HUMAN, but rather inevitable progress.

You see, technological progress cannot be negotiated with. It is not an animate phenomenon (yet) that you can reason with. It is inevitable. And when technological progress comes for an industry, there is really only one variable that is taken into consideration, and that is REAL barriers to entry. And this is where Vandehei’s “genius” comparison of journalists to neurosurgeons becomes so pronounced (and hilariously bad). To be a neurosurgeon, there are REAL BARRIERS TO ENTRY. You need to ace college, learn chemistry, biology and advanced anatomy, then get into medical school and excel, then graduate top of your medical school, then ace residency, then take ALL THE KNOWLEDGE that’s taken decades to acquire and expertly deploy it with human judgment and touch (my apologies to neurosurgeons reading this on all the important steps left out, I am not a doctor). THAT IS WHY technology can’t replace a neurosurgeon. And honestly, given all those REAL barriers technology has to learn, (including expert human touch and judgement) I’m not sure if technology will ever fully replace doctors. But you know who I am damn sure they can replace? That’s right Vandehei, JOURNALISTS.

Technology has come for countless redundant middle man jobs. You know what the ultimate useless middle man job is? BREAKING THE NEWS! A thing happened, and now I am telling people it happened. Job done! You really think technology can’t replace that basic function? Guess what? Most people were getting their news on social media platforms since 2010! In fact, if you compare the legacy media’s inability to see this product divorce to ESPN’s (the worldwide leader in sports) ability to adapt WITH IT, you can understand what is happening even better.

ESPN (for all their faults over the years) DID SEE the divorce of BREAKING NEWS and GIVING OPINIONS ON NEWS coming better than most. For most of the late 90s and early 2000s, their flagship program was Sportscenter. A program where people would tune in to and get all the latest scores and updates of what was happening around the sports world. But guess what happened? Increasingly, fans began to get the actual scores on their phone. So what did ESPN do? Did they whine like CNN, MSNBC that people should tune into Sportscenter more? NOPE. In fact, they did the opposite. They ADAPTED and reallocated large portions of their budget to OPINION programs like First Take with Stephen A Smith, who is now by far the biggest personality at ESPN. ESPN did see the divorce of BREAKING NEWS and GIVING OPINIONS ON NEWS coming, and they accordingly adapted their business model to give the viewers what they now tuned in for (because the scores can be found on phones). Now, viewers want either to listen to someone who is CORRECT a lot of the time (as any person who can predict the future would amass a following in any industry) OR, if they are wrong, at least to be wildly entertaining while being wrong. Legacy media journalists are neither. They are not only liars, but they are also exceptionally dull and devoid of any personality whatsoever. Sign me up to invite unattractive, dullard idiots into my living room! (said no one ever).

Whether it was the countless, verifiable lies peddled during the COVID-19 crisis, the collusion between government and media to suppress free speech, or every lie in between, it is safe to say nobody will be tuning into legacy media to listen to what is CORRECT. If the legacy media wants any hope of survival, they MUST ADAPT to sign talent that are VERIFIABLY CORRECT ON ISSUES and/or entertaining to watch. Because, Vandehei & others, you are NOT COMPETING WITH FOX NEWS, OR CNN, OR ROGAN, OR ELON’S TWITTER FOR THAT MATTER. Your competition is now, quite literally, ANY HUMAN who can record on their phone. And therein LIES THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH FOR JOURNALISTS. That, all along, there was no real barrier to entry to doing your jobs. You didn’t need to master partial differential equations, learn about supply and demand, or really do anything that activates your brain even one iota to become a journalist. You quite literally only need to be able to speak without drooling in front of a phone. This is not what a neurosurgeon does.

So, to any journalist still complaining, let me remind you that you are not complaining to any one human, but just yelling into the abyss of inevitable technological progress. You are hasbeens wondering why no one is riding horse and buggies anymore when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Guess what, Vandehei & other geniuses, if Elon hadn’t bought twitter (Ford inventing the Model T), SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE INVENTED THAT ALTERNATIVE. You are quite literally arguing against technological progress in the form of citizen journalism that is empirically, provably better than your horse and buggy business model. But, for “neurosurgeon adjacent” professionals like Vandehei & others, this is a much harder reality to accept than it is to blame one person. And so they blame Rogan, and Musk, and Trump. But you know how we will know WITHOUT QUESTION they are wrong? Because in 2028, Trump & others will be gone, YET THEIR FAILED BUSINESSES WILL STILL BE FAILED BUSINESSES. Then they will have finally realized it wasn’t a single person or group of people “coming after them” at all, but the sweet beat of that inevitable technological progress drum.

3 Core Objectives

1. The Minimize Gaslighting Rule
   • Facilitate sincere exchange of information 
2. The Maximize Information Rule
   • Seek to maximize complete information, not to “fight misinformation” (this is impossible)
3. The Make Up Your Own Mind Rule
   • Leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions 

We connect current economic and political events to principles of economics, mathematics, and international relations. All posts will be posted under the pseudonym Thales M, an homage to the original founder of natural philosophy, Thales of Miletus. In a world seemingly moving towards more unscientific explanations of phenomena, we seek to revert back to a sense of deductive reasoning normalcy. 

We will never attempt to substitute units of knowledge you already have with biased drivel. Instead, we will offer to compliment units of knowledge you already have, so that you may better form your own opinion, not simply agree with ours. After all, everything that has happened in your life up to this point is its own unique story, which will naturally inform the opinions you make today. We do not pretend to know you, and never will. We simply seek to add to your repertoire of knowledge, and nothing more.