About trannys: We don’t want to participate in the humiliation of a ritual based on a lie in fear of being cancelled.
Amen
“You can’t unsee this meme of Trump on the wrecking ball. And no, I’m not sorry.”
😂 Big lol on that one.
Brad, you’re one of the best out there. Your work is both inspiring, hilarious, and infuriating because of how revealing it is. I wish you could see how bad it is in Canada in comparison to the states.
The managerial class truly has become the den of thieves and robbers.
Thanks I actually got that meme idea the day he made the crazy ass Gaza announcement and then couldn't make it at the time because of that.
Glad you liked the article I had some disruptions in my writing time which totally fucks up my creative process I was worried it was disjointed or whatever.
and yeah Canada is quite terrible these days, the guy who got me the term shitlib nationalism was actually talking about how Canada had completely fallen to this.
I recall when Obama instituted a student loans forgiveness program exclusively for non-profit and government employees. I’m surprised that the Republicans never made a big deal over that.
I think this is becoming a universal feature of Western societies where vast amounts are shuffled off to NGOs and bureaucracy, while leftists are barely interested in providing basic government services. In Canada, we have Trudeau announcing endless vanity projects like $200 million for “reproductive care” in SE Asia while 10% of the country can’t access a family doctor. Also increasing the federal civil service from 300k to 400k with no discernible benefit.
In the UK, Starker raises taxes on farmers and the elderly while claiming there is no alternative, all the while hosing vast amounts of money on other countries such as, for example, electric cars for Albanian prisons.
I think this just causes disgust in the public, to the extent they know about it. Hopefully other countries can get their own DOGE soon.
yeah well you know a lot of these are random nonsense, but the West Coast cities and a few other places have taken it way further and have tried to outsource key aspects of government especially relating to crime, rehabilitation, immigration and other social services etc to random "non-profits" that are extremely corrupt and often ran by unreformed violent criminals. It's crazy as fuck, and a substantially more nefarious form of "privatization" than just actually contracting out to a private business which generally at least has shareholders, a functional corporate structure, and the ability to do the task etc.
Old Swann Marcus was really kind of the expert on the East Coast cities doing this, before he went insane with the election polling conspiracy and then disappeared.
it is also indeed crazy that they're also cutting social services and raising taxes while sending money all over the damn place. They claim foreign aid is a tiny part of spending and perhaps it is though also I'm pretty sure much of it is concealed under other budgets. It does seem the public as a whole is fed up with this nonsense.
I’m thinking of McKinsey, which has huge links to the Canadian Liberal government, raked in single source contracts and argues for unrestricted immigration and then gets contracts to help manage it. The leaders of these organizations just slide back and forth between non-profits, government and consulting. That’s why they’re screaming so much - the model is being partly broken.
Sometimes I see criticism of the right and all the things that aren’t happening, but it’s hard to compete when all of your opponents are literally government funded. Trump realizes that now. We’ll see if other Western leaders start learning the lessons.
Yes, I read somewhere that San Francisco gives $1 billion a year to non-profits. Crazy. Some traditional ones do useful things, like teach English to immigrants, help battered spouses, provide daycare… those are the ones that get a pittance.
I used to be into the Fraser Institute/ Cato Institute style of thinking, but what we’ve found is that shrinking the size of government can simply mean more money on consultants and non-profits. Different sides of grift.
The great thing is, though, that it’s easy to cut. No civil service protections, no severance. Just stop sending the cheques. It’s that easy!
yeah it's not unreasonable to use them for some things, like idk adult literacy programs or womens shelters etc but you know The Salvation Army is "problematic" because it won't house battered women with men, so they have to find madeup scam non-profits to do the work lmao
overall contracting to for-profit businesses is much less nefarious than outsourcing to random retard made up "non-profits" as they somehow came to do.
> Sure, a few Trump policies have been awful, like his crazed proposal to expel the Palestinians and build Mar-A-Gaza[.]
Having myself pointed out on numerous occasions that the Gazans are sitting on a giant strip of could-be-beautiful Mediterranean beach resort property, and have done precisely f'k all with it except use it as a launchpad for attacks on Israel, I'm hard pressed to hate this idea *too* much. You can either kill alligators for decades, or you can drain the swamp and pave over it. The Gazans don't understand that they're the losers of like, six wars at this point. When you start -- and then lose -- a war, sometimes you end up with less territory.
Now, I'll absolutely grant that the ancestors of the people currently in Gaza didn't *start* WWI, but their *government* picked the wrong team, and lost... basically everything, because of it. It's not like the ethnic Germans who had been living in Poland for centuries picked WWII, but they sure as heck got kicked out at the end of it.
I live in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is bordered to the east by the Sandia Mountains, and to the north, south, and west by Indian reservations. They build casinos, not Katyushas. They *know* better. The Gazans have apparently still not yet learned that lesson. I don't *particularly* want to pay for their schooling, but I'd rather that than this festering wound in the world continue.
they've only controlled it under 2006 and have been under siege the whole time, it is absurd to act as if they could have developed a tourism industry, it often takes years to enter Gaza no one can go there on vacation. The idea that it is somehow better beach front than the rest of Israel or NE Egypt is also made up.
The crazier thing about Trump's proposal is if he is expelling them what the fuck is the point of taking it over or doing anything with it at all
My point is more that if they had started in 1948, after they lost and were relocated the first time, they'd be in a far better position than they are now. Sure, *Hamas* has only controlled Gaza since 2006, but since I'm not operating under the idea that Hamas is all of the Gazans (because if they are, the solutions get far uglier and more permanent) that's only a very small portion of the equation. And I'm not saying that Gaza is necessarily *better* beachfront property than other places. I'm saying that it *is* Mediterranean beachfront, and that has an intrinsic value that is not being exploited.
that they haven't been allowed to make good use of, but yes in an ideal world if Israel would agree to let full trade and travel and they would agree to not use that to import things to attack them etc Gaza could theoretically be like Singapore and no one would be upset they lost their mudbrick house 80 years ago
There is no reason to believe Trump's crazy ass idea brings us to that circumstance [how Rubio described it which Trump later again contradicted was substantially less nefarious though still fundamentally unworkable]
Sure, but those restrictions didn't start in 1948. The Gazans are the primary architect of their own woes. Maybe Trump's idea is crazy, I'm not necessarily supporting it. My point was more that I have also made similar comments about the situation for the last two decades, so I'd feel a touch hypocritical dismissing the idea outright.
that part keeps getting me too! I mean there are really prominent examples like Harry Hopkins who FDR put in charge of The New Deal but also the President appoints thousands of people [Trump said on Rogan there are about 100 important high level appointments he makes personally]
several long-standing and important positions relating to policy and more are appointed without Senate confirmation, and Musk is wholly acting under Trump's delegated authority.
There are valid criticisms of this, as I said, the Democrats just happen to choose the retarded ones.
The primary thing I keep running into in my personal life is this sort of willful blindness to the way things are versus the way things are actually supposed to be, according to the "source code" of the country. (i.e.: "The Constitution") Just last night I was in a room where I was easily the person most supportive of Trump and the DOGE mission (despite having considered myself "a libertarian" for the last thirty years or so) and nobody was able to even slightly counter me (they did all have the characteristic of at least being *honest* when I questioned them on things) when I pointed this reality out, and that thus far, all of the cuts have been to executive branch agencies.
"What. What *precisely* is unconstitutional about the President of the United States -- head of the *executive branch* of the government -- exercising this level of control over *executive* agencies? Because I've been studying the Constitution for a long time, and my daydream every time I've voted for a Libertarian candidate for President has been that they will firm seize the reins of control they would have over all those nasty little TLAs and redirect their efforts. We didn't get a "Big L" libertarian party president in this election, but *I* haven't seen anything that violates the Constitution. The President could decide that the DEA's efforts are best spent on combating the heroin trade directly... by re-assigning them all to offices in Afghanistan. Ninety percent or more of these agencies are not authorized by the Constitution in the first place, but Congress or various EOs made them anyway, and placed them under the Executive Branch. For better or worse, that means the President is in direct charge of them. I have no issues with anything I have seen thus far, and it's not exactly like the news media are being silent about what's being done."
"Well, uh..."
Even the one big thing that we all thought was kinda dumb -- dumping a bunch of stockpile maintenance probationary employees of the NNSA -- was quickly countermanded when it was realized that was kind of a bad plan. (To be clear about our biases, everyone in the room except the husband of the host works for a local facility having to do with maintenance of said stockpile. That said, even if we're going to reduce the size of the stockpile, it's absolutely a task that needs to be done *intelligently*. And I have no fear about *my* ability to land on my feet, if cutting my job at the nuclear weapons lab is the cost of cutting the rest of the cruft out, I'll take it happily. But frankly, I don't think almost anyone except the pants-suited DEI HR folks have anything to worry about from this administration.) Everything that has happened so far has been well within the defined authority of the President of the United States, as far as I have seen.
Yeah... that isn't how that works. That isn't how *any* of that works...
Even the actual nuclear power plants we have here in the US can't have a Chernobyl style meltdown, because we've never been stupid enough to build nuclear power plants the way the Soviets did. I will grant that I think we might take "safety in nuclear reactor design" a smidge too far these days, but I'm glad we're at least *that* conscientious about the topic. But there isn't any way for Hanford to have a "meltdown" because there isn't any concentration of nuclear material there in sufficient density to sustain a reaction. It's still dirty enough to be *dangerous*, certainly, but it's not *that* kind of danger.
right I can't claim any special knowledge of the site, though I did once drink at a bar with some women who worked there like 15 years ago, but it seems fairly obvious that since the project is on a decades long scale it could be done slower or faster than it is currently being done, I mean, that is how everything else in the world works.
As far as nuclear power, my main concern is civilization falling and then them all melting down in hundreds of years of no maintenance or whatever and ending things permanently. That probably isn't very reasonable. My cousin is really into this sort of thing and once explained to me that it isn't much of a real problem. He's one of these lefty environmentalists who has the sense to be really pro-nuclear.
> Now, don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to concerned about with the President letting the world’s richest man go around and disrupt government as he sees fit[.]
I'm not sure I agree. Musk really doesn't seem to be interested in money for money's sake as so many billionaires are, and in that case, who better to do this job than someone who doesn't need more money? I will absolutely grant that I could be wrong about Musk, it certainly isn't as though I've ever met the man. But observing him for the last while leads me to believe he's more interested in money for what he can accomplish with it, than for just having the biggest number. And I agree strongly with a lot of what he wants to accomplish with it. I am a self-admittedly *zealous* proponent of getting some portion of humanity off a single rock in space. And I even know where that word comes from. ;)
> her take is that the Democrats struggle from being “too principled,”
I would actually agree with that take. The Democrats *are* "too principled" The problem is that their principles *suck*. Their principles are lionization of the institution over the Constitution, and everything that encompasses.
(Yes, I am commenting serially as I read the article. Just want to say, that where I may have given any static, I do love what you've written, and agree wholeheartedly with the general assessment of the situation.)
Lol right, they are maniacally attached to random nonsense, which Psaki also said by saying they have unproductive purity tests not realizing your caucus size is what helps you the most
This made my Saturday morning. Thank you, from Canada!
About trannys: We don’t want to participate in the humiliation of a ritual based on a lie in fear of being cancelled.
Amen
“You can’t unsee this meme of Trump on the wrecking ball. And no, I’m not sorry.”
😂 Big lol on that one.
Brad, you’re one of the best out there. Your work is both inspiring, hilarious, and infuriating because of how revealing it is. I wish you could see how bad it is in Canada in comparison to the states.
The managerial class truly has become the den of thieves and robbers.
Thanks I actually got that meme idea the day he made the crazy ass Gaza announcement and then couldn't make it at the time because of that.
Glad you liked the article I had some disruptions in my writing time which totally fucks up my creative process I was worried it was disjointed or whatever.
and yeah Canada is quite terrible these days, the guy who got me the term shitlib nationalism was actually talking about how Canada had completely fallen to this.
I recall when Obama instituted a student loans forgiveness program exclusively for non-profit and government employees. I’m surprised that the Republicans never made a big deal over that.
I think this is becoming a universal feature of Western societies where vast amounts are shuffled off to NGOs and bureaucracy, while leftists are barely interested in providing basic government services. In Canada, we have Trudeau announcing endless vanity projects like $200 million for “reproductive care” in SE Asia while 10% of the country can’t access a family doctor. Also increasing the federal civil service from 300k to 400k with no discernible benefit.
In the UK, Starker raises taxes on farmers and the elderly while claiming there is no alternative, all the while hosing vast amounts of money on other countries such as, for example, electric cars for Albanian prisons.
I think this just causes disgust in the public, to the extent they know about it. Hopefully other countries can get their own DOGE soon.
yeah well you know a lot of these are random nonsense, but the West Coast cities and a few other places have taken it way further and have tried to outsource key aspects of government especially relating to crime, rehabilitation, immigration and other social services etc to random "non-profits" that are extremely corrupt and often ran by unreformed violent criminals. It's crazy as fuck, and a substantially more nefarious form of "privatization" than just actually contracting out to a private business which generally at least has shareholders, a functional corporate structure, and the ability to do the task etc.
Old Swann Marcus was really kind of the expert on the East Coast cities doing this, before he went insane with the election polling conspiracy and then disappeared.
it is also indeed crazy that they're also cutting social services and raising taxes while sending money all over the damn place. They claim foreign aid is a tiny part of spending and perhaps it is though also I'm pretty sure much of it is concealed under other budgets. It does seem the public as a whole is fed up with this nonsense.
I’m thinking of McKinsey, which has huge links to the Canadian Liberal government, raked in single source contracts and argues for unrestricted immigration and then gets contracts to help manage it. The leaders of these organizations just slide back and forth between non-profits, government and consulting. That’s why they’re screaming so much - the model is being partly broken.
Sometimes I see criticism of the right and all the things that aren’t happening, but it’s hard to compete when all of your opponents are literally government funded. Trump realizes that now. We’ll see if other Western leaders start learning the lessons.
Yeah it really is fucked from all angles, giant racket
Yes, I read somewhere that San Francisco gives $1 billion a year to non-profits. Crazy. Some traditional ones do useful things, like teach English to immigrants, help battered spouses, provide daycare… those are the ones that get a pittance.
I used to be into the Fraser Institute/ Cato Institute style of thinking, but what we’ve found is that shrinking the size of government can simply mean more money on consultants and non-profits. Different sides of grift.
The great thing is, though, that it’s easy to cut. No civil service protections, no severance. Just stop sending the cheques. It’s that easy!
yeah it's not unreasonable to use them for some things, like idk adult literacy programs or womens shelters etc but you know The Salvation Army is "problematic" because it won't house battered women with men, so they have to find madeup scam non-profits to do the work lmao
overall contracting to for-profit businesses is much less nefarious than outsourcing to random retard made up "non-profits" as they somehow came to do.
Here you go on McKinsey, from a left wing source: https://thewalrus.ca/shadow-government/
Brilliantly written. Shared to X. Kudos!
Thank you!
My heartfelt gratitude for your excellent article!
> Sure, a few Trump policies have been awful, like his crazed proposal to expel the Palestinians and build Mar-A-Gaza[.]
Having myself pointed out on numerous occasions that the Gazans are sitting on a giant strip of could-be-beautiful Mediterranean beach resort property, and have done precisely f'k all with it except use it as a launchpad for attacks on Israel, I'm hard pressed to hate this idea *too* much. You can either kill alligators for decades, or you can drain the swamp and pave over it. The Gazans don't understand that they're the losers of like, six wars at this point. When you start -- and then lose -- a war, sometimes you end up with less territory.
Now, I'll absolutely grant that the ancestors of the people currently in Gaza didn't *start* WWI, but their *government* picked the wrong team, and lost... basically everything, because of it. It's not like the ethnic Germans who had been living in Poland for centuries picked WWII, but they sure as heck got kicked out at the end of it.
I live in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is bordered to the east by the Sandia Mountains, and to the north, south, and west by Indian reservations. They build casinos, not Katyushas. They *know* better. The Gazans have apparently still not yet learned that lesson. I don't *particularly* want to pay for their schooling, but I'd rather that than this festering wound in the world continue.
they've only controlled it under 2006 and have been under siege the whole time, it is absurd to act as if they could have developed a tourism industry, it often takes years to enter Gaza no one can go there on vacation. The idea that it is somehow better beach front than the rest of Israel or NE Egypt is also made up.
The crazier thing about Trump's proposal is if he is expelling them what the fuck is the point of taking it over or doing anything with it at all
My point is more that if they had started in 1948, after they lost and were relocated the first time, they'd be in a far better position than they are now. Sure, *Hamas* has only controlled Gaza since 2006, but since I'm not operating under the idea that Hamas is all of the Gazans (because if they are, the solutions get far uglier and more permanent) that's only a very small portion of the equation. And I'm not saying that Gaza is necessarily *better* beachfront property than other places. I'm saying that it *is* Mediterranean beachfront, and that has an intrinsic value that is not being exploited.
that they haven't been allowed to make good use of, but yes in an ideal world if Israel would agree to let full trade and travel and they would agree to not use that to import things to attack them etc Gaza could theoretically be like Singapore and no one would be upset they lost their mudbrick house 80 years ago
There is no reason to believe Trump's crazy ass idea brings us to that circumstance [how Rubio described it which Trump later again contradicted was substantially less nefarious though still fundamentally unworkable]
Sure, but those restrictions didn't start in 1948. The Gazans are the primary architect of their own woes. Maybe Trump's idea is crazy, I'm not necessarily supporting it. My point was more that I have also made similar comments about the situation for the last two decades, so I'd feel a touch hypocritical dismissing the idea outright.
> “no one voted for Elon Musk”
I mean, nobody voted for 99.95% of the assholes who rule our lives from DC either, a fact which seems completely lost on the Democrats.
that part keeps getting me too! I mean there are really prominent examples like Harry Hopkins who FDR put in charge of The New Deal but also the President appoints thousands of people [Trump said on Rogan there are about 100 important high level appointments he makes personally]
several long-standing and important positions relating to policy and more are appointed without Senate confirmation, and Musk is wholly acting under Trump's delegated authority.
There are valid criticisms of this, as I said, the Democrats just happen to choose the retarded ones.
The primary thing I keep running into in my personal life is this sort of willful blindness to the way things are versus the way things are actually supposed to be, according to the "source code" of the country. (i.e.: "The Constitution") Just last night I was in a room where I was easily the person most supportive of Trump and the DOGE mission (despite having considered myself "a libertarian" for the last thirty years or so) and nobody was able to even slightly counter me (they did all have the characteristic of at least being *honest* when I questioned them on things) when I pointed this reality out, and that thus far, all of the cuts have been to executive branch agencies.
"What. What *precisely* is unconstitutional about the President of the United States -- head of the *executive branch* of the government -- exercising this level of control over *executive* agencies? Because I've been studying the Constitution for a long time, and my daydream every time I've voted for a Libertarian candidate for President has been that they will firm seize the reins of control they would have over all those nasty little TLAs and redirect their efforts. We didn't get a "Big L" libertarian party president in this election, but *I* haven't seen anything that violates the Constitution. The President could decide that the DEA's efforts are best spent on combating the heroin trade directly... by re-assigning them all to offices in Afghanistan. Ninety percent or more of these agencies are not authorized by the Constitution in the first place, but Congress or various EOs made them anyway, and placed them under the Executive Branch. For better or worse, that means the President is in direct charge of them. I have no issues with anything I have seen thus far, and it's not exactly like the news media are being silent about what's being done."
"Well, uh..."
Even the one big thing that we all thought was kinda dumb -- dumping a bunch of stockpile maintenance probationary employees of the NNSA -- was quickly countermanded when it was realized that was kind of a bad plan. (To be clear about our biases, everyone in the room except the husband of the host works for a local facility having to do with maintenance of said stockpile. That said, even if we're going to reduce the size of the stockpile, it's absolutely a task that needs to be done *intelligently*. And I have no fear about *my* ability to land on my feet, if cutting my job at the nuclear weapons lab is the cost of cutting the rest of the cruft out, I'll take it happily. But frankly, I don't think almost anyone except the pants-suited DEI HR folks have anything to worry about from this administration.) Everything that has happened so far has been well within the defined authority of the President of the United States, as far as I have seen.
Ron Paul always said as far as he knows you could repeal every prior executive order on day 1.
Someone tried to tell me cutting employees at Hanford could lead to a Chernobyl style meltdown.
My man thats a several decades old cleanup operation not a power plant, I doubt doing it somewhat more slowly is going to cause a huge disaster?
Yeah... that isn't how that works. That isn't how *any* of that works...
Even the actual nuclear power plants we have here in the US can't have a Chernobyl style meltdown, because we've never been stupid enough to build nuclear power plants the way the Soviets did. I will grant that I think we might take "safety in nuclear reactor design" a smidge too far these days, but I'm glad we're at least *that* conscientious about the topic. But there isn't any way for Hanford to have a "meltdown" because there isn't any concentration of nuclear material there in sufficient density to sustain a reaction. It's still dirty enough to be *dangerous*, certainly, but it's not *that* kind of danger.
*facepalm*
right I can't claim any special knowledge of the site, though I did once drink at a bar with some women who worked there like 15 years ago, but it seems fairly obvious that since the project is on a decades long scale it could be done slower or faster than it is currently being done, I mean, that is how everything else in the world works.
As far as nuclear power, my main concern is civilization falling and then them all melting down in hundreds of years of no maintenance or whatever and ending things permanently. That probably isn't very reasonable. My cousin is really into this sort of thing and once explained to me that it isn't much of a real problem. He's one of these lefty environmentalists who has the sense to be really pro-nuclear.
> You’ll never unsee this and I’m not sorry.
Pffff. I've been on the internet for 35 years. In the words of Roy Batty, "I've seen things you people can't imagine." ;)
> Now, don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to concerned about with the President letting the world’s richest man go around and disrupt government as he sees fit[.]
I'm not sure I agree. Musk really doesn't seem to be interested in money for money's sake as so many billionaires are, and in that case, who better to do this job than someone who doesn't need more money? I will absolutely grant that I could be wrong about Musk, it certainly isn't as though I've ever met the man. But observing him for the last while leads me to believe he's more interested in money for what he can accomplish with it, than for just having the biggest number. And I agree strongly with a lot of what he wants to accomplish with it. I am a self-admittedly *zealous* proponent of getting some portion of humanity off a single rock in space. And I even know where that word comes from. ;)
right, well anything that would work tends to come with a variety of potential drawbacks
> her take is that the Democrats struggle from being “too principled,”
I would actually agree with that take. The Democrats *are* "too principled" The problem is that their principles *suck*. Their principles are lionization of the institution over the Constitution, and everything that encompasses.
(Yes, I am commenting serially as I read the article. Just want to say, that where I may have given any static, I do love what you've written, and agree wholeheartedly with the general assessment of the situation.)
Lol right, they are maniacally attached to random nonsense, which Psaki also said by saying they have unproductive purity tests not realizing your caucus size is what helps you the most
> we don’t want to privately support them, and social convention prohibits us from selling them to zoos for meat.
Meh, I'm OK with transgressing against social convention. Though I think they'd be of more use as fertilizer.