The Long Retreat Continues

A funny thing happened when Netanyahu arrived in Washington to tell the Trump administration about how they would proceed with Iran.  The Trump side told Netanyahu that his longed for war with Iran was not happening. Instead, the Trump administration was starting talks with Iran concerning a negotiated settlement to their nuclear program and the sanctions imposed on Iran. When Trump announced this during the press conference, Netanyahu looked like he had seen a ghost.

Netanyahu was poleaxed because he was sure he had maneuvered the Trump people into a corner on Iran. He thought he had done the same thing with the Biden people, but instead of an American strike on Iran, the Iranians launched their own missile strike and the Biden people looked the other way. With Trump he was sure he had a president who hated Iran as much as he did, but it turns out that Trump was leading Netanyahu on so he could buy time to make a deal with Iran.

It is a good example of how the Israel lobby, which backs Trump completely, is not the same as Israel. The two sides frequently disagree on what is best for Israel, and the Israel lobby typically prevails in these disputes. Given the source of funding for the Israel lobby, this is logical. For American Jews, Israel is their symbolic homeland, but it is not their actual home. It is a place where they send their children for the summer after graduation or perhaps where they take an occasional family trip.

For the Israel lobby, an agreement that fosters peace in the region and ensures the long-term security of Israel is the goal. They do not share Israel’s aspiration for a greater Israel or of subjugating local rivals merely out of spite. The manner in which Israel has conducted itself concerning Gaza has been detrimental to the Israel lobby, as it significantly undermines support for Israel among average Americans. Israel now has the lowest approval ratings among Americans since the issue has been surveyed.

This is also another one of those examples of how the second coming of Donald Trump is much better than the first one. No one saw the reproachment with Iran coming until it was about to happen. This meant that Trump did not discuss it publicly and ensured it remained a need-to-know matter among his trusted confidants. Consequently, the usual suspects could not leak it to the media. All those people who lost security clearances are no longer conduits to the Washington Post.

We see the same thing with Russia. No one outside of Trump and a few trusted people know what is happening in those dealings. No one knew Trump was planning direct talks until they were announced by both sides. Even now, no one has the slightest idea what the two sides are discussing. Instead, the media runs nonsense stories like this one fed to them through Keith Kellogg by the neocons. Team Trump has kept everyone off balance regarding Ukraine.

The essence of all this is not a change in policy with Trump but a transformation in his approach to governance. For instance, Trump has never been fond of Netanyahu. Worse yet for Netanyahu, Trump does not trust him. Similarly, Trump never forgot that Ukraine was central to his impeachment. Trump always wanted to do a deal with Russia and has always got along with Putin. What is novel this time is that Trump is far more astute in how he navigates the den of vipers that is Washington.

Regarding Iran, there is also the reality that no military solution exists. This has been made evident with the Houthis. The days of launching volleys of missiles at an adversary and achieve its objectives is over. To address the Houthi issue militarily would necessitate an invasion and an occupation. A military solution to Iran would require a million-man army and the risk of destabilizing the oil markets. It is not entirely clear that the United States could accomplish this, even if the will existed.

Instead, Trump has allowed the Israelis to believe that the Trump administration supported a strike on Iran’s nuclear and leadership centers. These stories were leaked to the media and then amplified by online geopolitical analysts. Meanwhile, Trump’s trusted advisors were utilizing backchannels to arrange direct talks with Iran, which occurred last week in Oman. There is a strong likelihood that Russia played a role in persuading the Iranians to attend the meeting.

What we may be witnessing are the results of a transformation in the Israel lobby and in Trump’s governing strategy. The same populist forces that spooked the oligarchs into supporting Trump’s political and economic reforms may have prompted the Israel lobby to reconsider its approach to Iran. If war is not an option, then another method must be found to secure Israel. The obvious solution is to resolve the Iran issue that has persisted for half a century.

In many ways Trump is the closing of a chapter in American history that started fifty years ago, and Iran is one part of it. The Iranian revolution was caused by the failure to manage the Israel issue properly. Fifty years ago, smart people warned about tilting to far in favor of Israel. The result has been fifty years of turmoil, including several major wars. That chapter in American history may finally be coming to close with the normalization of relations with Iran.

Of course, this is another indication that we are at the end of empire. Even if relations between the United States and Iran cannot be normalized, it is evident that the days of the American empire ruling over the region with absolute authority are over. The cost of empire has long surpassed the benefits to the American people, and that deficit is now disrupting domestic politics. What Trump represents is a dignified withdrawal from empire, rather than an ignominious one.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


European Apartheid

The word “apartheid” is like every emotionally charged word in the English language in that the worst people abuse it. In South Africa, it had a real meaning, as it described a real system. The word means “apart” and described a system in which the ruling white population lived apart from the black population. In modern usage, it has come to mean any race-based social system. The “apartness” is not so much physical but more of a moral distinction.

The West may need to invent some new words for the multilevel sociopolitical system that is emerging, especially in Europe. The rule of law and equality under the law are being abandoned in favor of a system that is loosely based on American concepts of social justice and social vengeance. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is now a separate set of rules for the white population. Whites, especially white males, are now to be punished more harshly than nonwhites.

This is mostly a formalization of something that has existed informally since Tony Blair flooded the country with immigrants. If a Muslim were caught rioting or raping, he could get off with a warning in front of the right judge. A native Brit, on the other hand, could expect the maximum penalty, especially if he could be accused of holding the wrong opinions about things. This is very similar to what we see in the United States, except now it is formalized in UK law.

This is spreading all over Europe, and unlike the United States, it is eroding the entire concept of a rights-based society. For example, a woman named Lucy Connolly was sent to prison for three years for a Facebook post in which she protested the mass importation of hostile aliens. In the United Kingdom, the police spend their days scanning social media for unlawful posts by white Britons. Twitter is full of videos of police abusing white people for their speech.

The reason the Prime Minister is called “Two Tier Keir” is because he supports the two-tiered justice system that has emerged in the United Kingdom. It is a bizarre implementation of the apartheid system in that it has a separate legal system for natives and immigrants but also compels the natives to embrace the immigrants and their foreign ways. On Palm Sunday, Starmer was at a pagan shrine, celebrating a pagan ritual that happened to fall on the same day.

Almost forgotten now is Tommy Robinson, a street activist who opposes the importation of Muslims and other immigrants. He has been in jail for so long that people have forgotten about him, which is the point. No one seems to know why he is in jail, other than that he says things in public that the government says white people should never say, not even in private. In the United Kingdom, like many European Union countries, you can be sent to prison for private speech.

In fairness, the UK is not alone. Across Europe, the lights of liberal democracy have been extinguished. They regularly arrest and jail people for speech crimes, and they are now arresting opposition politicians. Marine Le Pen is the latest example. In Romania, they canceled elections until they could find a way to remove from the ballot the candidate most likely to win. The Europeans are quickly becoming the old Soviet Union, with better consumer goods imported from China.

What you see in Europe is a more subtle version of what is happening in the United Kingdom, and that is a racial divide in the law. Muslims in France do not have to worry about the police reading their social media posts. If you are a French farmer organizing a protest, you can be sure someone in your group is an agent of the state. The state does nothing about the flood of migrant crime but will throw a white YouTuber in jail for holding views the state says he is not allowed to hold.

America was heading down the same path, as the media and corporations were embracing these same authoritarian policies. Largely due to entrenched cultural opposition and the revolt of key oligarchs, this decline has been halted, and the new administration openly supports civil liberties. That speech by Vance was as much a signal to the American public as to the European political class. The days of de-platforming are over, so they claim.

The real test will be how the Trump administration deals with these countries that flagrantly abuse the rights of their citizens. Everyone understands that Asians have a different cultural tradition, one that does not include things like individual rights, the rule of law, and respect for public opinion. China is never going to be a liberal democracy, so there is no point in punishing them for it. The same is true for the countries of the Middle East or in sub-Saharan Africa.

Europe is a different matter. The only reason for the United States to care about Europe at all is that it is both the ancestor of our population and the source of the moral framework that defines the West. Europe has the same moral obligation to defend the ideals of liberalism as the United States. Clearly, the current European political class has no interest in maintaining liberal societies. The United Kingdom, in particular, is an egregious case, given its role in the evolution of liberalism.

During the Cold War, the United States had different relationships with countries firmly on the Western side than those on the communist side or not aligned. The starting point was always respect for the rights of the citizens. Even during the Cold War, the United States exerted pressure on South Africa to end its apartheid system on the grounds that it was a violation of Western morals. One can question the rationality of that, but at least foreign policy was on something of a moral footing.

If Trump is going to restore the rationality of American foreign policy, it must include a return to a policy of judging nations by how closely they respect our understanding of individual rights and liberties. If the United Kingdom wants favorable trade deals, for example, they must open their prisons and release their political prisoners. The same holds for the rest of Europe. Their prison system must be dismantled, and the laws penalizing speech must be repealed and condemned.

Otherwise, the United States will be in the contradictory position of punishing China for its lack of Western values, while ignoring the grotesque violations of those same values by Europe. A sense of moral obligation has always animated American policy, for good or ill, and the primary moral obligation of America is the defense of the Western tradition of rights, equality before the law and respect for public opinion. America needs to break apartheid Europe, just as it broke apartheid South Africa.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Another Point Of No Return

Thirty years ago, a Ryder rental truck full of explosives detonated in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The blast killed 167 people and injured hundreds more. According to the official truth, the van was parked at the site by someone named Timothy McVeigh. While he did not act alone, he was the only person in the truck when it was parked at the site. A total of four people were arrested and charged with the deadliest domestic terrorist attack to date.

At the time of the attack, the public naturally assumed there were many people involved, as such a thing should require a lot of hands. There was also the assumption that foreigners were involved. By 1995, the United States had been dropping bombs on Muslims for at least a decade. It was not unreasonable to think that some of those Muslims decided to get some payback. According to the FBI, that was not the case at all and the whole thing was done by four people.

It turns out that this may not be entirely true. At the time, there were news stories claiming that two people exited the Ryder truck. Security cameras captured the parking of the thing and the blast. There was even a manhunt of sorts for the guy they named John Doe #2, but he was never found. Later, the FBI said there was never another guy and there was no video footage suggesting such a thing. The media, as they always do, took that to mean they should drop it.

It turns out that the FBI was lying. This long piece in The Federalist chronicles the long saga of trying to get that information from the government. Why the government would be hiding any information about a domestic crime that occurred thirty years ago is a question that can only have one answer. It is not as if there could be top-secret information in such a case. According to the story, the main reason the FBI is hiding this data is they were lying all along about John Doe #2.

At the time, it was not unreasonable for people to accept that the claims about another suspect were simply a mistake. After all, whenever a big event happens, there are all sorts of rumors circulating in the media. Most people at the time accepted that the media was biased and sloppy, but they trusted the FBI. Thirty years on and no one in their right mind trusts the FBI or the media. Decades of lies and many examples of framing innocent people will do that.

Just as important, we now have lots of examples where the FBI used informants or embedded agents to entrap people by tricking them into committing crimes or talking about committing crimes. Under Obama, the FBI helped sell weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, who used those weapons to kill Americans. Under Biden they tricked a bunch of dupes into the Whitmer kidnapping caper. Of course, the FBI tried to overturn the 2016 presidential election.

Considering what we know now, reasonable people are reasonable to wonder if there was not something similar happening with the Oklahoma bombing. The initial reports of a second man in the truck, then the denials and now the maximum effort to conceal evidence of the second man look a lot like how the government handled the Ray Epps situation after January 6th. Given the pattern, John Doe #2 was most likely an informant or an embedded agent.

Another curious thing about this case is that McVeigh was executed quickly, which does not happen in the United States. His trial started in April of 1997, and he was executed in June of 2001, the first federal execution in 38 years. Terry Nichols has been squirreled away in the prison system. The media makes no effort to reach him. Michael Fortier agreed to testify against McVeigh and Nichols in exchange for a reduced sentence and immunity for his wife. They both went into witness protection.

The behavior of the Feds in this case also looks like their behavior in the Enrique “Kiki” Camarena case in the 1980’s. He was a DEA agent who was allegedly kidnapped by the drug cartels, but was most likely assassinated by the CIA, because he learned about the drug running and arms shipment to the Contras. It turns out that the American government was helping the Mexican cartel ship cocaine into the United States in exchange for help funding the Contras.

Of course, what we are seeing with the Oklahoma City Bombing case fits the pattern going back generations. The government is still fighting to hide Kennedy material, despite orders to release it. The Epstein material should have been released long ago, but it will never be released, mostly out of spite. Anything damaging to the government was destroyed long ago. In case after case we see that the government prefers to conceal rather than disclose, as a matter of policy.

There is that other pattern at work here as well. That is where the FBI creates crimes so they can then use them to promote their brand to the American public and extract more cash and privileges from Congress. At this point, it seems like the only thing the FBI does is lure people into criminal conspiracies. There are 38,000 people employed by the FBI and most of them are probably on social media trying to bait people into going along with a plot that the FBI can then solve.

It is why people are right to assume that the reason the FBI is blocking the disclosure of information about John Doe #2 is that like so many of their capers, this is one that spiraled out of control. McVeigh and Nichols were willing dupes that the FBI was happy to manipulate, but they also turned out to be clever and willing to actually go through with the caper before the feds could put the brakes on it. That is the generous interpretation of events. It could be worse than that.

Given what has been revealed just in the last ten years, the political class should be united in their desire to disband the FBI. There is no appetite for even mild reforms, as we see happening now. Trump put Kash Patel in charge, not because he will change the agency, but simply to prevent them from launching another coup against him like they did the first time. Trump’s “solution” to the FBI problem is to put thumbless idiots in charge of it.

Just as we saw last week with the financial markets in response to Trump’s very mild changes in tariff policy, the inability to address the problem with the secret police is another example of how it may be too late. The secret police were allowed to turn into this monster that is now bigger than its supposed master. Instead of the secret police serving the political class, the political class serves the secret police. This is another sign that we have blown past the point of no return.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Is It Too Late?

Note: Behind the green door, there is a post about Russell Brand and what his case suggests about the state of the law, a post about using AI as an editorial team for the posts on this site, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.


One of the questions rarely asked regarding the ongoing American crisis is whether we have passed the point where reform is possible. Few want to consider that possibility for obvious reasons. If reform through the regular political process is no longer possible, then only unpleasant alternatives remain. One of those alternatives is some form of collapse. Like Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, America may be headed over the cliff with nothing to prevent it.

Last week, we caught a possible glimpse of the answer. Trump rolled out his tariff regime, and the stock markets went wild. It was not just a global selloff; volatility was off the charts, which is worse than the decline itself. A steady selloff occurs during a correction when markets are overbought. A chaotic, erratic decline signals panic setting in among the algorithms. It means their code cannot interpret the conditions they are programmed to use for trading.

Just as things began to stabilize, the bond market started to “get the yips”, as Trump noted on Thursday. No one in the mass media understands this, so they kept claiming the bond market crashed, which is far from accurate. The issue was that market players were dumping treasuries. It is unclear why, for instance, the Japanese central bank was selling treasuries. This uncertainty is just as worrisome as the actual dumping, so everyone was spooked.

Typically, the reason for dumping treasuries is a liquidity issue, either in the system as a whole or in a segment of it. In this case, the consensus is that hedge funds were raising cash due to the market decline. That could be true, but it is also possible the basis trade was unraveling. This is when hedge funds bet on tiny changes in treasury yields—a major way they generate profits within the system.

Here is how it works: Imagine you believe the value of an asset like a treasury will decline over the next six months. You hold this asset, but it is collateral for another transaction. You cannot sell it now, so you agree to sell it in the future at the current price rather than the market price at that time. If the price surges, you lose potential profits when the contract expires, but if the price drops as expected, you are protected from those losses.

There is much more to it, but that is the gist, and this happens across markets for everything, even treasuries, which have been very stable. Even earning a tiny percentage on these transactions can net millions for a fund handling tens of billions in trades. In fact, the financial system relies on clever quants coding models to exploit these small discrepancies between current and future prices to generate wealth.

When Trump’s tariffs caused this system to go haywire, triggering a panicked demand for cash, he had no choice but to back off. It was not that the bond market revolted due to a philosophical disagreement with the policy. Rather, this massive system is a house of cards that cannot tolerate even minor disruptions. Trump’s tariff regime should not have caused chaos, but the fact that it did suggests even small changes are no longer viable.

That is not the end of it. The central bank could mitigate this by injecting enough cash to resolve the liquidity issue. In fact, it can inject enough to counter deliberate revolts. You cannot beat the Fed. This should have happened last week, but Jerome Powell either refused to act or was too inept to grasp the situation. He has been the worst Fed chair since Arthur Burns, so incompetence is a strong possibility.

That said, the Fed held an emergency meeting just before Trump announced his tariff plan last week, likely in response to it. Given the Federal Reserve’s composition and its attitudes toward the American public, it is possible they intended to undermine the process. The Bank of England toppled Liz Truss’s Tory government, so it is not unthinkable. The head of the Bank of England at the time was Mark Carney, who is now the dictator of Canada.

This would imply that normalizing the American economy is no longer possible, at least not through standard political processes, because the entrenched interests profiting from the system will not allow it. That is what we will discover in the next ninety days as the Trump team navigates this challenge. Bessent has suggested they will use this time to strike individual deals with countries rather than unilaterally imposing a tariff schedule.

Of course, they could also have Jerome Powell killed, thus sending a message to the parasite class that they must fall in line or else. They never take no for an answer, so this approach never works. The Russians had to execute a lot of oligarchs before the rest finally fell in line with the new program. Falling in line usually meant fleeing the country with their cash. Maybe it does not have to come to that with the bankers, but last week was not a positive sign.

What the events of last week show is that normalizing American economic policy is not going to be easy within the current process. It also suggests it may not be possible without radical approaches to implementation. We may have reached the point where even with enough coercion, the system cannot be reformed. We may have blown past the point of no return as far as the political and economic order, so what lies ahead is chaos no matter what is done.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Back To Work

Warren Buffet famously said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” The point of this metaphor is that in economic downturns you learn who has been taking excessive risks. Another way of putting it is that in easy times, everyone can be a hero or a genius. This has been the case for the American financial system for over thirty years. As long as credit money kept expanding, everyone had a chance to look like a financial genius.

This explains the prevalence of people in the financial media who somehow get everything wrong but maintain their status as experts. The most notable of this sort is Jim Cramer who has made a career out of being outlandishly wrong. Paul Krugman wrote a column for years about the economy, despite never being right about it. These are two famous examples, but the commentariat is littered with these types. As long as the arrow kept going up, being wrong was good money.

The trouble is that the entire financial industry is built on this premise. Being wrong comes with no penalty, because wrongness rarely comes with a cost. Sure, the MegaBrain Capital Fund might not perform as well as random guessing, but because the arrow always goes up, even the bad bets pay off. This also means anyone spouting random gibberish can present himself as an expert. Tens of thousands of mortgage payments, maybe hundreds of thousands, rest on this assumption.

The main reason for this, of course, is the United States has been both the global mint and the global bank since the 1980’s. You can see it in the markets. From 1985 to the present, the DJIA has increased by about nine percent per year. That includes the many busts that were backstopped by the global bank. From 1965 to 1985 the markets suffered a long bear market, after the long twenty-year bull market that kicked off after the end of the Second World War.

Another way to think about it is the American stock market boomed by about ten percent per year when the rest of the world was in rubble. Europe was literally in rubble after the war. Much of it was controlled by communists. China was a feudal, agrarian society trying to implement Marxist-Leninism. Japan only stopped glowing after that long bull market ended. In other words, the American economy and the equities markets had a great run when there was no global competition.

Somehow, as if by magic, equities had a run like the post war decades, despite the hollowing out of the economy. The run has also been longer. The twenty-year post-war boom ran out of steam even though Asia was not online yet, just because Europe was starting to recover. We have experienced a forty-year run while at the same time the American economy transitioned from inventing things and making them to driving each other around in Ubers.

It turns out that if the mint can make as much money as it likes, being the only mint on earth anyone values, and they give what they mint to the only banking system anyone values, the people in this system can do no wrong. For decades it has been like being at a casino with an endless line of credit. Not only that, but the dealers would also occasionally give you some insider information on the decks. It is not hard to look like a genius when you are playing with house money.

That world is coming to an end. The shock therapy we are seeing is not just a bluff to get better tariff deals. It is in anticipation of the fact that the world is shifting from where the dollar dominates all global trade to one where local currency arrangements will often be preferred over the dollar. If you want to buy from China, it will mean doing so in their currency, not dollars. The same is true for other major trading countries. The Russians have been the proof of concept for this approach.

This does not mean the dollar collapses or people revert to carrying sacks of gold while riding to town on their donkey. The primitive use of shiny bits of metal as currency only comes back if we enter a dark age. What is happening instead is a change in how the world views dollars and more importantly, dollar denominated debt. That means the days of unlimited credit money is coming to a close. The dollar and dollar denominated debt will reconnect with the American economy.

This is all bad news for the flim-flam men who dominate the financial services industry as it means being wrong once again comes with risk. The bad bets from MegaBrain Capital Fund no longer just mean a lower return. Those bad bets now put the firm in jeopardy and get the smart guys fired for making those bad bets. Swimming naked will now come with the risk of the tide going out and staying out. Like the fox in the hen house, risk is returning to the money game.

What is about to happen to the financial sector is like what we see happening with the government sector. The tens of thousands of people who do not do anything necessary will be let go, and that includes the experts in the media. In a world where risk is real, no one will tolerate a television clown dispensing bad advice, unless he is in a fright wig and wearing floppy red shoes. The clowns will back in the circus while the serious men do the serious work.

This is the end of America’s long holiday from reality. Playing make believe in government, finance or the media is no longer possible. Making money will not be about finding clever ways to get that sweet sweet credit money, but about inventing things, improving things and making things. That will not leave a lot of room for diversity experts or chattering skulls. Those people can be put to work in the new factories and repair shops, perhaps sweeping the floors.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Wilderness Of Lies

One of the many things to spring forth from the political froth over the last decade is the level of coordination in the mass media. It was often clear that media activists were coordinating to create their preferred spin, but only with the help of conservative chattering skulls like Rush Limbaugh, who would create montages of media outlets repeating the same catch phrases. Social media now provides this service as the algorithms aggregate the stories and the repetition is too obvious to ignore.

Another thing that was not obvious is that many of the opinion makers, now called influencers, are in on the scam too. Often, they are paid by marketing companies to promote a viewpoint. The recent “soda money” scam where the soda industry paid a bunch of Twitter influencers to promote the health benefits of carbonated sugar drinks is an egregious, but typical example. The truth is, much of what the influencers do is paid for by marketing companies.

This is not just about moving product. The Israel lobby tried to secretly assemble a collection of right-wing influencers for a session with Bibi Netanyahu. Guys like Tim Pool were brought in so they could ask questions and be given instructions. Instead of paying them with cash, they get rewarded with access. This is an old trick that has worked on the media since forever. Look for Tim Pool and other famous influencers to sound remarkably like the ADL.

Payola is nothing new. In the golden age of popular music, record companies sent bagmen to big radio stations so the disc jockeys would play their songs. In the golden age of conservative politics, pens for hire were everywhere. Ben Domenech, one of the founders of The Federalist and RedState, was caught taking money from Malaysia to promote the interests of that country in his columns. Many other conservative pundits were caught up in that scandal.

This feature of the media exploded with the proliferation of digital media and the dominance of social media. It is also much easier to spot. The other day, a company hired by Ukraine did the soda money gag. This time it was a bunch of paid Ukraine supporters on Twitter repeating word for word the same erroneous claims about Chinese soldiers fighting on the side of Russia. The campaign was quickly suspended when it was too obvious to ignore.

It is not just the new school internet chattering skulls taking what used to be called payola, but also the old school types. This post by Victor Davis Hanson regarding the war in Ukraine has all the marks of pay-for-post. It has the typical neocon claims about the Russian army on the brink of collapse and the Russian economy in tatters, two stock bits of the neocon marketing campaign since 2022. Anyone paying the least bit of attention can easily spot those lines as agitprop.

The big tell that this is possibly paid opinion making is the claim that the proposed peace plan will create a DMZ along the border and the Russians will be forced to retreat back to their old border. Not only is this a fabrication, it is total nonsense. There is no such peace proposal and the only people claiming so are the neocons. They have been floating this idea since their 2023 offensive ended in catastrophe. Rather than accept defeat, they want a break to rebuild and rearm.

There are other neocon talking points sprinkled around the text. The claims about Russian losses are the most obvious. There is the crazy claim that Putin is trying to reassemble the old Soviet Union. There is also the mandatory criticism of Trump “art of the deal” negotiating style. Imagine Bill Kristol as a pinata and once he is busted open, what tumbles out are the main neocon talking points. Kids then took those and assembled them into that post for Mr. Hanson.

The Ukraine war has been highly useful in understanding the manipulation that lies behind the opinion makers. Whenever you see the phrase “full scale invasion of Ukraine”, you know you are dealing with a pundit paid by neocons, who are convinced this is powerful rhetoric. “Putin’s invasion” is another example. Normal people working at honest analysis do not use that language. These phrases are emotive signals to the neocon cult indicating a fellow traveler.

In fairness to Hanson, he is getting up there in years and he probably relies on an assistant to write his posts. American Greatness does not pay its writers, so no one can blame any of them for doing the minimum. It is a common practice for bigshot writers to rely on staff. Many of their books are written and assembled by assistants. The bigshot writer acts as the supervising editor. This is how Doris Kearns Goodwin got in trouble over plagiarism claims in one of her books.

That may be the case here. The person tasked with writing these posts simply relied on the copy provided from the neocon email list. On the other hand, Hanson has always been tight with the neocons. He has parroted their propaganda for years, so he could simply be doing the same in that post. That is the point though. In this age of zero trust, no one can be sure if it is honest error, ideological derangement, payola, or sloppy work from an old man nearing the end.

That is the world created by decades of media mendacity. As citizens trying to be as informed as possible, we find ourselves in a wilderness of lies. The “objective reporting” is all narrative storytelling to promote an agenda or a set of moral claims. Much of it is invented out of whole cloth. Analysis is often just payola, but much of it is part of a hidden agenda or a conspiracy. In a world where you cannot accept a man’s opinion as his opinion, you cannot trust anything.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Bell Ringing At The Top

In the fullness of time, we may look at the sale of the NBA franchise, the Boston Celtics, as the bell that rang at the peak of the financialized economy. The team sold for a record-breaking $6.1 billion to a group led by billionaire William Chisholm, the managing partner of Symphony Technology Group. That firm has nothing to do with music or technology. It is a private equity firm. The deal still must be approved by the league and must go through the usual legal process.

The team is one of the crown jewels of the league, so it makes some sense that it commands the highest value. Since the beginning of the NBA, the Boston Celtics have been something like the New York Yankees—winning numerous titles and featuring some of the game’s greatest players. Wyc Grousbeck, whose family leads the ownership group that bought the team in 2002 for $360 million, made, on average, thirteen percent per year on his investment in the franchise.

By comparison, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose about six percent a year on average, accounting for several crashes along the way. Median home prices in the United States have increased at about the same rate over that time. Some areas, like the Washington, D.C. area, have seen even larger jumps. Given that official inflation numbers are roughly half that figure, it shows that assets, even common ones like houses and equities, have experienced a steady increase.

Now, a golden rule of life is that a thing is worth what someone will pay for it, but value is supposed to be linked to reality. The value of a business, for example, is tied to the value of its assets, its cash flow, and future profitability. A buyer expects to recoup his investment over a specific period, which means the business either has profits or assets that can be sold for a profit. The Boston Celtics are a business, so does that mean the business is worth $6 billion?

The answer is no, not in the conventional sense. Most sports franchises are break-even businesses, with many losing money. They often have negative cash flow due to player salaries, which means they carry a lot of debt. The NBA is experiencing a sharp downturn in its popularity, with television ratings down 60% from the peak. The Celtics do not own their arena, so they lack that asset to supplement their business. Most likely, the franchise is a money-loser by conventional standards.

Of course, the new owners do not care about the business side. They are billionaires who want to be in the billionaire club. It is as much about status as it is about business, but the business side still matters. They no doubt look at the massive inflation in franchise values and think they will have no trouble flipping this property for a nice profit once they get bored with it. In other words, they assume the asset inflation we have seen since the 1980s will continue.

This makes sense in the context of the current American economic model, the one Donald Trump is determined to replace with a new model. The economy that emerged in the 1980s is based on unlimited, cheap credit money that gets plowed into assets like equities, startups, and frivolous things like modern art and sports franchises. William Chisholm is a billionaire, despite never having invented or built anything, because he is highly skilled in the legerdemain of modern finance.

Another aspect of the new economy explains why certain assets, like sports franchises and some tech sectors, have outperformed houses and stocks. The NBA is financed, in large part, by taxes it levies on every household. These taxes come in the form of cable and television bills. If you have a television service, you are paying for all those games you don’t watch. Channels like ESPN are bundled into the bill, and they are a significant part of it. That money subsidizes the NBA.

If, tomorrow, everyone could simply pay for what they watch, like software as a service, sports channels like ESPN would go bankrupt within a month. Right behind them would be all the sports leagues. The reason? Sports networks would lose about 80% of their revenue. That means ESPN could not spend billions on live sports content, and without that revenue, the leagues would collapse. That $6 billion sale of the Celtics would look like the worst bet in history.

The reason regular people feel so much economic angst, despite the appearance of material prosperity, is that we have reached the end of the line for this model, where costs are socialized but profits are privatized. The NBA is one example where the quality of the product has been disconnected from its financial success. In a true market economy, the owners of the Celtics would struggle to give it away, because the NBA, as an entertainment product, is in steep decline.

If you look closely, you will see this dynamic everywhere. The offset to those cheap products at big-box stores is the collapse of American manufacturing, and the social capital that came with it. The offset to cheap labor via immigration has been stagnant wages and emergency rooms that resemble Tijuana bus stops. The offset to a rising stock market is endless financial insecurity. The hidden costs have accumulated to the point where they can no longer be ignored.

The reason Trump is trying to usher in a new economic model is that the old one, the financialized economy, is running out of places to hide the costs of endless credit creation and the auctioning off of social capital. It is not just that we cannot borrow more money. It is that we cannot continue to socialize the costs of creating more credit money. Just as critically, we can no longer tolerate an oligarchy built on privatizing the profits of this system.

That is why the sale of the Celtics may be the bell ringing at the peak of the massive asset bubble that is the American economy. The absurdity of it should offend even the most zealous believer in the transactional economy. In a country with serious problems that require elite investment, watching rich parasites plow billions into a human flea circus brings revolutionary thoughts to mind. It may be the last grotesque gesture of an economic model that has run its course.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Artificial Tay Tay

Note: Last night, Paul and I did a whole show on AI and the possible consequences of humanity being enslaved by robots. You can watch the replay here and here.


An unresolved mystery in popular culture is why Taylor Swift has become a megastar on the level of Elvis and Michael Jackson. There are plenty of simple explanations like her songs resonate with young females or she is non-threatening, but those apply to many pop stars, yet none have reached the heights of Swift. There is an answer, and it lies in the fundamentals of human psychology, but that answer also suggests that Swift is the death of the pop star phenomenon.

The place to start is with the most popular answer to why Swift is the biggest pop star of the 21st century: her lyrics. The most popular explanation for Swift’s popularity with young females is her songs resonate with them. Yet when you look at her most popular songs, they predate her supposedly young female audience. Her biggest hit is from seventeen years ago. Her next biggest is from eleven years ago. Most of her big hits are from over a decade ago.

That is the strange thing about Taylor Swift. Everyone assumes that her core audience is young females, but in reality, it is middle-aged single white women. Taylor Swift is a middle-aged woman performing hits from over a decade ago. She is a strange mix of current fads and recent nostalgia. Look at her audience and it is the young-ish females you see kicking around the cubicle farms of corporate America, and thirsty males who think a Taylor Swift concert is an opportunity for them.

As to the lyrics of the songs, there is nothing to suggest they are the hook that reels in her core audience. They are echolalic babbling. Pop music at its best is doggerel set to a simple but catchy tune. Most pop songs, especially female power pop, have a simple chorus that expresses a simple emotion, while the rest is gibberish. That is what you see with Taylor Swift songs. Her music also comes with helpful expositions so the listener can contextualize the simple chorus.

The point here is that there is nothing unique about what Taylor Swift is doing to explain her massive popularity. Her formula is the same as every female pop star when it comes to the music itself. Watch a Swift concert, however, and it is clear that the audience is not there for the music. They are there to see Swift. Like Elvis seventy years ago, Swift is popular for being Taylor Swift now. Her popularity rests on being a social phenomenon to her audience.

She is a social phenomenon because she brings other things to the female pop star formula that suggest she may be the last human pop star. The first thing to note is Swift is what young guys call “mid”. Now that she is pushing forty, she is getting a bit dumpy, but even in her prime she was a solid seven, the sort of girl old women would describe as pretty, which meant not homely but not sexy. In fact, her unique quality in the pop ranks is she lacks anything resembling sex appeal.

There is one caveat here: she has naturally unique eyes. This may be why she is so wildly popular with near-middle-age white women. White women put enormous importance on their eyes because it is hugely important to white people, who have a staggering variety of eye colors compared to nonwhites. A woman’s eyes are what will catch the attention of a male, which is why there is so much diversity in the eye color of people from Europe, especially northern Europe.

Women’s makeup puts the focus on the eyes. In some countries, like Iceland, women use makeup so you cannot help but focus on their eyes. In a land full of the most beautiful women on earth, the eyes are what matter. As women age, they tend to focus more on their hair and makeup, with the eyes being the focus. It is also why overweight women tend to wear a lot of makeup. The otherwise average-looking Taylor Swift is an appealing role model for her audience due to her eyes.

There is also the fact that Swift seems to be a boring person. There is no drama in her life or sex tapes leaked on the internet. The few interviews she gives are as compelling as watching paint dry. The closest she gets to drama is dating a football player who is not the quarterback or a superstar. For the women who could not land the star quarterback in high school, this makes Swift weirdly relatable. For her audience, Taylor Swift is the mirror who says they are the fairest of them all.

There are other things leading to Swift’s stardom, but the picture that emerges from these general observations is that it is a formula. Pop music has always relied on these formulas, but they were based on wisdom and experience. Now they can be based on massive data sets crunched by artificial intelligence. The data from who consumes different types of pop music can be combined with the human sciences, the history of pop music, and the software to create the music.

Soon, maybe even now, music executives can ask a couple of DOGE kids to create a pop star maker. They will be given access to the history of pop music, demographics of the current audience, and the quickly growing body of information from the human behavior sciences. They will then produce the attributes of stars in each music genre, their target audience, and expected revenue numbers. In other words, templates for every form of popular musical star.

Instead of hiring actors to play the part, like the boy band producers did in the last century, the music execs will ask their AI engineers to create them. The technology can already produce the audio, and the video will be here soon. That means in weeks an artificial Tay Tay can be beamed to the mobile devices of the target audience and through social media. Their reaction to the “new act” can be used to subtly tweak the “artist’s” algorithm based on those responses.

This may sound absurd but watch a Taylor Swift show and what you see are people holding up their mobile devices. People under the age of forty experience the world now through their mobile device. Theirs is already a meta-existence when it comes to experiencing things in the meatspace. This is accelerating with each wave of people entering adulthood. What matters to them most is not flesh and blood humans, but the avatars in the alternative reality of the internet.

Even if it does not reach the point of replacing humans entirely, it is easy to see why the pop star will not survive much longer. Taylor Swift is proof of concept. She is highly controllable, does not create drama, and ticks the necessary boxes that the formula says are required to be a star. Mass-producing many versions of this with cheaply acquired talent and software is the logical next step, maybe even allowing fans to create their own version of their favorite act.

That is the other thing AI will bring to music. Based on prompts and reactions from the target audience, the act can quickly evolve to their liking. The same process by which you prompt AI to create an image can be silently incorporated into the production of the next Taylor Swift. Not only can AI make the next Taylor Swift, but it will also allow the listener to create their own Taylor Swift. Artificial intelligence will allow everyone to have their own artificial reality in which their Taylor Swift speaks to them.

All of this assumes that some as yet unforeseen consequence to the rollout of AI does not bring the roof down on all of us. Even what we can contemplate opens the doors for life-altering consequences. Technology has destroyed the societal consensus. Just imagine what happens when we have our own popular reality stars. Even so, what Taylor Swift tells us is that the pop star as a human phenomenon is dead. She is the proof of concept that will lead to the Artificial Tay Tay.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Essential Violence

Note: Paul is back from vacation, so that means we are back tonight for the Wednesday livestream, which you can find here and here. You can also watch on Twitter, but there is no link until it is live. Just go to Paul’s Twitter page. The show kicks off at 8:00 PM EDT and the topic tonight is AI.


In 19th century America, it was popular to argue that there are four boxes for maintaining political liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. There is also a version that has just three boxes, which drops the jury box from the model. The soap box is public speech used to persuade the ruling class. The ballot box is the democratic process. The jury box is the legal process, and the cartridge box is violence. The order of the boxes is important as it is both a warning and a promise.

The warning here is directed toward the public. Skipping any of these steps will inevitably be self-defeating. The sorts of people who want to litigate everything, for example, are the sorts of people who will litigate away your liberty. We see this with the inferior court judges. They are like all self-defined underdogs. When they get on top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people they opposed. These people are always more dangerous than present tyrants.

The other side of this is directed at the people in charge. Their status as a ruling elite depends on making sure that the traditional rights and protections of the people are maintained in those first two boxes. Once the people abandon the soap box and the ballot box for the jury box, it is not long before they reach for the cartridge box, and there is no turning back from that one. Of course, an elite that uses the jury box to undermine the ballot box is asking for the cartridge box.

That is what we see in the West: the use of lawfare by the managerial class to both circumvent the soap box and the ballot box. The latest example is in France, where the courts have willy-nilly decided that the most popular politician in the country is no longer allowed to participate in politics. Marine Le Pen was found guilty of trumped-up charges and sentenced to what amounts to internal banishment. Her punishment is like what happened to Khrushchev in the 1960s.

This is the pattern in the West. Romania arrested and then banned the most popular politician in the country for the crime of winning the election. Germany is planning to ban the AfD for the crime of being popular. The new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has publicly stated that one of his goals will be to work with the EU to overthrow the Hungarian government. Of course, the UK has declared itself an apartheid state by imposing a two-tiered legal regime aimed at the opposition.

The most famous example of the managerial class abuse of the jury box to circumvent the soap and ballot box is Donald Trump. They tried to remove him from office in his first term, then rigged the 2020 election to deny him a second term. When he did not get the message, they used lawfare against him in the same way we see in Europe, except that Trump managed to win at the jury box. Note they reached for the cartridge box when they failed at the jury box.

The assassination of Trump is a good reminder that it is almost always the case that once either side of the political system reaches the jury box, one side or the other will reach for the cartridge box. The jury box is where irreconcilable differences are confirmed to both sides, no matter the result. The reason there is always the smell of sulfur around attorneys is not only due to who they serve. It is also because sulfur is an essential element of gunpowder.

What we see happening in the West is a reminder that the last box in that formulation is essential to preserve the three other boxes. The 19th century French social thinker, Georges Sorel, explained that political violence is not a sign of chaos, but a healthy antidote to political oppression. It is often the creative destruction needed to free the political marketplace so it can produce healthy politics. Violence also has the effect of energizing the people to defend their ancient liberties.

Thomas Jefferson made a similar point in his famous letter to William Smith from which we get the famous quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Jefferson was not justifying political violence for its own sake. He pointed out that violent resistance is often a necessary reminder to the ruling class of what lies ahead if they ignore the soap box and the ballot box. Shays’ Rebellion was a warning and a promise.

It may be why American oligarchs joined the Trump team. When Luigi Mangione popped out from behind the car to gun down that insurance executive, it let every oligarch know the cartridge box remains an option. If French judges and politicians suddenly come down with lead poisoning, maybe the poseur class in Paris will suddenly rethink their position too. If not, then it guarantees the French end up at the cartridge box anyway.

This is the most likely end for the West as a whole. The Trump reforms will surely fail, as reform is almost always an effort to relieve the pressure of general discontent while maintaining the status quo. In Europe, the ruling class is nakedly hostile to the native population, hellbent on pulling the roof down to spite the people. They will not be talked out of their positions, and they will not be voted out of them. Since the courts are now owned by the managerial class, it leaves the last option.

The irony of all this is that the great lesson of Western history is that liberty only comes when the people join to spill blood. As the sun sets on Western man, this truth is becoming clearer with each outrage by the ruling class. The people endlessly yelping about “our democracy” are killing the West. It is only through the blood of these parasites and vermin that the new Western man will regain his lands and liberty. After the jury box comes the cartridge box.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Changing Times

Note #1: Behind the green door, there is a post about the massive Disney flop Snow White, a post about basketball, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.


Scan social media, comments on sites that still allow them, new media platforms like livestreaming services, and what becomes clear is that support for Israel in the United States is shifting. The days of “right-wing” influencers portraying Israel as the frontline of freedom are long gone. Instead, there is mostly indifference, with a fair amount of criticism. So-called left-wing influencers are aggressively antagonistic toward Israel, siding with the Arabs.

The one place where enthusiasm for Israel remains strong is Washington. The Trump administration is cartoonishly pro-Israel, often coming off as a parody of the old pro-Israel stance among conservatives. The Republican Party is similarly over-the-top in its celebration of Israel, as if it worships Israelis. Senator Tom Cotton rarely speaks about his home state, preferring instead to focus on Israel. Even Democrats act as though Israel is their ancestral homeland.

In time, the events of October 7, 2023, may be seen as a turning point for Israel’s relationship with the United States. Rather than sparking another round of American-led violence in the region, it may prove to be the moment that bursts the Israel bubble. Until then, supporting Israel was the default position among the American public, with only fringe voices expressing opposition. Since that day, however, the public square has become a battleground over Israel.

Israel seems to be losing that fight. Young people no longer support Israel, and it is only among senior citizens that you see the old enthusiasm. More accurately, the old enthusiasm exists only with old white people who vote Republican. Demographics play a big role here, as the younger generations are less white. Of course, it also means that the actuarial tables are working hard against the pro-Israel position. In ten years, support for Israel will probably collapse.

This does not mean, as some suggest, that Americans are becoming antisemitic or that a dark historical figure is poised for a comeback. Rather, for an increasing number of Americans, the romanticized view of Jews has faded. Events from eighty years ago no longer shape their thinking. Jews do not hold a special place in their imagination, and as a result, Israel is seen as just another country. More and more, Americans are evaluating Israel through the lens of American interests.

One reason for this is the heavy-handed tactics employed after October 7 to bully Americans into siding with Israel. In this age of widespread mendacity, overegging the pudding raises suspicions. The outlandish claims made by people like Ben Shapiro quickly turned a tragedy into a conspiracy theory. Instead of sympathy for Israel, a majority began to suspect shenanigans. When they called it their 9/11, that seemed to confirm we were being conned yet again into war.

It is fair to say that the year following the attack was an example of disastrous public relations that alienated many Americans. Exaggerated claims about Arabs eating babies and scripted social media campaigns were quickly identified and debunked online. Then came the carpet bombing of Gaza, which struck many as monstrous. While Israel was undoubtedly the victim, indiscriminately bombing apartment buildings and hospitals is still seen as immoral.

The weird thing about the year of ham-fisted public relations is that it was as if the Israel Lobby forgot the internet existed. It was very much an old school media campaign, for a time when the media was four television channels and a local newspaper, not a time when Telegram channels have up-to-the-minute video from even the most remote places in the world. It was a media campaign run by old people for old people who still watch the nightly news.

There is also the fact that, for over a decade, anyone questioning official narratives has been branded as “Hitler.” On the one hand, this rhetoric enrages people. On the other hand, it has become a signal that kooks and crazies are about to create chaos. The Israel Lobby foolishly aligned itself with the unstable elements of the left, and now, it is tarnished by association with the same activists who toppled statues and caused societal unrest.

This complacency is another factor in Israel’s declining support. Since the 1980s, life has been easy for the Israel Lobby. Their critics were banished in the 1990s, so they merely had to issue press releases to get what they wanted. Over time, this made them lazy. Like all lobbying machines, they became focused on Washington, neglecting grassroots efforts. Now, their critics control the grassroots and the new media that inform the next generation.

A larger issue for Israel and its supporters is that the United States is a big country facing big challenges. Israel is a small country. Naturally, it cannot remain at the top of America’s priority list. Furthermore, the Israel Lobby represents only a tiny fraction of the American public. Minoritarianism is unsustainable—just ask Assad. The great tectonic plates of human civilization are shifting against the current Israeli paradigm. The so-called Jewish century is over, and both Jews and Israel must adapt.

Again, this does not mean that a historical villain is making a comeback or that Ben Shapiro will soon be selling tickets to concentration camps to keep the Daily Wire afloat. Americans are not naturally bigoted, despite demographic changes. It simply means that the dominance of the Israel Lobby and the victimhood culture that has shaped Jewish identity for half a century are fading. Like many aspects of the 20th century, these things will soon be relics of the past.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!