Me: Whoa! Let’s not rush into this. What is it about your ethnic background, sexuality, or cognitive or physical disabilities that makes you think you’re qualified to cut my hair?

Barber: Uh, I’m sorry, what?

Me: You think just because I wander into your “Barber Shop” I’m just going to let you start cutting my hair?

Barber (looking around, confused): Is this a joke?

Me: This is the exact opposite of a joke. This is life and death! Why don’t you start by telling me why you think you’re the best person to cut my hair?

Barber: Because I’ve been cutting hair for 20 years?

Me: There you go, focusing on qualifications, using the violence of merit to perpetuate conditions that benefit whiteness.

Barber: But you’re a white man.

Me: You’re right to call me on that. I need to check my privilege.

Barber: And I’m Persian.

Me: Good! That’s a good start. That gets you the “Middle Eastern / North African” category. Go on.

Barber: The what category? Sorry, I’m confused. Go on where?

Me: Tell me what else makes you the best person to cut my hair.

Barber: My being Persian makes me the best person to cut your hair?

Me: It’s a start. I like to live my values, and my values mirror those of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS).

Barber (looking around bewildered)

Me: As you know, AMPAS is at the forefront of representation and inclusion, and if their rules are good enough for picking the Best Picture, they’re good enough to guide me in picking the best, no matter what it is I need. Including picking the Best Barber.

Sure, it can be challenging at times, but no matter how hard it is, I’m committed to promoting representation and inclusion in everything I do. Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a black lesbian mechanic in a wheelchair willing to fix my car?

Barber: You did that?

Me: Not yet. I’m still looking. It doesn’t help that all the local garages seem to be oppressive patriarchal structures that normalize the subordination of women. No matter, I’m committed to using public transport until I find a person in an underrepresented group who claims they can fix my car. How else can I be sure they’re the best mechanic?

Barber: Well –

Me: It was a rhetorical question. So, being Persian gets you the “racial or ethnic group” qualification, but as you’re clearly a man, I’m afraid that you miss out on the women qualification... wait, I didn’t just misgender you by mistake, did I? (hitting self in head repeatedly) Stupid, stupid! When are you going to stop assuming someone is a man just because you see a beard? I apologize for assuming your gender.

Barber: Uhm... it’s ok?

Me: Phew. Thanks. Anyway, before I let you cut my hair, I’m going to need you to prove you belong to a second underrepresented group. You don’t happen to be LGBTQ+, do you?

Share

Barber: I have a wife of 20 years.

Me: Disappointing. That means we’re down to “cognitive or physical disabilities” or “deaf or hard of hearing” qualifications. You seem to be hearing me well enough. You don’t happen to have a wooden leg or ADHD, or something, do you?

Barber (shakes head)

Me: Irritable bowel syndrome? Tennis elbow? Chronically late for appointments? Honestly, I’m pretty desperate for a haircut, so I’ll take anything.

Barber: Sorry, I’m just a normal guy.

Me (gasping): “Normal?!” How dare you use a socially constructed concept to judge, exclude, and marginalize individuals or groups who do not conform to a dominant standard! (stands up and throws barber cape onto chair). You sir – or madam (raising eyebrow hopefully. Barber shakes head “no”) – you sir are a disgrace to the barber profession.

(storms out).

Barber (to self): Why a bald guy needs a barber is beyond me.

Note: “The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population.” Please support them by living their values in your day-to-day lives.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

Full disclosure: he still has most of his hair.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In the case of President Truman, we note his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. That decision was certainly controversial and was strongly criticized. I believe Truman made the correct decision for two reasons: it induced the Japanese nation to surrender and bring an end to the war, and it scared the world by having them witness the power unleashed by atomic weapons. That fear has kept us safe from nuclear weapons for 80 years.

Truman made another controversial decision three years later, to recognize Israel as a nation. The British mandate, which gave Britain control of Palestine, was to end on May 14, 1948. Truman knew that Israel would declare its independence, so he had to decide how America should proceed. Supporting the recognition were the Jewish lobby, humanitarian pressure resulting from the holocaust, and some members of Congress.

Opposing recognition were General George Marshall, the Secretary of State and author of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and most of the State Department’s senior members. The leadership at the State Department believed that recognition would turn the oil-producing states in the Gulf against the United States and disrupt oil shipments to the United States. Some believed Truman was fishing for the Jewish vote in order to try to win the election.

In the days and weeks preceding decision day, the Arab countries in the region were amassing armies at Israel’s borders. Egypt from the south, Jordan from the east, and Syria and Lebanon from the north were ready to strike the new Jewish state at the appropriate moment.

The Israelis announced their independence at 4 PM Tel Aviv time, eight hours before the British mandate expired. President Truman announced America’s recognition of Israeli independence 11 minutes later. The next day, the Arab countries attacked simultaneously. The Israeli defence force at that time consisted of holocaust survivors and native Israelis, roughly organized into an army called the Haganah, as well as a group of small independent militias. By their strong will and dedication, the Israelis resisted the attacks and eventually pushed the invaders back beyond the borders set prior to the start of the war.

In the November election that year, Truman squeaked out a win despite expectations that he would lose. The statistics show that Truman received strong Jewish support, but the number of Jewish votes did not determine the outcome.

Later, Truman stated that his decision was based on the moral imperative to provide a permanent home for the Jewish people. He told friends he was Cyrus, recalling the Persian king who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

Now we move forward in time to the present day and Trump’s attack on Iran.

YouTube is full of speculation about Trump’s motives. Much of it is designed to create controversy, because that produces clicks. Many know-it-all establishment types opine on what’s going on under the covers. I, for one, think it’s not that complicated. Trump sees Iran as a serious threat to the world, based on its stated goal of achieving threat-level ballistic missile and nuclear capability.

The previous residents of the White House did not seriously address the “Iran” problem, which has reached its 57^th year. It’s a Democratic Party tendency to be passive on foreign policy, and this was born out during the Obama presidency. Obama believed in “shared responsibility” with allies, multilateral leadership, and avoiding unilateral U.S. military action when possible.

The problem with that approach is that Western Europe, under neoliberal ideology, was also passive. Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy was just kicking the can down the road.

Obama believed that diplomacy was better than war, so he set out to bring Iran to the table. His administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. It was reached between the United States. Iran, and other major powers (UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, plus the EU).

Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, including cutting uranium stockpiles by about 98%, reducing centrifuges, and allowing international inspections. In return, the U.S. and others lifted nuclear-related economic sanctions. The goal was to ensure Iran’s nuclear program stayed peaceful and far from weapons capability.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement. Critics had warned from the outset that some key restrictions were temporary (expiring after 10–15 years), and the deal did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability—only restricted it. This raised concern that Iran could later legally expand its program. It also didn’t address other concerns, such as Iran’s missile program and support of its regional proxies (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.). Opponents argued that this allowed Iran to create force multipliers to achieve its objectives.

The Hamas attack on Israel resulted in the neutering of Hezbollah and attacks on Iran, along with the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. The weakening of its partners and Iran’s continued bellicosity regarding Nukes convinced Trump that the problem needed his full attention. Diplomacy was tried without success, which moved Trump to act militarily.

The attacks began on February 28, and a rift emerged immediately within the conservative base. I do not believe this rift is mainstream; it is concentrated among the ideologues and pundits, who reflect growing anti-semitism in the United States.

In 2026, American public sympathy regarding the Middle East shows a widening divide, with 41% sympathizing more with Palestinians compared to 36% with Israelis, as found in a recent Gallup poll. The left has embraced the Arab point of view as an oppressed race and become more anti-semitic. A piece of the right has joined the opposition because they feel Trump is putting Israeli objectives above America’s interests.

Share

Trump will not allow the Iran invasion to become a “forever” war, so he is not going against his beliefs. As a person who hates war, Trump wants to stop Iran before they have a chance to start one. Like Truman, he made a hard decision. If the endeavor against Iran is successful, it will be the most important accomplishment of his presidency.

Trump knew that an attack could put the fall elections at risk if the Iran situation is not resolved by then. By Trump’s calculus, the threat Iran posed, their vulnerability, and confidence in a successful outcome outweighed the downside.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Democrats have been mostly silent since their attempt to put a leash on the president failed. They hope the effort will fail and bolster their chances of success in November. Short of that result, they hope for an economic impact that will strengthen their “affordability” campaign for the fall. Keeping the government closed is part of their calculus. The inpass is not about ICE, since ICE is already funded. It’s about a way to damage the president, given their limited ability to do so. Of course, no one really knows what will happen with the war.

Republicans are also silent, probably to remain on Trump’s side and because they believe in the cause.

What I get from the mass media is a nothing burger. They don’t really know anything, so they speculate and advocate for one side or the other. The Strait of Hormuz is trending because 20% of the world’s oil supply goes through there. Iran has declared the Strait closed, and the U.S. has to figure out how to keep it open so oil prices don’t skyrocket.

Some pundits have us returning to the 1979 oil embargo, which is fear-mongering nonsense. Trump knows the stakes of the game he is playing and will play his cards as he sees fit, but even he can’t predict when the Revolutionary Guards will surrender, if and when the Iranian people will rise and take their country back.

Here is a sampling from the New York Times: UD bombs Iranian oil hub. Why was so little done to head off the Strait of Hormuz problem? Trump and Rubio’s vision of war: The art of destroy and deal. Trump’s alliance with Israel is reshaping the Middle East.

The crown prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah, deposed in 1979, is now communicating directly with the Iranian people. He has told them to prepare for the regime’s collapse and to stay safe until then.

Frustrated by the political coloring of content, I started looking for alternative sources of information. What follows are some points of view I discovered.

1. There are daily updates on the YouTube channel Tousi TV, which is an online political news and commentary channel, mainly distributed through YouTube, social media, and its own subscription platform (Tousi TV+), all broadcast from the UK. It focuses on geopolitical news, politics, and commentary about current events.

Mahyar Tousi, the channel host, is an Iranian who provides updates on political events in his country and also speaks to the Iranian people around the world. He has 1.4 million followers. Tousi has shown videos of mass protests inside Iran demanding the return of the crown prince, and people taking control of police stations in some cities, where the police stood down and joined the celebration. Revolutionary Guard food distribution locations were taken over by the people and looted. Mahyar appears to have enough connections inside his country to provide an accurate picture of what’s happening on the ground.

2. I listened to Rafaela Siewert of the Free Press interview Elica LeBon, an Iranian lawyer and activist living in the United States, who talked from an Iranian point of view.

Elica made a strong point about the negative reaction to the war in the United States, as reflected in recent polls. The reality for people living in the U.S. and, generally, in liberal democracies is that they are never threatened. The force the U.S. is exerting to suppress threats from the outside and keep Americans safe also creates a paradox: people don’t see why we need to take any action against an enemy because THEY don’t feel threatened.

“The Iranian regime has enshrined in its Constitution from its inception, death to America and Israel. It has promised to eliminate both those forces, and it has acted on that intention significantly over the past 47 years. Some people push back on this contention because they don’t believe that the Iranians have nukes. Regardless of nukes, the Iranian regime is motivated to destroy the United States using any means possible.

The removal of this regime is absolutely the best thing for the American people, for the Iranian people, for the people of the Middle East. I can’t. I can’t guarantee that it will happen this way, but. We’re hoping.”

3. I listened to The Mishal Husain Show on Bloomberg. She interviewed Iranian scholar Vali Nasr from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I am very skeptical of scholars these days because politics has negated the value of their expertise. Deep establishment thinkers are largely anti-Trump because he doesn’t possess the gravitas they have.

“And now this war has gone out of his control. It’s far longer, far messier, and is actually exacting costs across the United States, both in terms of damage to its bases and the impact on energy markets and the global economy as a whole. So, I think it’s signaling that he wants to end it, but I don’t think Iran is ready to quit.

But I think they calculate that this is not a munitions count. This is not about who has a bigger bond. This is about who has a higher pain threshold. And they think the United States and Israel can Dash a lot faster, but they’re not really long-distance runners. And so, I think they’re prepared to absorb this for far longer.

And so if the president was looking for a quick political uprising in Iran, it’s not going to happen. It will not happen until the dust of this war settles. So for now, the Iranian public is not a factor in this war (false), and this was something that both Israel and the United States had been counting on, that the war would pave the way.

I was in India recently, and it’s very clear that, outside the United States and the West, Iran is enjoying widespread support for standing up to Donald Trump and Standing Tall. Also, they are actually inflicting pain on the United States.

When I was with the Obama administration, we pursued a path of Engagement. Mishal: If Donald Trump hadn’t ripped up the Iran deal, would it have resulted in a better present, or is your description of the regime too entrenched? For that, you know, I think it could have ended up better (false).”

4. Mohamad Faridi, an Iranian living in the United States (his parents are still in Iran), was interviewed on the Dave Wood podcast. Here are a few quotes from him.

“The regime, with all its brutality and all the evil that came down on the Iranian people, shut down. Protests killed thousands of Iranians throughout the years, and then the most horrific one of them was last month, in January, and now it’s actually March. About five weeks ago, they say, they killed, upward of 90,000 people.

I have spoken to my family in Iran. All of my family is in Iran. They told me that any relatives, any, anybody that they know they have lost, or one or two members of their families to this? Regime, you know, savagery? Many of the people were detained, arrested, in prison, tortured, raped, and they kept their backs against these evil people.

This regime is one evil, weird thing. I mean, from evil to unimaginable evil that they have ruled in this nation for 47 years. In 2009, we had the green movement, when Obama betrayed the Iranian people and sent pallets of money instead of jets. Just imagine how stupid a president could be negotiating with terrorists. That didn’t work.

In 2023, we had Masa Amini, the girl who didn’t wear her hijab, and she was killed. Iranians came, and we had the same situation, and Biden was in power, and we were thinking God, if Trump were in power, something such as this would have happened.

Share

And now, we see the difference. Trump told them that if they killed the Iranian people, the guns would be locked and loaded. Help is on the way.

But, thank God, finally. Thank God that they have arrived, and then they killed the head of the octopus that was in Tehran. I promise you, upwards of 90 percent of the Persian population in Iran and the diaspora are rejoicing in it. This has been the best news for them.”

The best place to get information about Iran is from the Iranian people. They are the ones with a stake in the game. They are the ones who want their country back. Comments from here from academic elites or journalists with a political axe to grind are useless.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

9/11 was an attack, but also an assassination. The assassination of a dream—awakened, now, a generation’s assumptions blasted away on live television. That was 25 years ago. Hardly would make sense to a thinking person—it was that long ago.

The years are blending in and bleeding onto one another. And then there is the claim that nothing has happened in the past 20 years. American culture has frozen. Every contribution reaches into the bucket of the past, vying for a reminder of what once was. About this claim, I am not entirely sure, but one instantly gets the sentiment—there is truth in it, let us say.

America is in the thick of its own discomfort, its own growing pains. American culture has not disappeared, but has rather calcified, crystallized itself into something utterly recognizable—we see the same films, hear the same songs ad nauseam. We crave the past; we wish to crawl back into it. The future is plagued with more pain, the light at the end of the tunnel is obscured, and the pathways forward are not clear.

The structures that we once felt safe relying upon have been shattered. And I mean this beyond the reliable, nameable structures of daily life, daily survival. This is not only a matter of forms to fill out, government programs, healthcare, etc. This sentiment has lodged itself into the hearts of many Americans. It is spiritual, existential, I will put it. It cannot be named totally, only described, only observed.

When I hear of America’s destruction—somebody will call it—has America as we know it been destroyed? Is the path towards its own destruction inevitable? Has it already been set in motion? Is this so-called destruction at the hands of a particular political party? A particular persuasion, or president? America, if it is said to be destroyed or its destruction imminent, can only be destroyed from within. Whoever the culprit is, we look to the citizens of a nation, that is to say, ourselves.

America cannot be destroyed in the way we think about destruction, and if it were, it has the potential to be resurrected, rejuvenated, revitalized. None of this will come from war, not from political solutions. I have the idea that America is seeing itself through another stage, another evolution, another writhing through the growing pains of its infancy.

Throughout the entirety of its short history, all roads have led the country to this day, this current state of affairs. The people of the United States can be rightly accused of sleepwalking—where comfort rules the day to day, and that state of half-consciousness has caused much to slip away from notice, from accountability, from investment. But I am no patriot; I never much jived with that word. I hear it, and I become claustrophobic...

Just the other day, I was asked how living back in America has been after those years being away.

“Especially now,” he said, referring to the general lowly state of affairs. But I hadn’t asked myself, not totally. Not enough to give myself a real answer. But if anything, living far away for so long allowed me to recognize the things about America I love. And there are many things about Americans that I love.

Still, amid numerous scandals and problems, and after being away from America for years, my return to my country is filled with a sense of optimism. With all the talk of money and price, America is still the economic envy of the world. Still, there are opportunities beyond what the average American can fathom, especially when compared to most of the world, and the relative difficulty one may find climbing up any social or economic ladder. In America, furniture is everywhere. We hardly notice it. People are giving furniture away...

The decline in American morale, where there is a collective feeling of anxiety, pessimism, and even rage about the country’s future, is something of an inevitability. I see it. America’s life cycle would be too incomplete not to have gone through those clumsy teenage years of angst and turmoil about its future. America and Americans will not be an evolved society until it faces a kind of imminent collapse, where its complete destruction seems every bit as real as it does likely.

Generations have been broken before in America—Slavery. The Great Depression. The World Wars. Assassinations. These events are relatively recent, but are at once near us and ancient history. With all the shiny new artifacts of our future—the internet, Artificial Intelligence, cars that drive themselves, online shopping, none can be said to save us from an existential malaise.

Share

America feels, in many ways, ready to burst, or break, or sink or swim. It feels like on the brink—I just cannot say what on the brink of. But perhaps this is its nature—to feel as though it has always been testing its own elasticity to chaos. America, it seems, must come up against the inevitable—to be tested and tried through terms like fascism, oligarchy, nepotism, nationalism, authoritarianism, terrorism, capitalism (use prefix of your choice), and depression. Not so much the economic depression here, but a spiritual depression. I use the term spiritual not to refer to god, or any gods, but to describe the nature of the problem best I can.

America, as a nation, has a shadow self. A self built largely on memorabilia, trinkets of the past, sacred stories, and assumptions about the future. But it takes only a single individual to hold up an honest mirror, to reveal an honest reflection. We may put our anger and rage into the mirror holder, but it is the reflection that has to be confronted first.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In college, I never read for pleasure; instead, I focused on subjects related to my field of study. I observed that my friends were reading for pleasure and noted what they were reading. Still, I was not interested enough to read those books myself.

After my undergraduate years, and while I was in graduate school, I decided to read the great literature and plowed through the works of American and English writers. I also found Dostoevsky and other Russian authors to be a revelation.

A couple of years ago, I decided to tackle the books my college friends had read. I respected them as friends and figured they were reading the books for a good reason. No doubt, those books addressed issues related to my generation, most importantly the counterculture movement and the Vietnam War, which were significant events in recent American history.

I went through my book list with an open mind and quickly found myself transported back in time. These books reflect common themes of the time: rejection of 1950s culture, alienation, longing for a perfect world, peace rather than war, drugs as a tool to expand the mind, and the evil of the establishment. Reading them helped me understand the frustration of my generation, which I had ignored while pursuing a technology career.

I will discuss my book list in chronological order by year of publication. It will be immediately apparent why these books were embraced by the counterculture movement and 60s intellectuals in general. What’s more important is their impact on us today, because the concerns of the counterculture movement have not been addressed 60 years later.

Walden, by Henry David Thoreau (1854), explores Thoreau’s assertion that most people live overly complicated, distracted lives. By simplifying possessions, work, and habits, a person can gain freedom, clarity, and deeper awareness of life. Thoreau suggests we focus on what truly matters, reduce unnecessary labor and consumption, and observe nature and human life more clearly.

Steppenwolf, by Herman Hesse (1927), explores the personality of Harry Haller, a middle-aged intellectual living alone in a German city, who feels completely alienated from bourgeois society and thinks he has two opposing identities: a refined, thoughtful human, and a wild “steppe wolf” who despises society. Haller explores these two natures and discovers that his personality is more complex than he believed.

By leaving his mind open, he found he could discover new experiences of value. Themes of the book include alienation from society, the search for meaning, individuality versus conformity, and the need for humor and play in life. The rock band Steppenwolf took its name from the book, and the group’s best-known song, “Born to Be Wild,” became an anthem for motorcycle riders in the 1960s.

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley (1932). The novel is set in the World State, a global civilization in which humans are genetically engineered in laboratories rather than born naturally. People are designed to belong to five castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. From infancy, they are conditioned through hypnopaedia (sleep-teaching) to accept their social roles.

Citizens are kept content through entertainment, casual sex, and a mood-altering drug called Soma. The novel explores: the dangers of technological control over human life; consumerism and pleasure as social control; the loss of individuality; and the conflict between happiness and freedom. Huxley’s vision differs from that of other dystopias, such as 1984, in that its characters are not controlled by fear but by comfort, pleasure, and distraction.

The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien (1937). This book needs no introduction as it remains popular today. It explores courage in ordinary people, the corrupting power of greed, friendship and loyalty, the value of home, and the value of a simple life.

1984, George Orwell (1949). Unlike Brave New World, 1984 presents an ugly dystopian world in which elites control society through fear and intimidation. Major themes include: totalitarian control, propaganda and manipulation of truth, surveillance and loss of privacy, the corruption of language (Newspeak), and psychological domination of individuals. Sound familiar? The book should be required reading for anyone who admires the agenda of the WEF/WHO/UN/World Bank and can’t see the danger we would face with them in power.

Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse (1951), is a philosophical novel about a man’s lifelong search for spiritual enlightenment in ancient India. It explores the search for enlightenment, the limits of formal religious teachings, the unity of all life, and the value of learning through experience rather than doctrine.

Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley (1954). This book had a direct impact on the drug culture because it tells the story of Aldous Huxley’s experiments with the drug Mescaline. In the book, he introduced “his reducing valve” theory, which asserts the universe contains far more information than we can normally perceive, the brain filters most of it out so we can function practically, and so psychedelic substances may temporarily open the “doors” of perception, allowing access to a broader awareness. This book prompted drug experimentation by those interested in exploring a widened state of perception.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey (1962), is about a man placed in a mental institution for misbehavior rather than mental illness. He tries to enlighten his fellow patients in the ways of the world, only to be crushed by the institution and its masters. Central themes are individual freedom vs. institutional control, conformity and rebellion, the abuse of authority, and the restoration of personal dignity.

Cat’s Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut (1963). Vonnegut became a countercultural icon because his novels combined anti-war sentiment, distrust of powerful institutions, satire of modern society, and a humane moral outlook, all delivered in a witty and unconventional style. He used dark humor to explore themes he saw as reprehensible in American society. Cat’s Cradle explores the irresponsibility of scientific innovation, the dangers of technology without ethics, humanity’s need for comforting beliefs, and the absurdity of political power and religion.

Dune, Frank Herbert (1965). Dune is a science-fiction epic set thousands of years in the future, in a vast feudal interstellar empire. The novel explores several big ideas: Power and politics – rival houses and imperial intrigue; Religion and mythmaking – how belief systems can be engineered and used politically; Ecology – the fragile desert ecosystem of Arrakis; Human potential – training, genetics, and consciousness; and the danger of charismatic leaders.

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test: Tom Wolfe (1968). After writing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey became involved in government-sponsored experiments with LSD while working at a veterans hospital in California. The experiences convinced him that psychedelic drugs could radically expand consciousness, so he gathered a group of friends who shared his beliefs and formed the Merry Pranksters, dedicated to exploring new forms of perception, community, and culture. The group bought an old school bus, painted it, and traveled across the United States.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson (1971), is a wild, semi-fictional account of a drug-fueled trip to Las Vegas that became a satirical exploration of American culture and the collapse of the 1960s counterculture. Its themes included the illusion of the American Dream, media and journalism satire, drug culture and altered perception, absurdity, and alienation in modern America. The book became a defining work of Gonzo journalism, blending reporting, personal experience, exaggeration, and fiction.

The Greening of America, Charles Reich (1971), is an analysis of the cultural revolution that occurred in the United States during the late 1960s. The book argues that a profound transformation in American consciousness was underway, led largely by young people and the counterculture. It argues that this shift cannot be stopped by political force, will gradually transform American institutions, and represents a peaceful revolution through culture rather than politics. Its assertions are hauntingly prophetic.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig (1974), is a philosophical novel that combines a motorcycle journey across the United States with a deep exploration of philosophy, particularly the concept of “Quality.” The book blends travel narrative, autobiography, and philosophical inquiry around themes including the nature of quality and value, the split between science and art, technology and human meaning, sanity, the limits of rational thought, and the importance of careful attention to everyday activities.

The themes and narratives in all these books remain relevant today. Challenge yourself to read one or more of them.

The impact of the counterculture was not what it intended. It took on the establishment, hoping to tear it down and replace it with a new system, but it never had the power to do that. Plan B became infiltrating the academic system and changing the culture through indoctrination. In that endeavor, it was highly successful.

The problem that occurred along the way, however, was its alignment with socialism, which was used as a bolt-on ideology. That alignment precipitated its 50-year attempt to destroy America’s institutions and traditions, which has now come far enough to reach the point of absurdity and has generated significant resistance among a large segment of the American population, who do not accept left ideology.

The youngest boomers are 62, and the oldest are 80. Their descendants are taking control of American society and do not have the same life experience. Let’s hope they proceed down a different path.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I could have sworn I’d written about Canada’s “desire” for high-speed rail some time ago, but I can’t find it. Well, the project is back in the news so that’s what I’m going to write about. Possibly again.

If you’ve been following me for a while, you should already know two things about me: 1) I hate Justin Trudeau, and 2) I am not loyal to any party. Knowing these two things should make the following statement less shocking:

I’m on the fence with respect to Prime Minister Carney. On one hand, he’s intelligent, accomplished, and says a lot of things that sound good.

On the other hand, while Trudeau is gone, most of the occupants of the clown car that is the Liberal party are still there. Oh, and Carney is a politician, so everything he’s promising could be just another lie or an effort to fill the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and families.

Still, I’m on the fence because if my standard was an honest politician, I’d never vote; I’d just sit in my office all day and mumble to myself. And I already do too much of that.

That said, there are limits to how much lying and corruption I’m willing to ignore. Waste and incompetence bug me a little too.

So, when the government proposed to build a high-speed rail (HSR) system from Quebec City to Toronto, passing through major cities including Laval, Montreal, Ottawa, and Peterborough, it got my spidey senses tingling.

As with any project, there are many pros and cons.

Let’s start with the pros:

1. There are a lot of Canadians in that area.

That’s it.

There are also many roads and highways that could be expanded instead of building an HSR system. However, I don’t think building one in this area is a terrible idea. It would be much faster than driving, accessible to people without cars, and create jobs (allegedly).

There’s one big problem with the idea, though, its government funded, and they want $90 billion dollars.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
- Everett Dirksen

Choo choo enthusiasts make “concrete” arguments like “Canada is the only G7 country without high-speed rail” as if train-envy is justification for spending billions of dollars.

The government, on the other hand, will provide more detailed and rational arguments for proceeding, but they will be based on analysis designed to make the project look good. The process goes something like this:

1. Government asks a train company to do a cost-benefit analysis.

2. Company lies to government about costs and timeline.

3. Government winks at company then lies to the voters.

4. Several months of propaganda follow.

5. Government signs deal with train company.

6. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get rich.

7. Delays

8. Cost overruns.

9. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

10. Delays

11. Cost overruns.

12. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

13. Most of us die before we see anything built.

Sarcasm aside, I come to this healthy level of skepticism by paying attention. Something the government relies on voters not to do.

Pass.

Correction, hard pass.

Here’s what paying attention reveals about Canadian government transportation projects:

• Eglinton Crosstown LRT – NDP MPP Joel Harden called it a “three-year late, billion-dollar, over-budget boondoggle.” When the NDP thinks something is a waste of taxpayer money, you know it’s a problem.

• Ottawa’s light-rail transit system – The project’s capital budget has risen from $4.66 billion to $4.91B as construction is behind schedule. The full extent of the fiasco is outlined here (well, at least through January 2022), but let’s just say there’s a history of delays, cost overruns, sinkholes, lawsuits, and malfunctions. It appears that those running the project also failed to take into account that it snows in winter. Sigh.

In case you think it’s strictly an issue with the incompetence of Canadian governments or transportation projects:

• The government Phoenix project, aimed at modernizing the federal government’s payroll system, was estimated to cost $310 million. It is now estimated to have cost $5 billion. Oopsie!

• In the UK, the HS2 High-Speed Rail Project, initially estimated to cost £32 billion, is now expected to cost £100 billion due to major delays, management inefficiencies, and budget mismanagement.

• And lest we leave out the US, the California High-Speed Rail project, also known as the “bullet train,” was initially approved by voters in 2008. The goal was to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. The original budget for the entire system was estimated at around $40 billion, and the initial completion date was targeted for 2020. The project has faced numerous delays and cost overruns, and the most recent cost estimate for Phase 1 (just phase 1!!!) has ballooned to $126 billion. This is more than triple the original budget. The initial operating segment, a 171-mile section from Merced to Bakersfield, is now expected to be completed mid- to late-2030s, possibly ~2040.

The California project is perhaps the most relevant to this discussion, as California and Canada have similar populations (around 40 million people) although California’s GDP is higher ($4.048 trillion USD vs. $2.2 trillion – thank you, Justin Trudeau!). Why anyone would believe that it will cost Californian taxpayers $126 billion USD to link two cities 171 miles apart, but the Canadian government can link 6 cities over 500 miles for” just” $90 billion CND ($65.1 billion USD), is beyond me.

Share

My advice to taxpayers? Expect the initial cost, once approved, to be significantly higher. Then double or triple the estimate. Consider yourself lucky if that’s the final cost.

My guess is $1 Trillion before it’s done.

In the immortal words of Happy Gilmore, “the price is wrong, bitch!”

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Let’s unpack this problem and explain what’s going on. We begin with a short list of turncoats.

Tucker Carlson, formerly the most influential host on Fox News. After leaving in 2023, he moved to independent media on X and other platforms. Increasingly critical of Republican foreign policy, corporate power, and parts of the GOP establishment. Often described as “post-conservative” or nationalist but anti-establishment.

Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept who is not originally a conservative, has broken with much of the progressive media establishment, collaborates frequently with conservative audiences, and is a strong critic of U.S. foreign policy, intelligence agencies, and corporate media.

Candace Owens rose to prominence through Turning Point USA and The Daily Wire, split with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire in 2024 over Israel policy and rhetoric, and now operates independently and often criticizes establishment conservatives.

Steve Bannon, former strategist to Donald Trump and former head of Breitbart News, now promotes a “national populist” movement through his War Room show, and often criticizes the Republican establishment and even parts of Trump’s circle.

Dave Smith, libertarian comedian and host of Part of the Problem, is associated with the Libertarian Party (United States) and a critic of conservatives for foreign intervention, surveillance, and government spending.

These individuals fall into four separate camps: National populists – e.g., Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon; Libertarian critics of the GOP – e.g., Dave Smith; Independent media conservatives – e.g., Candace Owens; and cross-ideological anti-establishment figures – e.g., Glenn Greenwald.

The splitters are now anti-MAGA.

This discussion is about people splitting from Trump. There was also a split that created Trump. If you look at the history, you’ll understand how we got here.

William F. Buckley, by his own willpower, created a conservative ideology in the 1960s. Prior to that time, conservatism was seen as nothing more than honoring traditions and resisting change. Buckley welded together three disparate groups: traditional conservatives, libertarians, and former communists, who had rejected the failed Soviet Union. That alliance got Reagan elected in 1980. The new conservative alliance included Irving Kristol, the so-called founder of Neoconservatism. Neocons believe in an interventionist foreign policy, including forcing regime change if necessary.

By the end of Reagan’s second term, some conservatives, most notably Pat Buchanan, were predicting an ideological split. Buchanan, himself, was one of the founders of Paleoconservatism, which is basically the Buckley ideology without the Neocons. Buchanan accused the Republican Party of becoming too globalist, pro-immigration, and interventionist. He promoted economic nationalism, immigration restriction, and non-intervention abroad. Trump later embraced these ideas.

Irving Kristol, for his part, predicted there would be growing tensions between economic libertarianism (small government and individual liberty) and social conservatism (moral order and cultural stability) within the right. The split is:

Establishment Right - global markets, immigration friendly, interventionist foreign policy, and Elite institutions.

Populist / National Right - economic nationalism, immigration restriction, non-intervention, and America First anti-elite populism.

The fusionist coalition that Buckley created lasted until 2015. At that point, the legacy of a single event broke it. That event was the Iraq War. The end of the Cold War in 1990 removed a uniting factor among the conservatives, but the Iraq War caused the final break. The break came when several political ideas became reality: trust in conservative foreign-policy elites collapsed, populist conservatives began attacking the “neoconservative establishment,” and libertarians and nationalists began cooperating politically.

This shift created the intellectual groundwork for populist momentum.

Many conservative intellectuals realized the break was permanent on February 13, 2016, at the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, when Donald Trump directly attacked the legacy of George W. Bush over the Iraq War, while standing next to Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush. During the debate, Trump said, “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.” He went further and blamed the Bush administration for destabilizing the Middle East, saying the war had made the region worse rather than better.

This comment cemented in place the difference between the conservative establishment and MAGA, leading to outrage among the Republican establishment over Trump. This outrage birthed the resistance to Trump in his first term, including The Lincoln Project, and the Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney.

Fast-forward to the present day, and we now see a fragmentation in the populist coalition. Tucker Carlson has become an anti-establishment nationalist. He heavily criticizes Israel and accuses Trump of being Netanyahu’s stooge. Carlson opposes Trump’s foreign policy because it draws our attention away from the country. His “cult of personality” behavior is evidenced by his ridicule of Ted Cruz during an interview and his embrace of Nick Fuentes, who is an antisemite and an admirer of Hitler.

There is no explanation for Candace Owens, who went from Democrat to conservative to conspiracy theorist. Some recent titles from her podcast include JD Vance’s Mysterious Past, Elon Musk, Secret Underground Bases, and UFOs, Shocking: The Sinister Group Behind Your Grocery Items, and How We Faked the Moon Landing. Most recently, she has been attacking Erika Kirk. She reveals what she calls Erika’s “shady past” and says Erika might be a psychopath.

When I notice a behavior change in those I listen to for content, a shift from politics to the weird and unusual, that ends it for me. The correlation between controversy and clicks is used to foster the cult of personality, rendering their discussions useless.

Share

The populist fragmentation we’ve been discussing is damaging to the conservative movement, and the behavior mimics what the Democrats do. They’re better at dealing with it, however, because they have to live with it all the time.

The conservative movement is breaking down into competing identities, each vying for airtime. The lack of unity and obsession with ideology bodes ill for this November’s election, and the left is giddy at its prospects. Building unity out of the ideological splinters of our populist movement is like herding cats when the cats only care about themselves.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Iranian people around the world are celebrating the death of the Supreme Leader, hoping the theocracy can be overthrown. It remains to be seen how, and whether, the people inside Iran can rise and create a new government. Revolutions are tricky things, and they fail as often as they succeed. People on the street are a gauge of dissent, but contribute nothing to revolutions. The outcome depends solely on the intentions of the wealthy; will they see a benefit in the change? It also depends on the intellectuals who must sanction the process.

Unfortunately, Iran, like many Arab states, is struggling with factional politics. Four groups are competing for power there: conservatives who strongly support the theocratic model, reformists who support social reform within the theocratic system, moderates who focus on economic and managerial competence rather than ideological overhaul, and the opposition, which seeks to tear down the theocracy. The first two groups have the power, and it may be difficult to wrest it away from them. Another possible outcome is the implementation of reforms, which may cool the public enthusiasm for change.

From an American interest standpoint, any outcome that stops Iran’s support and encouragement of terrorism around the world would be great. The world would truly be safer if that happened.

The remaining leaders of Iran contacted Trump and asked for a meeting. He told them he would take their call after the mission was complete. This message cuts off any notion they had about getting a quick ceasefire. For 47 years, the Iranian Islamic state has been lying to the world about its nefarious intentions and its willingness to discuss solutions, making an absolute fool of Obama, along the way.

This instance is classic Trump. Negotiate if you can, and give the opposition time and reasons to agree. In the business world, running out of time means the deal is off. In our conflicts between nations, time running out means that, if you’re evil enough, you will be attacked.

For 47 years, Iran has threatened its neighbors in the Middle East. It has funded proxy groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, who create instability and seek the destruction of Israel. It killed our Marines in Beirut, killed sailors on the Cole, and threatened to kill our presidents. In the last two months, it had killed 32,000 of its own citizens who were protesting the economic conditions in their country. Enough is enough.

The Congress had its typical reaction. The Democrats accuse Trump of waging war without their permission. A Democratic politician said, “Trump used the word ‘war’ in his attack announcement, so it must be a war.”

This is an old complaint we have seen many times.

Long ago, Congress gave up its authority to initiate war, ceding that power to the president. Formal declarations of war have gone the way of the buggy whip, used at a time when nations were more polite than they are now. “Oh, you declared war on me? Alright, I will now declare war on you.” The following list shows some of the undeclared “wars” since the end of World War II.

Vietnam War (1965-73). U.S. fatalities: ~58,220 Johnson

Korean War (1950-53). U.S. fatalities: ~36,574 Truman

Iraqi War (2003-11). U.S. fatalities: ~4,550 Bush 43

Afghan War (2001-2021). U.S. fatalities: ~2,461 Bush 43

Gulf War (1990–1991). U.S. fatalities: ~294 Bush 41

Lebanon (1982–1984). U.S. fatalities: ~241 Reagan

Iraq & Syria (ISIS campaign, 2014-) U.S. fatalities: ~100 Obama

The Democrats can tout the fact that the resistance to Trump’s attack on Iran is bipartisan because they include the two “useful idiots” from the Republican side, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. Both are libertarians, the most idealistic and impractical political ideology ever conceived by man.

I cite two examples and rest my case. Number one, libertarians believe in open borders. Number two, they support the legalization of marijuana. They are small-government advocates, a concept that became obsolete in the 1930s.

I would gladly trade Massie and Paul for John Fetterman, who puts America’s interests above politics.

What do the 2028 Democratic candidates say about the attack?

Former Vice President Kamala Harris condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to launch large-scale military strikes on Iran, calling the operation a “dangerous and unnecessary gamble” and urging Congress to intervene before the United States is drawn deeper into what critics are describing as a war of choice. (Prediction: the attack may end before Congress addresses it.)

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Gavin Newsom told a San Francisco audience while promoting his new memoir. “It stems from the complete failure of this administration, this president who’s historically unpopular.”

In these examples, candidacy adds a layer of hyperbole to Trump hatred because they must try to outdo their competition by offering raw meat to the base.

On the other hand, Moj Mahdara, head of the Iranian Diaspora Initiative, appeared on CNN on Sunday and said, “As a Democrat, I am not with my party right now.” She sees them as being on the wrong side of this issue.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans surveyed approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved, and nearly three in 10 were not sure. But there’s a partisan divide, with Republicans supporting the military action by a 55%-32% margin. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only 7% saying they approved.

A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure. In this tribal time, one can expect no “atta boys” from the left, and we see the usual mixed bag from the independents.

Most of our European allies condemned the counterstrikes by Iran against its neighbors while avoiding criticism of Trump over the U.S./Israeli attacks. An odd exception was Keir Starmer, of the UK, who condemned our attacks as a breach of international law. Does he think Iran never violated international law? His position spells the end of Starmer’s relationship with the U.S., which his successor will have to repair.

Share

President Trump will carry this attack to its logical conclusion, and then it becomes a waiting game to see whether the Iranian government will change. We hope for at least a softening of its belligerent stance against the world, which would be a positive outcome.

Democrats are the party of peace, which also means they are the party of submission. They continue to believe that if you are nice to tyrants, they will be nice to you. No matter how foolish and naïve that idea is, it remains a fundamental component of their equality ideology.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

On the other side, you have other members of the general public and press who paint a completely different picture, saying the US has achieved a near-total military victory and that it is the Islamic Republic that is desperate for the war to end while attempting to save face with its own supporters.

So which side is to be believed, and how can we know who to trust?

In this age of social media algorithms and ever increasingly polarised opinions, it’s little wonder that the sources we rely on for information tend to confirm the viewpoints we hold, rather than challenging them. But this makes it tricky when we come across differing worldviews and opinions, when the choice must be made to either disregard the claim, question the motives or information behind it, or to take it seriously.

I suspect most people reading this will have a view on the conflict, and that this view will likely be shaped by whether or not they were pro or anti-Trump, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran before it started.

But for those of us who like to comment upon such things, what is it that drives us? Are we seeking the truth and that alone, or merely confirmation of our own worldview?

This is a question I’ve long been asking myself, even once considering starting a news agency with this exact goal in mind - to report dispassionately - before concluding that any such endeavour would still come with a bias; it would just be my own, as opposed to someone else’s.

But what are journalists for, if not to seek out and report on the truth? I find myself increasingly considering this question, as I grow frustrated by what I believe to be flawed reporting of the current conflict, including from storied journalists such as the BBC’s Lyse Doucet and Jeremy Bowen.

Question marks have also been raised about the visits of certain journalists, including Doucet, to Iran in the wake of the January massacre, when reports seemed to focus on pro-regime gatherings - Doucet was especially lambasted for describing them as having a “family feel” - while neglecting to visit the mortuaries in which the bodies of thousands of protesters had been piled, or seeking out bereaved family members.

Among the others welcomed to Iran’s streets in the wake of the massacre were Muslim activist Bushra Shaikh and the co-founder of Palestine Action-US, Calla Walsh, and I suppose I don’t need to tell you whose narrative their reports sought to bolster.

One of the greatest achievements of the Islamic Republic has been its ability to control the narrative, both at home through state TV, but also through a network of well-known and lesser-known apologists in the West.

As someone whose work has focused on Iran for the last seven years, I’ve become well accustomed to seeing seemingly credible journalists and even activists labelled as apologists. At times, the claims have surprised me, but for the most part, there has appeared to be some truth behind the claims.

The group most frequently tarnished by its alleged association with the Islamic Republic is the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, whose “experts” have long been decried by many an Iranian as nothing more than the puppets of the regime. But the accusations have gone much further, including journalists at the BBC, CNN and New York Times, all of which leads one to wonder how the regular non-Iran expert is supposed to make sense of it all.

An additional complexity is the skill with which the mouthpieces of the Islamic Republic twist the truth. It is all so carefully choreographed, as is always the case with the Islamic Republic of Iran, for whom propaganda and oppression go hand in hand.

Take Mohammad Marandi, whom you may well have come across on talk shows like Piers Morgan’s, and who is so skilled at lying that even as someone who disagrees with almost everything he says, I sometimes find myself wondering if there’s some truth to it.

They’ve even tried rebranding Hitler of late, with posters hung on Iranian streets, showing pictures of Adolf alongside the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, and a quote attributed - apparently falsely - to the Nazi leader, stating that “betraying the homeland is the same as enabling your own mother’s rape”.

In the case of the current conflict, the question of who wins the war may even be disputed long after it has finished, as all sides will no doubt attempt to claim victory, unless the regime in Iran is actually overthrown.

Failing that, you can almost guarantee that the Americans will claim a military victory and that the Iranians “begged” them for a deal; that the Israelis will say they’ve put back Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear ambitions by over a decade; and that the Islamic Republic will claim that merely surviving proves no outside force can defeat them.

One Iran analyst, Karim Sadjadpour, wrote recently that “Tehran wins by not losing; Trump loses by not winning”, and I agree.

But in the meantime, how can the average Joe know whether to believe that the US has completely “obliterated” Iran’s military, navy, and air force, as it has claimed, or whether, as the Islamic Republic would wish us to believe, the desperate calls are coming from the other direction.

It increasingly appears to me that what the world needs most is someone, or some entity, that can help people make sense of all the differing perspectives out there, from a truly neutral and dispassionate position - journalists who seek to report the truth and the truth alone, however much it may grate against their own preconceived positions.

Since the conflict, during which Iranians have once again been almost completely cut off from the Internet, there has been an outcry from Iranians against the reporting of journalists from Sky News and CNN, whose coverage from inside Iran has seemed entirely one-sided.

But my question is: what motivates such journalism? Is there malign intent, or are the journalists simply seeking to present the facts as they see them, through their own anti-Trump and Israel lenses?

I suspect the latter is true, and that, like all of us, they are so steeped in their particular worldview that they wouldn’t even recognise, let alone accept, the criticism that they are only aiding the Islamic Republic in its bid to cover up the massacre that led us here and instead to present itself as the chief resistor against imperialism.

But what of my own bias? I recently spoke to a valued colleague at a partner organization whose viewpoint I found challenging but also difficult to dismiss out of hand. Essentially, the argument this individual was making was that the regime in Iran was unlikely to fall, and that those who believed it will were romantics, rather than realists.

I found it a difficult message to accept, but was this because I did not believe the assessment to be true - one Iranian friend of mine suggested this individual had watched too much CNN - or because I feared that it might be, but that to accept this would be to put a dagger through my own dreams of an Iran finally freed from the Islamic Republic.

Share

It is certainly true that I find it easier to welcome reports and comments that suggest the Islamic Republic is weakening and even on the verge of collapse, than those that suggest Trump is already looking for a way out, and that this will enable a hollowed-out and embittered regime to remain.

I dearly hope - and believe - that it is the truth that I seek more than simply confirmation of my own biases, but perhaps that just confirms that, truly, I am more of a romantic than a realist.

I suppose time will tell, but in the meantime, good luck to all of us as we attempt to make sense of it all.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

So much so, I began to feel sorry for those who had not found it. Not because they had not found love in their life, but because of how rancid and toxic the current landscape of dating truly is. The muck that these poor single people must wade through...

I believe from a generational standpoint, many, many would be hard-pressed to disagree. The ways we seek love, the ways in which we find true connection, true loyalty, seem to be fraught with many obstacles; cultural divides cut across random hearts with the slice of a hot blade; politics divide, certainly.

Men and women are more skeptical of each other. Marriage and children have certainly lost their appeal as well. Monogamy, now, is not a given—but must be a conversation. Where the one partner model may have been taken for granted, as obvious, is now another divide—no, I don’t want a partner to share with another, one must say outrightly, at the risk of sounding selfish or prude.

It is not one thing or the other, but a modernized world that pokes at our insecurities, reveals a mirror to our flaws, broadcasts the highlights of other’s lives, from the financial to the romantic, for us to compare, to cringe, to congratulate, or to turn green with envy. No doubt, the online world is largely responsible. But we have also been irresponsible. We have allowed the techno-gadgets to rule us, in many facets of our lives.

Back to the muck I mentioned earlier—the muck of effort, the wading through the many waters of disappointment, false starts, the newly minted term of ghosting—not exactly new in human history, but common enough now, to be a named phenomenon, and indelibly connected to the landscape of romantic entanglement.

The date that was confirmed did not show. The date that seemed interested, made plans, a date and a time, a place to be, only leaving you to be all dressed up with nowhere to go. Now, to start swiping left or right, to try again—and to go through all the same rigamarole with another stranger, having to, needing to, explain yourself again from the very start, with the hopes that this time, they will at least show up when they said they would.

Yes, I was lucky to avoid this for as long as I could. But after the collapse of five years of marriage, I find myself doing all that I said I would never have to do again. I am “on the apps”—swiping away, looking for connection, and looking for love to share.

And this recent introduction into that world has left me drained, daunted, and somewhat horrified. The ease with which others make plans is equal to the ease with which they are therefore dismissed. Human connection is everywhere and nowhere. We dismiss each other as nothing—you can always window shop another partner online.

With each new profile picture, with each new summary, comes a daydream. Everybody is looking for love, everyone appears open, everyone is smiling, everyone appears to be a part of the same daydream. Swipe left, the daydream bursts, swipe right, and the daydream of this person lingers—just long enough to visit the next smile, the next mirage, the next daydream to keep you swiping.

And inside this daydream of online love and dating apps, is a labyrinth of tools to keep you swiping, keep you entertained, keep you coming back. And if you really want to find love online, don’t expect it for free.

Among this labyrinth, I mention is a bevvy of coins, tickets, upgrades, virtual roses to send, and super likes to pay for. The apps are not shy. You want top billing? Pay us. You want your messages actually sent, pay us. The algorithms are geared so much towards profit, it makes you wonder if they wouldn’t purposefully sabotage any attempt at finding a viable partner for the sake of keeping you around.

For context, I begrudgingly downloaded a dating app. And then another. These are well-known apps, and I am sure you have likely heard of them. I dutifully filled out the minutiae and put my best pictures up for consideration. I am open to many a rendezvous—a casual stroll through the park, a beer at a bar, even a more formal date. You cannot ask for much, just the opportunity to talk to someone new.

I have been on these apps for four months—not a single match. Not one. I swipe, I send casual messages, I smile in my photos, I have passion, etc, etc. But I have not paid. And the algorithmic consequences for that are loud and clear.

On the second app, I have actually seen some traction. Apparently, some women are somewhat interested, enough to swipe right on me, and enough to match. But after filling out the profile, dutifully reading what potential partners have to say about themselves, and putting yourself out there, you are hit wth a bill—yes, the app is marketed as free, but the connection requires a credit card.

The faces of my matches are blurred; to see them, in this app I mention, costs $24.99 for the week, $ 48.99 for the month, $315 for the year, or, if you are feeling truly down and out, $479 for a lifetime of use. I find that to be a hard sell—why would I pay for a lifetime supply of an app, I hope to delete for love?

This fee is not levied up front, but expressed purposefully in the thick of pursuit—in the thick of finding out who your matches are, precisely when a lonely heart is at its most vulnerable, and that promise of finding your soulmate (their words, not mine), is just a credit card number away.

Share

I now find myself in that same position that I once considered unthinkable, unenviable, impossible. It feels pathetic. It feels desperate. It feels cheap because it is.

This model is unsustainable, and we would likely be better off without the promises, the coins, the upgrades, the subscriptions when seeking something that is so much more than those things.

This is nothing but predatory behavior on the part of those who so openly and casually promise love, and we should reject it.

I am all in for love, but I want to swipe left on the whole goddamn enterprise. Where connection requires a credit card, I will be on the other side of that.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Share

Oh ya, he was arguably the world’s wrongest man.

You see Ehrlich also wrote the bestseller The Population Bomb (1968) which predicted worldwide famines due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals. Here is one example of his foresight:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

His ability to be wrong was not limited to his bestseller as he proved in a speech in 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” He also predicted that the U.S. would be rationing water by 1974, and food by 1980, that smog in L.A. and New York would cause some 200,000 deaths per year and that Americans born after World War II wouldn’t live past 50.

Oopsie. There’s no harm in being wrong though, right?

Except Ehrlich’s predictions helped usher in the “Zero Population Growth” movement in the U.S which contributed to a significant decline in the U.S. fertility rate from 3.4 in the early 1960s to 1.8 by 1975. It has also been accused of leading to millions of sterilizations in China, India, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and elsewhere.

So, in a way, you can thank Ehrlich for all the “we need illegal immigrants” argument. Fortunately for us, no less than the “Old Gray Lady” stepped up to set the record straight.

Wait, what? “Premature?” I don’t think that’s a synonym for “wrong,” is it? Where have I heard this sort of apologetic, fawning type of excuse for being wrong before? Oh ya, here is Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher commenting on Trotsky being wrong about... well, everything: “Proof of Trotsky’s farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet.”

Wow! He saw so far into the future that not enough time has passed for any of his predictions to come true yet. Bravo! Chef’s kiss.

“Premature” is the word environmentalists use for “wrong” because the latter word is so... final.

“Premature” allows environmentalists to remain hopeful that eventually “hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” Keep the dream alive, comrades! Sadly, Ehrlich will not be around to say, “I told you so.” Neither will any of us, for that matter, because he’s wrong. However, his death does leave us with a big hole to fill. Specifically...

Who is the new World’s Wrongest Person?

I have a few nominations:

• Al Gore, who claimed:

  • By 2016 “there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”

  • In 2007 he stated that the North Polar ice cap “could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study… warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

  • December 2009 Copenhagen speech: “Some of the models suggest… there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

• Greta Thunberg has claimed:

  • On June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

Let’s not limit this to environmentalists:

• Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winning economist):

  • Wrote that by around 2005, the internet’s impact on the economy would be no greater than the fax machine.

  • On election night in 2016, he suggested markets might never recover from a Trump victory.

• Donald Trump:

  • “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

  • “Over the next couple of years, I think we’ll … be cutting income tax — could be almost completely cutting it, because the money we’re taking in is going to be so large… It’s so enormous that you’re not going to have income tax to pay.”

  • “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country, and you see it happening already.

  • Note: Ya, ya, I just pissed off all the Trumpites. Deal with it.

I think that there is a very good chance that the AI doomers and AI utopians are making predictions so wrong that they may will make Ehrlich’s mistakes look minor. Sadly, we will have to wait a few years to see if they or I am correct. I’m pulling for the utopians.

Share

Some will argue that I should include Anthony Fauci on this list because he was wrong about COVID in so many ways. However, he wasn’t terrible at predictions so much as lying to cover up his involvement in what was obviously a lab leak.

Note: I’m not opposed to awarding this to an organization, so The Club of Rome, for example might be in the running for the title.

Who do you think deserves Ehrlich’s title? Make your nominations in the comments below.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The notion of open borders and climate change hysteria is now encountering strong resistance from populist movements across the Western world, because the public sees its rights being taken away by unelected bureaucrats.

It is also possible for those new actors to serve as transition agents, pushing the Democratic Party in a new ideological direction. Abigail Spanberger, the newly elected governor of Virginia, will likely be taking one of those two roles.

Spanberger declared herself a moderate during her campaign, although it appears her use of the term was a strategy to get her elected. Her first act was to rescind the previous governor’s order to cooperate with ICE. That’s straight blue ideology.

Governor Spanberger also signed ten executive orders focused on affordability, healthcare, housing, education, and government preparedness. They direct state agencies to identify ways to reduce costs for Virginians (e.g., housing, health care, energy, groceries).

These ten orders have a dual purpose. They highlight the Democratic Party’s 2026 campaign theme: that Trump can’t fix America’s affordability problem because he doesn’t care enough about the people, and is angling to claw back the loyalty of the historical constituencies they abused during recent years.

Lunch box issues are always attractive to political parties because they sound good, even though they’re impossible to achieve. Later, they can campaign on the fact that they tried. Politics is always about touting the imaginable, especially if it creates an advantage for the next election.

Spanberger indicated that Virginia would rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional climate collaboration. Ten Northeastern states are members, and they will try to save the climate initiative for the next Democratic president, but the issue may be on borrowed time.

The governor has replaced some members of the VMI (Virginia Military Institute) governing board with individuals more in line with her governing philosophy. Virginia lawmakers are now advancing a proposal that could reshape VMI’s future, raising fresh questions about governance, accountability, and whether the state should continue funding an institution that does not comply with the Democrat DEI rulebook.

Spanberger opposes defunding of police, which makes sense considering her background, but she won’t take a position on transitioning teenagers. She can’t afford to gamble her popularity by upsetting feminists, who are a vital constituency.

The governor is the daughter of a career law enforcement officer, who served in law enforcement herself before joining the CIA. While at the CIA, she was a case officer, working to find, recruit, and build relationships with foreign nationals who could have had information of value to the U.S. government. She left the CIA and was elected to the House of Representatives in 2018.

Is she trying to turn her state more blue or attempting to set a middle course between traditional Democratic ideology and the radical progressives? The latter makes more sense because her party has to move to the right to win future elections. Still, Spanberger will have to feel her way toward the right because the majority of the House Democratic coalition is progressive and wields significant power. Woke is dead, so it’s easy to ignore. DEI is fading, but many Dems want to reverse that trend. ICE in blue states is the hottest issue.

Women are now governors in 14 states; 10 are blue, and 4 are red. In one case, a Republican governs a blue state (New Hampshire), and in another case, a Democrat governs a red state (Kansas). Overall, Democrats control 24 states, so women represent 41% of the blue governor states.

These are aggressive smart women who stand in stark contrast to the radical feminists I wrote about previously. These are practical Democratic women with power who are trying to chart a new course for the Democratic Party. Of course, the feminists are a vital constituency that the politicians can’t ignore.

Share

As the Democrats try to redefine themselves, the Republican Party is in a state of paralysis. It is beholden to Trump and Trump policies, so there will be no redefining until Trump is gone. Trump’s monumental task of tearing down the deep state in order to level the playing field for conservatives cannot yield results quickly because of the resistance by Democrats and the strength of the bureaucracy itself.

Without a better strategy, a House victory for the Democrats this November looks likely, and that will further stifle progress for the Trump agenda.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The book was later criticized, and Fukuyama was taken to task for touting a naïve view of the world. One of many factors he didn’t consider was the rise of the Islamic state, which became a new threat to the West after 911.

Fukuyama’s central argument for the rise of populism is technological: the Internet and social media. By process of elimination, he concludes that other factors—economic inequality, racism, cultural backlash, or leadership failures—while significant, cannot fully explain the timing or the peculiar nature of today’s populist movements. Fukuyama lists nine commonly cited causes of global populism, ranging from economic inequality to human nature, before zeroing in on the Internet.

His diagnosis of the Internet’s role is framed around the loss of traditional means of communication. Before the digital age, information passed through gatekeeping institutions—newspapers, universities, editors, and broadcasters—that filtered falsehood and moderated tone. The Internet’s democratization of communication removed these filters, enabling everyone to become their own publisher. What once appeared as a liberating channel for knowledge, Fukuyama argues, has devolved into a destabilizing force that erodes trust, empowers conspiracy theories, and rewards sensationalism over truth.

He highlights how algorithms, designed to maximize engagement for profit, drive users toward extreme and emotionally charged content. Fukuyama’s account captures not just a technological transformation but also a psychological one—the conversion of information consumption into a competitive, addictive game of attention.

One of his most striking examples is the anti-vaccine movement, which he says is emblematic of the Internet’s distortion of truth. Vaccination skepticism, he notes, has no coherent ideological basis and would once have contradicted conservative reverence for science and innovation.

Yet online echo chambers allowed anti-vax sentiment to spread virally, demonstrating how networked misinformation can override reason and public health alike. By connecting the anti-vax phenomenon to populist distrust of elites, Fukuyama underlines how the Internet has fused political grievance with systemic nihilism—the belief that all knowledge is manipulated or fake.

I take issue with Fukuyama’s conclusion and the assumptions he made in reaching it. The Internet and social media are not the answer. The answer is the failure of Western governments to address their people’s needs. Social media is an amplifier of the public mood, not the cause. In his quest to find a single cause, Fukuyama became fixated on social media and overstated its importance.

Meanwhile, he calmly dismisses economic inequality, racism, cultural backlash, and leadership failures as relevant contributors. To me, it’s easy to find the right answer if one is objective about globalism, the real culprit. Rich men’s schemes to expand their wealth are boundless, and the needs of the public do not appear on their radar.

The gospel of globalism teaches that workers have no value and no grievance. Use them where their cost is minimized. The nation-state is a thorn in their sides that must be removed. How dare the nation-state leaders try to rein us in with their laws. We want only international laws that we can control outside of the nation-state.

Fukuyama overlooks that populism reflects the strategic exploitation of media by political actors, leading to public backlash. In addition, he doesn’t identify the public as participants in the media, which they are. Their behavior is the pulse of the culture.

Fukuyama’s embrace of globalism is evident in his discussion of COVID. He discusses the bad actors who spread misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media, while ignoring the fact that the federal government did the same. It demanded adherence to rules it made up, not supported by science.

Share

It attacked doctors for suggesting effective alternative treatments in order to protect vaccine manufacturers’ profits. Branding the critics of the government’s approach to the pandemic as quacks and liars shows his support for government controls, which is the globalist model.

I can’t explain the logic behind Fukuyama’s article. Is this a case of an academic trying to create new interest in a particular subject, or was he out of material to talk about? Perhaps he wants to raise the visibility of social media as a destructive force, so people start paying more attention. His time would be better spent calling out the real danger: the lack of responsible governance in the Western world.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Tribalism is an American phenomenon that has only recently emerged in Western Europe. Most Western European nations have more than two parties, so there is no binary choice, as we have here. Their traditional left-right ideologies, split among multiple parties, have been replaced by the “open” and “closed” camps.

The open camp supports pro-EU integration, pro-immigration/multicultural initiatives, an urban, educated, and globalized society, and Green, liberal social values. The closed camp prioritizes national sovereignty, restricts immigration, and embraces rural/small-town, culturally rooted, traditional, law-and-order values.

The Syrian refugee wave in 2015 is widely seen as the moment European tribalism accelerated. The triggers were reached when trust in mainstream parties dropped, identity politics intensified, immigration became the emotional center of politics, and voters decided that elites were ignoring their concerns.

European tribalism has a supranational government (the EU), which becomes a loyalty test: are you pro-EU = progressive, modern, cooperative, or are you Eurosceptic = nationalist, traditionalist, and skeptical of globalization? With regard to voting, capitals and large cities vote overwhelmingly for progressive candidates, while smaller towns and the countryside tend to vote for nationalist/populist candidates. Like in the U.S., alternative media ecosystems have grown, distrust of legacy media is high among populist voters, and online networks amplify grievance and identity narratives. Europe also has strong state broadcasters, which some see as mouthpieces of the establishment.

In summary, we can see that Europe’s tribalism is multi-party (not binary), more about identity and sovereignty than race, less about religion, more about immigration and national culture, and expressed through new parties rather than taking over old ones.

When you look at the American system, you can see that the progressives are the EU-like party, driven by the Silicon Valley globalists and the well-educated white urban crowd. They are the open camp faction, and they have suppressed the opinions of traditional Democrats. Thirty-five percent of Democrats do not support open borders.

Why are the people on the left globalists? The prospect of a utopian world where equality reigns is near and dear to the hearts of the left. They don’t really care that the result of that journey is a totalitarian system, because they are the smart people who will be running it.

So what is the future of tribalism in America?

In the last chapter of my book, I speculated about factors that could end tribalism, and there were 3: apathy, a threat to America as a whole, and the building of a consensus.

Apathy could take hold if the warring parties realize how stupid the whole exercise is. The idea that the success of our political system depends on the winner of a fight over ideology is absurd, because practical politics should always outrank ideology in the minds of Americans. Which makes more sense to fight for, the cost of healthcare or the climate?

Fixing the idiocy depends more on the left’s behavior because they are the aggressors. If they stopped working for radical change, the right would abandon their resistance. These are the two political points of view in America, roughly equally divided among the populace. The country must be governed by consensus, based on a combination of the opinions of the right and the left, not on either alone. Both groups need to realize that as long as the ideological fight continues, the elites can put their feet up, have a cocktail, and relax, because there is no organized resistance against their excesses.

The threat to America alternative would come about after a 9/11-like event occurred. That one day galvanized the American people to a special purpose and forced partisan rancor to the sidelines. I, for one, thought COVID would serve the same purpose. Unfortunately, it ushered in the era of open and closed camps due to a fundamental disagreement over how to handle the pandemic.

The third possibility is building a consensus for change. It would take a significant percentage of the American people to accomplish that task. With the country divided, how could that be possible? Perhaps the recent polling documenting the level of dissatisfaction the American people feel about their government.

Both parties, regardless of ideology, are fumbling the ball. They’re playing a game to see how much they can get away with before the American people blow a fuse. Since both parties are puppets of the elites, the wealthy would have to say, “Enough is enough,” before we make progress. The problem is that millions more Americans are happy to express their displeasure with the government than are willing to go to the polls and do something about it.

Share

What we need is the rule of neither party. Trump is close to that model because he’s anti-establishment, but he also relies on conservatives for support, which makes him biased against the left. Trump won’t display any tolerance for the left because he feels the Lawfare attacks were a vendetta. He can be friendly with the elites and try to work with them, as seen by his work with Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg.

Where will a Trump-lite come from? Where can we find an individual with charisma who will be dedicated to anti-establishment policy-making? Only time will tell.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

As the train glides down its narrow tracks, just inches from the coast, the sunset, the ocean, the expanse of land and sea brim with a natural, diamond-like sheen. The ocean reflects glimmering light, as though the rays were sourced from just below its surface, percolating and dancing in vivid synchronization. The entirety of Big Sur and the California coast cannot be seen, but felt—the window of the train car is massive, and even the roof of the car is tiled in glass—look up, and you see the clear blue sky, while the faintest of clouds drift lazily in and out of your view.

I know how I sound—a bit romantic, a bit tender in the description of what could be almost any train ride, going to and from almost anywhere near water. But to romanticize the occasion, to find solace and poetry in the journey before me, is precisely the point.

The interior of the car, that is, the Amtrak Coastal Starlight, which runs North/South from Seattle all the way down to Los Angeles, is not romantic. It has the appeal of a very nice jail cell. The silver doors that connect each of the cars at both ends creak and crack when they move, and slam shut with the permanence of prison bars. Like prison bars, at some point, I am told, you do get used to the clang.

Also, everywhere in the car, there is metal—metal floors, metal seats, the predictable high-pitched squeal of metal slicing and scraping as the undercarriage trudges along its pathway. The bathrooms, too, are all metal, and the toilet is stainless steel—even in the bathroom, the anonymous, efficient style of the prison cell could double as the motif. Everything is old. Everything is cruddy, rickety, loud, and vibrating. But within this unavoidable ruckus, these hard edges, there is a noticeable calm.

It is just past sunset on the Coastal Starlight’s journey. The lights have been slightly dimmed in the car, and has per habit, I have no intention on returning to my assigned seat—some veterans of the Amtrak system like me prefer to spend the entire trip at the restaurant style booths of the viewing car. The viewing car is a communal area, with large open windows and where people come to sit and to gather, have a snack, and take in the beauty of the American landscape.

But if you were me, you plant yourself in the booth, with scattered papers and notepads all strewn about. Too, there are remnants of cocktails and snacks that I have hardly finished, empty cups, wrappers, etc. To indulge the prison motif once again, I would appear as an inmate who seemed to be here long before anyone else, and whose journey will continue long after you have arrived at your destination. And it’s probably true, as my journey began in Los Angeles, and will not end until Portland, Oregon—a 29-hour train ride. Fine by me, as I just so happen to have a lot on my mind. But on every journey I have ever taken by train, I find this to be the case.

For the length of any journey, there is that calm I mentioned. The train glides cooly through the air—speeds up a bit at times, it seems, slows down in more dense, crowded areas. The rattling of the cars is not as intrusive as it may seem at first; in fact, the constant hum and rattle can provide a cushion to dampen even the most jittery of nerves, the thoughts with the sharpest edges. This does not prevent rumination, but allows for it.

Most of the debacles of my life involve a sudden, intense exit. When the carpet is ripped out from beneath me, I usually find myself on a train. Outbound from San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, and Folsom, I have racked up dozens of these journeys. And every trip, there is an exit and a return—a return to the self, to the quiet, to the ever-changing landscape that drifts by each window pane. Within every window pane, an exit, every window pane, an entry.

To take to the land and sea by train is not only a cause for celebration, but a reacquaintance with the self—a new self, an evolving self—a self that is shedding its skin right there in the viewing cart. In the chaos of our lives, and the general madness of these ever-passing years, we owe it to ourselves to seek out moments of solace, of rumination, for our own therapeutic need, our own respite from the day to day. Day to day—those days we refer to that are often so lost, they cease to distinguish themselves from one another.

Share

Indistinguishable too, is each hour of the ride. The hours melt into one another; the morning into the afternoon, the evening into the night, etc. With this evolution, the destination closer, epiphanies, dialogues, regrets, tenderness, and even anger are churned and mashed and inspected over.

When the thoughts are heavy and too much, you become grateful for the view. When you reach an epiphany about your current plight or curiosity, it is followed by either laughter or sobbing—the kind of sobbing that one attempts to fight, with no use, when in public. These revelations are done within the beauty and magnificence of the American landscape. The land cradles you in this way, provides a space to absorb any steam, any bubbling frustration.

The modern train ride through America is not the industry it once was—but it is an important one, at least to me.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I live in a high-rise, and I work from home. I’ll be honest with you; there are days when I don’t get out of my pajamas until my noon workout. And why not? I’m not going anywhere. What’s the harm?

On occasion, I’ve even considered taking the trash down to the basement in my PJs. But I don’t. Why? Two reasons: I’m not that lazy, and I have some self-respect.

If you’ve ever been... well outside, you’ll know that this view is not universal. At some point, I don’t know when, people, mostly women as far as I can tell, decided that wearing pajamas outside was acceptable. Not a quick run outside to get the mail either, we’re talking about going to the store and, God help us, getting on an airplane.

This trend once again came to my attention with this tweet.

The discussion that followed was absurd.

Caption: Pajamas are meant for warehouse activities? Is OSHA aware of this?

Caption: Now wearing pajamas in public is a political statement?

I do not wish to turn this into a political debate, so I will resist the temptation to ask, “is there any type of bad behavior that the Left won’t defend?”

Caption: Why are you asking me?

I’ll stop yelling at clouds when they start acting their age... uh... or something like that.

Instead of talking about how dressing well is a sign of fascism – but what isn’t? – I’ll turn to the comment that I think encapsulates the issue:

If it isn’t shameful to wear pajamas outside, how can taking a picture of people doing this be worthy of criticism?

The answer is, because deep down, even people defending the practice know that it’s worthy of scorn. The only acceptable reason for wearing pajamas outside is that you’re a child going to a drive-in movie – yes, I’m that old - or your house is on fire.

Which brings us to my point – yes, it took a while to get here. I hope you enjoyed the journey – social norms matter and shame is a useful tool for enforcing them.

If you post a picture of me sitting on a bench reading a book, I’m going to wonder why you don’t have something better to do.

If you post a picture of me at a store while I’m wearing pajamas, I’m going to be embarrassed. Or at least I should. Which is why...

Shame is good.

Or at least it serves a useful purpose.

Somewhere in all the “don’t fat-shame me” rhetoric and efforts to “destigmatize” drug use, “sex work,” polyamory, and pornography, we’ve lost sight of that.

Tolerance is good. To a point. We must remember that what you tolerate, you perpetuate.

The concept of “the slippery slope,” while much derided, is obvious to anyone who’s been alive longer than 10 minutes.

The world won’t end because some people don’t know how to dress like adults. However, there’s a reason that we find ourselves here, and there’s no reason to think it won’t get worse if we permit it.

There is some indication that people are getting fed up with people who don’t understand the concept of public spaces and the type of behavior that isn’t permitted.

Recently, United Airlines stated that it plans to boot passengers who refuse to use headphones on planes. It’s a good first step, but we need to do more.

“See something, say something.”

“See something, say something” was meant to prevent terrorism but has expanded well beyond that to include workplace safety, sexual violence, and a myriad of other activities.

Could we extend it to “bad behavior?”

Officially? Probably not. There are no fashion police to report to, and if there were, they’d probably look something like this:

No, we’re better off handling this ourselves. What I’m proposing is more old school. Dirty looks and scorn. Let’s bring back shame. And ridicule.

Keep posting those pictures online. If we embarrass the guilty parties enough, maybe they’ll decide that the 30 seconds they save by avoiding adult clothes isn’t worth it.

Be careful, though. The last thing you want is to be filmed getting in a fight with someone wearing pajamas at Costco.

After all, how would that look?

Share

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

There were mixed reactions regarding the news of the Hawks teaming up with the adult venue, including players on the Hawks team who were against the idea. In fact, San Antonio Spurs center Luke Cornet called for the league to intervene and cancel the event in his article on Medium, saying that the league would be participating in being complicity in objectifying and mistreating women in society as well as calling on the league to “promote an atmosphere that is protective and respectful of the daughters, wives, sisters, mothers, and partners that we know and love.”

While the NBA made the right choice in cancelling the event, the purpose of this article is to address and focus on the very intriguing responses and backlash from the NBA’s decision, specifically the people who are criticizing the decision, and are using interesting defenses in defending a strip club being seen on social media.

Let us start with this: we with common sense know what a strip club is and why people go. It isn’t for having happy hours or to enjoy food, regardless of how great the lemon pepper wings (which are an apparent staple of Magic City). People go to strip clubs to see entertainment from women, who use their bodies and get naked and do other debaucherous activities to earn money from those watching them.

In other words, you can consider this sexual exploitation and the objectification of women, disguised as entertainment. The NBA knows that its fans consist of men, women, and children, and has a responsibility to ensure that these games and what they promote are family-friendly. If they allowed this Magic City night to go ahead, that would, without question, send a very controversial message to its fans, the brand, and the game itself, if they promote debauchery as this to women and children, wrongly influencing them to think this is quite okay.

Now the NBA has dropped the ball in some cases, and they by no means have clean hands, however this would be something that they know they cannot defend, as there is no legitimate defense in promoting a strip club.

Another interesting phenomenon in the defense of Magic City is how this place is a “cultural icon.” The Atlanta Hawks issued a statement in response to the cancellation of Magic City night, expressing disappointment but respecting the decision, even saying that “we remain committed to celebrating the best of Atlanta. In ways that continue to unite and bring us all together.”

I found this intriguing for various reasons: first, Atlanta is one of the most iconic major cities in the US, coined the Black Mecca, considered the Capital of the Southeast US, with all the great milestones Atlanta is known for, yet they decided that a strip club is on par with this? Here is a small homework assignment: go to Magic City’s website, browse their photos, and evaluate if what they promote is worthy to be in the same category as what Atlanta is best known for.

If Magic City is considered the “best of Atlanta”, then clearly there is a huge problem. When I think of Atlanta, I do not think of strip clubs and the degeneracy behind it, I think of the epicenter of the civil rights movement, the home to arguably the greatest Civil Rights Leader in MLK Jr., the home of Coca-Cola, where the 1996 Summer Olympics took place, home of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Museum and Library, site of Civil War battles, top destination for music, film and pop culture, and so many more accomplishments of ATL.

A strip club should be nowhere close to these magnificent milestones that Atlanta has accomplished. The Hawks decided this was a great idea to celebrate over something such as an HBCU Night, Black Business Night, Education Night, Women’s History, etc., and it couldn’t be more backwards with their ideas of promoting what actual societal contributions are.

Even prominent figures have come out to defend Magic City. Killer Mike, one of Atlanta’s best-known rappers, claimed that Magic City has been a major part of Atlanta’s cultural landscape for decades. Going further as to say that it has helped individuals achieve success over the years, including women, and has been a staple of Black culture in Atlanta. Killer Mike has also stated that opinions from people who aren’t from Atlanta are not relevant.

Share

Respectfully to Killer Mike, you do not need to be from Atlanta to understand that the simple concept that celebrating a strip club and saying it’s part of “the culture” is not only ignorant, but it’s also embracing degeneracy to the extreme. The question that people fail to articulate an answer to is how a strip club is significant and a beacon to a community and a staple of a city’s culture, particularly in a city with an abundance of black people. If this is celebrated as “culture” then something is clearly rotten with the culture.

As Hamlet said famously, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, I’ll take a step further, something is rotten with “Da Culture” that embraces degeneracy and other behaviors that has left us with a bad reputation in society. Regardless of the weak defenses of degeneracy from people all over, this just goes to show that bad is now good, and good is now bad, and morality is declining. Maybe just maybe, white supremacy and racism are not the problems in Black America; perhaps regaining our values and moral compass should be. Just food for thought.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Trump stated, This afternoon, I want to discuss how we have achieved this economic miracle, how we intend to raise living standards for our citizens to levels never seen before, and perhaps how you, too, in the places where you come from, can do much better following what we’re doing. Because certain areas in Europe are not even recognizable, frankly, anymore — not in a positive way. I love Europe, and I want to see it succeed, but it’s not heading in the right direction.

In recent decades, the conventional wisdom was that growing Western economies required increasing government spending, unchecked mass migration, and endless imports. The consensus was that so-called dirty jobs should be sent elsewhere, the Green New Scam should replace affordable energy, and countries could be propped up by importing new populations from faraway lands.

Trump’s speech followed that of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who urged the “Middle Powers” to unite and take on the major powers. He asserted that the middle powers had been naive, thinking that as long as they were compliant with the US, all would be well. But now, the major powers have discarded fairness and are exploiting power for their own benefit.

He stated, “It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry — that the rules-based international order is fading, that ‘the strong do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”

Carney refuses to recognize Trump’s main point, that the “rules-based order” is fading because it has corrupted itself. Trump, in using the term “certain areas of Europe are not recognizable,” describes the neoliberal/globalist failure of the continent. Carney and his cronies from the EU have created a right/wrong scenario based on their definition of right. Anyone who opposes neoliberalism is dangerous and must be stopped.

The traditional West has been transforming Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union and the formation of the EU. But the EU has not lived up to its billing and has become a bloated bureaucracy that stands in the way of its member states’ decision-making. Rules for all have subverted the operations of each member. Britain and France, as two prime examples, can’t go back. Each has a single global metroplex that acts as its international source of money and power.

The neoliberals who operate there are embedded in the international elite club, which pursues the ideal of global government. The “new elites” have replaced the old bourgeoisie. They define themselves by education, mobility, and cultural openness rather than property or industry. They dominate media, politics, universities, and NGOs, shaping norms and policy. Meanwhile, citizens who do not live in London or Paris are not given the same opportunities. The upper classes call for equality, but their own citizens are being ignored.

Immigration policy and multicultural discourse are managed at the city level, but the social and economic strains are often felt more intensely in peripheral areas with fewer resources. Urban professionals have replaced the traditional working-class base of left-wing parties. The left now represents the cultural values of cities rather than workers’ material interests. Peripheral citizens still vote, but they no longer feel represented. This produces distrust of institutions and rising support for outsider movements.

Populism is a rational response to government failure, as seen in movements like the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) and Brexit, and in predictable reactions from people who feel abandoned by a system run for metropolitan interests. Unfortunately for Europe, there is no populist political power like that exercised by Trump.

Its populist parties operate from the right because the left controls the neoliberal juggernaut. The establishment attacks those parties as being authoritarian and dangerous. In other words, “Don’t let them acquire power, or it’s Hitler time again.” In Germany, the populist wave is being driven by the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, or Alternative for Germany). The globalists in Germany attribute its rise in popularity to the ignorance in the former East Germany (where it was founded) and Russian disinformation. The AfD has been labeled as an extremist party by the government, which means its activities are being closely monitored.

Other European countries have populist movements.

In France, the National Rally (Rassemblement National) is a nationalist, anti‑immigration, and Eurosceptic (opposed to the EU) party. La France Insoumise is a left‑wing populist party focused on economic reform and anti‑neoliberalism.

In Italy, the Brothers of Italy & Lega is nationalist, security‑focused, and skeptical of EU policy: Italexit advocates for leaving the EU and eurozone.

In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom (PVV) is a Nationalist, anti-immigration, and Eurosceptic party.

In Spain, Vox is nationalist, anti‑immigration, and culturally conservative.

In the United Kingdom, Reform UK is nationalist, anti‑elite, and immigration‑focused.

In Canada, there is growing dissatisfaction over issues specific to that country. These include regional grievances (West vs. Ottawa), policy and bureaucratic matters, and economic/material complaints. Alberta is about to hold a referendum on separating from Canada. As of now, they are collecting signatures to put the referendum on this year’s ballot.

Given the tide they’re fighting against, the right-wing parties in Europe do not have, and may never have, the power to effect change. Part of their problem is their form of government. Some political theorists tout the parliamentary system because it is used in Europe, and they consider it superior.

Share

They argue that there is no separation between the executive and the legislature, which means less gridlock. In a parliamentary system, the executive (the Prime Minister and cabinet) is drawn from the legislature. The government only exists as long as it has majority support in parliament. If it loses support, it falls and is replaced.

Those systems are incompatible with populist movements. Since the executive in a parliamentary system is drawn from the legislature, the prime minister is part of the establishment rather than an outsider. There will never be a populist prime minister because the parties would never allow it.

The American system allows a populist to be elected directly by the people. That has enabled us to reject the neoliberal/globalist ideology that is destroying Europe.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Think of these basic, common-sense principles as a checklist for good reasoning:

First is legitimate authority. Military force should only be used by recognized governments or international bodies acting for the public good, not by rogue militias or lone actors. This matters with Iran because airstrikes carried out by recognized states may claim legal justification, but that alone does not necessarily make them morally right.

Second is just cause. War is meant to stop a grave wrong—such as defending against an imminent attack—not to settle grudges, display strength, or reshape a region for advantage. If bombing Iran is truly about preventing a clear and immediate threat, it may meet this test. If it is merely about wealth, dominance, revenge, or saving face, it fails.

Third is the right intention. Even if a conflict begins justly, it can quickly devolve into something evil as events unfold.

Fourth, military force must be the last resort, used only after serious diplomatic and economic pressure has been tried in good faith.

Fifth, proportionality requires that the harm done not be greater than the harm prevented. Dropping bombs that kill large numbers of civilians can make the cure worse than the disease. Indiscriminately bombing cities, infrastructure, or neighborhoods where civilians will predictably die is not merely bad strategy—it is a blatant moral failure.

Sixth, there must be a reasonable probability of success. Applied to Iran, these principles raise hard questions. Will bombing actually reduce danger, or will it provoke a wider war? Are leaders truly seeking peace, or merely posturing before the next round of escalation?

This longstanding framework does not say “never fight,” nor is it a simple fix. It does say, however, “fight only when your back is against the wall, and only to the extent absolutely necessary to reach an achievable goal.” For the average person, “Just War Theory” offers a mature and responsible way to think beyond persuasive sound bites and tribal loyalties.

Share

Bottom line: Every war claims to be just, but history shows that all of them leave deep and lasting physical, psychological, and spiritual wounds. If bombing Iran moves the world closer to peace and eliminates a nuclear threat, that’s a good thing, but if the gamble fails, it will almost certainly move it closer to the abyss.

Pray for world leaders, our military, and ourselves, because the decisions they make—and the positions we support—will not only produce immediate consequences; they will also reverberate into eternity, when the “Just Judge” will separate the sheep from the goats because he alone has all the unredacted intel.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

They do not care about Asian people because they have worked hard to reach a high achievement level, without the help of the left, so they don’t fit the narrative. They do not care about Jews, since Jews have been labeled as oppressors of the Palestinian people.

The fuel causing the left to act follows from the identification of oppressed groups and the launching of efforts to protect them. Grievance is the catalyst for their work, and it all began when Women’s Studies programs were created at universities in 1969, marking academia’s first departure from the tree of human knowledge.

Up until that point, all academic scholarship was based on the division and advancement of existing knowledge. Natural history became biology, ecology, and geology. Natural philosophy became physics, chemistry, and astronomy. The social sciences grew out of natural history as a way to understand humans, just as we try to understand plants and animals. The tree grew larger and larger over time as our knowledge expanded, and each subject had a pedigree.

Women’s Studies and its companion disciplines had no pedigree, were agenda-driven, and powered by grievance. The scientific method was not relevant, because the answer that women were disadvantaged was already known. All that was needed was a focused effort to remove that disadvantage.

Here are four recent examples of irrational left behavior. I can’t relate to them because their behavior goes against what I consider normal.

1. A delivery nurse who works at Baptist Hospital in Boca Raton, Florida, posted a message on TikTok expressing the wish that Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Levitt, would have a difficult childbirth experience and suffer for a long time afterward. She was immediately fired.

2. A Nurse working at Virginia Commonwealth University posted a video on TikTok recommending that people consider ways to poison ICE personnel. She said in part, “anybody got any poison ivy, poison oak in their yard? Get some of that, obviously with gloves, and put it in some water. Like a gallon of water. And get the poison ivy/oak water, and I’m going to put it into a water gun. Aim for faces, hands.” “Sabotage tactic, or at least scare tactic. All the medical providers, grab some syringes with needles on the end,” she said. “Have them full of saline or succinylcholine, you know, whatever. Whatever. That will probably be a deterrent. Be safe.” She also encouraged women to go on dates with ICE agents to spike their drinks. She was also fired.

People have crazy thoughts all the time that enter their minds or are generated by anger. But broadcasting messages like these in public space is crazy. Did they think about their careers at all? Or did they believe the ICE issue was bigger than their careers? Self-harm generated by enthusiasm is hard to contemplate.

3. Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed by a federal ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, during an immigration enforcement operation. ICE’s response was based on her refusal to get out of her vehicle and her attempt to drive away, which included striking an ICE officer and causing internal bleeding to his torso.

Why didn’t she obey the ICE agents, who would have quickly defused the situation? The public knows that when a policeman (or policewoman) perceives a threat to their lives, they can respond with lethal force. Why do people create situations that force law enforcement to make that decision? Just obey the police when they tell you to do something.

4. On January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot multiple times and killed by United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This incident occurred amidst the widespread protests against Operation Metro Surge following the killing of Renee Good on January 7 by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent.

The investigation of this shooting is ongoing at this time, although it’s a fact that Pretti brought a loaded gun with him to the rally. Why would someone take a loaded gun to a rally, unless they thought they might need to use it? Having the firearm on his person constitutes a threat to law enforcement.

The only explanation for the behavior illustrated in these examples is a drive for equity that outweighs rational decision-making. The police are oppressors, according to their ideological dichotomy, and must be resisted. This attitude is similar to the “Defund the Police” movement, which sought to eliminate society’s most important tool for maintaining law and order. No law enforcement = anarchy.

Share

Across many surveys over decades (Pew, Gallup, ANES, GSS), it has been shown that conservatives are much more likely to trust police, say police use appropriate force, believe people should comply with officers even if they disagree, and see the police as a legitimate authority. Liberals are more likely to be skeptical of police use of force, emphasize civil liberties and individual rights during encounters, and view police through a lens of systemic bias or overreach.

Conservatives certainly do things that open themselves up to criticism, but making public threats l and confronting law enforcement are not among them.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.