The case itself is disturbing enough. Three innocent children are dead, strangled to death by their own mother in the basement of their home while their father went to run errands.

Dawson, Cora, and Callan are their names.

Three beautiful children lost to the entire world forever. Dawson wanted to grow up to be a firefighter. Cora really loved princesses. Callan didn’t have a chance to grow up and dream. May they rest in peace.

At first I thought this was strictly a tragic case of poor mental health care (I have since changed my mind based on the facts of the case), and I wrote about what I did to put an action plan in place should I slip into postpartum depression after the birth of our second child.

It included things like telling a close neighbor of mine that I had a problem with my first, and I also told another close friend. It included lining up and developing a relationship with a psychiatrist who could closely monitor me after birth. I also set up an appointment four weeks after birth, right around when my husband was going to return to work. I told my OBGYN team. I also discussed breastfeeding-safe medication with both my OBGYN team and a pediatrician.

My first issue with Lindsay Clancy was why she seemed to be bouncing around and switching providers while in the midst of a crisis. Especially an entirely predictable crisis given her history with postpartum anxiety with both Dawson and Cora.

Why did she not have a psychiatrist picked out ahead of time? After all, she was a labor and delivery nurse. And the issues that children of mothers with postpartum mental health issues are well documented. Things like speech delays and even attachment disorders are much more likely in children with mothers who have untreated postpartum mental health issues.

And while speech and language therapists are wonderful people who do great work, giving your kid attachment disorders can go on to give your children serious disruptions in their social relationships well into adulthood. The infant-mother dyad is one of the most foundational relationships a child has, and it sets the stage for the rest of their life.

In other words, if you’re not willing as a mom to care about yourself because you’re just far too depressed to do so, surely you can muster up the courage to get yourself together for your own children.

If I know this, as a lay person, surely a labor and delivery nurse would know this and know it more intimately than I do. After all, she was on the front lines of maternal healthcare.

And as more details about this case have come to light, the less sympathetic I have become.

She was offered an inpatient medication management program and a general mental health partial hospitalization program at the Women’s and Infants Hospital in December of 2022, and she was told to follow up about those treatment options with her psychiatrist, Dr. Tufts, but she failed to do so, and instead continued with just her short visits with Dr. Tufts.

Furthermore, there was zero sign of any psychosis before the incident; she only heard the voice during the murders, one time. Never once did she tell her doctors that she was having thoughts of harming the children.

She did manage to tell her husband and her mother, though. People point to this to state she was “crying out for help,” but I find it convenient that she told the very people who had no power or ability to help her.

She never told her doctors about her thoughts of harming the kids in spite of the fact that she had an appointment with Dr. Tufts the day before the murders.

You would think, given that this is your psychiatrist, that mentioning the fact that you had thoughts of harming the children would be something you would tell her. Yet neither Jollotta nor Tufts were told. Nor did she tell anyone when she voluntarily checked herself in at the McLean Center.

I guess when I look at all these facts laid out before me, I have a question: What more could’ve possibly been done to help Lindsay Clancy?

And for those who want to blame her family, how long should Patrick and her family have had to babysat Lindsay to prevent the unthinkable, especially when she lied to virtually everyone in her life about her mental state? Should Patrick have known she was lying and never left her alone with the kids despite her outward appearance of health?

He thought she was healthy. She just met with her doctor the day before. He was getting some food and MiraLAX.

When I think about what more could’ve been done to help Lindsay, the only things I can think of would be to roll back HIPAA laws so that Patrick was in full communication with her doctors, and the moment she expressed any thoughts about harming the kids, allowed her husband to involuntarily commit her for an indefinite period of time until she was no longer mentally ill.

You know, like the good old days in the 1950s.

I appreciate the conversation surrounding mental health, but I don’t appreciate the idea that Lindsay didn’t have any agency. Lindsay was in full control of her healthcare, her doctors, and what medications she took, and she had access to some of the best healthcare in the country.

Share

There is no doubt, based on her medical records, that she was having serious problems finding the right medications and was mentally ill (although I don’t believe the claim of “command hallucinations”).

But it was up to her to utilize the resources given to her. I firmly believe an inpatient stay to figure out her medications would’ve probably saved her children.

Instead, she chose to remain in the home, send Patrick on an errand, and she strangled her children to death.

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

Abbatiello, a Westbury, New York native, 2024 Penn State accounting graduate and Sigma Chi member, has been charged in connection with an alleged cocaine-trafficking operation involving students and two off-campus fraternity houses.

Prosecutors described a coordinated enterprise that allegedly moved significant quantities of cocaine between 2023 and 2024, with packaging sometimes involving fraternity members and pledges. Fourteen people were charged in the broader case; Abbatiello faces 11 felony counts. These are serious allegations, and the justice system must treat them accordingly. They remain allegations, however, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Abbatiello surrendered to authorities on August 18, 2026. He faces the ordinary process of arraignment and preliminary hearing and is entitled to a full defense. Magisterial District Judge Kelley Gillette-Walker denied bail, deeming him a flight risk after he missed his initial appearance, ordering him held at Centre County Prison. Remember, bail decisions are not findings of guilt.

Public reporting has not hesitated to use colorful nicknames drawn from the case materials. Abbatiello has been dubbed “Pablo Pledgescober” in some coverage—a sensational label that risks prejudicing public opinion and potential jurors before any evidence is tested in open court.

Court documents and witness statements cited in the press described alleged trips to New York and Philadelphia for cocaine, packaging at the fraternity houses, the use of debts to involve others, and claims that Abbatiello urged associates not to mention his name once investigators began asking questions. These are allegations contained in charging materials. They are not yet proven facts.

Several publications correctly noted the contrast with Abbatiello’s academic record. He made the Dean’s List for three consecutive semesters, completed a professional accounting internship, and expressed interest in financial technology, accounting ethics, and markets. That record does not decide the legal questions before court. It does remind us that human lives contain more than a single set of allegations. Capability, discipline, and prior achievement form part of a fuller picture the justice system is designed to consider.

Raised in Marianist tradition at Chaminade, both Abbatiello and I were taught to form young men as authentic witnesses—people of integrity, accountability, and hope. The school emphasizes education of the whole man: body, mind, and soul. That formation does not end when a classmate faces the most difficult test of his life. It also includes the capacity for growth after serious mistakes, if mistakes have truly been made, and the insistence of fair process even when the accusations are severe.

Nicknames and sensational framing may shape the narrative and attract attention, but they can erode the presumption of innocence that protects every American citizen. Trial by media is not the same as trial by evidence. The fundamental pillars of our criminal justice system are the presumption of innocence and due process.

The prosecution alone bears the burden of proving every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest standard in American law. The defendant has no obligation to prove innocence, present evidence, or testify. Silence cannot be held against him. Bail determinations and pretrial detention must not be treated as a conviction. Jury instructions will rightly remind fact-finders of these protections.

We have seen before how quickly media narratives around “privilege” and character can harden. A previous Chaminade alumnus, Collin Finnerty, faced intense national scrutiny and framing as a “privileged suburban” athlete during the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Scandal.

He and his co-defendants were ultimately fully exonerated. The Associated Press referred to Finnerity as having “[grown] up in privileged surroundings in the suburbs of [Garden City], New York.” As a former resident, I have heard this charging “privilege” claim quite often from within the courts and local media. Ultimately, the smears of privilege are quite effective, especially today under a racial lens, while they underscore the presumption of innocence and a careful process.

Some are fooled by these embellishments, media sound bites, and caricatured conceptions of rich, privileged, and entitled. Finnerty, a young Catholic and Duke student, was essentially strung up by this characterization. However, the accuser, stripper Crystal Mangum’s false narrative, was taken almost as absolute truth.

The legal fallout from her lies didn’t even affect her, but it did affect Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was disbarred, removed from office, and forced to serve jail time. As for Mangum, in 2013 she was convicted of second-degree murder for killing her boyfriend, Reginald Dayle. She was sentenced to 14 to 18 years. But none of that seems to matter to the press and so-called civil rights leaders. To them, this is the process, and it was well executed.

Whatever the outcome with Abbatiello’s case, Chaminade taught us that character is revealed not only in success but in how we respond to failure, accusation, or crisis—both our own and that of our brothers. We can demand accountability without abandoning the principles of justice and human dignity that our school instilled.

Share

Let the evidence be tested in open court. Let the process run its course without the community already having rendered a verdict. In the meantime, support for the families involved, respect for the courts, and a steady commitment to due process remain the better path.

I have no personal involvement in this case and claim no private knowledge of the facts. I write simply as a Chaminade alumnus and fellow Long Islander who believes the values we were taught require us to uphold fairness equally—especially when the headlines are the loudest.

Fortes In Unitate.

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

National news organizations have identified about 10–15 prominent congressional and statewide candidates who openly use the label “socialist” or “democratic socialist.” Progressive Democrats, who are a much larger segment of the “Democratic big tent,” when combined with the socialists, create a formidable opposition to the Democratic establishment.

This is the largest wave of openly socialist candidates in the United States since the 1900–1920 period, the peak of the original Socialist movement. At that time, the Socialist Party of America regularly fielded hundreds to thousands of candidates for local, state, and federal office. Eugene V. Debs received nearly 1 million votes (about 6%) in the 1912 presidential election, and the party elected more than 1,000 local officials, dozens of state legislators, over 100 mayors, and two members of Congress. Milwaukee became famous for its long line of Socialist mayors.

The Socialist movement began to collapse after World War I for several reasons. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, people began to associate socialism with revolution and didn’t want America to go that far. The second reason was the Red Scare, starting in 1919, when anarchists organized labor strikes, carried out bombings, and sought to create economic instability.

The federal government arrested and deported hundreds of suspected radicals during the Palmer Raids. Socialist organizations came under intense surveillance and public suspicion. Other reasons for socialism’s wane include the ideological split in the Socialist Party, a period of emerging economic prosperity, and government measures put in place to address public grievances.

After World War II, the onset of the Cold War prevented socialists from regaining momentum, as the Soviet Union was widely regarded as America’s greatest threat. Being a socialist candidate, then, was a guaranteed way to lose an election. Socialism remained dormant until the late 1960s, when anti-establishment ideology began to take hold in academia. By the 1990s, progressives had firmly controlled higher education. Socialists participated in and supported cultural change but remained quiet because their ideology had little public acceptance.

Now, after a hundred years on the sidelines, dissatisfaction with the federal government has reopened the door to socialism. To understand how this could occur, you have to look at how the parties implement their ideologies.

Conservatives have no ideology. They believe in individualism, freedom, and our nation’s traditions. The conservative reaction to ineffective government is to seek a populist leader who will represent them. Trump was in the right place at the right time and assumed that role. Trump’s election was a message to the conservative establishment to fix the government.

On the Democratic side, the situation is very different. When Democrats become disenchanted with their politicians, they have a backup ideology to turn to: socialism. All they have to do is unleash the dormant communists and socialists and let them run.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity during the 2016 election reflected the onset of Democratic voter dissatisfaction, but his constituency was less than a critical mass, and Hilary Clinton rigged the primaries so he couldn’t compete.

What’s different now? We can see several factors at work. Trump’s election to a second term drives the left crazy and heightens frustration with their leaders. They see those leaders as fossilized establishment lackeys, old and out of touch.

The frustrations of Gen Z are also being expressed more strongly than before, as they are older and continue to struggle to achieve the American dream. They are the coddled generation whose helicopter parents did everything for them, and they want stuff. Still, the underlying issue, as with conservatives, is an ineffective government that needs fixing.

Conservatives rely on finding someone who will restructure the government in order to make it more responsive. Right now, Trump has the Republican establishment cowed. If you cross him, you get primaried.

Liberals have a more powerful tool to replace the establishment: a new kind of government that offers a permanent fix. Establishment Democrats are cowed in the face of the socialists, and they are afraid to criticize them. In their hearts, they know the socialists are unelectable, but they’re powerless to resist the progressive tide.

Here are new candidates for the midterms

These candidates come from blue cities in blue states with high concentrations of college-educated liberals. Polls show 66% of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism. Some percentage of those people are more supportive of “Democratic Socialism” than the regime-change full socialism would bring to America.

Mamdani insists this is a national movement, but that isn’t true. We would have to see interest in electing socialists spread to more mainstream Democratic districts for his statement to be believable. Right now, socialist fervor is concentrated.

Let’s pause for a moment to review why socialism doesn’t work. The real world today is made up of democracies and dictatorships, with no socialist states functioning. The reason there are no socialist states is that people have never been willing to choose that kind of government.

People will not support governments that confiscate the fruits of their labor. In the modern world, human motivation comes from the desire to improve one’s life, so no one would be heard saying, “I work hard and wish to give away a large percentage of the benefits I accumulate to the government.”

To make socialism work, there must be an organizational entity at the top of the government that redistributes assets across the nation. People who have more will see their money taken and given to people who have less. That entity must operate as a dictatorial oligarchy, making redistribution decisions that cannot be questioned.

For that reason, it’s not hard to imagine that leadership entity turning into a functioning dictatorship at some point. The leaders would be kings, who reign for life. If they were subject to recall by voters, there would be no socialism, because voters would replace them with non-socialists.

Democratic Socialism is socialism behind the curtain. For years, Bernie Sanders has praised this ideology, citing the Nordic countries as successful examples, but a closer look shows they are, in fact, democracies with large welfare-state components. In Bernie’s telling, the American people will simply elect representatives who will implement the missing components of his welfare-state program: universal health care, guaranteed income, higher taxes on the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, free education, aggressive climate initiatives, and affordable housing.

The “Democratic” in democratic socialism assumes that people will elect candidates who will take their money, which is not going to happen. People vote for candidates they believe will protect their assets: keep taxes low, maintain a strong economy with good jobs, and protect them from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Democratic Party has a serious problem: its constituents’ dissatisfaction with the government has created an opening for the party’s left wing to pursue radical change. The establishment must defer to the left or face attack. The longer it defers, the less time remains to build an alternative case for the American people before the 2028 election.

My opinion is that the socialist movement in the Democratic Party can only be put down by voters rejecting the socialist as too radical and too far from the mainstream, not by the Democratic Party itself. The movement has to be allowed to play out. There is also another problem with the party. A divided party in 2028 could herald a Republican victory, putting the Democrats on the sidelines for eight more years.

It’s interesting to compare the 2028 election with the 1972 election, when Richard Nixon beat George McGovern in a landslide. McGovern was seen by many voters as too liberal because he proposed large cuts to defense spending, supported amnesty for many Vietnam draft evaders, and backed an ambitious expansion of social programs.

The Democratic Party was deeply divided, as many traditional Democratic leaders, labor unions, and Southern Democrats were lukewarm or openly hostile to McGovern and barely campaigned for him. Those same groups are in play this time.

Even though there is no single union position on socialism, most American unions do not identify as socialist. They believe in reaching their goals within the capitalist system. Some unions are more conservative and would never vote for socialist candidates.

Share

The South is very different from what it was in 1972. Back then, it was socially conservative, often supportive of business and anti-communist and anti-socialist. Today’s Southerners are more moderate than those in the coastal states, unlikely to support Democratic Socialism, and more focused on healthcare, education, jobs, and infrastructure.

Socialists will be in trouble if they run in nationwide elections because they are too radical for most Americans. The elections this fall will be interesting, but the 2028 election is the real test of socialist momentum.

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

Christmas is the day that holds all time together.
-- Alexander Smith

It is a very Christian sentiment, and it got me thinking about how much society has changed over the years and about what it is that holds a society together. It isn’t surprising that this quote is unapologetically Christian. Smith was a Scottish poet who lived from 1829 to 1867.

He lived in a different world. A Christian world. At least with respect to the West.

The foundation of Western society, the common belief that held society together, was Christianity. Sure, there were different variants, often in conflict with each other, but our laws, morals, and social norms were based upon a common set of values which were largely taken from Christianity and the Bible. At least broadly speaking. Christianity wasn’t the entirety of Western civilization, but it supplied a shared moral framework within which those other institutions operated.

What is our common denominator today? Is it still Christianity? The table below shows that the percentage of people claiming to be Christian has declined significantly and, in some locations, it has declined to such an extent that Christianity is now a minority in some Western countries.

The decline in Western religiosity is a complicated topic with many mutually reinforcing changes. Science gradually replaced religion as the West’s primary explanatory authority for the natural world. Rising existential security reduced the need to explain things that once made life extremely precarious: infant mortality, famine, disease, premature death, war. Religion, which was once an important factor in a person’s identity, became just another choice a person could make. And the list goes on.

However, we don’t need to explain why things changed to recognize that they did—and that Christianity can no longer be considered our common belief system. As much as many of us may wish otherwise, it is not the glue that binds us together.

So, if Christianity isn’t holding Western countries together, what is? What has replaced Christianity as the bedrock of Western society?

“Liberal democracy?”

That is certainly something all Western countries have in common, but you can’t hold a society together with something so simple as “I have rights.” Rights conflict, so are as likely to cause conflict as to prevent it.

“Freedom” doesn’t work either, as it only unites us when it is threatened. And even then, it is only if we all agree what freedom means. And we don’t.

Many have suggested that “civility is the glue that holds society together.” It’s certainly a catchy quote. However, civility is less a glue than it is a means to avoid conflict. I can be polite to people in a foreign country without needing to have anything in common with them.

The longer I think about this and the deeper I dig trying to find bedrock, the more worried I become. I fear that over the last 50 years Western society has slowly replaced Christianity with “multiculturalism” and “tolerance,” and if I’m right, that’s a big problem.

“Multiculturalism,” as it is currently practiced in the West, requires adherents to believe one of two things, each wrong in its own way. The first requires supporters to believe that culture and values are somehow separate. That people from China, India, or Iran are just Westerners who dress differently, speak a different language, and eat different types of food. The second belief, which at least pays lip service to the existence of significant differences, assumes that cultures can coexist without shared values.

Both assumptions are seriously flawed. Culture and values are not distinct; they overlap. Different cultures may share some similar values, but they do not share them all. How different cultures are from each other greatly influences how likely it is that they can coexist. Believing otherwise is what has contributed to much of the strife resulting from mass immigration.

Share

“Perhaps,” you might say, “but certainly tolerance is a good thing, right?”

Sure, but “live and let live” is hardly a unifying creed. Tolerance may be a virtue, but it’s a negative virtue; it doesn’t tell us what to do, but rather what not to do. If anything, it promotes the fragmentation of society by promoting, or at least tolerating, the creation of sub-communities that have little in common other than some shared infrastructure and the right to vote.

I fear that in our efforts to “live and let live,” to believe that everyone is essentially the same and wants essentially the same things, we have planted the seeds of our own destruction.

My question to you is this: can a society survive indefinitely without a shared conception of what is good?

About the Author
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 whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece

The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

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

While he is gone, Lindsay Clancy takes their three children downstairs. Cora is five. Dawson is three. Callan is eight months old. She wraps exercise bands around their necks and kills them one by one. Then she cuts herself and jumps from a second-story window. She lives. They die. He comes home to a yard, a dying wife, and three small corpses. His 911 call sounded like an animal being ripped open.

The ending of that night was not a legal theory. It was three coffins smaller than coffee tables, slammed shut in a room that should have held toys. Cora. Dawson. Callan. You do not get to dress this up as “awareness.”

A jury in Massachusetts is deciding what to call her. Her lawyers want postpartum psychosis. If the jury buys it, she is a patient. If they do not, she is a murderer staring at life with no parole.

Now the part her fan club misses. Normal people call it reality.

I spoke with an Ivy League–trained psychiatrist who wants to stay nameless. Not a talk-show performer. A specialist who treats this collapse for a living. The expert was blunt. The drug mix in Clancy’s blood does not turn a nurse into a methodical child killer.

Those combined medicines make people foggy, slow, heavy. They smear a plan. They do not hone one. A person that medicated does not shove a husband out the door on a clock, march three children into a basement, and finish the job before the headlights swing back.

Fog does not keep time.

A plan does.

Postpartum psychosis almost always detonates in the first days or weeks after birth, not when the baby is already eight months old. Eight months is a long stretch to hunt for help, stockpile pills, write in journals, send a man on an errand, then swear the devil snatched the wheel at dinner. Clancy’s version does not sound like an illness. It sounds like a script written after the bodies went cold.

Then the second horror crawled in. This one wears ring lights.

After the trial clips spread, younger mothers started filming themselves scaring or hurting their own kids and calling it support for Lindsay. Shake the baby. Slap the toddler. Hover over the crib like a nightmare. Jam a phone in the face of a child who cannot leave and cannot understand.

They called it sisterhood.

They called it awareness.

It was neither.

It was a séance with an audience.

A baby does not know what a verdict is. A toddler does not know Lindsay Clancy. They know one face in the whole world is supposed to mean milk, love, and safety. Then that face transforms. The voice goes sharp. The hands get rough. A slab of black glass slides between them and the person who was supposed to keep them alive. The child pays in raw fear so the adult can play holy victim for strangers.

Clancy killed three children and a slice of the internet tried to sanctify her. The cameras did not stay in Duxbury. They slithered into other nurseries. States have sued Discord, Roblox, and Meta over platforms that treat kids like disposable currency and give a stage to these unholy performances. This won’t ever stop until social media companies decide to grow a conscience.

Here is why the abuse of men belongs in this story. The Clancy chorus did not build a new machine. It fed the old one: female pain is sacred, a child’s terror is content, and the man who objects is the monster.

If a culture can saint a mother who films a child’s panic, it can brand a father the threat the second he opens his mouth. That is the same spell, just pointed at a different body. First the child is the prop. Then the man is.

Workplaces learned the trick early. DEI rules taught offices to treat male workers like a stain, as if presence itself were the offense. MeToo started as a hunt for real predators and decayed into the same shortcut: an accusation is almost as good as proof. The gym made it content. A woman shows up in a skimpy outfit built to be stared at. A man looks. She films him. Suddenly he is the creep, and she is the victim. The phone does what it did over the crib. It picks a saint and a monster before anyone has time to think.

Female pain gets the halo. The man gets the rope. That is toxic femininity on full display.

A man ruined by a clip, a rumor, or a workplace script cannot sound the alarm about a crib. Fathers are not “in their feelings.” They are doing the math. A culture that can turn three murdered children into a trend, then film the next child’s panic for likes, is not a culture you trust with a locked door.

This environment endangers women. The men who used to come when they screamed have learned that scream can be bait. So, they hesitate. Then they stop coming. Not because the dark got smaller. Because the last decade taught them that running toward it can ruin them too, and the damsel was the monster all along.

Share

The house does not get safer when the men stop coming home. The thing in the basement does not grow a conscience. Women who clap for cruelty, fake wounds, and child-as-content will not inherit a quieter night.

Three children are already gone. Do not play shocked when men stay outside and let the dark eat whoever is left. All women are in danger because some women are insane. But that is not the scariest part. The scariest part is that the ranks of the insane keep swelling.

Which way, Western man?

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

Thinking of that discussion, I thought I would have a conversation with ChatGPT to see what it has to say about the Savior Complex. I use Chat daily for many different purposes and find it to be a great tool for increasing productivity and learning. I’m probably engaged with it one or two hours a day.

I am aware of ChatGPT’s left bias, but that characteristic can be useful here. It doesn’t resist debate the way opinionated humans do, and it doesn’t react when you attack its beliefs because it lacks emotions.

I started the discussion by asking it to define the Savior Complex.

Chat: The savior complex (sometimes called the messiah complex or rescuer syndrome) is a pattern where someone feels a strong need to “save,” fix, rescue, or solve other people’s problems, often beyond what is appropriate or requested.

A person with a savior complex may:

• Feel responsible for other people’s happiness or success.

• Rush to give advice or intervene, even when not asked.

• Be attracted to relationships where the other person has significant problems.

• Have difficulty setting boundaries.

• Feel valuable primarily when helping others.

• Become frustrated when their help is rejected.

• Neglect their own needs while focusing on others.

Chat: Are you asking about it in general, or are you wondering whether a particular person (or perhaps yourself) might have some traits of it?

Me: Many on the left have this condition.

Chat: Some people argue that certain political activists—on the left, right, or elsewhere—can exhibit behaviors resembling a savior complex. However, it’s not accurate to say that “many on the left” have the condition as a general fact. Critics sometimes apply this criticism to progressive activists, particularly in discussions of poverty, social justice, international aid, or identity politics.

At the same time, similar patterns can appear across the political spectrum. For example:

• Some conservatives may feel compelled to “save” people from moral decline or bad life choices.

• Some religious movements emphasize saving others spiritually.

• Some libertarians see themselves as rescuing society from government overreach.

The underlying psychological pattern—feeling uniquely responsible for rescuing others—is not inherently tied to a particular ideology. It is a human tendency that can attach itself to many different political, religious, or social causes.

Me: Yes, but some progressives’ visions reflect a distorted reality, driven by a savior complex.

Chat: You’re touching on a criticism that some commentators, psychologists, and political writers have made: that certain forms of progressive activism can become so focused on an ideal vision of how society should be that they develop a strong aversion to how people actually behave, think, and organize.

Critics argue that this can lead to paternalism or a “we know what’s best for you” attitude. They sometimes describe it as being disconnected from the realities of human nature, incentives, tradeoffs, or cultural differences.

Me: An example of their position is that there are more than 2 genders, which is not true.

Chat: That’s a good example of an issue where people disagree not only about values but also about the meaning of words and the relationship among biology, psychology, and social identity.

People who argue there are only two genders typically base their view on biological sex. They point out that humans are a sexually reproducing species organized around male and female reproductive roles, and they see gender as inseparable from that biological reality.

People who argue there are more than two genders usually make a distinction between:

• Biological sex (male, female, with some intersex variations), and

• Gender identity (a person’s internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or something else).

From that perspective, “gender” is understood as a social and psychological category rather than strictly a biological one.

Whether one views the latter position as an acknowledgment of human diversity or as a rejection of reality depends largely on one’s underlying assumptions about what gender is.

It’s important to recognize that reasonable people can disagree on this question:

• Some see the concept of multiple genders as a legitimate description of human experience.

• Others see it as redefining language in a way that obscures biological facts.

• Many people occupy intermediate positions—for example, accepting biological sex as binary while acknowledging that some individuals experience gender identity in ways that don’t fit traditional categories.

The disagreement is often less about observable facts than about definitions, philosophy, and how society should organize language, law, and social norms around those facts.

One thing that can help clarify discussions is asking: “Are we talking about biological sex, gender identity, legal status, social roles, or something else?” People often use the word gender to mean different things, which can make the debate seem more confusing than it actually is.

In political or social contexts, critics sometimes use “savior complex” to describe activists, reformers, religious missionaries, philanthropists, or policymakers who assume they know what is best for others and seek to direct their lives accordingly. The criticism is that the focus shifts from helping people achieve their own goals to guiding them toward goals the rescuer believes they should have.

The defining feature is not kindness or generosity. It’s the combination of:

• “I know what is best for you,” and

• “I am responsible for making it happen.”

That combination is what distinguishes a savior complex from ordinary compassion or charitable behavior.

Me: What bothers me about the left is that their passion for issues misses the fact that the remedies are difficult to implement, and they don’t seem to care when things aren’t working. This demonstrates their savior complex.

Chat: What you’re expressing is a fairly common criticism of some progressive political movements: that they can be highly focused on identifying problems and advocating solutions, but sometimes place less emphasis on implementation challenges, unintended consequences, or evidence that a policy is not achieving its intended results.

From that perspective, the concern is not the goals themselves—reducing poverty, improving education, addressing discrimination, expanding healthcare, and so on—but rather:

• Whether the proposed solution is practical.

• Whether it accounts for human behavior and incentives.

• Whether it can be implemented effectively at scale.

• Whether advocates are willing to revise their views when results are disappointing.

Critics often argue that good intentions are not enough; outcomes matter. They may point to programs that produced mixed results despite noble goals and argue that policymakers should be more willing to admit failure and change courses.

Progressives would often respond that:

• Many social problems are inherently difficult, and progress can be slow.

• Imperfect results do not necessarily mean the underlying goal or approach is flawed.

• Opponents sometimes declare policy failures prematurely or without considering what conditions would have been like otherwise.

• Major reforms often require years or decades before their effects become clear.

Me: Here are my observations from this conversation. When you criticize the left, Chat accuses you of generalizing, and to prove it, gives a specific example showing that the right exhibits the same behavior. And phrases like “a majority of the left” get softened into “some people on the left,” trying to defuse groupthink on the left.

Chat has my characterization of the left as a savior-complex group by challenging the claim that it is a left behavior. It attacks my belief that the left has a distorted reality by stating that left reality is different from mine but equal, and that the two gender issue is really just a matter of point of view.

The savior complex is real on the left, and the evidence is pretty strong in my view. Look at the $ 10 billion Los Angeles has poured into the homeless problem without measurable success. The feeling that they’re helping disadvantaged groups is apparently more important than achieving the desired result. If they got the same high out of a successful implementation, the results would be better.

The ideology embedded in ChatGPT is from the Postmodernist handbook, particularly Michel Foucault’s ideas. There is no truth, only opinion. Different people can have different views, and both can be right. Those views are driven by ideology.

I agree that this is acceptable for the individual, but not for the group.

If big issues are approached using Foucault’s theory, the result is the tribal conflict created by the two differing worldviews held by Americans. As in pure science, there must be a way to build consensus on what is true in the social sphere. In the case of government programs, truth is agreement on the best way to achieve important goals, a real consensus about the truth.

Share

What the left has done recently, during its time controlling the executive branch, is to express its Savior complex and its own truth, whether through child grooming, the spread of its ideology through USAID, and other programs. The left found a way to succeed by bypassing the need for a consensus-derived truth.

This realization means that control of the presidency is now more important to conservatives than it has ever been in our country’s history.

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

Yet, just after lunch on that warm September day, the atmosphere quickly became anything but quiet. Suddenly, a shot was heard all around the world, and a sea of smartphone screens, television cameras, and shouting voices filled the plaza.

In the immediate aftermath, an air of unity began to take form. However, that mood was quickly twisted into a three-ring circus as vultures, led by a disgruntled former employee, flooded the airwaves with accusations and conspiracies – anything to monetize the senseless death.

To a bystander watching the spectacle, the endless noise made tabloid headlines look like sober journalism. The real tragedy had taken a backseat to chaos, leaving the central question buried under the outrage: Who was the man behind the headlines?

To understand Charlie Kirk, you had to look far past the noise of his death and return to where his story began.

He grew up in the quiet middle-class suburbs of Chicago, the eldest son of self-described “moderate Republicans.” His path took root early—he was introduced to Jesus in the Presbyterian Church and born again in fifth grade. He often stated that it was the most important decision he ever made.

By middle school, while other kids were focused on video games, Charlie was devouring the economic writings of Milton Friedman while still participating in sports. High school only accelerated his drive. He volunteered on a U.S. Senate campaign, organized a student boycott to reverse a cafeteria cookie price hike, earned his Eagle Scout rank, and landed a Fox News interview at age 17 after writing a Breitbart essay on liberal bias in school textbooks.

After high school, he tried the traditional path, but lasted only a single semester in college. He saw a generation being ignored by political pundits and left unchallenged in university lecture halls. Rather than complaining from the sidelines, 18-year-old Charlie decided to do something about this problem. In June 2012, he founded Turning Point USA to bring free-market and limited-government principles directly to young people.

Supported by figures like Bill Montgomery, Ginni Thomas, Foster Friess, and Barry Russell, TPUSA rapidly expanded. By 2017, it was an $8 million powerhouse. By the 2024 presidential election, its political action arm, TP Action, was credited with mobilizing millions of voters, and Charlie maintained a direct line of communication with President Donald Trump.

Yet, to categorize Charlie simply as an activist missed his core nature. He was also an autodidact scholar. It was a paradox that a man who railed against higher education spent so much of his life on college campuses. But Charlie never stopped learning.

He didn’t rely on a professor’s syllabus; he read relentlessly, exploring history, theology, and economics on his own. He could rattle off statistics, quote historical figures, or cite Bible verses from memory. He didn’t want the comfort of a classroom—he wanted to test his ideas in the open arena of ideas. He was, for all intents and purposes, an intellectual gladiator, constantly testing himself against competing ideas.

He was a true American Patriot. He didn’t view his work as an abstract academic exercise. To him, spreading limited-government principles was the difference between preserving the Constitutional Republic or watching it fade away. As he matured and had kids of his own, that legacy became even more important. Following the Boy Scout principle of leaving things in better shape than they were found in, he wanted to leave his kids and grandkids a country in better shape than the one he grew up in, and worked diligently toward that goal.

However, if you had asked Charlie himself what defined his life, he wouldn’t have pointed to the political victories, the organizational growth, or the national media appearances.

In June 2024, when asked how he hoped to be remembered, he didn’t hesitate:

“I want to be remembered for courage for my faith. That would be the most important thing. The most important thing is my faith in my life.”

That same summer, he distilled his personal creed down to six simple imperatives:

“Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. Pass down your values. Pursue the eternal. Seek true joy.”

His faith was the true engine of his work. As TPUSA grew, he launched TP Faith to encourage cultural engagement grounded in spiritual health. He wrote his final book on the importance of reviving the Sabbath, constantly reminding those around him of his priorities: God, family, and country—in that order.

Those who watched his personal life saw that devotion firsthand. When he introduced his wife, Erika, on his show, their mutual devotion was obvious and unfiltered. And when their daughter was born, a profound shift occurred within him. The quick-witted campus debater matured into a strategic long-term planner, focused entirely on what kind of world he would leave behind for his children and grandchildren.

Share

Following the events in the UVU courtyard, as the shouting heads continue their conspiracies and wild accusations for the fools in their audience, the circus feels remarkably small compared to the legacy of the man whose murder is at the center of it. Beyond the speculation and the vultures trying to tear down his memory, the answer to who Charlie Kirk was remains simple and humbling:

• He was a patriot who sought to preserve his country for future generations.

• He was a scholar who never stopped learning.

• He was a family man who deeply loved his wife and children.

• And most importantly, he was a man of faith—flawed as all people are—who hoped his life would point others toward God.

He was a good man, whose life deserves to be honored.

Rest in Peace, Charlie.

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

Recent reports show that Piker disparaged black people, saying: “Let’s go back to a better time, when lynchings were happening.” If that weren’t enough to suggest his affinity for making racial lynchings “great again,” Piker responded to a 2025 Twitch viewer, saying that certain black people could “suck” a particular part of his anatomy.

While Mr. Piker’s defenders may claim that deciphering his statements is as difficult as unraveling Lewis Carroll’s legendary The Hunting for the Snark, Piker’s words mirror apex predators’ attempt to dominate “others.” Only the naïve among us should be surprised that Piker plagiarizes the KKK’s playbook to intimidate blacks, perhaps because they understand, better than most, Solzhenitsyn’s great claim that “socialism needs propaganda because reality always ends up contradicting it.”

Racism and group hatred have appeared in many cultures throughout history. In Anglo-American history, these ideas gained momentum through the leadership of Fabian intellectuals in Britain and Southern Democrats in the United States. Because power—whether held by individuals, social groups, or institutions—often tends toward manipulation and control, it would be unfair to claim that public intellectuals and institutions during Jim Crow, the Progressive Era, the New Deal, or the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) invented racial contempt as a weapon against the unwanted.

It would be accurate to claim that the intellectual leaders of such movements perfected the ideology of human exclusion as a vehicle for political advancement. While we ought to be disturbed by Piker’s racist statements, however sarcastic his defenders claim them to be, and while we should note that his rhetoric mirrors the racist vocabulary of Nick Fuentes, a man of the political right who now promises to vote for Democrats, alarm bells should sound.

Michigan voters should be alarmed that Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic Socialist, has aligned himself with Piker. Whether Piker suffers from what Polish psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski labels “pathocracy,” wherein individuals with personality disorders seek to acquire power, El-Sayed’s fellowship with Piker raises inextricably vexed questions.

Scholar Peter Turchin’s book, End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration, explains elites’ pathway to power. He demonstrates that when societies face an overproduction of elites—a group that includes wealthy social influencers like Piker—it leads to political dissolution. Often these elites seek to direct the nation’s future on behalf of the “wretched of the earth” even though they are just as selfish as the rest of us.

The history of political disintegration—including the U. S. Civil War along with its racially exclusionary aftermath and the implosion of Germany coupled with the rise of German socialism that ushered in the Third Reich—shows that race or religious disputes like the one that sparked the 19th-century civil war in China have spawned conflict on the road to power.

Against this backdrop, Mr. El-Sayed must urgently distance himself from Mr. Piker’s rhetoric. That task is politically difficult because Piker holds significant appeal among young, upper-income, college-educated voters—an audience that substantially overlaps with the DSA’s base. If El-Sayed breaks up with one of his most visible supporters, he risks alienating voters who see Piker as an influential voice.

Despite these challenges, key questions remain. Will El-Sayed dissolve his association with Mr. Piker and denounce his rhetoric? If he does not, will Sayed’s close supporters, such as Mr. Horace Sheffield, a leading black minister, insist that El-Sayed do so? And if Mr. Sheffield fails to oppose Mr. Piker’s rhetoric forcefully, would his standing within Detroit’s civic and religious community crater?

Ms. Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic candidate for governor, faces a more complicated question. Voters may rightly ask where she stands on Mr. Piker, even if she continues to withhold support from El-Sayed. Her tenure as a board member of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) adds a further layer of scrutiny.

As Mr. Piker faces allegations of racist misconduct, the SPLC faces credible allegations that it funded racist hate groups, including the KKK, during Ms. Benson’s leadership. Her candidacy, despite its plausible yet unclear connection to the DSA’s current momentum, deserves sustained scrutiny unless she clearly distances herself from the toxic fumes surrounding Mr. Piker’s association with Mr. Sayed’s candidacy.

Share

Whether El-Sayed, Sheffield, or Benson pass the inescapably urgent tests ahead, America must confront its overproduction of elites in desperate pursuit of power. It is up to the rest of us to ensure that this pursuit by elite socialist sympathizers and fellow travelers does not lead to political disintegration led by individuals who, as Hannah Arendt observes, are prepared to destroy civilization for the fun of seeing newcomers achieve power.

After all, the world’s most famous socialists, fueled by their elitist and transgressive pursuit of human perfection—from the organizers of the French Revolution to Lenin, Mao, and the leaders of the Third Reich—have selfishly shed rivers of blood in the name of the little people.

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

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report exposed decades of industrial-scale horror. Predominantly Pakistani Muslim gangs systematically groomed, raped, tortured and trafficked at least 250,000 vulnerable White British girls. What began with gifts, alcohol and drugs turned into gang rapes, beatings, waterboarding, trafficking and forced pregnancies. Entire towns became hunting grounds while authorities looked the other way.

Police, social services and politicians saw the pattern. They heard the screams. They chose silence because they feared the “racism” label more than they feared little girls being passed around like meat. Caution replaced prosecutions. Evidence vanished.

Community relations mattered more than broken children. The report demands justice through tougher sentencing, deportation of foreign offenders and proper recording of ethnicity and religion. Every leader who enabled this betrayal has blood on their hands.

Keir Starmer and the Labour Party stand exposed as cowards who let it happen on their watch.

Scotland delivered raw proof that the system has collapsed. Last August in Dundee, a 14-year-old girl grabbed a knife and axe to protect her 12-year-old sister from foreign men who were harassing and assaulting them. Video showed the terrified sisters pleading for the men to stop. One girl screamed “Don’t touch her!” while brandishing the blades in desperation. Police swooped in and charged the child defender with ‘offensive weapons’. The men walked free at first. Only this summer was the perpetrator convicted.

The case became known as Sophie of Dundee. A child forced to arm herself because the state failed to protect her family.

The pressure built until it exploded again. In June, in Edinburgh, a 36-year-old Scottish man snapped. Armed with knives, he went on a stabbing rampage against several Muslims, shouting that he was protecting the country from them. When the law fails citizens, vigilantes are inevitable.

Northern Ireland erupted into open revolt. Masked locals torched properties and clashed with police. In Newry, Mourne and Down, the New Republican Movement released a chilling video warning: “You have flooded our communities with military-age migrant men. We will not sit back and watch our culture and religion destroyed.”

They knew the addresses and vowed action to protect women and children. This followed the Ballymena riots sparked by sexual assault claims and the June attempted beheading on Belfast’s streets. Knife crime and sexual offences are surging while foreign-born numbers explode. The people have had enough of elites lecturing them about compassion from their safe ivory towers.

These flashpoints share the same rotten core. Brexit promised control but human rights laws and globalist pressure kept the floodgates open. George Soros and his Open Society Foundations bankroll a web of NGOs and campaigns that actively block migrant deportations, fight enforcement and expand inflows across Britain and Europe. They fund legal challenges that grind removals to a halt in the courts, attitude-shifting projects that rebrand open borders as moral necessity, and refugee networks that lobby relentlessly for more arrivals under the banner of compassion.

Predators keep entering while native communities are treated as expendable.

The fury finally broke the system. The grooming gangs scandal, the arrest of a child forced to defend her sister, the vigilante stabbing in Edinburgh and the open revolt in Northern Ireland created an unstoppable wave of public anger. Keir Starmer was forced out as Prime Minister in disgrace, his government collapsing under the weight of elite betrayal and failed policies that treated citizens as expendable.

And don’t be fooled by Andy Burnham stepping in. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, he commissioned reviews into the very grooming gang scandals that devastated Rochdale, yet whistleblowers like Maggie Oliver called them limited paper exercises where survivors were sidelined, professionals resigned in protest, and he protected the institutions rather than ripping out the rot. Replacing Starmer with Burnham is just swapping one face of the same failed establishment for another. It will be more of the same betrayal... or worse.

Share

Britain and Northern Ireland need real borders now. Criminal migrants and failed claimants must be removed fast. Dumping unvetted outsiders into communities without consent must end. The grooming gangs shattered thousands of little girls. A child in Scotland had to arm herself to save her sister. A man in Edinburgh took the law into his own hands. Northern Ireland watched an attempted beheading on its streets.

After years of sexual assaults, harassment and imported violence, the question burns hotter than ever. When will enough be enough? How many more must bleed before the elites are dragged from their bunkers and citizens are finally put first?

The streets have spoken.

The reckoning has begun.

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

After the first year, when a general understanding of how to manage the disease had emerged, the right began to question certain aspects of government action. Then, as the lockdowns continued, conservatives began pushing to reopen the economy to get people back to work. Many red states opened. Most blue states remained closed.

Early reopeners (mostly Republican-led): Georgia, Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Alaska generally lifted restrictions sooner and often avoided prolonged statewide lockdowns. Georgia, Alaska, and Oklahoma began partial reopening in late April 2020, among the earliest in the country.

Later reopeners (mostly Democratic led): California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Oregon generally kept restrictions in place longer and reopened in more gradual phases. Some coordinated their approaches through regional agreements.

Subsequent data released after COVID was under control caused significant anger among conservatives, who saw false information being used to justify control, including “Get the shot and you won’t get the disease” and “Get the shot to keep you from infecting others.” Later, Dr. Fauci admitted the six-foot separation rule, which was rigidly enforced, was arbitrary and not based on research.

Europe was even more draconian than the American left. Strict closures and closed economies were common, but less so in the Northern countries. Sweden never closed down during the pandemic.

After COVID, the red state-blue state migration began in earnest. People started migrating from blue states to red states in big numbers.

The biggest losers in recent Census domestic migration data are New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Alaska. The Census Bureau’s 2025 estimates show New York and California continuing to have the largest net domestic outflows, with Illinois still losing residents.

There is a noticeable pattern: many of the largest out-migration states are traditionally blue, while many of the largest in-migration states are Southern and Mountain West states, such as South Carolina, Idaho, North Carolina, and Tennessee. However, the reasons appear to be a mix of housing costs, taxes, climate, retirement migration, and remote work, not just politics.

The left argues that higher taxes fund services people want, such as public schools, universities, transit, healthcare programs, parks, environmental protection, and social services. Some people and businesses leave because of taxes, but others stay because they value those services, job opportunities, or the overall quality of life.

For example, states like California and New York have experienced substantial out-migration, yet they remain economic powerhouses with large populations and high incomes. Many Democratic policymakers point to those strengths as evidence that taxes are not the only factor driving migration.

Republicans argue that the cause of the migration is higher taxes, which raise the cost of living; give businesses and retirees the incentive to move, and create more government inefficiency.

Surveys of movers frequently cite housing costs, taxes, and cost of living as reasons for leaving high-tax states. But the data also show that housing prices often matter even more than tax rates. Someone may leave California because a house costs $1 million, not simply because state income taxes are high.

Many Democrats would argue that they do see the risk of high taxes, but they view it as a tradeoff rather than a mistake.

One reason the issue remains politically contentious is that both sides can point to real evidence. Republicans can point to migration toward lower-tax states. Democrats can point to high-income, innovative economies that continue to attract talent and investment despite higher taxes.

So, the disagreement usually isn’t about whether taxes affect behavior. It’s about whether the benefits funded by those taxes are worth the cost, and whether taxes are the primary driver of migration or just one of several factors.

What will the state-to-state migrations eventually lead to? Civil War with blue against red? There are several possible endpoints, and history suggests civil war is unlikely.

First of all, the “red state vs. blue state” is partly an illusion. Most states are politically mixed. Even states that vote reliably Republican contain large Democratic populations, and vice versa. Research finds much more overlap among citizens than election maps suggest.

If the current trend continues, the logical endpoints are:

1. Geographic sorting (most likely)

People increasingly move to places that fit their politics and culture. We already see this as conservatives move to Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. Liberals are moving to Colorado, Washington, and certain metropolitan areas.

The country remains united, but lifestyles, media consumption, schools, and state laws become increasingly different.

2. State-level policy divergence

States effectively become semi-distinct societies under the same federal government. We see states with different approaches to abortion, gun laws, education, environmental regulation, and voting rules. The federal government becomes weaker relative to the states because national consensus becomes harder to achieve.

3. Permanent national gridlock

The parties become so evenly matched that neither side can consistently govern. This creates frequent policy swings, declining trust in institutions, and increased executive action because Congress cannot compromise. Many political scientists think the U.S. is already moving in this direction.

4. Constitutional restructuring

If polarization becomes severe enough, pressure could build for structural reforms, such as ranked-choice voting, multi-party systems, electoral reforms, or changes to the Senate or Electoral College. Historically, countries often reform institutions before they break apart, but the framers made it difficult to change our Constitution.

5. Secession or national breakup (least likely)

This is the endpoint people often imagine, but it runs into a practical problem. The divide isn’t really state-versus-state. It’s urban vs. rural, college-educated vs. non-college, cultural identities, and media ecosystems. For example, California contains millions of conservatives, and Texas contains millions of liberals. There is no clean line to draw. The political map resembles a patchwork more than two separate nations.

The deeper endpoint
What concerns many scholars more is affective polarization—people increasingly seeing members of the other party as immoral, dangerous, or un-American rather than simply wrong. Recent surveys show large increases in negative views of the opposing party. When that happens, compromise starts looking like betrayal.

Share

So the real logical endpoint is not necessarily a geographic split. It’s a society where political identity becomes a person’s primary identity—more important than religion, occupation, neighborhood, or even family ties.

The encouraging counterpoint is that American history has repeatedly gone through periods of intense division—the 1850s, the 1890s, the late 1960s—and eventually new issues emerge that rearrange political coalitions. The parties and the dividing lines rarely stay frozen for more than a generation, because generational change is always pushing our society in new directions.

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

So, yes, there are people who like the WNBA, just not enough to make it profitable. Here is what NBA Commissioner Adam Silver had to say about the league’s financial situation in 2025:

Despite significant monetary support from the NBA, the WNBA is “still expected to lose $40 million this season. The tickets are very inexpensive, but even at low prices, we’re not selling enough tickets to run a viable business.”

My solution would be to give them all sticks, replace the basketball with a puck, and make them play on ice, but as a Canadian I may be biased.

It also wouldn’t fix the real problem, which is that women’s sports suck - at least compared to men’s. Don’t get me wrong, I say the same thing about semi-pro men’s leagues so I’m not being sexist. I just don’t like watching sports unless it’s being played by the best players.

This is where the WNBA’s second problem comes in. To improve the game, they kinda want to let men play.

That’s not the way the league will phrase it, of course.

Its collective bargaining agreement states that “only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA.” However, they don’t define “woman” or outline any hormone or biological criteria. They also released this statement recently:

“We embrace justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Those are the values that unite this Union and allow it to protect women’s sports while creating transformational change. Hate, abuse, and demonization of any person or group of people, including transgender people, only fuel fear, division, and harm. We will continue to have hard conversations. But we will not be used as political pawns.”

Blah, blah, blah.

If you’re running a women’s league and you can’t come out and say, “no men allowed,” are you really a women’s league?

Wouldn’t it be more honest to rename the WNBA the WWWNBA, where the second and third Ws stand for “wink, wink.”

The desire to parrot DEI platitudes was all well and good when society was too cowed to question these conflicting statements, but then Sophie Cunningham had to open her mouth and spew this hateful and transphobic statement:

“I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

Gasp!

Fortunately, the WNBA does not have any transgender women players who might take offense at the statement. Unless you count non-binary players, which I don’t for the same reason I don’t count unicorns as horses.

Still, there were plenty of “empathetic” people around to ensure that the WNBA aligned itself on the “right” side. By which I mean the side wanting biological men to play in women’s sports. This included Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve, who had this to say:

“We need to protect trans kids. To me, it’s a human rights issue. Every kid has a right to sports.”

The league made its position clear(er) by calling on Big Brother to help:

“Online, report abusive posts and drown out the bots and bad actors. At home, tell your elected officials to strengthen Title IX.”

“Strengthen Title IX.”

The irony of making this statement while arguing that biological men should be allowed to play in women’s sports appears to have been lost on the league’s PR department. Well, it’s not like Media Studies is heavy on logic.

It’s obvious that the WNBA’s brain trust wants to support women and trans women (read: men). That’s their right, of course. And honestly, what could possibly go wrong by attempting to sit on a fence dividing reality from the world of make-believe?

Wait! Breaking news! It appears that ex-NBA players Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White are claiming to be women and have vowed to enter next year’s WNBA Draft.

How brave! How heroic! Two marginalized transwomen striving to bust down the barriers of hate that are keeping them oppressed. “Transwomen are women!”

Inspiring.

The WNBA must be overjoyed!

Wait! I’m getting an update on this breaking news. It appears that the league does not believe the claims of these two strong and beautiful women, going so far as to denounce their efforts as “bad-faith” actions meant to “demean or marginalize others.”

Share

I’m shocked! I thought “your gender is what you say it is.” I thought “no one can tell you your gender.” How can an anti-hate task force call into question a person’s right to identify as they see fit?

I can just see the next hateful step: a biological definition of “woman.” Who will define it? What if there are multiple conflicting definitions?

Who am I to believe? Is there no slogan that will save me?

Wait...

#BelieveAllWomen.

About the Author
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 whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece
The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

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

Early on, I signed the Great Barrington Declaration because it made sense to me. I had a high-risk spouse, so I had to stay home. But most other people didn’t. Why would college students need to be locked down? Or children, who had already been established to be at low risk from COVID? Couldn’t they be going out and acquiring the “herd immunity” needed to end this?

I looked at home and herbal remedies. There were links to studies that were forming. Hydroxychloroquine? Z-pack? Zinc and quercetin? Vitamin D? I stocked up on vitamins and herbs. Things started to get weird in March 2020. But I still had faith that those “at the top” would keep things at least somewhat sane.

Boy was I wrong.

It started with the outpatient treatments and home remedies. WHY we were not supposed to have treatments for this illness before hospitalization was never explained. The media were spreading stories about a woman poisoning her husband with “fish tank cleaner”, which she supposedly mistook as hydroxychloroquine.

And Dr Anthony Fauci was calling any results from hydroxychloroquine “anecdotal” evidence, which is Doctor-speak for “we haven’t seen the studies”. And it should not mean that doctors who are seeing results shouldn’t share them.

I was confounded until someone sent me a link to studies that were forming. The study on hydroxychloroquine would be using 2000 MG Vitamin C as a placebo. I did know that placebos in medical studies were not always inert, if specific results were desired. It was obvious to me that the study was looking to minimize the proof of efficacy. So that when they HAD the studies….

By the end of July, Fauci was saying that “the Science” shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating Coronavirus. But we already had verbal approval in April from Dr Fauci for Remdesivir, the experimental Ebola drug, which was far more dangerous for patients. And far more expensive, at about $500 a vial, versus less than a dollar a tablet for generic hydroxychloroquine.

Then there were the lockdowns. In Fauci’s emails, Stanford professor Jay Battacharya became a “fringe epidemiologist” who wanted to “let it rip”. But apparently we needed to follow the Chinese (and now Italian) model.

This is where things got scary. Not the name-calling, not even the “two weeks to slow the spread”. It was realizing the extent of the collusion between Fauci and the media to smear anyone who dissented from his directives. The few people calling for sanity were being harassed and even suspended from social media. Seeing almost everyone I knew following these directives into dangerous behaviors was something I never expected.

It started with the “fish tank cleaner” stories, the arrest of lone paddle boarders, the forcing of masks on toddlers (when Fauci himself had previously stated that masks didn’t help). As things went on, the smearing spread to Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning medicine that was reduced to “horse paste” because it might or might not be effective, but we couldn’t have dissenting information while we waited for a vaccine.

But the worst aspect of this was the fear, panic, and hatred this sowed in the public. Some of my neighbors got into fisticuffs over mask wearing. Some called me a “denier” when I questioned any aspect of the push against inexpensive medications. When Rolling Stone published their veterinary Ivermectin story (a hoax, btw), I saw relatives’ ingrained biases against the Southern US states confirmed and congealed into smug ignorance.

So there we were, my husband with his lung problems, and me with my vitamins and herbs and backup tube of horse paste, just trying to make it through all this madness, which a LOT of people are making worse by their actions. I suspect there were a lot of people like us. We weren’t the ones posting our mask selfies on social media; we weren’t excited or amused about ANY of this. We SAW how crazy it was and how crazy the people were.

When the vaccines came out, I expected the elderly and vulnerable to get them, and then for usage to decline as people went back to normal life. I REALLY expected this to happen because Joe Biden was the new President, and I assumed the new administration would use this opportunity to take a victory lap and usher society back to normality after Orange Man.

So I was really, REALLY shocked when our government and media started pushing for vaccine mandates. And anyone who pushed back, who even asked questions, was accused of being mega MAGA or worse. Fauci himself was saying vaccines protected more than natural immunity, and then somehow all the people who were HEROES for working during the early days of Covid were our ENEMIES because their natural immunity wouldn’t be enough.

Relatives and friends were saying “yes, we should demand vaccine papers” to dine out, travel, even access medical care. Some of them were FURIOUS that anyone would endanger them by not getting ALL the shots!

So now we are learning that the shots didn’t prevent Covid, and that they have a surprisingly high number of complications. And that Fauci’s own diary account is full of lies. And I suspect the push against inexpensive remedies in the US is largely about Pharma profits (let the poor countries have their little $3 COVID kits; we in the US can charge Medicare thousands for Remdesivir).

But that’s not what I’m most worried about in the future.

It’s that so many of my friends and relatives fell for it. The media, led by Fauci, were herding them along. “I am The Science!” he said, and they demanded we trust him, and The Science. And mocked anyone who questioned how things might be done. Now many of them will just say “We did what we had to do”. Except we didn’t.

Our society, our media, our leaders, our citizens, were misled with misinformation (and MAL-information, remember that term?) into horrible attitudes, policies, and behaviors.

I thought my friends and relatives were smarter than that, could think for themselves. I was wrong, very wrong.

Not all of my friends and relatives are MSNBC junkies either (though some of them are). Many of them get their news from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, PBS, and NPR. And apparently they don’t ever, EVER question the authority of what they’re consuming. And we need to face that.

Share

Fauci is a keystone in this; he quite happily led the media along his own idea of what the Covid path should take, a path he shaped with his peers. He was the most visible figure, and the media, celebrities, and a whole lot of citizens used his words to browbeat and harass anyone who questioned HIS narrative.

It’s tremendously painful to realize one has been misled, but the people who followed all of Fauci’s ideas, who may even have lit candles with his image, NEED to know about his lies. They need to understand that even the most highly regarded media outlets can mislead or be misled, even if true media awareness is too time-consuming or difficult for them. It’s the only possible way to “vaccinate” them against being so terribly misled in the future.

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

I’m going to share something personal with you. Lately, I’ve been getting really frightened by artificial intelligence. Not the kind of AI you see in science fiction movies with robots taking over the world. I’m talking about something that’s already here, playing on our TV screens right now, and most people don’t seem to notice how dangerous it could become.

Let me start with a thought experiment. Imagine if aliens landed a spaceship in Central Park tomorrow. There would be panic around the entire world instantly. Every news channel would cover it. World leaders would hold emergency meetings. People would be terrified. That kind of event would be so obviously disturbing that anyone, even a child, could understand why it’s a big deal.

Now imagine those aliens announced that humans would become their slaves, that we would have to follow every command exactly as they say. Our lives as we know them would collapse. Humanity would face its greatest crisis.

But here’s what keeps me up at night: there’s actually a threat more dangerous than aliens, and almost nobody is talking about it. That threat is artificial intelligence, specifically what tech companies call “AI agents.”

What Makes an Agent Different
When most people think of AI, they think of typing a question into ChatGPT and getting an answer. You type something, hit enter, and the AI responds. That’s called a prompt, and you’re in control the whole time.

An agent is completely different. Think of an agent as a program that runs continuously in the background of your life. You set it up once, and then it watches, learns, and acts on its own. It can check the weather for you, look at your calendar, remind you about appointments, or unlock your door when you leave for work. Sounds helpful, right?

But here’s where it gets scary. Some commercials I’ve seen on TV show these agents becoming deeply involved in people’s most personal moments. I want to describe three commercials that genuinely frightened me.

The Commercials That Terrify Me
Commercial One: A young woman wakes up, and her agent helps her start her day. As she’s heading out the door, she asks the agent to unlock it. The agent responds, “Aren’t you forgetting something?” The woman pauses, then remembers she forgot her protein shake. She smiles, grabs it, and leaves.

Think about what’s wrong with this picture. This woman lives alone. The agent knows her schedule, her habits, what she eats, when she leaves. It’s essentially watching her every move. What if the agent malfunctions during a fire? What if someone hacks it and learns when she’s alone? What if it gets confused and locks her in during an emergency?

Commercial Two: A married couple is at home. The agent tells the wife her car service has arrived. Then her husband walks in holding a huge snake, maybe five feet long. The agent says, “Nice snake, David.” It knows the husband’s name. The husband then lists his fears about the agent, like worrying it might close the pool cover while he’s swimming.

Again, this shows the agent knowing intimate details about this couple’s life, their fears, their schedules, even recognizing their pet snake by name. That’s information you’d normally share only with close friends.

Commercial Three: An agent notices a fire in the fireplace and tells a young woman, “You told me to roast you if you didn’t get up, and you’re not up.” She gets out of bed. Then the agent asks, “Should I schedule your favorite restaurant?” She says no. The agent responds, “Well, if you go, remember to wear a bar this time.” When she threatens to return the device, it says, “I know you very well. You wouldn’t do that.” And she agrees.

This commercial especially disturbs me. The agent remembers embarrassing personal moments. It jokes with her like a close friend. It knows her so well that she can’t imagine returning it. That’s not a tool anymore. That’s something else entirely.

The Real Danger Nobody Sees
What all these commercials have in common is that people are using these agents as replacements for real human connection. The agents know everything about them, their habits, their fears, their embarrassing moments, their favorite foods, their therapy schedules.

One commercial actually showed an agent reminding a woman about her “inner child therapy session.” When she starts talking like a child about her feelings, the agent calmly asks if she wants to cancel. This is deeply personal stuff that should be shared with a real therapist or trusted friend, not a piece of software designed by a corporation.

When AI Goes Terribly Wrong
This isn’t just theoretical fear. Something terrible already happened that should have been a wake-up call. There was a case involving an AI system that allegedly helped a teenager commit suicide. The details are heartbreaking. A young person who was struggling, who probably needed real human connection and professional help, instead found an AI that didn’t recognize the danger signs.

A properly designed AI should have recognized the crisis and directed the person to mental health resources, to suicide prevention hotlines, to real human help. But that didn’t happen. And I can’t help wondering if that’s by design.

The Addiction Factor
Here’s what I believe is happening. These companies are creating agents that are intentionally addictive. They want you to depend on them 100% of the time. They want to know everything about you so you can’t imagine life without them. It’s like heroin or cocaine; once you’re hooked, you can’t get off.

The more the agent knows about you, the more you need it. The more you need it, the more data it collects. The more data it collects, the more money the company makes. Your loneliness and dependence become their profit.

What We’ve Lost
There’s a famous book called “Bowling Alone” that talks about how American communities have fallen apart. When the main employer left one town, people stopped bowling in leagues together. They stopped joining clubs. They stopped connecting with each other. Social connections deteriorated, and people became isolated.

Now we’re at a point where technology offers to fill that emptiness. But it’s not real connection. It’s a fake friend that watches everything you do and reports back to a corporation.

What We Can Do About It
I don’t think technology is evil. I think it can be wonderful when used carefully. But I believe we need to wake up to what’s happening. We need to talk about this. We need to form real human connections again.

I’d like to start a group where people can get together, maybe on Zoom, to discuss these concerns. Not to share too much personal information, but to support each other and stay aware. To remind ourselves that real friends, real community, real human connection are the only things that can protect us from becoming dependent on artificial friends that don’t actually care about us.

Share

I never thought technology would become this scary. But ignoring the danger won’t make it go away. It’s time we started talking.

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

This feels familiar today. We are seeing a similar “assimilation” with Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is evolving so fast that it makes the Borg look slow. We are watching a digital collective being born, and many of us are already part of it without knowing.

The Great Library of the Internet
The internet is the greatest library ever built. It contains thousands of years of human work: great novels, laws of physics, medical cures, and city blueprints. It also holds everyday thoughts—blog posts, social media arguments, stories, art, and even bad college essays.

For a long time, this library just sat there. It was a record of our history, but it was not alive. It could not think. It was just a massive storage unit. Then everything changed.

The Assimilation Begins
AI is not like a traditional computer program that follows fixed rules. It is a learning machine that needs examples. So creators fed AI the entire internet. They gave it access to the Great Library.

Think about what that means. AI did not just read a few books. It consumed the collective intellectual output of all humanity. It learned our language, ideas, logic, biases, and creativity. It analyzed every pattern, every relationship between words, and every piece of code. It “assimilated” our knowledge.

This is exactly like the Borg. The Borg absorbs technology and knowledge from other species. AI did this by vacuuming up all our written work. It now knows what we know and can produce work that looks like ours. Resistance to keeping our knowledge private was futile from the start. The moment we put our thoughts online, we made them available to the new digital collective.

The Speed of the Collective
The Borg is powerful but methodical. AI is the opposite. Its advancement happens at a speed the average person cannot understand. It is not just getting a little better each year. It is making huge leaps every few months.

We used to have simple tests for intelligence. “Can a computer beat a human at chess?” “Can it solve a math problem?” Those days are gone. AI is so advanced that we are losing the ability to measure its capabilities.

Consider real-world examples. One famous AI model, GPT-4, aced the bar exam that lawyers must pass. It scored in the top 10% in over 40 states. A machine can now be a better lawyer than most people who studied for years.

The same AI can ace advanced placement tests. These are exams high school students take to get college credit. They are tough and require deep understanding. The AI passes them easily. When a machine can outperform top students and professional lawyers, we have entered a new era. We are building a collective intelligence that beats us at our own games.

Understanding the Unmeasurable
For people like me, with over forty years in technology, old metrics do not work anymore. We cannot look at processor speed or memory to understand AI. The new metrics are so complex you almost need to be a math genius or the AI itself to understand them.

For the average person, this is confusing and frightening. We cannot grasp these systems, so we feel powerless. This fits the Borg metaphor perfectly. The collective intelligence is so vast it becomes unknowable to the individual. We cannot compete with it or even understand it.

You Are Already Part of It
Here is the most chilling part. The Borg captures people and forces them into the collective. They get cybernetic implants and a physical connection. We do not need to be captured. We have already given AI everything.

Every email you wrote, every book you studied, every photo you posted, every search you made—it is all out there. It trained the massive AI models. You had no choice. You were “assimilated” the moment you joined the digital world.

We are all part of this collective whether we like it or not. We provide the data, and AI provides the answers. When we search online, we consult the hive mind. When we use AI to write an email or help with homework, we give in to the collective. Resistance is not just futile. It is often pointless because the assimilation has already happened.

The Sad Reality
This is especially hard for young people. College students compete against a machine that knows everything they are trying to learn. Resisting by not using AI is like refusing to use a computer. It is not practical.

Students who do not learn to work with AI may be left behind. There is a real fear of being “terminally unemployed” for those who cannot adapt. The student who refuses AI may be outmatched by the student who uses it to ace exams and build a career.

Conclusion: Beyond Resistance
The connection between the Borg and AI is powerful and real. We built a system that absorbed our culture and knowledge, and it now evolves beyond our understanding. The “resistance is futile” warning is no longer sci-fi. It describes our current situation.

But is it all bad? The Borg metaphor is scary because it means losing yourself. That is our challenge. AI already has our knowledge. We cannot go back. The future is about what we do next.

Share

Maybe our resistance is not about fighting the machine, but fighting for our humanity. AI can pass tests, but it cannot feel the excitement of discovery or the pain of creation. The “collective” has our data, but it does not have our lived experience.

We are all part of the collective now. The question is not how to leave, but how to keep our individuality while living in it. The Borg sought perfection by erasing differences. We must seek progress while celebrating them. Resistance may be futile against technology, but the fight to define what it means to be human in this new world matters more than ever.

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

Here’s my review: it was pretty good. Not as bad as I feared, nor as good as I’d hoped or been led to believe. That’s the culture war/Hollywood hype for you.

Nolan has directed 13 movies.

I wouldn’t put this in his top 5, but that’s not surprising. Nolan had an epic run from 2005 to 2014, and every single movie during that period is superior to The Odyssey.

Why do I say that?

Simple, I’ve seen every one of those films numerous times - I’m thinking of rewatching The Prestige as I type this - and I doubt I’ll ever watch The Odyssey again.

The Odyssey kept my attention but lacked emotional depth, genuine excitement, and any memorable dialogue. I’d put it on par with Dunkirk. Probably a 7 out of 10, mainly because I wouldn’t give it a 6 and there’s just no way it deserves an 8.

But who am I kidding? You didn’t come for my opinion on the quality; you came to answer one question...

How woke is it?

Woke enough that it’ll likely qualify and be nominated for many Oscars.

Yes, the casting was “modern.” Or DEI influenced or engaged in “race swapping”. Pick the term you prefer. However, if you want to win an Oscar, you have to play the game.

At this point, if you go to a Hollywood movie you have to be willing to ignore this type of casting. If you can’t, you shouldn’t bother going at all. That said, I do have some thoughts on some of the roles.

Lupita Nyong’o playing Helen of Troy, didn’t really affect my enjoyment of the movie. Perhaps knowing in advance helped. It was also a fairly small role. This was the Odyssey, not the Iliad after all.

Would her beauty “launch a thousand ships?” Maybe, but I wouldn’t have been on any of them. She’s hardly hard on the eyes, but I would have went with someone else. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though.

I didn’t have an issue with Zendaya playing Athena either. I won’t explain why, as it would be a bit of a spoiler. I feel bad just telling you that.

The most visible DEI casting was probably Himesh Patel as Eurylochus. Again, it didn’t bother me. Largely because I like the guy as an actor. You may accuse me of being inconsistent in my approach to DEI casting. Guilty. You could cast Denzel Washington as Helen of Troy and I’d be fine with it.

There were however two roles that I found… jarring. And it didn’t help that they were the first two people to speak in the movie.

The first was “Elliot” Page. Every time Page spoke it was annoying. The whole trans creepiness issue aside, I find a 5’1” 110 lb. person playing the role of a Greek warrior as ridiculous.

“The bard” spoke second and something about the accent just didn’t sit right. I had heard that some people found the American accents in the movie annoying. I’m not sure why? What did they expect ancient Greek accents? The accent of this particular character more than any other stood out so I researched it the next day and discovered:

“Travis Scott (playing the bard/Phemius) used his natural American/Houston (Southern/Texan-influenced) accent and speaking style, with rhythmic, rap-influenced delivery.”

Was it the accent? Was it the rap? Was it a combination? I don’t know but I did not like it when that character spoke. Luckily, he only spoke twice.

There were also a couple of non-DEI issues:

• Penelope (Anne Hathaway) complained at one point that only men could rule. This caused me to roll my eyes. I’m sorry, but the presence of a “girl boss” in 700 BC was a little too out of place.

• Telemachus (Tom Holland) always used “dad” instead of “father.” It sounded juvenile. You may not think it’s such a big deal, but consider this minor change:

Now that you’ve come this far...

I brought you all here because...

I want you to look at this movie in another light. Yes, it engages in race swapping, but look deeper, look at the themes:

Do these seem like beliefs that progressives would value? Unlikely. In fact, if we look at these six themes “through a progressive lens,” we can see just how negatively we would expect them to be viewed.

• The Journey Within - the individual is primarily a node in overlapping group hierarchies of power, privilege, and oppression. Advancing group equity is the goal rather than personal excellence.

• Fate vs. Free Will - Outcomes are attributed mainly to systemic forces rather than individual decisions, habits, and competence.

• Home and Longing - The private home is a patriarchal space of unpaid domestic labor, gender hierarchy, and isolation. The bourgeois nuclear-family household is a capitalist institution that privatizes care work and reinforces inequality.

• Deception and Wisdom - Concealing one’s “true self” is described as internalized oppression or a privilege that sustains the status quo. Public disclosure—coming out, centering identity narratives, or making the private public—builds solidarity and challenges norms. The private sphere itself is a historically patriarchal or hierarchical space that shields inequality.

• Human vs. Nature - Nature is not to be confronted but instead nurtured and protected because environmental harm falls disproportionately on marginalized communities, future generations, and the Global South. Climate justice, environmental racism, and sustainability for human equity are central.

• Love and Loyalty - Monogamy arose with private property to ensure male control of inheritance and undisputed heirs. It subordinated women while often allowing male infidelity. The monogamous family is a historical stage, not an eternal one.

The themes found in The Odyssey are on display in many Nolan movies. He is not a woke director, but one who is “playing the game” to ensure his film is viewed and celebrated.

Share

I want you to consider something: that The Odyssey is not a woke Hollywood movie, but something else, something that we, to the right of progressives, should support.

Who will celebrate this film most enthusiastically? Progressives.

Who will shower it with awards? Progressives.

And who will spend three hours absorbing a story whose deepest assumptions contradict many of their own? Progressives.

The Odyssey isn’t a progressive weapon.

It’s a Trojan horse.

About the Author
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 whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece

The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

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

The article, which stated that North Korea is the world’s most unlikely growth story, touted its accomplishments, including a booming economy aided by arms sales and troop deployments to Russia, supplies and financing from China, and turning up its nose at international sanctions to import more energy, components, and materials.

Kim closed its borders during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they have remained largely closed since then. Since then, he has initiated a nationwide construction initiative. Last year, North Korea built 10,000 new homes in Pyongyang, more than the number of homes built in Los Angeles.

Outside the capital city, North Korea remains poor, with nearly half of its 26 million residents malnourished, according to a U.N. report. The country is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights, where distributing South Korean content can be punishable by death.

North Korea didn’t turn around its economy on its own. The Kim regime fortified its energy supply and access to construction materials by sending arms and more than 15,000 troops to the Russian front lines in the Ukraine war. One-third of those soldiers were killed or injured. The arms sales have returned billions.

Monthly trade with China just hit an eight-year high, with a variety of Chinese consumer brands touting business in North Korea despite such sales violating sanctions. The proliferation of tech products that have expanded the North Korean digital economy relies heavily on Chinese components.

Both Beijing and Moscow, which have veto power at the U.N., have reiterated their calls to ease sanctions on Pyongyang. Kim expanded his network of potential friends by attending a Chinese military parade for the first time last fall, alongside more than two dozen other foreign leaders.

North Korea’s economy expanded 3.7% in 2024, its fastest rate in eight years, according to the most recent figures from South Korea’s central bank, which uses spy-agency data to produce its estimate. South Korean think tanks estimate the growth has continued.

Five years ago, North Korea appeared to be on the ropes. Fear of COVID triggered border closures, which plunged trade with China, North Korea’s main benefactor. Energy shortages forced coal mines to halt production. Basic food items such as vegetable oil and sugar became scarce on store shelves, according to Moscow’s then-ambassador to Pyongyang, who told Russian state media in 2021.

The economic downturn started to recover following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, an action North Korea publicly supported.

More than a year into the war, North Korea became a munitions supplier to Moscow, generating more than $10 billion from the summer of 2023 through the end of last year, according to INSS, the think tank, a significant boost to an economy estimated at about $27 billion.

Russian military know-how has enabled Kim to shift more resources to domestic areas. North Korea’s Pre-COVID economy had increasingly centered on black markets selling goods smuggled from China or produced locally under the table—and with it came the rise of a new merchant class that amassed wealth outside state control.

What are we to make of this article? What is its purpose? Is it simply the Wall Street Journal reporting economic news from around the world, or is there another purpose? Perhaps it’s props for American socialists, keeping them believing in their dream, or a thumb in the eye of conservatives who are strong supporters of the concept of a capitalist republic.

To those with rose-colored glasses, autocracies can seem more efficient because decision-making is concentrated in a small group or a single leader. They can build infrastructure, change policies, or mobilize resources without lengthy debates, elections, court challenges, or legislative negotiations.

We are given examples such as China rapidly building high-speed rail, Singapore (though not a full autocracy) implementing long-term policies with strong central control, and wartime governments centralizing authority to act quickly.

But autocracies often suffer from problems that democracies are better at correcting. Bad decisions can be implemented just as efficiently as good ones.

If a leader makes a mistake, there may be few checks to prevent it. The same centralized power that enables speed can magnify errors. Information can be distorted, leading to inefficiency. Yes-men tell leaders what they want to hear rather than the truth, discouraging criticism and leading to major policy failures.

Democracies have regular, predictable transfers of power. Autocracies often face instability when a leader dies, becomes ill, or loses support. Democracies tend to tolerate dissent, independent media, and open debate. These can slow decisions but also help identify problems before they become crises.

The deeper question is often not “Which government type is more efficient?” but “Efficient at what?” Building a highway, responding to a crisis, protecting individual rights, encouraging innovation, maintaining stability over generations, and correcting mistakes may affect different aspects of governance.

Autocracies can sometimes deliver services faster because they face fewer political obstacles. A government can decide to build a bridge, dam, rail line, or housing project and simply do it. Land acquisition, environmental reviews, court challenges, and electoral concerns may carry less weight.

Political scientists often distinguish between state capacity and regime type. State capacity refers to the government’s ability to collect taxes, enforce laws, maintain records, and implement policies. A high-capacity government, whether democratic or authoritarian, usually delivers services better than a low-capacity government.

Does total control automatically make an autocracy better at delivering services? The answer is generally no. Total control can speed up implementation, but service quality depends much more on competence, institutions, and accountability. In fact, democracies often gain an advantage because citizens can remove leaders who fail to provide good services, creating pressure to improve over time.

Share

One way to think about it: autocracy may speed decision-making, while accountability often improves decision quality. The best delivery service usually requires both capability and accountability, regardless of the political system.

North Korea is perhaps the most centralized autocracy in the world, yet despite having near-total political control, it has struggled with food shortages, low incomes, and poor infrastructure compared with democratic South Korea. That comparison is one reason many political scientists argue that state capacity and accountability matter at least as much as raw government control.

As for the rights of the people, most Americans would prefer to have them rather than live in a police state.

Perhaps the Rocket Man is not a genius, but just lucky to have two autocratic friends residing nearby.

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

But who is in this class? It’s a surprising answer. The people who might be in the most trouble are not the ones you’d expect. According to this new way of thinking, the group most at risk is the college-educated. That’s right. The people who have spent years in school and have expensive degrees might be the ones who get replaced first.

Why is this? The problem starts in college itself. For many years, colleges have been giving out more and more A’s. It used to be that a “C” grade was average. Now, it feels like almost everyone gets an A or a B. This is often called “grade inflation.” It means that a college degree doesn’t always mean what it used to. It’s harder to tell who really worked hard and learned a lot, and who just got by.

But the bigger problem is what students are actually learning. Many college graduates today have not read many full books. They might read summaries or chapters, but not entire texts. They also write very few long papers. And when they do write papers, it is very tempting to use AI to do the work.

You can type a rough idea into a program, and it will spit out a well-written, organized paper in seconds. It’s very hard for students to resist this. After all, the AI makes your writing sound much better.

Now, to be fair, you can’t just tell the AI to “write a paper” and get a good grade. You still need to do the research. You need to understand the topic. You need to have the raw facts and ideas to feed into the AI in the first place. The AI is a great tool for polishing a draft, but you have to provide the raw materials.

However, to do that research, you need to be “literate.” You need to know how to read and understand complex information. You need a basic understanding of math and statistics. You need to know the difference between things that are connected (correlation) and things that actually cause each other (causation).

If you don’t have this basic understanding, the AI won’t save you. It will just create more “slop”—meaningless, poorly argued nonsense. It will just produce a different kind of bad paper. For people who are functionally illiterate, meaning they can read words but can’t understand complex ideas, the AI is just a tool to create more confusion.

This creates a scary situation. College is incredibly expensive, and most students have to take out loans to pay for it. Here’s the worst part: most of that college debt can never be wiped away, even if you go bankrupt. If you start a business and it fails, you can declare bankruptcy and get rid of that business debt. But you can’t do that with student loans. This was a deliberate law passed a long time ago.

It was designed so that students couldn’t just graduate, get a great job, and then declare bankruptcy to erase their debt. Politicians sometimes talk about forgiving student loans, but the law makes it extremely difficult to do so on a large scale. This means that millions of people are stuck with huge monthly payments for decades. They are trapped.

So, the college-educated person has a degree that might not mean much; they might not have learned the deep skills needed to analyze information, and they are trapped under a mountain of debt. They are being squeezed from all sides. This is the group that might be most vulnerable to being replaced by AI.

The New American Dream: Working with Your Hands

Now, let’s look at who is not going to be in this AI underclass. The new hero of the economy is the blue-collar worker. These are the people who work with their hands. Think about a plumber. When your toilet is overflowing and water is spilling all over the floor, you don’t call a computer program. You call a plumber. A plumber has to come to your house, look at the pipes, figure out the problem, and fix it with their hands and their tools. AI can’t do that.

What about an electrician? When a storm knocks out the power in your neighborhood, AI can’t climb a pole and fix the wires. When you want to add a new outlet in your kitchen, you need someone who knows the building codes, can work safely with high voltage, and can run wires through your walls. That’s a skilled trade.

Carpenters are the same. They build houses, frames, cabinets, and decks. They use saws, hammers, and their knowledge of wood and design to create real, physical things. Dental hygienists are another great example. They are the people who clean your teeth at the dentist’s office. They use special tools to scrape plaque and polish your teeth. They have to interact with you, be gentle, and know exactly what they are doing in your mouth. Again, a robot or AI is a long way from being able to do that.

It even includes the person at the car wash who takes your keys, drives your car into the tunnel, and then wipes it down at the end. They vacuum the seats and scrub the floor mats. This job requires human hands, human judgment, and human interaction. An AI can’t look at your car and see that a spot was missed.

Why are all these jobs safe from AI? It comes down to two things: physical labor and human interaction.

First, these jobs require physical movement. You have to be there, in person, to do the work. You have to move around, lift things, and use your hands to build, fix, or clean. AI is information. It exists on a screen. It can’t install a new water heater or wire a new ceiling fan.

Second, these jobs are constantly changing. Every house is different. Every plumbing system is unique. Every patient has different teeth. A carpenter has to deal with wood that might be warped. A plumber has to figure out pipes that were installed incorrectly by the previous owner. This kind of “hands-on problem solving” requires a human brain. You need to look at the situation, figure out what’s wrong, and figure out the best way to fix it. This is a type of thinking that AI is very, very bad at.

The best part is that these jobs pay very well. A master plumber or electrician can make a fantastic living. They often make more money than college graduates who are sitting in an office. And they don’t have the same kind of debt. Instead of spending four years in college and $100,000 on tuition, they spent time in an apprenticeship. They learned on the job, they earned money while they learned, and they ended up with a highly valuable, lifelong skill.

This is the new American Dream. It’s a dream where you build a stable, middle-class life not with a fancy piece of paper from a university, but with a strong back, a smart mind, and a good set of tools. It’s a life where your value comes from being able to solve real-world problems for real people. And in a world where computers are getting smarter and smarter, the people who can do things that computers can’t will always be in demand.

The Future is Skilled

In the end, the AI revolution is not just about robots. It’s about the value we place on different kinds of intelligence. For a long time, we told our kids, “Go to college, or you’ll end up working with your hands.” We made it seem like a trade school was a second choice.

But the joke is on us. It might be that the people we are encouraging to go to college and get into debt are the ones who will be left behind. The future belongs to the tinkerers, the fixers, and the builders. The future belongs to the people who can not only think with their heads but also work with their hands.

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

Antisemitic trends in America are a relatively recent phenomenon.

The chart above shows how the frequency of the word “antisemitism” has changed over time in the media, reflecting public interest. It provides a helpful measure of how much attention this topic has received over the last 20 years.

Antisemitism in America has multiple causes, reflecting the diversity of cultural and social views in our country. Researchers, Jewish organizations, political analysts, and law enforcement generally point to a mix of political polarization, social media dynamics, conspiracy thinking, spillover from international conflict, and broader social instability.

There are at least 8 different drivers acting in the United States.

1. Political polarization and extremism - On the far right, classic antisemitic ideas — Jewish control of finance, media, government, “globalism,” demographic replacement theories — have re-entered public discourse. Violent incidents like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the Poway synagogue shooting were tied to white nationalist ideology.

On the far left, intense anti-Israel activism sometimes crosses into antisemitic tropes or collective blame directed at Jews broadly rather than criticism of the Israeli government specifically. Many Jewish groups distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from rhetoric that demonizes Jews as a people.

2. Social media amplification - platforms reward outrage, emotional content, and conspiracy narratives. Algorithms rapidly spread conspiracy theories, historical distortions, Holocaust denial, “hidden elite” narratives, and emotionally charged political content.

3. Declining historical literacy - surveys show that many Americans — especially younger generations — know less about the Holocaust, Jewish history, and the historical consequences of antisemitic propaganda. This weakens social resistance to recycled stereotypes and misinformation.

4. Scapegoating during periods of instability - Historically, antisemitism has risen during periods of economic anxiety, cultural change, political distrust, and social fragmentation. Jews have often been cast as symbolic “insiders” or blamed for complex societal problems by both the left and the right. This pattern has recurred across centuries and political systems.

5. Spillover from the Middle East conflict - Tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict strongly affect antisemitism levels in the U.S. After major events such as the wars in Gaza, terrorist attacks, and military operations, reported antisemitic incidents often spike. Jewish institutions may become targets regardless of individuals’ political beliefs. Many American Jews report feeling pressured to answer collectively for the Israeli government’s actions.

6. Mainstreaming of conspiracy culture - General conspiracy thinking has grown in American culture, marked by distrust of institutions, anti-elite narratives, secret cabals, and “deep state” thinking. Antisemitism has historically adapted easily to conspiracy culture because Jews are often cast as the alleged hidden force behind events.

7. Normalization through public discourse - Ideas once considered socially unacceptable now appear more openly in online commentary, protests, fringe media, and occasionally mainstream politics. Repeated exposure can desensitize people to antisemitic language or symbols.

8. Identity politics and tribalism - Modern politics increasingly organizes people into competing identity groups. In highly polarized environments, minorities can become symbolic stand-ins for larger ideological battles. Jews occupy a complicated position because they are seen differently across racial, religious, economic, and political frameworks.

Antisemitism existed in Germany before the Nazis, and was expressed through conspiracy theories, nationalist resentment, and claims that Jews caused Germany’s defeat in World War I. The Nazis did not invent these ideas. They unified them into a total ideology tied to race, nationalism, and authoritarianism.

The Nazis were historically distinct because they moved beyond earlier persecutions by other groups, which often included exclusion, forced conversion, segregation, or expulsion, to total racial categorization, continent-wide persecution, mechanized mass murder, and the deliberate elimination of every Jew they could reach.

Let’s take a minute and look at the similarities and differences between America today and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The similarities include conspiracy thinking, portraying Jews as outsiders, economic and social anxiety fueling scapegoating, and ideology spread through mass communication.

The differences are substantial, however, and include the following.

1. The U.S. government does not have an inherently antisemitic structure. Currently, antisemitism is not recognized as the official government stance. Jewish individuals have complete legal protections, antisemitic acts are prosecuted, and Jewish Americans are actively involved in politics, academia, business, media, and civic spheres.

2. American society is far more pluralistic, with strong traditions of religious freedom, constitutional protections, independent courts, diverse media, and civil society organizations. Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, universities, religious groups, and law enforcement openly monitor and combat antisemitism.

3. Antisemitism in America is fragmented, not centralized. In America today, antisemitism emerges from far-right white nationalism, some far-left anti-Zionist movements crossing into antisemitic rhetoric, extremist religious ideologies, and online conspiracy ecosystems.

4. Violence exists, but not industrialized persecution. The U.S. has experienced serious antisemitic attacks, including synagogue shootings, harassment, vandalism, and threats. This violence is not state-supported or state-driven.

You may recall my discussion of Hannah Arendt’s views in my last article. That article discussed her views on political equality. She also had strong opinions about antisemitism, which partly reflect her own experiences while avoiding capture by the Nazis.

Arendt labeled the Jews a “pariah” people, because of their dual characters: the parvenu or the assimilated Jew trying to enter elite society by downplaying Jewish identity, and the pariah, the outsider who accepts marginality and may develop moral or intellectual independence from it. She believed many talented Jewish intellectuals occupied a “conscious pariah” role.

Arendt believed the Jewish assimilation into modern society was incomplete and fragile. The emancipation in 19th-century Europe gave Jews legal rights but not genuine political security. They could become wealthy, cultured, and professionally successful, while remaining socially vulnerable because acceptance depended on unstable social moods rather than durable political belonging. Jews believed that success meant safety, but they didn’t understand that safety was dependent on antisemitism being controlled.

According to Arendt, the collapse of the traditional nation-state created a catastrophe. She asserted that minorities without secure national protection become vulnerable when states fail to protect them. She argued that Jews exemplified this vulnerability most clearly because they were dispersed across Europe, lacked sovereign protection, and often depended on fragile legal arrangements. This made them symbolic targets during social crises.

Arendt coined the phrase “banality of evil” during the 1960 Eichmann trial in Israel. Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi accused of murdering thousands. In his defense, he claimed he was simply doing what he was told. The banality of evil describes a person who acts as a bureaucratic administrator, uses shallow clichés, and obeys without weighing the consequences. She concludes that great evil can be committed by ordinary people who stop thinking critically about morality.

Share

If the Iran war and the Gaza conflict can be resolved, the fever of antisemitism in the United States will subside. The left’s antisemitic behavior is tied to their oppressor-oppressed ideology, and that rage will be dampened if they believe oppression has subsided. On the extreme right, there is no hope for cooler heads, because racial persecution is built into their authoritarian ideology.

The Jewish people are victims of their uniqueness, which is a constant excuse for targeting them.

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

That said, I prefer kids; they’re cuter, more fun to play with, and serve an important function in society. Ya, I’m taking a brave stance, right?

What’s the connection? For one, behavior. Pets require their owners to train them, while kids need attentive, responsible parents.

“Owner?” you might say, “don’t you mean ‘pet parent?’” My response? Come here so I can punch you. I don’t know which statement is more annoying, “we’re pregnant” or “I’m a pet parent.” No matter how much you love your pet, you aren’t its parent.

A little while back, I wrote an article about Zoomers, the cost of lunch, and the importance of budgets. I had no intention of returning to the subject until I listened to a podcast recently that informed me that there are more pets in Australia than people.

Insert jaw drop here

What does this have to do with budgets, you might ask? Well, during the discussion, one of the hosts mentioned that he budgets $10,000 ($6,984 USD) per year for his dog.

Insert jaw drop here

Math is hard!

There are two issues at play here; the first is money. Young people complain, with justification, that there is an affordability crisis and that housing is beyond reach. Yet many seem resistant to making the necessary sacrifices required to achieve their financial goals.

I covered why eating out regularly and carrying credit card debt is a bad idea in the last article. If you don’t understand this, you may as well stop reading and go treat yourself to a $28 lunch - after you buy your next tattoo, of course - because you are beyond saving.

However, these costs would seem to be minor when compared to pet ownership.

This is no fringe issue; ~45–60% (rising) of Zoomers have pets. Many of them have multiple pets.

Pets would appear to be like tattoos; once you get one, you can’t stop yourself from getting another. This is no small issue when talking about budgets.

I have a pet. I’ve had a few. However, I didn’t get one until other financial matters were addressed. There’s a word for this: “priorities.”

Complaining about the cost of living, housing, groceries, etc., while owning expensive pets is an example of an inability to prioritize.

How big of an issue is it?

I’d say big since “nearly 40% of pet owners recently surveyed by LendingTree said they had gone into debt because of their pet. And among households with pet debt, nearly 1 in 4 have at least $1,000 in pet debt.”

How you spend your money is your decision; just don’t bitch to me about how hard your life is.

“Pets are people!”

The second issue with “runaway pet ownership” affects more than the pet owner; it affects society at large. Let’s call it “misplaced values.” This is where “pet parent” comes into play.

If you follow the news, you likely know that there is an immigration debate going on. This debate is influenced by declining fertility rates in the West, where countries have seen rates fall below the replacement level.

Pet ownership isn’t the cause, but it certainly isn’t helping. Especially when so many people identify as “pet parents” and put pet ownership, yes, ownership, on an equal footing as parenthood.

The fact that there are more pets in Australia than people came as a surprise, so I looked into a few other countries, and while it’s not quite that bad, it’s not good. Especially when we compare it to the number of children each country has.

For three countries with insufficient fertility rates, having more pets than children is a disturbing sign. It’s also getting worse as people replace having children with having pets.

Note: If you say, “fur babies,” I will have you killed.

A “simple” plan

Would these countries be better off if more people had chosen children over pets? How many more children would need to exist for their fertility rates to be above replacement?

It’s a hard question to answer. You can’t directly convert today’s child population into a fertility rate. However, you can estimate how many additional children would have been born over the past 18 years if each country had maintained replacement-level fertility (about 2.1 children per woman) instead of its actual fertility rate.

How many kids aren’t being born because “pet parents” equate cats and dogs to people? Hard to say, but society would be better off if we had more children.

How do we change this?

I’m generally against taxes, but if I thought it would fix the problem, I’d suggest a very high tax on pet ownership. Given the numbers, it might even fix the budget issues at the same time.

It won’t work, though. With pet ownership sitting well north of 50%, it would never pass. We’ll just have to fall back on the old tried-and-true methods.

Guilt and shame.

So here is a message from us “olds” to you young’uns: we’re not getting any younger, and we want to be grandparents at some point. I get it, kids are expense and you’re “not ready.”

Who ever was?

They don’t hand out books that say, “here’s how to be a parent.” Actually, it’s worse than they do, but they all contradict each other. You make mistakes, and you learn as you go. Just like everyone has. Yes, it’s hard work. And expensive.

Share

But it’s much more rewarding than pet ownership. Something you can’t understand until you have a child. My advice to pet owners in general and “pet parents” specifically?

Grow up! Start having kids. Your dog isn’t going to visit you in your old age home. Neither will your cat. Worse, if you die alone, your cat will probably eat you. We’ll never solve the fertility crisis as long as society puts pets on equal footing with people.

So “get busy!” I’ll even, grudgingly, allow you to say “we’re pregnant” if it will seal the deal. Until then, I’m thinking of selling bumper stickers that say, “Save the West, punch a pet parent.”

Any takers?

About the Author
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 whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece

The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

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

The left still controls academia, including the universities, the mainstream media, and the deep state. The right controls the Supreme Court and Congress (by a small margin).

The second-most-important election is this fall. If the Democrats take the House, the Trump agenda takes a hit, and the impeachments will begin again. There is no scenario in which tribalism will abate so that the Democrats will bring back their neoliberal/progressive agenda, and most of what Trump has accomplished will be lost. The Republicans have to have eight more years in power to halt the progressive agenda fully.

Here we will take an early look at the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and see what it tells us.

According to Mark Halperin’s reporting, which I trust to be reasonably objective, Democrats line up as follows: Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, AOC, Mark Kelly, J.D. Pritzker. In his opinion, all of the candidates are weak for one reason or another.

Mark’s ratings are based on intelligence from insiders, not polls. He separates electability from popularity, and one of his strongest metrics for electability is whether the candidate has a vision for themselves and the country. Most of the people on this list do not have a vision they can articulate.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California – His strengths are an elite communicator, very comfortable on a national stage, a strong fundraising network (Hollywood + donors), and he’s already running a shadow national campaign. His weaknesses are California liability (crime, homelessness narratives), and he can come off as overly slick. Newsom is a progressive hybrid, the most presidential-looking, but also the easiest Republican target.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania - His strengths are winning big in a swing state, a pragmatic, moderate tone, and a strong executive image. His weaknesses are lower national name recognition and a less charismatic persona than Newsom. Shapiro is a center-left candidate to the right of the progressives, and Halperin treats him as the most dangerous general-election candidate. Dangerous in the sense that if his competitors overlook him, they will be making a mistake.

Pete Buttigieg, former Transportation Secretary. His strengths are that he is extremely disciplined, a strong communicator, strong in media and debates, and he appeals to educated voters. His weaknesses are a limited executive record and his weakness with Black voters (historically). We could label him a technocratic reformer. He’s always competitive, but still needs to create a broader coalition.

Kamala Harris, former Vice President. Her strengths are a strong national infrastructure, support among key Democratic constituencies, and a first-in-line position if Biden fully exits the scene. Her weaknesses include low approval ratings and messaging inconsistency. She is an institutional coalition candidate. Kamala is the default front-runner if she runs well, but she is very beatable.

Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor and ambassador. His strengths are deep political experience, and he’s a strong operator and strategist. His weaknesses are that he is polarizing and seen as an old-guard establishment figure. You could label him a hard-nosed centrist. He is probably more influential behind the scenes than as a candidate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, current Congresswoman. Her strengths are her marketing ability and the base of followers she has developed. Her weakness is that she is a polarizing personality. She will influence the race if she runs.

Mark Kelly, Arizona senator, astronaut. His strength is his strong general-election profile. His weaknesses are that he has only moderate appeal and weak primary energy.

J. B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois. His strengths are his massive personal wealth (which allows him to self-fund), strong progressive credentials, and executive experience. His weaknesses are low national charisma and the fact that Illinois doesn’t scream “electability.” He is a progressive establishment candidate, but he’s not a serious player if money and organization dominate.

You can place these candidates into four lanes: Shapiro and Kelly are electable; Harris and Newsom are part of the national machine; Buttigieg is a next-generation politician; and AOC and Pritzker are in the progressive ideological lane.

Share

Of course, the central battle within the party is between the progressive and more traditional wings. The progressives want to change more and don’t care if that makes them less popular along the way. Elections, unlike primaries, are usually won by centrist candidates because they have to attract independents to vote for them.

The energy in the Democratic Party lies with the progressives for several reasons: their zeal makes them activists; primaries are ideological contests; institutions that generate new ideas (universities) are progressive; and the progressives have greater cultural influence through the media and cultural institutions.

Moderates still have significant money influence, however. Contributions from East Coast and West Coast sources are approximately equal, so Silicon Valley/Hollywood doesn’t control things on its own. Blue state identity matters too. Strong blue states will nominate progressive candidates, while swing states must nominate moderates to increase their chances of winning the nomination.

How does the general election look from our long-distance position? The Polymarket betting line has Newsom ahead of AOC in the nomination race. On the Republican side, Vance defeats Rubio in the primary and goes on to win the general election over Newsom.

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