I was looking through Daddybear's blog earlier this week when I came across this music video from British jazz/blues guitarist Danny Bryant. It caught my imagination.
Intrigued, I looked over his YouTube channel. Here are a couple more of his tracks.
I'm not all that much into jazz and blues music, but I think Danny Bryant will repay further listening. My thanks to Daddybear for introducing me to his work.
Peter
My wife has the crud, and I'm fighting it off. I'm going to have a quiet Friday, and leave this blog and everything else to the vagaries of chance. See y'all on Sunday morning.
Peter
Sometimes the old traditions speak more clearly to us than their modern descendants. Here's Maddy Prior with a medley of "Marigold" and "Harvest Home".
A happy and blessed Thanksgiving to all of you. May we give thanks where they are due, and seek renewed blessings for the year ahead.
Peter
I laughed out loud as I watched this video clip of an escaped goat in Detroit last weekend.
If that goat had tried that in our back yard, I suspect my wife and I would have been in serious competition to see who could shoot it first. We both like goat curry!
Peter
In a recent column, Janet Daley tried to put the great clash of modern politics into perspective. She addresses it in the context of American versus European politics, but points out - correctly - that the socialized European model is preached in America too by the Democratic Party, particularly its left-wing progressive movement. This "muddies the waters".
American voters ... are unabashed in their belief that the American way of life is based on an abiding principle: that individuals have an inalienable right to improve their circumstances in life by their own efforts. If they find that their aspiration and determination are frustrated by things that are beyond their control like inflation or competition for jobs from illegal migrants, they expect the government to act effectively on those problems. Traditionally in the United States, it has been believed that this was what government was for: to remove obstacles to individual achievement and progress.
Much more recently the European model of state intervention and the creation of a welfare state which is designed to protect the disadvantaged and to care for those who, it is believed, cannot succeed on their own, has been brought into the US electoral arena. It is espoused by Left liberals like Bernie Sanders and the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who have gained a hearing but whose ideas are still considered exotic and profoundly at odds with mainstream discourse. It is important to appreciate this because, paradoxically, it could help to illuminate the identity crisis that European democracies are undergoing.
Americans who demand that the obstacles to individual success and personal advancement be removed – that it is, in fact, the most important function of government to remove them – do not see themselves as selfish or callous. On the contrary, they believe quite sincerely that they are upholding an important moral standard: individuals must fulfil their potential and make the effort to succeed as best they can in order to take responsibility for their own lives. Most importantly, to as great an extent as possible, they must see to it that their children will have greater opportunities for self-advancement than they did. That was, and still is, the great American promise.
. . .
This perfectly plausible moral view has been almost drowned out in European politics by generations of class-based ideology. The very idea of a public morality based on individualism – generally termed “selfish individualism” – was attacked. Then there was the inviolable credo that those who appeared to fail, even if they refused to try, were not to blame. Their bad choices were determined by the misfortune of their circumstances which were out of their control.
In some cases, of course, this would be true – but as a general principle applied to the whole of a population it became an insidious vindictive force: all those who succeeded were guilty of stealing wealth and advantage from all those who failed. Allowing people to prosper and achieve the rewards of their own ingenuity or hard work could not be acceptable because their success created inequality and was, in effect, a form of theft from those who lacked those fortunate traits. The only decent political solution was to take some of that advantage away and hand it out to those who, through no fault of their own, had achieved less. Wealth redistribution or, as it came to be known, “social fairness”, relied on the idea that even your apparent virtues – self-reliance, responsible behaviour, determination – were actually unfair privileges.
If your actions are constructive and conducive to success, that is just the good luck with which you happened to be gifted at birth. The problem for contemporary democracy is that a great many people believe this too. In fact, it is probably the case that a majority of the populations of Western countries believe both of these arguments – that people should be rewarded for succeeding by their own efforts, and that they should be penalised by having to support those who have not made an effort. It has simply become impossible for societies to sustain this contradiction any longer.
There's more at the link. I highly recommend following the link at the end of the excerpt to read more about how socialized policies are "destroying" the self-sufficient.
We're seeing this conflict of perspectives in America right now between "purists" who want to demolish the "nanny state", dismantle the "deep state", and restore the rights and freedoms of the individual over those of state overreach. On the other hand, there are those who complain that they're economically less well off than they were, and want the government - any government - to "make them whole", support them financially and in other ways so that they're not as exposed to the vicissitudes of the free market. I suspect that's at the root of why President Trump's popularity has decreased in recent months. He's doing a pretty good job of tearing down State overreach, but in doing so he's exposing those who were sheltered by that overreach to greater economic uncertainty, even pain - and they don't like it.
It's a tough discussion, particularly in a world where there are too many people competing for too few resources. It's all very well for free marketeers to proclaim that if only everyone were given unlimited opportunity, they'd all do better - because there are many who will not do better, either through laziness, or through corruption, or through too much competition for resources. The free market doesn't have all the answers, but neither does socialism or any of its offshoots.
I find this conundrum personally taxing, if I could put it like that. As a result of serving in a US government law enforcement function, I became permanently partially disabled, and have relied to some extent on the income that resulted from that disability. To that extent, I'm dependent on the government. Yet, I also see the point of those that say we as a society are too dependent on government, and should minimize that dependency wherever possible. For able-bodied people, I certainly support that approach, and did my best to live that way during the years prior to my injury. I'd find it very hard to do that today, but there are doubtless those who'd prefer me to "suck it up" and "tough it out". Needless to say, I don't find that encouraging!
We'll never find an answer that satisfies everyone, I guess.
Peter
Following our discussion last week of drones and their utility for defense of life and property, I found this article about how Mexican drug cartels are weaponizing drones against each other, and against the security forces.
Last month, three drones rigged with explosives detonated outside a prosecutor’s office in Tijuana, Mexico, besieging six cars parked outside with a blast of nails, BBs and metal fragments. The attack was orchestrated by a cartel, Mexican government officials confirmed, and targeted an anti-kidnapping unit of the Baja state attorney general’s office. It is the latest high-profile example of first-person view drones being used by cartels to replicate military tactics being used in Ukraine.
Defense News previously reported that members of Latin American drug cartels had joined Ukraine’s foreign fighter volunteer units to gain FPV drone training.
Earlier this year, a cartel ambush using an explosive drone in the border state of Chihuahua sent two Mexican military service members and one police officer to the hospital. Three drones were subsequently seized.
Attacks made by explosive-equipped drones surged to over 260 in 2023. In 2024, a drone ambush was reportedly followed by an infantry-style attack in a remote community in Mexico, according to AP.
“Nonstate actors can now acquire capabilities once reserved for nation-states,” writes Stephen Honan for the Atlantic Council on cartels’ increasing use of FPV drones. “Cartels are no longer merely criminal syndicates; they increasingly resemble hybrid entities blending organized crime, paramilitary force, and terrorist tactics.”
There's more at the link.
If the cartels are getting that sophisticated in Mexico, it's surely only a matter of time before they try using drones against the US Border Patrol and/or law enforcement agencies in an effort to get more drugs into this country, or attack rivals in the drug trade. I'd also expect to see them as a security device to guard marijuana plantations and drug "factories", detecting police raids or rival cartel operations before they strike.
There's also the question of airport security. Drone operations have shut down airports in Europe on several occasions recently. Nobody knows (yet) who's behind them, but suspicion centers around Russia, which is at war with Ukraine and is hostile to European nations helping the latter country. Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, and drones merely add another string to the bow of that sort of warfare.
This makes me even more certain that it will be a good idea to learn how to use a drone, partly for reasons of local security during times of unrest, wildfire or other danger, and partly to understand how to defend against them in the hands of local gangs or drug dealers. You can bet the gang-bangers have already realized how useful these things can be to plot crimes or keep an eye out for patrolling police, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of them being used for such purposes.
My "el cheapo" drone arrived yesterday, and over the next couple of weeks I'm going to start figuring out how to use it. If I crash it, it won't hurt my wallet too much, as drones costing less than $50 - some less than $10 - are freely available and affordable. If the learning process goes well, I can look at upgrading to something more effective when funds are available. If I understand the little beasts better, I can defend against them - and their operators - better as well.
Food for thought - and action.
Peter
I've never thought of "Thanksgiving" and "pizza" in the same breath . . . but after reading this news report, that's changed.
Pino’s Pizza of Deer Park has something savory to be thankful for this Turkey Day — their viral Thanksgiving pizza pie, which is served with sliced roasted turkey breast, gravy, sausage and apple cornbread stuffing and topped off with cranberry sauce.
Barbieri has since expanded his Thanksgiving-themed offerings to include calzones, stromboli and empanadas — all stuffed with the same ingredients.
There's more at the link.
Here's a video report on the gastronomic monstrosity.
I'm hungry just looking at that thing! It seems Americans will put anything on a pizza . . . and in this case, it looks like a winner.
What strange or alternative pizzas have you made and/or eaten, dear readers? Surprise us with your stories and recipes in Comments.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
A fusion blast from the past this morning. British group Colosseum were (and still are, in a new incarnation) what Wikipedia describes as "an English jazz rock band, mixing blues, rock and jazz-based improvisation". I've seldom heard all three of those musical genres combined successfully in a single piece of music, let alone an entire repertoire, but Colosseum were pretty good. Their jazz rock rendition of Ravel's Bolero is a standout in the field of classical music adapted to modern electronic instruments.
For this morning, I've chosen one of their original compositions, the Valentyne Suite, released on the album of the same name in 1969. It's attracted a cult following among the group's fans. It's in three parts:
"Theme One: January's Search" (6:20) "Theme Two: February's Valentyne" (3:37) "Theme Three: The Grass is Always Greener" (6:52)
Peter
Kudos to CDR Salamander for sharing a letter from Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll in preparation for the holiday season. Mr. Driscoll addresses a long-standing problem, and offers hope. Click the image below for a larger, more readable view.
I had some experience of that sort of stress during my own military service, decades ago. Back in 2011, I wrote in these pages about a friend.
I remember Gavin, who was a member of a patrol that found a baby, too young to walk, sitting in the middle of a dirt road in a township, crying. As the point man and a couple of others walked up to see why the baby was just sitting there, the terrorists waiting in ambush blew up the landmine they'd buried beneath her, killing the point man and savagely mutilating the other two soldiers. Bits of flesh and blood from the soldiers, and the baby, splattered all over Gavin . . . across his face . . . in his eyes, nose and mouth.
For years, Gavin would start awake in the small hours at night, a scream of horror on his lips. "They blew up a baby! A baby!" Gavin's wife eventually left him, because she couldn't handle the strain of living with his nightmares. Psychiatric treatment couldn't break the cycle; nor could alcohol, or drugs (legal and illegal). Gavin took his own life at last, too tormented by what he'd seen to endure any longer, in the small hours every night, the parade of images across his closed eyelids. He was a hero in my book . . . and I'll always remember him as such.
There's more at the link.
There are too many like Gavin who never receive the help they need - not just combat stress and trauma, but the quiet accumulation of too many incidents, too much angst, too few friends. I hope Secretary Driscoll's letter will help to reach them before it's too late.
Peter
Big Country Expat is experimenting with a couple of low-cost entry-level quadcopter drones. He suggests it's a good idea for everyone to get to know at least the basics of how to operate them.
The Scout is a good practice drone, and small enough to get in and around the interior of the house (or any house for that matter) for recon pretty well.
The problem is that it’s so lightweight, ANY and ALL breezes affect its flight. One time I was working on going room-to-room in the house, and the Central Air Conditioning kicked on, and the bird ‘lurched’ across the room in the draft of the AC blowing out of the vent.
So I’m not sure of the utility of it outside in real crosswinds.
This is a standard problem for the cheap ‘practice’ drones if you will. No real weight. One of my early $30 Amazon Chinesium drones I actually lost when practicing outside with the Redhead Nukular Gran. If you recall while I was flying it, I had a BIG gust of wind show up unexpectedly, and grab it, and last I saw of it, it was headed due south towards the Publix a quarter mile away…
Never did find out what happened to that ‘un LOL.
It literally faded to a teeny-tiny dot and then >poof<
So tonight, I tried to to fly this new quad inside BUT had a minor issue. Or maybe not minor per se…
The doggos.
Chili AND Stella both seem to think that the quadcopter is something they need to ‘fetch’ out of the air… I tried to get them to leave it alone, but nope. They weren’t listening at all. In fact Stella got too close while lunging at it, and the rotor blade caught her on the nose. She yelped pretty loudly as it must have hurt, but did that stop her?
She’s a ****ing rockheaded Pittie…
What do you think?
Riiiiiiiight.
Now it’s a challenge apparently.
Must. Snatch. The. Flying. Thing.
So this means in the future, I’ll have to either practice in the bedroom for the initial ‘tuning’ of it and getting a feel for the flight characteristics, or take it down to the park at the elementary school we used to take the Grans to after school or on a Saturday and give it a try there.
When I say ‘tuning’ I mean that the controls and servos need to be dialed in for accuracy, otherwise it might have drift already in the settings, and I need to make sure that it does a steady hover, and do some other things, to include getting the 4k Cameras ‘dialed in’ as well.
Seeing that drones are the future and at least trying to learn how to use them is a good and necessary thing. Better to learn on the short $$$ models than to spend a grand on a nice DJI Drone like the Ivans and Krainians use and have that get wrecked?
I’d rather burn through a half a dozen ‘practice drones’ learning how to ‘fly’ a drone rather than buying a $$$$$Mondo-Expensivo$$$$$ one and wasting/crashing/destroying it by accident.
There's more at the link, including pictures.
I think he makes a very good point. While cheap entry-level quadcopters are still freely available, I think it's an excellent idea to learn to use them. They may not be Predator- or Reaper-class weaponized drones, but one can use them to fly around one's property, or up and down the street, and see what's going on in the neighborhood. If there are reports of rioting or unrest nearby, one can keep an eye on the situation, and if one sees "undesirables" heading in one's direction, one can be proactive in responding to them, either by "getting out of Dodge" before they arrive, or getting together with neighbors to greet them, in full readiness to protect one's loved ones and property, when they arrive.
I think I have a new project for the next few weeks . . . Finding a low-cost drone that can cope with North Texas winds might be a challenge, but I'll do my best. If anyone sees a drone heading for the wild blue yonder, coming from my general direction, let me know, will you, please?
Peter
Mike Rowe, who's spent much of his life trying to revive interest in the skilled trades and related jobs, spoke with Ford's CEO the other day. In the light of our discussion about jobs yesterday, I've taken the liberty of reproducing most of his interview here.
I just had a great conversation with Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford Motor Company, which will air Sunday night at 10pm on One Nation. (That’s Kilmeade’s show on Fox.) Jim told me that as of yesterday morning, Ford Service Departments around the country had 6,000 empty bays. Not because people’s cars and trucks didn’t need fixing, but because the shortage of technicians has become that profound.
Ford isn’t alone. Every single automotive company in America is struggling to hire technicians, and the problem – (in spite of what you’ll likely read in the comments,) has nothing to do with the pay, the benefits, or the working conditions. These jobs offer a clear path to a six-figure career, with little to no college debt. In part, the problem is mathematical – this year, 37,000 new techs were hired across the country. Unfortunately, 76,000 retired. That’s a 2:1 ration, which is actually pretty good, compared to the 5:2 ratio in most of the construction trades. But along with a lack of warm bodies, there’s a lack of interest in the work itself. A will gap, in other words, combined with a skill gap. Happily, I think that’s about to change. Unfortunately, at the expense of a colossal upheaval.
I know I’m a broken record on this, but I think our workforce is about to undergo a truly seismic change. Amazon is eliminating 14,000 corporate roles, citing both economic concerns and the impact of artificial intelligence on how the company operates. Some say the actual number will be closer to 30,000. UPS is cutting 34,000 operations roles, driven by automation. Target, Intel, Paramount, American Airlines, Starbucks…every week, another big corporation lays off thousands of people whose particular skill sets are no longer relevant. And yet, not a week goes by when some industry leader like Jim Farley doesn’t tell me about the extraordinary, unprecedented difficulty of getting skilled workers into the pipeline, and onto the jobsite.
I’ve never seen it like this. I’ve spent seventeen years trying to reinvigorate the skilled trades, by making a more persuasive case for the opportunities at hand. Typically, I’ve focused my efforts on young men and women starting their careers by offering scholarships to trade schools, and this year, I’ll redouble my efforts in that regard. But as of today, I’ll also be thinking about the hundreds of thousands of white-collar workers who are either going to retire prematurely, or hit the reset button, and learn a skill that’s in demand. Because many of those people simply don’t understand the other side of the workforce, and the myriad opportunities that exist today.
Last month, for instance, in Plano, Texas, I toured a Data Center. It was overwhelming, and in some ways, a little unsettling. But I met with a few electricians while I was there, who told me they’d all been poached from different companies at least three times in the last two years. These guys were all under 30, and all making well over $200K a year. They constantly get offers from the competition for ever-increasing salaries, because the need for electricians is acute, and their jobs are not threatened by robots or AI. (Not yet, anyway. And probably not in our lifetimes.) The same is true of welders, HVAC techs, plumbers, and so forth.
Apologies, if I sound glib. I can only imagine how scary it is for a middle-manager in a white-collar job, or a paralegal, or a coder, or a stock broker, or a graphic artist, to be told it’s time to “hit the reset button.” I know how absurd it might sound to a person in that position to be told that the ship building industry has 200,000 openings, or the energy industry has 300,000 openings, or the construction industry has 250,000 openings, or that Ford has 6,000 empty bays as of this morning.
But that’s where we are. Your jobs are not being eliminated; your industries are being eliminated. That doesn’t mean your only option is to learn a skilled trade. But the option is there, nevertheless.
I admire Mike Rowe for his tireless efforts to improve the image of skilled trades in the eyes of the average American, and highlight how critically important they are to our economy as a whole. If I were starting over, I'd look very hard at a trade instead of the usual university-to-white-collar route that I followed. I think I'd have a lot more fun, and I'd probably make more money, too.
Trouble is, so many First World economies have de-emphasized skilled trades as a career path that it's hard to find good training and education in the field. In South Africa, we had so-called "technikons" as a parallel education path to universities. One could study for a "technical degree" as easily as an "academic degree", and go all the way to a doctorate in many fields (somewhat similar to the German system of technical education, culminating in the "Dr. Ing." qualification). Unfortunately, as part of the reorganization of South African institutions that followed the advent of democracy in 1994, the technical universities were folded into the academic system, so that today one can no longer choose which "stream" to follow. I thought at the time that was a mistake, and I've seen nothing to make me change my mind.
Mike Rowe is doing an outstanding jobs with his Foundation to encourage and sponsor technical training. More power to him!
Peter
I note the ongoing argument over whether a Michigan resident was defending himself, or acting recklessly, when he fired at intruders.
Sivan Wilson, 17, was with six other mainly teenagers when the group broke into Dayton Knapton’s garage in White Lake shortly after 1 a.m. July 8, authorities said.
Knapton, 24, got an alert from his home security system, grabbed a .9mm gun, ran outside and fired two shots into the garage through a windowless door, striking Wilson, according to prosecutors and cops.
As the group fled, Knapton fired five more shots before going back into his house, reloading his gun and returning outside, according to a statement by the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office.
Another teenager in the group also was shot in the leg.
. . .
“This defendant crossed the line by firing outside his home at fleeing persons,” prosecutor Karen McDonald said of Knapton. “His actions not only took a life but potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.”
There's more at the link.
Laws differ in the 50 States, but legally there's one principle that generally has to be clearly visible before a shooting can be ruled self-defense: namely, that there has to be a clear, imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury to the person defending himself. In this case, it's immediately obvious that this did not exist, because:
Mr. Knapton may have been angry at having been repeatedly burgled in the past, and may have been afraid or upset at finding it happening again: but there's no evidence at all that he was actually threatened, or faced any real danger of assault, injury or death. Under the circumstances, I don't see how a claim of self-defense can be made to stick.
Some states (for example, Texas) allow one to use lethal force in defense of one's property, not just one's life, under certain circumstances. However, one has to be very careful not to take that as a carte blanche to do whatever one wishes with intruders, whether they're accidental or deliberate. If there is no physical threat, one has every chance of being indicted for using more force than necessary to remove them. Frankly, I think that's the way it should be. Our response should be proportionate to the threat. Tragedies occur every year when a homeowner's response is not proportionate, such as this case in Indiana or this one in Texas. One has to draw a line, and in most cases our laws do just that. We can't use a firearm when our lives are not in danger (for example, to stop a fleeing thief who's not a threat, and is only trying to get away).
Those of us who espouse the right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms, need to think about this often. Our actions and reactions may provide ammunition to those wanting to take away those rights.
Peter
Stephan Pastis does it again. Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.
Any experienced pastor will tell you never to ask questions like that. The answers might surprise you - particularly from children!
Peter
The big challenge everyone's talking about today is how to get the millions of unemployed Americans back to work - create enough jobs that they can fill, and ensure that they have the necessary training to do those jobs.
However, that ignores the fact that all over the world, more and more people - particularly younger people - are desperate for jobs, but they aren't there to be found. The US economy is no more than a microcosm of a much greater conundrum. That same oversupply of job-seekers is fueling international illegal migration. When young people face economic ruin at home, they've got nothing to lose by trying to move to a country where more jobs are available, even though the journey may be very dangerous and they may not be welcome at their intended destinations.
First, there's the supply of workers and potential workers. I'll use Africa as an example, because that's my continent of origin and I'm more familiar with its situation. Bloomberg recently reported:
Africa’s population has doubled in three decades and it’s now home to about 1.5 billion people, a figure that’s predicted to grow to 4 billion by the turn of the century. This growth has been driven by improved access to medical care, plummeting infant mortality since 1990, and persistently high birth rates. Already about 60% of people south of the Sahara desert are younger than 25, compared with one-third in the US, according to the United Nations.
The expected number of annual births in Congo is more than 800,000 greater than across the US or the European Union’s 27 member states. So while the developed world worries about getting old, Africa is getting younger.
. . .
Success will depend on both shrinking the existing rate of population increase, and also creating the economic opportunities — jobs are a key driver of growth in the early stages of development — for young people entering the labor market. Getting it wrong could fuel poverty, trigger more conflict and potentially spark mass emigration.
. . .
Sub-Saharan Africa will see 1 billion people enter the labor force between now and the end of the century, according to Bloomberg Economics analysis of UN Population Division data. Annual job demand is projected to peak at approximately 18 million in 2048.
Most countries on the continent already struggle to provide sufficient jobs. For every two people that joined Congo’s working-age population between 2005 and 2020, only one job was created on average, a pattern repeated across Nigeria, Ethiopia and other large states, according to Bloomberg Economics analysis of International Labor Organisation data.
. . .
In a worst-case scenario, that scenario could translate into the continent sliding ever deeper into poverty and political and civil strife, and encouraging mass emigration, with the reverberations felt across the world.
“Labor migration is an inevitable consequence of being educated,” says Charlie Robertson, the author of The Time Travelling Economist who has been monitoring developments in Africa for the past 15 years. “This is the most educated the continent’s ever been, but with insufficient savings to utilize that education there will be demographic pressure to emigrate.”
There's more at the link.
That demographic pressure is driving the wave upon wave of African illegal immigrants overwhelming European countries right now. Along with similar pressures in South America and Asia, it's what was behind the surge in illegal alien migration to the USA under the Biden administration - and that administration's refusal to do anything to stop it has left us with enormous socio-political problems that will take more than one Presidential term to sort out. It may take decades. I personally view it as treasonable behavior by the Biden administration, but it's not my job to adjudicate that - perhaps fortunately . . . President Trump has already shown that swift, vigorous law enforcement action can stop such mass immigration in its tracks, and even reverse it. One can only hope and pray that his successors in office will continue such policies.
Be that as it may, we have the "irresistible force" of mass immigration from the over-populated, economically under-developed Third World threatening the First World. However, the climate for such immigrants is likely to become even less welcoming once the reality of modern economics takes hold.
“It’s the most humbling thing I’ve ever seen,” said Ford’s chief executive about his recent trip to China.
After visiting a string of factories, Jim Farley was left astonished by the technical innovations being packed into Chinese cars – from self-driving software to facial recognition.
“Their cost and the quality of their vehicles is far superior to what I see in the West,” Farley warned in July.
. . .
Andrew Forrest, the Australian billionaire behind mining giant Fortescue – which is investing massively in green energy – says his trips to China convinced him to abandon his company’s attempts to manufacture electric vehicle powertrains in-house.
“I can take you to factories [in China] now, where you’ll basically be alongside a big conveyor and the machines come out of the floor and begin to assemble parts,” he says.
“And you’re walking alongside this conveyor, and after about 800, 900 metres, a truck drives out. There are no people – everything is robotic.”
Other executives describe vast, “dark factories” where robots do so much of the work alone that there is no need to even leave the lights on for humans.
“We visited a dark factory producing some astronomical number of mobile phones,” recalls Greg Jackson, the boss of British energy supplier Octopus.
“The process was so heavily automated that there were no workers on the manufacturing side, just a small number who were there to ensure the plant was working.
“You get this sense of a change, where China’s competitiveness has gone from being about government subsidies and low wages to a tremendous number of highly skilled, educated engineers who are innovating like mad.”
. . .
Between 2014 and 2024, the number of industrial robots deployed in [China] rocketed from 189,000 to more than two million.
These can typically include everything from robot arms used for welding, assembly and loading, spider robots used for high-speed “pick and place” movements and overhead gantry robots for precision tasks such as 3D printing.
The overall number of robots added in China last year was 295,000, compared to 27,000 in Germany, 34,000 in the US and just 2,500 in the UK.
And while it would be easy to put this disparity down to population size alone, China also blows its western rivals out of the water when it comes to robot density. It now boasts 567 robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers, compared to 449 for Germany, 307 for the US and 104 in the UK.
. . .
Rian Whitton, an expert at Bismarck Analysis, says increased automation is also an attempt to mitigate the impact of [China's] ageing population.
“China has quite a notable demographic problem but its manufacturing is, generally, quite labour-intensive,” he says.
“So in a pre-emptive fashion, they want to automate it as much as possible, not because they expect they’ll be able to get higher margins – that is usually the idea in the West – but to compensate for this population decline and to get a competitive advantage.”
Again, more at the link. (Article may be behind a paywall.)
Admittedly, the article above addresses the manufacturing economy: but that underpins all other economic sectors, when push comes to shove. Just as China is striving to maximize automation and minimize actual human workers, so US manufacturers are striving to catch up with that country and re-engineer their local assembly lines. The same can be said of many service industries. Did you notice, during the dockworker strikes over the past couple of years, that one of the constant demands from the labor unions was that ports and harbors should not introduce any more automation, or robotics, or labor-saving technology? The unions are trying desperately to protect their members' jobs . . . and they're doomed to failure. When it costs far too much to employ human workers compared to an automated solution, eventually the time will come when employers will say "Enough!" and make it stick.
For US workers in several industries, this is already bad news. Without retraining and a deep-rooted change in their attitudes, they're going to end up in the economic dumpster. However, it's worse for those heading for this country from places like Africa, in an attempt to find work here that they can't find at home. Initially, they'll find at least something, through being willing to work for lower wages and/or in more dangerous, less desirable conditions than American workers will tolerate. However, that won't last for long. The list of industries already implementing technological solutions to their labor problems is already very long, and growing longer. Manufacturing, fast food, farming, assembly operations, customer support, corporate administration, banking . . . the list of places where you'll find automated assistants and AI systems instead of a human being is growing by the day. New jobs are not part of that equation.
It's equally bad news for the US education system. Right now, a school-leaver is woefully ill-equipped to become part of our economy. He's got far too much learning still to do - hands-on, productive learning - and too much touchy-feely politically-correct baggage to learn to discard, once he realizes that it's all been a lie. Commerce and industry function on facts and reality. If they don't, they go out of business. Our education system currently does not teach facts and reality, and doesn't prepare its students to deal with them. That may be an even bigger problem for us that China's current lead in automation.
Furthermore, consider what this immense level of automation means for countries that are struggling to establish their own industries and facilities. They can't possibly afford to build a factory to assemble vehicles using their own labor force, when China (or, for that matter, similar factories in Europe or the USA) can deliver a finished vehicle, made to a much higher standard of quality, for less than a fifth of the cost of a vehicle manufactured locally (what with economies of scale, etc.). In so many words, such hyper-automated production will destroy economies that can't compete at that level; and those living in those economies will see that they have no future there, no way to earn a living, improve their situation in society, or hope for something better. That being the case, they're going to leave for anywhere that appears to offer them a better opportunity. The current immigration pressure on the First World is going to turn into an overwhelming flood.
We are literally creating this future as we speak. All of the factors identified above are now in operation. There's no way we can possibly turn aside from that future now, because just about the whole of the First World as it currently exists would cease to exist if we did.
What does this mean for us as individuals? For someone like me, approaching the end of my life, I can only watch events unfold. For younger people, who must find a way to support themselves and (hopefully) a family in due course, they're going to have to make some very blunt, realistic career decisions. A degree in underwater basket-weaving or feminist studies may sound like a lot of fun, but it's going to fly like a lead balloon in an economy that will demand specific skills, attributes and attitudes. Nations will no longer be able to afford those who contribute nothing to the economy and the needs of the country as a whole. At best, those people will have to live on a minimal public dole, because governments won't be able to afford anything more. Those willing to seek out jobs that will always be in demand, and are unlikely to be automated (e.g. the trades, technical fields that support automation, etc.) will do rather better. Not sure how to get into them? Talk to Mike Rowe.
Sound frightening? It is. Yet, that's the dilemma and the conundrum facing our politicians and business leaders today. Go read the two articles I cited, and do your own search for more material on the subject. We live in interesting times, no matter how much we may wish we didn't.
Peter
Over the past few months I've been noting the number of calls from both sides of the political spectrum to lock up - i.e. imprison - those they don't like, or whom they think deserve it. If all those calls were heeded, our prison population would be at least ten times higher than it is today - and, let's not forget, the USA imprisons a higher proportion of its population than any other First World nation. When it comes to locking up people, we're the winners and still champions, by a very long way.
What people forget is the backstory to prisons. They're a relatively modern phenomenon, in the sense of long-term incarceration. Short-term detention (say, between arrest and trial, or trial and sentencing) has been with us for centuries, but long-term imprisonment as a punishment is only two to three centuries old. The reason is simple: it's expensive! If the State imprisons a man for a period of months or years, it is responsible for his upkeep during that period. It can't be any other way, because he has no means of supporting himself while incarcerated, and it's unlikely his family and/or friends will be able to do so. Metrasens estimates:
The cost of incarcerating an inmate varies significantly by state, facility type, and inmate population. According to recent estimates:
- The median annual cost per prisoner in the U.S. is around $65,000.
- Some states exceed $100,000 per inmate per year, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts.
- The lowest-cost states (e.g., Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana) spend around $23,000-$30,000 per inmate per year.
- The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports an average cost of $36,300 per inmate annually.
There's more at the link. Those figures cover accommodation, clothing, food, medical care and essential legal services (as ordered by the courts). Incarcerating illegal aliens between their arrest and deportation is adding enormously to those costs right now. It's been estimated (I don't know how authoritatively) that a single alien costs in excess of $5,000 per month to house, care for and provide security against escape.
Our problem at the moment is how to reduce expenditure on jails and prisons, because we can't afford the ones we've got! As long as the drive to round up and deport illegal aliens persists, prison and jail costs will continue to soar out of reach of budget-cutters. It's simple economics. Increase the demand (for prison cells) and you force an increase in the supply (of money to build, maintain and operate them). I entirely agree with deporting illegal aliens, but we have to face reality too. That's why illegals who self-deport are being offered free flights to their home countries plus $1,000 apiece to go voluntarily. It saves us a lot of money compared to doing it the hard way.
It's also worth noting that only relatively wealthy countries can afford large prison systems such as ours. Most nations can't afford them, so they don't bother. Anyone who's lived and worked in the Third World will be able to tell you horror stories of prisons crowded to three or four times their capacity, resulting in gang conflict and all-out riots (as, for example, in Ecuador and Brazil); prisoners starving to death because the money to feed them was misappropriated by underpaid prison officials; and families being forced to bring food and clothing to their loved ones every day, or see them gradually die of hunger.
Being a wealthy country with touchy-feely public morals (well, sometimes, anyway), we've chosen to build a prison system to house incarcerated persons in at least minimal comfort. Trouble is, we (the taxpayers) don't like paying for it; and it's going to get a lot more expensive as we increase the number of inmates, whether transient or otherwise. Deporting illegal aliens comes with a hefty price tag. The question is, do we want them gone badly enough to be willing to pay that price?
Peter
Fellow blogger Divemedic brings a timely warning.
Alarm bells should be ringing with the news that the government sold $694 billion in Treasury securities spread over 9 auctions in only three days. Yeah, our national debt now stands at $38.2 trillion. The most alarming thing about this news is that T-bill yields are rising. The 10-year Treasury yield is now at 4.15%. At that rate, the interest on our debt will be more than $1.5 trillion per year. Since Americans only pay about $2.4 trillion in Federal taxes each year, we are edging closer to the point where our debt will begin to grow like a snowball rolling down a mountain.
The only way to keep the government solvent at that point would be to inflate the currency in order to pay it with lower valued money. At that point, inflation will be higher than interest rates, and it will no longer be financially possible to invest in government bonds. This will in turn cause higher rates, which will also create a need for higher inflation. In other words, hyperinflation is the only way out, but that will cause a complete collapse of the US dollar.
There's more at the link.
I can't disagree with anything he says. We've spoken often about debt in these pages, whether government, business, or individual. The inevitable result of too much debt is bankruptcy, in one form or another. A government can't really go bankrupt in the classical sense of the term, because it has laws (and can pass more) to protect it: but it will still not be able to afford the routine expenditure we expect from government. (Even if it tried, savvy businesses would refuse to accept government checks or money orders if they weren't sure they'd be able to cash them.) If you are reliant on government money to feed, house and clothe your family from month to month, you'd better be making plans for when that money is no longer available, and/or has been so (deliberately) inflated that it will no longer buy you all you need.
I also repeat our earlier warnings to get out of debt if at all possible. Sometimes this can't be done, due to factors beyond our control: but certainly don't take on any more debt, unless it's a matter of life or death (e.g. an emergency medical procedure), and don't neglect paying down (and hopefully paying off) debt you already owe. Don't carry balances on your credit cards - pay them off in full every month. Don't run accounts at stores - buy for cash, or do without. Forget "payday loans" or other ultra-short-term loan options (including buy-now-pay-later schemes). They're only designed to enrich the person or institution making the loan, not the one repaying it.
In particular, prepare now for what might hit us if the dollar does lose much of its remaining value. Try to have one to three months' worth of food stockpiled and ready for the day you can't afford to buy more. Try to have an emergency fund of at least one months' expenditure on normal bills, and three to six months if possible - and make sure that includes rent, electricity and other utilities. There's no point in having food available if you have no electricity to keep it frozen or to cook it!
All these are basic measures, to be taken during good (or at least better) times in order to make it through the bad times. Take as many of these step as you can afford, and plan ahead (and around) to deal with those you can't afford.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
(A quick note for readers: Some weeks (as last week, and again today) I won't have many memes to post. That's because I try to only select memes that really did make me smile or laugh. Sometimes there are lots of them, but other times, I find they're mostly re-runs of older memes, or I simply don't find them very funny. Other times, I may not have had time to do a lot of Web browsing that week. So, during weeks like that, please bear with me.)
To pull together the threads of the past week's historic tragedies - the end of World War I in 1918, and the terrorist massacres in Paris, France in 2015 - here's a musical eyewitness to another tragedy.
Vedran Smailović (born 11 November 1956), known as the "Cellist of Sarajevo", is a Bosnian musician. During the siege of Sarajevo, he played Albinoni's Adagio in G minor in ruined buildings, and, often under the threat of snipers, he played during funerals. His bravery inspired musical numbers and the novel The Cellist of Sarajevo by Steven Galloway.
. . .
Smailović caught the imagination of people around the world by playing his cello, most notably performing Albinoni's Adagio in G minor for twenty-two days, in the ruined square of a downtown Sarajevo marketplace after a mortar round had killed twenty-two people waiting for food there. He managed to leave Sarajevo in 1993, during the second year of the siege that ultimately lasted 1,425 days, from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996.
In Smailović's honour, composer David Wilde wrote a piece for solo cello, The Cellist of Sarajevo, which was recorded by Yo-Yo Ma. Paul O'Neill described Smailović's performances as the inspiration for "Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24" by Savatage and the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.
There's more at the link.
David Wilde died last month. In his memory, and to honor Vedran Smailović's courage, here's Yo-Yo Ma performing "The Cellist of Sarajevo".
Peter
In early October I asked for your help for James and Tirzah Burns, two friends of long standing. James had been diagnosed with advanced pancreatic disease, and was in hospital, and another friend had launched a fundraiser to help them with related expenses. Many thanks to those who donated.
Sadly, James' illness was too far advanced. He died on October 29th. I mentioned it in these pages, and again asked for your help for the family with funeral and other expenses. Again, some readers were generous, and helped a great deal.
Tirzah is now dealing with all the post-funeral bureaucratic paperwork, and preparing their two children for life without Dad at home. It's going to be tough for them. Despite all the distractions and the pain of her loss, she sent me this brief text message this morning: "Peter, please thank your readers for me for such kind donations". Together, we helped her keep the family afloat, financially speaking, while James was no longer able to earn a living, and now his life insurance and other assistance are in the process of kicking in (once all the paperwork is done). They should be able to cope for several months at least.
I'd like to add my personal thanks to Tirzah's. She's good people, as are her children. My wife and I hope to have them visit us sometime soon, to relax and get over the stress of the past few months. They're definitely the kind of people worthy of our support.
Peter
I'm sure that by now, many of my readers have heard the allegations that during the Bosnian War, elements of the Bosnian Serb forces invited outsiders - foreigners - to pay for "safaris" to hunt and murder Bosnian civilians in Sarajevo.
The foreigners, from Italy, the US, Russia and elsewhere, are accused of paying Serbian forces to take part in the shooting spree during the Bosnian War.
They were allegedly motivated by sympathy for the Serbian cause, sheer bloodthirstiness or a combination of the two, investigators say.
. . .
The amateur snipers paid the modern-day equivalent of €80,000 to €100,000 (median £80,000) to take part in the chilling “sport”, according to La Repubblica newspaper.
. . .
The case has been taken up by an Italian journalist and writer, Ezio Gavazzeni, with the backing of two lawyers and a former judge.
There was “a price tag for these killings: children cost more, then men, preferably in uniform and armed, women, and finally old people, who could be killed for free,” said Mr Gavazzeni.
There's more at the link, including earlier allegations that now appear to be vindicated by the latest evidence. It appears that people from Italy, America and Russia were among the "tourist snipers".
When I first read that report, I got a sick feeling in my stomach, very similar to what I experienced when I realized the magnitude of the Catholic clergy child sex abuse crisis. The thought of anyone casually handing over large sums of money for the "privilege" of hunting innocent civilians, murdering them for no reason except that they were available . . . it's almost beyond belief. I've seen that kind of callous indifference among combat troops who'd been exposed to a war environment for too long, and had left at least part of their humanity behind, but I'd never dreamed that "normal" people might do the same. (They're not "normal", of course: they're monsters in human form, who've drowned their souls in the dregs of existence by their own choice.)
You'll understand that I still view life through the lens of a clergyman's calling, despite not having been professionally active in that field for a long time. I wonder what I would do if someone who'd done that came to me and asked me to hear his confession of sin, and give him absolution? I hope and pray that I wouldn't turn away from my calling, and would minister to him as best I could . . . but it would be extraordinarily difficult. It was the same for me as a prison chaplain, when a multiple murder or rapist or whatever would feel the touch of grace, and want to repent before God. To sit and listen to the litany of pure evil they unleashed in their confession was probably the hardest thing I had to do as a clergyman. I can only hope and pray that God's mercy would reach out and cover their sins, even though as a human being I didn't know that such mercy would be possible. I suppose it's a good thing I'm not God . . .
I can't say any more about it. I've run out of words to describe the horror I felt reading this, and remembering those video news images of civilians being cut down in the streets of Sarajevo. May those guilty of this repent of their sins; but if they don't, may they suffer condign punishment and retribution in the hereafter.
Peter
On November 13, 2015, a series of terrorist attacks took place in Paris, France. Nine attackers, assisted by a tenth who escaped, used suicide bombs and assault rifles to strike a stadium, several restaurants, and the Bataclan theater. 137 victims died, most at the Bataclan, with a further 416 injured.
The echoes of the attacks continue to this day. France commemorated them with public memorial services and other functions; extremist Muslim terrorist groups celebrated them with paeans of praise to the "martyrs" who carried them out. They are, in a sense, France's equivalent to the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States: a landmark in our history that will never be forgotten.
As was only to be expected, the attacks inspired a wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric in France and elsewhere, and also inspired would-be fundamentalist terrorists to intensify their efforts. Incidents like this always do that - they make the extremes more extreme, whilst driving most of society from the center towards those extremes. The day after the attacks, I wrote:
The terrorists haven't thought about it, I'm sure, but they're going to produce a similar and even greater tragedy for their own people than they've inflicted on France. The reaction from ordinary people like you and I won't be to truly think about the tragedy, to realize that the perpetrators were a very small minority of those who shared their faith, extremists who deserve the ultimate penalty as soon as it can be administered. No. The ordinary man and woman on the streets of France is going to wake up today hating all Muslims. He or she will blame them all for the actions of a few, and will react to all of them as if they were all equally guilty.
One can't blame people for such attitudes. When one simply can't tell whether or not an individual Muslim is also a terrorist fundamentalist, the only safety lies in treating all of them as if they presented that danger. That's what the French people are going to do now. That's what ordinary people all across Europe are going to do now, irrespective of whatever their politicians tell them. Their politicians are protected in secure premises by armed guards. They aren't. Their survival is of more immediate concern; so they're doing to do whatever they have to do to improve the odds in their favor. If that means ostracizing Muslims, ghettoizing them, even using preemptive violence against them to force them off the streets . . . they're going to do it.
I've written before about how blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few is disingenuous and inexcusable. I still believe that . . . but events have overtaken rationality. People are going to start relating to 'Muslims' rather than to 'human beings', just as the extremists label all non-Muslims as 'kaffirs' or 'kufars' - unbelievers - rather than as human beings. For the average man in a European street, a Muslim will no longer be a 'person'. He's simply a Muslim, a label, a 'thing'. He's no longer French, or American, or British, no matter what his passport says. He's an 'other'. He's 'one of them' . . . and because of that, he's no longer 'one of us'. He's automatically defined - no, let's rather say (because it's easier to blame him) that he's defined himself - as a potential threat, merely by the religion he espouses. He may have been born into it, and raised in a family and society and culture so saturated with it as to make it literally impossible, inconceivable, for him to be anything else . . . but that doesn't matter. It's his choice to be Muslim, therefore he must take the consequences. We're going to treat him with the same suspicion and exaggerated caution that we would a live, possibly armed hand-grenade. He's asked for it, so we're going to give it to him.
That's the bitter fruit that extremism always produces. It's done so throughout history. There are innumerable examples of how enemies have become 'things'. It's Crusaders versus Saracens, Cavaliers versus Roundheads, Yankees versus Rebels, doughboys versus Krauts . . . us versus them, for varying values of 'us' and 'them'.
. . .
And in the end, the bodies lying in the ruins, and the blood dripping onto our streets, and the weeping of those who've lost loved ones . . . they'll all be the same. History is full of them. When it comes to the crunch, there are no labels that can disguise human anguish. People will suffer in every land, in every community, in every faith . . . and they'll turn to what they believe in to make sense of their suffering . . . and most of them will raise up the next generation to hate those whom they identify as the cause of their suffering . . . and the cycle will go on, for ever and ever, until the world ends.
There's more at the link.
And, sure enough, the cycle of the Paris attacks has produced yet more bitter fruit. The BBC reports:
A former girlfriend of the only jihadist to survive the November 2015 attacks has been arrested on suspicion of plotting her own violent act.
The woman - a 27 year-old French convert to Islam named as Maëva B - began a letter-writing relationship with Salah Abdeslam, 36, who is serving a life sentence in jail near the Belgian border following his conviction in 2022.
When prison guards discovered that Abdeslam had been using a USB key containing jihadist propaganda, they traced its origin to face-to-face meetings that the prisoner had with Maëva B.
. . .
With France commemorating 10 years since the worst attack in its modern history, the arrest has focused minds on the enemy that never went away.
Six plots have been thwarted this year, says Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez, and the threat level remains high.
Again, more at the link.
Say a prayer today for those who died in Paris that day, and their survivors, who live with the burden of their loss. Pray, too, for those who work day and night to protect us against more such attacks.
Peter
Today's award goes to a bank robber in Ohio.
A 42-year-old man was arrested Friday morning after robbing the Huntington Bank on West State Street, marking the city’s first bank robbery since 2010.
According to the Alliance Police Department, Jauan L. Mason, recently moved to Alliance from Akron, entered the bank around 9:20 a.m. and claimed he had a weapon. He demanded cash and fled on foot with approximately $400 in one-dollar bills.
Police responded immediately and searched the area. Patrolman Paul Vesco located Mason walking on South Union Avenue near State Street. Mason had changed clothes and was carrying the stolen money.
. . .
During his arrest, he reportedly asked police to deposit the stolen cash into his jail commissary account.
There's more at the link.
It's weird how many criminals regard what they've stolen as theirs. "If I steal it, it's automatically mine!" - except that the law doesn't see it that way. I've encountered that attitude time and again among prison inmates during my time as a chaplain. I'm sure the police had a lot of fun pointing out to him that his deposit was going to be a big fat zero.
In this case, kudos to the teller who kept several big bundles of $1 bills in his/her drawer. It looks like a lot of cash, but in actual value it's not worth much. The robber simply grabbed the big bundles, doubtless congratulating himself on his score, and ran off with them without counting them.
Peter
I had to smile at an award recently conferred in New York City. It reminded me of Aesop's famous fable.
The M42 Crosstown was just crowned the slowest bus in the Big Apple — a title that its riders say comes as no surprise.
The MTA shuttle earned the first “un-coveted Pokey award” from the New York Public Interest Research Group in three years after clocking in at an exhausting 5.25 miles per hour on average.
At that pace, the M42 would have fittingly finished in 42,232nd place of the 59,226 runners at this year’s NYC Marathon.
At a press conference Monday, MTA Chief of Policy & External Relations John McCarthy acknowledged the M42’s Pokey win, but said the award should have been given to 42nd Street instead of the shuttle.
“It’s really not the bus’s fault. The bus wakes up in the morning and it wants to provide great service; it wants to go fast. That’s what it’s equipped to do and the bus operator wants to drive the bus quickly. The problem is that things are in the way,” said McCarthy.
“I’d like to take this award and hand it to 42nd street because it’s the street, it’s the road and it’s the vehicles that are blocking buses that are the problem and continue to be the problem.”
There's more at the link.
The report amused me, but I had to concede that the explanation offered by Mr. McCarthy was most likely all too accurate. I've driven in New York and Massachusetts, and almost universally drivers there proved to be the least polite, most aggressive and unhelpful of any I've found in the rest of the United States. In New York, there seemed to be a competition among drivers over who could be the most obstructive and just plain nasty to tourists and visitors. I loathed my time on the road in those two states, and won't willingly return to them for that reason.
I'm sure city-proud New Yorkers will object to my comparison, and insist that it's really not that bad there. To that, all I can say is that if the average New York City driver of my [admittedly limited] experience tried to drive as he's accustomed in Dallas or Houston, he'd be jailed in short order by the local cops - if, that is, local drivers hadn't administered a short, sharp lesson in manners before then!
Peter
Yesterday I cited Rod Dreher at some length concerning right-wing extremism. As usual, the responses were mixed: some for his views, some against. I find it concerning that some were absolutely dogmatic in their views - it was their way, or the highway, and their agreement or disagreement was absolute. That's very dangerous. You'll recall Oliver Cromwell's words to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Too many of us (including me, sadly) can assume that we are not mistaken, whereas our opponents are. In many (but by no means all) cases, it would be a lot better for us to listen to the other side and see whether there's any common ground to be found, or a better approach to achieving something of importance to the society in which both of us live.
An anonymous reader, commenting on yesterday's article, provided a link to this post on X.com by a user calling himself "Wokal Distance". I thought it made sense. The reader who posted the link thought it rebutted Rod Dreher's perspective, but I think it does more to sustain it overall. I decided to re-post the whole thing here, so you could compare and contrast them for yourselves.
I despise the Groyper movement, but if you want to understand where Fuentes gets purchase with young men I will tell you how it happened by telling you about my experience at the orientation night when my son joined elementary school band:
My 11 year old son son joined the elementary school band, and so I went to the parents orientation night which was held at a local high-school. As the night went on it became obvious to me why young men rage against the larger social system.
The classrooms were inundated with DEI messages and trans pride flags. On the walls there were posters, stickers and various decorations that all invoked the various totems if diversity. Black lives matter messaging, decolonization messaging, LGBTQ+ messaging, and basically ever sort of race and gender social justice messaging you can imagine was present. The advertisements for post secondary opportunities featured social justice education prominently, including advertising a course on indigenous ways of knowing" as something grade 12 students should pursue upon graduation. Many of the teachers has "this is a safe space" sticker son their doors, and others had variations of "in this house" messaging on their doors or on the walls of the classroom.
The entire aesthetic which dominated the decoration of classrooms was the progressive leftist coded "in this house" and "be kind" aesthetic. As soon as you walked into a classroom there was no doubt as the the political leanings of whichever teacher occupied that classroom. The only way I can describe it is to say that progressive social justice activists have colonized the school and marked their territory.
A woman in a mask (who was in charge) got up and read a number of land acknowledgements before acknowledging the contribution of indigenous people to ways of knowing. Standard leftist land acknowledgement boilerplate. Additionally, every interaction was done in the style of HR style professionalism mixed with progressive leftist coded gentle parenting.
When it comes to how the teachers behaved I am going to draw on both that night and the other times I have been at my sons school in order to explain it. To begin, the boys are treated almost as though they are defective girls. The feminine modes of interaction and socialization are treated as though they are the only legitimate modes of interaction and serve as the taken for granted way to properly interact and navigate the world. Almost all the authority figures at my sons school are women with almost no exceptions. One day my son found out that the school had hired a single male education Assistant, and my son came home and told me, in wondrous amazement, that he saw a "boy teacher" at school. The level of wonderment and surprise he expressed was on par with what I would expect if he had walked into school and seen a triceratops walking the hallways.
My son often comes home from school and expresses utter frustration at the fact that his preferred way of communicating, as well as the things that are aligned with his temperament are treated as though they were somehow inferior. As he is 11 (and being assessed for autism) he lacks the correct technical language to describe this, so it generally shows up as him getting in trouble for being insufficiently "gentle" and "kind" in response to various passive aggressive power plays and instances of bullying carries out by his more socially developed (often) female peers.
To say that band night was feminine coded would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that feminized modes of behavior and communication were embedded in every single interaction. It was a totally alien environment for anyone who isn't well versed in navigating the social codes of progressive leftist institutional spaces. It was like the slogan "the future is female" was taken to be a command delivered from God Himself turned into an education program.
Now, I want you to imagine what it is like for an 11 year old boy to be saturated in that environment day after day. he is an alien in his own school who is treated essentially like a ticking time bomb who needs to be effectively managed rather than engaged with an taught, and he knows this is happening. It is hard to overstate the level of hostility towards boys that is floating around in the ambient culture of the school system. It isn’t so much that there is an explicit form of anti-male bigotry (although examples of that exist) it is more that there is an overall attitude of distaste for anything masculine and an utter indifference towards the interests, fortunes, and inner lives of young boys. The expectations, norms, rules, and standards of behavior cater to the sensibilities of girls and women.
This is the entire social system that a young boy goes through from when he is 6 years old all the way until he is graduated from university.
It’s an old trope on the right to say “imagine if the roles were reversed,” but that would be to miss the point. I know that many on the left will say that all of this is perfectly acceptable because of historical injustices and the pursuit of Social Justice. What I want to point out to you is how absurd the world must appear through the eyes of the average 11 year-old boy. He is basically told he has a host of social advantages (white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, etc) that he has never experienced and will never benefit from, and this justifies the system which he is immersed in. And the worst part is, if young men point any of this out, the very people who are doing it will look them in the eye with a straight face and deny that any of this ever happened. Making matters worse these men begin to figure out that the institutions have been used to advance a leftist political agenda that scapegoated their group (young white men), and when they point this out everyone in authority calls them evil bigots.
And all this happens during their formative years.
Now, Imagine you are a young white male.
You graduate from the school system and are released into the world only to find that the feminine modes of socialization pushed on you are entirely unfit for purpose. That the social skills you were taught fail utterly in both the job markets young men tend towards (construction, engineering, building, landscaping, etc) and have no purchase in the dating market where highly agentic, masculine, wealthy men have a huge advantage over the passive, docile "nice boy." On top of that, imagine that a great deal of the job listings that you peruse make it clear that preference will be given to women and "diverse" candidates, and that the job interview itself is full of shibboleths, coded statements, and trap questions meant to elicit responses that allow the hiring party to exclude anyone who isn't sufficiently versed in and aligned with the priorities of the DEI/Woke/Social Justice paradigm.
On top of that, that if a you do get a job you will exposed to various sensitivity trainings, DEI trainings, and intersectionality workshops in which your group (straight white men) are repeatedly scapegoated as the source of all the worlds pathologies. Laid at your feet are patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism and a great number of other social evils for which you are taken to be complicit in and have a responsibility for fixing in virtue of being a white male.
While all this is going on a series of scandals (COVID, Men in womens' sports, trans kids, etc) reveal to you the degree to which the institutions that make up the society you live in have adopted an ideology that is actively hostile to you because you are a straight white male, and have been denying you opportunity while scapegoating you for all societies problems and treating you like you are a defective girl.
Once you understand this, the real question is not "why are some young men radicalizing?" the real question is "why are there any young men at all who have not been radicalized?"
None of this is to excuse any of the extremist radicals who are attempting to harness the resentment and anger of young men for their evil purposes. The point is to get you to understand why young men will attach themselves to any voice who is willing to stridently call for the obliteration of the social system and ideology which lied to them during their formative years and is currently doing things which rob them of opportunities for advancement and success.
The institutions have totally blown their credibility with young men, and have completely destroyed young men's trust in institutions. Young men view the current set of social institutions as ideologically corrupt and totally illegitimate, and they view the narratives that emerge from those institutions as being expressions of as nothing more then a story told to legitimize an ideology which seeks to hold them back. As such, the institutions and their narratives have absolutely no normative pull on young Gen Z men.
I am not saying the situation is hopeless, but unless you acknowledge what I have laid out here, and engage in a good faith attempt to understand what the school system, Universities, non-profits, HR departments, and other civic institutions have done to young men, you will never be able to gain their trust enough to lead them away from guys like Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, Andrew Torba, and other pathological influences.
That certainly highlights why so many of our young men are attracted to extremism in one form or another. It's a chilling condemnation of what we've allowed our schools to become: institutions where our children are brainwashed and propagandized, rather than educated. I can't think of a better argument for home schooling than the description above.
Compare and contrast that to Rod Dreher's perspective, as covered in these pages yesterday and ten days ago. What do you think, readers?
I've come out of a background where differences of opinion led - literally - to civil war, mass murder, and the utter destruction of the fabric of a nation. I've seen it at first hand in the Third World far too often to be under any illusions about how bad it can get. I would far rather talk than start shooting, unless and until the latter option becomes the only way to defend what one believes in - and yes, I've done that, too.
Only those who've seen and experienced how bad it can get have any real idea of the ultimate development of the mess we're in. Ask those who served in Mogadishu, or "hot spots in Afghanistan or Iraq. They know . . . and they don't want that to come here . . . but if we don't get a handle on extremism on both the left and the right wings of our body politic, it's going to come here.
Peter
