Sunday, November 1, 2026

The Left’s Century of Moral Lectures, Failed Policies, and Manufactured Virtue

The Left’s Century of Moral Lectures, Failed Policies, and Manufactured Virtue


How a society is dragged down by thugs

Nine Shot Near Nation’s Largest HBCU Football Game


Nine people were shot, one of them fatally, shortly before 8 p.m. Saturday near Birmingham, Alabama’s Legion Field, the site of the Magic City Classic football game.

The New York Post noted the Classic “the largest Historically Black College and University football game in the US.”

The shots were fired on an avenue “behind the south endzone stands of the stadium,” leaving one dead and eight people with non-life-threatening injuries.

Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin (D) used a Facebook post to promise anonymity to anyone who may be able to help law enforcement identify the shooter(s) in the incident.

He wrote:

The Birmingham Police Department is asking for the public’s assistance in sharing any video footage you may have from the shooting incident near Legion Field that occurred last night. If you captured video footage that may assist with investigation, please use the link below or the Learn More Button below to submit your video on the Submit a Tip option.

The Democrat Party

‘I’ve Been a Democrat for 75 Years, Now I Want This Party Destroyed’: Alan Dershowitz [WATCH]

Dershowitz says the Democratic Party’s leftward shift, attacks on constitutional norms and growing socialist influence drove him to leave after 75 years and register as a Republican.

Man-made global warming


Man-made 'climate change' SAVED America from icy doom: Study



the left's Nirvana Fallacy

Asking the Right Question

michaelsmith@substack.com

When “As compared to what?” is the question, more often than not, America is the answer.

Given the mid-terms are upon us, I’ve been thinking about potential outcomes and what America means to you, to me, and the world. In this age of narrow victories and losses, the outcomes matter - but what matters even more are the factors that go into making that choice and marking it on a ballot.

I’m sure you are like me when sometimes I watch political and social commentary on YouTube and other sources and wonder whether the people producing them inhabit the same planet I do. We are ostensibly looking at the same events, living under the same laws, and experiencing the same human condition, yet our conclusions are sometimes so radically different that I wonder whether we even agree on what constitutes reality.

I have generally attributed these differences to experience, education, ideology, or the peculiar human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel morally superior, but I suspect something more fundamental is at work. Perhaps the great intellectual divide in modern society is not between liberals and conservatives, or even individualists and collectivists. Perhaps it is between those who understand that life is an exercise in managing tradeoffs and those who insist on measuring reality against an imaginary standard of perfection.

We live in a world of almost infinite theoretical possibilities, but a decidedly finite number of practical alternatives. Every decision involves constraints imposed by resources, knowledge, time, human nature, and circumstances beyond our control. Consequently, outcomes rarely fall neatly into categories of good and bad. More often, they occupy positions along a sliding scale ranging from mostly good with some undesirable consequences to mostly bad with a few redeeming qualities.

Sometimes our choices are between bad and worse. Rational decision-making is not about discovering an alternative without disadvantages but identifying the best achievable outcome among those actually available - yet an astonishing amount of modern sociopolitical discourse proceeds as though the existence of an undesirable consequence proves that a better alternative must exist.

Often, due to limitation of the time, place, and situation there simply are none.

Economists have a name for one manifestation of this intellectual defect: thenirvana fallacy. It describes comparing an imperfect real-world arrangement against an idealized alternative rather than another arrangement that could realistically exist. Capitalism provides a useful example. Critics point to poverty, inequality, economic insecurity, and exploitation as evidence that capitalism is fundamentally defective. Those conditions certainly exist, but the relevant question is whether another achievable economic system has demonstrated a superior ability to create prosperity, reduce deprivation, encourage innovation, and improve the human condition. The historical record provides considerable evidence on that question, although it apparently lacks the emotional appeal of imagining a society in which everyone is smart, tall, good looking, and $100 bills rain from the sky.

There is nothing inherently wrong with imagining a better world. The problem arises when the desirability of an objective is mistaken for evidence of its feasibility. Eliminating poverty and crime is desirable, as is providing everyone with excellent healthcare, comfortable housing, and economic security. Unfortunately, declaring something desirable does not suspend the laws of economics, overcome limitations of human nature, or magically produce sufficient necessary resources.

But any society that confuses aspirations with achievable outcomes will inevitably become frustrated with reality, and that frustration is fertile ground for political movements that make impossible promises.

Thomas Sowell explored the philosophical foundations of this disagreement in A Conflict of Visions, distinguishing between constrained and unconstrained understandings of human nature. The constrained vision recognizes enduring limitations in human knowledge, judgment, and moral character. Institutions must accommodate those limitations, channel self-interest toward productive ends, and restrain destructive behavior. The unconstrained vision places greater confidence in humanity’s capacity to overcome its shortcomings through reason, enlightened leadership, and deliberate social organization.

Of course, these are not absolute categories, but they illuminate a profound disagreement about what government and society can reasonably accomplish and what it can’t.

It would be foolish, however, to ignore which political forces routinely ignore reality and substitute impossible expectations and standards.

The distinction becomes consequential when applied to political power. If human nature is truly and fundamentally constrained, concentrating authority in the hands of a supposedly enlightened few is dangerous. Those few remain subject to the same limitations as everyone else, with the added disadvantage of possessing sufficient power to impose their mistakes on an entire population. If human nature is considered sufficiently malleable, and social problems are attributed primarily to defective institutions, government becomes an irresistible instrument of human improvement. Every persistent imperfection becomes evidence that society has not been sufficiently reorganized and every failed reform becomes justification for another, usually more ambitious reform. Apparently, the only thing standing between humanity and paradise is our stubborn refusal to give the right people enough authority - and this is where the failure of comparative reasoning becomes especially destructive.

Rational policymakers should ask three questions: What is possible? What is probable? What is preferable?

And the sequence matters. Possibility establishes the boundaries of reality, probability requires examining likely outcomes, including unintended consequences, and preference allows us to choose among feasible alternatives. Much of modern political argument reverses this process. It begins with a morally attractive objective, assumes that objective must be achievable, and treats objections concerning feasibility as evidence of moral deficiency. Questioning whether a government program will reduce poverty becomes opposition to helping the poor. The effectiveness of the proposed means becomes secondary to the righteousness of the intended end. It is a wonderfully convenient arrangement for anyone who prefers moral posturing to the considerably more demanding business of solving problems.

There is also a peculiar asymmetry in how actual institutions and imagined alternatives are evaluated. While existing systems must answer for every failure, inequity, and unintended consequence, their proposed replacements are judged almost exclusively by their intentions. Capitalism must defend itself against every instance of poverty, while socialism is permitted to describe what it hopes to accomplish, and in most cases, using the most luridly suggestive language. Constitutional government must explain why injustice persists, while social justice warriors assume that concentrated power will somehow become benevolent once entrusted to sufficiently virtuous hands.

Reality must produce evidence. Utopia need only produce promises.

It seems impossible to imagine a more intellectually dishonest contest, yet this game is played every single day.

None of this means existing institutions are beyond criticism or that radical improvements are impossible. It means serious criticism requires consideration of serious alternatives. Neither tradition nor novelty is a substitute for reason.

Perhaps that explains why two people can examine the same world and reach irreconcilable conclusions. One sees an imperfect civilization that has nevertheless produced extraordinary human progress. The other sees persistent imperfections and concludes that civilization itself must be defective. One evaluates what exists against what has demonstrably been possible. The other evaluates it against what ought to exist in a world unconstrained by economics, history, and human nature.

Sowell asked this very simple question: Compared to what?

I happen to think America is on the positive side of just about any answer to that question. People who fall on the other side are just complaining that reality has failed to live up to some figment of their fevered imagination.

A Brief Public Service Announcement for the American Left

A Brief Public Service Announcement for the American Left

Another relevant lesson from the past.

Tehran in the 1960s-1970s – Dr. Kaveh Farrokh

I’m not speaking to the right.

I want my trolls, the progressives who sneak-read my essays, and the literal freakaziods who are drunk on their own piss, to stop being brain-damaged for just long enough to see if what follows reverberates at all in that vast echo chamber you call a skull.

First, let’s talk a little bit about Iran because there is a lesson there.

Not today’s Iran, but Iran back in the late 70’s.

Iran under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, particularly between the early 1960s and the Islamic Revolution of 1979, was a fascinating contradiction. It was a modernizing, increasingly secular, Western-oriented society governed by an authoritarian hereditary monarch. Its citizens enjoyed certain social and economic freedoms that were remarkable by Middle Eastern standards, particularly women, but they had considerably fewer political freedoms than citizens of Western democracies.

It was nominally a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament, elections, a prime minister, and a written constitution. In practice, however, the Shah exercised overwhelming political authority. The best description I can use would be to call it an authoritarian constitutional monarchy pursuing Western-style modernization without Western-style political liberty.

Most of today’s TikTok Kommie Kiddies making videos today have no idea how the 1979 “revolution” came to be. They hear the word “revolution” and all the blood in their bodies rush from their brain to their genitals.

The political left played a significant, if ultimately self-defeating, role in Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Marxists, communists, socialists, and secular intellectuals joined forces with Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamist movement to overthrow the Shah, united by their opposition to the monarchy, capitalism, and Western influence. Organizations such as the communist Tudeh Party and the Marxist Fedayeen helped foment revolutionary opposition, while leftist students and intellectuals provided much of its ideological energy. Many believed the Islamic revolution was merely the first stage of a broader socialist transformation, foolishly assuming they could eventually displace the religious leadership and establish their own political order. Khomeini, however, had other plans.

Once the Shah was removed, the Islamists consolidated power, suppressed their former allies, and systematically imprisoned, executed, or exiled many of the very leftists who had helped bring them to power. The Iranian Revolution remains a remarkable example of ideological movements becoming so consumed with destroying a common enemy that they fail to recognize the danger posed by their supposed allies. The communists imagined they were using the Islamists to advance socialism. Khomeini understood that they were helping him establish a theocracy that the Islamic zealots could never accomplish on their own, and when the usefulness of the communists expired, so did his tolerance for them.

I’m sure the young communist ideologues were surprised to find themselves persecuted, imprisoned, executed, or driven into exile by the Islamic government they had helped bring to power.

As surprised as I’m sure most of you fellow travelers and useful idiots are going to be when it happens to you – and it will.

In your Red-Green, Communist and Islamist alliance, it won’t matter which side wins control, in the same way it happened in Iran, the other side has to go. Either the Marxists will remain or the Islamists will, but either way, some of you will find yourselves on the outside looking in, if you survive.

The communists in America are led by people who are literally on the wrong side of every argument, every debate and every principle and value that has sustained our civilization for over 3,000 years - because the way they “win” is to redefine every single event, action, belief, and state of being – literally redefining reality – to fit their positions.

Just look at what you are being told is real, the lies you are being told you must believe. Just take a heartbeat and take stock of the path you are on because none of what you believe people like me are doing to “oppress” you is real, none of it is true, none of it can exist outside theory, and none of your “logic” will save you.

You are not fighting me; you are fighting the reality of Nature and Nature’s God, but you would rather kill me (like you did Charlie Kirk) than listen to and consider an opposing point.

How do I know?

Because everything you claim to want for society already exists – except you can’t accept it because you don’t really want to solve problems, you just want the power to punish.

And you are being constantly lied to and in turn, are lying to yourself about it. All of it.

That’s why so many of you are borderline insane (or if social media is representative, have already crossed the border into Crazytown).

Insanity is a state of severe mental disturbance in which a person’s ability to think rationally, perceive reality, or exercise sound judgment is substantially impaired.

There is only so much contradiction a mind can contain before it starts to rebel, and a growing percentage of you are crossing that line.

Your Stepstool Abdul Elf Sayed, Jew hating buddies in the mosques and madrassas aren’t going to save you. You think you are the scorpion, but you are really just the frog. You are the transport, not the package.

They are using you just like the Mad Mullahs used the commies in Iran back in the 70’s. Look at what they believe and what you believe. I won’t run down the list for you, but suffice it to say Pride Month, Transgender Days of Visibility, and Queers for Palestine are not things that exist in Iran. The only thing you have in common is that you want to bring down the United States.

Their view of you is this: if you are willing to overthrow your own elected government that has weathered every storm for 250 years while preserving your freedoms, how can we trust you not to try to overthrow us when you realize you woke up and the clocks have been set ahead from FA to FO time?

The only reason they are Democrats now is that they currently find your political access and power useful, a means to an end - but that usefulness has an expiration date stamped on it.

All of this is to fight a right wing that really doesn’t care what you do as long as we are not forced to participate and become cheerleaders for it. For example, drag shows have been a thing for decades. We never cared until you wanted access to our kids. We never cared that you want to gender swap until you wanted to transition our 6 year-olds without our knowledge or consent. You even could accomplish what you claimed to want in same-sex relationships with civil unions, but you had to have marriage to poke a sharp stick in the eye of Christians.

Newsflash – the image of us you have been taught to believe is not us. We’re all like Howard Roark from The Fountianhead: we don’t think of you - unless you make us.

The worst you will get is us trying to tell you that we believe what you are doing is wrong.

You won’t get that kind of tolerance from your new friends and “allies”.


Saturday, October 31, 2026

So much fraud

LA sheriff’s dept probes its ties to $43M Wall Street swindler — after admitting it didn’t know his past


Why it is necessary to rein in the bureaucracy

California hospital chain scraps $1B expansion amid red tape nightmare

A Sacramento health care giant abruptly scrapped a $1 billion Bay Area expansion Friday, blaming red tape and dealing a crushing blow to the local economy.

Sutter Health will no longer pursue building a hospital in Emeryville, citing California’s environmental review law that has plagued construction projects for its red tape.

“Over two years, we pursued relief under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Those efforts did not secure the certainty needed to advance the hospital project, leaving it vulnerable to litigation that could delay construction and new hospital services for years,” the company said.

Under CEQA, projects need to complete adequate reviews of their environmental impacts before receiving approval to proceed. That process can be bogged down by lawsuits and take years

Instead, Sutter Health said it will expand outpatient care in Emeryville while searching for a new location for the hospital.


“Our commitment to the 542,000 patients we serve across the East Bay remains strong,” Sutter Health insisted, adding it will continue to try to convince lawmakers to grant a full exemption from the environmental law.

The stunning decision comes after more than a year of planning over the proposed hospital, which would have included a 17-story tower with approximately 325 beds, emergency services and a rooftop helipad.

The project would have been one of the largest developments in Emeryville’s history.

The reversal also poses questions for the larger Emeryville campus, located at Hollis and 53rd streets, which Sutter had purchased for $450 million in early 2025 and provided much needed tax revenue for the city.

The proposed medical campus was to encompass roughly 1.3 million square feet, though it faced local opposition, the Emeryville Eye reported.Now, the campus may only have a range of outpatient services such as a primary and specialty care, diagnostic services, urology and orthopedics, or imaging, laboratory and pharmacy facilities.

“The project remains vulnerable to litigation and years of potential delay. We cannot allow that uncertainty to stall needed investments in care,” Sutter Health said on the pivot to outpatient facilities.

Sutter Health abandoned plans for a new Bay Area campus, citing uncertainty around environmental rules and litigation after spending $450 million. KTVU Fox2

The new hospital was intended to replace Sutter’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley, which is scheduled to close in 2030 due to compliance concerns with California earthquake safety rules for hospitals. 

Sutter said it will pursue legislation to allow Alta Bates to stay open until a new hospital is built and that “there is no immediate change to patient care or services at Alta Bates.”


City officials said they were shocked by the news.

“The project, initially, when they announced it was more about healthcare access in this part of the region,” Emeryville City Manager LaTanya Bellow told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Now that they’re not moving forward, I don’t know what happens to that.”