In surveying the vast expansion of the much-discussed Overton Window last year, it seemed like things couldn’t get any better. After a decade of oppressive wokery, people were suddenly letting it all out in a cathartic moment that felt incredible.
A year on, it seems to be getting even better. Maybe that’s because I’m using Substack more, which basically takes all the hot takes of X and transforms them into pseudo-intellectual essays (the writing on Substack is really good, by the way). People on there have zero qualms about saying anything, which makes it a pretty exciting intellectual environment. When no idea—even the bad ones—are off-limits, everything gets discussed—and exposed.
It’s refreshing. I remember how bad things got in 2015-2016, when even here in super conservative South Carolina you couldn’t audibly espouse support for Trump in mixed company, and certainly not in a professional setting. Now people are like, “Trump hasn’t gone far enough.” I mean, look, I agree; it’s just wild how we can say it out loud now.
So, no more equivocating, folks, no more disclaimers. Let it all out in a flurry of free speech!
The formation of England’s new Restore Party under the auspices of Rupert Lowe has electrified the Right worldwide. Naturally, the party is already polling well in England—three years away from the next expected parliamentary elections.
One Lowe’s major points is that foreign migrants who are unable to speak English—remember, this language is named for England and the English people, the descendants of the Angles—must leave England.
If it sounds extreme, it’s because we’ve been conditioned to believe that citizenship and the concept of the nation are abstract ideals with some vague, dotted-line borders attached. There’s also this belief that, if we just get people onto our magic dirt—which, despite allegedly possessing magical properties, is simultaneously not special enough to protect with hard borders—they will shed their benighted ways and become good center-Left classical liberals with six-figure salaries running socially beneficial non-profits.
Because of such magical thinking, people will either a.) learn English or b.) not learn English; either way, everything will be fine. Besides, expecting immigrants to learn the language of the native people is racist, probably. We should be using our “privilege” to learn their language.
I’m not opposed to learning foreign languages—far from it. But I’ve been thinking a great deal about language since listening to Dr. Edward Dutton—“The Jolly Heretic”—give his take on Lowe’s announcement:
Here’s a quick transcript of the key excerpt(s) from Dr. Dutton’s thoughts on speaking English:
“I find this extraordinary—the concept of not being able to speak English…. If you are remotely educated for a foreign country, then you will of course… speak English, and you will speak it well, because it is in the lingua franca.”
Indeed, English is the lingua franca—the universal, common language—of the twenty-first century. Students travel to the United States and Britain to hone their English skills; I know because I teach quite a few of them (and, I’m ashamed to admit, many of them speak and write English better than native-born Americans)! It is the language of international commerce, diplomacy, and scholarship.
It’s a beautifully adaptable language, too. It’s flexible, bendable, changeable, while still retaining an essential grammar. Of the many accomplishments of the English-speaking peoples of the world, our language—along with concepts like freedom of speech and religion—is one of our greatest gifts to humanity.
Good ol’ Tom over atFree Speech Backlash graciously sent along this powerful post about the state of free speech—or the lack thereof—in Great Britain and Europe.
American readers are likely aware of the rapid erosion of free speech in the nation that birthed the very concept, and it serves as an object lesson on the importance of the First Amendment, which has so far protected Americans from the worst excesses of government censorship. As Tom notes, though, paper guarantees are worthless if not supported for every American.
However, government censorship has rarely been the issue in the United States; rather, corporate censorship is what haunts free speech in the United States. The various attempts by the tech giants to censor free speech on their platforms in 2016, 2020, and 2024 indicate that the platforms that serve as our de facto public square are often restricted at the whims of the rich and powerful. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter did much to restore free speech online, but even that is imperfect.
Further, American banks have the nasty habit of “debanking” account holders with unflatteringly Truth-based views. Many conservatives found their deposited funds inaccessible, or unable to accept payments through popular payment processors, because of publicly-voiced opinions that did not fit the globohomo narrative.
But, ultimately, we have the protection of the Constitution to criticize the government, even when the ostensibly private sector platforms for doing so are often censored. Great Britain and Europe at large lack that basic protection.
Tom links this destruction of free speech to the massive influx of Third Worlders. The two go hand-in-hand—if you need an imported slave class to a.) do all of your work for cheap and b.) make you feel good about yourself, you don’t want the native-born proles complaining. The solution—especially in a system like Britain’s where the party in power controls the executive and legislative functions simultaneously (usually) by default—is to make it illegal to criticize the massive influx of dusky hordes into your homeland.
That brings me to another point: why does Britain have a Home Secretary—or anyone in power—named Shabana Mahmood? It reminds me of this clip from The Simpsons:
Yours portly sometimes gets a bit strident when sharing his views, particularly when it comes to immigration. I do believe that immigration—both legal and illegal—is one of the major problems facing the United States and Europe today. I also believe that not all cultures are created equal, and that Western Civilization is, broadly speaking, the best and highest form of cultural and civilizational expression ever achieved.
A great deal of that greatness—indeed, so much so that, like a fish in water, we don’t even realize how subsumed in it we are—comes from Christianity. So much of the morality we take for granted in the West comes from Jesus Christ’s Teachings: charity, patience, love, and—perhaps most importantly—forgiveness. Christ Died on the Cross to pay for our sins—not His. He Is the Spotless Lamb, Sacrificed to take on the burden of our sin once and for all. He Was Resurrected and will Return.
That idea of forgiveness—merely ask and believe, and Christ Will Cleanse you of your sins and Welcome you into His everlasting Kingdom—is hugely powerful, and often cuts against human nature. “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31) is probably the hardest teaching in Christianity, especially when “your neighbor” includes loving your enemies (Matthew 5:44). And, boy, do enemies abound in these blasphemous times.
I struggle mightily with the injunction to love my enemies. Indeed, I’ve been feeling a great deal of conviction about it lately. The enemies of Goodness and Righteousness and Truth are many, and they are cruel. But as Nietzsche put it (proving, too, that Truth can emanate even from those who are lost), “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Gulp!
Yours portly has not covered much about India or Indians over the years, but lately, outcry over their abuse of the H1B visa program and exploitation of their caste system have created a great deal of friction between Americans and the imported Brahmins. It’s gotten me thinking more about that strange, fascinating country.
It seems ironic, to say the least, that Britain recently had an Indian prime minister (and that one of the Tories’ most dynamic politicians is a Nigerian woman), but also emblematic of how out-of-control immigration has become in that country. The United States is little better—many of our CEOs are Indian.
To be clear, I don’t have any issues with Indians as individuals. I treat everyone with fairness and kindness until they do something that suggests I should do otherwise. But culture is real, and has a profound influence on group behavior. Indians possess a culture that is so fundamentally alien to Western culture, it’s difficult for us to understand. We import that culture (and it’s millennia-deep caste system) at our own peril.
With that, here are two posts I’ve written on the topic of Indians:
“Indian Man Worships Trump as a God” – A man in India started worshipping Trump. I love GEOTUS, but he’s no god. There’s only One True God, the Holy Trinity!
“‘American’ Trucking” – An indifferent Indian immigrant commits vehicular manslaughter and seems annoyed that it delayed him. Time for some Deportemal!
The recent crackdown on crime, spearheaded by President Trump, in Washington, D.C.—as well as its incredible effectiveness—put to my mind the function of government at any level. The most basic function—the bare minimum—that any government should perform is to protect the rights of its citizens from a.) foreign threats (invasion, violent illegal immigrants, etc.) and b.) domestic ones (crime). Beyond that, governments should maintain and provide basic infrastructure that is conducive to commerce and mobility (roads, water, sewage) and should respond to the needs of their citizens as much as possible without infringing on the rights of the numeric minority.
That’s pretty much it. Yet governments in the United States and Britain still fail to provide even those three simple functions—protection of people’s rights; provision of their basic infrastructural needs; and concern for their interests.
Case in point: if the two nations’ leaders had really been paying attention to and cared about their constituents and their basic rights and needs, they never would have flooded their lands with illegal (and many legal) immigrants from foreign cultures. Instead of conducting forever wars in distant lands, they would have paved the roads. Instead of funneling money to Trojan Horse organizations designed to undermine our institutions with men in sundresses and mandatory DIE training, they would have invested in light rail or new water systems.
Instead, there’s been a sort of callous indifference to what normal—by which I mean average—people want. It is abundantly clear that, had they been asked, most Americans and Britons would not have wanted endless streams of migration from the Third World. They would not have accepted never-ending meddling in a part of the world that has been mired in conflict and authoritarianism since the Sumerian civilization first emerged around 4500 B.C.
It seems, however, that the tide is turning at last.
It seems that lately there is an endless parade of evidence showing illegal immigrants behaving badly—or, at the very least, with lethal incompetence. The latest example is the infamous Indian Sikh truck driver who made an unsignaled, last-minute U-turn, causing a family of three to crash into his trailer, killing them instantly.
An ex-girlfriend’s dad was a trucker for many years, and I remember him telling me that the state of the industry has really declined. Instead of unionized drivers with rigorous training and employment protections, there are loads of young, hastily-trained, immigrant men driving recklessly. As we saw with the Indian driver, many of these immigrants are here illegally, and come from cultures that do not hold human life sacred to the same extent as Western cultures.
Yours portly went down a weird rabbit hole earlier this week: I was looking into how to grow mushrooms at home. I have some large mushrooms growing in my yard after some recent rainstorms, and it got me thinking about how feasible (and easy) it would be to grow them myself.
Suffice it to say: not easy enough. Apparently, nothing grows easily except for weeds—and stories about how businesses can’t survive without imported slave labor.
That’s what I stumbled upon while searching for YouTube videos about growing mushrooms. This video from Business Insider sounds innocuous enough—a small town in Pennsylvania grows millions of mushrooms every year—but the entire video is just a mainstream media sob story about how mushroom farmers have to destroy mushrooms because they don’t have fresh slaves:
At no point in the video does the reporter say, “maybe they could pay people more money to harvest these mushrooms, then they could harvest and sell their entire crop.” The video does mention that demand for mushrooms has increased 15%, which—according to the law of demand—should mean that mushrooms can demand a higher price. It seems as though mushroom farmers could use sell at a higher price and, therefore, pay their pickers more.
Regardless, the price of mushrooms will increase, but isn’t it worth it to pay a few cents more rather than employing indentured servants imported illegally from abroad? Not only is mass migration corrosive to culture and law and order; it’s also immoral on two counts: people break the law, and then end up exploited as slave labor.
Slave labor has another downside: it massively depresses wages for legal workers. The rest of us pay an invisible but real tax: in exchange for cheaper mushrooms (or any produce), we get lower wages across the board.
It’s time for a second abolitionist movement on American farms.
What a difference a year makes. It seems as though the election of Donaldus Magnus last November ushered in a profound cultural shift. Being Left is cringe and gay. It always was, but now normies are saying it out loud.
Sure, there’s still a lot of weirdos out there, but it’s fascinating to see how the culture has moved so wildly in such a short amount of time. The age of needless disclaimers may very well be coming in—or, perhaps, it will intensify during the death throes of hand-wringing.
Well, we’ll see. In the meantime, life is too short to bottle everything up. Drop Truth Bombs, my friends!