Thursday, May 02, 2024

How the Department of Homeland Security Wasted $700,000 in Taxpayer Money on "Diverting Hate"



April was a busy month for me. It entailed the end of a busy tax season. Two cross country trips totaling over 4,500 miles driven. A fun (though physically exhausting) 20 mile hiking adventure in Utah. And the obligatory week of physical labor entailed in spring cleaning. And so when I pulled into my home late last night after a 1,100-mile-one-day drive, I was looking forward to nothing more than banging out the spring cleaning, mowing my yard, hitting the gym, and bingeing on Gintama, my latest interest in Japanese anime.

That was until I found out I was on a government list.

And if you know anything about "government lists," you know you don't want to be on one.

And so, instead of being able to enjoy a well-deserved week-long rest of just hitting the gym and getting my anime-geek on, I was obliged to research how I got on this list, what this list was all about, and who put together this list. Furthermore, upon figuring these things out, it became apparent to me I would additionally now have to go public, explaining this list and the people behind it, as this list is going viral and many of my fine audience members are bringing it to my attention.

So much for Gintama.


While the original report has been taken down (though a copy has been linked below), the best I can put together with what remains on the internet is that a non-profit organization called "Diverting Hate" received $700,000 in government funding from the Department of Homeland Security to conduct some research into the possibility of "redirecting traffic" from red pill/manosphere sites to other man-oriented sites that "Diverting Hate" deemed..."not hateful." This was done under the claim that red pill sites (such as my own, Fresh & Fit, Rollo Tomassi, etc.) were radicalizing susceptible, lonely, and marginalized men into misogyny, extremism, even "violence and hatred" against women, and by running ads on our platforms and channels, these alienated men would discover and be diverted to the alternative pro-male channels "Diverting Hate" deemed appropriate and not anti-woman.

To do this Diverting Hate hired out various academics at various colleges including Middlebury, Arizona State, the McCain Institute and others. These academics would identify "hateful" red pill channels/sites, research the channels, measure their "misogyny," even come up with some colorful (and ridiculous) methodologies to create a "Male Supremacy Scale." They also did significant research into other platforms, vocabulary used in the manosphere/red pill community, speculation into how to intervene and protect susceptible males, and ultimately created a recommended "course of action list." And best I can tell they actually did purchase advertising to redirect traffic from the aforementioned sites to the politically-correct sanitized ones (though the success of this is to be determined. Additionally, I will change anything above that proves to be erroneous.).

Had this been any other academic research it would have largely been ignored. But since Diverting Hate published their report in March of 2024, it has gone viral for several reasons. First, in accusing a list of sizable online influencers of being misogynists and proponents of violence, Diverting Hate immediately fired up these influencers' large audiences, who then proceeded to make this report go viral. Second, the accusation alone of promoting violence prompts influencers to answer and defend themselves (my video I'm sure will only be one of many). Third, the presence of Homeland Security. Not only is it controversial, even scandalous that taxpayer money is being used to fund such "research," but there's the implication said influencers are possible domestic terrorists or supporters/enablers of domestic terrorism (and you can read that implication in the report).

But if the three aforementioned things weren't enough to rile up millions of fans, it's the absurdity of the report that probably caused it to go viral most. The researchers just blatantly and unfoundedly accuse people of misogyny, male supremacy and violence. They arrogantly accuse all these people of misogyny and violence on the sole reason and rationale that "they say so." And so now we have government-financed academics arbitrarily and spuriously accusing people of promoting sexism, violence, even domestic terrorism, with absolutely no checks or being questioned, resulting in an Orwellian, STASI like government list (though technically, it is an academic list, not an actual government list). In short, it is the tyrannical nature of the report and the academics who published it that has resulted in this report going viral (and consequently being taken down by the now-embarrassed and exposed researchers).


For you to truly understand what's really going on, you really do need to read the report in its entirety. The reason being is that while these academics and researchers thought they were being clever, the report is the single most damning bit of evidence as to their true motivations, sloppy research methods, political bias, ulterior motives, intellectual dishonesty, and frankly, laughable stupidity. However, it's completely understandable if you don't have the time or inclination to read a 55 page document (I didn't. I could have watched 3 episodes of Gitnama in that time!) But here is my proposed synopsis of what I think is really happening, of which you can verify by reading the report yourself.

It's nothing but a rank and file money-grab.

Admittedly, this may sound too simplistic or trite, but again, I implore you to read their report as evidence. It's all there.

First, not a single person involved in the writing, researching and publishing of this report has a real job or a real degree (trust me, I looked into all their backgrounds). They are all life-long academic hacks who have been in school since kindergarten, and all have avoided any serious subjects that require math, rigor, intelligence or hard work (just look at their degrees which include gender studies, sociology, social psychology, cultural studies, and tellingly "terrorism studies"). However, their bloviated bullshit degrees indicate they're too egotistical to merely accept a welfare check. And so when there's government grant money to be had (be it the DHS or not), these people have a tremendous financial and egotistical motivation to get it because it allows them to think they're doing something valuable for society, while avoiding real work at the same time. In short, this is just a welfare jobs program, and they need to rationalize it.

Second, their laziness shows throughout the report.

Not a single calorie of effort was made to understand or even accept the chance that the people they were critiquing had legitimate concerns, more nuanced arguments, or simply different views. Additionally, no one from the opposing team was interviewed or asked to give their input. Diverting Hate and its participants just mindlessly accused everyone of being "Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Villain-Evil" because its easier than doing actual investigations or interviews, let alone trying to understand the other side.

Also painfully obvious was how little effort they put into compiling their "Male Supremacy List." Their list of 11 "main influencers" was a good start, but was missing some major and much more influential red pill/manosphere influencers. It shows they were too lazy to put in the rigor required to perfect a list of a GENUINE "top 10" or "top 20" influencers. And it's likely they didn't want to crunch the data for more than a mere 11 channels.

Related, the methodologies were just laughable, showing equal laziness via a lack of rigor. Of particular note was research done by "PERIL" - "Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab" to measure "male supremacy." Having had to measure amorphous things like "male supremacy" myself in my economics research, I can appreciate the challenge the "PERIL" team had. But instead of sitting down and putting the effort into coming up with metrics and variables that would plausibly and logically measure people who actually believed men were superior, it was obviously just a lazy list of beliefs they wanted to define as male supremacy. Things like:

-Feminism is about hating men

-Modern society prioritizes women over men

-Feminists are unattractive

-Women are driven to find higher status males

-Women are attracted to high status men

Things many people believe (and often are true), but don't necessarily make you a male supremacist if you believe them.

I could go on. The vocabulary methodology was a joke and showed they put no effort into compiling, let alone understanding a comprehensive list of red pill terms. Their logic and conclusions were not consistent, and often strained to conclude what they wanted. Half the methodologies I couldn't understand what their point was because of poor writing and explanation. The blind assumption and accusation everyone's a misogynist allowed for them to avoid the hard work that would come with analyzing a complex topic, let alone accurately diagnosing it. And absolutely no effort was put into hiding their political bend at all (yeah, we got it, you don't like trump, and I found it particularly cute you capitalized "Black men" but not "white men"). All in all it was an intellectually lazy and dishonest effort and it showed.

Third, the premise of "Diverting Hate" is absurd. Not that we shouldn't be against misogyny, violence or terrorism, but that you're going to PAY TO DIVERT TRAFFIC FROM SITES YOU DON'T LIKE??? That sounds horribly inefficient. This reminds me of bullshit business ideas the wives of rich men would come up with when I was in banking. Ideas that didn't make a lot of sense and the money could've have been better spent elsewhere. However, just as I erroneously and naively assumed the wives of these rich men wanted to run a profitable business, it's an erroneous and naive assumption to think Diverting Hate wants to save marginalized men or protect women. The rich wife was bored and wanted something to do, Diverting Hate just wants the money. And they will go to the extent of falsely accusing people of hate, violence, misogyny, or extremism to get it.

When you factor in:

1. Everyone's work-avoidant/white collar panhandling bogus academic careers

2. The poor quality of research and work that belies their biases, laziness, motivations, lack of intellectual honesty, and one might even argue misandry, and

3. The dubious premise that to combat disenfranchized men, misogyny, and violence, redirecting traffic from a group of poorly selected sites is a viable strategy

I contend Diverting Hate and all people associated with it were primarily, if not, solely motivated by money and not anything as noble as fighting misogyny, protecting women, or helping out disenfranchised men.


I cannot emphasize enough that the people involved in this report do not care about at-risk men or the safety of women. They are merely using these people as a pawns to get funding. If they did actually care about the safety of women and marginalized men, an entirely different and infinitely more practical approach would have been used.

At minimum they should have at least tried to understand why different influencers and platforms are saying things they don't like. Why the red pill has become so popular among main stream culture. A sort of understand your enemy sort of strategy. Related, they would also make attempts to co-opt or turn these influencers to their side, or to at least understand it. If these influencers are so large and have such influence over large audiences, they already have the infrastructure and network to directly promote the message to the precise audience Diverting Hate wants to reach. It would seem to me these influencers would be a tremendous asset to Diverting Hate's cause, and almost the first people you would try to persuade to your line of reasoning or concerns. And it would be certainly more effective in "stopping misogyny" than paying social media platforms to "divert traffic." All Diverting Hate did was accuse these people of extremism and promoting violence, further alienating these people to their cause. Diverting Hate couldn't even offer to debate these people on a public platform.

However, since Diverting Hate's main objective is funding themselves and not fighting misogyny, none of these practical measures were taken, let alone recommended in the report. Furthermore, in not really caring about men/women, they have no incentive to accurately diagnose the root causes of the misogyny and violence they feign so much concern about. Because of this whatever progress the Department of Homeland Security was hoping to achieve in funding Diverting Hate will not be realized and the entire $700,000 will be wasted. None of Diverting Hate's strategies were practical. None of their research was intellectually honest, empirical, or based in reality. Men were certainly not consulted in any of this (nearly all the researchers are female). And consequently, all of their recommendations will likely fail.

To this point, all one has to do is look at the approved list of alternative men's sites Diverting Hate wants to redirect traffic to. To be perfectly honest, they're kinda shit. A third of the sites you can't find without some serious digging, and some I couldn't find at all. If you find them, many of their websites are also, well, kinda shit as as well. Those that do have a YouTube channel rarely have consistent material. And I don't want to speculate about what kind leftist, male-feminist, soy boy, vegan, emasculating, anti-male horseshit content these channels are likely to have. If these sites were so critical to the strategy of Diverting Hate, why are they so inaccessible and lame? It's reminiscent of the religious right trying to make "Christian rap" cool in the 90s - fake, dishonest, and inauthentic. It's also evidence Diverting Hate wasn't really serious about providing a viable alternative to red pill influencers for the men they so desperately claimed to want to save, providing further evidence this was a rank money grab.

However, if the Department of Homeland Security was serious about intervening with at-risk men, as well as lowering the risk of violence against women, all is not lost. There is a group of people they could enlist who are much more informed and intricately more familiar with these at-risk men. And those people are the exact same red pill/manosphere influencers "Diverting Hate" seems to...well...hate.

Red Pill influencers, for all their drawbacks, are much more familiar with the state of men and the individual men themselves than what is, frankly, a group of monolithic-thinking, privileged feminist academics who haven't lived a day outside academia. I would even go so far as to say that red pill influencers have already done more to lessen violence and misogyny against women by telling men the harsh truths about the sexes instead of pretty lies. This has led to an increasing stoic acceptance and better understanding of women, rather than generations of confused and frustrated men, seeking vengeance or retribution over something they don't understand and therefore lash out at. Because of red pill influencers' better understanding of at-risk men, their closer proximity to them, and their lack of an ulterior motive (unlike their feminist, politically-motivated academic-hack counterparts), the Department of Homeland Security should consider something radical. They should spend that $700,000 on red pill influencers instead. There would be more and better results. The advice coming from red pill influencers would be more effective in combating disaffected men and any violence against women. And to be perfectly honest most would probably do it free of charge, or in Rollo's case, a free guitar.

But regardless of whether the DHS listens to red pillers or to echo-chambered feminist professors, the $700,000 they gave to Diverting Hate was wasted. It did nothing. It helped no one. And that will be proven when the same people come around claiming they need more money to fight the problem the original $700,000 didn't solve. It will then be up to the intellectual honesty of the DHS to determine if they're going to continue wasting taxpayer money on politically motivated horseshit money grabs like this or more wisely and effectively spend the taxpayers' money.


The mindless, blanketed, trumped-up charges of misogyny laid against my colleagues is both wreckless, ill-thought out, and in many cases inapplicable. Furthermore, it misses the mark. And while I do not know every one on the "Male Supremacy List," nor have I consumed every second of everyone's material, there is no doubt in my mind that in casting a wide-and-indifferent net, Diverting Hate has falsely accused some people of being misogynists.

This is largely due to the researchers' laziness or lack of desire in trying to understand the finer AND VERY REAL points being made by these red pill influencers. But it is also due to a fundamental difference in what these academics and red pillers believe. Mainly whether men and women are different.

This has resulted in a paradox that anytime red pill influencers point out differences between men and women, even if well-intended, it is immediately categorized of being sexist or misogynist since the nature of the observation is a difference between the sexes.

For example, every woman involved in the research and publication of this report wasted...well...pretty much their entire lives pursuing worthless, bullshit degrees. I have a LONG and ESTABLISHED record of promoting, even imploring young women not to waste their time on worthless degrees, so that they might be wealthy, financially stable, and happier instead. However, such a criticism would no doubt be met by accusations of "misogyny" even though it would be in the best financial interests of women everywhere and would be the single most effective thing women could do to close the wage gap. But because I dare criticize women, even constructively, it's "misogyny."

Another example of this is in the report itself. Where beliefs like:

-Women are attracted to high value men

-Women seek high status men

-Modern society prioritizes women over men

-Women hit the wall

are deemed misogynistic and "male supremacy" according to the authors of the report. Never mind they're all true. Never mind acknowledging these facts would tremendously help men and women understand each other. Because they are uncomfortable truths and women simply don't like hearing them we need to accuse any red pill influencer of saying such things of misogyny. Unfortunately no progress can be made between the sexes if we're not allowed to at least acknowledge the truth.

And as an intellectual exercise in understanding something you don't agree with, a third extreme example would be some of my colleagues' position that the right to vote should be taken away from women. Yes, on the face of it, that is misogynistic. No, I don't believe women should have their right to vote removed. But their position to revoke the right of women to vote does NOT in fact come from a malicious hatred of women or misogyny, but a concern that women voting has had a detrimental effect on society, including women themselves. Again, I don't believe in that position, but the hatred of women is not behind it. A desire to commit or promote violence against women is not there. Ironically, it is a desire to protect them. However, to political ideologues, blindly motivated by government funding, this fine-yet-important distinction is lost on them.

The already-complicated issue of misogyny within the red pill community is further complicated by the wide array of characters and personalities within it. Some influencers may be more bombastic or perhaps engage in shock jock tactics to get the clicks which could be construed as misogyny. Some have found a gold mine in bringing on delusional and confrontational women to talk about male and female dynamics (Fresh and Fit being the original ones to do this, but with follow ups such as "The Whatever Podcast"...which curiously was missing from the "Male Supremacy List."). There were more reserved, mature "William F. Buckley Jr." types, epitomized by the esteemed Kevin Samuels (may god rest his soul). Even women such as Pearly Things are part of the red pill community, presenting feminists a circle they can't square. And then there's just ho-hum elderly man types who dispense their folksy, old man wisdom such as Rich Cooper and Rollo Tomassi. Harmless, affable men who just tell you how women are and used to be "back in the day." And while in this colorful group of people there is a wide array of controversial opinions and serious criticisms about women, not a single one of them hate women or have these opinions out of malice. These people are not misogynists.

But the real issue I think most people take umbrage with in the Diverting Hate report is not the accusation of misogyny. That accusation, is frankly, so overused it has lost its meaning and no one in the red pill community takes it seriously. What really pissed people off was the accusation that we're advocating violence and the insinuation we're enabling domestic terrorism.

Let me make this abundantly clear.

Neither I nor any one of the colleagues I know have EVER advocated violence, let alone against women. Neither have we advocated domestic terrorism in any form. And while the topic of misogyny is gray enough we can all debate about it, the accusation that we are promoting violence or terrorism is one that lawsuits are made out of.

In short, I don't care how you worthless academics make your grift. And I don't care how desperate you are to avoid working a real job in the real world. But I do care if my tax dollars are used to finance your grift. And I DEFINITELY CARE if I'm falsely accused of promoting violence, along with the implication I'm contributing to domestic terrorism. And so does every other red pill influencer on that report and in the world.

I have had to waste 12 hours of my free time researching and writing this response. 12 hours I'm never getting back. 12 hours I could have been watching Gintama. 12 hours that could have made quick work of my spring cleaning. I strongly recommend to everyone involved in this report you don't make me waste a single second more.


I wanted to thank a girl who is simply known as "BX" on Twitter who brought this to my, and other people's, attention. She has done tremendous work and research on Diverting Hate and the various entities affiliated with it. I will have a link to her Twitter account below.

Also, if the Department of Homeland Security is serious about helping disenfranchised men and lessening violence against women, you can find my consultancy at I do not charge $700,000, but I will deliver results. The site is also linked below. Additionally, the contacts I have within the red pill community would provide a real and valuable asset to the DHS if they are concerned about extremism within men.

I have also linked to a copy of thereport published by Diverting Hate. I have hard copies so if the uploaded version is taken down, it will be uploaded again. Again, I strongly recommend you read the report to see just what kind of people these people are.

And many thanks for those of you who took the time to listen to this long and belabored video. If you are interested subscribe to my channel. Or if you just hate what "Diverting Hate" has done, subscribe out of spite and share with your friends.

Thursday, October 26, 2023

When Laziness Was Our Friend

As is usually the case with writing a book, you will write something brilliant, but it just doesn't fit into the book.  You don't want to let it go, but it has to go on the cutting floor because while interesting, it doesn't serve the interests of the book.

So I decided to post it here so it wasn't lost to the cutting floor.  The book should be published in November.  Keep an eye out for "A World Without Men"

Laziness was once one of humanity's best friends. It was a survival mechanism that kept us alive by making sure we didn't expend more calories of energy than there was to eat during times when food was not plentiful. It was not immoral or unethical, it was prudent. Laziness was an intelligent cost-benefit analysis to make sure we did not squander our caloric resources so that we didn't starve.

However, since those times laziness has mutated into the most evil cancer that infects humanity today. Because whereas in times past, laziness was a means by which to ensure your efforts were not wasted, it has now evolved into a universal fear of work. And not just a fear of work, but an all-controlling, instinctual, crippling fear as it was so critical to our survival in the past. It is arguably even more powerful than the male sex drive. And this all-consuming fear has cost humanity nearly its entire potential, as well as rendered the vast majority of human lives pointless and wasted.

For example, I've had many clients who lived in abusive homes. When I asked the simple question, "Well, why don't you move?," they all invariably responded, "But I get free rent." People will tolerate actual abuse before getting a job. Their fear of work is more powerful than the pain of abuse.

Millions of young people every year major in the liberal arts, business, and social sciences. When you ask them "Why don't you major in Accounting or Engineering?" they all say, "Well I don't like math." They are so afraid of work they'll waste 4 years of their youth and cripple themselves financially with student debt to avoid it. And this says nothing about the lost potential had they chosen to do something productive or great instead.

We could go on, but the point is the fear of work is so powerful, it not only forces people to make decisions that hurt them, but it also holds people hostage so tightly it prevents them from achieving anything good or great in their lives. This consequently ruins most people's lives as they both achieve nothing and suffer the entire time. And women are no exception. They are just as much a slave to laziness as any one else.

Thursday, May 04, 2023

Why Do We Put Education Behind a Pay Wall? (aka - How to Make Free Education a Right)

Americans Are Just Too Stupid, But...

20 years ago when it became apparent that most office work could be done over the internet, I had one, simple question – why do we commute?

It was not an idealistic question. It was not a naive question. It was a very simple, logical, and ultimately correct question. And the reason it was a simple, logical and ultimately correct question was because it exposed the simple fact that commuting was obsolete for about 70% of the labor force.

What is fascinating, however, is how long it has taken the western world to capitalize on this simple opportunity. In reality, it should have taken no more than two years' time to migrate white collar work to people’s home offices. Office buildings should have been converted to residential living spaces long ago. And the past 20 years Americans should have enjoyed increased standards of living, lowing living expenses, less carbon/pollution, lower stress, increased health, stronger families and less traffic fatalities.

But here we are in 2023 pulling the teeth of a baby boomer corporate managerial class that should have retired long ago. An instead of allowing us to enjoy a new golden era in American labor, we’re still stuck commuting, tepidly asking our boss if we could telecommute, as if we were asking him if we could bang his wife.

Now working in banking I learned long ago that today’s American leaders are too stupid, short sighted, and ultimately set in their ways to capitalize on the tremendous opportunities technology has laid in front of us. And me pointing out these opportunities over the past 20 years was a colossal waste of time that has not resulted in a single, tangible change. But whereas my original goal inhighlighting these opportunities was to be a good economist and DRAMATICALLY improve our standards of living, today I merely point these things out for posterity AND to take great joy watchingAmericans unnecessarily suffer because of their ignorance, short-sightedness, and sloth. I’d like to see the day politicians, employers, corporate leaders get their heads out of their asses and make life DRASTICALLY better for all of us. But we are just too damn stupid. And so I am relegated to take joy in other people's misery.

To continue my enjoyment of watching stupid people suffer, let me highlight another opportunity Americans have squandered. An opportunity that would no doubt usher in a new golden era of American standards of living. An opportunity that would solve damn near all of our financial problems. Not to mention an opportunity we've been squandering the past 20 years. But one I am completely confident Americans will fail to avail themselves of.

Making higher education truly free.

The Nature of Education is Free

Whether you realize it or not we have the technology to make education free. And not in the sense that democrats, labor, or socialist parties mean wherein the tax payer pays added taxes for truly average westerners to get laughably stupid degrees in the liberal arts or social sciences. But in the sense of revolutionizing the concept of education from that of a product into a constitutional-right. And to understand this concept of education as a right, it helps to understand what education is at its atomic level versus how we currently provide an education to the people.

First, understand that all education is, is information. Whether it was learning your ABC’s in kindergarten or learning how nuclear fusion worked in grad school, it’s just previously-established information being passed onto and installed in a new brain. And this information unto itself is free. No individual or school owns that fact that 2+2 = 4. No university or college owns the information of how HTML code can be used to build a website. And so no person or institution can charge for facts or information, because these facts "just are." Information is self-evident, information is universal, information is free.

Additionally, the acquisition of this information can be free. I can go to the library and read books. I can learn from other people as they share their information with me. I can watch documentaries on nearly anything. And with the advent of the internet ALL human knowledge is now accessible for every one on the planet. And so today ANYONE can learn ANYTHING for free and no one (be that a person, government, guild, or university) can stop them. In this sense, information and therefore education, is a right. I have the right to know anything I want. I have the right to know facts, processes, and details. And no one can stop me from educating myself.

The problem comes where we as a society have allowed various institutions to determine whether or not the information someone has acquired qualifies as an “education.” And not just an education, but a certified education that is worthy of employment.

This is not entirely irrational. First, without some form of standards people could self-declare they are educated by essentially lying on their resume. Most of us would be reluctant to hire a civil engineer to build a bridge who claims he “totally educated himself, HONEST!” as opposed to one put through a formal civil engineering program. Second, until recently, schools were the most efficient way to educate masses of people. You can tutor an individual student one on one, or an individual student can grab a book on economics and teach himself at the library. But having an expert in front of a class of 200 students, clearly conveying specialized information is much more efficient than tutoring one-on-one or an individual inefficiently trying to educate himself on something completely new to him. So it is only rational that in a pre-internet era schools and universities would form as the most efficient way to educate people. But there are several problems with having physical institutions disseminating information and thus education, as well as what our education system has morphed into today.

First, you are going to incur costs. In having physical locations where information is disseminated, you need teachers, property, and buildings, replete with equipment (labs, desks, paper, etc), all of which cost money. Information may be free, but it's going to cost you if you wish to have people convey it to you in the form of a certified credential/education.

Second, even though a loud teacher with a powerful PA system can speak to a hall of 2,000 students (Willey Hall, U of MN, 1993), there's still a limit to the number of students a teacher can teach at any one time. And while it is impressive you can educate 2,000 students about Psychology 101 all at the same time, the technology exists that one YouTube video of that professor's same lecture could educate all the people in the world for free. Physical schools are not only costly, but obsolete.

Third, while no one individual school or college has a monopoly on education, the education industry as a whole does. Not necessarily out of malice or design, but in the fact that society more or less requires a formal education to even be considered remotely employable today. Worse, modern employers reinforce this unconscious monopoly by granting it nearly total intrinsic value by making NEARLY ALL employment contingent on receiving an accredited and authorized education from this system. This makes everyone's job, and therefore everyone's financial lives, and therefore NEARLY ALL OF OF THE US ECONOMY wholly dependent on this monopoly. And with ALL of the nation's economy and ALL of people's financial lives dependent upon this system, an incredible and unacceptable amount of power has been centralized into this one industry.

Fourth, this power has proven too tempting for people in the education industry and they have predictably abused it. The reason tuition costs so much (when its true informational nature is free) is because those employed by the education industry have morphed the education industry from one that educates, trains, and prepares generations of young people for success in the real world, to one where they absolutely fleece young people out of a lifetime of money. Everything from 2 years of unnecessary prereqs to get a Bachelors degree, to credits that cost $300 each, to college textbooks that cost $500, to refusing to recognize credits from different schools, the TRUE nature of the higher education industry in America is to extract as much money out of its students as possible in exchange for a permission slip to work (and for most college degrees, not even that). Nowhere (bar say, WGU and ASU Online) are schools trying to make education more affordable. Everywhere education has become a means by which teachers, professors, and administrators enrich themselves off the young.

And finally, corruption. Making matters worse is that in having such power centralized in one industry COMBINED WITH THE FACT nearly all American children must go through this system, other institutions, industries, and people who have harmful ulterior aims are too tempted not abuse this system. Whether you are a democrat or republican, it is PAINFULLY obvious the K-college system indoctrinates young people to become socialists and victims more than they do teaching them how to program a computer, fix a car, or do their taxes. More modernly, various trait-based groups have infiltrated and abused the education system to promote their trait based politics (be that race, gender, sexual preference, mental illness, etc.) to future generations, which does absolutely nothing to help young people (of all traits), but rather mentally impairs them with defeatism, victimhood, hatred, and no real employable skills. Employers are only more than happy to arbitrarily require more education as it allows them to unload on-job-training costs to schools and students. And everyone who's ever attended college are fully aware of the credit card companies and banks who line up during freshman orientation and graduation to get you to sign up for a credit card or a 7 year, 18% car loan. Young students are viewed as a captive audience to be butchered like cattle, not the generation society will rely upon to carry us forward, who need to be invested in.

When we add up all these costs, the price is tremendous.

The Costs of an Obsolete, Corrupt, and Truly Stupid System

Explicitly, we spend $671 billion dollars on our higher education system ($764 billion on K-12) per year. 85% of this money is outright wasted on degrees that have no employability. And unless your skill or trade requires a physical lab or hands on instruction (trades, engineering, physics, etc) worthwhile degrees such as computer programming, actuarial science, accounting, etc., can all be learned online or through self study. While it would require looking up data on the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics), we can safely assume nearly 90% of this $671 billion is simply wasted money (and an argument can be made that with homeschooling, self study, and the internet a significant chunk of the $764 billion in K-12 is wasted as well). In other words, in using a system that allows people to self study from the comforts of their own homes, we could save about $600 billion every year (more if you consider K-12).

To put this into context and to show you just what a tremendous waste this has been, 3.5 million American children are born every year. If we just gave them this money it would be $175,000 per student, more if we were to allow students to self-study out of the K-12 system. And though the average home in the US goes for about $400,000, a ball park $200,000 per child would not only guarantee some basic level of housing, it would guarantee housing for a lifetime (and don't even get me started if we put that money into the S&P 500 at the time of their birth and let compound growth do its magic).

This is not an argument to defund education and instead give everyone in America a house (though it would ABSOLUTELY be a better use of the money). But it is to show you just how much money we are wasting on an obsolete and outdated system putting education behind a paywall. Not to mention just how much more we could do if we spent this money more intelligently.

What is arguably worse, however, is the non-financial costs we pay using this outdated education system. The fact we force children to attend school for 13 years AND THEY STILL DON'T HAVE AN EMPLOYABLE SKILL, is bordering on a human rights violation. The fact we require 4-8 more years of education on top of that is simple robbery and stupidity. And the fact most jobs that require a college degree could be done with an 8th grade education, means nearly half of these children's' lives have been wasted. If these kids were equipped with an employable skill at 16, allowing them to work instead of waste even more time in high school and college, a generation (assumed to be 20 years of births) could amass an additional $17 trillion in added economic production. Production that would enrich them rather than impoverish them (like student loans/college do today), and production that would eliminate nearly all of our economic problems. And this says nothing about the psychological benefits that would come with not having your entire childhood wasted in government buildings or your entire financial life crippled by student loans.

The New System

But like traffic jams and commutes, this nightmare can end tomorrow. We can usher in a free and new educational system quite literally in 6 months' time. And we could do this by legally recognizing an education is information, not how the information was acquired. Meaning no employer, government, or corporation could discriminate against how you got the information. They could only discriminate based on whether you had the adequate information/education to do the job. This would allow people to educate themselves for free (aka - becoming "autodidacts") in whatever manner they choose (likely the internet, but books, self study, groups, etc.), liberating them from the corrupt, inefficient, costly, and obsolete education system we have today. And quite literally overnight making us all $1 trillion a year richer and saving every person born in America 6 years of unnecessary education.

In practice education as a right would require two things. First, congress and the states would have to pass laws recognizing that

1) information is free, universal, and therefore everyone has a right to it,


2) that information is the same regardless of how it was acquired


3) therefore discriminating against how that information was acquired is a violation of that right.

This would make education free to all of us as employers would no longer be able to require a college degree as a condition of employment. It would require employers test for knowledge, aptitude, or experience, not whether you have a degree. (Or, if I could be so bold to suggest that employers maybe train their own damn employees).

Second, congress and the states would have to make make laws requiring employers, trade groups, industries, and professions to come up with tests that allow the self-educated to "test into employment" much like the Accounting profession has the CPA exam or California has it's bar exam. It would require each industry have a certification system like the IT profession has where people take tests to get certified in different fields. It would also require governments have some kind of enforcement arm to make sure employers are not giving preferential treatment to college graduates over the self-educated (or vice versa). But these costs would be a small fraction of the nearly $700 billion we piss away on the current system we have now.

Finally, there is a compelling civil rights argument that the current education system compared to this newly-proposed one unfairly discriminates against minorities, women, and other disadvantaged groups...because it quite literally does. Requiring the poor or otherwise disadvantaged to acquire an employable education through today's inefficient and costly education system, when technology allows for an equal education to be acquired for free AND in a much shorter time, is denying them the ability to avail themselves of that opportunity. And in forcing all people to go through the inefficient institutional system of education, regardless of the disparate impact it has on the disadvantaged, is one of the rare-but-real forms of institutional discrimination on minorities. I am no scholar on discrimination law or the Civil Rights Act, but because of the time and financial burden our current education system requires in order to be qualified to work, minorities (as well as poor people in general) are very much being discriminated against by today's education system, as opposed to those who can afford to leisurely and luxuriously spend 20 years getting an employable education.

In the end the new system would simply be one where colleges and universities (even some high schools) would be replaced with tests and certifications no different than the GED, COMPTIA, or CPA exams. Four year $150,000 college degrees replaced with one-time $500 tests in an afternoon. And the veracity and employability of these certifications would be enforced by the state and federal governments through the recognition that education is a right, regardless of how it was acquired, thereby making it illegal to discriminate against how that education was acquired. You technically don't even need the federal government to do this. A bold and caring (and likely "red") state could do this for its citizens tomorrow. Or an ethical company could realize just how immoral it is to require every young person have 17 years of education, and offer training programs instead. But as said before, American employers and leaders are truly stupid people. And so it's likely going to require the force of law to make any of this happen.

Stupid Americans Who Are Going to Get in the Way

There are no words that can convey my complete and total hatred for the people I am about to list below. They have prevented me, you, and the past three generations of Americans from even achieving 30% of our full potential. They are unnecessary, self-serving, wasted bureaucratic bloat, and some I would say are outright evil. Removing these people from society (in terms of their profession, not their lives...though there is the argument) would liberate us and the American economy to produce easily 3 times the amount of GDP we do today. It would also liberate future generations of children from wasting ALL of their youth in school, and instead allow the majority of Americans to be earning a living wage by the age of 16 and retire at 58. We are literally one law and one year of retooling away from a DRAMATICALLY better future where we are trillions of dollars better off, wealthier, happier, and education is truly free. And these despicable people are absolutely going to get in the way of that.

First, those currently employed in the current education system are going to be vehemently against making education free. Everyone from special ed teachers in pre-K to tenured professors at our highest ranked universities will be against this. And the reason is simple - 99% of them will lose their jobs.

I personally have no pity for the system and the people who have fleeced and impoverished three generations of Americans selling them information that should have been free just so they could have cushy, 9-months-per-year teaching jobs. I have no pity for the K-12 teachers who failed to give American children ONE employable skill after having them for 13 years. I have no care for college staff who enriched themselves by enslaving generations of Americans with student loans for worthless degrees. And I have a particular contempt for all of them as they've used the education system as a tool of government brainwashing for socialism, not education.

These grievances aside, the case against those currently employed in today's education system is much simpler - these people are obsolete.

Just as the horse and buggy industry died out because technology introduced the car, the internet has made most teachers obsolete. The system of congregating people in one area to audibly be informed and instructed, has been replaced with firing up your phone in bed and listening to the same lecture minus the bus ride, bullying, school drama, $75,000 tuition bill, and sermons about men having periods. But to show you how much more these people care about themselves than all of society, they will absolutely fight tooth and nail to make sure the rest of society continues paying the unnecessary $650 billion - $1.4 trillion (depending on how you want to measure it) to keep the old system going because it's more important they don't have to find new jobs, than allow society to advance. It would be no different than buggy makers preventing the rest of the country to avail themselves of cars because they're too damn lazy to retool and find a new profession. Those employed in today's education system will gladly hold the country's progress hostage so they can keep their pointless jobs. Some I guarantee will even do so violently.

Second and closely-related, employers.

Employers love colleges and universities because it lessens, if not, eliminates their training costs. If you have ever heard "Bachelors required, Masters preferred," or "hit the ground running" or "steep learning curve," that is employer-speak for "We aren't going to pay for any training." This is not only unfair, but highly inefficient. Unfair because in requiring college degrees employers offload their training expenses to the education industry (those costs ultimately borne by the combination of students, parents, non profits and the tax payers who all pool in to pay for college degrees). And HORRENDOUSLY inefficient because they require people waste 4 years and $125,000 getting a degree for a job that in all reality only requires 2 weeks and $1,200 in training.

Still, no matter how much employers claim to be about "work life balance," they will gladly force generation after generation to go into life-long debt to get college degrees as opposed to dropping a few pennies on training programs. Worse, you'll find many employers want their employees in debt because financially destitute people make more loyal and lower-paid employees.

Third, the democrat party.

Though obviously the American democrat party will be against any parring down or eliminating of the current education industry, this goes for any of the major and minor left-leaning parties of western nations. The reason is very simple - this is where they get future voters.

This isn't conspiratorial. This isn't an edgy take. Leftist parties of the western world completely rely on their education systems to pre-install socialist politics in children and certainly college students so that they can groom future voters and stay in power. And in letting people educate themselves, they potentially lose this voter farm, facing the same horror that keeps teachers and professors awake at night - losing their election and have to get a real job

Tragically (for the democrat party anyway) this proposal delivers what they've long promised, but failed to deliver - a right to a free education. But it does so by bypassing the education system that the democrats (and lefter leaning parties globally) rely on to get re-elected.

Here you may see some genuine and caring democrats rejoice in that there is a real and viable way to make education free. Here you may see a rare bit of bipartisanship where democrats and republicans come together to make our lives MARKEDLY better. And here democrats can deliver on a promise to minorities and the poor to make their lives TREMENDOUSLY and TANGIBLY better.

But the vast majority won't. And the reason why is the same reason why teachers, professors, employers, and college administrators are going to be against a free education - because it's more important they keep their jobs than advance society. It's more important they stay in power than help the people who voted for them. It will be fun to see what reason and rationale the left comes up with to be AGAINST a bill that would make education a right, but I eagerly look forward to it anyway.

And then finally, HR.

I've never understood why HR has to power-trip over those who are unemployed and less fortunate than they are. I don't know why HR has impoverished, indebted, and financially crippled generations of young Americans requiring progressively more and more education for jobs that could be done by 8th graders. And I don't see the incentive, reason, or motive for HR to be the insufferable, power-tripping bitches (men included) that they are.

I guess I just don't understand evil.

And because I don't understand evil, I guess I won't know why the HR profession will be against people having a right to a free education...but I know they will be.

Thankfully, however, "Becky" in "human resources" will be powerless to stop it if education as a right is passed into law. Karen and Her Coven of HR Witches "Professionals" will no longer be able to prevent people from advancing in their careers by requiring absurd amounts of education...or by simply not liking your shoes. And though Becky and the HR profession will raise hell at the prospect of taking away their little fiefdoms, they are thankfully the least powerful of all the groups who will stand in the way of the nation's progress. Still, they are going to raise a stink about people having a right to a free education if it denies their ability to power trip over job applicants.  But once again we see the common thread that unites all these evil people - it's more important they keep their power than the rest of society advance.

This Isn't Going to Happen

I'd like to say, "Tomorrow, literally tomorrow, we could make education free in America and provide the legal frame work by which other countries could do the same." I'd like to see kids enjoying their childhoods instead of being sequestered in government buildings for 13 years. I'd like to see young people being able to educate themselves for free, and being able to earn a living wage at18. And I'd like to see a country that has no debts, no deficit, no student loans, double the economic growth, and double the standards of living. But I don't think you, me, or anyone else is going to see this dream come true. And the reason why isn't because of the predictable resistance we'll see from teachers, democrats, Boomer Bosses, or Becky's, as much as it will be the American ignorance that has become endemic in our cultural psyche.

For whatever reason Americans are addicted to the status quo. They demand better, but will only accept better if it requires no work or change of behavior on their part. And even if a road map is clearly drawn for them to a better world, if it requires changing their behavior or even something as simple as thinking differently, they won't do it. They will remain the sheep they are, remaining in a world they claim not to like, because intellectual laziness and sloth is more comforting than change.

That being said, I really hate the Beckys. And I will forever hate the teachers who took my childhood away from me. I am certainly no fan of the democrats. And I loathe the baby boomer bosses who forced me and now three generations of Americas to commute unnecessarily these past 20 years. And while I am not optimistic about the chances of making free education a right (and the wonderful world that would usher in), nothing would make me happier than to see these people rendered obsolete...and forced to get jobs like the rest of us. Therefore, I would still kindly ask you to contact your congressman, contact your state legislator and see if we as Americans can't make this happen in our lifetimes. Take the 3 minutes to send this article to your representative, or just explain the concept of education being a right, and therefore discriminating against how one acquired said education is a violation of that right, and we can get those few politicians who actually care about Americans to make this idea a reality.


Find more of Aaron's stuff below:

Asshole Consulting
YouTube Channel

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

The Case for IQ Based Segregation - by TJ Martinell

TJ as you know is a colleague of mine and he asked if I would post his thoughts, inspired in part by my book "Curse of the High IQ" (and no doubt inspired in part by his intellect).  I have not read it yet so don't come complaining to me if you don't like it.  I'm just assuming the guy's smart enough that I can rely on him to write a good piece.

The Case for IQ-Based Segregation

In the dystopian short story Harrison Bergeron, one of the ways the tyrannical government maintains equality is by interfering with the brains of those more intelligent. They continually receive shocks to the brain that prevent extended train of thought. The reason: if intelligent people could think for long enough, they could achieve more than those less intelligent, and that would make society “unequal.”

In effect, equality meant dumbing down the smart to the lowest common denominator.

It’s a notion I’ve thought about ever since I put down Aaron Clarey’s Curse of the High IQ, which I finally got around to read. There are a lot of things that could be said about the book, but I’d like to focus specifically on the role intelligence plays in social relations.

Simply put, significant IQ differences amounts to an impenetrable barrier between the high IQ and ordinary people. Things that an intelligent person takes for granted and assumes everyone else recognizes is beyond the comprehension of most.

However, rather than recognize this and structure society accordingly, we subscribe to the idiotic notion that everyone is the same, that everyone is tabula rasa – a blank slate with equal potential for achievement. Thus, intelligence is not accounted for, at least honestly, in how we arrange institutions.

A high IQ boy does not belong in the same classroom as ordinary kids. He does not belong in the same higher education system as ordinary young adults. He does not belong in the same groups in which he is treated as a peer to someone a standard deviation below his IQ. He does not belong in the same workplace environment as people less capable as he. He does not belong in the same dating pool as those who can’t process the notion of long-term thinking and low time preference, as he is looking for a woman almost a separate breed compared to those sought out by men who, like in Harrison Bergeron, can’t hold a thought for more than a few seconds.

Trying to force the smart to integrate with the dumb is cruel for all parties involved. The high IQ person is frustrated and emotionally drained trying to interact with someone unable to comprehend seemingly basic concepts, while the midwits are humiliated and embarrassed by having someone actively having to dumb themselves down just to communicate with them. It’s on par with forcing special Olympic athletes to join the regular Olympics and getting angry when the normal sprinter outruns the special needs man in the 100-meter dash by 15 seconds and insists he go slower to not humiliate a mentally retarded competitor.

In a saner world, people with high IQs would be identified as early as possible and separated from others in environments where intelligence is an important factor. Like an intellectual aristocracy, they would be raised with the understanding that they are different, that these differences do not confer moral judgement either way, and that the best solution is for them to associate with others of similar intelligence in most settings.

The problem, as Clarey points out, is that our society is not tailored for the intelligent, but the midwit. Virtually all mainstream spaces cater to the median intelligence or low IQ individuals. To be sure, there are opportunities to mingle with people of similar IQs, but the events and venues are often expensive or more exclusive in nature. In a world that sees discrimination of any kind as evil, the only way to maintain boundaries is through prices or secrecy, i.e. an invite-only cigar lounge.

The challenge with this is that while intelligence and wealth have some correlation, they’re not intertwined. A high IQ boy from a poor family will not have access to these amenities in the same way a midwit from a trust fund family will. This is in part how so many institutions lose their prestige by admitting people based on wealth, rather than ability. They get dominated by arrogant midwits who think they’re entitled to things by virtue of merely existing.

In a sane world, the solution to the problem is segregation by intelligence, with spaces reserved only for the high IQ so that they can have meaningful, fulfilling social lives around those like them, just as median IQ people are more capable today of forming relationships because they have opportunities to meet like-minded people.

But, we don’t live in a sane world and that’s not likely to change. In an age when people suffering online censorship have been told to “build your own platforms,” it would do well for the high IQ to accept that if they want a space to belong in, they’ll have to create it themselves. I’m thinking not only in terms of what is practical, but in an actual sense, rather than formal manner.

For example, if you wanted to create a male-only gym, you don’t put up a sign that says so and make it official. You simply make the aesthetics appealing to masculine men and unfriendly to the yoga pants wearers. You play 1980s heavy metal, have darker, greyer color paint on the walls, lots of bodybuilding equipment, and posters of related stuff that appeals to gym rats. You’re not explicitly denying women entry, but they will naturally go elsewhere since they can’t change these things because they don’t control it. If there are women there, they will be few in number and intuitively grasp that they have to adhere to masculine norms, because the gym isn’t there for them.

In contrast, setting up a “men only” sign and actively trying to kick women out will accomplish nothing but a lawsuit and negative media publicity.

The same applies to IQ-based segregation. A high IQ space needs the aesthetics, décor, and environment that caters to people with greater capacity for thought, sophistication, and finer preferences. It filters out by intelligence, not income or purchasing power. It’s a space that feels inviting for the smart, not those who think they’re smart.

While it doesn’t have to be hostile toward the average person, they should instinctively and unconsciously sense that it’s not an appropriate place for them or does not appeal to their tastes. And because they have no say and there are no actual rules discriminating against lower IQ people like themselves, there’s nothing they can do but leave.

How high IQ spaces are created and what that space looks like precisely is an aside. The gist is that smart people need to have their own places and experience a sense of belonging by being in close proximity with others who speak the same language, i.e. intelligence. Further, these spaces adhere to the standards and norms of the highly intelligent, rather than placating those with a 90 IQ. Most importantly, they need to be able to keep out people whose presence there is inappropriate by nature of their IQ, someone who if allowed to remain will undermine the standards and norms for that space to accommodate them.

We need to abandon the notion of egalitarianism and equality by recognizing the harm it’s caused to pretty much everyone and the unnecessary conflicts that result from it. Among the worst aspects of it, is that it creates unrealistic expectations for the dumb and conceals from the intelligent the options at their disposal. The other issue is that the mere presence of high IQ people provokes insecurity and envy among malicious halfwits and midwits, who then seek to sabotage the lives of the high IQ. By separating them, these feuds are avoided.

Critics will say this is elitist, and all I can say is that they’re right. We’re not pretending that halfwits are equal to that of someone with a 130 IQ or should be treated the same any more than we treat those who can run a 4:15 minute mile the same as a 300 lbs. defensive lineman. The difference between segregation and what we have now is that currently the halfwits and midwits get to project and impose their standards and preferences onto people more intelligent than they and whose only desire is to fully realize their own potential.

This won’t cure the curse of a high IQ, but it will alleviate some of the worst aspects.

Friday, February 17, 2023

Vladimir Putin's Speech

Below is a speech that was given by Vladimir Putin to the Russian legislature.  I had to post it here for reference as I received a request to give my opinion on this speech, but the speech was inaccessible from western computers/internet.  I have no allegiance or opinion on Russia, Ukraine, Putin, etc., but I do have an opinion on the freedom of speech in America.  The fact this speech was obstructed to get to and read is proof America and some Americans are against free speech.  It is also an insult to Americans that we need to be protected against foreign thoughts or propaganda on account we are not able to make our own decisions.  Again, I do not support nor do I condemn Putin.  But a mighty fuck you to the people who decided for me that neither I nor anyone else should be able to have access to this speech.  You are no different a dictator than those you criticize.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,
As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.
Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)
It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
I repeat, it is an inherent right of the people. It is based on our historical affinity, and it is that right that led generations of our predecessors, those who built and defended Russia for centuries since the period of Ancient Rus, to victory.
Here in Novorossiya, [Pyotr] Rumyantsev, [Alexander] Suvorov and [Fyodor] Ushakov fought their battles, and Catherine the Great and [Grigory] Potyomkin founded new cities. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought here to the bitter end during the Great Patriotic War.
We will always remember the heroes of the Russian Spring, those who refused to accept the neo-Nazi coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014, all those who died for the right to speak their native language, to preserve their culture, traditions and religion, and for the very right to live. We remember the soldiers of Donbass, the martyrs of the “Odessa Khatyn,” the victims of inhuman terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime. We commemorate volunteers and militiamen, civilians, children, women, senior citizens, Russians, Ukrainians, people of various nationalities; popular leader of Donetsk Alexander Zakharchenko; military commanders Arsen Pavlov and Vladimir Zhoga, Olga Kachura and Alexei Mozgovoy; prosecutor of the Lugansk Republic Sergei Gorenko; paratrooper Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov and all our soldiers and officers who died a hero’s death during the special military operation. They are heroes. (Applause.) Heroes of great Russia. Please join me in a minute of silence to honour their memory.
(Minute of silence.)
Thank you.
Behind the choice of millions of residents in the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, is our common destiny and thousand-year history. People have passed this spiritual connection on to their children and grandchildren. Despite all the trials they endured, they carried the love for Russia through the years. This is something no one can destroy. That is why both older generations and young people – those who were born after the tragic collapse of the Soviet Union – have voted for our unity, for our common future.
In 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, representatives of the party elite of that time made a decision to terminate the Soviet Union, without asking ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland. This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe. Just like the government quietly demarcated the borders of Soviet republics, acting behind the scenes after the 1917 revolution, the last leaders of the Soviet Union, contrary to the direct expression of the will of the majority of people in the referendum of 1991, destroyed our great country, and simply made the people in the former republics face this as an accomplished fact.
I can admit that they didn’t even know what they were doing and what consequences their actions would have in the end. But it doesn't matter now. There is no Soviet Union anymore; we cannot return to the past. Actually, Russia no longer needs it today; this isn’t our ambition. But there is nothing stronger than the determination of millions of people who, by their culture, religion, traditions, and language, consider themselves part of Russia, whose ancestors lived in a single country for centuries. There is nothing stronger than their determination to return to their true historical homeland.
For eight long years, people in Donbass were subjected to genocide, shelling and blockades; in Kherson and Zaporozhye, a criminal policy was pursued to cultivate hatred for Russia, for everything Russian. Now too, during the referendums, the Kiev regime threatened schoolteachers, women who worked in election commissions with reprisals and death. Kiev threatened millions of people who came to express their will with repression. But the people of Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson weren’t broken, and they had their say.
I want the Kiev authorities and their true handlers in the West to hear me now, and I want everyone to remember this: the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever. (Applause.)
We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it. (Applause.) Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace.
We will defend our land with all the forces and resources we have, and we will do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people. This is the great liberating mission of our nation.
We will definitely rebuild the destroyed cities and towns, the residential buildings, schools, hospitals, theatres and museums. We will restore and develop industrial enterprises, factories, infrastructure, as well as the social security, pension, healthcare and education systems.
We will certainly work to improve the level of security. Together we will make sure that citizens in the new regions can feel the support of all the people of Russia, of the entire nation, all the republics, territories and regions of our vast Motherland. (Applause.)
Friends, colleagues,
Today I would like to address our soldiers and officers who are taking part in the special military operation, the fighters of Donbass and Novorossiya, those who went to military recruitment offices after receiving a call-up paper under the executive order on partial mobilisation, and those who did this voluntarily, answering the call of their hearts. I would like to address their parents, wives and children, to tell them what our people are fighting for, what kind of enemy we are up against, and who is pushing the world into new wars and crises and deriving blood-stained benefits from this tragedy.
Our compatriots, our brothers and sisters in Ukraine who are part of our united people have seen with their own eyes what the ruling class of the so-called West have prepared for humanity as a whole. They have dropped their masks and shown what they are really made of.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West decided that the world and all of us would permanently accede to its dictates. In 1991, the West thought that Russia would never rise after such shocks and would fall to pieces on its own. This almost happened. We remember the horrible 1990s, hungry, cold and hopeless. But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world.
Meanwhile, the West continued and continues looking for another chance to strike a blow at us, to weaken and break up Russia, which they have always dreamed about, to divide our state and set our peoples against each other, and to condemn them to poverty and extinction. They cannot rest easy knowing that there is such a great country with this huge territory in the world, with its natural wealth, resources and people who cannot and will not do someone else’s bidding.
The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.
In certain countries, the ruling elites voluntarily agree to do this, voluntarily agree to become vassals; others are bribed or intimidated. And if this does not work, they destroy entire states, leaving behind humanitarian disasters, devastation, ruins, millions of wrecked and mangled human lives, terrorist enclaves, social disaster zones, protectorates, colonies and semi-colonies. They don't care. All they care about is their own benefit.
I want to underscore again that their insatiability and determination to preserve their unfettered dominance are the real causes of the hybrid war that the collective West is waging against Russia. They do not want us to be free; they want us to be a colony. They do not want equal cooperation; they want to loot. They do not want to see us a free society, but a mass of soulless slaves.
They see our thought and our philosophy as a direct threat. That is why they target our philosophers for assassination. Our culture and art present a danger to them, so they are trying to ban them. Our development and prosperity are also a threat to them because competition is growing. They do not want or need Russia, but we do. (Applause.)
I would like to remind you that in the past, ambitions of world domination have repeatedly shattered against the courage and resilience of our people. Russia will always be Russia. We will continue to defend our values and our Motherland.
The West is counting on impunity, on being able to get away with anything. As a matter of fact, this was actually the case until recently. Strategic security agreements have been trashed; agreements reached at the highest political level have been declared tall tales; firm promises not to expand NATO to the east gave way to dirty deception as soon as our former leaders bought into them; missile defence, intermediate-range and shorter-range missile treaties have been unilaterally dismantled under far-fetched pretexts.
And all we hear is, the West is insisting on a rules-based order. Where did that come from anyway? Who has ever seen these rules? Who agreed or approved them? Listen, this is just a lot of nonsense, utter deceit, double standards, or even triple standards! They must think we’re stupid.
Russia is a great thousand-year-old power, a whole civilisation, and it is not going to live by such makeshift, false rules. (Applause.)
It was the so-called West that trampled on the principle of the inviolability of borders, and now it is deciding, at its own discretion, who has the right to self-determination and who does not, who is unworthy of it. It is unclear what their decisions are based on or who gave them the right to decide in the first place. They just assumed it.
That is why the choice of the people in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson makes them so furiously angry. The West does not have any moral right to weigh in, or even utter a word about freedom of democracy. It does not and it never did.
Western elites not only deny national sovereignty and international law. Their hegemony has pronounced features of totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid. They brazenly divide the world into their vassals – the so-called civilised countries – and all the rest, who, according to the designs of today's Western racists, should be added to the list of barbarians and savages. False labels like “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime” are already available, and are used to stigmatise entire nations and states, which is nothing new. There is nothing new in this: deep down, the Western elites have remained the same colonisers. They discriminate and divide peoples into the top tier and the rest.
We have never agreed to and will never agree to such political nationalism and racism. What else, if not racism, is the Russophobia being spread around the world? What, if not racism, is the West’s dogmatic conviction that its civilisation and neoliberal culture is an indisputable model for the entire world to follow? “You’re either with us or against us.” It even sounds strange.
Western elites are even shifting repentance for their own historical crimes on everyone else, demanding that the citizens of their countries and other peoples confess to things they have nothing to do with at all, for example, the period of colonial conquests.
It is worth reminding the West that it began its colonial policy back in the Middle Ages, followed by the worldwide slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India and Africa, the wars of England and France against China, as a result of which it was forced to open its ports to the opium trade. What they did was get entire nations hooked on drugs and purposefully exterminated entire ethnic groups for the sake of grabbing land and resources, hunting people like animals. This is contrary to human nature, truth, freedom and justice.
While we – we are proud that in the 20th century our country led the anti-colonial movement, which opened up opportunities for many peoples around the world to make progress, reduce poverty and inequality, and defeat hunger and disease.
To emphasise, one of the reasons for the centuries-old Russophobia, the Western elites’ unconcealed animosity toward Russia is precisely the fact that we did not allow them to rob us during the period of colonial conquests and forced the Europeans to trade with us on mutually beneficial terms. This was achieved by creating a strong centralised state in Russia, which grew and got stronger based on the great moral values​​of Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, as well as Russian culture and the Russian word that were open to all.
There were numerous plans to invade Russia. Such attempts were made during the Time of Troubles in the 17th century and in the period of ordeals after the 1917 revolution. All of them failed. The West managed to grab hold of Russia’s wealth only in the late 20th century, when the state had been destroyed. They called us friends and partners, but they treated us like a colony, using various schemes to pump trillions of dollars out of the country. We remember. We have not forgotten anything.
A few days ago, people in Donetsk and Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye declared their support for restoring our historical unity. Thank you! (Applause.)
Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through.
The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.
Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.
The United States left a deep scar in the memory of the people of Korea and Vietnam with their carpet bombings and use of napalm and chemical weapons.
It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.
They call the orders and threats they make to their vassals Euro-Atlantic solidarity, and the creation of biological weapons and the use of human test subjects, including in Ukraine, noble medical research.
It is their destructive policies, wars and plunder that have unleashed today’s massive wave of migrants. Millions of people endure hardships and humiliation or die by the thousands trying to reach Europe.
They are exporting grain from Ukraine now. Where are they taking it under the guise of ensuring the food security of the poorest countries? Where is it going? They are taking it to the self-same European countries. Only five percent has been delivered to the poorest countries. More cheating and naked deception again.
In effect, the American elite is using the tragedy of these people to weaken its rivals, to destroy nation states. This goes for Europe and for the identities of France, Italy, Spain and other countries with centuries-long histories.
Washington demands more and more sanctions against Russia and the majority of European politicians obediently go along with it. They clearly understand that by pressuring the EU to completely give up Russian energy and other resources, the United States is practically pushing Europe toward deindustrialisation in a bid to get its hands on the entire European market. These European elites understand everything – they do, but they prefer to serve the interests of others. This is no longer servility but direct betrayal of their own peoples. God bless, it is up to them.
But the Anglo-Saxons believe sanctions are no longer enough and now they have turned to subversion. It seems incredible but it is a fact – by causing explosions on Nord Stream’s international gas pipelines passing along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually embarked on the destruction of Europe’s entire energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who stands to gain. Those who benefit are responsible, of course.
The dictates of the US are backed up by crude force, on the law of the fist. Sometimes it is beautifully wrapped sometimes there is no wrapping at all but the gist is the same – the law of the fist. Hence, the deployment and maintenance of hundreds of military bases in all corners of the world, NATO expansion, and attempts to cobble together new military alliances, such as AUKUS and the like. Much is being done to create a Washington-Seoul-Tokyo military-political chain. All states that possess or aspire to genuine strategic sovereignty and are capable of challenging Western hegemony, are automatically declared enemies.
These are the principles that underlie US and NATO military doctrines that require total domination. Western elites are presenting their neocolonialist plans with the same hypocrisy, claiming peaceful intentions, talking about some kind of deterrence. This evasive word migrates from one strategy to another but really only means one thing – undermining any and all sovereign centres of power.
We have already heard about the deterrence of Russia, China and Iran. I believe next in line are other countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, as well as current US partners and allies. After all, we know that when they are displeased, they introduce sanctions against their allies as well – against this or that bank or company. This is their practice and they will expand it. They have everything in their sights, including our next-door neighbours – the CIS countries.
At the same time, the West has clearly been engaged in wishful thinking for a long time. In launching the sanctions blitzkrieg against Russia, for example, they thought that they could once again line up the whole world at their command. As it turns out, however, such a bright prospect does not excite everyone – other than complete political masochists and admirers of other unconventional forms of international relations. Most states refuse to ”snap a salute“ and instead choose the sensible path of cooperation with Russia.
The West clearly did not expect such insubordination. They simply got used to acting according to a template, to grab whatever they please, by blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and convinced themselves that these methods would work forever, as if they had fossilised in the past.
Such self-confidence is a direct product not only of the notorious concept of exceptionalism – although it never ceases to amaze – but also of the real ”information hunger“ in the West. The truth has been drowned in an ocean of myths, illusions and fakes, using extremely aggressive propaganda, lying like Goebbels. The more unbelievable the lie, the quicker people will believe it – that is how they operate, according to this principle.
But people cannot be fed with printed dollars and euros. You can't feed them with those pieces of paper, and the virtual, inflated capitalisation of western social media companies can't heat their homes. Everything I am saying is important. And what I just said is no less so: you can't feed anyone with paper – you need food; and you can't heat anyone’s home with these inflated capitalisations – you need energy.
That is why politicians in Europe have to convince their fellow citizens to eat less, take a shower less often and dress warmer at home. And those who start asking fair questions like “Why is that, in fact?” are immediately declared enemies, extremists and radicals. They point back at Russia and say: that is the source of all your troubles. More lies.
I want to make special note of the fact that there is every reason to believe that the Western elites are not going to look for constructive ways out of the global food and energy crisis that they and they alone are to blame for, as a result of their long-term policy, dating back long before our special military operation in Ukraine, in Donbass. They have no intention of solving the problems of injustice and inequality. I am afraid they would rather use other formulas they are more comfortable with.
And here it is important to recall that the West bailed itself out of its early 20th century challenges with World War I. Profits from World War II helped the United States finally overcome the Great Depression and become the largest economy in the world, and to impose on the planet the power of the dollar as a global reserve currency. And the 1980s crisis – things came to a head in the 1980s again – the West emerged from it unscathed largely by appropriating the inheritance and resources of the collapsed and defunct Soviet Union. That's a fact.
Now, in order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.
Russia is aware of its responsibility to the international community and will make every effort to ensure that cooler heads prevail.
The current neocolonial model is ultimately doomed; this much is obvious. But I repeat that its real masters will cling to it to the end. They simply have nothing to offer the world except to maintain the same system of plundering and racketeering.
They do not give a damn about the natural right of billions of people, the majority of humanity, to freedom and justice, the right to determine their own future. They have already moved on to the radical denial of moral, religious, and family values.
Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. Now I would like to return to what I said and want to address also all citizens of the country – not just the colleagues that are in the hall – but all citizens of Russia: do we want to have here, in our country, in Russia, “parent number one, parent number two and parent number three” (they have completely lost it!) instead of mother and father? Do we want our schools to impose on our children, from their earliest days in school, perversions that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want to drum into their heads the ideas that certain other genders exist along with women and men and to offer them gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? This is all unacceptable to us. We have a different future of our own.
Let me repeat that the dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including the citizens of Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all. This complete renunciation of what it means to be human, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, and the suppression of freedom are coming to resemble a “religion in reverse” – pure Satanism. Exposing false messiahs, Jesus Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” These poisonous fruits are already obvious to people, and not only in our country but also in all countries, including many people in the West itself.
The world has entered a period of a fundamental, revolutionary transformation. New centres of power are emerging. They represent the majority – the majority! – of the international community. They are ready not only to declare their interests but also to protect them. They see in multipolarity an opportunity to strengthen their sovereignty, which means gaining genuine freedom, historical prospects, and the right to their own independent, creative and distinctive forms of development, to a harmonious process.
As I have already said, we have many like-minded people in Europe and the United States, and we feel and see their support. An essentially emancipatory, anti-colonial movement against unipolar hegemony is taking shape in the most diverse countries and societies. Its power will only grow with time. It is this force that will determine our future geopolitical reality.
Today, we are fighting for a just and free path, first of all for ourselves, for Russia, in order to leave dictate and despotism in the past. I am convinced that countries and peoples understand that a policy based on the exceptionalism of whoever it may be and the suppression of other cultures and peoples is inherently criminal, and that we must close this shameful chapter. The ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible. And I repeat: things will never be the same.
The battlefield to which destiny and history have called us is a battlefield for our people, for the great historical Russia. (Applause.) For the great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We must protect them against enslavement and monstrous experiments that are designed to cripple their minds and souls.
Today, we are fighting so that it would never occur to anyone that Russia, our people, our language, or our culture can be erased from history. Today, we need a consolidated society, and this consolidation can only be based on sovereignty, freedom, creation, and justice. Our values ​​are humanity, mercy and compassion.
And I want to close with the words of a true patriot Ivan Ilyin: “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”
Behind these words stands a glorious spiritual choice, which, for more than a thousand years of Russian statehood, was followed by many generations of our ancestors. Today, we are making this choice; the citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics and the residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions have made this choice. They made the choice to be with their people, to be with their Motherland, to share in its destiny, and to be victorious together with it.
The truth is with us, and behind us is Russia!