iftttwall

Authored by Cynical Publius via American Greatness,

The U.S. military’s growing DEI policies are creating a climate where fear of unfounded accusations erodes leadership and threatens combat readiness – leaving the nation’s future at risk…

As Pete Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense moves forward, the matter of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) doctrines and practices in America’s military is a hot-button issue of significant importance. Our media is awash with stories of “woke” generals and admirals, critiques of women in combat, awful tales of command selection board manipulations based on race or gender, and a generalized sense of uneasiness in the senior ranks of the Pentagon over perceived massive changes to take place once Trump and Hegseth are in charge. However, this current DEI attention focuses almost exclusively on what is happening inside the five walls of the Pentagon and tends to ignore DEI’s most pernicious effect: the way it is obliterating command authority in tactical units in the field and warships at sea.

First, let me tell you how I figured out what is going on. On X (formerly known as Twitter), I have an active account of about 130,000 followers. I know that number is much smaller than that of many other X influencers, but it’s enough to give me some reach. My account focuses primarily on politics and culture, with a heavy emphasis on matters related to the U.S. military. That’s because I’m a retired Army colonel, and my views on military matters seem to resonate with veterans and active duty alike. It is that community of military followers that has fully revealed to me the DEI cancer that is eating away at U.S. military leadership at all levels.

A few days ago, I read an article from Military.com that truly shocked me. That article stated that in today’s Army, roughly half of the officers who are eligible for battalion command are refusing to even be considered for such command. The article’s author, quoting official Army sources, stated that this was a function of officers being unwilling to take on the extraordinary time demands of being a battalion commander and out of a desire for a more sedate form of service for themselves and their families. The article suggests that a career as a staff officer with retirement at 20 years is more palatable than the constant and powerful peacetime and wartime demands of commanding a battalion of many hundreds or thousands of soldiers, even if that decision prohibits ever reaching high rank.

I was shocked. As I posted on X:

“What is going on here? In the Army I grew up in, it was the almost uniform goal of the entire officer corps to become a battalion commander one day. It was the brass ring. It was the validation of all of your training and efforts, and it was the most rewarding job in your career. The only reason to hold tedious staff positions was so you could aspire to one day command a battalion. So now in 2024, officers are happy to wile away the years making PowerPoint slides and making sure the coffee is fresh, and they lack the desire to lead troops? Dear God. The rot in the culture is far worse than I imagined.”

(As background, in all of the military services, not just the Army, command at the O-5 level is the ultimate leadership experience. In the Army and Marine Corps, it means commanding a battalion as a lieutenant colonel. In the Air Force, it means commanding a squadron as a lieutenant colonel. In the Navy, it means commanding a combat warship at the similar O-5 rank of commander. It truly is the greatest reward for those who wish to lead and command, and it is usually the last time in a successful military career that you are down in the dirt (or the bilge) with the troops that you lead. It’s a special time, once coveted by the best leaders.)

I retired from active duty in 2007, so I was looking at this issue from my old-timer perspective. But that’s when X, as the “new news media,” did its job—suddenly my X comments and private messages were flooded with active duty and recently retired officers explaining to me that this phenomenon was not due to a desire to not be overworked (as suggested by the Army itself and the Pentagon-friendly author at Military.com) but was instead due to fear of DEI. DEI has made O-5-level command a risky proposition where a male or a white officer lives in fear of an unfounded DEI complaint that would destroy not only his or her military career but the officer’s reputation as well. The risk of such destruction is outweighing the desire to lead. This is a tragic result.

So let’s say you are a straight, white male Army battalion commander who has a subordinate who happens to be a racial or ethnic minority, or a female, or LGBTQ+. Let’s also say that the subordinate is a poor performer to whom you give a poor efficiency report or is someone engaged in illegal activity that you prosecute under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Let’s say that such a poor performer or criminal then goes to the Inspector General (IG) and claims what you have done is motivated solely by racial, ethnic, or gender animus, or homophobia. (Or worse, a female soldier falsely claims you sexually assaulted her.) Back in the day, all such a commander needed to do was show the facts surrounding the issue to the IG, and the IG would go away, satisfied. But not today. Today, such claims tend to result in a presumption of guilt against the commander, which must be conclusively disproven.

As if that is not bad enough, there is a related concept here: so-called “counterproductive leadership.” Basically, counterproductive leadership is the idea that a leader’s actions are so toxic that he or she is not qualified to command. Crazily, “counterproductive leadership” (or “toxic leadership”) can be evidenced merely by such abstract concepts as subordinates refusing to look a leader in the eye or leaders holding poor performers to account for their poor performance. I’m fairly certain that iconic military leaders like George S. Patton and William “Bull” Halsey, Jr. would be considered purveyors of “counterproductive leadership” in today’s military environment, and mythical characters like Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway would likely be in the stockade.

“Counterproductive leadership” then gets linked to something else: “loss of confidence” by a commander’s chain of command. This is the idea that a commander’s superiors relieved him or her from command for unspecified reasons—including “counterproductive leadership.” In the past ten years, an unprecedented number of senior leaders (O-5 and above) have been relieved from command for this very “loss of confidence” reason. (Do a simple Google search and you’ll see what I mean.)

So let me please break down for you how this is all connected. Despite the fact that many commanders are, in fact, relieved for legitimately horrific reasons, many others are relieved according to the following, specious chain of events:

1. A unit commander disciplines a minority, female, or LGBTQ+ subordinate who legitimately committed some form of wrongdoing or was a poor performer.

2. The subordinate then files a race/ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality discrimination complaint against the unit commander with the IG, claiming the discipline was unwarranted and was actually motivated by racial/ethnic/gender/religious/LGBTQ+ animus.

3. The unit commander is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

4. The IG then determines the unit commander is innocent.

5. Despite the IG’s determination, the unit commander’s higher chain of command determines that “counterproductive leadership” was the cause of the unfounded and disproven IG complaint—a complaint that presumably would never have occurred had the unit commander displayed “productive leadership.”

6. “Counterproductive leadership” causes the unit commander’s chain of command to determine it has “lost confidence” in the unit commander.

7. The unit commander is then relieved from command duties by his or her higher chain of command due to such loss of confidence.

8. Stars and Stripes and Military.com then publicly report the ex-commander’s relief for cause.

9. The ex-commander then becomes depressed and starts drinking heavily; the ex-commander cannot find a civilian job because his reputation has been publicly destroyed; the ex-commander’s wife and kids leave him; the now-broke ex-commander moves into a seedy one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, where he is later arrested for fentanyl distribution.

(OK, I made #9 up—but I’m sure you can see how that fear of reputational destruction is valid and real.)

But that sequence of #1 through #8 that I just told you about? It’s real, without any exaggeration. There are senior folks I know personally who have suffered from this exact phenomenon. However, I’m not just speaking on this subject from personal knowledge (and back to X as the real news purveyor of the modern era), as my X feed has been overwhelmed with expressions of just what I wrote above. I have written some controversial X takes before that have garnered millions of views, but none of those resulted in so many detailed recountings of the exact same tale of woe as my discussion on this command issue did.

I’ll offer two examples out of many presented by my X followers.

My first comes from a current DoD member who is uniquely qualified in their duty position to understand the issue of O-5 command selection and the current related problems (and therefore said person requests anonymity):

“I work in a position where I encounter many of the O-5s and E-9s in that group [for prospective command]. An alarming amount of them seem low-key dreading facing the “weaponized investigation” culture that is currently pervasive. Combine that with the paltry manning (but perception from higher that everything must still get done as if they were 100%), and it is absolutely not surprising to me that the command opt-in is down.”

Then this from a recently retired Army colonel:

“100% accurate about jeopardy for commanders. I spent 75% of my last deployment conducting investigations. Did 78 AR 15-6 investigations in 9 months. The biggest problem are the sharp complaints and the “counterproductive leadership complaints.” Those are used for revenge and get out of jail. The “counterproductive leadership” complaints are virtually impossible to counter and even if you do no one escapes unscathed. Finally the religious exemptions for grooming and uniform standards are an EO trap—no matter how ridiculous the claim you have to be crazy to recommend denial because who are you to say it’s not a “sincerely held religious belief?” Deny it and you are prejudiced. Many of the active component majors and lieutenant colonels I worked with said they had zero interest in battalion command or brigade command because they were terrified of the endless investigations. It’s much less of a problem in the National Guard and USAR… until you mobilize. Then it’s the same problem.”

These are merely two of many such communications I have received. Are you sensing a pattern here?

Let me break it down one more time, as it was news to me when I finally figured it out, and it is probably news to anybody else who has not been in the U.S. military fairly recently. Here it is. Our senior civilian and military leadership in the Department of Defense have created a DEI climate across all military services where leadership at the key level of O-5 command is impossible. As a result, the best-qualified O-5s are running from command out of a legitimate fear of life-destroying lies that will stain their reputations like a scarlet letter.

The most disturbing part of all of this, however, is what the DEI cancer does at the tactical unit level to combat readiness. A military unit or warship cannot function as a combat-effective force when its commander lives in the shadow of the fear of unfounded subordinate retribution. It cannot. It is as if there is constant fear of mutiny or a gnawing sense of uneasiness that the unit you command is populated by an unknown number of zampolit. Leadership and discipline fail, unit cohesion crumbles, and the entire system disintegrates as combat effectiveness evaporates. Worst of all, the service members in such a combat-ineffective unit or ship will suffer—and some will die—as a result.

One more thing: if the best and brightest are running in fear from command, who is taking command? Answer: the “woke,” DEI-compliant officers; and because they are the ones taking command, they will necessarily one day become the officers at the top of the pyramid who make all the key military decisions. Or perhaps they are already there.

All of this leads to a very simple and devastating conclusion: if U.S. military commanders cannot command effectively, how can the U.S. military ever again win a war?

Pete Hegseth, please unwind the tyranny and combat ineffectiveness of this DEI cancer at all levels, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff all the way down to the infantry private walking point. Please. Our nation’s future depends upon it.

***

Cynical Publius is the nom de plume of a retired U.S. Army colonel, veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and reformed denizen of the Pentagon who is now a practicing corporate law attorney. You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.

Authored by Ilene Eng via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Garry Nolan, a prominent Stanford professor and inventor in DNA gene therapy, is also researching something out of this world: UFOs.

He talked to EpochTV’s “Bay Area Innovators” about how he became interested in UFO research and how he became the founder of the Sol Foundation, a premier research center for unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Nolan first set foot in the field when he was given the DNA sequence of a six-inch, human-like mummy that was discovered in Chile’s Atacama Desert in 2003. People started calling it an ‘alien mummy.’ In 2012, he started analyzing its DNA and studied it in his spare time. He brought in a larger team of scientists to look at it as well.

“We basically said, OK, this is human, and here are the mutations that we think might relate to what it looks like. And that was really all we did,” said Nolan. “We published it, and I actually didn’t expect it to be that big of a deal. It went worldwide. I mean, every newspaper. I mean, you think about it in retrospect, what’s a better click bait than ‘Stanford professor sequences alien baby,’ right?”

He became one of the few scientists out there who was willing to talk about unexplained phenomena and apply science to it.

Because of that, the government has asked him to help investigate military and diplomatic personnel who were being harmed in unknown ways, some of whom admitted to hearing buzzing in their ears and claimed to have seen UFOs.

“They started bringing out X-rays and MRIs of the internal scarring that had gone on with some of these individuals. And so I said, OK, well, that’s clear. That’s not imagined, that’s not a hallucination,” he said. “And so I then got involved with three or four years looking at these individuals, and it turned out … the majority of those patients that we had were actually the first of the recognized, or what I would think of as recognized, Havana Syndrome.”

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. government personnel stationed in Havana, Cuba, first reported experiencing anomalous health incidents like hearing noise, headaches, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, and other symptoms, also known as Havana Syndrome. However, when they underwent an MRI scan, there was no significant evidence of brain injury or biological abnormalities. Researchers found that over 80 U.S. government employees stationed abroad experienced these abnormalities.

“I don’t need to agree that they saw a UFO. I need to just understand that they saw something that they interpreted as a UFO. That doesn’t matter to me. It’s what happened to them and medically is what’s important. And if you have it happening in different people around the country, then you’re entering a realm where it’s reproducible, or at least you’re getting people coming in with reproducible experiences. So it’s kind of starting to become science,” explained Nolan.

Later, he became friends with a well-known venture capitalist and UFO researcher, Jacques Vallée. Together they looked at the molten metal remains after an alleged UFO sighting in Council Bluffs, Iowa, in December 1977. They tried to replicate the substance and see if there was anything new they could learn. After conducting a spatial analysis with one of his instruments called the multiplex, they found that the molten remains were an uneven mixture of metals.

“Now I have three other metals from Australia, from nearby, as it turns out, and other places around the world where the same pattern of events occurs,” said Nolan. “Something is seen. It drops off this metal. The metals are different each time. One of them is like aluminum. Another one is almost pure silicon, and pure to the level that you would need a Silicon Valley foundry to make. But it was dropped in the middle of a beach in Ubatuba, [Brazil] pounds and pounds and pounds of it.”

According to Nolan, since there are many questions surrounding such data, he wants to analyze it and put the information out there for others.

“The government has already said UFOs are real in some ways. … At least, the data is real,” said Nolan.

In November, a bipartisan group of lawmakers hosted a congressional hearing on UAP.

Witnesses testified about the threat to national security posed by potential incursions into U.S. airspace, while accusing the Pentagon of shrouding many UAP documents in secrecy.

“Don’t wait for Daddy Government to do something. Disclosure can come from the public. Waiting for the government to make up its mind is like waiting for them to, you know, refund your tax check. Don’t sit around waiting for it. Go out and do it yourself,” said Nolan.

Since the hearing, there have been more reports about drone and UAP sightings across the country, with the most recent reports coming from New Jersey.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

It happens every year around December, a predictable flurry of pseudo-psychology articles from low-IQ progressives expounding on the negatives of Christmas. On top of that, there’s been a pipeline of anti-Christmas films coming out of Hollywood the past decade, including some real woke bombs depicting Santa as a corporatist, a racist and a woman hater.

It’s been going on so long that in the early 2000s conservatives dubbed the annual practice the “War on Christmas”. However, at that time people on the political right assumed the vitriol was aimed at Christianity in general. What many didn’t realize is that the hatred wasn’t only about religious differences.

Around 70% of atheists identify as Democrats according to surveys, with 15% identifying as Republican and another 15% having no party affiliation. It makes sense that the majority of Christmas critics are on the political left and that their distaste of the holiday season is driven by their anti-Christian views.

After all, the political left is so obsessed with destroying Christianity that they continue to repeat the false narrative that Christmas is a “pagan holiday” and that all the traditions are stolen and repurposed. This claim is debunked every year and yet every year they keep trying to bring it back.

The pagan celebration of “Yule” often associated with Christmas by ignorant academics has always been a completely separate tradition with separate practices. As Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, pagan groups would meld elements of their previous traditions with newly introduced Christian holidays. Every serious study of Yule admits the distinct separation between the pagan celebration and Christmas.

The Christmas tree is also a purely Christian idea, based on the stories surrounding Saint Boniface. Boniface sought to convert the pagan tribes of Germany in 725 AD and chopped down what was known as “Odin’s Sacred Oak”, a tree used by the pagans as a site for human sacrifice. A small fir tree grew in its place and was dubbed the “Tree of Christ”.

By extension Santa Claus is often wrongly associated with pagan characters; he is in fact based on the very real Saint Nicholas, a monk who traveled the known world around 280 AD, giving away his wealth and helping children in need. His good deeds became legendary and by the Renaissance he was the most popular saint in Europe. His feast day was celebrated on the day of his death (December 6^th), and it was common practice to buy large gifts or get married around this time every year.

The name “Santa Claus” comes from the Dutch, who first brought the celebration of Nicholas over to the American colonies in the 1700s. They called him “Sinter Klaas”, short for Saint Nicholas. And, if you look at some of the very old fresco paintings of Saint Nicholas you’ll find he looks rather similar to the modern day folk character version of Santa Claus.

When the claims of pagan co-option failed to yield any results, leftists turned to more woke methods to undermine the Christmas holiday. Going beyond religion, progressives have even sought to take down Santa Claus.

You would think a guy that goes around giving away his wealth and helping the poor would immediately appeal to socialist leftists who claim to be the guardians of the underclass, but that’s not really the case. They say the biggest problem is that Santa is “white” and that he represents the western world’s habit of making white people the “default”. I would argue that this is a smokescreen for other problems the leftists don’t want to fully admit to, but let’s start with race…

Black Santa Claus

The leftist trend in recent years has been to hijack Santa Claus and make him non-white (as they have tried to do with almost every other icon of the west). They pushed hard to make “Black Santa” a thing over the past few years and it’s not working out for them.

This is not to say that black people can’t dress up as Santa Claus; they can do as they please. However, the idea of taking a centuries old western figure based on a real person and then co-opting their image and pretending like this doesn’t matter – Isn’t this the evil practice of cultural appropriation that leftists accuse white people of doing all the time?

Let’s be clear, the default of western culture IS white. White people created it and built it and so most of our celebrated figures are going to be white people also. Leftists are never going to successfully sell Black Santa as a cultural norm, just as it would be impossible to steal African folk heroes and turn them white.

Santa Takes Credit Away From Parents?

Another common argument I hear against the idea of Santa Claus is that parents are pressured to purchase gifts for their children on Christmas while telling them that those toys are coming from a fantasy figure (and a white fantasy figure, too! Oh, the horror!). Progressives want their children to give THEM credit for the money spend on gifts, not a magical white guy in a red suit.

Not surprisingly, these people have missed the point of gift giving on Christmas, though it is funny to see leftists essentially arguing in favor of meritocracy and individual recognition.

I see the idea of Santa Claus as very useful, not only as a way to bring a little wonder into the tradition for children, but also as a way to keep adult egos in check. Giving Santa credit for a gift is a valuable exercise in humility that every parent needs. The gift should not be about you, it’s about the happiness that the gift inspires.

Gift giving is not a trade for adoration, but that’s exactly how narcissists see it. And since the political left is absolutely infected with narcissism these days it’s not surprising that they hate Santa Claus for taking attention away from them at Christmastime.

Santa Has A Naughty List, But What If You’re A Moral Relativist?

Keep in mind that a lot of progressive academics that write criticisms of the holidays don’t have any kids. They are childless cat ladies and beta males with no experience in creating and caring for a family. Their opinions are worthless when it comes to child rearing (and most other things). That said, this doesn’t seem to stop them from giving advice on the trappings of teaching kids the value of morality and the consequences of their actions.

It might be a fading tradition but for the longest time parents have told children to be on their best behavior around Christmas because if they don’t they could end up on Santa’s naughty list and get coal in their stockings. Leftists argue that this punishment and rewards system should not be a part of Christmas.

Firstly, people without kids don’t understand that when the youngsters are on a school break for two weeks straight and everyone is stuck together in close quarters in a house in winter there is a need sometimes for extra policing. You use whatever tools are at your disposal because reasoning with children only works half the time. Their brains aren’t fully formed yet (like woke activists), and they tend to act out wildly based on impulse and emotion.

I really don’t think that lefties are particularly upset by the idea of Santa having a naughty list (I’ve never met a well adjusted parent that went beyond the threat and didn’t have presents for their sons and daughters on Christmas). I think they are upset by the idea of moral compass and discipline. They seem to think that children simply raise themselves and that the parents never need to do anything to mold them into proper adults.

This is exactly why our society is in a death spiral today; because progressives have convinced so many parents to stop parenting.

Santa (Like Christ) Represents Individual And Voluntary Charity

Leftists are socialists (or communists) – It’s the foundation of almost all their beliefs, and the root of socialism is the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the collective. Meaning, the government in the name of the majority must intervene in the affairs of individuals in order to force them to serve the interests of the group.

In other words, leftists believe that the environment determines everything and people will not do good for society unless they are extorted into it by the system. In a way they fulfill their own prophecy by making it almost impossible through the legal environment to do good for others unless you have permission from the authorities.

Over the years I have noticed that one highly destructive side effect of socialism is the exponential decline in personal charity. If the government handles everything, why should the average person take action to help others? Why even care? And if you do still care, it doesn’t matter because the system will punish you for acting on your own accord.

There’s a reason why socialist and communist regimes are mostly atheist and seek to eliminate Christianity through history; the government must become god and they can’t allow any alternatives to exist. When you see progressive governments ban private charity activities or prosecute people who go out on their own to help the homeless, you might be confused and wonder what the motivation could possibly be?

It makes perfect sense when you realize that leftists see voluntary charity as competition with their own god (government). In the past they have even tried to misrepresent Jesus as an early socialist figure, when in fact Jesus promoted individual acts of compassion, not deferring to a government authority.

The underlying impetus for socialism is forced wealth redistribution, but in a world of voluntary charity there is no need for governments to control wealth or property. That is to say, socialists exploit the existence of poverty as an excuse to take control of all personal wealth (and thus control the population). They can’t do that when Christianity, Christmas and symbols like Santa Claus show people there’s a better way.

China’s economy is facing a series of significant challenges, including a property crisis and high youth unemployment.

After decades of rapid growth, the country is now expected to experience less economic growth than other Asian nations.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the projected growth of per-capita GDP for selected Asian nations between 2023 and 2026, based on data compiled by HSBC as of November 2024.

Chinese Economy Lagging

India and Southeast Asian nations are projected to achieve an average per-capita GDP growth of 6.5% over the 2023–2026 period.

Most of these economies are expected to thrive, bolstered by youthful demographics, a rising middle class, strong foreign and domestic private investment flows, and a booming technology sector.

China, however, is forecasted to experience an average per-capita GDP growth of just 3.9%. To address these economic challenges, China’s top leaders have signaled plans for stronger stimulus measures to help fill gaps in consumer demand.

Senior Chinese officials have also indicated plans for increased government spending and further interest rate cuts.

The ruling Communist Party faces a “long, long battle” to reflate the economy, according to Robin Xing, chief China economist at Morgan Stanley, who told Bloomberg Television that 2025 will “be the year of trying.”

“Maybe by 2026, they will finally find the right dose of policies — a combination of consumption-centric stimulus plus social safety net reform,” Xing added.

If you enjoyed this graphic, make sure check out The G7 is Looking More and More American, that shows the U.S. alone accounts for more than half of the combined G7 output in PPP-adjusted terms.

Authored by James Taylor via RealClearPolicy,

How do you restore a bloated and misdirected U.S. Department of Energy to its originally intended purpose of assuring affordable and reliable American energy? The answer is to appoint a highly knowledgeable and successful energy producer to the position of Energy Secretary. Donald Trump made the perfect pick in Chris Wright.

A mechanical and electrical engineer by training, Chris Wright is one of the people most responsible for the fracking revolution that freed America from the whims of hostile oil producers like Iran and Venezuela. He is currently the CEO of Liberty Energy, an oil and natural gas servicing company at the forefront of American oil and natural gas production. He also sits on the board of directors of Oklo Inc., an advanced nuclear technology company.

In other words, Wright possesses impressive knowledge and experience regarding a broad array of energy sources and technologies, and he has a track record of successfully bringing those energy options into the marketplace.

Perhaps most appealing about Wright is his refusal to give in to pressure tactics from leftist climate and environment activist groups. “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either,” said Wright on his LinkedIn page. Countering leftist fearmongering, Wright has visually illustrated that fracking fluid is not dangerous by drinking it in public. 

What Chris Wright affirmatively stands for is an America that dictates energy policy to the rest of the world rather than being held captive by it. America has more oil, coal, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth, but we rarely act like it. Under presidents Obama and Biden, government policy was to restrict American energy production under climate change rationale and then beg nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to export more oil to us. Under Trump and Chris Wright, American energy policy will return to holding our energy destiny in our own hands.

The beauty of abundant domestic energy production is that if there is a Middle East crisis, or if OPEC decides to tighten its oil production, America is the nation that most benefits from the rising prices, rather than Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. More American energy production means prices are likely to return to Trump-era lows – but any foreign events that put pressure on energy markets will benefit America rather than other nations.

Under Chris Wright, the U.S. Department of Energy will focus on spurring affordable and reliable American energy, not creating massive and ineffective boondoggles for climate change virtue-signaling. This is in stark contrast to the Department of Energy under the Biden administration and current Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. 

Granholm is a career politician and a partisan Democrat best known for giving overcaffeinated speeches at the 2012 and 2016 Democratic National Conventions. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2021 approved Granholm as Energy Secretary despite Granholm having absolutely no specialized experience or knowledge regarding energy issues. The result was predictable. 

The Biden-Granholm DOE website lists climate change as a “top priority” of the DOE and boasts about all the DOE programs and DOE money being spent on climate change – instead of assuring affordable and reliable American energy. Yes, the percentage of wind and solar power in the American electricity mix rose from 11 percent in 2020 to 15 percent in 2024. The result of adding such expensive and unreliable energy to our electricity mix is that electricity prices rose a staggering 23 percent under Biden-Granholm, after rising less than 1 percent per year in the decade before Biden-Granholm.

Biden-Granholm’s effect on gasoline prices is even worse. Gasoline prices averaged just $2.48 under the Trump administration. They are averaging $3.45 under Biden-Granholm, which is 39 percent higher than under Trump.

Americans gave Donald Trump a mandate to halt runaway energy inflation. Americans want affordable and reliable energy rather than climate change virtue signaling. With a Department of Energy under the vision and leadership of Chris Wright, America will once again return to energy affordability and energy dominance. Wright is the perfect man for the job. 

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.org) is President of The Heartland Institute. 

Nearly 17% of all American households with children under the age of 18 are run by a single mom.

This means there are over 6 million single moms in the U.S., but, as Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao details in the graphic below, that share varies depending on the state, as this map shows.

Data for this graphic and article is sourced from the Badger Institute published 2024. Their figures are based off the latest American Community Survey findings.

ℹ️ Figures for D.C. were excluded from the graphic, but are included for reference in the table below.

Ranked: States With the Highest Share Single Moms

Poorer states in the South – Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia – have some of the highest rates of single mom households.

Rank	State	State Code	Share of Single Mom Households
1	Washington D.C.*	DC	29%
2	Mississippi	MS	24%
3	Louisiana	LA	23%
4	Alabama	AL	20%
5	Georgia	GA	20%
6	South Carolina	SC	20%
7	Arkansas	AR	19%
8	Delaware	DE	19%
9	North Carolina	NC	19%
10	New Mexico	NM	19%
11	Ohio	OH	19%
12	Rhode Island	RI	19%
13	Connecticut	CT	18%
14	Florida	FL	18%
15	Maryland	MD	18%
16	New York	NY	18%
17	Tennessee	TN	18%
18	Illinois	IL	17%
19	Indiana	IN	17%
20	Massachusetts	MA	17%
21	Michigan	MI	17%
22	Missouri	MO	17%
23	Nevada	NV	17%
24	Oklahoma	OK	17%
25	Pennsylvania	PA	17%
26	Texas	TX	17%
27	Arizona	AZ	16%
28	Kentucky	KY	16%
29	Virginia	VA	16%
30	Wisconsin	WI	16%
31	Iowa	IA	15%
32	New Jersey	NJ	15%
33	West Virginia	WV	15%
34	California	CA	14%
35	Kansas	KS	14%
36	Minnesota	MN	14%
37	Nebraska	NE	14%
38	Oregon	OR	14%
39	South Dakota	SD	14%
40	Vermont	VT	14%
41	Alaska	AK	13%
42	Colorado	CO	13%
43	Maine	ME	13%
44	Montana	MT	13%
45	North Dakota	ND	13%
46	Washington	WA	13%
47	New Hampshire	NH	12%
48	Wyoming	WY	12%
49	Hawaii	HI	11%
50	Idaho	ID	11%
51	Utah	UT	9%
N/A	National Average	USA	17%

Note: *U.S. federal district. Figures rounded.

For context, the same region has the highest share of single dad households as well. This indicates that economic pressures of raising children as a single parent are high.

In fact, per statistics from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly one-third of all single parent households were below the poverty threshold in 2021.

The share is far higher for single mothers (35%) than for single dads (17%), but both are much higher than the rate for two-parent households (9.5%).

Zooming out from that bit of analysis, Utah has the lowest share of single mom households in the country. Utah has a large segment of the population that is Mormon, and the religion discourages children outside marriage.

Finally, Pew Research found that nearly a quarter of all American children below 18 lived in a single parent household, the highest share across the world.

Check out Mapped: Poverty Rates by State to see the correlations mentioned in this article visualized.

Authored by Martin Kulldorff via RealClearPolitics.com,

The only way to restore public trust in vaccination – which has taken a big hit since the lies attending the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine – is to put a well-known vaccine skeptic in charge of the vaccine research agenda. The ideal person for this is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the same time, we must put rigorous scientists with a proven track record of evidence-based medicine in charge of determining the type of study designs to use. Two ideal scientists for this are Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, who have been nominated to lead the NIH and FDA, respectively.

Vaccines are – along with antibiotics, anesthesia, and sanitation – one of the most significant health inventions in history. First conceived in 1774 by Benjamin Jesty, a farmer in Dorsetshire, England, the smallpox vaccine alone has saved millions of lives. Operation Warp Speed, which rapidly developed the COVID vaccines, saved many older Americans. Despite this, we have seen a sharp increase in general vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine scientists and public health officials who did not conduct properly randomized trials made false claims about vaccine efficacy and safety and established vaccine mandates for people who did not need the vaccines, sowing suspicion and damaging public trust in vaccination.

What went wrong? The purpose of the COVID vaccines was to reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the randomized trials were only designed to demonstrate short-term reduction in COVID symptoms, which is not of great public health importance. Since the placebo groups were promptly vaccinated after the emergency approval, they also failed to provide reliable information about adverse reactions. Despite these flaws, it was falsely claimed that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural infection-acquired immunity and that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission.

Governments and universities then mandated the vaccines for people with superior natural immunity and for young people with very low mortality risk. These mandates were not only unscientific but with a limited vaccine supply, it was unethical to vaccinate low-mortality-risk people when the vaccines were needed by older high-risk people around the world.

Since government and pharmaceutical companies lied about the COVID vaccine, are they also lying about other vaccines? Skepticism has now spread to tried-and-true vaccines that are proven to work.

And there are real, unanswered vaccine safety questions. Seminal work from Denmark has shown that vaccines can have both positive and negative non-specific effects on non-targeted diseases, and that is something that must be explored in greater depth. Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) scientists studying asthma and aluminum-containing vaccines concluded that while their “findings do not constitute strong evidence for questioning the safety of aluminum in vaccines … additional examination of this hypothesis appears warranted.”

While VSD and other scientists should continue to do observational studies, we should also conduct randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials, as RFK has advocated. Since we have herd immunity for many diseases, such as measles, trials can be ethically conducted by randomizing the age of vaccination to, for example, one versus three years old, while spreading the trial over a large geographical area so that the unvaccinated are not all living close to each other.

I am confident that most vaccines will continue to be found safe and effective. While some problems may be found, that is more likely to increase rather than decrease vaccine confidence. For instance, it was found that the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine causes excess febrile seizures in 12- to 23-month-old children. MMRV is now only given as a second dose to older children, while the younger kids get separate MMR and varicella vaccines, resulting in fewer vaccine-induced seizures that scare parents. Although safety studies were inconclusive, it was also wise to remove mercury from vaccines. Even if we end up with fewer vaccines in the recommended vaccine schedule, that’s not necessarily a terrible thing. Scandinavia has a very healthy population with fewer vaccines in their schedules.

We won’t restore vaccine confidence by preaching to the choir.

After the COVID debacle, Kennedy’s stated goal is to return to evidence-based medicine free from conflicts of interest. Letting him do that is the only way that skeptics will trust vaccines again, and those of us who trust vaccines have no reason to be afraid of that.

Attempts by the public health and pharma establishments to derail the nominations of RFK, Bhattacharya, and Makary are the surest way to further increase vaccine hesitancy in America.

The choice is stark.

We cannot let lopsided “pro-vaccine scientists” who clamp their hands over their ears at the mildest questions do any more harm to vaccine confidence. As a pro-vaccine scientist, and in fact, the only person ever being fired by the CDC for being too pro-vaccine, the choice is clear in my mind.

To restore vaccine confidence to previous levels, we must support the nominations of Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary.

The U.S. health insurance industry is highly concentrated, with a single insurer having at least a 50% market share in 13 U.S. states.

This trend has intensified over the last 10 years due to industry consolidation, leaving consumers with limited options for health insurance. Going further, in markets dominated by a few insurers, healthcare costs and spending tend to be higher as insurers are less likely to reimburse hospitals for patient care.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows America’s largest health insurance companies by state, based on data from the American Medical Association.

The Market Concentration of Health Insurers in 2023

Below, we show the top health insurance company in each U.S. state, measured by their share of total enrollments in 2023:

Last year, Blue Cross Blue Shield covered 86% of all enrollments in Alabama, making it the most concentrated health insurance market nationwide.

Ranking in second is Kentucky, where Elevance Health makes up 67% of the market share. Overall, six of the most concentrated states are located in the South. Going further, the region has higher levels of uninsured rates compared to other regions driven by states opposing the expansion of Medicaid.

In comparison, the Northwestern states of Washington and Oregon have the least concentrated health insurance markets, each with one company controlling a 21% share.

Overall, Blue Cross Blue Shield was the top health insurance company in 14 states, followed by Elevance Health in 10 states. While UnitedHealth Group is America’s largest insurer on a national level, it is comparatively less concentrated state-wide, being the top provider in states such as New York and Arizona.

Shifting Business Models

Beyond having significant market concentration across states, many health insurance companies are diversifying into other noninsurance healthcare services.

For instance, Cigna, the top health insurance company in Wyoming, generated roughly 75% of its revenues from noninsurance services in Q3 2023. For Elevance Health, noninsurance business activities made up 25% of revenues, spanning from pharmacy services to primary care.

In many ways, health insurers are becoming increasingly vertically integrated, which has also been shown to raise prices and reduce competition in healthcare systems.

To learn more about this topic from a national perspective, check out this graphic on the largest health insurance companies in America.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to issue a day-one executive order to restore federal approvals for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, similar to his January 2017 directive overturning the Obama administration’s 2015 rejection of the same project.

Trump’s first-term Keystone restoration was reversed by President Joe Biden in a January 2021 executive order, again halting development of the 1,180-mile pipeline between Alberta, Canada, and Steele City, Nebraska.

While Trump 2.0 could nullify Biden’s directive in a pen stroke on Jan. 20, 2025, he won’t be able to resurrect Keystone XL because the project no longer exists.

“My understanding is the company has pulled the steel out of the ground and shipped it elsewhere and found alternative routes to get its product to market,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

“That would make it hard for Trump to approve an application that doesn’t exist,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Like most black-and-white stories, it’s a bit more complicated than that,” senior market analyst Phil Flynn with Chicago-based Price Futures Group told The Epoch Times.

But a simple straight line between supply and demand illustrates why XL was—and is—needed, he said.

“Whether or not this pipeline gets built, there will be another pipeline along the same route, just it’s not called ‘Keystone,’” Flynn said.

Toronto commodity analyst Rory Johnston, founder of CommodityContext.com, said a lot of things had changed since 2021 when “they had all the pipes in place in many places, like on-site, waiting to be installed.”

“Now it’s a zombie pipeline. What is dead can never die,” he told The Epoch Times.

Calgary-based TC Energy’s Keystone XL Pipeline 2008 proposal sought to add a 30-inch diameter line traversing 1,179 miles from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, to its existing 3,000-mile Keystone pipeline network.

The XL pipeline would add 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) to TC Energy’s existing Keystone network, including up to 730,000 bpd of tar sand crude oil from Canada and 100,000 bpd from North Dakota’s Bakken Formation.

Crossing the border at Morgan, Montana, XL would run 875 miles to Steele City, where it would split, sending oil east to an Illinois refinery and south to Cushing, Oklahoma, a trans-shipment hub with 90 million barrels of storage space and access to its Marketlink common-carrier pipeline, which is linked to Texas refiners.

The proposed pipeline drew heated opposition from an array of groups, including environmental nonprofits, climate change lobbyists, Native American organizations, land owners, and local governments, particularly in Nebraska.

Although preliminary approvals were secured by 2014, President Barack Obama in 2015 vetoed XL as unnecessary for the nation’s energy security, locking it in limbo.

Following his Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration, Trump restored XL’s approvals. Four years to the day later, Biden revoked Trump’s restoration.

After failing to regain momentum during Trump’s short-lived reprieve and facing at least four years of assured Biden sanctions, TC Energy withdrew its application in June 2021.

In July 2021, TC Energy filed a $15 million claim against the U.S. government for Biden’s “unfair and inequitable” revocation of its XL permit, claiming the 13-year “regulatory rollercoaster” caused significant financial harm.

“TC Energy, they did everything right and had spent a whole bunch of money, had it approved, and they pulled the rug from under them,” said Flynn, who also produces The Energy Report.

In October 2024, TC Energy announced it will “spin off” its pipeline business to a subsidiary, South Bow. Since then, portions of the pipeline have been dug up and sold, easements have lapsed or been transferred, and investors have shied away.

In November, water company Cadiz bought 180 miles of steel originally purchased for the pipeline to transport water through the Mojave Desert.

Some speculate Trump’s Dec. 10 pledge to expedite permitting and trim environmental reviews for projects worth at least $1 billion could spur interest in reviving XL.

South Bow “is noncommittal,” Flynn said, noting he’s curious if Trump’s fast-track pledge could spur Keystone’s exhumation.

“When you have the power of the presidency behind you, that might entice them,” he said. “I think this could be fast-tracked. If South Bow wants to do this, it could entice them to do it.”

South Bow isn’t saying much one way or another.

“South Bow supports efforts to transport more Canadian crude oil to meet U.S. demand,” South Bow spokesperson Solomiya Lyaskovska said in an emailed response to The Epoch Times’ queries. “South Bow’s long-term strategy is to safely and efficiently grow our business.”

Shifting Landscape

TC Energy’s primary reason for building XL was to boost its capacity to ship Alberta tar sands crude to refineries and shipping terminals for export.

In May 2023, Trans Mountain Pipeline completed the expansion of its existing 610-mile TransMountain Pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby, British Columbia, from 300,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd capacity.

The expanded pipeline gave Canadian exporters the port access they needed, defusing the urgency for XL, but the Gulf is still the prized destination, Flynn said.

Canadian producers “love access to the Gulf. That’s where all the refineries are and where the ships are already geared to export everywhere in the world,” he said.

Many say market conditions indicate there’s no need for another cross-border oil pipeline. U.S. production is at an all-time high, and Canada is exporting at record levels. OPEC has at least 5 million bpd of spare capacity.

Meanwhile, economic forecasters mostly project growth in global oil demand will slow, making investors wary of long-term infrastructure commitments.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects demand for oil will increase between 0.9 percent and 1.3 percent annually the next few years, below pre-2020 annual averages of 1.5 percent growth. In October, it lowered its 2025 world oil demand by 20,000 bpd.

“Declining demand … is central” to opponents’ arguments, Hartl said.

“The reality with drilling is it’s always contingent on price points, on profitability,” he said. “The company would have to want it, to commit resources to drill and, right now, there’s little motivation. The market itself doesn’t bear it.”

Shrinking Market

This gradual demand downturn has a subsidiary influence across related industries. According to a 2024 IBISWorld analysis, for instance, the U.S. pipeline construction industry includes 1,870 businesses and 184,000 workers and annually generates $47 billion in revenues. However, those revenues have been declining an average of 7 percent each year since 2019.

Johnston said such forecasts temper investment, noting that the project still languished, even after Trump approved XL.

“They had four years, and over those four years, [TC Energy] barely got 10 percent of the pipeline constructed,” he said.

The “weird inherent tension in trying to drive [energy prices] down but keep it profitable” is unsustainable, Hartl said.

The growth in oil consumption has declined for about 15 years and will continue to slow, Texas Tech University Department of Economics Professor Michael Noel told The Epoch Times.

“All of that is true,” he said, buttressing XL opponents’ arguments.

“So, the argument is we won’t need this infrastructure, so we’re going to put up with higher prices now because we’ll get lower prices later,” Noel said. “That’s great, but that argument historically means that you’re going to end up with higher and higher and higher prices while you keep on waiting for the lower thing to come.”

The “better idea” is “always build the infrastructure you need when you need it, then you’ll have cheaper prices now, and then at some point when you don’t need it, it gets decommissioned,” he said.

Even if renewable energies power the grid, “it takes time to build these things,” Noel said. “So the question is, what do you do in the meantime?”

Read the rest here…

Authored by Jayant Bhandari via American Renaissance,

Most Westerners know nothing about India beyond vague ideas about Hinduism, yoga, gurus, and maybe a dash of Bollywood. To such people, this article will be a rude awakening…

I grew up in Bhopal in central India. Since as early as I can remember, I worked in my father’s printing press. I studied engineering in the nearby city in Indore and went to Manchester Business School in Britain to do an MBA. I returned to India to set up a subsidiary of a British company, which was a huge success. When I lived in Delhi, I wrote for the mainstream Indian media. I traveled widely in India and around the world.

I had first returned to India with the idea of improving it, but after 11 years, I realized that India was a sinking ship, with worsening and increasingly shameless corruption, degraded people, and a society that was falling apart. I had never met an honest bureaucrat or politician. I applied to emigrate to Canada and my application was approved in a record three weeks.

I now advise East Asian and Western corporations on investing in India. Most of what I tell them sounds to them exaggerated, unrealistic, and unbelievable. After much dance, drama, and a great deal of lost money, they begin to believe what I tell them. However, this learning is never institutionalized because of a refusal to understand India. This is a form of political correctness, a poison eating away the innards of Western values.

When I was a child growing up in India, I learned that “might makes right.” Power was often abused, with those in control acting as if they had a God-given right to exploit and dominate others. The display of authority could be so extreme that questioning it or expecting those in power to do their duty might lead to retribution. Those in authority seemed to believe that their positions were not for serving others but for personal gain.

People who showed respect appeared to have meekly accepted a lower, subservient position. Kind people had to hide their compassion, for being nice was seen as a weakness.

In India, I have rarely seen someone in authority take the initiative to solve a problem he was responsible for. When I was at university, an underaged boy who worked in the kitchen was raped and sodomized by the janitors. I reported the matter, but not only did no one in authority do what was right — something well within their power — the authorities and fellow students threatened me with severe consequences if I pursued the matter further. Devoid of empathy, they also made fun of the boy and me.

Yes, there is an element of sadism here. There is some degree of pleasure that Indians take in the pain suffered by others. The attitude of the authorities was like that of the high-placed Delhi bureaucrat who told me that his Black Label whiskey tastes so much better because he knows that most Indians can’t afford to drink it.

This confuses Westerners. If they had power, even if they were corrupt, in a situation where there was nothing to gain or lose — no bribes to receive since both parties were poor, and no risk of offending someone well-connected — they would do the right thing and book the alleged rapist. These Indians would do nothing, not even lift a finger, unless there was a reward: money or sex. Their apathy was bottomless.

Doing your job may be seen as effeminate by those above you. If you can shirk your responsibilities, you’re considered macho. In that culture, there is rarely any pride or honor in doing what is right. If you call a plumber for repairs, he will see it as beneath him to leave without creating a mess. He may deliberately do a shoddy job, even if doing it well wouldn’t take more time. A complex web of arrogance, egotism, servility, casteism, tribalism, and magical thinking drives this behavior. He shows his contempt for you and gets the better of you by leaving a mess. His customer, as the other side of the same coin, might well look down on and exploit someone who did his job well.

If you do a bad job, does that mean you do not get called back? That doesn’t matter to people who have no standards to begin with and who do not think ahead. There is little positive feedback to those who want to do better, be fair, or make better products.

Fairness, justice, trust, empathy, and impartiality are alien to many Indians. They have a hard time telling the difference between right and wrong. They are indifferent even when no cost is associated with being fair. Moreover, if they could do good without any personal cost, they would still prefer not to, because that can be seen as a sign of weakness.

Indians are indoctrinated to be submissive. The indoctrination is so profound that Indians address those even slightly above them in authority as “sir.” They tend to be servile, sycophantic, and ingratiating. This should not be mistaken for respect, because respect is foreign to Indians. When they call you “sir,” it reflects their view of you only as the stronger figure in the interaction, consistent with their view that might makes right. They will demean you the moment you are in a weaker position.

You are either higher or lower — therefore, you are either abuser or abused. Equality is impossible. A visitor learns very quickly that saying “please” and “thank you” is seen as a sign of weakness and is reserved for those who wish to demean themselves.

Indians cannot maintain the institutions established by the British. These institutions have been hollowed out and corrupted, becoming predatory. The constitution and laws hold little value. The only forces driving these institutions are bribes and connections. Whether you approach the highest political leaders or the pettiest bureaucrats, they openly and unashamedly demand bribes.

Activists burning an effigy of Congress MP Dhiraj Sahu in protest against corruption and recovering of cash on December 10, 2023 in Patna, India. Photo by Santosh Kumar/Hindustan Times Bihar Politics And Governance (Credit Image: © Imago via ZUMA Press)

Street smarts are highly valued, and criminals who evade justice are celebrated. A relative of mine, brimming with pride, once told me that he would never pay rent for the house he had rented. He had bribed the local authorities to make it impossible for his landlord to throw him out.

When someone in a society without trust is cheated, he rarely seeks justice against the cheater. Instead, he cheats others. Men abuse women, women abuse children, and children abuse animals. Animals attack whatever they can. Higher-caste Indians abuse those in lower castes, while lower-caste people fight with other lower-caste people to determine who is superior. It is a perpetual cycle of mistrust and arbitrariness.

People in the West talk about a system of four or five castes that was formalized by the British. This confuses the issue, for this gives an exaggerated sense of structure. In reality, there are 1.4 billion castes in India. All interactions are about sizing you up. You end up either oppressing others or being oppressed. The so-called lower caste people are more caste conscious than the higher caste people.

Most caste problems in India are described in the news in passive tense. So-and-so was oppressed and abused. Yes, the sufferer is a lower caste person but the oppressor is often of a similarly low caste. When a lower caste person rises in power, he loves showing it off to those from higher castes. What better way to show off power than by abusing others and getting away with it or — if you are a plumber — by leaving a mess? Different people show off power according to what they can get away with.

Many people lie openly. Everyone knows everyone lies, but everyone lies anyway. Many Indians convince themselves of their lies so that they can no longer differentiate between fact and fiction. Even if you don’t have to or want to, you have to exaggerate and lie, for you know your listener will calibrate to what you say. Conversations are often driven by personal material gain. Every transaction is a zero-sum game — or perhaps a negative-sum game, for sadism may be a part of the equation.

You may think you will be safe if you work with family members, but they may turn out to be your biggest enemies, for even they will betray you. Honor is not a part of the social code. Indians are atomized people and do not know loyalty. Indians across the board hide gold in their own houses and do not tell even family members about it.

I have never (I am using the word advisedly) had a contract honored in India. When you bribe, you must do so skillfully. If you have an opposing side in a legal fight, the judge and the police will take bribes from both sides. Your lawyer will collude with the opposing side and with the judge right in front of you to maximize bribes. This might sound unbelievable, but that does not change reality.

The words for most virtues come from Persian, Turkish, or English, not native Indian languages. But just because the words came into the language does not mean Indians accept those virtues; they were perverted and became a façade for the old ways.

Everyone builds solid, high fences around his property. Everyone does this the day he buys a property, because his neighbors will encroach on his land if they can. It took me years after I had moved to the West to understand why people don’t build fences.

When I first traveled to the UK, I was amused to find that animals weren’t fearful of or aggressive toward people. I was surprised that those in power didn’t expect servility or reverence. For years, I felt uneasy, as if I wasn’t fulfilling my part of the transaction unless I paid bribes.

My grandparents and father were honest in financial matters and held themselves to a high standard of self-respect — an anomaly in India. There are good, sane, moral, rational people in India, but I have more fingers than the total number of such Indians I have known; I can find that many honest Americans in one morning. By Indian standards, our family was decent and well-connected. This shielded me from much depravity and made it possible to ignore the stories that I heard.

Among ordinary Indians, conversations revolve around backbiting, gossiping about friends, discussing celebrities, exchanging superstitions, and animosity toward other groups. Hindus hate Muslims, Muslims hate Hindus, and Sikhs hate Hindus. These groups fight among themselves, leaving everyone atomized, but their hatred of other groups superficially unites them.

Demonstrators protest against the sudden “anti-encroachment” drive carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation in Kolkata, India. The NDMC demolished several pavement structures such as shops, shortly after a period of Muslim-Hindu violence. (Credit Image: © Sukhomoy_ Sen/eyepix via ZUMA Press Wire)

I doubt I understood the concepts of honor and loyalty until I had lived in Britain for a year. During that time, someone told me not to exaggerate when promoting the organization I worked for. For the first time, I began to see that people wanted to speak the truth simply for the sake of truth. I had always known the word “truth,” but for the first time, I began to grasp its essence.

The foundational principle to understanding India is that it is an amoral, irrational society devoid of values. Any values you try to instill will slip off, like water off a duck’s back.

I have seen a continual worsening of Indian society. Whatever grace and civility Christian missionaries and European colonizers instilled in Indians has been slowly eroding.

I distinctly recall my first day outside of India. On a train trip from Heathrow Airport to Manchester, I saw what I initially thought were dull-looking houses and clean, unremarkable waterways and air. The lack of hustle and bustle and the calmness of the train ride left me feeling disoriented and gloomy. I didn’t know how to cope with a situation where there was no constant assault on my senses.

With time, I realized that for most Indian immigrants, this led to a compulsive need to recreate India in the ghettos they moved into. They sought the familiar smells, noise, and constant hustle and bustle. They recreated never-ending emotionalism, fruitless conflicts, chaos, and intellectual inbreeding.

When we were granted unhindered access to the school in Manchester and later to the office where I worked, my fellow immigrants and I often wondered if the British were so naïve as to trust us so readily. What was to stop us from stealing everything in sight? Most immigrants never truly grasp the significance of “trust” and “gratitude.” Worse, they discover that complaining often leads to benefits — the only thing they genuinely care about in the multicultural West. Humanistic, civilizational values never touch their hearts.

Once, a friend and I went for a drive in Manchester. Having had a few drinks, he ran a red light and was pulled over by the police. I was stunned by the respect with which the officer treated him. In India, the police would have humiliated and exploited even the passengers. My friend was taken to the police station, and as I was driven there by an officer, I explained how we would have been treated if this had happened in India.

At that time, I was living in a high-crime area of Manchester, and the police sometimes followed me when I walked home. I asked the officer why they never stopped or questioned me. He told me they followed me to ensure my safety and had no authority to stop me without legitimate cause. For the first time, I began to understand the British respect for personal space, another value that was also starting to take root in my mind.

The officer made my friend sit for an hour or two to sober up, and then let him go without booking him. I began to realize that those in power in Britain could apply the law flexibly, considering the spirit behind it; in India, laws were excuses for predation.

Of course, Britain is no longer what it once was. Over the years, policing has evolved to accommodate the challenges presented by the lowest common denominator introduced by immigrants from the Third World.

Statistics fail to resonate in the Indian psyche. There is no sense of a grey area; everything is black or white, with no appreciation for nuance. This lack of proportionality leads to indecisiveness and an inability to value things. In the end, unrestrained emotions drive life. I carried a part of this same mindset with me. Realigning my thinking with reason, morality, and Western values was a difficult task.

I attended one of the best engineering colleges in India and believed myself to be creative, decisive, and well-grounded. However, as I started witnessing social interactions and behavior in Britain, I found I lacked confidence. Even the grocery store owner appeared more confident and decisive. I realized my mind was clouded with confused thinking and conflicting motivations

Even my privileged upbringing in India had ingrained into me layers upon layers of confused worldviews, and dishonest, scheming behavior. Despite my best intentions, shaking them off and rewiring my thinking took decades. Any erroneous belief I became aware of and tried to change clashed with other deeply ingrained beliefs and mental patterns. It was like trying to replace a broken brick in the castle of my cognitive constructs without destabilizing the entire structure. At times, I had to get drunk just to find a fleeting sense of sanity.

With time, I noticed that I began to sleep better and felt mentally freer. Even my body started to change, and the mental cloud that had clogged my thoughts began to lift. A reassuring sense that those around me had my back was immensely helpful. The confusing and contradictory thoughts that had caused chronic stress started to fade.

My grandmother often said two things I once considered backward-looking, but I agree with them today. She believed that some people needed to stay on the edge of starvation because if given more, they would make problems. Despite being one of the most egalitarian people I knew — befriending her chauffeur and tailor — she would remind me that not everyone deserved a seat at the table unless he was fit for it.

“Human Rights” is a Western concept that is incomprehensible to most Indians. They fail to understand respect for the individual. Speaking to them about “rights” only leads to confusion. They fail to differentiate between “negative” and “positive” rights. For instance, when taught about property rights, they learn to protect their property but fail to recognize the rights of others. Women, when taught that rape is a violation, might begin to see it in every situation and use it as a tool to exploit men. As they are introduced to the concept of rights, they shift from accepting their wretched lives to adopting a resentful, victim mentality.

You cannot teach people anything good until they have the foundations of morality, rationality, causality, and other Western values. Without these foundations, the fruits of Western civilization serve only to turn people’s often-hidden hedonic tendencies into something more malevolent. Every civilizational fruit — education, Western clothing, prosperity, Western institutions — has been perverted in India.

The institutions left behind by the British have been hollowed out, becoming purely predatory and sadistic. This occurred because, in post-British India, those in power prize expediency and acquiring wealth as life’s sole purposes. Today’s India lacks even the vague rule of law that existed before the arrival of the Europeans. This is why it will be an improvement when India eventually collapses and the Taliban-like authoritarian system that existed before the British reemerges from the ashes.

The High Court of Bombay, designed by British engineer Col. James A. Fuller. Credit: benbeiske via Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Without Western missionaries at the helm, Christianity has been “nourished” by Indian superstitions and magical thinking and has become voodoo. Grammar has fallen by the wayside, and English has often become pidgin.

Education and Western clothing have been adopted with a cargo-cult mentality. The focus is on obtaining certificates and wearing suits, as if these outward symbols alone confer status and material benefits. Similarly, education is not viewed as a means to foster intellectual growth or evolve into better human beings. Instead, driven by animalistic desires, expediency, and the unethical pursuit of resources, most Indians scorn the idea of self-improvement.

Education applied to an irrational mind that processes information through magical thinking becomes burdensome, making such people worse than their uneducated counterparts.

The Indian mind should have been made moral and rational and imbued with honor, discipline, respect, and integrity, before being formally educated and provided with the fruits of Western civilization. Alas, this would have been, at best, a millennia-long process.

In economics, there is a concept of the “middle-income trap.” I prefer to call India’s situation the “low-income trap.” Contrary to the beliefs of professional economists, these traps have cultural underpinnings; it is virtually impossible to escape.

Prosperity has led to neither social peace nor intellectual and spiritual growth. Indians do not understand the concept of comfort. Most rich Indians build garish houses not for comfort but to display wealth and control those weaker than themselves. Worse, the easy prosperity of recent decades, which is essentially a result of Western technological advancements, has derailed the pursuit of rationality and morality. Social media are a platform for exchanging myths, superstitions, and pornography. The IT revolution does not bring enlightenment to the poorest parts of the world!

Today, India is more entrenched in magical thinking and superstition than in the past. Hedonism is rampant, and families are falling apart.

When elevated to high positions, most Indians become arrogant and sadistic. This is less from a desire to mask their incompetence and psychological weaknesses and more from a genuine belief that arrogance and sadism define power and class. This also serves as a way to cope with the deep-seated inferiority complex instilled by their culture. Whatever grace and civility had once been imbued in Indians by colonizers has eroded.

The wealth created by the West hypnotizes Indians. However, they fail to understand the underpinnings of that wealth. They equate the West with Hollywood stereotypes: girls in short skirts, promiscuity, drinking and drugs, flaunting wealth, working in plush offices, and controlling others. This is the true soul, once obscured by Victorian morals and Islamic constraints. It is a return to a pre-colonial, pre-Victorian, hedonistic culture.

The British were a godsend. Without them, the situation has continued to worsen. India will eventually nullify all the benefits it got from the West and revert to its pre-colonial ways. It will fall apart, and I wouldn’t be surprised if much of its population falls prey to war and famine and declines to the level it was before the arrival of Europeans.

Most Indians cannot think beyond money, sex, and survival — just what you would expect of a society with an average IQ of 77. Every Western value given to them has been caricatured and corrupted for these ends. Indians have no Ten Commandments. They are so unaware of these values that they remain oblivious even if they are forcefully presented to them. There is nothing you can do about this, except to try to understand what immigration from India and the rest of Third World will do to the West.

*  *  *

This article has been adapted from a recent speech given at the Property and Freedom Society conference in Bodrum, Turkey.