Lord B retweeted
Measuring the health of a society based on the gap between the richest and poorest is fundamentally wrong. It is just a convenient way for looters to create resentment, because a gap tells you nothing about whether anyone's life got better.
Run the test. If everyone's real income doubles but the top doubles faster, the gap widens and every person on earth is better off. If the richest lose half their money and nobody else gains a dollar, the gap narrows and not one poor family is helped. A measure that calls the first a failure and the second a success is tracking envy, not wellbeing.
Then look at who we are calling poor. A household below the poverty line in America typically has electricity, running hot water, central heat, a refrigerator, a stove, a microwave, air conditioning, a television, a smartphone and a car. That phone carries the accumulated knowledge of the human race and a map of the planet. A hundred years ago no king had any of it. In 1960 most middle-class families had about half.
That is what a century of production bought, and none of it came from closing a gap. It came from men building things and selling them cheaper than the year before.
The gap gets cited because it never closes and never runs out. A permanent grievance with a permanent remedy attached, which is taking more.
Lord B retweeted
I love these kinds of posts from Admin opponents because you never refer to what the losses have been.
How about wins:
1. Termination of Independent Agency Members.
2. RIF of federal work force.
3. Elimination of USAID and sig reduction in NGO expenditures.
4. Ending TSP
5. Initiating third country removals without further court proceedings.
6. Limiting nationwide injunctions.
7. Getting issue of indefinite detention for removal purposes to SCOTUS through split in circuits, where 6 Justice majority likely sides with Admin.
8. Removing transgender personnel from military based on fitness to serve requirements.
9. Beginning to curb "esthetic" injury as a basis for environmental actions.
10. Eliminating barriers to coordinated spending between candidates and parties on 1st Amendment grounds.
11. Curbing the level of refugee admissions due to illegal immigration, and reducing the funding of refugee resettlement services that only encouraged greater levels of dubious refugee claims.
12. Mass removal of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members.
13. Eliminated DEI mandates across the bureaucracy.
14. Ending funding for DEI programs across the country.
15. Eliminating Title IX extension to cover trans participants in athletics.
16. Beating back efforts from various states to impose operational restrictions on ICE.
There are probably 10 more if I want to keep researching.
Lord B retweeted
Leftism has always been about the acquisition and consolidation of power.
Which is precisely why you see a complete lack of principles, intellectual honesty, or consistency among Leftist advocates.
Those things are only a means to an end and if the end requires jettisoning them, so be it. The ability to hold mutually contradictory positions on a variety of issues enables them to assemble a larger coalition to obtain political power.
This is why you see the far-Left embrace both Islam and Transgenderism at the same time.
It’s how they can claim that everything is violence except for actual violence, which is simply an act of “decolonization” to be publicly celebrated.
It’s also why they can endorse the Nazi ideology of “blood and soil” when it comes to claims of “stolen” or “occupied” land, while simultaneously arguing for open borders and declaring that “no immigrant is illegal.”
The ability to hold mutually contradictory positions on a variety of issues enables them to assemble a larger coalition to obtain political power.
Lord B retweeted
Socialism is not an economic theory that failed. It is a technique of power that works. The economics always fails. The rhetoric never does – on those easiest to manipulate, and for those who rise by manipulating them.
Socialism has never delivered what it says. It has always delivered what it is for: power.
What Socialism Is.
Socialism is not a real model to be applied in the world – it is a contradictory rhetoric used to gain power over people, by manipulating those who are easiest to manipulate.
It is anti-life, because it contradicts reality. Its contradictions stay harmless only as long as it stays on paper. Try to implement it, and they come due.
It postulates equality – and produces the most unequal societies of all: the nomenklatura in its special shops, everyone else in the queue.
It says it frees the workers – and in 1980, ten million Polish workers had to rise up against the workers' state.
It postulates abundance – and gets rid of the people who produce it. Venezuela, sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, watched its people lose an average of eleven kilos in a single year.
It says the state will wither away – and builds the biggest state in history.
It postulates peace – and needs an enemy for every failure.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Needs, of course, especially of the immoral, are unlimited. Ability is punished.
Someone has to resolve these contradictions. In socialism, that someone is the police, by force. When the theory says one thing and reality another, it is never the theory that gets arrested.
That is why it is anti-life. Life works by getting reality right: every living thing survives because it reads the world correctly. Socialism switches off the instruments – prices that say what is scarce, profits and losses that say what works, free speech that says what is wrong. A society that can no longer see where it is going ends up where socialist societies always end up: first the queue, then the famine and the camp.
And yet it keeps coming back. Why? Because socialism is not an economic theory that failed. It is a technique of power that works. The economics always fails. The rhetoric never does – on those easiest to manipulate, and for those who rise by manipulating them.
Socialism has never delivered what it says. It has always delivered what it is for: power.
Lord B retweeted
🇦🇷🇧🇷🇺🇸 Flavio Bolsonaro never arrived in the United States, nor was he ever in flight (until just a few hours ago). The State Department was also not involved, and the United States, at least publicly, approved his entry until a few hours ago.
Bolsonaro entered Argentina at 10:50 PM, specifically the city of Puerto Iguazú, and departed on a private plane belonging to the company Baires Fly.
A false lead deceived the New York Times, Reuters, AP, CNN, WSP, BBC, and virtually all the major media outlets in the world, including Brazilian ones.
Argentine intelligence misled the entire planet in a masterstroke and managed to get Bolsonaro out of the country and into exile in the USA.
Lord B retweeted
Supports over 15 million migrants flooding into the country completely unvetted, but opposes a singular right wing Brazilian politician.
Make it make sense.
Lord B retweeted
Everyone is confused on this point. What happened to Hollywood? When is the market going to punish the studios? Why don't Hollywood studios care about making money?
Well, these are billion-dollar global conglomerates. They are able to borrow billions of dollars at ZIRP interest rates. They are able to run a propaganda machine at an annual loss.
It would be too strong for me to say "they don't care". But it's more accurate to say, people misunderstand what the actual incentives, power dynamics, cash flow, and most of all the PAIN TOLERANCE is for these elite institutions.
All of these companies have subsidiaries and parent companies and mergers and acquisitions. They have profitable legacy copyrights which balance for their recent Woke losses. They have merchandise and subsidies and literally thousands of profit centers and ancillary revenue streams. They have all sorts of government contracts which are carrying them.
"All funds are fungible."
The guys who run these studios are Leftist billionaires, or groups of billionaires. And what happens if they run out of money? They sell to a new family of Leftist billionaires.
And these Leftist billionaires are all getting billions of dollars in government contracts, funneled to them by the Democrat party. It's a self-reinforcing ecosystem of commercial industry, aristocratic families, and government patronage networks.
Elon Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion because he understood the value of a propaganda machine. Hollywood is never going to bend to commercial pressure. You need to go in with federal powers and rip them out. On a federal level, you can force Hollywood to sell to friendly billionaires, or you can revoke their copyright protections, or you can raise interest rates to 25% to drive them out of business, or you can cut off their government contracts, or you can investigate them with the Department of Justice, or you can prosecute them with the Department of Labor, or you can hit them with antitrust, or you can use federal money to fund a rival studio system for $100 million per year and give it to Lomez to run an insurgent right-wing competitor.
What you cannot do, ever, is wait for the mythical free market to step in and save you. The free market doesn't exist.
Even getting into whether or not this thing will have "woke" content or not I just don't understand the thinking in taking an IP like this and going "you know who would really appeal to the people who like Blade Runner? A middle-aged woman and a troon".... I know some of you all are going to be like "they're intentionally ruining the setting because it's too appealing to the chuds" but I don't know, at the end of the day these execs want to make money, why not just stick another Gosling/de Armas pair in the leads and go with what already worked?
Lord B retweeted
Perhaps the reason so many people are holding on to political “activist” identities is that they are afraid to go back to just being them. Just a plain person. @ClubRandom_ @billmaher
Lord B retweeted
Everyone saw this coming. Brazil’s election could be annulled after Lula’s Supreme Court justice changed the rules mid-vote on Sunday. Justice Cristiano Zanin, appointed by Lula, ordered a nationwide two-hour extension after Lula’s campaign claimed transport problems. The New York Times reports the resulting confusion may be enough to throw out the result.
Some polling stations had already closed and shut down their voting machines when Zanin issued the extension. Those stations could not reopen. Electoral lawyers told the Times the situation is “extremely serious” and “critical.” One law professor said the election could be annulled if the margin is narrow and it turns out stations stayed open longer in areas that favor one candidate.
This is textbook left-wing election interference. Lula’s side spent years claiming the other side would undermine democracy, then used a hand-picked justice to rewrite the closing time while votes were still being cast. Early results had already started coming in. The count was paused. Both campaigns asked for limited extensions, but the order that stuck came from Lula and applied everywhere.
Lula and the Brazilian left don’t get to cry about election integrity after they just sabotaged their own. They changed the rules in the middle of voting, some machines were already off, and now the entire result is in question. That’s not democracy. That’s the same corrupt pattern they’ve run for years. The left in Brazil just got caught doing exactly what they always accuse everyone else of doing, and the evidence is public. They own this mess.
Lord B retweeted
My post about Hitler and the far right got millions of views. Clearly, it hit a nerve. So today I'm going to show you, step by step, why the notion of "far right" as it's used in France makes almost no sense. And why the people who wield it are usually the last ones who should be lecturing anyone.
Let's start with the only question that matters: what makes a political system work or fail? To a very large extent, it's the economy. A country that produces wealth, that lets its citizens create, trade and build, stays standing. A country that destroys that collapses, no matter how beautiful its slogans are.
And in economics, there are really only two worldviews.
The first is collectivism. The idea that the State knows better than you. That it must plan production, set prices, run companies, decide what you earn, what you buy, and eventually what you think. The individual is just a cog serving a grand collective project: the class, the nation, the race, the people.
The second is freedom. Capitalism, property, individual liberty, individual responsibility. The idea that millions of people creating value for one another produce infinitely more prosperity than an office of planners, however brilliant they may be.
Now look at the list of the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Stalin: total planning, forced collectivization, millions dead. Mao: the Great Leap Forward and the deadliest famine in human history. Pol Pot: money abolished, cities emptied, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population exterminated. Mussolini, the man who coined the word fascism: "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." And Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, whose program proclaimed "the common good before individual good." He subjected the entire German economy to State plans: the Four-Year Plan, frozen prices and wages, unions dissolved into a single state labor front, industrialists producing whatever the regime decided.
Their flags were different. Their designated enemies were different. But the machinery was the same: the individual doesn't exist, only the collective matters, and the State decides everything.
Why does it always end in totalitarianism? Because collectivism doesn't work. And when a system doesn't work, it has only two options: admit failure or force people. They always choose force.
Ludwig von Mises proved it as early as 1920: without free prices, without a market, a planner simply cannot know what to produce, how much, or at what cost. He is flying blind. A planned economy isn't a less efficient version of the market. It's an impossibility.
Friedrich Hayek drew the political conclusion in 1944 in The Road to Serfdom, a book he dedicated "to the socialists of all parties." One chapter is titled "The Socialist Roots of Naziism." Another, "Why the Worst Get on Top." For Hayek, controlling the economy isn't controlling one sector among others. It is "the control of the means for all our ends." Whoever controls your bread controls your life. Then your speech. Then your thoughts.
Milton Friedman put it his own way: a society that puts equality before freedom ends up with neither.
So we know exactly what works. It's not an opinion. It's a century of real-world experiments. Listen to the Austrian school, Mises and Hayek, with Friedman from Chicago alongside them: economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility.
And this is where we get to the great accusatory inversion. Part of the left-wing press spends its time screaming fascism. Why? Because the fascism fantasy is the best way to never talk about the track record of their own ideas. Deep down, they know: if their collectivist program were applied all the way, it wouldn't work, because a collective economy cannot work. And an economy that doesn't work always ends up having to coerce, surveil and ban. In other words, it becomes exactly what they claim to be fighting. The real heirs of totalitarian logic are not the ones being pointed at.
So who gets called "far right" in 2026? People who want safe cities. People who want to keep their culture. People who just want to live a peaceful life, raise their kids, and not have to board up their shop every weekend. People who want the law to apply to everyone.
If that's the far right, then the word no longer means anything. And maybe that was the point.
Lord B retweeted
You absolute midwit. Congrats on repeating the Wikipedia "Nazis were far-right, end of story" summary you absorbed between TikToks.
Yes, the Nazis crushed independent unions, jailed and murdered communists and social democrats, and Hitler liquidated the Strasserite "left" wing of his own party in the Night of the Long Knives. That part is not in dispute. They were not Marxist class-struggle socialists. They hated Bolshevism as a Jewish plot and treated international socialism as the main enemy. Fine.
What your middle-school history class skipped is that they still ran a National *Socialist* state: private property existed only as long as it served the Führer’s racial and war goals, wages and prices were controlled, industry was cartelized under state direction, profit was subordinated to the party, and the economy was planned for autarky and rearmament. That is not free-market capitalism, liberal conservatism, or classical right-wing economics. It is the same family of state-directed, anti-liberal, collectivist economics practiced by every other fascist and "national socialist" regime. The name was not a prank; the 25-point program and the early rhetoric were full of anti-capitalist planks precisely because they were competing with the actual socialists for working-class support.
Your North Korea comparison is the usual gotcha and it is only half-clever. Yes, names can lie. But the NSDAP did not merely call itself socialist while secretly running a Rothschild hedge fund. They nationalized, directed, rationed, and regimented. The difference from Soviet socialism was mainly that the Nazis kept the owners as managers under party orders instead of shooting them all and installing commissars. Both systems produced shortages, secret police, and mass graves; one just had better uniforms and Wagner.
Elon pointing out the obvious—that "National Socialist" is not an ironic branding exercise and that the regime was economically left of any classical liberal or conservative—does not make him a moron. It makes him less obedient to the post-1945 academic consensus that insists every totalitarian who isn’t a full Marxist must be filed under "far-right" so the left never has to share the body count. Money didn’t buy him a brain; it just bought him a platform where he doesn’t have to pretend your selective reading of 1930s Germany is the complete picture.
Keep yelling "far-right fascists" while ignoring the actual economic policies and the party’s own name. It is the historical equivalent of covering your ears and shouting.
Lord B retweeted
“He jailed socialists, so he wasn’t a socialist.”
This is the argument every single person in my replies thinks is a mic drop. It’s actually the weakest one available, and it collapses in five seconds.
Lenin banned the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. Both were socialist parties. By your logic, Lenin wasn’t a socialist.
Stalin shot Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and sent an ice axe through Trotsky’s skull. All of them were founding fathers of the Bolshevik revolution. By your logic, Stalin wasn’t a socialist.
Mao purged Liu Shaoqi, the President of the People’s Republic, and let him die in a cell. Pol Pot murdered his own cadres by the thousands. Robespierre sent Danton to the guillotine, then got the guillotine himself.
There’s a reason Vergniaud said the Revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children. Purging rival socialists isn’t evidence against collectivism. It’s one of its most reliable signatures.
Why? Because when the state decides everything, there can only be one plan. Two factions with two plans for the same economy can’t coexist. One has to disappear. In a free society, disagreements get settled by markets and elections. In a planned society, they get settled by the secret police. Hitler crushing the SPD and the KPD, then murdering Röhm and Strasser in his own party, is exactly what you’d predict from a regime competing for the same thing: total control of the economy and of society.
And that’s the real question. Not “what did he call himself” and not “who did he arrest”. The question is: who runs the economy? Under the Nazis, independent unions were abolished and replaced by a state labor front. Prices and wages were frozen by decree. Investment was directed by a Four-Year Plan. Private property existed on paper, as long as owners did exactly what the state told them to do.
Hayek saw this in real time. He dedicated The Road to Serfdom “To the socialists of all parties” precisely because he understood that the planners of the left and the planners of the right were the same species. Collectivism isn’t a color on the political spectrum. It’s the belief that a central authority can and should direct the economy. Once you accept that, the purges, the camps and the one-party state aren’t accidents. They’re the operating manual.
So no, “he jailed communists” doesn’t refute anything. Communists jailed communists for seventy years.
Read Hayek. Then come back.
This probably hits hard if you failed history in high school.
Hitler was a far-Right fascist whose party was named the National Socialist German Workers' Party to attract working-class voters.
Then he banned the Social Democratic and Communist parties, and sent socialists and communists to concentration camps.
Lord B retweeted
Who did folks expect them to hire?
An A manager hires an A employee.
A B manager hires a C employee to keep his own job safe.
They cleared out much of the older white male staff. They replaced CEOs with foreigners. They filled senior roles through DEI. Empathy for the people being displaced was nowhere to be found.
It may be one of the greatest quiet harms inflicted on a nation. Almost nobody treated it as a crisis while it was happening.
Now there is a large cohort of skilled workers aged 45 to 65 either unemployed or stuck in menial work. Those people will not be the ones hiring fresh American engineering graduates.
The experiment failed unless this was the intended result.
We now have plenty of new STEM talent ready to work, yet many of them end up stocking shelves or serving coffee while foreign visa workers, some tied to fraudulent or kickback arrangements, continue to land on payrolls in large numbers.
It is obvious why younger American talent is not getting hired out of college.
Just look at who is doing the hiring.
The symptom is the unemployed college graduate.
The disease is who gets to decide who gets the job.
Lord B retweeted
It's been months that I keep saying Hitler was far left. Every time, thousands of clowns show up in my replies to give me history lessons.
So I made a video to answer all these low IQ takes at once.
Topic closed. Next.
Lord B retweeted
This is probably the least original observation anyone can make, but it really strikes me how unlikeable most people running for political office are.
Do these jobs attract a specific darker or weirder psychological profile or do the mechanics of modern elections reward bad behavior and poor character? Probably at least a little of both.
It's likely true that running for high office requires an abnormal baseline of ego and ambition, if not narcissism. The realities of campaigning in a deeply polarized society seem to filter out likeable and relatable people.
But even if an agreeable person enters politics, the fact that primary elections are dominated by the most ideologically active and extreme voters, makes it difficult for them to win on a platform of nuance and goodwill.
Instead, performative outrage seems to be the ticket to success at the primary level, and a politician who acts reasonably or empathetically toward an opponent is often punished by their own base as being weak.
Lord B retweeted
A Europa será destruída por mulheres que projetam naqueles animais a maternidade que cabia aos filhos que elas abortaram.
Lord B retweeted
This Jalen Hurts thing is really bad. (For those who don’t follow the National Football League, Jalen Hurts is the star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles.)
The NFL needs to do a comprehensive investigation into why the Eagles let Hurts play with a blood clot in his leg (after flying from Philly to London for a game in the UK).
Now he has deep vein thrombosis and blood clots in his lungs, he’s out for the season, and there is a chance his NFL career is over.
Hurts is one of the most respected players in the league, and every other NFL player is now looking at how the Eagles and the NFL treat their very best.
The NFL Players Association will almost certainly be weighing in soon.
It’s been reported that Hurts was in a London hospital and advised not to sleep (too dangerous), he stayed up all night, and then the Eagles put him on the field to play full contact American football. If a condition is too dangerous to go to sleep, how could it be safe to play football?
Obviously there was some kind of screw-up, and maybe some serious medical malpractice, but I wonder to what extent relying on the UK’s infamous National Health Service contributed? (That’s on the league, BTW, if true: the league pushes these international games, and they need to make sure the players get the same medical support they get in the USA.)
Bottom line: the NFL needs to get on top of this before some court MAKES them get on top of it. Neither the sport nor the NFL’s new best pals in the sports betting industry is worth a player’s life.
Lord B retweeted
"Ban guns and there will be less gun deaths"
Listen up, because I'm going to explain why this isn't true.
If you ban guns, most law-abiding people won't keep them. This might reduce gun deaths slightly, but law-abiding people basically don't shoot each other much. You get the occasional crime of passion and the odd gun accident, but these are rare enough to be almost statistical noise.
What you would see is a large drop in gun suicides. But one of the things that is well known about suicide statistics is the people who really want to kill themselves readily substitute means. So they would off themselves in other ways, for no net decrease in anything we really care about.
Meanwhile, criminals are going to laugh at your gun ban. They will still have firearms. They will still kill each other with firearms at a pretty horrific rate that we couldn't expect to change much after the ban.
What will change is that criminals will see firearms as a more effective tool for predation, because the victim population is disarmed and can't shoot back. There will be more crime, and more gun deaths, because of this.
This isn't just theory. We can study longitudinal crime statistics in jurisdictions before and after gun bans and see it in practice.
To "reduce gun deaths" significantly, you'd have to find a way to remove guns from the hands of criminals, and then keep them inaccessible to criminals. There is no known way to do this that actually works reliably, and doesn't have other costs that are too high for a free society to pay.
Lord B retweeted
A car flew last night. An actual car, flipping in midair on cold gas thrusters and landing on its wheels. Elon Musk's companies built a sports car that does what science fiction promised for a century. The same man lands rockets on barges and builds the machines that carry our astronauts. That is what one free mind, and the thousands of minds he employs, can produce.
Bernie Sanders says billionaires should not exist. He looks at the man who makes cars fly and concludes the problem to solve is that such men keep too much of what they create. He has spent five decades in government producing nothing, yet he claims the moral authority to dispose of the men who produce everything. A man who seeks unearned control over the lives and property of others is corrupt in the fullest meaning of the word, and that corruption runs deeper than any bribe.
A flying car is what men do when they are free. A wealth tax is what politicians do to the men who built it. One of them needs the other to survive, and it isn't Musk.
