Humans are a pack animal. This may be hard to understand if you are evangelical and think the book of genesis is literal rather than allegorical, but humans are a pack animal. What this means is that the human desire for the acceptance and support of a tribe is as fundamental as the desire for food, for air, for water, for sex, for sunlight, for love. If you tell young men that they cannot have a tribe, they're not going to accept that. Ever. Especially if you tell that only to the young men of one tribe in particular. They're going to wonder why everybody gets to have a tribe and they don't. And they're eventually going to decide that you are the enemy. Because you are. Anyone who stands between young men and what they need for a healthy, fulfilled life is their enemy. That includes you. And if you manage to convince them that god doesn't want them to have a tribe, it will also include god. The more you push back against their healthy and natural desire for a tribe, a homeland, and a birthright, the more they will hate you, and the more exclusive their definition of that tribe will become. There is no way you can stop this. The only thing you can control is how far they have to go, how radical they have to become, in order to get it. Because this can go all the way from enforcing immigration law, and shutting down corrupt visa programs right now, to gangs of young White men in balaclavas with Ar15s going door to door ten years from now. We have to do something about the 14th amendment. I don't care if that makes you uncomfortable or unhappy. It's not a choice. The constitution exists to serve Americans, not the other way around. If that sentence confuses you, read the first paragraph of the constitution. If we do not, young men of the future, the same little boys who are being radicalized right now by your malicious indifference, will treat a piece of paper that says they cannot have a homeland the way they would treat a piece of paper that says that can't eat food, or a piece of paper that says they can't own a home, or have a wife and children. You may think that you offer them a tribe in the form of the universal kingdom of god, the community of all believers, but that's just a word game and you know it, which is why you are so defensive about the whole thing. Where was the universal community of believers when these young men needed help? When they needed not just the surface appearance of a tribe, but someone to do the things that tribes actually do for younger generations they care about? The pack serves a concrete set of functions in the life cycle of the human species, and you cannot perform those functions with a cardboard cutout. Young men are sick of religion that offers them responsibilities with no rights, lectures with no help, demands with no love or empathy. It's odd, in a way ironic, that, I, the man of zero faith, should have to be the one standing here telling self-styled religious leaders how they failed both their people and their god. But having no faith does give me one advantage. It frees me from the delusion that Jesus is a puppet that I can pull out of my pocket, slip over my right hand, move his mouth and make him say what I want. I used to wonder, as a child, what the phrase "taking the name of the lord in vain" actually meant. But I no longer wonder, because when I became a man, I looked around me and saw all these people who talk to god and somehow get told exactly what they want to hear. Then I understood that the key phrase here wasn't "in vain". It was "taking". Taking the name of god and using it as a tool for one's own goals. Joel, here, is sad that his friend is getting sent home. This personally inconveniences both him and his friend, which effects Joel in a way that young men being denied their birthright does not. So he finds an interpretation of scripture that says that god wants him, Joel Berry, to get his way, and that god wants all the young men who want a homeland and a birthright to go get fucked. I'm not terribly impressed.

An oldie but a goodie. In 1968 a bunch of entitled hippy bastards sent a letter detailing their specious demands to the Warden and Fellows of Wadham College, Oxford. This was their letter of reply, which speaks to how far the academy has since fallen.

🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is rumoured to quit as an MP to "cash in" on her experience as Chancellor It comes after she "secretly met" two City companies in the last fortnight [@MillardClothier]

Considering there is really little chance of war or a cyber attack causing a 3-day UK shutdown, I would suggest the government has finally been told there is a likely electricity grid failure coming this winter. The link describes what could happen if the grid trips. Only 60% of power will likely be restored in 24 hours. It could take 5–7 days for power to be completely restored. In the worst case, it could be 14 days. theblackoutreport.co.uk/2023…

Clashes erupt in Paris after largely peaceful protests across France bbc.in/4jyPz62

British firms are fed up with pointless paperwork and form-filling. Today we are cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, reducing costs and giving businesses the breathing space they need to invest, innovate and create good jobs.

🏡 A £300k home could mean £1,440 a year under a proposed property tax. Fairer system or another tax hit? 👀 What do you think? 👇 #UKPolitics #Property

🚨BREAKING: The Chancellor will announce in the Budget that HMRC will be granted powers to seize money directly from the bank accounts of people who fail to pay their taxes

Okay. I'm going to explain something here, because apparently we've reached the point in human civilization where BASIC FIREARMS SAFETY is now a controversial political position. There is a concept in engineering called "defense in depth." It's a fairly simple idea. You have multiple, independent layers of protection against something going catastrophically wrong, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding new and exciting ways to screw things up. For example, commercial buildings have automatic fire sprinklers. They ALSO have fire extinguishers. "But the building has SPRINKLERS!" you might exclaim. "Why do we need FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? What are you, some kind of ANTI-SPRINKLER BIGOT?" No. We have both because fires are bad, and we'd prefer the building not turn into a large, expensive barbecue. This brings us to firearms. Most of us "gun bros" (and chicks/sisters/catgirls/whatever) are familiar with something called Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety, named after Jeff Cooper, who was something of an authority on the subject. They are: 1. Treat every firearm as though it is loaded. ALWAYS. 2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until your sights are on the target and you are ready to fire. 4. Be absolutely certain of your target and what lies beyond it. Notice something interesting about these rules? They work TOGETHER. They're an example of DEFENSE IN DEPTH. Suppose you accidentally point your firearm at something you don't particularly want to shoot, such as your television, your dog, or your Uncle Bob, who has already had a difficult week. Well, if you're following Rule Three, your finger isn't on the trigger. And if you're following Rule One, you're behaving as though the gun is loaded, EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY UNLOADED IT FIVE MINUTES AGO. Here's something that firearms instructors understand, and apparently a surprising number of people on the internet do not: HUMAN BEINGS ARE IDIOTS. Not ALL the time, mind you. Frequently enough that entire engineering disciplines exist to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes we forget to unload a firearm. Sometimes we THINK we unloaded a firearm. Sometimes we're absolutely POSITIVE the safety is engaged, when in fact it isn't. Sometimes we install a mechanical device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging, and then behave as though this magically repeals the fundamental principles of firearms safety. It does not. A mechanical safety device is ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION. It is not a permission slip to disregard all the others. This is why responsible gun owners follow these rules even when the firearm is unloaded, even when the safety is engaged, and even when we're absolutely certain the thing couldn't possibly fire. The whole POINT of defense in depth is that when one layer fails, the others are still there to prevent somebody from having a REALLY BAD FRIDAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. I suspect part of the problem here is a fundamental difference between British and American firearms culture. In Britain, firearms are sufficiently restricted that, for most people, getting your hands on one involves obtaining the appropriate government permissions, satisfying various legal requirements, and presumably presenting a signed note from the Archbishop of Canterbury confirming that you are a responsible adult. Meanwhile, over here in the United States, we crazy Americans can, (subject to the applicable laws,) just BUY THE DAMN THINGS. We own them. We shoot them. We clean them. We take them to the range. Some of us own enough firearms to equip a moderately sized Central American republic. Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, this does not mean we're all wandering around our living rooms casually pointing loaded shotguns at Uncle Bubba while shouting "YEEHAW!" Quite the opposite, actually. Because we regularly handle firearms, responsible American gun owners develop habits specifically intended to prevent Uncle Bubba from having to explain to an emergency-room physician why he's suddenly acquired an additional hole leaking important biological fluids. We follow multiple, overlapping safety rules precisely because we understand that mechanical devices can fail, people can make mistakes, and bullets are notoriously reluctant to return to the barrel once they've been fired. And this brings us to the photograph. The reason people are criticizing the officer in the hijab is not, contrary to your fascinating theory, that she is a WOMAN. Or that she is a MUSLIM. Or that she is wearing a HIJAB. It's that she's handling a firearm in a manner that violates basic firearms safety principles. Here's the really astonishing part: WE EXPECT TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW BETTER. I know. Shocking. We expect electricians not to lick exposed wires. We expect surgeons to wash their hands. We expect airline pilots to remember that LANDING is generally considered an important part of flying. We expect police officers to demonstrate safe firearms handling. These expectations do not magically disappear because the professional in question happens to belong to a demographic group you believe requires special protection from criticism. In fact, I'd argue that holding her to a LOWER standard because she's a Muslim woman would be considerably more insulting than holding her to the exact same standard as every other armed professional. Her religion is irrelevant. Her sex is irrelevant. Her clothing is irrelevant. HER FIREARMS HANDLING IS THE ISSUE. And if your first instinct upon seeing someone criticize unsafe firearms handling is to accuse them of religious bigotry rather than examine the actual safety concern, I would respectfully suggest that you have confused firearms safety with a sociology seminar. This would be merely annoying if we were discussing something harmless, like the proper way to load a dishwasher. Unfortunately, we're discussing a device specifically designed to propel a piece of metal at extremely high velocity. Those devices, unlike internet political arguments, have a nasty habit of producing consequences that cannot be fixed by deleting your post. Which you should consider doing, anyway.

PICTURED: Water Minister Plays Candy Crush for an Entire Two-Hour Train Journey order-order.com/2026/10/23/p…