Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Takimag Lowe Brand Recognition Can Britain’s new right-wing challenger rise above the spoiler level? TakiMag Have you ever heard of Rupert Lowe? If not, don’t worry; you’re not alone. Supposedly, he’s going to be Great Britain’s next prime minister, although the people of Great Britain don’t seem to know that yet.  When shown a photo of Lowe in a recent poll, 92 percent of ordinary voters didn’t know who he was. Dismissive of such numbers, his most fervent supporters have begun filming themselves approaching random people in the street and asking if they know who their pin-up is. Incredibly, they all not only answer Yes!, but also all turn out to be planning to vote for him.  The adoring narrative of Rupert’s fanbase is that “Lowemosexuality” is spreading across the UK every bit as uncontrollably as AIDS once did. The dismissive narrative of the numbers is the precise reverse; this time last year, 14 percent of voters knew who Lowe was, compared to only 8 percent today. This contrasts to only 14 percent who proved unable to recognize the Reform UK Party leader Nigel Farage when shown an image of the man.  As Nigel Farage is the politician Rupert Lowe hopes to replace as the leader of Britain’s political right, having been ejected from Reform UK last year for supposedly being too “extreme” for Nigel’s electoral tastes, Rupert evidently still has his work cut out to replace his old boss’s affections amongst the UK voter-base. Can he really possibly succeed in queering them all into Lowemosexuals too? Lowe has been getting admirers pumped recently for two main reasons. Firstly there was the independent inquiry into Britain’s ongoing Pakistani rape-gangs scandal, which, as an elected MP, he organized. Sadly, though, this has suffered an almost total mainstream media blackout, due to its incendiary testimonies from victimized white girls about being kept as sex-slaves in cages and shipped away Pakistan-wards to be gang-raped by the grateful relatives of various “British” Muslims.  Secondly, last month, Lowe launched his new rival party to take on Farage’s Reform UK, called Restore Britain. Rather than simply reforming the UK (a technocratic name for the nation barely used until recent decades), Rupert wishes to be more ambitious, and to actively restore the country back to what it once was, even in terms of calling it Britain again, like everyone always used to do.  The two rival outfits’ monikers sound quite similar to the ear. A more distinctive name for Lowe’s vehicle may have been “The 1996 Party”, this being the year to which he clearly wishes to “Restore” Britain. May 1997 was when the Blair-Demon was summoned by a duped national electorate, before systematically transforming the country into Hell-Above-Ground.  The chief damage Tony Blair and his New Labour coven did to Lowe’s homeland was demographic, by deliberately throwing open the borders, thereby to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” and create a gigantic imagined loyal client electoral base to return Labour to power indefinitely, much as the Democrats have tried to do in America. In 1996, which can now be retrospectively perceived as the final year of British social normality, net immigration was 55,000; by 2023, when it hit its peak, net immigration was 906,000.  Farage’s main proposed solution is to stop too many more outsiders coming in, aiming for something called “Net Zero Immigration.” Lowe thinks this akin to merely accepting managed decline, however, preferring to eject millions more than come in, under a regime of “Net Negative Immigration”, of which he has promised “The scale would embarrass Donald Trump.” And, as Donald Trump is not very easily embarrassed, that would make it an impressively large-scale process indeed. Lowe has no sympathy for boat-people, reportedly pledging to store them in tents on a Scottish island and “let the midges do their work.” He calls Farage’s Net Zero aim “weak, weak, weak”, as “the barbarians are already in the gates.” As certain elements already in the country now appear to have formed their own Islamist sharia-patrol cavalry regiments and begun riding through the streets of captured English citadels like Manchester, chasing away apostates whilst the conquered police watch on and do nothing, Rupert may have a point. How long before they’re doing the same thing on camel-back? Lowe is quite open that “I advocate the mass deportation of entire communities,” an idea which proved too inflammatory for Farage, leading to him ejecting Lowe from the party (allegedly by falsely accusing him of various crimes). Opponents use such quotes to make Lowe sound like an evil racist, or even a crypto-fascist, but which “entire communities” does he mean? The same ones whom his rape-gangs inquiry has exposed as mass abusers of native British children, whom they consider expendable and detestable white trash. As Lowe says: I support deporting foreign communities if they knew of the rape-gangs and did nothing. They are complicit, and if foreign/dual nationals enabled this evil to take place? They will be deported under a Restore Britain Government. If a Pakistani woman knew her husband was sexually torturing a young white girl, and did nothing? Said nothing? She can go back to Pakistan. No apologies from me. It is astonishing that Farage does not agree. But not all those responsible can be put in a big cannon and fired back to Islamabad. What about all those guilty native white people like police-chiefs, politicians, and social workers who also knew about the rape-gangs and did nothing, because, in the post-1997 Blairite Yookay, to be accused of “racism” was more than your life was worth?  Maybe Lowe would make it more than their life was worth not to blow the whistle in future, promising a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty for “the most heinous crimes”. If such a punishment could be applied retrospectively to Blair himself, Lowe’s pro-hanging campaign would definitely win: Even the Muslims would vote “Yes” for that one after the Iraq War. To launch Restore Britain, Lowe released an online video showing him walking around his farm and saying many admirable things like these: On a farm you don’t think in election cycles or headlines or polling. You think in seasons, you think in generations, in what you leave behind to those who come after you … because there are no easy fixes … What is necessary will be incredibly painful, but for the first time in a very long time, voters will have a genuine alternative which is truthful with them about the scale of what now has to be done … Restore Britain will not just stop mass immigration, we will reverse it … If that means millions go, then millions go … The state has definitively become the enemy of the people. Restore Britain will burn away suffocating taxes on work and enterprise. We will slash unnecessary regulation. We will dismantle bloated quangos [unelected bureaucracies] and the overbearing HR culture. We must crush parasitic Britain … Britain is not just an economy … Britain is a people, our people …. This is Britain and we will do things our way. “We will do things our way”—including by banning the burka, sharia law, cousin-marriage and halal slaughter. I agree with every word. But would I actually vote for him? Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no—at least not yet.  In the immediate aftermath of Lowe’s launch, one Twitter poll showed 70 percent of respondents would now vote Restore, compared to only 20 percent voting Reform. Excellent. But, despite Elon Musk endorsing Lowe personally, Twitter is not reality, most Brits are not even on it, and those that are tend to be much more obsessive about their politics. If 70 percent of the 8 percent of hyper-aware people who actually know who Rupert Lowe is vote Restore, not Reform, all that will realistically do is split the right-wing vote and allow some nightmare left-wing coalition of Labour, Green and Islamists in. Ideally, as a deeply depressed, Blairism-hating Englishman, I’d vote Restore, as their policies are the best, as in most hardline. A politician honest enough to actually say, “This will be f—ing horrible, but if we don’t do it, things will get even worse” wins my respect. But, despite Farage previously saying mass deportation was “a political impossibility,” compared to the other (admittedly appalling) mainstream parties, Reform UK’s manifesto is still significantly better, and its huge lead over Restore in the polls surely insurmountable. As things stand, I will pragmatically vote Reform. As the next British general election approaches, probably in 2029, Lowe’s most useful function may be to force Farage to tack way further to the right by threatening to steal away his previous core voters—Nigel has already backtracked and undertaken to enact 600,000 deportations following Lowe’s expulsion, besides pinching other Restore policies—before then nobly standing his candidates down immediately prior to the vote itself to avoid probable left-wing disaster.  Overall, despite what his online acolytes may be saying, Lowe is not really very likely to be the UK’s next prime minister at all. But, should Nigel Farage win that role, and his halfway measures prove insufficient, Lowe, or someone like him, could plausibly end up with a role in the next government after that. The one good thing about life in the post-Blair, post-1997, diversity-worshipping UK, is that Lowemosexual adoption is now very much both legal and possible.  The post Lowe Brand Recognition appeared first on The American Conservative.

Takimag Paul Ehrlich, Estimated Prophet The modern Malthusian had conviction, if nothing else. TakiMag It is curious how at least three prominent entomologists strayed into human affairs in the twentieth century, as if the world of insects were too narrow for them. Alfred Kinsey, who studied gall-wasps, became the most famous sexologist of his time; Edward Wilson, who knew more about ants than anyone in history, founded sociobiology, the theory that evolution explained social organization which in turn explained human behavior; and Paul Ehrlich, the lepidopterist who became the Cassandra of population growth.  It is true that man shares 60 percent of his DNA with the fruit-fly, Drosophila, but that does not mean that man is largely insect, despite how he might appear seen in the street below from the top of a very tall building.  Ehrlich, who died recently aged 93, was the object of much pent-up mockery in his obituaries. In 1968, he wrote that there would be mass famine in the 1970s and it was too late to avoid it. Hundreds of millions would definitely die of hunger.  At least no one could accuse Ehrlich of having been mealy-mouthed. He did not merely project into the future, claiming that if x continued, y would happen, not being able to say whether x would continue; he said that because of x, y had become inevitable. He stuck his neck out and predicted events within a timeframe; he was not like one of those economists who tells us that the stock market will either go up or go down. Apart from having read his famous book, The Population Bomb, soon after it first came out, and what I have since read in his obituaries, I know little of Ehrlich, and therefore cannot speculate as to whether he was pleased or sorry that his dire predictions turned out to be (so far) mistaken. I know from experience that there is a pleasure to be had from contemplating future catastrophe, and moreover everyone likes to be proved right (“I told you so”). Let the heavens fall, so long as my warnings prove to have been correct.  There are, perhaps, good reasons why an entomologist should have been a predictor of population disaster. Everyone knows what the expression “a plague of locusts” means, and for certain worshippers of Nature, man is little more than a plague of locusts. Destructive population explosions of insects, particularly in larval form, are by no means rare. I sit in my garden as I write this, where, a few years ago, an explosion of the population of the caterpillars of a moth newly introduced into Europe from China, the box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis), decimated and left for dead all the box trees. Very shortly afterwards, untold numbers of the moth, rather pretty individually (being cream colored with gold edging, a bit like the Oval Office), but like something out of a Hitchcock film when in such quantities, invaded the house and covered the walls of our bedroom. I cannot say why, exactly, but the sensation of moths fluttering about your face while you try to get to sleep is not merely unpleasant, but sinister. Anyhow, we thought that our box trees were done for, but in fact they have recovered excellently, ready for the next explosion of the population of the box tree month. (We in Europe have also recently imported a species of stink bug, the tiger mosquito, and the Asiatic hornet from China, but that is a small price to pay for cheap goods.) I am not sure what is the lesson for humanity to be drawn from the box tree moth; the Bible does not say, “Go to the box tree moth, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.”  Perhaps going to insects like this is precisely what Ehrlich did, and there are no facts or data from which it is impossible to draw the wrong conclusions.  Ehrlich was a Malthusian. The Reverend Thomas Malthus was a Church of England clergyman (by all accounts a very nice man) who was unfitted for survival, or at any rate advancement, in the Church because he was born with a hare lip and cleft palate—only the former was reparable in those days—which limited his capacity for public speaking. He became a professor of political economy instead. His basic idea was that population tended to grow geometrically while the means of subsistence grew only arithmetically. As Gertrude put it in her account of Ophelia’s death, “long it could not be.” Either epidemic, war, or famine, or just possibly a restraint in human behavior would check population growth, as the absence of box trees would inhibit the population of the box tree moth. This seemed a compelling argument.  Karl Marx detested Malthus, seeing in him an apologist of inescapable mass poverty, but he was much influenced by him nevertheless (as was Darwin), and made precisely the same mistake that Malthus made. Malthus thought that only one variable, the size of population, would change, and did not realize that the productive capacity of the land and industry could more than compensate for the growth in population. Marx did not see this either: He thought the majority of the population was destined for immiseration, leading eventually to a cataclysm, after which everything would be all right. Ehrlich was a Malthusian; and the problem with Malthusianism is that, however many times you expel it from your thoughts, it returns. True, the catastrophe has not happened yet; but still, one thinks, it will happen at some unspecified time in the future.  Even if the population fails to grow, each person will consume ever more resources which, being finite, will run out. This thought returns to one’s mind even as one resists it; it will never be finally refuted.  When, in 1986, I travelled through Niger, in the Sahel, it was very poor; its population was 6 million. It is now 26 million, so clearly famine, epidemic, and war, let alone restraint, have not kept the population in check. Except for Africa, the panic about population is now about its decline, not its increase. Whether this panic is more justified than was the one about overpopulation, I leave to people of the future to decide. Two things are certain, however. The first is that mankind cannot get anything just right. The second is that man is the only species that derives pleasure from contemplating its own extinction. The post Paul Ehrlich, Estimated Prophet appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Why Trump Can’t Get Asian Allies to Help in Iran U.S. partners don’t trust Washington to pursue a coherent strategy. As U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran continue, Washington is once again turning to its friends and allies to help manage the fallout. For Japan and South Korea, two of America’s closest allies in Asia, the stakes are immediate. Both depend heavily on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has managed to effectively close, and both have already felt the shock in the form of rising oil prices and market volatility. Yet as calls have emerged from Washington for a more direct role—escort missions, minesweeping, or other maritime support—Tokyo and Seoul are showing hesitation. That hesitation is not without precedent. Two decades ago, during the Iraq War, both countries faced a similar dilemma. Back then, however, they ultimately chose to support the United States despite serious domestic and legal constraints. There are certainly many reasons for caution with Iran, not least the domestic political risks and the combustibility of a conflict unfolding in what some describe as a “Hormuz kill box.” But above all, what has changed is not simply the nature of the conflict. It is the level of trust in American leadership. During the Iraq War, Japan and South Korea were led by very different governments. Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was an unabashed champion of the U.S.–Japan alliance, while South Korea’s President Roh Moo-hyun entered office with a more skeptical view of Washington and a desire for greater autonomy, including over wartime operational control. In both countries, public opposition to supporting U.S. war efforts in the Middle East was intense. South Korea witnessed large-scale protests, while in Japan, constitutional constraints forced the government to tightly define the scope of its involvement. And yet, both governments contributed. Japan dispatched roughly 550 Self-Defense Forces personnel under the Iraq Special Measures Law, formally for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in non-combat areas, while separately providing logistical support through refueling missions in the Indian Ocean. South Korea deployed some 3,600 troops at its peak, making it one of the largest foreign contributors after the United States and Britain. These were not politically easy decisions. They were taken at real domestic cost. The difference lay in how Washington approached its allies. The Bush administration, whatever its faults, treated alliance management as part of the war effort. It invested real effort in assembling and sustaining a coalition, cajoled key allies, and gave governments enough political cover to present their support as part of a broader international effort. Even a controversial war was wrapped in a narrative that allies could repeat without immediately collapsing under domestic scrutiny. That sense of shared purpose is far less evident today. In recent days, President Donald Trump has alternated between urging countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz and boasting that the United States does not, in fact, need their assistance. This is not merely a stylistic inconsistency. For allied governments, it raises a basic question: Is the U.S. pursuing a strategy, or acting on the impulses of one mercurial man? Without clear war aims, participation becomes politically indefensible. Is the objective to degrade Iran’s military or change its regime? How long might such a mission last? What does success look like? These are not academic questions. They are political realities that leaders in Tokyo and Seoul must confront in nations already wary of Trump’s unpredictability and heavy-handed treatment of allies. If Iraq offered a precedent for participation, it also offered a warning. What began as a defined intervention evolved into long, costly engagements with uncertain endpoints. That experience has not been forgotten. If anything, it has made policymakers—and their publics—more cautious about being drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear off-ramp. This is why persuasion and clarity matter more today. Yet through most of Trump’s tenure, Washington has treated even close partners as objects of economic pressure, whether through tariffs, cost-sharing demands, or blunt negotiations over investment. None of this severs alliances, of course. But it erodes trust and makes it harder for allied governments to ask voters to bear risk for a partner that often sounds like a creditor. The way this crisis has unfolded only sharpens that hesitation. Unlike the long diplomatic buildup that preceded the Iraq War, the current escalation has left allies reacting to events rather than shaping them. They are being asked to consider military engagement in a situation in which they had little say, under conditions that remain fluid. Even if one assumes that the Iran gambit is ultimately aimed at squeezing China further, the burden it places on Japan and South Korea is difficult to justify. During the Iraq War, Tokyo and Seoul ultimately supported Washington despite deep reservations, in part because they could present that decision as participation in a broader strategic enterprise. Today, the reluctance is a sign of diminished confidence. Allies are not necessarily refusing to help. They are simply refusing to guess. If Washington wants more from its closest partners in Asia, it will have to rebuild that confidence. That means offering clarity where there is now ambiguity, consultation where there has been surprise, and a sense of shared purpose in place of shifting demands. Until then, hesitation may come to define the relationship for years to come. The post Why Trump Can’t Get Asian Allies to Help in Iran appeared first on The American Conservative.

Throughout history, Islamic civilizations have profoundly influenced European societies, shaping various facets of culture, science, and daily life. From the preservation and expansion of ancient knowledge to the introduction of new artistic styles, the interactions between the Islamic world and Europe have been multifaceted and enduring. This article explores twelve significant ways in which Islam ... The post 12 Ways Islam Has Shaped European Culture and History appeared first on History Collection.

by James Howard Kunstler, All News Pipeline: “Europe’s own regulatory architecture turned off Europe’s own energy supply. And America. . . on the other side of the Atlantic with a full tank of gas, watched it happen.” —Jeff Childers Let’s pause for a moment amid all the excitement to address an abiding mystery of these […]