Undiscussed

     I was maundering over the rising White Identity movement, and the fierce resistance to it on the Left, when a memory from long ago returned to visit.

     The year was 1967. I was a senior year in high school at the time. There was a scholarship available to seniors who’d expressed an interest in becoming teachers. My school submitted me as its contestant. The award decision would be made by a committee of three, after meeting and conversing with all the contestants as a group. The get-together was held in New Paltz, a “college town” in Ulster County, New York, on the western side of the Hudson River.

     There were a dozen contestants. There were three on the award committee. I was the only one from a “downstate” school. I was also the only male present.

     Needless to say, I found the atmosphere somewhat intimidating. What was I, a mere male, doing among all these women? Conversation among the women, young and old, continued freely for over an hour without anyone addressing or even looking at me. Finally one of the committee members turned and addressed me directly: “What about you, Fran? Don’t you have anything to say?”

     I can’t remember what I said. No doubt it was something bland. I don’t remember what followed. About fifteen minutes later I was on my way home.

     Though I didn’t participate, I do remember the thrust of the conversation. It was about dealing with “colored students.” Everyone in the room agreed that they were a taxing problem, both pedagogically and behaviorally, and were becoming ever more so.

     I suppose I should include that all of us present were White.

     Now, that was what we of today fatuously call “the Civil Rights Era.” Which is to say: We had been propagandized out of our natural rights, such as freedom of association, in favor of “civil rights” defined by legislators and courts. We didn’t grasp the implications of having politicians tell us what our “rights” would be. We would find out soon enough.

     But “civil rights” or no, the eleven “upstate” young women in that discussion group were tacitly unanimous that educational institutions’ problems with non-Whites were real and rising. They had no solutions. Their unstated premise made a solution impossible. It was just something, they quietly agreed, with which future teachers would have to cope as best they could.

     Most of that was indirectly expressed, sotto voce. Yet there could be no doubt about the consensus. It bewildered me somewhat, but then, there were only three “colored” out of the two thousand students in my high school. The problem had yet to become visible in Rockland County, New York.

* * *

     Nothing reveals group differences as effectively as forcing disparate groups together. Fifty-nine years after that group talkfest, the quiet prognostications of those young women have proved accurate. America’s “public” schools have largely been reduced to daytime housing for minors, some of whom are determined to fight with others and abuse the rest. White kids in such an environment are in peril throughout the day. Many don’t make it home unscathed.

     But let’s leave the disorder and violence problems to the side. In an attempt to achieve some education, at least, the schools have steadily “dumbed down” their curricula. What was fifth-grade material a century ago is now being taught in high schools. The scandals about schools where no student meets grade literacy or numeracy standards, and about college entrants being unable to read, write in cursive, or do simple algebra, are legion.

     The few “colored” with a real interest in learning are intimidated out of it by their fellows: “Why you actin’ White?” The important subjects are to which gang you belong, how to deal with the members of other gangs, and how to treat the White kids. Better take those subjects seriously; the tests are frequent.

     But hearken to our political class! Do any of our Establishmentarians even hint that there might be a problem with all this “diversity?” Not to my knowledge. But let anyone mention the rising White-identity movement, and the condemnations are immediate and plentiful. Apparently the worst thing one can be is White and proud of it.

     If the cries of “Racist!” and “Xenophobe!” are losing their effect, it’s not yet evident from their frequency of use. Demographic-geographic trends tell us that some Whites are “voting with their feet.” An unfortunate number of us are pinned in place by occupational or familial considerations. These must be prepared to cope with being members of a shrinking community.

     Fifty-nine years ago, a group of young women in their senior year in high school could clearly see what was coming. Their voices were soft. Their words were measured. But their opinions were unanimous and clear. They foresaw what would happen to the trade they sought to enter.

     Those that are still on the sunny side of the sod would be in their mid-seventies today. I should remember to pray for them.

Consciousness And Conscience

     An old story came to mind a little earlier, as I was doing my morning tarantella (i.e., brushing my teeth, feeding the dogs and cats, making and drinking coffee, and cleaning up the detritus of the previous evening): “The Cage,” by A. Bertram Chandler. It involved a group of human spacefarers captured and caged by an alien race. At first that other race isn’t aware that humans are intelligent, purposeful creatures. What clues them in is when one of the humans captures a vermin creature and builds a cage for it. The final line of the story: Only intelligent beings put other beings in cages.

     Striking, isn’t it? Communication alone isn’t guaranteed to be possible with the completely alien. Actions must fill the gap. If the Other can deduce one’s intelligence from one’s actions, that can unlock the cage door. But that opens another door as well: the nature of purposive consciousness.

* * *

     Consciousness is the beginning; purposive consciousness – what I’ll henceforth call sentience — is the end. Sentience is born from simple consciousness when the conscious one turns his awareness on himself:

I am something specific, distinct from all other things.

     In facing that realization and the questions it compels upon him, the individual’s capacity for abstraction is unleashed. It has broached the threshold to reasoning. In particular, it becomes capable of categorization: the assembly of real things into abstract groups, according to the properties they possess.

     Let’s pause here to simplify the rest of the discussion. The individual under discussion shall henceforward be called Smith. Smith is not alone in the world. There are others like him. As he encounters them, he becomes aware of the commonalities and distinctions among them.

     One property Smith quickly perceives is his own purposiveness. Some of the things he does are automatic, but not all. Those other actions are taken to fulfill a purpose. That purpose may not last long, but while it does, it determines his non-automatic thoughts and deeds.

     From his purposiveness Smith infers that property in others like him. This is the germ of another property soon to impinge upon his consciousness: his conscience.

* * *

     The above is semi-fanciful. We don’t know very much about the development of the intellectual primitives. What we do know is that sentience precedes conscience. Only the sentient can have a sense of what Clarence Carson called “the moral order of the universe.” We believe nonhuman animals to lack sentience – i.e., that their actions are guided by commands embedded in their flesh, which we call instincts.

     Now and then a departure from our assumptions will arise to trouble us. We deem ourselves superior to “the lower orders” by dint of our sentience and our consciences. Animals, we tell ourselves, have no concepts; therefore they can make no distinctions between right and wrong. But then we hear of a dog sacrificing himself to protect his human, and we wonder. We learn of a brute torturing or killing a parent, sibling, or child, and we wonder further.

     My surmise is that some animals can be “ennobled” (C. S. Lewis) by the affection that springs from a long association with and care by a human. It’s more difficult to explain why some humans behave as if they lack consciences. Suffice it to say that our understanding is less than perfect.

     For conscience, in a purely secular and spatiotemporal view, arises from the perception of humans as a category: conscious animals with reasoning powers and purposes. That evokes species-kinship, sometimes expressed by the phrase “We are all brothers.” Adam Smith called it “fellow-feeling.” Today we call it compassion or empathy.

     Conscience – the product of self-awareness and our common possession thereof – underpins all the rest.

* * *

     Hillel’s dictum “What is hateful to you, do not do to another” is the foundation layer of conscience. There’s more, of course. Conscience doesn’t just restrain us; it also impels us to help one another, to do good and charitable works. Christ’s decree “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” embeds Hillel’s rule and extends it. Yet our consciences get many of us there long before we encounter either Hillel or Christ.

     But there are still those questions: Why don’t all humans respond to their consciences? Why do some animals act as if they have consciences of their own? No one has a watertight explanation for psychopathy or sociopathy. No one has a convincing explanation for a dog’s protectiveness over his master. We can’t communicate reliably with sociopaths or dogs, though we can, and often do, put them in cages.

     We need those questions answered.

The Epstein Files

     I haven’t read them. I don’t intend to. I don’t need more misery or darkness, thanks. But the following caught and held my attention:

People are now openly stating:

"If even a small fraction of what the Epstein files imply is true...

...the good guys lost WWII 💀"

We urgently need full disclosure and many arrests to nip such speculations in the bud.

The entire liberal world order depends on it.

Godspeed!

— Erik Dale 🇳🇴 (@EuroDale) February 4, 2026

     Whoever this gentleman is, I’m certain his heart is in the right place. But is he quite sure what “the entire world liberal order” is? One should know what one has set out to defend.

     The world, partitioned as it is into States that don’t recognize the concept of freedom, does not qualify as “liberal” in the dictionary sense. Not one of the nearly 200 States that exist today respects the rights of the individual. Rather, they assert supremacy – sovereignty, if you prefer – over all persons and things. You must ask their permission for damned near everything.

     Can there be a “liberal world order” when the States that dominate the world are unanimously illiberal?

     But let’s pass on to the Epstein files. From what I’ve read – all of it secondhand, of course – those files implicate many powerful, wealthy, and famous individuals in the most horrific crimes Mankind has ever known. The Iceberg Premise – i.e., that what we can see is only a tiny fraction of what there is – suggests that virtually the entire “upper crust” of American society is vile beyond imagining. That includes the national political class: everyone who wields power at the national level, or who has significant influence over the power wielders’ decisions.

     The word corruption pales beside the monstrousness of what the files have revealed. Yet though Lord Acton is probably spinning in his grave, I must admit that none of it surprises me.

     Visualize me shrugging as I write: So what now?

* * *

     Except for the ministry of Christ, the United States of America was the grandest effort in all of history. A dear friend has called America “the crowning glory of human civilization.” He’s right. Even in our decayed and tottering state, we outshine anything else any nation can offer. That’s why the rest of the world seeks to batten on us; what excellence and virtue remain belong to America and Americans.

     Yet we teeter at the edge of the abyss. We’ve gone badly wrong, and we know it. Some of us can even tell you why: We put our trust in princes.

     Outside the narrow bounds of the family, for any man to claim and wield power over another is evil. There are no escapes; it’s an arrogance that merits scourging or worse. So why do we tolerate it when it calls itself government?

     The lust for power is a lust that cannot be sated. It always demands more. And it demands proof as well. The proof is provided by power’s victims:

     ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
     Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
     ‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.’

     How many times have I cited that passage? Its insight into power-lust is unequaled. Yet even those who praise George Orwell’s masterwork to the heavens shy back from its full implications. The great majority of Mankind insists, vocally or silently, that the State is “a necessary evil.”

     What other evils would you deem “necessary,” Gentle Reader?

* * *

     “Utopia is not one of the options.” – David Bergland

     For as long as there are men, there will be evil men. Human free will and our susceptibility to temptation guarantee it. But the great majority of us are, if sinners, at least aware of the dividing line between what we can get away with and what will get us invited to a necktie party as guest of honor.

     It’s when evil men have access to power over others that the worst problems arise and proliferate. For over time, the dynamic of power operates to bring evil men to power. They have a natural advantage over good men in pursuing it: they want it more.

     It doesn’t matter what form the State is given: autocratic, oligarchical, republican, democratic, what have you. The State is where the power is, and therefore where those who most want power will go. Could it be any clearer?

     But we were talking about the Epstein files, weren’t we?

     What those files reveal are the foulest deeds of the evilest men of our time. Should it come as a surprise that those evildoers were power-wielders, elite members of the Establishment? It seems perfectly in keeping with their villainy. Yet millions of people are in shock: How could they? Look at all they have, all they were given!

     Shock can be useful. It can shake the scales from our eyes. I submit that it’s time and long past time. Don’t let this moment pass unrecognized for what it really tells us.

From Little Acorns

     Time passes swiftly for those of us in our seventies. Sometimes we don’t notice the passing of a whole decade… and this was more than a single decade ago:

Woman: ”OJ. Simpson represented something for the black community in that moment, in that trial, particularly because there were two White people who had been killed”

Eh, what? pic.twitter.com/zt8VAtLjAe

— Taya (@travelingflying) February 2, 2026

     The murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman took place in June, 1994. Yes, Simpson was acquitted of them, but a subsequent civil suit held him responsible for the deaths even so. In 2008 he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, and served a prison sentence for them.

     Now we have the nonsense above.

* * *

     I just snagged this:

what is it with third worlder obsession of having a servant https://t.co/qfngwNVbGb

— miritsua (@m1ritsua) February 1, 2026

     Immerse yourself in that image for a moment. The question posed by “miritsua” is relevant and staggeringly important. It’s not just Third Worlders who think they deserve servants.

     Have a snippet from a novel that should be more widely read:

     “It was a world in which there were only two models, slave and master. A master is not the same thing as a free, independent man. A master is himself contaminated by slaveholding. When the slaves were freed, they were only technically free. They're right about that. They continued as spiritual slaves — most of them, not all — right until the Civil Rights Act, until they could vote. Then they started acting like masters.”

     If you have only two models for human relations – master or slave – then you will see yourself as one or the other. You’ll have no alternative structure into which to fit yourself.

If you’re not a slave, you must be a master – and masters have slaves.

     That is the African experience. It was brought here by imported Negro slaves. It’s been perpetuated by Negroes as well. What else could their ceaseless demands for “reparations” mean?

     Thinking yourself a master, but having no slaves, makes you resentful and angry.

* * *

     In one of my novels, there’s a character who was raised from birth to see herself as a slave. She was conditioned to accept it as her proper place. When she managed to escape her captors, she stumbled by chance into the protection of a very good man. Her conditioning compelled her to take that good man as her master. The limitations it compelled upon her left her no third model. When she was presented with freedom as a third way, she rejected it. It would mean rejecting everything else she’d ever been:

     “Miss Celia, I don’t understand!”
     The shorter of the visitors cringed. “There’s nothing to understand, Fountain.” She rubbed the backs of Fountain’s hands with her thumbs. “It’s just the way it is. I’m free, Juliette is free, and Trish is free. You’re free too. No masters. No lords. No slaves. Just people, doing whatever they want to do.” Her expression darkened. “Don’t you like the idea that you’re free?”
     Fountain glanced furtively at Juliette. The tall girl leaned against the wall with her arms crossed over her breasts. She nodded.
     “It’s true, Fountain. Nobody owns anybody here.”
     The notion found nowhere to lodge among her lessons.
     I was trained to be his. To serve his pleasure. I have no other purpose.
     I want to be his.
     “I cannot leave my lord,” she murmured. “I will not.”
     Celia grimaced. “You might not have to. I mean,” she said, “he might not tell you that you have to go away. But he’s free too, Fountain. Free people don’t own slaves. We settled that a long time ago. Whoever taught you different was...bad. Taught you bad stuff. Probably a lot of it.”
     How can this be? Their bodies are like mine. Their beauty is no less than mine. Yet they claim to have no master. They could not possibly be masters themselves, so what else could they do? What else could they be?
     The clash between her lessons and this new instruction became insupportable. A high, shrill siren issued from her backbrain, a response instilled in her by years of merciless conditioning designed to deny her any outlet for rebellion. It surged at once to disabling pitch and volume. She ripped her hands free of Celia’s, put them to her ears, and howled in torment.
     The others crowded close around her and wrapped her in their arms, probably in an attempt to calm her. It only increased her anguish, but her wriggling failed to free her from them. She endured it as she must.
     When the siren in her head and her responding howl ceased and the others’ grip upon her slackened, she shook herself free, rose, said “I must use the bathroom,” and strode out of the room. Once she had closed and locked the bathroom door, she sat upon the toilet lid and waited for her tears to dry.
     They do not understand. They cannot understand. I cannot be free. I am his.
     I must be his.
     The thought that she might be forced to be as they were—to be apart from her lord, without his protection and guidance, even for a brief interval—threatened to break her self-control once again. She forced it away before it could drive a wedge into her slowly returning composure.
     She had been a good student, attentive to all she’d been taught and diligent about the practice of her lessons. Her teacher had seldom spoken the mildest word of reproof. It had not been necessary. The pains of the chastisements her teacher could inflict, once they’d been demonstrated upon her flesh, were forever after vivid in her memory.
     Yet Fountain possessed interior resources that went well beyond what one might have expected from her history. Her resolve had been the key both to enduring her training and to effecting her escape. She knew the forces at her disposal, even if only dimly. She marshaled them to the unprecedented challenge.
     I will not listen to them.
     I will not be free.
     I will not let them take me from him.
     I will not let them take him from me.
     With that thought, a curious sort of circuit completed in her brain. It snapped into being with a firmness that spoke of an immutable solidity.
     I am his.
     I will remain his.
     Now and forever.
     She rose from the toilet, unlocked the bathroom door, and returned to the bedroom her lord had assigned her, where two earnest young women, well meaning but incapable of understanding her, waited to resume their tortures.

     Yes, the story of O.J. Simpson and his crimes is part of that. So is the seething resentment expressed and encouraged by blacks with a public platform. It’s all they know. Therefore, if you are not their master, you must be their slave. They will compel it upon you.

     Never forget it.

Poverty In Spirit: A Sunday Rumination

     [I'm tired and in several kinds of distress this morning, so I'm recycling a piece that first appeared here on November 1, 2015 -- FWP]

* * *

     Perhaps the most famous of all Jesus’s words:

     And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
     And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
     Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
     Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
     Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
     Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
     Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
     Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
     Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
     Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
     Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
     Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

     [Matthew 5:1-12]

     The very first of the Beatitudes is for many the most troubling. What can it mean to be “poor in spirit?” If we can’t figure it out, how can we achieve it? and if we can’t achieve it, is there a path to heaven open to us?

     It had me baffled for a while. I had to reflect on the nature of poverty and the nature of the soul before I could make any sense of it – and I don’t guarantee that I’ve got it right. As I’ve said before, I write these Ruminations principally for my own benefit, but in the hope that others might glean something of value from them, too.

---

     To be poor in the material sense is to lack; in extreme cases, to lack one or more necessities. But there are instances – today, many instances – of persons deemed “poor” who enjoy material comforts beyond what a middle-class European enjoys, or a middle-class American of a few generations ago would have enjoyed. Genuine poverty is vanishingly rare in America. To find the real McCoy, one must go into the Third World, many of whose denizens can’t even secure food enough, clothing enough, or a shelter from predators and the elements. Those are people who genuinely lack.

     What does the human soul lack? It’s immaterial; it has no survival needs, at least as long as it’s bound to a working body. So the material conception of poverty is irrelevant to it. But to lack and be aware of it has other implications.

     In the material realm, he who lacks something that he truly needs feels a hunger for it. In the spiritual realm, there is only one need: grace, the acceptance of God and His gifts.

     Thus, to be “poor in spirit” would suggest an awareness of the importance of grace and a desire for it. That has its own implication, for grace is available only from one Source. That Source has made His requirements explicit:

     Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? [Matthew 7:7-11]

     Prayer – the humble admission of spiritual need to Him Who can fill it – is the engine. The hunger for grace – spiritual poverty – is the fuel. Combine those ingredients, and all else follows.

     But there's a trap to be avoided as well.

---

     I’ve harped so often on the critical importance of humility that no doubt many Gentle Readers have tired of hearing about it. Indeed, I’m sure a few among you, reading this essay, have just said to yourself, “Oh boy, here he goes again,” and have tuned out. But there is no venue in which humility is so great a need as in this matter of grace.

     Christ made a powerful statement about it:

     Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
     I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

     [Luke 18:10-14]

     He who is confident of his place in God’s eyes is in a greater degree of spiritual danger than any other living man. He who doubts his spiritual standing and is willing to abase himself before God, pleading for His love and mercy, is the one who will receive the gift of grace. The Redeemer said it as plainly as it can be said.

---

     A few words on prayer and its objects, and I’ll close for today.

     Among the faults our Protestant brethren attribute to us is that we “pray to saints,” when prayer is properly directed only to God. The accusation would have a great deal of force if it were true – and I cannot doubt that in some cases, it is. The object of prayer is to secure God’s grace for oneself, and no mere saint can grant that. However, several of the saints, designated as patrons of some special occupation, context, or need, may be asked to pray for us as intercessors.

     Prayer must always have God as its ultimate destination. However, it does no harm to ask a saint associated with our particular need to “put in a good word.” The Blessed Virgin is paramount in this regard, as the Queen of Heaven among all the saints has the greatest influence on her Son. Note that though the Hail Mary seems to address her rather than God, it asks her to pray for us: indirectly identifying God as the true Source from Whom we hope for a benison.

---

     If the above is well reasoned, then perhaps poverty in spirit is attainable by any sincere Christian. After all, we claim to love God and desire His acceptance. We claim to believe in the bifurcated afterlife, and to prefer – I should hope! – one fork over the other. How much greater could the contrast between two paths be? What could possibly elicit a greater sense of need?

     May God bless and keep you all. (And happy All Saints Day! Perhaps you might pause to thank your name saint for sharing his appellation with you.)

For Younger Men

     We’ve all heard about the “male loneliness epidemic.” There’s a lot of substance to it. American men of all ages are having more difficulty forming social connections, especially ones that offer romantic possibilities, than in any previous era. The institutions that supported such connections have weakened greatly. Some have disappeared altogether.

     But a part of that has nothing to do with institutions. Consider the following:

Let's say you are a 25 year old man who

> Looks average
> Is 5'6–5'8 tall
> Has a private job
> Earns 30–50K
> Lives on rent
> Has a simple bike, no car
> Is a virgin, kind, and religious
> Has a good personality
> Respects women

On dating apps, you won't find even one girl,…

— ︎ ︎venom (@venom1s) January 30, 2026

     Now, that list is somewhat restrictive. You won’t find many 25-year-old male virgins in these United States in the Year of Our Lord 2026, “average looks” or not. You also won’t find many who don’t have cars, outside the larger cities. But it does describe a number of young men. Relax the aforementioned two restrictions, and the number swells greatly.

     Now, this aspect of “venom’s” claim:

     On dating apps, you won't find even one girl, unless she's ugly/fat.

     …might not be perfectly correct. But where our proposed young man would find a potential wife, and what sort of woman she might prove to be, deserves consideration.

     It’s been said, and truly, that while men are attracted by looks, women are attracted by status. Yes, women have appearance standards, particularly as regards men’s height. But whether a young single woman regards a young man as a “catch” depends more on his “prospects” than his looks. If she sees “make it big” prospects in him, he could look to her like a winner even if he’s short and visually unimpressive. So the major impediments our proposed young man faces are occupational and financial.

     Time was, the received wisdom was that a man should “be more than you appear.” In today’s “get it now and damn the future” social clime, the reverse just might be true.

* * *

     I don’t advocate striving to “appear more than you are.” The truth will emerge over time. Occupational possibilities and bank balances are hard to fake for long. Yet a number of young men will try it anyway: some out of cynicism, others out of desperation.

     Young women’s expectations and demands are the largest part of the problem. Their starry-eyed dreams of handsome, wealthy princes come-a-courting take years to dispel. The mass one-way media have conditioned them to believe that he’s out there, girl; just wait. The scales fall from their eyes eventually: usually, some time after they reach thirty years of age.

     Are you beginning to get a sense for where this is going, young man?

     The typical single woman in her mid-thirties feels a subliminal panic. She can feel herself “aging out” in ways that men don’t suffer. Her looks are going. She has increasing difficulty maintaining her figure. She knows that her fertility is fading as well – and even if she already has children, that tells against her in the romance market. Maybe especially if she already has children.

     She might actually be ready for true commitment.

     You, the twenty-five-year-old male singleton, might not look upon her as a plausible romantic candidate. That’s shortsighted. She’s primed and ready for you, despite your youth. She might actually be willing to care for you in a half-romantic, half-maternal way. Indeed, she just might be the support you need to “make it!”

     This will strike you as bizarre. It’s an inversion of the longstanding pattern of men marrying younger women. That pattern definitely made more sense. He, the older, was already somewhat “established.” She, the younger, needed protection and support, and – in the usual case – was ready for children. Their desires and positions in life were in alignment.

     But things have changed, quite definitely. Young men can’t get a fair shake from young women. Older women, with rare exceptions, can’t win the affections of older, well-established men. (Cf. “trophy wife.”) But both younger men and older women are hungry for love, for sex, for affection, for an enduring commitment.

     The Army recruiting slogan was “Be All You Can Be.” I have an addendum: “Yeah – And Make Sure It Shows.”

     Things being as they are, you, young male reader, might not manage to catch the interest of the young woman you want. But her single older sister has eyes. Should they come to rest approvingly on you, will you spurn her just because she’s older? Or will you see and value her mature potential, just as she sees and values your youthful vigor?

     Give it some thought.

     A matchmaker’s predatory gleam shone from Adrienne’s eyes throughout the dessert course. It was still there as they said their good-nights at the front door. It kept Sumner on edge, but remarkably, Redmond didn’t appear to notice it.
     Sumner closed the door behind him and released an explosive sigh.
     Adrienne frowned. “Was it that hard?”
     “Uh, no.” How do I tell my wife that she was eyeing our guest like a lioness assessing an unsuspecting wildebeest? “It’s just that...well, from everything I’ve heard at the office, Louis is pretty special. I didn’t expect him to be such an, ah, easy guest.”
     “Charming,” she said. The feral gleam had not left her eyes. “Utterly charming. I can’t wait to—”
     “Sweetie,” he said, desperate to derail his wife’s obvious train of thought, “has it occurred to you to wonder why he isn’t married?”
     She shrugged. “These days men his age mostly aren’t.”
     He grimaced. “True. All the same, would you give me a little time to get to know him better before you script his future unto the seventh generation?”
     “Steve!”
     “Sweetie,” he said, “you’ve had that look ever since he arrived. You had me thinking you were going to call Rosalie and invite her over for a piece of cheesecake. ‘Fess up, now.”
     She giggled. “The thought did cross my mind.”
     “Sweetie, he’s twenty-four. Twenty-four. Keep that firmly in mind.” Sumner wrapped his arms around her waist. She reciprocated and laid her head on his shoulder. “Rosalie is thirty-six and Allison is forty.”
     Another giggle. “So what, Mr. General Counsel? Are you trying to tell me that New York has outlawed cradle robbing?”
     “Adrienne...” Sumner pushed his wife to arms’ length, glared at her from under lowered brows, and deployed his best cross examiner’s courtroom tone.
     Her grin was the naughtiest thing he’d ever seen. “All right, so there’d be a little age gap—”
     “Little? That’s like calling the Grand Canyon a large hole!”
     “Hey! Men marry women that much younger all the time! Isn’t it about time we ladies got a little payback?”

     [From Statesman]

Savings

     The rapid increases in the dollar prices of precious metals are alarming for more than one reason.

     Yes, I’m alarmed. Even though I hold large quantities of the money metals, what’s happening has me frightened. The dollar prices of the money metals don’t say that gold and silver are getting more valuable. Rather, they say that a large number of people are worried about the future of the U.S. dollar and the American economy generally.

     You can’t pay for your groceries with gold or silver, just yet; you still need dollars for that. The metals are hedges against further declines in the purchasing power of the dollar. They’re something else, as well.

     Among the reasons gold and silver served as Mankind’s currencies for so long is that they’re easy to recognize. Yes, it’s possible to make fake gold coins by plating tungsten slugs with a thin covering of gold, but such fakes are detectable by simple tests. It’s harder to fake silver coins at a profit, though should silver continue to rise in dollar price, that might not remain true. So gold and silver make trustworthy currencies as well as reliable stores of purchasing power.

     Gold and silver in private hands represent purchasing power no government can control. They make possible both completely private transactions and completely private savings.

     States don’t like for private persons to have private savings. That’s one of the motivations behind the worldwide drive for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). The State wants to know everything: who has what, in what forms, and what he’s doing with it. Over time, a CBDC decreed to be legal tender would allow the State to eliminate its physical cash – those Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet – and make all “above-ground” transactions vulnerable to State monitoring and control.

     Gold and silver are the State’s enemies. As long as there are reserves of those metals in private hands, there will remain an underground economy that’s proof against State intrusion. Worse – from the State’s point of view – those reserves could power a revolution. Their very existence would force a degree of moderation upon the State. Even the idea of that makes the masters of the State uneasy and sullen.

     You and I, Gentle Reader, aren’t the only ones watching the prices of the metals. The masters of the State are watching them too. And they’re as alarmed as I am. Their best hope for total and irreversible control over all human enterprise is being threatened by the rising consciousness of private persons that the State’s “money” is merely wastepaper.

     When the masters of the State feel threatened, they tend to do alarming things. They pass insane laws. They stifle private communications. Sometimes they go to war, to create a pretext for “emergency measures.”

     The Year of Our Lord 2025 was an interesting year. One thing many hoped for was an immediate, sharp decrease in the cost of living. That hasn’t arrived, though some commodities have dropped in dollar price. The new tariffs intended to rebalance America’s international trade, bring expatriated industries home, and garner new federal revenue have pushed the prices of imported goods upward. A lot of people who supported President Trump have begun to wonder if he can deliver… or intends to.

     Americans need reasons to believe in America’s future. Failing that, they’ll use whatever private measures promise protection for their resources. That’s clearly expressed by the prices of silver and gold and the expanding interest in the cryptocurrencies… and the State could shut down all traffic in the cryptos by throwing a switch.

     Verbum sat sapienti. For those interested in a fuller exploration of methods for financial self-protection, please read John Pugsley’s classic The Alpha Strategy.