2025

ECONOMICS TRUMPS IDEOLOGY:

Renewable energy is reshaping the global economy – new report (Sam Fankhauser, November 13, 2025, The Conversation)

Perhaps the most underappreciated economic benefit of renewables concerns productivity. Cheap, efficient energy is the lifeblood of industrial growth. Renewable energy is now much cheaper than fossil fuels, particularly when factoring in what is lost when turning energy (say, car fuel) into usable services (propulsion).

We calculated that with a rapid conversion to renewables, energy-sector productivity could double by 2050, compared to both current levels and a fossil fuel future. Since energy is such a ubiquitous input to all other economic activities, this has significant economy-wide benefits. For some developing countries, the GDP boost could be as high as 9-12% – simply from having more efficient energy services.

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY REQUIRES UNIVERSAL APPLICATION:

Odyssean Constitutionalism: Good Constitutional rules are designed to resist precisely those situations when leaders feel the urge to break them. (Julia R. Cartwright, 11/10/25, Law & Liberty)

Good constitutional rules are general, abstract, and equally applied with no special favors for friends, no special burdens for enemies. They are framed without reference to named persons or groups, and they do not depend on the virtue of whoever currently holds office. Because, as Hayek emphasizes, none of us knows our future station, we might be a majority today and a minority tomorrow, we have reason to support constraints that protect us in bad situations as well as good. Buchanan and Tullock’s seminal work, The Calculus of Consent, presents the economic logic behind the significance of constitutional rules. They describe how people living under uncertainty seek rules ex ante that make cooperation cheaper than conflict, reduce the opportunity for rent extraction, and limit the scope of high-stakes, winner-take-all politics. Stable, general rules transform zero-sum political contests into positive-sum production by clarifying rights, lowering transaction costs, and letting entrepreneurs mitigate uncertainty. The aim is to channel self-interest not through the hope of benevolent officials, but through institutions that make predation costly and production rewarding.

Constitutional rules, therefore, must be designed to resist precisely those situations when leaders feel the urge to break them. They should be difficult to change, with costly procedures like supermajorities, multiple veto points, judicial review, and federalism, so that no faction can recalibrate the rules in a spasm of partisan passion. Yet they also need orderly adaptability: amendment procedures and interpretive doctrines that allow learning from experience without relying on emergency exceptions. Constitutional law invites citizens to consent to the constraints because they know that, in the long run, the surplus from stability dwarfs the thrill of short-run victories. The general and abstract nature of these known rules makes it possible for millions of strangers to coordinate their plans without central command. Applying this to our First Amendment protection of free speech, a bright-line commitment to protect even offensive, foolish, or hateful expression, paired with narrow, content-neutral limits for truly imminent threats, provides the predictability society needs. Open-ended carve-outs like “misinformation,” “hate,” or “national morale” invite partisans to weaponize enforcement. The reason we do not trust discretionary censorship is not that we deny harm, but that we know human beings cannot wield such discretion impartially.

The Odyssean analogy is apt. We bind ourselves in advance to the mast of free speech, free press, and free exercise because we know the sirens of expediency will sing.

THE DRAGON HAS NO TEETH:

China Looks Strong. Life Here Tells a Different Story. (Helen Gao, 11/13/25, NY Times)

Behind the orderliness of everyday life, a quiet desperation simmers. On social media and in private conversations, there is a common refrain: worry over joblessness, wage cuts and making ends meet. […]

These days, there is a sense of bitter anger among the people at being the voiceless victims of the state’s obsession with world power and beating the United States. That sentiment is likely to grow. The latest five-year plan — the government’s blueprint of economic priorities — that was released last month makes clear it plans to double down on prioritizing national power over the common good.

In April, as the tariff war with the United States intensified, a People’s Daily editorial argued that Beijing can resist American bullying thanks to systemic advantages such as China’s ability to centralize resources and pour them into accomplishing national goals. The backlash on the Chinese internet was swift. While the government boasts, a viral social media post pointed out, everyday struggles like finding work, putting food on the table and educating children are “fraught with difficulty.” Winning the trade war with the United States means “preparing to sacrifice some of the people,” the author wrote. Censors soon blocked the post and others like it.

Years ago, Chinese people would have cheered a People’s Daily editorial like that out of the reflexive nationalism that the government has instilled for decades. That patriotism is nearly drowned out today by those who vent over the problems they face.


Youth unemployment is so high that last year the government changed its calculation methodology in a way that produced a lower number. Even the new figure remains alarmingly high. An estimated 200 million people get by in precarious careers in a gig economy. Consumers, many of whom have seen their net worth shrink in an intractable housing market crash, are cutting back on spending, trapping the economy in a deflationary spiral.

The sense of economic insecurity is leading people to forego marriage and starting families, worsening a national decline in population. Popular frustration also is sharpening the divide between the haves and the have-nots — hardening public resentment against those who are perceived as parlaying economic or political connections into opportunity while most people face dwindling prospects. And mental health problems are believed to be rising, as evidenced by a spate of indiscriminate stabbing sprees and other violent attacks in the past couple of years.

It seems clear that Beijing can no longer count on knee-jerk patriotism to underwrite its increasingly assertive stance abroad. In September, when the Chinese Communist Party staged a lavish military parade to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, many people wondered aloud why that money wasn’t instead spent on addressing the difficulties of ordinary people.

The government recently began cracking down on social media content it considered “excessively pessimistic” — a clear sign it is concerned about this public unease undercutting its agenda. But suppressing criticism instead of addressing its causes will only deepen the disconnect with the people and strain the balancing act that the state has tried to strike between its foreign policy priorities and the domestic support it craves.

WHY IT’S ALWAYS MAGA:

‘They’re not wolves – they’re sheep’: the psychiatrist who spent decades meeting and studying lone-actor mass killers: From Port Arthur to Hoddle Street, Paul E Mullen has had a front-row seat to the men behind some of the worst public massacres. He says it’s possible to ‘disrupt the script’ for future violence (Walter Marsh, 8 Nov 2025, The Guardian)

Things changed, Mullen says, after a shooting in Austin, Texas in August 1966, when a 25-year-old male student climbed to the 28th-floor observation deck of a University of Texas building and opened fire, killing 15 and injuring another 30.

“He was in every major newspaper in America, on the front page the next day with his photograph and his name, and he was covered worldwide over the next few days – they later made a film,” he says, referring to 1975’s The Deadly Tower, starring Kurt Russell as the red bandana-clad gunman.

“It was the Texas university tower massacre that created the script, which has now grown and grown and grown,” Mullen reflects. “And the first imitator of the Texas killer was only five weeks [later].”

ike the Port Arthur killer, these are often friendless men fuelled by a mix of resentment and a sense of weakness, drawn to the promise of infamy, publicity, and a noteworthy death enjoyed by previous mass killers. Some even dress like their predecessors, from Russell’s red bandana to the all-black attire of the teenage Columbine school shooters.

“They gather grievances, grievances, grievances,” Mullen says, echoing the common complaints he has heard across his career. “‘People mistreated me’; ‘I was cheated’; ‘they’re not fair’; ‘no one likes me’. All these things, but they also feel that they should have fought back.

“The resentment builds up and builds up, and it becomes your whole attitude to the world, which is angry, which is full of a sense of grievance. But it’s much worse, because you never did anything. And this, in a sense, is your final reply.”

And Populism and Identitarianism are nothing but te politics of resentment.

PRINT THE LEGEND:

Gone Fishin’: Could two famous rivermen really have met their end while grappling giant fish in a Kansas river? (Eric McHenry, November 6, 2025, American Scholar)

Commercial fishing on the Kaw was a viable profession not only because of the size and abundance of the fish but also because of the now-illegal methods used to harvest them: Abe and Jake were both known to drag giant nets, sometimes trapping 300 pounds’ worth of carp, buffalo, and catfish in a single outing. More daringly, they would dive for their quarry: They’d swim to the base of the dam, or under the wooden floor of an old flour mill, feel around for a big cat, snag it with a gaff hook, and wrestle it to the surface. One summer day in 1902, according to the Lawrence Weekly World, Abe hauled in catfish of 35, 60, and 104 pounds “by diving and stabbing them.”

If that sounds life-endangering, it was. Around Lawrence, it’s generally been understood that either Abe or Jake (or maybe both) died that way—drowned in pursuit of a bewhiskered leviathan. I’ve been hearing versions of this tale for years. Some folks say that the drowned man was never seen again; others, that he washed up on a sandbar downriver, still locked in a death embrace with the big one that didn’t get away. Fascinated by this story and bemused by its fishiness, I decided to take my own deep dive.

APPLIED DARWINISM:

When Christians Follow Nietzsche: Enthusiasm for Nietzsche’s ideal of human excellence and vitality has given rise to calls for manly Christian warriors to flex their superiority. (John Ehrett, November 7, 2025, Plough)

Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity is implicitly grounded in the argument that there is a human goodness that is not the Goodness that is God. Just how is this other-than-divine goodness exemplified?

Nietzsche offers one answer: within the ideal human body, the material manifestation of human perfection. The creative instincts of his Übermensch require a fit vessel, a genetically superior specimen. There is a reason Rand’s heroes were always so aestheticized. While Nietzsche himself resisted racialized interpretations of his thought, his intellectual heirs have not been so restrained. In recent years, few have pushed Nietzsche’s logic to its terminus as boldly as the Yale-trained political philosopher Costin Alamariu, better known as the pseudonymous online provocateur Bronze Age Pervert. For Alamariu, genetic-supremacist politics is not merely an extension of Nietzsche’s thought; it is the dark core of Western philosophy itself. As Alamariu would have it, philosophy begins not in wonder but in eugenics.

This reality, Alamariu argues, was violently suppressed by generations of Greek philosophers, from Plato on, who feared the consequences of revealing the fact of biological political determinism to the masses. This means that the entire tradition of Western thought, the whole “Platonic-Socratic tradition,” was based on a lie, “born in an act of rhetorical obfuscation and conservative cowardice.”

Is this true to Nietzsche’s vision? It’s hard to see why not. Alamariu consciously identifies himself as Nietzsche’s successor, stressing that he is “trying to explain some of the implications of the work of Nietzsche for a world in which he is still the only prophet, and will remain so for some centuries.” And indeed, in Alamariu’s work, the logic of vitalism comes to full flower. For all its veneration of superior human specimens, vitalism ultimately subverts any sense of human exceptionalism, leaving – quite properly – only nature. Where Nietzsche left off, Alamariu simply finishes the job: Ecce simio. Behold the ape.

To address just one aspect of this excellent essay, it seems awfully queer that these guys who believe so fiercely in Darwinism are also such enthusiasts for cosmetic surgery and performance enhancing drugs.