Homeschooling my children has given me quite the education. For example, never again will I doubt the capacity of some people to opine on topics they know nothing about.

Take Dr. Waitman W. Beorn, a historian who specializes in “Holocaust studies." He says you’re not qualified to homeschool your kids.

Apparently, Dr. Beorn isn’t all that qualified himself, because despite having his own Wikipedia page listing many awards and accomplishments, he’s only an assistant professor at a college that’s been around about as long as grunge music. Thankfully, that isn’t his only gig; he’s also the host of a podcast with under 1,000 followers on Twitter.

The only thing that warranted him moving on to ninth grade was the fact that he was 15, and school leaders could not have a 16-year-old eighth grader driving to school every day.

But I’m not here to judge. Academia is a tough gig. I should know — I taught in the public school system for a lucky 13 years. And I’m here to tell you that while maybe Assistant Professor Beorn is right about you not being qualified to homeschool your kids, I know for a fact that the public school system isn’t qualified to teach your kids.

Don’t believe me? I’ll prove it right now. Take this eighth-grade exam from Bullitt County, Kentucky, dating back to 1913. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

I’ll be surprised if half of you even knew where to start with half the questions on that test. And remember, this was a test for eighth graders. In Kentucky.

Too old to fail

The fact is that we’ve all been robbed by the government’s deliberate dumbing down of the school system, and today’s kids are continuing to be cheated out of their full potential.

Let me give you a firsthand account of how the bar is lowered and we're all being short-changed as a result.

It is fundamentally misunderstood by the public how this actually goes down. I remember multiple times when I was still in the school system that teachers would be on the chopping block. Administration was mad, guidance was mad, anybody with any kind of authority in the school was mad if they had more than one or two kids failing their classes.

You're not allowed to fail kids because it messes with everything.

We were on the block schedule, so you’d have one set of classes in the first semester and a different set the second semester. If you fail all your classes the first semester and you go on to the second semester, then when do you make up those credits? How do you get those credits so that you can graduate on time?

Because guess what? If you don't graduate on time, who gets penalized? Not the student. The school is who gets penalized.

8th graders who drive

And that right there is the downfall of the American education system: when you can't hold a child back because of their age. I had a student like this who had already failed enough times in his school career that he was 15 years old and in eighth grade.

When the time came to discuss promotions to high school, he was moved forward. He did not show any capability for this. The only thing that warranted him moving on to ninth grade was the fact that he was 15, and school leaders could not have a 16-year-old eighth grader driving to school every day.

That kind of stuff really sticks in my craw because then they want to blame the teachers for all of this stuff, when teachers are those actually holding kids to a standard that penalizes when the kids don't pass. So what does that lead to? Mediocrity all the way around.

And I had kids who would not do a thing all semester long — as juniors in high school — knowing that they had to have Spanish to graduate. They would come to me in the last few days of the semester and say, “Could I have my makeup work?” You want an entire semester's worth of work? Right now?

One, how many times have I given you this work already?
Two, how many times were you sitting in my class not doing anything?
Three, you want me to grade an entire semester's worth of work because you didn't feel like doing it when it was assigned?

Give me a break!

But I guess I did what I did because I had to? I gathered up all that work and then they wouldn't even do it all! They would do just enough to pass.

It's like they asked themselves, “How much of this do I actually have to complete to pass?”

'Do you wanna graduate?'

I had this one boy I remember in particular. He started off doing the work, and a couple of pages in, it was obvious he had handed it to somebody else, and it was a girl at that. I knew it was a girl because of the handwriting. And half of it was wrong anyway.

The kicker? This was a Spanish class, and he was a Mexican. From Mexico.

So I found him, marched my happy little self down the hallway, and I chewed him out right there in front of God and his friends and everybody.

And I said, “You are going to do this work. You're going to come to my room right now and do this work.”

He wasn't happy about it.

I said, “Do you wanna graduate?” He was a senior. A senior in a junior-level class. It was May. And did I mention he was a Mexican in a Spanish class?

This system isn’t fair for the teachers who take the brunt of the work and blame. It’s not fair for the kids who do the work. It's not fair to anyone. It especially wasn’t fair to kids like him, because all that told him is he can continue to go through life not doing anything, and then at the end, everything that he needs will be handed to him.

Beorn yesterday

And here’s the flip side of that kind of scenario. I once had a student who broke his thumb playing football on the school team. We had a pretty strict technology policy — no personal cell phones or laptops allowed.

We had a new administrator that year, so I tried to make sure that everything was kosher and asked my principal if I could allow this student to use his laptop since he broke his thumb on his dominant hand and couldn’t really write. And I was told no, because of the technology policy.

How is it I was expected to accommodate the kids who don't do Jack Diddley but then I was not allowed to do something to help a child who had very good grades, was a very good student, had no discipline problems, and who had broken his thumb playing football for the school team? Explain to me how that was the right thing to do.

This is the American education system in a nutshell.

I have a question for you, Dr. Beorn: If I’m unqualified to teach my children, then what does that say about the system that trained me for 30 years? And why would I send my kids into that?

Until very recently, you had to be fluent in Greek and Latin to even be considered for admission to Harvard and other fine universities. Now, we struggle to get kids through two semesters of Spanish, and nearly a quarter of Americans are nigh-illiterate.

Maybe I’m not qualified to teach my children, Dr. Beorn, but I at least recognize where I’m deficient. Maybe, just maybe, if I do my job right, my kids will be competent enough to teach yours.

Hard target: What I learned at my first nighttime shooting competition

Bullets spilled out of the gun like loose teeth in a nightmare. I squeezed the trigger again: nothing. Then I performed a “tap-rack-bang” — the gun equivalent of blowing into a Nintendo cartridge. Nothing.

Every time I racked the slide, more 9mm rounds tumbled out of the Walther PDP Compact 4. I squeezed the trigger again. More spillage. More teeth.

The range at night was disorienting, a real equalizer. Darkness could downgrade even the most skilled daytime shooters.

I hadn’t expected to dominate my first nighttime shooting competition, but this was ridiculous.

Under the supermoon

It was a windy 55 degrees on the firing line under the glow of a supermoon — the last of 2024. It was my first time at the range after sunset, and there I was, fumbling with a gun like some kind of purple-haired vegan barista.

The moonlight made everything feel dreamlike, glassy, and strange. It was dark. And apparently, I had loaded the rounds into the magazine backward, something I’d like to believe I could never do in daylight.

This wasn’t just my first night shoot; it was my first shooting competition of any kind, even as an observer. While I’ve gone to many ranges over the years, I’ve only made it a habit in the past three months.

The event was hosted by the committee members of my local sportsman's club and the owner of Blackbush Armory, a high-end gun shop specializing in tactical and custom firearms and gear, including all the iconic firearms of history and lore. Typically, the club doesn’t allow shooting when it's dark, but this “Whiteout Shoot” was an exception.

I shot last, so I had time to observe the walkthroughs for each stage and watch the 11 other shooters.

Their spread of gear was magnificent — thousands of dollars’ worth of rifles and pistols and optics and cases and vests and ammo, all laid out like tiny metal fortresses. They were ready for any scenario, but not arrogant about it; happy to help anyone who had shown up less prepared.

Multiple times, guys offered me equipment, advice, and encouragement.

I’d heard about the event from my friend, a gun collector who had previously introduced me to the joy of Henry repeating rifles, and my dad, who didn’t compete. Initially, we’d planned to cover a Sig Sauer event in Oklahoma City, but this local shoot was a more interesting alternative. At the very least, it was a unique way to spend a Saturday night, well worth the $10 entry fee.

Stage 1: Pistol

The course of fire for Stage 1 included three scenarios. First, shoot an array of steel plates horizontally, then shuffle left and knock out vertical targets. Then eject your magazine and fire your last shot at the bull's-eye plate on the left.

The faster, the better. Scores were based on both speed and accuracy. After each shooter finished, the safety officer rattled off numbers to the scorekeepers in the bunker.

The range at night was disorienting, a real equalizer. Darkness could downgrade even the most skilled daytime shooters.

“Just focus on getting out there,” said my friend, handing me a replacement pistol. “And even if you don’t hit a single target, you’ll be all the more successful the next time you hit one. That'll double your accuracy. And most of all, enjoy the big goofy smile you’ll have.”

Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss — PING!

Around the fire

Here we were, a group of heavily armed men, soft-voiced and jovial. The atmosphere was calm, yet focused — a level of tranquility you’d expect at a monastery. We could just as easily have been gathered around a fire in the shadows of a cave, millions of years ago, equipped with the same ancient instincts of survival and camaraderie.

Civilizations need strong men and women on the local level. And by gathering at the gun range on a Saturday night, we expressed faith in the strength of our neighbors. Iron sharpens iron. Trust is enacted, not invoked — actions, not words.

Because here’s a truth about gun culture: This joy is rooted in discipline and protocol.

Safety protocol was strictly enforced. This was a cold range, meaning all firearms had to remain unloaded unless the competitor was under the direction of a range officer. The rest of the time, you stayed behind the red line, away from your weapons.

The event organizers had even notified the sheriff that we’d be shooting at night, in case anyone reported gunshots. Odds are, nobody did — most people were still blasting fireworks every night to celebrate Trump’s landslide victory nine days earlier.

The youngest competitor was 16, shooting alongside his grandfather. The rest of us spread across every decade in between them. Among the group were a former pilot, an entrepreneur, a sheriff, and a professional drummer.

Stage 2: Rifle

Rifles make more sense to me than handguns. They feel natural. So I was less nervous heading into Stage 2, although a vague static lingered in my mind.

The gun shop owner, serving as safety officer, was calm and encouraging. He told me about “sweeping,” accidentally pointing the rifle uprange toward the guys. “Keep your muzzle forward,” he said, adding humbly that he’d once been disqualified for this exact mistake.

“Make ready.”

Magazine in. Bolt back.

BEEP.

In Stage 2, you began crouched behind an obstacle in a surrender position (hands raised, rifle slung on your back). Lean left around the barricade, flip the flashlight on, and fire two shots at the first cardboard target. Then scoot right to the next target.

To my relief, the motions felt natural. The anxiety dissipated.

Next, lean right, two shots, then move to the final target — a hostage situation. The “hostage” was a cardboard cutout nicknamed Macaulay Culkin being manhandled by a “terrorist,” a featureless paper cutout. The challenge was to hit the bad guy without blasting Macaulay to Neverland.

Lost in the cosmos

Heading into the final stage, everyone had talked a lot about the cosmos. It felt like the moon was within reach, glorified by a rainbow-like crown. Low-flying propeller planes puttered toward the local airport, just northwest of the hilltop casino. Everything around us could be charted by its trajectory and velocity.

Guns have only been around for the past millennium or so. But their lineage runs much deeper, and political actors often ignore this reality. Use of weapons preceded the discovery of fire. Early humans were strapped with spears, clubs, and hammers.

This military mindset accelerated civilization and led to political order.

Humanity has always advanced at the pace of its weapons. Some tools spread by innovation, others by necessity or force. Guns were the latter. Societies without them had no choice but to adapt or surrender.

The invention of the ship is also the invention of the shipwreck. Guns deliver godlike power. So our handling of them has to be grounded in clear-cut morality.

Gun culture is misunderstood in this respect. It’s not primarily a political movement; it’s a communion with the past, a metric of the technological present. Some collectors find meaning in cars or cameras. Guns are different. They aren’t just artifacts; they’re instruments of life and death, protection and apocalypse.

Stage 3: Rifle and pistol

The final stage required both rifle and pistol. We moved to the skeet-shooting area on the other side of the range. The entire field was volcanic, crowded with the bright orange clay discs that trap and skeet shooters substitute for birds.

Each step disrupted the rubble. “That’s the crunch of shattered pigeons,” said the kind extrovert who, like many of the guys, had been giving me advice and encouragement.

“Maybe I’ll just do the rifle part,” I suggested. “I don’t feel great about the pistol part.”

“Don’t,” said the kind extrovert. “It’s worth it to challenge yourself. Pistols are work; rifles are fun. The real competition is with yourself.”

The course of fire involved two scenarios, ending with a target shaped like a goat.

The ricochet sparks of bullets against steel lit up the dark. And a red light flashed any time you hit a target.

When it was my turn, I surprised myself by hitting all but one pistol target. The lads cheered.

Then I strode left. Crouched, grabbed the rifle, readied to fire, and — nothing. The night ended with a rifle jam — fitting, given how my evening started. But this time, it was mechanical, not ignorance. “That’s a major malfunction,” said the safety officer. Then he helped fix it nonchalantly.

Ping-ping. Ping. Now for the finale. I took a breath, fired. The shot grazed the goat, but I ended the night with a goofy smile that matched my friend’s prediction.

By the end of the competition, what began as three distinct groups had coalesced into a single community. Moments like these are a crucial reminder for an era trapped in a permanent state of revolution: Any civilized society is armed to the teeth.

Too busy to keep a journal? That's why you should keep a journal

I write in a journal every night.

Well, I try to write in a journal every night. “Try” being the key word. Saying that I write in a journal every night is somewhat of an aspirational statement. I hope that by saying it, I will end up actually doing it.

Kids say the funniest things. Sometimes, that’s all I write down. These years are only so long, and I don’t want to forget.

But I don’t. I never fulfill the promise. I always screw up. I miss days all over. I work too much. I don’t get done until right before dinner. Then, we eat and put the kids to bed.

At that point, I’m beat so I pour another cup of coffee and get back to work. Then, of course, I forget to write until I am lying in bed, and by that point, it’s too late.

My life is too busy to write every night. And tragically enough, that’s why I should write every night.

To the lighthouse

We all keep a journal for different reasons. I keep one to remember things I don’t want to forget. For some reason, writing down what happened helps me remember.

And even if I can’t recall it right away, after rereading what I wrote down all those years ago, a switch is triggered in my mind, and all of a sudden, the memories come rushing back. All I needed was a little lighthouse to get me to the shore. That’s what my journal is. I’m building little lighthouses on the pages so one day I can find my way back.

Sometimes, I sit at my desk and flip through the pages. I read an entry from years ago. March 20, 2019. That little lighthouse leads me back to that memory hidden in the dark corner of my mind. I’m there again.

Take 10

The next entry on the following page is five months later. My God. Why didn’t I write? What happened? I don’t remember anymore. There are fleeting images and events, but I can’t put a date to them. Was that 2019 or 2018? Or 2020? Where did my memories go?

They are there, I know they are. But I can’t find my way back. I’m lost. Why didn’t I write? Just 10 minutes here and there. That’s all I needed to do. I was too busy.

Kids say the funniest things. I write down a lot of those. Mispronounced words. Hilarious questions. Disturbingly insightful comments that only kids seem to make because they have no filter and their minds are free to wonder about anything they choose.

Sometimes, that’s all I write down. These years are only so long, and I don’t want to forget.

Built to spill

A journal isn’t only about documentation of memories for future reference. There’s something therapeutic about writing it down. Take a pen and paper out of the top drawer. Sit there, and write. Spill it all out. Don’t hold back. There’s no one watching. No one listening. You can be who you are. Don’t be afraid.

Sometimes, we need to get something out. Some people like to talk things out. But no one ever tells everything. We all keep the most tender parts hidden. But writing in that paper journal is our chance to bleed it out of us.

And after we do it, we feel better in some way. It’s therapeutic. We take part of our heart, put it onto paper, then close the cover, and slide it back in the bottom drawer. There we go. Take a deep breath, exhale.

The pen is mightier

Writing it all down isn’t like typing in some word processing program, either. It’s different. Yes, it takes longer, but that’s not really it. It’s that it’s personal. Truly personal.

You hold the pen against the paper. These things are real physical things you are grabbing with your hand. You write the words in the handwriting that is only yours. You yourself are spilled all over the open journal.

One day when you die and someone finds what you wrote, they will know it is yours by the handwriting that died with you. Those pages remain. They linger. Those pages of confession hang around after we are gone. Unless we burn them, of course. And that’s OK, too. The act of writing itself is enough.

It’s a little old-timey, in truth. It’s a bit of a lost practice. Now, we are either all so busy, don’t want to be old-fashioned, or think our endless stream of photos on our smartphones do the trick. They don’t.

It doesn’t really make sense why they don’t; a picture is worth a 1,000 words, right? But they don’t. The private journal — offline, away from the cloud, handwritten, secret. Something human and so personal. Something that can’t live on the internet.

There is no irony in your journal, no hot take, no condescension. It’s you. Truly you and nothing else. In our world of performative irreverence, the mask of social media is always tied on tight; a journal is a last stand of honesty. A catalog and a memorial of who we really are, deep down with nowhere left to hide.

I need to write in my journal more.

Dressing clean? How what you wear can drastically improve your health

I've always been skeptical of "fitness."

Health, I understand. When I was single, I never ate out and generally avoided processed foods. And now that I am married, I make our meals from scratch with wholesome ingredients. We walk a lot.

I have friends who believed they were intolerant to gluten until they stopped wearing polyester. Now they can enjoy bread without issues.

In other words, we try to maintain our health — the fundamental well-being of our bodies, minds, and souls.

But to me the word "fitness" often points to just another way to objectify the human body — to see it as a tool. Fit for what? For being a model? For being more attractive as a wife and more efficient as a mother?

We should eat less and exercise more, the books and videos tell us.

Doing so will regulate our hormones and make everybody love us more. We'll get a slimmer waistline and stronger arms. We'll be "sexier" and "healthier," and we'll feel good about it. We'll eat more protein. We'll invest in gym equipment. We'll start taking supplements and maybe selling them — as long as we're achieving peak health, we might as well make a little money off our friends!

And we'll go through diet after diet. The average woman will try around 126 over the course of her life. Why? Because many women just can't make diets work for them. They find that those last few pounds are impossible to lose, or they realize that their obsession with what they can't eat makes them anything but sexy or attentive. Their bodies are stressed, and their hormones suffer for it.

But all this focus on what we put in our bodies leads us to ignore something just as important — what we put on our bodies.

Diet culture is too neurotic to figure out that it needs a simpler, more holistic approach. After the chapter on "The Waist-Friendly Pantry" should come the chapter on "The Hormone Stabilizer Wardrobe."

How you dress affects how you feel perhaps just as much as what you eat. I have friends who believed they were intolerant to gluten until they stopped wearing polyester. Now they can enjoy bread without issues.

Unpleasant, sour body odor is also often the result of wearing synthetic fabrics, which keep your pores from breathing and trap moisture against your skin. Dressing in natural fibers can be a big improvement.

How you dress affects how you feel about yourself -- but it goes well beyond taking pride in your appearance. Wearing synthetic clothes is like eating McDonald's, packaging and all — it's just that it enters your body via your skin instead of your stomach.

The quality of your clothing will influence your hormones, emotions, and overall health. Not only can changing your wardrobe eliminate gluten intolerance and body odor, you might also find yourself having fewer migraines, rashes, and food sensitivities, as well as less bloating.

A wardrobe overhaul doesn't have to be expensive. With a little planning, it can end up costing you less than any prospective diet. Even if you can't sew your own garments, you can find plenty of wool, linen, and cotton clothing at thrift stores and on Facebook marketplace.

And you don't have to do it all at once. You can start with one or two linen dresses — try them for a week and just see how much better you feel. Once you understand the impact a few inexpensive, natural-fiber garments can have on your health and happiness, you'll never look back.

Transitioning didn't make me a woman — but rejecting trans ideology taught me what it means to be a man

I am a 31-year-old man. I am engaged to the love of my life, a woman with whom I look forward to building a family. I have a rewarding job. On top of all this, Donald Trump takes office in just under seven weeks. I am optimistic about the future for the first time in 10 years.

I also used to be trans.

There are no rights that normal citizens have that trans people don’t. What they want are bonus rights. They want to compel all of society to validate their desired identities.

Specifically, I am an MtFtM detransitioner — i.e., I was born male, experienced severe gender dysphoria, decided that I needed to live as a female, transitioned, realized that this wasn’t the “solution” I thought it would be, destransitioned, and have gone back to living as a man.

The hard truth about transitioning

Based on this experience — which included hormone therapy, facial feminization surgery, and breast augmentation — as well as extensive research, here are some things I think gender-dysphoric males should consider before transitioning.

Just because someone referred to you using she/her doesn’t mean you passed to them.
A very small percentage of males have the capacity to ever pass, and even for most of these, it will require surgery.
There are real long-term health consequences to hormone replacement, including but not limited to infertility and a vastly elevated risk of testicular cancer.
It is not the case that if you don’t transition you will inevitably end your life. It is not clear from the best evidence reviews that transition even improves one’s chances.
The source of your dysphoria is almost certainly a paraphilia called autogynephilia. This is not a value judgement. It’s why I transitioned, and it doesn’t always feel like the sordid caricatures many critics of trans highlight ...
... but it is a paraphilia. It is not an innate female psychology, it is not a sense in which you “are a woman” mentally. It is a desire born out of your love for/attraction to women. It’s worth knowing this.
You will become much more invested in how other people see you, which is deeply unhealthy. You’ll be paranoid about whether someone clocked you, whether someone judged you.
This is because your new identity is based entirely on perception and social approval, whereas your sex is a physical fact and so is independent of perception.
If you are one of the vast majority of trans-identified men motivated by autogynephilia, having genital surgery may remove your desire to live as a woman. Then you must choose between continuing to pretend or admitting you made an almost unimaginably huge mistake.

These facts should be part of any legitimate informed consent process to access transition treatments. But they’re not, so it falls to me to share them.

Autogynephilia: Trans ideology's third rail

The most accurate description we have of the causes of male gender dysphoria and desire to transition comes from the work of Ray Blanchard. He identifies two distinct etiologies of MtF desire to transition.

The first type are homosexual transsexuals. These will show female-typical behaviors and preferences from an early age, tend to transition younger, and show shifts toward the female average in many physical and psychological traits. This is likely due to prenatal under-masculinization.

They will be shorter, have a more naturally feminine build, have female-typical digit ratios, have brain fMRI results shifted toward the female cluster, have female-typical rates of violent crime, and have female-typical hobbies and interests. HSTS transition primarily in order to attract more masculine male partners than they could as gay men. Many are very invested in the idea of having straight boyfriends.

The second type are autogynephiles. These are heterosexual men with a cognitive trait that causes them to internalize their sexuality. They are attracted to women, but this is aimed at themselves, so they feel ugly in male bodies and excited/satisfied by the thought of having a female body, wearing women’s clothes, occupying traditionally feminine roles, etc.

Even though they are orientationally heterosexual (not turned on by pictures of naked men, when measured in laboratory conditions), they sometimes have sex with men to fulfill their desire to occupy a female sexual role. They sometimes even marry them. But they exhibit none of the natural feminization that HSTS do.

They have male-typical brain scans, male-typical height and digit ratios, male-typical (or worse) levels of criminality, and male-typical interests. They have very high rates of autism and personality disorders and high average IQs.

'Trans women are women' and other lies

The activists leading the trans movement tend to be males with AGP. So what do they mean when they use the phrase “trans women are women”? They know they aren’t literally female. Women in what sense? I am a detransitioner, and I still have no clue how this statement is supposed to be true.

They are not physically female, and they are not psychologically feminine-shifted. People will confidently say things like “gender is a social construct” as if this has been proven in a lab somewhere. In reality, it’s just something that some feminist writers said. It has as much scientific weight as a poem.

If you attempt to pin down what this means, you will find a bunch of sex-role stereotypes that these same activists will disavow in other contexts. Gender is stereotypes, but also trans women don’t owe you femininity! There is no coherent intellectual core.

They deploy their arguments cynically and feel no need to make them consistent or to provide evidence for them.

And what is this movement fighting for? There are no rights that normal citizens have that trans people don’t. What they want are bonus rights. They want to compel all of society to validate their desired identities.

How I cured my dysphoria

Are the vastly increased rates of transition in recent years a sign that society is more enlightened and aware?

Or do they rather highlight the fact that for thousands of years, people managed to cope with gender dysphoria just fine — at least without demanding that we upend science, law, and truth to accommodate them?

I suspect the latter, as I used to have severe dysphoria and figured out how to stop having it.

I felt intensely ugly to myself, hated my maleness, avoided mirrors, didn’t like sex or male roles or thinking of myself as a man. I finally fixed it by:

Accepting the Blanchard model and understanding that the root of my dysphoria was autogynephilia: My attraction toward women had become internalized. I felt like I couldn’t love myself as a man.
Dealing with my childhood sexual trauma that had caused me to hate men and, by extension, myself.
Learning to simply not think about it so much.

We must form men, not deform them

I think when we look back on the madness of progressivism, it will be clear that the trans issue, more than any other, destroyed the left. When all the respectable institutions lie to us so blatantly, we start to wonder what else they’ve been lying about.

According to several studies, all groups of transsexuals have mean IQs well above average. Encouraging a high-IQ population to sterilize themselves via physical and chemical mutilation seems like a bad idea. Dysphoria should be seen as a challenge to overcome rather than an identity to center one’s life around.

We must find better ways to help people who suffer from dysphoria. The world needs more competent, confident men. Most of the traits categorized as “toxic masculinity” are actually underdeveloped masculinity. Being bitter, entitled, cruel, crass, and vindictive are not traits of men. They are traits of people who never truly became men.

Gender ideology tells men who may be struggling to achieve mature and healthy masculinity that their struggles are a sign that they need to abandon manhood and medically modify themselves. When this fails to improve their lives, it tells them that this is because of the intolerance of society. It teaches them to externalize their locus of control.

If it were intentionally designed to exacerbate mental illness, it could hardly do so more effectively than it does now.

Even the most extensive and convincing interventions will fail to make a trans woman female; all they can do is alienate him from his male virtues. An ideology that encourages such deformation does a grave disservice to both the people it purports to help and to the society from which it demands increasingly unhealthy “acceptance.”

iFixit fights for your right to repair

Liberty and property are closely linked and inseparable from civilization. A life without private ownership is not truly free.

Property rights are enshrined in the Constitution. So most of us assume that we have a right to repair our own property. But what does that mean in the era of the subscription model, when much of what we own has been dematerialized into the digital?

Apple, John Deere, and various automakers have resisted the right to repair movement, arguing that third-party repairs could compromise safety, security, and intellectual property.

Modern electronics, cars, and farming equipment have become harder to fix due to locked software and complicated ownership boundaries, making us dependent on expensive repairs and unnecessary replacements. The giant corporations make a lot of money off the maintenance and replacement of their products, and they want to keep it that way.

This means citizens increasingly have less claim to their own property.

The right to repair movement arose from the indignation of crafty people, from tech users blocked by Apple’s strict proprietary terms to farmers locked out of repairing John Deere tractors. One of the most promising examples of pushback is iFixit.

A tinkerer's dream

iFixit is the libertarian tinkerer’s dream. The organization's motto, “Free repair guides for everything, written by everyone,” has made it the heart of the right to repair movement. Founded in 2003, iFixit empowers consumers with free guides, tools, and parts, fighting against the closed systems of major manufacturers. Its mission is simple: Extend the life of products and return control to the consumer.

This mission was born out of frustration. It all started the way most tinkering does: with a broken machine, no instructions, and a lot of trial and error.

I spoke with Elizabeth Chamberlain, iFixit’s director of sustainability, via email. As Chamberlain shared with me, “Kyle [Wiens, iFixit co-founder and CEO] dropped his laptop off his dorm room bed and couldn’t find a guide for how to fix it. He took it apart himself, wrote a guide, and put it online — and found a ton of other people who’d had the same problem. He teamed up with Luke [Soules, iFixit co-founder and "CxO"] to get people the parts and tools they need to get things fixed.”

Their passion for empowering consumers has grown into a full-fledged movement. iFixit’s founders didn’t just want to fix their own devices — they wanted to inspire others to do the same.

Apple bites back

But iFixit is more than just a guide provider. In 2015, after iFixit published a tear-down of a pre-release Apple TV, Apple removed iFixit's app from the App Store for violating its nondisclosure agreement. Instead of backing down, iFixit got stubborn, improving its mobile site and continuing the fight.

In 2022, the company teamed up with Google and Samsung to offer self-repair programs. But it cut ties with Samsung in 2024, citing poor repairability practices — note that iFixit severed the relationship. The Google partnership, however, endures, providing Pixel phone parts and consumer-driven repair.

Rights shield us from external threats, including an unchecked state or, in this case, bloated corporate megaliths.

Unsurprisingly, big corporations like Apple, John Deere, and various automakers have resisted the right to repair movement, arguing that third-party repairs could compromise safety, security, and intellectual property — the typical scare tactics used by powerful entities to maintain control.

Apple claims that unauthorized repairs could void warranties and tamper with its proprietary designs. John Deere uses software restrictions to lock farmers out of fixing their own tractors, citing intellectual property concerns. Automakers keep repair codes locked behind dealerships, warning that unauthorized repairs could affect safety and security.

The right to repair movement counters that third-party repairs, when done correctly, do not compromise security, that consumers should have the right to repair what they own, and repairability can be built into products without infringing on proprietary designs.

Repairability also makes sense economically. Researchers determined that by fixing products instead of replacing them, consumers could save $882 million per year in Colorado alone. This shift supports a circular economy, where products are reused, refurbished, and repaired, rather than discarded.

Legislative wins

The right to repair movement has also gained significant legislative traction. New York’s Digital Fair Repair Act opened the door, followed by victories in Oregon, Minnesota, and California.

Colorado has played a particularly valuable role in the fight, and Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone proudly declared the state a world leader in right to repair. The state’s 2024 Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act set a new standard, possibly the most comprehensive defense of right to repair in the country, even gaining support from Google. Apple grudgingly complies.

It is Colorado’s third right to repair law, following earlier wins for farmers’ equipment and powered wheelchairs, and targets practices like “parts pairing,” which manufacturers use to prevent independent repairs.

iFixit has played a pivotal role in shaping these laws, providing expert testimony and educating lawmakers. As Chamberlain noted, “We want to fix the copyright barriers to repair, including the outdated Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which places unfair restrictions on the sale of repair tools. In the best possible world, those restrictions will be lifted and repair access for all products will become standard across the world.”

Reclaiming control

And the movement’s momentum isn’t just domestic. Laws protecting people’s right to fix their own stuff have passed in Canada, Australia, and the EU. India, Thailand, and Taiwan are developing repair frameworks.

“Right to repair is winning,” Chamberlain told me. “Many other countries are considering possible legislation, too.”

The future of right to repair hinges on continued legislative victories and overcoming corporate pushback. While Chamberlain expressed optimism, saying “We think the right to repair ball is rolling, unstoppably,” she also acknowledged the potential for setbacks if manufacturers tie legislation up in court. Still, the tide seems to be turning toward a more repair-friendly future.

As Chamberlain suggested, everyday people can make a difference by engaging with the movement: “Visit https://www.repair.org/ to learn more about the movement and find out what’s happening in your state.” The call to action is simple — take ownership, take action, and repair what’s broken.

At its heart, the right to repair is about more than just fixing things — it’s about reclaiming control. It’s about breaking free from the corporate grip, slashing repair costs, and reducing the endless cycle of unnecessary data. With iFixit leading the charge, everyday people may have a chance to shape the future — not just by consuming but by repairing its breakdowns.

Looking to save big on a car? Dealerships have never been more desperate to sell

Unsold inventory has car dealers feeling the pinch — which means there's never been a better time to buy.

Before 2020, it was unusual for a new car to sit on a lot for more than 200 days. Now we're seeing cars not move for 500, 600, and even 700 days — thanks to a combination of car supplies returning to pre-COVID levels and rising prices.

As a dealer trainer for different brands and dealership groups, I've seen the problems excess inventory causes up close — and it's not pretty.

Quite a change from just a few years ago, when many dealerships took advantage of the chip shortage (and the ensuing vehicle scarcity) to charge as much as $15,000 over sticker price.

The tables have turned — and no automaker is exempt. Ford, Honda, Kia, Chevrolet, even Ferrari: You name the brand, and you'll find dealerships stuck with vehicles from 2022, 2023, and even 2024.

With 2025 models arriving, this is a problem.

As a dealer trainer for different brands and dealership groups, I've seen the problems excess inventory causes up close — and it's not pretty.

Car dealers purchase vehicles on a floor plan, essentially a revolving line of credit. This can be interest-free for the first 60 to 90 days. Ideally, you sell within that period. If you don't, rates get pretty high, and it all adds up quickly when you're talking about inventory totaling hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

Dealers are highly motivated to get these mobile money pits off of their books. They'll offer incentives (or "spiffs") to the sales team to get them sold. And salespeople will offer potential buyers spiffs of $500 to $1,000.

If that doesn't work, the dealership will often simply pay off the car to relieve the debt. Many times the dealer principals will drive an unsold car for a few years, then sell it at auction for a fraction of the price or even donate it to charity.

Sometimes taking a loss is the smartest business decision — every so often. But 10 or 20 losses are a different story.

Alternatively, the dealership could also use such a car as a demo vehicle or as a loaner car for the service department. Although with this option, rising insurance costs are still a burden.

So what does all this mean for you? In short: big savings.

Remember: Dealers are highly motivated to sell their inventory. Alway ask for the deal — loyalty or conquest discounts could mean between $500 to $2,500, depending on the cost of the vehicle. You can pay less than MSRP on even the most in-demand models, so look around. And don't be afraid to drive out of state to buy — it could mean saving thousands of dollars.

And if you're not picky, look for cars in unpopular colors or trims or older model years. Or consider picking up a demo car or a service loaner.

It's a buyers' market, so negotiate with confidence. And that includes dealer fees — they're not set in stone either.

The best destinations for celebrities fleeing the Donald Trump regime

It’s become an election tradition: Every four years a long list of Hollywood celebrities and musicians vow to leave America and never come back if the bad orange man wins. Then the vast majority of them stay and complain for the next four years instead of honoring their commitment.

After Trump’s surprise victory in 2016, A-listers like Miley Cyrus, Bryan Cranston, Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, and Samuel L. Jackson couldn't wait to be the first to bid America a hearty "adios."

Yes, pretty-socks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently backpedaled on his aggressive pro-immigration policies, but this is Canada we're talking about here.

None of them left — and only Jackson had a credible excuse (he was playing a Magic 8 ball in a late night sketch when he said it.)

Miraculously, all escaped political persecution for opposing the dictatorial new regime.

This time around, the list of forgotten celebrities talking about a one-way ticket away from the Land of the Free is longer than ever, encompassing such shining stars as John Legend, Chrissy Teigen, Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee, Amy Schumer, Sharon Stone (who is “certainly considering a house in Italy"), Barbra Streisand (who “can’t live” in Trump’s America), and Cher (definitely leaving, still mad about the "ulcer" she got from the 2016 election).

But, wait — there're more! Elon Musk’s son (a man living as a trans woman and going by the name Vivian Wilson) has also promised to leave, citing the lack of a future in a Trump-led United States. Hope he saves room in dad's Cybertruck for Kamala shill Cardi B and race hustler Whoopi Goldberg. The latter might want to head out sooner rather than later, given the defamation suit against her.

Now some celebrities do follow through: P. Diddy’s “clowning around” friend Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, have moved to the U.K. following Trump’s win and say they will never be back. "Desperate Housewives" star Eva Longoria first left years ago for Mexico and Spain and says she just couldn’t live in “dystopian” America any longer.

Nonetheless, these courageous deserters are in the minority. We know most celebs are so exhausted just from fleeing X that that they need a couple spa weeks before they can contemplate packing up their stuff in real life.

When they're ready, Align is here to help with our list of MAGA-free destinations. Hollywood stars, we hope you'll think of us Align your treasured personal assistant — one you never have to worry about "going number two" on your personal toilet.

Haiti

Now that thousands of Haitians have recently settled in Springfield, Ohio, the time is ripe for a little cultural exchange. Pets welcome!

What's more, Haiti comes personally recommended by none other than carrot-topped funnyman Conan O’Brien, who spent four days in the Caribbean nation in 2018 in response to reports that President Trump had labeled it a "sh**hole."

His verdict? "Haiti is great already." Your move, Mr. Drumpf!

Unfortunately, the Haitian embassy in Washington, D.C., did not respond to our inquiries by the deadline; it is worth noting the U.S. embassy in Haiti is on ordered departure status due to instability and violence. That's one way to describe your new home. We call it gentrification-ready!

Commonwealth countries

REDA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The beauty of moving to the United Kingdom is that at least 45% of the population speaks English as their native language — so no need to translate your "in this house, we ..." yard signs. And if old Blighty's not to your liking, why not try one of Great Britain's former colonies, like Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa?

While none of the embassies for these countries responded by press time, all are always open to skilled workers, especially in the fields of pretending to cry on camera and starting athleisurewear brands.

And don't overlook our neighbor to the north. They gave us Jim Carrey, after all — isn't it time we paid them back?

When asked about the possibility of fast-tracking VIP asylum-seekers, Canadian officials responded with an enthusiastic “all applications from around the world are assessed equally against the same criteria.”

Yes, pretty-socks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently backpedaled on his aggressive pro-immigration policies, but this is Canada we're talking about here. As long as you pose for a few selfies with the border guards, you're good.

Germany

Jenny Anderson/Print Collector/Getty Images

How ironic would it be to flee America's Hitler by building a life in the homeland of the OG Nazi himself? (Potential screenplay idea?) Not to worry, his type is no longer welcome here, thanks to the country's robust, new anti-fascism laws. You post a hateful meme, you're going to jail — no questions asked.

A German official wouldn't comment on celebrity escape visas except to quip “established procedures remain in force.” Sooo German. Anyway, that's exactly what the door guy at Lure says. We're sure you're on the list.

North Korea

Gavriil Grigorov/Mark Von Holden/NBC/Getty Images

Talk about exclusive! Not gonna lie, it's not easy gaining entry to this worker's paradise — especially as an American imperialist aggressor. But if you do, the scene is way less competitive than L.A. or New York.

As North Korean-born influencer Yeonmi Park puts it, “In the free world, children dream about what they want to be when they grow up and how they can use their talents. When I was 4 and 5 years old, my only adult ambition was to buy as much bread as I liked and eat all of it.”

Somewhere you don't have to feel guilty for not counting every carb? Sounds like heaven to us.

The ocean

Heading for a better life by sea is a classic refugee move. Just in time for the coming collapse of democracy, one Florida cruise company has taken boat people chic and added an upscale twist:

“Villa Vie Residences has capitalised on the election results by offering Americans a four-year escape - the length of a presidential term - starting at around $160,000 per person, taking guests to more than 425 ports in 140 countries.”

It's just like your Ayahuasca shaman at Burning Man says: The journey is the destination. All aboard!

Kevin Mazur/Anadolu/Getty Images

Medusa lurks in Tulsa, Oklahoma

In Steven Spielberg’s 1993 adaption of Michael Crichton’s popular novel “Jurassic Park,” there’s a scene in which Muldoon, the game warden, explains to the group that the velociraptors understand their caged predicament as a problem to be solved.

“They were testing the fences for weaknesses systematically,” he says, as the group peers anxiously into the pen.

So was McAdams really praying in earnest to the mythical snake-haired goddess you probably learned about in eighth-grade English?

Of course, later in the film, when the park’s security system is shut down, the raptors do manage to escape their cage, leading to Muldoon’s bloody death.

I bring this up because it reminds me of what just happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, earlier this month.

The Demon Star

On November 20, an unremarkable woman named Ms. McAdams approached the podium at a Tulsa city council meeting. She was invited there to open the meeting with a prayer. And pray she did, but not to the God whom the state of Oklahoma recently decided to reinstate in its public school system by including the Bible in American history studies.

Ms. McAdams prayed to Medusa.

Introducing herself as a “priestess of the goddess,” she recited the following invocation.

I invoke the Gorgonea, champions of equality and sacred rage. I call to Medusa, monstrous hero of the oppressed and abused. I open the eye of Medusa, the stare that petrifies injustice. I call upon the serpent that rises from this land to face the stars, the movement of wisdom unbound. May these leaders find within themselves the embodied divine, the sacred essence of the spark of the universe and the breath of the Awen.

Place in the hands of these leaders the sacred work of protecting the sovereignty and autonomy of all our people. Gorgon goddess, make them ready and willing to be champions for all in this city, not just those in power. Shine a light for them that they may walk the path of justice protected and prepared, illuminating the darkness. Endow them with the fire of courage, the waters of compassion, the air of truth, and the strength of the earth itself. As above, so below; as within, so without; as the universe, so the soul. May there be peace among you all, and so it is.

Why Medusa?

McAdams opens by invoking the “Gorgonea,” a group of stars that make up part of the northern constellation Persesus. Consisting of four stars, the Gorgonea represents Medusa’s severed head. The brightest star among the four is named Algol — the “Demon Star.”

According to the myth, of which there are several versions, Medusa was once a beautiful priestess who was turned into a snake-haired gorgon by Athena after she was raped by Poseidon in Athena’s temple. From that point forward, men (there’s no record of women) who gazed upon her would be turned into stone. The hero Perseus was sent to kill Medusa. Using a mirrored shield, Perseus was able to avoid her stony gaze and behead her. However, her severed head maintained its powers and proved to be a valuable weapon.

So was McAdams really praying in earnest to the mythical snake-haired goddess you probably learned about in eighth-grade English?

Yes and no.

“Many Christians equate any reference to snakes or serpents directly with Satan, but I am referencing the serpents that makeup [sic] Medusa's hair. This is classical mythology and before Christianity, snakes were ancient symbols of feminine divinity, healing, and transformation," McAdams reportedly wrote in a Facebook post after her prayer sparked immediate backlash.

So in a sense, yes, McAdams was really praying to the serpentine Medusa from Greek lore.

However, those of us who know the truth understand that there is no snake-haired goddess dwelling among the stars who can assist the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in its battle for “equality” and “justice.” There is another serpent who could and would trick people into carrying out his sinister will under the guise of empathy and empowerment, but we’ll get to him in a minute.

McAdams is an occult priestess, meaning she serves a specific deity — in this case, the goddess Medusa. Theoretically, all rites and rituals she performs are aligned with the will of Medusa. To do this, she must be deeply connected to what the occult calls “the otherworld” or “the spirit realm.”

Modern priestesses are specifically concerned with raising consciousness and activating humans to carry out the will of the deity they serve. Notice how McAdams asks Medusa to inspire the city council members to act on behalf of certain “humanitarian” causes.

During my research, I was surprised to discover that McAdams’ worship of Medusa as a powerful goddess of femininity is very common among occultists. They write and speak about her as if she is real and can be called upon for help and guidance. Many report that Medusa appears to them in dreams; others find that snakes seek them out. This is how they know that Medusa is calling to them.

As I was reading, I came across multiple sources that instructed readers on how to “work with her.” It involves casting hexes on your abusers (remember: Medusa was raped), learning water magic and creating altars of seashells, coral, driftwood, and other oceanic items (Medusa was a sea deity), presenting blood sacrifices in the form of menstrual blood (Medusa is associated with feminine energy and power), and — surprise, surprise — collecting snake-related items, such as shed skin, amulets, etc.

Those who engage in these types of rituals all report the same thing: Medusa will come.

I believe them. I just don’t call her by that name.

Beyond the Gorgon

If it isn’t obvious already, Ms. McAdams and those like her are worshipping and carrying out the will of Satan — the shape-shifter who probably does appear or call to them in the form of a snake-haired goddess falsely promising righteous revenge on the male oppressors of society and deliverance for their female victims.

And for the record, it doesn’t have to be Medusa. The occult worships many different deities and supernatural entities with names you’re probably familiar with. They’re all satanic.

McAdams' prayer is a fusion of demonic and progressive ideologies, which are one and the same, as progressivism inverts biblical truth. She positions herself as all modern liberals do — a champion for the oppressed, in this case for women.

That’s why she specifically invokes Medusa, a goddess of feminine power and the ideal figurehead for the radical feminist movement that lauds abortion and trans inclusivity but despises masculinity and the nuclear family — and wraps these ideas in deceptive platitudes of equality and freedom so that they’re widely appealing. Satan loves the modern feminist for these reasons.

Breaches in the fence

Like the raptors testing the security of the fences that prevent them from devouring the park tourists, Satan and his demonic legions are constantly testing the boundaries that have been erected to keep evil at bay. Their intention is also to devour.

A decade ago, in Town of Greece vs. Galloway, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer before a legislative session was constitutional, so long as the opportunity was available to all faiths. I’m not surprised that Satan saw this as a chink in the fence. I’m also not surprised that we’re seeing him utilize this opening now, given Oklahoma’s recent decision to bring the Bible back into its classrooms. Further, Satan’s message is far more likely to land in this toxically empathetic society that rewards radicalism and fringe groups while demonizing anything that would fall under a Christian worldview.

But Oklahoma is not the first place the demonic has brazenly shown its ugly face to the public. Last December, the Satanic Temple erected a statue of the demon Baphomet in the Iowa Capitol building in the name of religious freedom. In fact, there are multiple examples of the Satanic Temple worming its way into the political arena.

These incidents are becoming more frequent as society’s “fences” become weaker and weaker. I hope we will not write off McAdams’ prayer as the dismissable ravings of a middle-aged woman who thinks Medusa is real. Medusa is real. His name is Satan.

American workers need dignified uniforms

When you look at old photos, you notice a lot of different things. Different cars, different clothes, different kinds of houses. More suits on men, more dresses on women.

One affirms dignity. The other induces a sense of childlike silliness.

No iPads, no tattoos, blocky TVs that looked like furniture, and big long station wagons.

You also notice that the workers wore clothes that were a lot nicer. All across the board, the average work uniforms of the past were nicer than they are today. A grocery clerk from the old days dressed with greater dignity than half the people you might find at a wedding in 2024. And the average worker in 2024 wears a uniform that can’t possibly do anything other than depress him. It’s sad but true.

The store uniforms we see these days tend to be graphic T-shirts with stupid little designs on the back. Of course, I would love to see nicer uniforms because I want everyone to dress better, and I would much rather look at decent clothes than ugly clothes; the beautification of our society starts with ourselves, and we can all make a difference. But the argument for nicer store uniforms isn’t only about what’s pleasant for others to see. It’s about the dignity of the worker and the quality of his life.

If I worked at a store and my uniform was a bright blue graphic T-shirt with a cartoonish design on the back, I really wouldn’t feel very good about what I was wearing. If I had to wear this uniform every day, I would feel silly and stupid. Infantilized.

It would be hard to take myself and my job seriously. If I was stuck working some stupid job I hated, wearing some dumb silly shirt every day would only make the whole situation worse.

I’m sure an argument for these graphic T-shirt uniforms is comfort. I’m sure the workers say they are comfortable, and the owners want their workers to be comfortable. Our society worships comfort, after all. It’s one of our great idols in 2024. The road to slob-world is paved with comfort. And while, of course, comfort matters, it’s not the only thing that matters.

You can sacrifice dignity for the sake of comfort. We do it every day in our culture. Furthermore, it must be said that a graphic T-shirt isn’t necessarily more comfortable than a properly fitting 100% cotton button-up.

Look at old photos of the past to see what properly fitting uniforms should look like. Full-cut pants with room to move easily. Loosely fitting button-ups with ample fabric around the midsection, chest, and biceps. The sleeves were easily rolled up with no constriction or an overly tight fit. Simple, dark shoes. The modern world of the 20th century was built in this simple uniform.

These clothes are no less comfortable than a pair of jeans and a graphic T-shirt. In fact, they are, believe it or not, more comfortable. People just don’t realize it. And the difference between this simple, basic uniform and the infantilizing graphic T-shirt is night and day. One affirms dignity. The other induces a sense of childlike silliness.

Workers deserve dignity. I know when you read that, you might expect to read next about insurance, time off, and workplace safety and not clothing and style.

But clothes matter, and they matter to everyone. A more dignified workforce means a more dignified society, and we all deserve a more dignified society. Nicer uniforms — uniforms that affirm the dignity of man — don’t need to be expensive. They don’t need to be finely made or particularly fancy. They can be simple and utilitarian. They just need to be dignified and serious. They need to command some kind of authority and purpose.

This was essentially how all uniforms looked in the past. The goofball uniform wasn’t a thing. There was an unspoken assumption that a uniform should convey seriousness. That assumption followed another assumption that adults should convey seriousness as well. This was the basic order of society.

Times have changed. The uniforms aren’t serious today because the society isn’t serious today. Men today are more likely to wear clothes that make a joke than clothes that make a statement of seriousness. Strength and beauty are not considerations for most people today when putting together an outfit. They should be; they were for most of history, but not today.

All of this has a terribly negative impact on the general psychological state of people in the America of 2024, but it compounds for the worker whose uniform feels more like an insult to injury than anything else.

Why require workers to wear something that is stupid and undignified? If workers are required to wear a uniform, let it be a uniform of dignity. It’s better for the worker, better for the customer, and better for the general aesthetic health of our society.