Eddie Hearn, one of the world’s most influential sports promoters, recently appeared on Patrick Bet-David's podcast and made a bold claim.

Darts, he argued, will soon become one of America's biggest sports.

An average American player might scrape together $400 a month from sponsorships, often from local bars or niche dart companies — pocket change compared to theft sums earned annually by European players.

It sounds absurd, and in many ways, it is. But darts has undeniably surged in global popularity, fueled by breakout stars like Luke Littler, a teenage phenom from the U.K. who has shattered records and drawn comparisons to legends of the game.

Littler isn’t even old enough to drive, raising eyebrows about the countless hours he spends honing his craft in pubs. But that’s a story for another day. Also, calling anything a sport where you can develop a sizable gut while competing intoxicated is, at best, highly questionable. Yet again, a debate for another time.

The holy trinity of US sports

In the U.S., where 17 million people play, interest is rising — but there’s still a glaring lack of American stars. Not a single U.S. player ranks among the world’s top 183. What’s holding America back, and could this surge in popularity translate to cultural dominance?

For any sport to thrive in America, it must contend with the holy trinity of football, basketball, and baseball — giants that dominate the nation’s culture from playgrounds to prime-time television, leaving little room for challengers.

Soccer, after decades of struggle, has only recently gained traction, and that’s largely due to its global clout. Lionel Messi’s seismic arrival in Major League Soccer — the Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali of soccer—gave the sport its biggest boost yet, with the world’s greatest player choosing to cap off his legendary career on American soil.

Darts, however, lacks this global momentum and doesn’t have a Messi-like figure to ignite interest. Its roots are firmly tied to British pub culture — something far removed from mainstream American life. Yet, niche sports can sometimes find a foothold. Look at the explosion of pickleball, a somewhat ridiculous sport that has carved out its own space in U.S. leisure culture. Could darts follow suit?

Show me the money

The biggest hurdle for darts in the U.S. is simple: money.

This has been the case for years. In the U.K. and Europe, darts is big business. Top players live like rockstars, earning six-figure salaries through major sponsorships, tournament winnings, and a thriving league system. In the U.S., sponsorships are few and far between, and the payouts are minuscule.

This lack of funding creates a vicious cycle. European players, with their sponsorships and access to high-stakes tournaments like the £2.5 million ($3.1 million) PDC World Championship, can dedicate themselves entirely to the sport. Meanwhile, American players are stuck juggling full-time jobs with weekend tournaments.

The visibility problem

Money in sports follows visibility, and in Europe, darts thrives as prime-time entertainment.

Packed arenas, roaring crowds, and millions glued to their TVs have turned it into a cultural staple.

In the U.S., however, darts barely scratches the surface of mainstream attention. Most tournaments are relegated to online streams with limited reach and scant advertising dollars. Major network partnerships are nonexistent.

One of the barriers is the format. The U.K.’s fast-paced 501 setup is tailor-made for television, delivering quick, high-stakes drama. By contrast, the slower, less-structured Cricket format preferred in American bars drags on and fails to capture timed broadcasts' urgency.

Without adapting to a more TV-friendly format, darts is unlikely to rise above its current niche status.

Even if it did secure a coveted slot on American TV, success wouldn’t come overnight. It would take years — likely decades — to convince the average American to embrace a sport so alien to their cultural DNA.

Darts isn’t part of the U.S. sports fabric, and even the aforementioned soccer — a global powerhouse — remains a hard sell for many traditional sports fans, who view it as a foreign oddity. Compared to the deeply ingrained appeal of the holy trinity, darts faces a mountain few niche sports have ever scaled.

Waiting for a Messi moment

For darts to break through in America, it needs a defining moment — a charismatic star or cultural shift to ignite public imagination. It needs its Messi.

But that won’t happen without a unified league, major TV deals, and serious sponsorship money. Without these pillars, darts will remain on the fringes, trapped in hobbyist obscurity.

The interest exists, but without financial investment and visibility, the sport can’t hope to make the leap to national relevance. For now, the U.S. will stay on the sidelines, watching as Europe continues to dominate the world of darts.

Will Diddy take Jennifer Lopez down with him?

Elon Musk recently took a shot at Jennifer Lopez after she told women not to vote for Trump, sarcastically asking, “How many people did she warn against Diddy?”

While Trump's win seems to have killed off the celebrity political endorsement for good, it’s still a question worth returning to. From the looks of it, the answer is none.

A witness later claimed to have seen a female hand toss a weapon from the car, an observation that led some to suggest Lopez might have been more involved than initially believed.

Lopez’s relationship with Sean “Diddy” Combs, from 1999 to 2001, spanned one of the most turbulent chapters of his life. While the slippery showman was then at the height of his power, he also weathered explosive controversies — most notably a notorious 1999 nightclub shooting.

This sudden burst of violence cast a long shadow over everyone involved — Lopez included. More on that in a moment.

Coincidental connection?

The timing of Lopez and Diddy’s relationship coincided with her ambitious pivot from acting to pop stardom. A wise pivot, I might add — anyone who saw her stumping for Kamala Harris knows she’s better suited to lip-syncing than line reading.

Her debut album, “On the 6,” was in its early stages when she began dating Diddy, the head of Bad Boy Entertainment, a powerhouse label under Sony — the same company backing Lopez.

As her rise in the music world mirrored her time with Diddy, speculation mounted that their connection was more calculated than romantic, more strategic than sincere. Known for mentoring stars like Mary J. Blige and Usher, Diddy was key in shaping Lopez’s image as a credible singer. Lopez herself often called him a mentor, one who guided her through the creation of her first album.

Then came the night of December 27, 1999. Lopez and Diddy were at Manhattan hot spot Club New York when an altercation between Diddy’s crew and another group erupted into gunfire, injuring bystanders. Amid the chaos, Lopez stood beside Diddy, bearing witness to an incident that would dominate headlines for months.

In the aftermath, the police arrested Lopez, Diddy, and other members of their group after a gun was found in their vehicle during a high-speed attempt to flee the scene.

A witness later claimed to have seen a female hand toss a weapon from the car, an observation that led some to suggest Lopez might have been more involved than initially believed.

However, the exact nature of her role remained unclear. Despite her arrest, Lopez was eventually released without facing charges, while Diddy prepared for a lengthy legal battle.

Fall guy

During the trial, reports emerged that he had offered his chauffeur, Wardell Fenderson, money and even a diamond ring — a gift from Lopez — to take the blame for the gun found in the car. Although Fenderson initially complied, he later recanted.

Throughout the ordeal, Lopez kept a low profile, avoiding public comment on the shooting or her relationship with Diddy. Her silence, however, only fueled the flames.

Was she complicit in a cover-up, or was she strategically distancing herself to protect her rising career? Public appearances and interviews sidestepped the trial, focusing instead on her music and god-awful movies.

Meanwhile, Diddy’s defense, led by high-profile attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Benjamin Brafman, successfully painted him as uninvolved in the shooting, while Moses "Shyne" Barrow, a young rapper on Diddy’s Bad Boy label, bore the legal consequences.

Barrow's defense admitted he fired a gun in self-defense, contrasting sharply with Diddy’s complete denial.

In the end, Diddy walked free, while Barrow took the fall, serving nine years in prison. Lopez’s choice to stand by Diddy until the trial’s end only intensified the intrigue. Yet their relationship, like her career today, quickly faded into obscurity.

But the ghosts of the past have a strange way of resurfacing.

Barrow — now a member of the House of Representatives in Belize — is making the rounds as the subject of a new documentary, which can't help but put renewed scrutiny on that fateful night.

Jenny from the (cell) block?

As Diddy faces new federal charges of racketeering and other alleged crimes, the possibility of the nightclub shooting re-emerging in court looms. Lopez’s presence that night places her in the spotlight — as a potential witness or, conceivably, a participant.

Her testimony, or lack thereof, could be pivotal if investigators decide to revisit the incident as part of a broader investigation into Diddy’s criminal associations. But Lopez’s entanglement with Diddy runs far deeper than that single night.

The recent lawsuits lay out allegations stretching from the 1990s through 2022, a time when Lopez and Combs were America’s ultimate celebrity power couple.

A 37-year-old woman claims that Combs assaulted her when she was just 13 — with the help of an unnamed male and female celebrity — at an afterparty Combs hosted following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The lawsuit doesn’t reveal the identities of Combs’ alleged accomplices, but Lopez was his date that night, taking home the award for Best Dance Video.

Jenny may be from the block, but she could soon find herself looking at a very different kind of block — concrete walls and cold steel.

Why opposing immigration is not about 'whiteness'

If the Ku Klux Klan’s continued existence in the United States is unsettling, its emergence in Ireland is almost surreal. Yet here we are in a time when reality is much stranger than fiction.

Frank L. Silva, a former KKK member, has been actively collaborating with anti-establishment groups in Ireland, sparking media outrage and widespread head-scratching. Silva’s history shows how the Klan has evolved from its post-Civil War roots to modern offshoots. The dark irony here is impossible to overlook.

Irish immigrants were depicted in political cartoons as brutish, animalistic figures, often described as 'negroes turned inside out.'

You see, the Klan’s ties to Irish identity and the very concept of “whiteness” go way back.

The fighting Irish

The 19th century saw waves of Irish immigrants fleeing the Great Famine only to find themselves vilified upon arrival in America. The Ku Klux Klan, with its roots deeply entwined with anti-Catholic sentiment, exploited this wave of Irish immigration to fuel fear and division. Irish Catholics were portrayed as a threat to Protestant values and, by extension, to the American people.

If there’s one thing the Irish love — beside drinking, dancing, cursing, joking, and singing — it’s a good fight. Recognizing the threat, they met it head-on, fists raised.

One striking example of Irish defiance was the Notre Dame student uprising of 1924. When a Klan rally was held near their campus, Irish Catholic students stood their ground, showing strength in the face of real danger.

"But weren’t the Irish 'white'?" some of today's crusading anti-racists may ask. "Wasn’t the Klan all about preserving and promoting “white supremacy”?

This is where a little history lesson is in order.

White privilege?

In 19th-century America, Irish immigrants were not considered “white” in the same sense as Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were perceived as racially inferior due to a mix of religious, cultural, and economic biases.

Arriving destitute and in droves, Irish immigrants were seen as competition for low-wage jobs in rapidly urbanizing cities. Their willingness to work for less fueled native workers' resentment and economic anxiety — sound familiar?

Religious tension deepened these divisions. In a country founded on Protestant ideals, Irish Catholics were viewed as agents of the Vatican, a foreign power. This suspicion, stoked by groups such as the Know-Nothing Party, painted Irish Catholics as potential saboteurs of American democracy — loyal not to the United States but to Rome. The notion that the Irish could undermine governance gained traction in certain circles, giving weight to the Klan’s anti-Irish campaigns.

The animosity, while harsh, had roots in primal instincts — tribalism. A group of newcomers with strange accents and unfamiliar customs seemed wholly different. From an evolutionary standpoint, the suspicion made complete sense. Welcoming a complete stranger into your home with open arms is, at best, unwise. At worst, it can be disastrous.

However, the backlash against the Irish was extreme and largely detached from reality. Cultural narratives and pseudoscientific theories added fuel to the fire. Irish immigrants were depicted in political cartoons as brutish, animalistic figures, often described as “negroes turned inside out.”

This comparison underscored their perceived moral and intellectual inferiority, supporting the belief that they threatened societal stability. Books like "Comparative Physiognomy" perpetuated these stereotypes, further entrenching the racialization of the Irish and positioning them below the dominant white Protestant identity.

Franklin’s foresight

Earlier this year, the brilliant Steve Sailer revisited Benjamin Franklin’s essay “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind,” a polemic opposing the influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin worried that these newcomers would resist assimilation into English-speaking society, potentially reshaping the colony with their own customs and language rather than blending in and strengthening a unified culture. Less melting pot, more splintered silos.

Franklin’s fear was entirely reasonable. Shared skin color was no assurance of shared values or a cohesive society. The threat, as he saw it, was not merely foreign influence but the fracturing of what he considered the cultural fabric of early America.

This notion holds a striking parallel to modern debates. The idea that “white privilege” is a uniform experience ignores the varied and often tumultuous paths of European-descended populations. The Irish’s suffering during the Great Famine, the persecution of Eastern European Jews, or the challenges faced by Southern and Eastern European immigrants all challenge the monolithic narrative of privilege.

The only thread connecting these people was their shared hope for a better life. That’s it. They faced prejudice, economic struggle, and cultural exclusion. “Whiteness” has never been, and will never be, a simple, unified identity. True racism lies in denying this reality.

Franklin’s fears resonate in today’s world. The genuine celebration of diversity — a blend of backgrounds and traditions — has been warped by ideologies that prioritize superficial traits over shared cultural values.

Not that long ago, before the hyper-progressive mind virus took hold, we sought to respect differences while finding stable common ground.

Now, it’s about men in skirts, pronouns, and 700 different genders.

Degeneracy has taken the place of diversity.

EU-inspired erosion

The assumption that shared skin color equates to cultural uniformity is as flawed now as it was in Franklin’s era. This brings us to the larger consequence of global immigration and cultural dilution.

Once unique, robust cultures such as those in Germany and Ireland are now grappling with the consequences of globalization’s unchecked march. Mass immigration, driven by open-border policies and economic interests, has accelerated cultural erosion at an alarming rate.

The very essence of these nations’ identities is being submerged under the weight of Brussels-bred conformity. Franklin’s warning about cultural displacement, voiced over two centuries ago, feels prophetic today. The results of unfettered globalization can be seen in the loss of distinct identities and the rise of tensions that hark back to the very divisions that defined the Irish struggle in America.

The question is, how much will be lost before nations recognize the cost?

The re-election of Donald Trump offers the United States a glimmer of hope. But in Europe, hope is in short supply. In fact, one could argue it vanished years ago.

Bill Gates' insane plan to 'save' us: Block out the sun

Bill Gates has more money than most of us can even imagine. If he wanted, he could disappear to some remote paradise, live in absolute comfort, and never deal with any of us again.

But for the bespectacled billionaire, it’s never just been about money. It’s about power. The man has a god complex.

Would you really take health advice from someone who looks like he’d slip a disc opening a jar of pickles?

Sun scheme

His latest fixation involves blocking the sun. Yes, Gates, a man who looks like he hasn’t seen daylight in a decade, is backing a geoengineering project that would inject particles into the atmosphere to reflect solar rays, supposedly cooling the planet to reverse global warming.

It may sound like a science fiction plot — but it’s happening, and the implications are vast and unsettling. In short, a handful of tech moguls and venture-backed startups would be meddling with our planet’s climate on a scale that none of us voted for and none of us fully understand.

This method, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, aims to bounce sunlight back into space by dispersing particles in the upper atmosphere. But experts caution that the fallout could be devastating: unpredictable weather patterns, crop failures, droughts, and even shifts in hurricanes and disease patterns.

And, to make matters worse, it does nothing to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it’s a temporary Band-Aid, with the potential to send temperatures spiking if the project ever stops.

When billionaires like Gates throw their weight behind these grand schemes, there’s a troubling lack of oversight. Who ensures these experiments don’t lead to disaster? Who’s accountable if unintended consequences arise?

Without international regulations and transparency, we’re left to trust that a few wealthy individuals are acting in our best interests. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that powerful elites rarely — if ever — have our well-being in mind.

The gamble here isn’t just Gates’ money; it’s our future, our food, our planet’s ecosystems. Should Bill Gates be trusted with a project of this magnitude? Your gut says no — and you’d do well to trust it while you still can.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

The gut microbiome, an incredible ecosystem within us, plays a crucial role in digestion, immunity, mood regulation, and even cognitive function. Far more than a digestive aid, it’s so intertwined with our nervous system that it’s often called our “second brain.”

The gut-brain axis — a vast communication network involving the vagus nerve and complex chemical signals — links our gut directly to our mind, shaping everything from emotional health to behavior.

This fact is not lost on Mr. Gates.

His deep investment in microbiome research goes way beyond a philanthropic interest in improving health. Interestingly, Jeffrey Epstein, who met with Gates on numerous occasions, also contributed significant funds to gut microbiome research.

Gates' heavy involvement in both food production and vaccine development isn’t coincidental. It’s part of a broader vision that merges the two worlds, a concept that becomes most evident when you look at initiatives like edible vaccines. This blending of food and medicine sounds revolutionary, promising a streamlined way to deliver health interventions. But it also brings unsettling questions.

Who controls this supply chain, and who decides which treatments are slipped into our food? Embedding medicine in our meals could just as easily make us sicker and more compliant. Maybe that’s the point.

Microbial malfeasance

In this interview with Bild, one of Germany’s largest media outlets, Gates spoke about the critical “relationship between the microbiome of mothers and the future of children.”

He warns that disruptions in both the intestinal and vaginal microbiomes can have severe outcomes. An imbalanced vaginal microbiome, he argues, is linked to stillbirths and premature births, while a disrupted intestinal microbiome can heighten susceptibility to diseases like HIV.

According to Gates, these imbalances drive malnutrition in children, not due to a lack of food but because chronic intestinal inflammation impairs growth and development.

Gates isn’t wrong to highlight the microbiome’s impact on health — but let’s not forget, he’s not a medical doctor (yes, they’re often wrong too). Still, should someone with no formal medical training be meddling in such delicate areas of health? Of course not. And take a look at the man — would you really take health advice from someone who looks like he’d slip a disc opening a jar of pickles?

In his Bild interview, Gates leaned hard into his devotion to putting children on the path to proper growth and long-term health. How noble.

Edible vaccines — an emerging focus for Gates — could become the bridge linking his vast investments in food production and vaccine development, merging nutrition and immunization into one potent tool.

Good for Gates, who'll no doubt be one of the elites wielding this tool. The rest of us may regret not paying attention sooner.

Crucible of champions: The isolated region that breeds the UFC's stone-cold killers

At UFC 308 in Abu Dhabi, Khamzat Chimaev, a beast from Chechnya, showed the world why he’s becoming one of the most feared men in mixed martial arts.

Known for his brutal, relentless style and the nickname “Borz” (“wolf” in Chechen), Chimaev didn’t just beat former middleweight champion Robert Whittaker — he tore through him with a ruthless efficiency that left fans stunned. Within minutes, Whittaker — a fighter known for his strength and skill — was battered, his jaw tested by vicious strikes.

From a young age, boys learn to endure cold, navigate difficult terrain, and face challenges head-on. They don’t just hear stories of heroes; they are expected to become them.

Whittaker wasn’t just outclassed. He was embarrassed, thrown around like a cheap rag doll.

But to truly grasp the depth of Chimaev’s dominance, one has to understand where he comes from and what fuels him.

Where champions are made

The North Caucasus is a place synonymous with survival. These rugged mountains, shadowed by centuries of struggle, breed people with an iron sense of identity. No trans madness here. No teaching children that there are 700 different genders.

In places like Dagestan and Chechnya, where empires and Soviet boots once pressed down, boys aren’t just taught to fight; they’re taught to endure, to dominate, to win at all costs.

Fighting here isn’t recreation; it’s in the blood. It is, for many, a ticket to a better life.

While kids in the U.S. are glued to screens, boys here are rolling on mats, learning skills that build character and raw strength. Sure, they shed a tear — they are children, after all — but quickly wipe them away and resume training.

In America and other affluent Western nations, parents often cushion their children against the hard knocks of reality. Playgrounds are rubber-padded, and competitive games come with participation trophies. Schools emphasize positive reinforcement and conflict resolution through dialogue. Safety and self-expression are the goals.

But only a fool would deny that this soft approach has eroded the concept of toughness. Children in the U.S. and beyond, especially boys, are becoming weaker, both mentally and physically.

Contrast this with the North Caucasus, where raising boys is less about emotional insulation and more about preparing them for an unforgiving world. Here, childhood is not an insulated period of delicate growth; it’s an initiation into manhood.

From a young age, boys learn to endure cold, navigate difficult terrain, and face challenges head-on. They don’t just hear stories of heroes; they are expected to become them. The bar for what constitutes “soft” or “hard” is drawn starkly differently than in America.

In the North Caucasus region, by the age of 10 a boy has already practiced wrestling in the dirt and spent cold nights learning survival skills outdoors. Here, every boy is like a mini Joe Rogan, minus the tattoos and impressive bank balance. Failure is seen as part of learning, not something to be avoided. The experience is grueling but purposeful — the expectation is to grow tough enough to shoulder family and community responsibilities.

This isn’t cruelty; it’s preparation. Preparation for greatness.

Epitome of greatness

One cannot speak about greatness without discussing Khabib Nurmagomedov. To the people of Dagestan, he’s more than a champion. He’s a legend, revered with the same awe reserved for greats like Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan. Khabib is arguably the greatest UFC fighter of all time, a man who dominated with a ferocity that broke opponents. In the Octagon, he didn’t just win titles — he took souls.

Stephen McCarthy

If in doubt, let me point you in the direction of Conor McGregor. Before stepping into the ring with Khabib, he was the brightest star in the UFC, a fighter believed to be unbeatable. A sporting icon who had elevated himself to near-mythic status, McGregor was systematically dismantled by a monster from the mountains.

The buildup to their fight was nasty, with McGregor hurling cheap shots at Khabib’s now-deceased father. However, the Irishman, then the undisputed king of trash talk, would soon find himself getting a taste of his own medicine.

The moment the bell rang, McGregor, full of his usual swagger, quickly realized he was facing a fighter intent on destruction — specifically, the destruction of him and his legacy.

Clash of civilizations

The audience, the vast majority of whom expected yet another McGregor victory, also understood they were not just watching a contest; they were witnessing a reckoning.

With each takedown, Khabib sent a message to the world. He was there to make history. His ground-and-pound wasn’t flashy, but it was brutal, precise, and mercilessly effective.

McGregor’s legendary counter-punches, the lethal strikes that had taken down countless opponents, proved useless against the relentless force of the Dagestani. Every attempt to escape failed.

Khabib was relentless, a human Terminator, there to take McGregor apart piece by piece. The Dubliner spent most of the fight flopping around like a trout on a fisherman’s deck, desperately gasping for air.

In truth, October 6, 2018, was the day the Conor McGregor we knew and loved died. He never recovered. How could he? The Grim Reaper had just visited and violated him.

While McGregor was busy nursing his bruised body and his battered ego, Khabib returned to his homeland a hero. To the young boys of Dagestan, he was — and remains — a symbol of what's possible.

Meanwhile, in the West, many boys and girls worship fleeting idols — TikTok influencers and pop stars like Sabrina Carpenter — whose fame is built on hollow trends and fake personas. They are all style and zero substance.

We often speak of being "advanced," but take a hard look at our children and ask yourself: Are we truly moving forward, or are we losing the core values that build resilience, character, and true strength? Khabib’s triumph was more than a victory — it was a reminder of what real heroes look like.

Abercrombie & Filth: Inside a predator’s playground

Some predators hide in plain sight, shocking those around them when their crimes are finally revealed. Others give off subtle — and not-so-subtle — clues that something is deeply amiss.

Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries, arrested on sex trafficking and interstate prostitution charges last week, falls squarely in the latter category.

Victims were reportedly subjected to horrific experiences, including being injected with liquid Viagra by men dressed in Abercrombie uniforms.

During his time at the helm of the iconic American brand, Jeffries pursued a relentlessly hyper-sexualized marketing strategy built around homoerotic imagery and a cult-like worship of half-naked teens.

As this fetishization of youthful innocence intensified, Jeffries' face — like a reversal of Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" — seemed to bear witness to his depravity. A nightmarish regimen of fillers and plastic surgery turned the blandly handsome executive into a grotesque parody of the ideal Abercrombie customer.

As one Reddit wag put it, "He looks like he was bobbing for apples in a bucket of bees."

Epstein redux

The revelations surrounding Jeffries mirror the monstrous abuses of Jeffrey Epstein, with the former CEO reportedly using his power to orchestrate a calculated pattern of sexual exploitation. Like Epstein, Jeffries also had a private jet.

The indictment paints a grim picture. Specifically, an international sex trafficking ring as part of which Abercrombie’s brand was weaponized to lure and trap vulnerable young men, exploiting their ambitions with false promises of professional opportunities.

From 2008 to 2015, Jeffries, along with his partner Matthew Smith and employee James Jacobson, allegedly ran this operation with impunity all while exerting tight control over the company.

This was both a full-time operation and a depraved hobby.

Final sale

Witness accounts and legal filings describe a sordid quest for sexual gratification, with Jeffries and Smith luring young men with lavish trips to luxurious destinations in Europe, the Hamptons, and Morocco.

Once there, theses victims were reportedly subjected to horrific experiences, including being injected with liquid Viagra by men dressed in Abercrombie uniforms — agents of Jeffries who served more as enforcers than employees.

One Los Angeles man recounted being coerced into Jeffries’ hotel suite and enduring unwanted sexual advances that escalated to forced acts despite his repeated attempts to say no.

Jeffries headed Abercrombie from 1992 until 2014, turning it into one of the most successful clothing brands of the new millennium and generating massive profits for the company. Given the brazenness of Jeffries alleged behavior, the frantic efforts of current Abercrombie leadership to distance themselves from the scandal ring hollow.

It’s delusional to think Jeffries and his accomplices acted completely under the radar. His predatory actions were fueled by a culture of silence, sustained by a network of enablers who willfully ignored the abuse. As in Epstein's case, powerful people could have intervened and stopped the abuse. They simply chose not to.

J Cruel

Jeffries’ control of Abercrombie extended far beyond the brand’s image. That he even dictated the attire and behavior of his private jet staff reveals a tyrant detached from reality, consumed by his own twisted desires.

Jeffries' dictatorial rule went unchallenged for years — and no doubt would've continued had he continued to deliver. His downfall was not the result of a reckoning for his crimes but a response to declining sales and changing cultural attitudes that made his vision unsustainable.

But the issue, I suggest, goes far beyond Jeffries himself. This is a story of a brand culture that fostered tyranny and silenced dissent, one that thrived on reducing people to their body fat percentages.

Abercrombie’s entire aesthetic — a fixation on youth, beauty, and chiseled abs — was built on a foundation of control and exploitation. The implications of this culture are not isolated to one corrupt CEO but extend to an entire industry, where the commodification of innocence creates an environment ripe for abuse.

More precisely, the abuse of children.

Bait and Fitch

A recent Stop The Traffik report highlights the broader reality of the modeling industry, where hopes and dreams are weaponized by traffickers and predators.

In countries like Colombia, Ethiopia, and Russia, assurances of a glamorous lifestyle are used to bait young, impoverished individuals into exploitative situations. Promises of modeling careers quickly become coercive, trapping victims in cycles of manipulation and sexual exploitation.

The entire industry is run by multi-millionaires and billionaires, people with their own private security and private islands. People who, on the whole, play by a very different set of rules. Or no rules at all.

Dirty laundry

As we reflect on Abercrombie & Fitch’s dark legacy of sexualizing teens, it’s vital to remember that this culture was crafted by an immoral predator. Naturally, the company hopes you’ll forget. In fact, it’s banking on it.

Rather incredibly, retail analysts suggest the brand's campaign to memory hole its sleazy past is working. Newer customers are too young to remember while older ones seem to have accepted Abercrombie's reinvention into something more muted and mature.

But no amount of rebranding can erase the reality that Abercrombie didn’t just enable Mike Jeffries — it rewarded him handsomely. It wasn’t merely a matter of giving a platform to a possible psychopath (and I don’t use that term lightly); Abercrombie empowered and enriched him while turning a blind eye to his behavior.

For all its attempts to exorcise the memory of Jeffries, the company will forever be tied to a man whose degeneracy nearly destroyed it. The exploitation of kids wasn’t an accident — it was the business model. Jeffries was the architect, and Abercrombie was his enabler.

And that’s a legacy you can’t wash away.

The Great Replacement is real — and happening to Ireland

The Great Replacement theory is often dismissed as a tinfoil-hat-wearing fever dream, a fringe notion that only the most paranoid could entertain.

Yet in Ireland, it is playing out in real time, driven by policies that explicitly aim to replace the native population with an influx of foreign-born residents.

As an Irishman, I write this with a mixture of anger and absolute sadness. A truly wonderful country full of truly wonderful people is being destroyed, and the elites are enjoying every second of it.

Far from being a wild conspiracy, this demographic transformation is a stated goal of the Ireland 2040 plan, which seeks to integrate massive numbers of migrants into a small island nation, eroding its traditional identity and social fabric. The elites are giving the Irish a glimpse of their future, and it’s nothing short of grim.

Critics, begone!

Irish-born Canadian Stefan Molyneux — long ago unpersoned by the mainstream media for "white supremacy" and other offenses — tried to raise the alarm some five years ago, only to have YouTube promptly ban his video. It still survives in places online, allowing you to take in his calm, careful argument against the initiative ... if you dare.

The rationale provided for the 2040 plan is riddled with fallacies. The supposed inevitability of a growing, diversifying population is nothing more than propaganda. Population growth is portrayed as an unstoppable force, akin to natural phenomena like aging or the changing of the seasons.

In reality, this is a man-made phenomenon, a social construct pretending to be something organic. The Irish government’s claim that by 2040, the island will be home to millions more people, is treated as a foregone conclusion.

But this outcome is far from inevitable. It is the direct consequence of policies that prioritize open borders and mass migration over the preservation of cultural identity and social cohesion. Yes, demographic decline is a concern. But who we're letting in is a far bigger concern. The government seems fixated on issues of quantity; elected leaders should instead be obsessing over the quality of people entering the land they are paid to protect.

Selling a fantasy

The economic argument for mass immigration falls flat under scrutiny. Politicians sell the public on the fantasy that immigrants from the third world will seamlessly integrate, fill labor gaps, and support an aging population. However, this narrative ignores stark differences in academic qualifications, cultural practices, overall work ethic, and the fact that many struggle to speak basic English.

Believing that large numbers of people from regions with vastly different cultural and economic backgrounds will immediately become tax-paying, productive members of society is not only unrealistic but delusional. Moreover, it’s dangerous. It creates a permanent underclass, with associated increases in crime and social unrest.

It’s not about xenophobia or prejudice; it’s about recognizing that nature, evolution, and/or divine design have shaped different groups for different environments, much like how wolves and dogs have adapted to their specific habitats. An Aboriginal would struggle to adapt to life in a modern Western city just as much as an urbanite would fail to thrive in the harsh Australian outback.

Just like the Biden administration, the Irish government uses deceptive language to mask its eagerness to embrace diversity at all costs. When officials speak of social cohesion and sustainability (a term that means everything and absolutely nothing), what they're really endorsing is a future where traditional Irish communities are replaced by multicultural enclaves.

This transformation is being portrayed as something beyond the control of the people, an unavoidable reality of globalization. But history shows that immigration patterns can and have been controlled. Ireland existed for thousands of years without being swamped by third world migration. What has changed is not the inevitability of population growth but the willingness of the government to undermine its own culture in the name of diversity.

Dublin or Durban?

As Molyneux shows, the parallels with Africa serve to illustrate a number of important points. Moving people from the third world to first-world countries is not a solution; it is a transfer of problems from one region to another. The carbon footprint of a Somali arriving in Dublin skyrockets compared to what it would be if they stayed in their native village. The notion that immigration somehow benefits the environment is a clever bait-and-switch. It is a pernicious plan that sacrifices cultural preservation and social stability at the altar of radical egalitarianism.

The Ireland 2040 document is filled with vague bureaucratic platitudes about sustainable growth, environmental management, and community development. Yet, nowhere in its many pages is there a real plan to preserve what makes Ireland unique. Instead, the plan involves diluting the native population and creating a new society in which diversity is celebrated as an end in itself, regardless of the consequences. The influx of foreigners is not just a policy choice; it is a cultural bulldozer, demolishing centuries of history in a matter of decades.

Today, Ireland looks a lot like Africa. Literally. The streets of Dublin resemble the streets of Durban. The people are not being asked whether they want this; they are being told it is happening, whether they like it or not.

The dismissal of concerns about the loss of social cohesion as mere racism reveals the extent to which the discourse has been manipulated. True racism lies in the refusal to acknowledge the legitimate fears of those who see their communities transformed before their eyes. It lies in the sneering disregard for the cultural heritage of a people who fought for their independence, only to find it threatened again, this time not by foreign armies but by native-born lawmakers.

Godless globalism

Ireland does not need to become a multicultural experiment at the behest of an administrative aristocracy more interested in global accolades than in the welfare of its own citizens.

As an Irishman, I write this with a mixture of anger and absolute sadness. A truly wonderful country full of truly wonderful people is being destroyed, and the elites are enjoying every second of it. They’re dismantling what it means to be Irish, all for the approval of the beasts in Brussels, most of whom will will never set foot in the communities they’ve helped destroy.

This is not progress; it’s a betrayal. The Irish spirit — once fierce, unbreakable — is being suffocated under the weight of policies designed to strip it bare. We are not just losing our identity; we are having it stolen from us, and those responsible are laughing as they do it. All the while, the Irish citizens — good, decent people like my mother and father — are left to watch in heartbreak as the country they cherished morphs into something truly horrific.

DEI gave us Kamala Harris — the doctors it produces may be even worse

We've had mediocre presidential candidates before, elevated beyond their ability thanks to money, connections, or their family name. Kamala Harris is the first one to make it to the top explicitly because of her race and sex. As such, she's the living embodiment of DEI.

If Donald Trump defeats her, it will certainly strike a potent blow against this poisonous ideology. But Harris is merely the most high-profile beneficiary. Our institutions are already so captured by DEI that American lives are at stake.

Is a white man’s life worth less than a black woman’s? Through DEI’s oppressor-victim hierarchy, the answer is unequivocally yes.

Any serious attempt to undo the damage of a decade's worth of anti-meritocratic policies must begin in our medical schools

Ill communication

A recent report from the medical watchdog organization Do No Harm makes for a sobering read. American medical schools are prioritizing political agendas over essential health care education, with potentially dire consequences.

Titled “Activism Instead of Anatomy,” the report claims that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are overshadowing traditional scientific and medical training at institutions nationwide.

At the heart of the problem lies a clear departure from rigorous scientific training toward ideologically driven content. Medical students are now being subjected to courses that prioritize social and political goals over traditional medical knowledge.

This includes an increased emphasis on identity politics and social theories that have little to do with developing the skills and knowledge essential for competent medical practice. This shift is eroding the essential knowledge needed for effective patient care. Moreover, this shift comes amid declining public trust in the medical establishment, which, rather than rebuilding confidence, seems intent on pushing Americans away — or into an early grave.

Rigor mortis

One of the report’s most alarming findings is the diversion of crucial time and resources away from core medical training. Medical curricula are already demanding, yet DEI-focused coursework consumes hours that should be dedicated to vital subjects like anatomy, pathology, and pharmacology.

Essentially, the rigor of medical education is being diluted, leaving future physicians less prepared for real-world challenges.

Beyond replacing essential training, this ideological shift raises serious ethical concerns. Students are pressured to adopt a specific worldview, with dissent risking punishment (more on this later). Ironically, in the name of inclusivity, medical schools are stifling intellectual diversity.

Training doctors to view patients primarily through an identity-based lens fosters division and undermines the principle of treating individuals as individuals. Is a white man’s life worth less than a black woman’s? Through DEI’s oppressor-victim hierarchy, the answer is unequivocally yes. White privilege has never looked so distinctly dangerous.

This is not hyperbole. When identity politics and political correctness dominate medical training, there is a tangible risk of professionals prioritizing ideological considerations over evidence-based care.

For example, as the report notes, the fixation on “correct” language and politically charged issues like transgender health care has, in some cases, overshadowed the need for solid, patient-centric approaches. While culturally competent care is essential, it should not replace scientifically sound medical practice but complement it.

Doctor Feelbad

This ideological push in medical schools risks seeping into the broader health care system. When doctors-in-training are taught to prioritize identity markers and politically charged agendas over clinical facts, this mindset can infiltrate hospitals and influence health care policies, compromising every single aspect of patient care. The obsessive focus on DEI initiatives often sidelines efficiency and merit-based advancement, ultimately affecting patient outcomes.

Remember, DEI agendas come at the cost of meritocracy. As a result, medical schools are not only admitting objectively less qualified students, but they are also producing objectively less competent doctors compared to just a few generations ago.

DEI is genuinely destructive, posing existential risks in critical areas. In truth, it's a matter of life and death, with significantly higher amounts of the latter, if the report is to be believed.

What we’re witnessing here is the professionalization of grievance and the prioritization of activism over expertise. Medical schools, once places of necessary knowledge and innovation, have transformed into training grounds for the next generation of political activists. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

Worse yet, much of the DEI narrative rests on a shaky foundation. Or, to be more accurate, no foundation at all.

Stage 4 racism

Recently, Dr. Kendall Conger, a former emergency physician at Duke University Health System, was terminated for questioning the claim that racism is a "public health crisis."

When Conger requested data to support this assertion, none was provided. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the institution punished him for raising a legitimate concern. This reaction reveals the hostile environment that sane medical professionals now face, where challenging the narrative leads not to discussion but to retribution.

Cancel culture still exists. Common sense? Well, not so much.

The report’s conclusion is clear. Medical schools must resist this ideological encroachment and refocus on their primary mission: Equipping future doctors with the skills and knowledge to save lives and improve patient outcomes.

Yet, the damage seems done. Curricula take years to develop and implement. Even if the entire DEI agenda were addressed logically today, it would take years to return to the basics. In the meantime, more doctors will graduate, and more Americans will pay the ultimate price — with their lives.

Could America's politics of contempt lead to civil war?

When Taylor Swift, America's most notable "childless cat lady," belted out "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together," she was singing about one of her many exes.

But she might as well have been commenting on the state of American politics. The left and the right are like two people trapped in a toxic, spiteful relationship, each seething with contempt for the other. Is a national "breakup" inevitable?

This is where the left stands today: not only criticizing the other side but actually rejoicing in its suffering.

As this election makes especially clear, each side views the other as a threat to America’s future.

The left looks at the right and sees a stubborn, regressive faction clinging to an outdated vision of America — one that resists diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The right, meanwhile, sees the left as a dangerous, self-righteous force tearing down the foundations of the country in the name of progress.

While both liberals and conservatives face the temptation to villainize their opponents, these days, only one side seems to consider the other as irredeemably evil.

For all his allegedly "divisive" rhetoric, Donald Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he intends to work for all American citizens, regardless of race, color, or creed. It's a big tent, and even his political "enemies" are welcome.

Consider Trump's recent, much-misrepresented vow to protect women "whether the women like it or not."

On the left, by contrast, public figures like Sam Harris and Destiny openly scorn conservatives, branding them as “low information” or low IQ — sneering as if they’re talking about a different species altogether.

To quote another Swift song, "You Need to Calm Down."

Destiny's Childish

Destiny, born Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, lives up to his pretentious name. But he’s not just pretentious; he’s downright repugnant.

Recently, he has become the left's primary attack dog, embodying the worst kind of partisan contempt. This bitter, angry provocateur frequently pops up on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" and a number of popular podcasts, where he revels in his role as a divisive figure. On social media, meanwhile, he can be found posting the vilest of opinions.

Shortly after the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, the tiny terror took to X to ridicule Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old volunteer fire chief who lost his life at the rally. This wasn’t just a comment on political differences; it was a callous dismissal of another human being's life, purely because he was on the "wrong" side.

This is where the left stands today: not only criticizing the other side but actually rejoicing in its suffering. Political opponents are seen as irredeemable, less than human, and unworthy of sympathy, even in death.

Figures like Destiny don’t just stir up disagreement; they stoke the flames of disgust and dehumanization that widen the divide in this country. Political leaders only make matters worse. Hillary Clinton’s infamous 2016 remark labeling Trump supporters as “deplorables” didn’t just alienate millions; it arguably cost her the election.

Fast forward eight years, and Joe Biden’s recent characterization of Trump supporters as “garbage” only served to emphasize the left's utter contempt for half of America (more on this in a minute).

Ballots before bullets

Just a decade ago, the idea of Americans going to war against each other again seemed unthinkable, a relic of a brutal past. The Civil War was history — a reminder of the darkest days of division and bloodshed.

Yet today, that distant fear feels closer than ever. The idea of Americans clashing not just at the ballot box but on the battlefield no longer seems absurd. The seeds of hatred, distrust, and outright disdain have already been planted.

This brings us to the psychology of contempt. And the contempt is visceral.

To be clear, contempt is not mere anger; it runs much deeper. It’s loathing; it’s sheer hatred. According to psychologist Dr. John Gottman, contempt is the strongest predictor of lasting estrangement. It’s a malignant cancer — once it takes hold, the prognosis is almost always dire.

What can be done? In personal relationships, contempt can sometimes be eased through open communication, empathy, and a genuine effort to understand one another. But the divide between the left and right today is vastly different and far more complex. We’ve crossed a line — the Rubicon, if you will — and there’s really no turning back.

United we stood

The truth is that the only event likely to unite the nation for more than a fleeting moment would be a tragedy on the scale of September 11 — a catastrophic incident that compels all Americans to confront their shared humanity amid the chaos.

In the wake of those devastating attacks, Andrew Kohut from the Pew Research Center conducted a thorough analysis of public opinion, comparing sentiments expressed before and after that fateful day. His findings revealed that the attacks not only galvanized a sense of national identity but also altered the public's perception of threats, trust in government, and overall political engagement. The United States of America was, at that moment in time, truly united.

But that was then, and this is now.

On second thought, I ask, would even a second September 11 be enough to unite the nation? That’s how fractured the country has become, and things are likely to get much worse before they get better. I take no pleasure in saying this, but we must confront this harsh reality if we ever hope to change the nation’s trajectory.

With each passing second, contempt deepens, and the possibility of uniting the nation slips further away.

Is J.D. Vance the most impressive politician in America?

Well, I ask, is he?

Just a few months ago, speculation ran rampant that Donald Trump might have to drop Vance as his VP pick. Yet, Trump—a man renowned for his loyalty to those he believes in—stood firm, and it’s proving to be a shrewd decision.

In a time when victimhood culture glorifies self-pity and weakness, America’s future Vice President—and maybe even future President—is the perfect antidote.

Vance’s resurgence isn’t happening on traditional political stages or major cable networks. Instead, he’s reemerged as a compelling figure on the podcast circuit, trading banter with Tim Dillon, Theo Von, and (most recently) Joe Rogan. This relaxed, long-form format has been ideal for Vance to showcase his intelligence, wit, and relatability to millions who rarely tune into cable news.

Pain and poverty

This transformation should prompt us to revisit "Hillbilly Elegy," Vance’s gripping memoir of his battle against generational poverty and familial chaos.

I love this book. Absolutely love it. It’s a heartfelt tale of his turbulent upbringing in Middletown, Ohio, amidst his mother’s drug abuse and the instability that came with it.

As a child, Vance’s life was marked by chaos and despair. As his mother’s addiction to painkillers spiraled, Vance found himself weathering her erratic outbursts and devastating relapses. He was caught in the crossfire of domestic violence and shuffled between unstable homes.

Through it all, there was one stable presence in his life: “Mamaw."

Tough as nails and unapologetically blunt, Vance's grandmother became the anchor he desperately needed. She wasn’t just a caretaker—she was his defender, shielding him from his mother’s bad behavior and instilling in him a sense of self-worth and resilience. This was something Vance discussed in great detail with Von, another man who was raised in a rather chaotic environment.

True grit

Despite the turmoil, Vance fought his way to the Marines, Ohio State University, and eventually Yale Law School.

His journey from literal rags to well-earned riches is a lesson every American, regardless of their political beliefs, should appreciate. In a time when victimhood culture glorifies self-pity and weakness, America’s future Vice President—and maybe even future President—is the perfect antidote.

Vance’s story isn’t just one of success; it’s a testament to personal responsibility and grit. He doesn’t sugarcoat the harsh realities of his upbringing or American life.

And he isn’t seeking sympathy. Instead, he stands by the belief that adversity isn’t a life sentence—it’s the fuel for genuine greatness.

Breaking snooze

It's no surprise that the rise of a white man to a position of power has been met with fierce resistance on the left. The mainstream media is desperate to paint Vance as an unhinged, misogynistic nutjob intent on turning America into something out of "The Handmaid’s Tale."

But who, other than the most deluded, is actually listening to what they are saying?

Articles that might have caught some buzz a few years ago have lost their sting. No one cares what Mother Jones has to say. Nobody’s losing sleep over what some blue-haired Gen Z hysteric at Salon or HuffPost churns out.

Fewer still care what the New York Times has to say. This is the first post-MSM election, the first independent media election, where figures like Vance gain credibility through long-form, unfiltered conversations on podcasts.

Tapper-ed out

But Vance can chew gum and walk at the same time. He knows the mainstream media still holds some sway, despite what almost a decade of Trump derangement has done to their credibility.

Recently, Vance went head-to-head with CNN’s Jake Tapper in an engrossing, entertaining showdown. To put it bluntly, Vance wiped the floor with his adversary. It was like watching a grandmaster toy with a novice. Vance played the role of Magnus Carlsen, while Tapper assumed the role of Mr. Bean. Expertly, I might add.

With cool confidence, Vance dismantled every trap, flipping each loaded question into a chance to hammer home his points. He stayed composed and unrattled, while Tapper grew visibly frustrated. It wasn’t just an interview—it was a takedown.

Yes, Tapper is an exemplary MSM stooge, and his motives are transparent. But let’s be clear, he’s no dummy. In that interview, however, Vance made him look like one.

Real talk

Of course, any discussion about independent media and the decline of the MSM would be incomplete without mentioning Joe Rogan. Trump recently appeared on his podcast -- the world’s most popular -- and knocked it out of the park.

Both Trump and Vance thrive in long-form discussions that can veer off into unexpected territory. Why? Because they’re real people, capable of talking about anything from sports to completely offbeat topics.

Dem-bots

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, on the other hand, come across as DC-androids, pre-programmed to hit only the safe, PC-approved talking points for brief, scripted moments. In many ways, they’re the weird ones, not Trump or Vance.

Harris, in particular, seems to have hitched her fortunes to the sinking ship of mainstream media—a move that feels like booking a first-class ticket on the Titanic as it speeds toward the iceberg.

As is clear to anyone with a functioning brain, Trump and Vance are gaining momentum at precisely the right time—just days before Americans cast their votes in arguably the nation’s most important election. Ever!

And, remember, when you vote, you’re not just voting for Trump. You’re voting for JD Vance, a man who may very well be a future president. And judging by his recent podcast appearances, a very fine one at that.

Not bad for a man bequeathed a heritage of grief, suffering, and chaos. Not bad for a man who turned an "elegy' for his forgotten part of the country into a vision for the future of all Americans.