Find all blog entries at A Commoner Manifesto Substack.
The US Owns the Future
I’ve been reading a bunch of stuff on Rod Martin’s Substack and he’s got some pretty radical stuff, as in
China is toast. “China will lose 75 percent of its population over the next 75 years: it will actually be smaller than the United States.”
Russia is a mess. “Russia has lost the war in Ukraine”. How yer doin’ Vlad?
Of course then there is Europe. Shall we just say that Europe has lost the plot, as the Brits say. Their Muslim immigration is way bigger than ours, and their rulers just don’t seem to get it. Just like our Deep State.
I keep getting election-related X-posts from the Warrens and the Jayapals of the world.
TODAY: New SNAP cuts are kicking in because of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”
5 million people have already lost food assistance, including 1.5 million+ kids since the bill was enacted.
No kid deserves to go hungry so Trump can give his billionaire buddies another tax handout.
The horror!
I just released my framework for a new comprehensive way we can regulate AI and rein in Big Tech.
Here’s how it would work.
Jayapal is pushing a National AI Charter Act.
Know what, Rep. Jayapal? I don’t want you within a country mile of regulating AI. You know The Science, of course, developed by Scientist George Stigler in 1971:
public regulatory agencies eventually serve the private commercial or political interests of the industries they oversee rather than the public interest.
Experts call it “regulatory capture.” You do know The Science, Congresswoman? Aides and Staffers? Bueller? Anyone?
Know what I want, Rep. Jayapal? I want the AI companies to be totally liable for any damage done by AI. And maybe they should get insurance. Or maybe Peter Thiel should get all the tech lords together and make their fortunes available to help ordinary people in case AI goes west.
Back to Rod Martin. He has a piece out today, “The Future is Underpriced”, predicting the future being built for us by Elon Musk.
Thousands of Starships mean ubiquitous, cheap, regular travel between continents in less than an hour. They’ll also enable the deployment of whole armies around the world in that same short time.
Not to mention emergency supplies in case of earthquakes.
Starship lowers the cost of Starlink and increases [SpaceX] profits. Orbital data centers create enormous demand for launch, power, communications, and maintenance. Lunar infrastructure supplies mass and materials. In-space manufacturing creates more valuable things in space. Mars settlement—not bases, cities—becomes just the inevitable next step in a rapidly expanding economy.
Don’t forget that we make be talking about transport costs of $5 per pound from Starship.
Then there is Tesla and its Optimus robot. If you combined Tesla and SpaceX and X-AI, well,
A combined company would not merely own pieces of the future. It would own the stack: launch, satellites, autonomy, robotics, batteries, solar, AI, communications, vehicles, orbital infrastructure, and eventually the infrastructure of off-world mining, manufacturing, and settlement. That’s not a conglomerate: It’s the operating system for the next era.
Yep. I get the opposition of our lefty and Democratic friends. Their dominatory and hegemonic power is based on taxing and regulating the products of the last five technological revolutions, from machine textiles to electricity to media to the internet. Imagine if they lose control! Oh, the Horror!
And by the way, how does religion and culture and politics and power work when humans get off-planet. Honestly, I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either, any better than all the sci-fi writers of the last century.
But I do think this. Our liberal friends got to dominate the post-agricultural world: not, I suggest, from exellence, but just from being in the right place at the right time. The time for feudal lords and absolute monarchs was over, and the era of top-down hegemony took its place. And despite all the politicians and dictators and administrators and activists, we still got to live in suburbs and See the USA in a Chevrolet and do free video calls with relatives on the other side of the world.
What will the future be like? Best thing is to admit that we don’t have a clue.
| Fri, 02 Oct 2026 21:27:30 GMT |
The Left Rules with Pejoratives
Our lefty friends — and their amen chorus in the activist community — rule by pejorative. You might say that is their real “political formula”.
Victor Davis Hanson is reminding us of this in a piece, “Genocide Hypocrisy”, about the eternal lefty narrative on The Gaza Genocide.
And you gotta say, lefty pejoratives work: they cow people and make them shut up.
So I thought: I need to understand all this better. And so, being a Thoroughly Modern Millie, I went to AI for help.
Yeah, whatabout “genocide”? Grok says:
The word genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, and first appeared in print in November 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
Then the Nuremberg trials got into the action, and the newly hatched UN, and
on 9 December 1948 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
So you can see that, starting in 1948, “genocide” was something that non-state actors and globalists could swing around like a rattle to make a noise about conflicts that fall short of actual war between states. Because, after all, when a nation state engages in a war with another state actor, war is war. If you flatten Dresden and vaporize Hiroshima and go on to win in World War II, it’s all part of the action.
But everyone, especially the special people of which we’ve heard tell, likes to issue moral pronouncements. It is so soothing.
I decided that it is high time to get AI to tell me exactly what is going on with all these pejoratives as far as the eye can see, from “racist!” to “genocide!” Another job for Grok.
A pejorative is a word whose job is to lower someone’s status and end the argument. “Racist,” “transphobe,” and “genocide” can name real things. Used as insults, they mostly do something else: they mark the target as outside the set of people whose reasons count.
Here’s Grok’s full analysis about the power of pejorative:
Stops the exchange. If the claim is “you are a racist,” the next move is often defense or apology, not evidence about the original topic. The label replaces the argument.
Signals the in-group. Using the word correctly shows you know the current boundaries. Refusing it, or asking for a definition, marks you as suspect.
Raises the cost of dissent. Social, professional, and sometimes legal penalties attach to the label even when the underlying claim is ordinary disagreement. That is useful if the goal is compliance rather than persuasion.
Compresses a complex dispute into a villain. Policy fights over borders, sex-segregated spaces, or wartime conduct become character trials. The other side is not wrong; they are evil.
Inflates urgency. “Genocide” demands action that “war,” “crime wave,” or “contested medical protocol” does not. The stronger word recruits allies who would not mobilize for the weaker description.
Yes, but what do you do when you have been accused of being a “racist”? I tend to use all these pejoratives in my writing in a satirical fashion. Grok says you should “refuse the label as a substitute for an argument”.
But I don’t agree. I think that Rule 5 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals — “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” — applies instead.
For instance, if some gay acquaintance accuses you of being a racist, a good response would be: “OMG, you are right. What’s the next step? Should you report me to the Ministry of Truth?”
And if your liberal friends starts descanting on the horrors of the Gaza Genocide, maybe you should tell them: “don’t just stand there: talk is cheap. Make a formal accusation to the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect (OSAPG).”
The main thing is not to accept the left’s narrative, and then make fun of it.
| Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:27:18 GMT |
Switch to Substack for more blog posts
Christopher Chantrill
He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, and is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington. Click for more.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
A Commoner Manifesto
Commoners have nothing to lose but their shame
The world must be made safe for democracy — Woodrow Wilson
The aesthetic is the distinction between beautiful and ugly — Carl Schmitt
The simplest way to understand human society is as Three Layers such as Nobles, Yeomen, and Serfs.
My take on Three Layers is my Three Peoples Theory of Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates.
I believe that we moderns live in Three Worlds: the War World of politics, the Market World of the economy, and the Life World of family and neighborhood.
And the trouble with politics is that it reduces human society to a war against the enemy, as determined by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt.
The world that we all live in today is the one created by the German Turn in philosophy, psychology, science, and meaning.
But our modern elite, the educated elite, has taken, I believe, a Wrong Turn and has imposed a cultural Great Reaction on the world, a lurch back to the primitive. This manifests in the elite’s conceited Activism Culture and its patronage of Subordinate people as its Little Darlings.
The principal reason for the elite’s Wrong Turn has been that it does not understand and does not want to understand how the Three Peoples’ Religions are necessarily different.
The root of the educated elite’s Wrong Turn is its conceit that it knows what the world needs. I think there is a better way; I call it “A Good Life Better than the Left”.
ABC of Politics – Activism Culture – “Anatomy of Revolution” – Allyism – Critical Theory – Downstream-ism – Dutch Finance – German Turn – Good Life – Great Reaction – Little Darlings – Perfect Plan – Women in the Public Square – Ruling Class – Three Layers – Three Peoples – Three Peoples Religion – Tribalism – Two Cultures – Wrong Turn
Today’s topic:
