Max's Musings

Today we return to “Max’s Musings” series, where I quickly opine on a series of unrelated current events or anything which piqued my interest. Let’s begin.

You can’t complain about being stereotyped unfairly if you do everything possible to confirm it:

Ben Leo@Benleo

Me: certain nationalities in UK are more likely to commit sexual offences than Brits Leftist nutcase: “I’m gonna break your f*****g jaw.” ICE detention facility in New Jersey. I’m not surprised Charlie Kirk was murdered. These people are lunatics.

6:36 PM · May 31, 2026 · 4.01M Views

5.45K Replies · 9.28K Reposts · 70K Likes

I’m going to talk about the Karmelo Anthony case in a bit more depth later on. However, anyone who doesn’t think that black people don’t go out of their way to confront or unjustifiably escalate even the mildest of confrontations is being willfully obtuse. It’s very obvious why rates of crime and violence are so high in the black community, why so many blacks end up arrested, incarcerated, or killed by police.

Of course, leftists also habitually threaten violence, so it’s not all about race. Even so, the sort of zero-to-sixty escalation you see in the example above is unique to black culture. It’s a problem that’s dogged America for generations and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, as long as blacks exist, it’ll remain an inseparable feature of our landscape.

A recent Gallup poll revealed something interesting about the personal morality of liberals:

InteractivePolls@IAPolls2022

GALLUP: Partisans’ Views on Moral Acceptability (% who say “morally acceptable” Abortion 🔵 Dems: 73% 🔴 Reps: 18% — Changing ones gender 🔵 Dems: 60% 🔴 Reps: 5% — Gay or lesbian relations 🔵 Dems: 81% 🔴 Reps: 35% (was 56% in 2022) — Doctor-assisted suicide 🔵 Dems: 68% 🔴

InteractivePolls @IAPolls2022

Here's how Americans view the moral acceptability of 20 common behaviors (Gallup 2025 poll): ✅️Most morally acceptable: • Birth control: 83% • Divorce: 74% • Unmarried sex: 65% • Gay/lesbian relations: 62% ❌️Most morally wrong: • Extramarital affairs: 89% • Human

11:49 AM · Jun 9, 2026 · 721K Views

147 Replies · 255 Reposts · 1.13K Likes

As you might imagine, there aren’t many behaviors Democrats find morally unacceptable. It’s interesting, however, that they find polygamy and extramarital affairs overwhelmingly unacceptable. Liberals generally claim that nothing bothers them as long as it’s personal behavior, but is polygamy’s anyone else’s business? Is an extramarital affair anyone else’s business? That’s not to say cheating on your significant other is okay, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether it’s anyone else’s business other than the parties directly involved.

Liberals then qualify their stances by saying nothing bothers them as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. This is an untenable stance, of course. There aren’t many behaviors on that list which physically harm another person. But all behaviors on that list do have strings attached, they do have consequences that affect others. Dividing behaviors into ones that “hurt” anyone else versus ones that don’t isn’t a useful paradigm for viewing the world.

Note, for example, how much less favorable pornography is for Democrats compared to other behaviors, even as half of them still find it acceptable. Pornography is arguably the most private of behaviors on that list and arguably impacts nobody else except its viewer. It suggests that whether a behavior affects others isn’t the actual standard against which these behaviors are judged and liberals do have their own distinct, albeit inconsistent, moral code.

That code? Everything’s fine, as long as it doesn’t offend me!

One of the reasons liberals think mass immigration can be successful is because, well, it once was:

memetic_sisyphus@memeticsisyphus

I have a good friend who married an economist who wrote papers for the EU. They were primarily focused on economically justifying mass immigration. I asked him what he was basing his model of an immigrant on. He said 20th century European immigrants to the U.S……………

Jonatan Pallesen @jonatanpallesen

The incredible thing is that we are sacrificing wealth *to get this to happen*. African / Muslim immigration to Europe is a large economic cost, in addition to the savage murders and rapes.

2:34 PM · Jun 9, 2026 · 391K Views

77 Replies · 602 Reposts · 8.27K Likes

The part liberals often ignore is that early-20th century mass immigration to the U.S. took place when the country was still culturally and demographically dominated by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They also ignore that it didn’t go smoothly, t it wasn’t even until after World War II that the assimilation process truly did complete itself. Oh, and the U.S. imposed an effective moratorium on immigration for over 40 years. In other words, we recognized that enough was enough and we needed time to assimilate everyone.

If there’s any lesson America’s 20th century experience with mass immigration holds, it’s that it’s a vast undertaking with lots of risks and no guarantee of reward. As we’re discovering today, mass immigration’s consequences are irreversible. It’s a cautionary tale, not an invitation to open the floodgates. Sometimes, it’s when things turn out well in the end that you need to be most careful.

The question of whether food ought to be made available for free isn’t as complicated as people make it out to be:

Jennifer D'aww@GMShivers

This is a question both of you guys are gonna have to solve though. You can laugh and say "You don't have a right to someone else's labor" which is true. But someone with no money right now can't just wander into the woods and hunt or trap. People can barely even grow anything

12:49 AM · Jun 9, 2026 · 452K Views

290 Replies · 184 Reposts · 3.35K Likes

Everyone’s tired of hearing the maxim There’s No Free Lunch, but it’s always been a true statement. At no point in history did a person eat without exchanging something for it. If they didn’t exchange money for it, they exchanged labor or risked their lives for it. Being able to exchange money for food is better than exchanging labor or risking life and limb for it, isn’t it? If you disagree, try feeding yourself and your family entirely through subsistence agriculture and hunting. Good luck.

That said, I find nothing wrong with finding other ways to allow people to afford food. If they can’t pay for it through food, why can’t they pay for it with labor? Again, you’re going to ultimately exchange something for it.

The answer isn’t to make food free. The answer is to expand the range of permissible exchanges. There’s no such thing as something for nothing. Ever.

The Russian Federation is often cited by some on the Western Right as an exemplar of conservatism, family values, nationalism, and traditionalism. It became a topic of discussion recently, during which high-profile figures like Candace Owens lauded Russia as a superior alternative to the increasingly decadent, godless West.

However, other voices on the Right pushed back, correctly noting that, despite outward appearances, Russia is anything but an example to follow:

Bonchie@bonchieredstate

Facts about Russia: 1) 75% divorce rate. Not very traditionalist. 2) Very low Christian observance rates. Even lower than Europe. Not very Christian. 3) Very high rates of prostitution and sex trafficking. Not very traditional. 4) Higher rate of abortion than America. Not

4:30 PM · Jun 2, 2026 · 39.8K Views

78 Replies · 274 Reposts · 1.65K Likes

Russia, even going back to the Communist era, has long since seen better days. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, it has seen stability and a share of prosperity, most certainly. But not only do living standards remain well below that of the West, as explained above, Russia is a social wreck of a country, not to mention demographically crippled. Whatever problems they don’t have to deal with are outweighed by many more far worse.

America, to say nothing of the entire West, is on a road to hell. There’s no denying that. What we have here is still better than what they have in Russia.

I was viewing a post on social media by an influencer living in Bali talking about one of the pros of living in the tropical paradise:

The people. I’ve traveled many places and the locals here are legitimately some of the warmest, kindest, and most respectful people I’ve ever met. Like the fact that I’ve been driven by hundreds of male scooter drivers (basically their uber/lyft) and not a single one has made me feel even the slightest bit uncomfortable even though we’re basically touching the whole time is actually wild. America could never.

Bali is, of course, in Indonesia. It’s one of the most traditionalist countries in the world, deeply conservative by Western standards. Being the world’s most Muslim country likely has something to do with it. There’s a certain kind of young-ish Western woman who travels overseas and is smitten by countries like this, in large part because their traditionalism lends towards politeness and strict standards of behavior. This extends to gender relations.

Things aren’t, of course, exactly what they seem on the surface. Indonesia isn’t some feminist paradise - far from it, in fact. Yet their traditionalism and observance of strict gender roles is also why women seem to be treated with greater dignity and respect: because the lines between the two genders are clearly drawn and everyone, male or female, is expected to not only stay within those boundaries, but uphold them, as well.

Everything in life involves trade-offs. Traditionalism means stricter gender roles and less feminism, in return getting more predictability, better-defined rules governing gender relations, and well-behaved men. It also means women are better-behaved, since expectations are imposed on them as much as they are on men. In many ways, it’s a more equal society than the West’s gender-egalitarian societies, which trend towards imposing expectations on men while rejecting the idea any expectations can be imposed upon women.

It’s also interesting to note that these same women so taken by the benefits of traditionalism wholeheartedly reject it in their home countries in the West. Even with gender egalitarian norms, gender relations in the West are more fraught than ever, suggesting that maybe traditionalism and gender realism is what we need more of. It seems the rejection of traditionalism in the West acknowledges that the grass isn’t greener on the other side, that the respect women enjoy elsewhere comes at a price.

Still, if predictability and responsibility form the foundation of any cohesive, functional social order, I think a serious discussion needs to be had about finding ways to restore more traditional gender norms and roles. This isn’t about “retvrning” to “trad” lifestyles. This is simply about acknowledging that men and women are different, will always be different, and making them into competitors isn’t the way to create gender equality.

Along similar themes, a feminist tried to make the argument that her ideology was the norm throughout history:

Not a Good Jewish Girl✡️@estherzelda0514

She's correct. A lot of the new anthropological evidence we have seems to point to the conclusion that, for most of human existence, we were much more egalitarian on gender than cultures like Victorian England or Delian League Athens. Severe female oppression is much harder to

PAYWALLMEN.COM @ICONOCLASTIAE

Men didn’t give women rights. Men took women’s rights away and women fought for them back. Without women, you wouldn’t exist.

6:14 PM · Jun 19, 2026 · 44.8K Views

41 Replies · 135 Reposts · 1.17K Likes

The thing is, she’s not wrong, not entirely. She’s just wrong in the way she frames it. Indeed, in hunter-gatherer societies, alongside early forms of human civilization, gender roles were narrower and not as strictly defined. However, this doesn’t indicate any kind of deep philosophical nor political thinking. Rather, this was simply a matter of sheer necessity. Unless everyone contributed to hunting and gathering, a tribe wouldn’t survive.

Nor did gender roles not exist. They absolutely did, and they were biologically defined. There wasn’t a whole lot of arguing over it, of course. When you’re fighting day-to-day for survival, you’re not going to have time to turn everything into a controversy like people do today.

Which brings us to the problem of how she framed her point:

Men took away our rights, and did so recently. Men and women continue to jointly correct the errors of female oppression precisely because it is not natural or inevitable.

Keyword: rights. The concept of human rights emerged during early modernity. For most of history, rights weren’t a thing. In fact, rights aren’t a thing at all. To quote former President Joe Biden, it’s an idea. It might be a good idea, but the point is they exist only insofar as people are willing to use violence to uphold them.

Early forms of human civilization, such as hunter-gatherers, didn’t believe in human rights. They simply didn’t see the world in that way. They instead saw things in terms of Yours vs. Mine, My Tribe vs. Your Tribe. To claim that “rights were taken” from women betrays the fact that women played the roles they did because that’s what it took to survive. There was nothing progressive about primitive society. They were reactionary, if anything.

That said, there’s much to learn from them. For one, if feminists think contemporary society is oppressive, they ought to know women in more primitive societies had no time to worry about being oppressed or hating men. That’s because they, alongside men, were deeply involved in the work of ensuring their tribe survived one more day.

There’s a lesson there.

Liberals remain undefeated in their lack of self-awareness:

Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼@DrewPavlou

Nikolaj🇺🇦🇵🇸 @nikicaga

The left often has a poor theory of mind of the right, but it absolutely cannot compare to how little they understand us Like this thread is full of people who unironically believe all leftists want to see all white nations go extinct

4:21 AM · Jun 9, 2026 · 748K Views

119 Replies · 759 Reposts · 15.9K Likes

From my experience, few people in this world are genuinely misunderstood. For the most part, anyone who thinks they are simply present the worst side of themselves. This is a phenomenon transcending the political divide. I’d say the same about Donald Trump as well - he’s not misunderstood, he just shows the worst side of himself at every turn.

Looks like leftists and Trump have something in common!

A troubling incident out of Mississippi:

AJ+@ajplus

🇺🇸: U.S. police shot and killed 1-year-old baby Kohen Kartier Wiley while he was in a car outside a Walmart store in Mississippi. Police fired into the car while responding to an alleged shoplifting incident – admittedly seeing baby Kohen before shooting.

10:02 PM · Jun 17, 2026 · 599K Views

116 Replies · 1.32K Reposts · 3.11K Likes

I’m not so cynical to think that there’s a way to justify the killing of a one-year-old by police. I’ll say though that anyone who really cares about why Kohen Kartier Wiley died should be intellectually interested in learning what actually happened instead of relying on politicized outrage for their understanding of the tragedy.

What I do want to address here and now is this pervasive belief among liberals that police should get into the habit of allowing suspects to get away to minimize the risk of death of all parties involved:

Ari@Halloween_ari

@andieiamwhoiam @ajplus and yet police were too stupid to get the license number and just go to her house to arrest her.

10:30 AM · Jun 19, 2026 · 855 Views

2 Replies · 44 Likes

And the suspect was, what? Smart in trying to flee police? Most of these outraged liberals would never even think about doing that. It’s also interesting to see that they think this woman would be stupid enough to go someplace where police are most likely to find her.

More importantly, liberals seem to think catching criminals is easy. It’s not, which is why suspects need to be taken into custody at the first available opportunity. Catching criminals is resource- and time-intensive, demands physical effort on the part of law enforcement officers, and there’s no guarantee it’ll be made any easier by waiting. Letting them get away gives them more opportunities to commit crime, all the while additional emergency and service calls pile up. You can see how quickly things can get out of control if police make a habit out of letting suspects get away because it’s too difficult or unsafe to take them into custody at first opportunity. Might as well not even enforce the law at that point.

Then again, we all know liberals don’t really care about catching criminals, which is why they can never be allowed to be part of the discussion on how to create a safe, orderly society. Everything liberals do makes the task of running civilization much harder than it needs to be, all while failing to reduce the prison population or the number of people shot and killed by police.

The San Francisco Giants Pride Night fiasco has stirred up more controversy than I’d anticipated. I’m not going to rehash the whole case, but both the Giants and the MLB have been on their back foot trying to address the outrage from both sides:

Wesley Yang@wesyang

The most illuminating part of the letter is screenshotted below: -- Apparently, Giants management did not convey to the players that the wearing of the Pride uniforms was not mandatory. (Perhaps because had they done so, many more of the players than were strongly enough

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO

.@MLB Commissioner writes to me and admits they were wrong to threaten the Giants players over Bible verses and promises never to fine or discipline these players - or any players for their religious beliefs

12:21 PM · Jun 23, 2026 · 52.7K Views

31 Replies · 103 Reposts · 691 Likes

I have three thoughts. First, this is unfolding at a time when support for the LGBTQ+ agenda is flatlining, at best, or declining, at worst. In fact, Neil Howe, co-author of the Fourth Turning theory, has argued that America will shift in a more conservative direction during the current Fourth Turning. Whatever the case may be, it seems as though there’s a limit to how much of this can be force-fed to the public without some kind of reaction.

Second, this is a perfect example of why mixing politics and sports is a bad idea. Liberals would counter by saying that there’s nothing political about LGBTQ+ rights. This is highly disingenuous. LGBTQ+ may not be inherently political, but it’s most certainly a politicized issue. Not to mention LGBTQ+ goes way beyond simply demanding equal rights. It calls for the wholesale reordering of society along with trying to force people to think differently about fundamental philosophical as well as political questions. There might be a time and place for that, but sports is absolutely not the arena for it.

Which leads to my third point: controversies like these can be avoided simply by not having things like Pride Night in the first place. No reasonable person thinks a professional sports franchise hates the LGBTQ+ community because they didn’t hold Pride Night. That so many people do suggests our society is filled with unreasonable people who shouldn’t be trusted with a vote nor a voice in public affairs. Nor is “Pride” even a matter of acceptance and equality at this point. It’s about dominance. It really is the deadliest of all sins.

I don’t know if we’ll ever get back to a time when politics isn’t at the center of public life. That day can’t come soon enough, however, because our problems are intractable enough as it is. Constantly putting everyone and everything in a position where they have to pick a side isn’t going to make things better. The results speak for themselves.

What are your thoughts on anything discussed today? Discuss in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!