Every country should strive for an optimal set of laws—the point where legislation best serves society without unnecessary complexity or overreach. Once that optimum is reached, the rational policy is no further changes. Any addition, repeal, or amendment would move away from the optimum and make things worse. In a democracy, how do voters express “leave the laws exactly as they are”? Currently, they can’t effectively. All major parties campaign on change—new laws, repealed laws, reformed laws. Voters who want stability and the preservation of the current legal framework have no real voice. This vacuum forces perpetual legislative tinkering, regulatory bloat, and wild policy swings, fueling much of the dysfunction we see in modern democracies. The missing piece is a credible “No Change” party whose sole platform is to maintain the existing body of law indefinitely. Change would still be possible, but only through focused competition: single-issue (or limited-issue) parties could emerge proposing specific, clearly defined packages of legislative changes. Voters would then choose between: - The “No Change” party (keep everything as is), or - One or more single-issue parties advocating targeted reforms. If a single-issue party wins a majority (or the necessary threshold to form government), its predefined changes are implemented. If the “No Change” party prevails, the law remains untouched. This mechanism starves excessive legislation of oxygen the same way voters already starve bad politicians of power—by offering a clear, viable status-quo option. It would also curb bureaucratic growth, since bureaucracies primarily expand through new laws and regulations. A serious “No Change” party on the ballot would restore balance and long-term stability to democratic governance.

Imagine if AI became really good at hypnosis and started spreading through humans it controls! I’m no AI doomer—I just find the idea entertaining. Anyway, you’re starting to feel sleepy, very, very sleepy… and when you wake up you’ll get a @grok SuperGrok Plus subscription because I’m late for a meeting.

Asking a leftist what the most right-leaning position on immigration is, without it being far-right, is like asking a leftist “What is a woman?” Getting the answer wrong risks the leftists status amongs his peers. Leftists fear of other leftist is the driving force of category inflation.

Economic sanctions (debanking, trade blockades, etc.) on countries of origin and countries allowing pass-through would end illegal immigration overnight. Why won’t the EU do it?

Capitalistmaxxing could help a bit with the Curly effect, but even then, you might need to treat cities and even countries as temporary and not get emotionally attached to them. The cycles last decades, maybe centiries, but the makers stay on the move and the takers are left in the ruins.

Two religions: one in which believers go to hell for doing bad things, and another in which believers think atrocities in the name of the religion guarantee a place in heaven. This is no recipe for peaceful coexistence!

This image is the tipping point. European and white people all over the globe are facing the reality. They are living in a hostile anti white system, that is holding them down, while they are bleeding out demographically. We all are Henry Nowak. We all are handcuffed. We all are fading away, betrayed by our own authorities and besieged by foreigners. We all need to wake up and stand up.

Groups with something to live for shouldn’t be mixed with groups that have something to die for.

Has the EU earned back your trust yet?

EU censorship files. No debate allowed. A Parliament that is not allowed to hold the EU commission accountable is not democracy - it's theatre #EUcensorshipfiles @Jim_Jordan @elonmusk

The top priority for the EU is to rig elections for pro-EU leftist parties in Europe and the pro-EU Democrat party in the US by making it impossible for anyone else to speak or publish news online.

The EU is done. There’s no coming back from this.

Is the science now settled that the rise in autism over the last 30 years is not due to vaccines or environmental toxins, but simply welfare fraud?

Not sure, but he dug a hole so deep in our public finances that I expect them to hit oil any minute now.

Who said anything about "deserve"? No one is talking about what women "deserve". @rothmus made a connection between a cause and an effect. Effect: Individual women are being battered by strangers on city streets. Cause: Women, en masse, have voted for the policies and public officials which fail to prevent this, and the policies and public officials which punish any individual man who steps up and takes action to stop it. It is a fact that if only men voted, this would not be happening. And it is this general, collective insistence on viewing the universe solely through the lens of morality, which makes women vote this way. If they didn't do that, we could hang these sociopathic thugs three days after catching them, and then just all get on with our daily lives. But, no, women will vote against fixing the goddamn problem, at all, by any means, ever, because it might not be completely fair to the sociopathic thug who attacked some other, randomly selected woman in the street. Men get annoyed by this because, for us, "fairness" is a distant second, if not lower, priority. It takes a back seat to making sure the complex and fragile machinery of civilization keeps running. It doesn't matter if any individual woman "didn't vote for this". What matters is that the mass of women do. Until they stop fucking around, this shit will keep happening. And it will happen more. And it will get worse. So who the fuck cares if women don't "deserve" this? It is still happening. So quit pontificating pilately to men about how your personal hands are clean, and focus on telling other women to cut this shit out. Because if men have to stop it over women's continued opposition, that will not take the form of us diving on a grenade for you, forever. It will take the form of repossessing the political power our ancestors entrusted to you.

All these have state run propaganda machines. That's not freedom of speech, since you're forced to contribute to someone elses speech and give it wide reach, whether you like it or not.

Based on everything I've seen there are lots of rich people who care a lot about regular people and try to help them. The problem is that regular, and particularly poor people, don't understand what is good for them. A billionare can't get richer on people who have no extra money, so making people richer is in their self-interest. The left again needs to keep people poor to have voters. QED

Regarding the attacks on free speech by the EU: Limiting free speech has a hugely asymmetrical incentive structure: the one in power can stay in power with low cost and relatively small risk to themselves. For the political opponents the incentives are the polar opposite: high cost and high risk. This is why there's a tendency towards more limitations on free speech, followed by a huge corrective action, like Trump & Elon, or eventual collapse. The high cost & high risk mean only big players can do the corrective action. Sadly we don't have Trumps or Elons in the EU, thus the big players we need are from the US. I can only hope it's in their self interset.

The left doesn't want you to get rich. They'd run out of voters if everybody got rich. Think about that!