Actually, we are merely accelerating what has been typical in America. Accumulation of wealth and the protection of said wealth.
Historical Comparison of Wealth Concentration
Era
Top 1% Share of Wealth/Income
Key Wealth Driver
Late 1700s
~8.5% of income
Land & Agriculture
Gilded Age (1928)
~24% of income
Industry & Rail
Great Compression (1950s)
~10-15% of income
Manufacturing & Unions
Modern Era (2025/2026)
~31.7% of wealth
Technology & Finance
You will notice the Great Compression, which lasted for around ~30 years, is the âeraâ Trump claims to take America back toâŚas over half of his base came out of this period⌠Ironically, he is doing everything possible to erase every contributor to the equalization of wealth distribution.
I am not surprised by the recent Supreme Court decision to further erode voting rights in AmericaâŚor civil rights in general. This is the same body that gave us the Dred Scott decision by a 7-2 margin in 1857. Feel free to research their history since in eroding labor protections, voting rights and the protection of wealth in America. This is merely their latest outingâŚ
Humans seem predisposed to avoid loss versus achieve gains. This scarcity doctrine, in regards to food, shelter and resources acted as a catalyst in our evolution as a species. It seems now, the problem in America is a perceived scarcity of entitlement and privilege among a significant portion of the population.
This perception that a win for one side equates into a loss for the other seems to be the driver for our current malaise. Compromise and bi-partisanship is deadâŚor at the very least, itâs coughing up bloodâŚ
This populism is nothing new. The significant difference is that in 2026, polarization, wealth inequality, executive overreach, and disputes over who belongs are all occurring simultaneously. The ship is taking on water, but Americans are too busy pointing fingers to pick up a bucketâŚ
I completely agree. I always found it telling that they chose her.
The shell indictment is another example that the U.S justice system is far from blind. It is purposeful in its choices of who to go after. Perhaps that it has a cis, rich, politically conservative, white, male in its sites this time will be enough to tip the scales and demonstrate that fundamental changes need to happen. (But probably not.)
Frankly, Iâd never heard of Kirk before he was shot. After he was shot, I was curious, so I watched a bunch of YouTube videos of his âdebatesâ. With few exceptions, he debated unprepared college kids and used tactics like the Gish gallop. Whenever he debated someone who was a prepared, experienced debater, they handed his ass to him on a plate. A good example of this is his debate at Cambridge University.
Watching it now, his reasoning on abortion was very poor, but the student debating him didnât expose this. Life begins at conception, and murder is immoral, slaughtering babies etc etc, the usual canards. One a time then would he be happy for his body to be used against his will to preserve the life of another, if not then then preserving life is not the relevant point. Secondly murder is a legal term, if itâs not illegal then itâs not murder, his assertion that gun deaths in the states were acceptable to preserve the 2nd amendment destroy this claim, as he also asserted (in this debate) that morality is objective, so which is true, is murder wrong or just when it suits his subjective views? Lastly no babies are killed let alone murdered in abortions. He claimed itâs wrong to murder a human being, did he support the death penalty.
One could argue that a clump of insentient cells, and a developing foetus is not a human being of course, and I certainly would, but this is largely irrelevant, as my argument is that no human being should be allowed to use the body of another against their will. As Matt Dillahunty said âI donât care if itâs in there writing poetryâ.
Watching the rest now.
edit, Yes gish gallop is right, he just told two blatant lies, and the student debaters didnât call him on them.
US universities no longer teach Shakespeare as it is racist, a ten second Google disproves this.
UK no longer has free speech and he mentions Lucy Conolly saying she is facing jail time for criticising migrants. She plead guilty to inciting racial hatred after threatening to set fire to hotels housing migrants. There is no law in the UK against criticising migrants or migrtion.
Edit: Someone needed to teach Mr Kirk the difference between correlation and causation. Maybe explain what oversimplification means as well.
Yes, and that directly contradicts his claim in that debate that taking a human life is objectively immoral, he claimed there are moral absolutes, then set them aside in later claims, and in this pevious claim.
He also told some blatant lies, in the gish gallop style described above, his love of rhetoric matches his idol, senator Palpatine, though he struck me as more intelligent perhaps, though thatâs a low bar to clear.
I am as well, from forty years ago. I preferred their âkeep your laws off my bodyâ stance. But then along came Ron Paul in the 80s and fucked that up.
