The United Kingdom’s daily efforts to censor speech and undermine its farmers have left the once-great nation resembling a communist regime. Yet its leaders remain determined to continue their march toward dystopia — now by targeting elderly citizens with state-sponsored euthanasia. The push for legalized euthanasia has reached British shores, accompanied by grim subway advertisements and endorsements in the Economist.Canada’s monstrous euthanasia program should serve as a warning for other Western nations. Instead, the U.K. seems intent on diving headfirst into this moral abyss. The growing embrace of industrial-scale medical suicide is no coincidence; it reflects the natural trajectory of the modern totalitarian state.We are governed by an elite seemingly intent on overseeing the suicide of the West.Every elite class requires a political formula — a narrative to justify its authority. For the managerial elite, that formula is expertise and efficiency. In a complex world dominated by massive bureaucracies, these sprawling systems demand the technical knowledge and managerial skill of those at the top.Bureaucracies thrive on uniformity, and the managerial elite depend on predictable outcomes to deliver the promised efficiency and material abundance. This obsession with control fosters a need for social engineering — a new kind of human subject, malleable and obedient to the designs of the ruling class.In the modern total state, control extends to every aspect of life, including death. The push for euthanasia reflects the ultimate expression of this ideology: a system that dictates not just how people live but when and how they die.In 2009, the debate over the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” as it became popularly known, was in full swing. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) famously warned that government-controlled health care would inevitably lead to “death panels” that would decide whether patients could continue receiving treatment. The media mocked Palin, labeling her ignorant and accusing her of spreading misinformation about the ACA. But her warning has been vindicated. The link between dependency and sovereignty is undeniable — when the state assumes responsibility for an individual’s care from birth, it will inevitably influence decisions about when that individual’s life should end.In 2016, Canada introduced its Medical Assistance in Dying program. Like other state-sponsored euthanasia initiatives, MAID was initially marketed as a compassionate option for terminally ill patients to end their suffering. The messaging focused on dignity, self-determination, and the idea that the program would be a rare solution for extreme cases. By 2022, however, MAID accounted for more than 13,000 deaths annually — a 31% increase from 2021 — and represented 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Far from serving only the elderly or those in chronic pain, MAID has facilitated the deaths of poor people unable to afford rent and people suffering from mental illness. In a striking example of the slippery slope, Canada’s euthanasia program shifted from offering a “dignified” end for the terminally ill to ending the lives of young people grappling with anxiety over the cost of living.The managerial revolution that began in the 1930s and 1940s led Western governments to build modern welfare states. These welfare programs, like Social Security in the United States or the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, relied on massive bureaucracies and experts who claimed they could predict human behavior, including fertility rates and life expectancy. Policymakers structured these welfare systems like Ponzi schemes, assuming continuous generational growth would sustain them. A sharp decline in birth rates created a crisis for social planners. In response, many governments embraced replacement-level immigration, both legal and illegal, to offset demographic decline.When immigration failed to stabilize their systems, managerial states turned to euthanasia to ease demographic pressures. What began as a welfare state’s reliance on predictable human behavior has now devolved into using death as a solution to economic and demographic challenges.As a man who lost his wife after a painful battle with cancer, I understand on a deep level why the arguments for euthanasia can seem compelling. Watching a loved one suffering in a situation that will not improve is heart-rending. But mass industrialized euthanasia is a terrible solution to a very difficult problem. The state is not killing you to spare your dignity; it is killing you because you are inconvenient.While it is unpleasant to discuss, those who no longer wish to live are rarely deprived of the means to end their lives, except in cases of total medical incapacitation. Modern technology can extend life far beyond its natural duration, and patients should have the right to refuse such interventions if they choose. However, transforming suicide into a large-scale, state-run procedure is a dangerous step with predictable and troubling consequences. When the extermination of human life becomes just another bureaucratic task, the value of life inevitably diminishes to a mere statistic.Bureaucratic institutions, once established, naturally seek to expand their missions and jurisdictions. Managers within these systems are incentivized to increase their power by broadening the scope of their operations. Programs designed to address specific problems often evolve into blunt instruments, searching for new applications. This tendency is a troubling feature of all bureaucracies, but it becomes particularly alarming when the mission involves ending human life on a large scale.As it becomes increasingly clear that mass immigration will fail to resolve the economic challenges facing Western nations, calls for state-sponsored euthanasia will grow louder. Advocates will present industrial suicide cloaked in the language of compassion, but these programs are destined to morph into the “death panels” Palin warned about.The same heartless bureaucrats who outsourced jobs and opened borders for economic gain are not championing euthanasia out of genuine concern for dignity. A ruling elite that truly cared about its nation would address the spiritual and material issues preventing family formation, community building, and the broader factors that make life meaningful. Instead, we are governed by an elite seemingly intent on overseeing the suicide of the West.

Discussing politics on Thanksgiving is a tradition that many of us could live without but can’t seem to get away from. It’s especially poignant every four years after the tidal shifts accompanying presidential elections. This year, we saw remarkable outcomes, most notably that voters prioritized bringing down the cost of their Thanksgiving meal over bringing the family together for a civil conversation. OK, that is an oversimplification, but let’s take a look at the numbers. Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, have been conducting polling together around civility in our political discourse for decades. For the last five years, we’ve partnered with the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service to dive into just what this means for the state of our politics. We conducted our most recent poll of 800 likely voters right after the outcomes of the 2024 elections. We asked voters which candidate they believed ran a more divisive campaign, who messaged the ability to get things done more effectively, which candidate they thought represented their shared values the best, and much more. We learned that many voters found Vice President Harris to be someone who is a unifier and ran a less negative campaign as opposed to President Trump, but President Trump had advantages in key areas that propelled him over the top. He was able to effectively message himself as the candidate who addressed the kitchen table issues that most stood out to voters. We’ve seen in exit poll after exit poll that the economy was the issue most on people’s minds on Election Day, and when you look at our findings, you see a pattern that reflects Trump’s win. When voters were asked, “Which candidate is talking to you about this issue?” we see some of the dynamics in the race represented. Vice President Harris outperformed President Trump in addressing abortion, protecting democracy, sharing my values, and caring about people like me. Fifty-two percent found that Vice President Harris was the candidate who better messaged bringing the country together. Conversely, voters found that President Trump more effectively talked about the economy, inflation, and immigration, and a majority thought he would be better at getting things done, but most do not expect him to be a unifier in the White House. Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The overall outcome has surprisingly resulted in a drop in political tensions based on the measure we have used for the last five years — largely driven by Republicans who are feeling relief after Election Day. We measure tension by asking folks where they feel the country is on a scale of one to 100, with one being no division at all and 100 being civil war. We saw a four-point drop since our last poll in March from 70 to 66, the lowest mark in the last five years that we have done this poll. Division scores are highest among Democrats at 70, while independents are at about the total sample’s mean (66) and Republicans see the least division (61). These scores reflect a significant 14-point drop for Republicans, specifically from March, with independents remaining largely the same and Democrats seeing a small, two-point uptick. Of particular note is the hope respondents share about a brighter future and the possibilities of collaboration between the parties. Despite President Trump’s “trifecta" control, 95% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I want President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Democrats in Congress to work together to solve the major problems facing this country.” Also, 82% of respondents agreed, “It will be good for the country if President Trump and Congress compromise to find solutions even if this means I will not always get everything I want.” In what could be a reflection of these hopes, when asked how much division they expect in the country a year from now, respondents predicted a 61 out of 100, a more than 12-point decrease led largely by Republicans in projected division from September 2023. So how does this impact your Thanksgiving meal this year? Prices are projected to drop this year, pretty significantly, dropping nearly $10 compared to this time last year, when the average cost for a Thanksgiving meal was $67.84, all the way to $58.08. Your Republican relative might take a minute to brag that this is the market reacting to President Trump’s win, but your Democrat relative might say that it’s a sign that Bidenomics is working and the country went down the wrong path on Election Day. Either way, we know that politics will be debated this Thanksgiving in many homes across the country. We only hope that it’s a little more civil this time around. Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Spending Money Like Drunken Democrats: Failing Tesla Rival Gets 6.6 Billion From Biden

Democrat Departure? Billionaire LinkedIn Founder Mulls Leaving US Because of Trump Victory

AOC Tells Joy Reid Tulsi Gabbard Nomination Is ‘Pro-War’ Globally

It's the holiday season, and Phil Spencer is coming 'round. We've rounded up the best deals available for Xbox hardware, games, and accessories. Come take a look!

Mark Zuckerberg. | The Verge | Photo by Tom Williams via Getty Images Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg met President-elect Donald Trump for dinner at Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday. “It’s an important time for the future of American Innovation,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement shared with The Verge. “Mark was grateful for the invitation to join President Trump for dinner and the opportunity to meet with members of his team about the incoming Administration.” While it’s unclear what the two men discussed, the meeting suggests Trump may be softening his view of Zuckerberg. He has said the tech billionaire should be jailed for Facebook’s role in the 2020 presidential race and his personal donations to mail-in ballet initiatives. Zuckerberg, meanwhile, has intentionally distanced himself from politics this... Continue reading…

Americans' opinion of the GOP has jumped 6 percentage points in a month according to a poll released Wed. by The Economist / YouGov. In the survey, 45% of Americans said they feel "favorable" toward the Party, a rise of six points from late October.

We loved using the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7, and now the 13.8-inch version is available for 25% off this Black Friday week.

In the United Kingdom, the ruling Labour party is in a bit of a pickle.A petition demanding the reviled Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had 2.7M signatures and counting (2,824,368 right now) after less…