People who follow the news often claim to be “surprised” or even “shocked” by current events.

That’s almost never my reaction.

Sure, I can’t predict the details of the latest happenings. But the broad outlines of the news are tiresomely familiar. Heinous domestic murders. War in the Middle East. Blatant violations of the plain English reading of the Constitution. Chaotic socialist tyrannies in Latin America. Pampered First Worlders blaming their horrible plight (?) on hapless refugees. Civil wars in Africa.

And always, people screaming at each other.

Yet over the years, current events have genuinely surprised or even shocked me a few times. Here are the main surprises I’ve been conscious of so far.

1. The collapse of the Soviet bloc. I expected that all reformism would ultimately be constrained by Soviet tanks. Instead, the Soviet Union let its satellites go, then shattered into 15 separate countries two years later.

2. 9/11. As the vehicular rammings of the mid-2010s show, any motivated midwit can carry out a major terrorist attack. Since major terrorist attacks are very rare, motivated midwits must be in short supply. QED. Yet one far craftier team of terrorists still managed to carry out this world-shaking attack. (Note: I was not surprised that nothing comparable has happened since).

3. After Obama won, I laughed at a colleague who predicted that complaining about racism in America was finally over. But I was still shocked a few years later when complaining about racism — and renewed “anti-racist” activism — massively multiplied.

4. In mid-2015, I laughed at the idea that Trump would win the Republican nomination. Once he got the nomination, though, I was only moderately surprised that he won the election.

5. I was shocked that transgenderism became so common that I personally know multiple people with trans children. Darwinian evolution just tells us less about human sexuality than I imagined.

6. In 2020, I was not surprised by the emergence of a new, moderately lethal virus. Such things happen a handful of times per century. But I was completely stunned that serious limits on in-person activity lasted more than two weeks in the United States. Indeed, my jaw dropped simply when Disneyland first shut down. I never expected a reasonable policy response, but I counted on ADHD to save us. ADHD did not save us.

7. I was not surprised that Trump refused to concede the 2020 election. Indeed, one premise of my 2016 election bet was that even if Trump lost, he would not admit it. I was however surprised that he managed to come back from January 6, especially at his age.

8. I was surprised that Putin tried a full invasion of Ukraine. I thought he would limit himself to annexing de facto independent territory in Donetsk and Luhansk.

9. I was amazed that AI went from mediocre to excellent so quickly. But not surprised that it’s taking so long for AI to actually replace human workers, even when it conceptually seems easiest.

10. Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs shocked me. I figured he would limit himself to symbolic outrages, but instead he eagerly terrified the stock market for weeks. While he mostly backed off and the stock market more than fully recovered, there’s almost nothing he could do on foreign trade that would shock me at this point.

Is there any common thread, to help me avoid further surprises in the future? The only one I see is Trump, who really is a surprising figure on so many levels. At this point, he’d have to order a dozen summary domestic executions without trial to shock me again. I’d be a little surprised if he didn’t try to run for a third term, though I still wouldn’t give him more than an 8% chance to succeed. He is a wild card, but a wild card that is too elderly to stay in play much longer.

Since I don’t see any other common threads to help improve my forecasting, I’m afraid I have to expect another ten major surprises in my lifetime. What will happen?

Broad strokes: I foresee lots of economic and technological progress combined with the continuation of the Great Political Stagnation. I doubt there will be a nuclear war, but it wouldn’t be a total shocker. I also doubt that dictatorship will collapse in China, but that wouldn’t be a total shocker either. I would be totally shocked and elated if serious life extension technology became widely available before I die.

So let’s root for that! Even unpleasant surprises are a small price to pay to keep enjoying the gift of life.

Over the years we’ve argued that the Spanish-language media, in addition to advocating for unrestricted immigration, profess an editorial line that is often deferential to the promotion of Mexico and Mexican interests. One story out of Chicago blends both of these corporate interests.   Watch as Univision mourns the cancellation of Chicago’s Mexican Independence Day celebrations over potential ICE raids and National Guard deployment: ILIA CALDERÓN: Good evening. We begin the newscast in Chicago, where it was announced today that Mexican independence celebrations have been postponed due to the possibility of immigration enforcement and the deployment of the National Guard. This festival usually draws nearly 25,000 people to Grant Park. Viviana Avila is in Chicago with the details of this announcement. Viviana. VIVIANA AVILA: That's right, Ilia. The organizers of this iconic two-day event in downtown Chicago- they said they made this decision with great regret, with a broken heart, but they did it for the well-being and safety of community members. This was Univision’s top story on September 4th, when this aired. Think about where we are, that the top story of a national newscast is the postponement of the celebration of another country’s independence on American soil due to immigration enforcement operations. Emphasis on Mexican Independence Day keeps the community looking backward, and never forward to the fullness of the American experience. In fact, both Univision and Telemundo are set to air the Mexican Shout (Grito), which consists of the Mexican president ringing the bell at the presidential palace in front of a packed Zocalo Square and shouting “Viva Mexico” on multiple occasions. Our long-held thesis about Spanish-language TV depending on a constant migrant flow in order to survive is proven yet again, as is the idea that Latino identity is little more than a political construct intended to keep individuals forever separate and alien from the American mainstream.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned story as aired on Noticiero Univision on Thursday, September 4th, 2025: NOTICIERO UNIVISION 9/4/25 6:31 PM ILIA CALDERÓN: Good evening. We begin the newscast in Chicago, where it was announced today that Mexican independence celebrations have been postponed due to the possibility of immigration enforcement and the deployment of the National Guard. This festival usually draws nearly 25,000 people to Grant Park. Viviana Avila is in Chicago with the details of this announcement. Viviana. VIVIANA AVILA: That's right, Ilia. The organizers of this iconic two-day event in downtown Chicago- they said they made this decision with great regret, with a broken heart, but they did it for the well-being and safety of community members. Those who purchased tickets will also receive a refund. Here's the report. In Chicago, the downtown Independence Day celebration was postponed due to the possibility of immigration enforcement and the deployment of the National Guard. "It has been a painful decision, but holding the Cry in Chicago at this time would jeopardize the safety of our community," they said.a statement, which generated reactions from some state leaders. KARINA VILLA: Everyone has the right to decide what to do with their celebrations. I believe they are better suited to make those decisions. AVILA: However, other Mexican independence celebrations will continue for now, such as this Saturday's parade in Pilsen. TERESA FRAGA: We haven't re-evaluated in terms of canceling, but we are aware and informed of the news—of the remarks from the governor, the mayor, etc. ÁVILA: Today, the governor of Illinois reiterated that federal agents will be in the state to conduct immigration enforcement operations and that their center of operations will be the Great Lakes Naval Base. J.B. PRITZKER: We believe that they are going to be fully assembled… AVILA: We believe they will be ready by tomorrow and could begin operations early Saturday. Meanwhile, the ICE processing center in Broadview, Illinois, has doors and windows sealed with wood in anticipation of protests. A letter to the mayor of Broadview states that this will be the main center of operations for the next 45 days. It is still unknown whether or not the National Guard will be deployed to Chicago, although opposition to its deployment is growing. LUIS GUTIERREZ: He is sending them to provoke us to violence, to provoke us to resistance. CALDERON: Now, Viviana, both the governor of Illinois and the mayor of Chicago have said they oppose deploying the National Guard. What's expected in the coming days? What steps do you plan to take? AVILA: Well, first, Governor J.B. Pritzker has said that if there is a deployment of the National Guard in the city of Chicago, what they would do, the first line of defense, would be to go to court and file a lawsuit against the federal government. However, Ilia, other actions are expected tomorrow. A protest in front of this detention center in Broadview, Illinois, and there is also a rosary in front of that naval base where these federal agents will gather to carry out those potential immigration operations. I'll be back with you. CALDERÓN: Keeping a close eye on what's happening in Chicago. Thanks, Viviana.

On Friday afternoon, MSNBC host Katy Tur had on Mark Spies of the anti-gun website The Trace to argue against a Donald Trump administration proposal to place gun restrictions on transgenders to help prevent mass shootings. Spies found the idea "insane" and compared it to banning white men from buying guns to prevent suicide. Tur set up the segment: According to new reporting from The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering preventing transgender people from owning guns. This is in the wake of the shooting last week at a Minneapolis Catholic school. A spokesperson tells NBC News, quote, "The DOJ is actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen from individuals with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders." Spies was dismissive of the value of the Trump administration targeting transgenders, called the idea "insane," and denied that there was a disproportionate number of transgenders perpetrating such attacks: MARK SPIES, THE TRACE: Well, I think it's not super-surprising because the broader administration already has a thing with respect to trans people in the first place. And then it's just generally been the Republican move for many years now, in the wake of a mass shooting, to like -- TUR: To latch onto specifics of that person to try to say it's that person, not the guns. SPIES: Exactly. Unless it's -- well, especially if the person is not advantageous to some other narrative that they want to advance. So, again, we're talking about banning trans people from owning guns, which is insane obviously because there's no indicator at all that anyone who falls into that category is more likely to carry out a mass shooting, so, I mean, that's just an obvious thing to say. He then added: But, in general, mass shootings have been carried out by way more white supremacists, for example -- avowed white supremacists -- than trans people, and no one was ever talking about banning white supremacists from owning firearms. And that means, like, Dylan Roof carried out the Emanuel shooting in Charleston back in 2015 -- the Wal-Mart shooting in El Paso, the Buffalo shooting at the supermarket. I could go like on and on and on here, and the common threat throughout all of those is avowed white supremacy. But, according to research by the right-leaning Crime Prevention Research Center, transgenders make up only about 0.73 percent of the adult population, but about five percent of mass shooting perpetrators between 2018 and 2024 -- a rate of about seven times that of non-transgenders. Spies went on to bring up the high rate of gun suicide by white males and suggested that restricting transgenders would be like banning white males from owning guns to prevent suicide even though homicide victims do not choose to be victims while suicide is a voluntary action. After hinting it that it would be better to ban semi-automatic guns if it were politically possible, he went on to recommend what he admitted would be "burdensome" psychological analyses of potential buyers before they would be allowed to acquire firearms. Transcript follows: MSNBC's Katy Tur Reports September 5, 2025 2:35 p.m. Eastern KATY TUR: According to new reporting from The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering preventing transgender people from owning guns. This is in the wake of the shooting last week at a Minneapolis Catholic school. A spokesperson tells NBC News, quote, "The DOJ is actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen from individuals with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders." Joining us now, senior staff writer at The Trace and contributing writer of Rolling Stone, Mike Spies. Mike, I wanted to have you back to talk about this because last week, in the wake of the shooting, in the moments after the shooting, we had you on, and we had a -- quite a lively discussion here about what it's going to take to stop gun violence. And on the one hand, you had someone bringing up that "this person was transgender or they had gender issues, gender dysmorphia [sic], and that's happened before, and they're targeting religious schools, and that's" -- dysphoria, excuse me -- "and that's part of the problem here." And then you had someone else saying, "No, it's a much broader problem than that -- it's everybody." Is it surprising to you that this administration is trying to go after, you know, a subsection of the American population? MARK SPIES, THE TRACE: Well, I think it's not super-surprising because the broader administration already has a thing with respect to trans people in the first place. And then it's just generally been the Republican move for many years now, in the wake of a mass shooting, to like -- TUR: To latch onto specifics of that person to try to say it's that person, not the guns. SPIES: Exactly. Unless it's -- well, especially if the person is not advantageous to some other narrative that they want to advance. So, again, we're talking about banning trans people from owning guns, which is insane obviously because there's no indicator at all that anyone who falls into that category is more likely to carry out a mass shooting, so, I mean, that's just an obvious thing to say. But, in general, mass shootings have been carried out by way more white supremacists, for example -- avowed white supremacists -- than trans people, and no one was ever talking about banning white supremacists from owning firearms. And that means, like, Dylan Roof carried out the Emanuel shooting in Charleston back in 2015 -- the Wal-Mart shooting in El Paso, the Buffalo shooting at the supermarket. I could go like on and on and on here, and the common threat throughout all of those is avowed white supremacy. TUR: But we haven't heard any desire -- any sources saying that they want to ban white supremacists from owning weapons. SPIES: None, and actually there's another funny thing, too. We're only talking about mass shootings here, but, like, let's look at a different category of gun violence. Most gun death, year in and year out, is gun suicide -- usually like around 60 percent -- and every single year, 80 percent of gun suicides -- 80 percent -- are carried out by specifically white men. And white men only represent 30 percent of the population. That's like a wildly disproportionate figure. So if you wanted to -- that would be like saying, if you wanted to greatly reduce gun suicide -- let's say by 80 percent -- ban all white people from -- ban all white men specifically from owning firearms. Is that an idea that we're willing to entertain and float? TUR: It is interesting because when you're talking about the 2nd Amendment, usually the argument is you can't go anywhere near banning groups of people from owning a gun because that would be a violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. It almost made me wonder whether this was a trial balloon for the administration either to see how the public might react to it -- how the 2nd Amendment supporters might react to it -- or to just put it out there that they're thinking about it, and they know what the problem is, and they want to do something about it. SPIES: Right, it's hard to tell. I mean, it's definitely the case that some gun rights groups like the very hardline Gun Owners of America already put out a statement saying they're opposed to the ban because I think there's a clear understanding that any ban is discretionary. So like per just what we were talking about, again -- TUR: They do it for transgender people, the next thing the Trump administration could do it for white men because they're 80 percent. SPIES: Exactly. Or just whatever the main indicators for. TUR: Let's move to this side: What would stop this sort of gun violence? SPIES: Well, again, if we're going to take -- TUR: Live in the reality we live in. SPIES: Yeah, we're going to live in the reality which is, you know, take a -- banning semi-automatic weapons -- we won't talk about that because that's a third rail. But if you want to make a big difference, you have to account for psychological factors that actually predict violent behavior. And that is to say, like, "Is someone extremely impulsive? Does somebody have -- does someone have road rage issues? Does someone have anger management problems? Do they have alcohol problems?" These are all things that you would account for in an actual comprehensive background check as opposed to the system that we currently use. TUR: That would be pretty burdensome. SPIES: It would be pretty burdensome. It certainly would be pretty burdensome, but the question is: Do you want people to be safe? Or do you just want to expedite commerce? And that's the purpose of the background check system as it is now, to expedite commerce. TUR: All right, Mike Spies, good to have you.

A common feature of legacy media coverage leading up to the 2024 presidential campaign was their collective reluctance and/or outright refusal to cover heinous crimes that reflected poorly on key Democrat policies. With the 2026 midterms over a year out, it appears that the media are reverting to form.  The nation is horrified by the brutal murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zartuska, who was randomly stabbed to death while riding the light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina, by a homeless man with an extensive criminal and mental health record. Per The New York Post: A 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who recently fled her war-torn home for a safer life in the US was knifed to death by a homeless career criminal at a North Carolina train station last week, according to family members and authorities. Iryna Zarutska suffered multiple stab wounds and was pronounced dead at the East/West Boulevard light rail station in South End, Charlotte just before 10 p.m. Friday, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said Saturday. Zarutska had “recently arrived in the United States, seeking safety from the war and hoping for a new beginning,” according to a GoFundMe page set up to fundraise for the young woman’s aunt and other family members during the “heartbreaking time.” The first news outlet to report this horrific story? NewsNation: Once again, @NewsNation schools the legacy media- this time by reporting the brutal murder of a Ukrainian refugee aboard a Charlotte, NC light rail, at the hands of a deranged homeless man with an extensive criminal record. It's not that hard, guys. pic.twitter.com/mzD5kJ82HK — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 KELEIGH BEESON: Well, just into our news room- in North Carolina, a 23 year-old Ukrainian refugee was stabbed and killed while on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina. In the surveillance video. You can see the man in the red hoodie on the right side of your screen as he raises a folding knife allegedly stabbing Iryna Zarutska 3 times, including in the neck. She had boarded the train just minutes prior. The young woman had reportedly fled Ukraine due to the war, hoping for a safer life in- in the States. The attack happening late last month around 10:00pm and at this point, police believe this deadly attack was completely random. The suspect has been identified as 34 year-old DeCarlos Brown, Jr. He has multiple arrests dating back to 2011, including assault and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Police say after the slaying, he walked through the rail car stripping his sweatshirt and waiting by the doors when other passengers began to notice blood dripping from him. He is now facing first-degree murder charges. Just chilling. The first mention of this crime on any kind of video media, per our research, was during a panel discussion on the August 28th episode of Just the News, Not Noise on Real America’s Voice. But this NewsNation item was the first standalone report of this horrendous story on a national newscast. ABC, CBS, and NBC had multiple weeks’ worth of nightly newscasts on which to air this story, but didn’t (neither did CNN or MSNBC). Instead, the legacy nightlies chose to air such compelling stories as: the Japanese field goal kicker at the University of Hawaii, the opening of Princess Di’s time capsule, multi-day cycles on the Swift-Kelce engagement, the growing Powerball jackpot, Haboobmania, and the legal travails of Cardi B, among many others. But they will eventually get to this brutal crime, albeit kicking and screaming and omitting whatever key details they think they can get away with. The murders of Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and the woman that burned to death on the New York City subway, to name a few, went grossly underreported by the legacies because they made the Democrat regime look terrible. Each of those murders were a direct result of the Biden administration’s border policies that allowed millions of unvetted illegal immigrants to stream into the country. Inevitably, immigration became a central issue to the 2024 presidential election.  Such is the case now with crime in America’s cities, as President Trump cracks down on crime in the nation’s capital and elsewhere. A young woman fled war in Ukraine only to find death in an American city. The legacy media choose, once again, to look away.

Labour bigwigs have spent so long portraying themselves as morally superior that they have come to believe their own hype. They really do seem to think they are, as a group, almost beyond reproach. That they are the good guys, the virtuous ones. What they lack in any substantial political vision for Britain, they make up for in skyscraping self-righteousness. Which blinds them to their own hypocrisy.

– Tim Black

"People who live in New Zealand by choice as distinct from an accident of birth, and who are committed to this land and its people and steeped in their knowledge of both, are no less 'indigenous' than Māori."

~ Michael King from his 1985 book Being Pakeha