Publishing in 2 Days. https://samuelgabrielsg.substack.com/p/the-phantom-menace-how-the-soviet-3f5 
https://samuelgabrielsg.substack.com/p/many-beginnings-a-plural-view-of
Fascinating view of the world. 
Western Civilization needs to have a discussion regarding the limits of tolerance. Tolerance can’t be unlimited people with ill intent will take advantage of it and they will tear down your society. You have to have a discussion regarding what is an acceptable limit of tolerance.
https://samuelgabrielsg.substack.com/p/the-limits-of-tolerance-when-open 
I wrote this song it’s based on the work of Steven Pinker. It’s called., “When everyone knows”. It’s about how censorship is about stopping everyone from knowing that everyone knows that the Government is trying to suppress it’s own failed policies.
I originally wrote this for the Biden Administration but it turns out it applies to the UK Government.
What happened in the world today?
https://open.substack.com/pub/samuelgabrielsg/p/daily-intelligence-brief-121825
What happened in the world today?
https://open.substack.com/pub/samuelgabrielsg/p/daily-intelligence-brief-121725
Denmark, Declining Birth Rates, and the Feminism Fallout
Denmark is facing a looming population crisis. With birth rates well below replacement level and an aging population threatening the nation’s economic future, the pressure is mounting to find solutions. Amid this demographic emergency, one claim made international rounds: that Denmark is now urging its men to have sex with feminist women to save the country.
Beneath the shock value of the headline is a deeper story. It exposes modern fractures in relationships, distrust between the sexes, and the unintended consequences of decades of ideological messaging.
Denmark’s Fertility Collapse
Like many developed nations, Denmark is experiencing a sustained decline in birth rates. With fewer couples choosing to have children and many delaying family formation entirely, the country now faces a shrinking workforce and rising dependency ratios. The long-term economic consequences are stark: fewer taxpayers, greater pressure on public services, and the erosion of generational continuity.
Efforts to reverse this trend have included financial incentives, expanded parental leave, subsidized childcare, and even creative public campaigns. Most notably, Denmark’s “Do It for Denmark” campaign encouraged couples to take romantic vacations, framing conception as a patriotic duty.
The Viral Story
A recent article pushed the narrative further, claiming that Denmark is “begging” men to impregnate feminists to avoid demographic collapse. The story spread quickly across social media and men’s forums, capturing attention not just for its outrageous tone but for how plausible it sounded to those familiar with the state of modern dating and cultural trends.
Whether the claim was literal or symbolic, the fact it resonated so strongly speaks volumes. To many men, the idea that a society which had dismissed their traditional role now comes crawling back with demands wasn’t satire. It was poetic irony.
Modern Dating and the Disconnect
The rise in single, childless adults isn’t just a fluke of economics. It reflects a growing disconnect in male-female dynamics. Many men report a sense of disillusionment with modern dating. They see relationships as high-risk, low-reward, and often governed by contradictory expectations.
On one hand, modern women are taught to be independent, self-reliant, and skeptical of male leadership. On the other, they expect men to assume traditional responsibilities: providing, protecting, and committing. This dual demand of submission without respect, of duty without value, has led many men to quietly exit the dating scene.
To these men, the idea of returning to save the system that vilified them isn't just unappealing. It’s laughable.
Feminist Policies and Cultural Blowback
For decades, men were told their roles were obsolete. Masculinity was pathologized, and traditional male virtues dismissed as toxic. Now, those same voices call for men to step up, settle down, and save the future.
This contradiction hasn’t gone unnoticed. The very policies and cultural messages that dismantled traditional gender roles are now clashing with demographic reality. You can’t both undermine male value and expect men to rescue a failing birth rate.
What we’re witnessing is not just demographic decline. It is ideological recoil.
Online Reaction and Real Voices
Forums like Reddit’s r/MensRights lit up with reactions ranging from amusement to contempt. Many users dismissed the viral article as exaggerated, but they agreed with its underlying message. Men are increasingly unwilling to play a game rigged against them.
Some Danish users confirmed the demographic concerns but rejected the idea that most men are interested in solving them, especially through relationships with ideologically hostile partners. Others shared anecdotes of men deliberately opting out of the dating market, choosing freedom over frustration.
The sentiment is clear. Modern men no longer feel obligated to support a system that doesn’t support them.
The Bigger Picture
Denmark’s crisis is not unique. Across the West, nations face a similar reckoning. Birth rates are falling, marriages are delayed or abandoned, and the societal glue that once held communities together—family—continues to dissolve.
This isn’t just a numbers problem. It is a values problem. The social contract between the sexes has been breached, and no amount of incentives, subsidies, or state-sponsored matchmaking will repair it. For many men, the message has been received loud and clear. They’re disposable until they’re needed.
And when they’re needed, they’re not answering the call.
Conclusion
The viral story about Denmark and its feminist fertility plea may exaggerate the details, but not the truth it gestures toward. We are watching the long arc of social engineering meet biological limits. A civilization cannot shame half its population and then beg them to reproduce when the numbers get bleak.
The collapse of the birth rate isn’t just a policy failure. It is a reflection of what happens when trust, respect, and mutual obligation disappear from between the sexes. Men are not coming to the rescue, not because they’re incapable, but because they’ve learned there’s nothing in it for them.
And that is the real crisis no government dares to address.
Rethinking the Inca Empire: Why Spanish Conquistadors Weren’t Impressed
Modern narratives often elevate the Inca Empire as a symbol of indigenous brilliance, an advanced civilization that achieved monumental feats in engineering, governance, and agriculture. Their stone temples, expansive road networks, and ability to govern millions without money or a written language are frequently highlighted as evidence of sophisticated development. Yet despite these accomplishments, the Incas remained far behind Old World civilizations in fundamental ways.
Expecting Spanish conquistadors in the 1530s to be amazed by Inca achievements is like expecting someone in 2025 to be blown away by a society that just discovered the printing press.
The Inca Empire: Impressive but Incomplete
At its peak, the Inca Empire stretched across large portions of modern-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Chile. It boasted an extensive road system, massive stone architecture like Machu Picchu and Sacsayhuamán, and a tightly controlled economy. The empire was centralized, hierarchical, and surprisingly efficient in some respects. But for all its order and scale, it lacked several foundational technologies that had long been in use in Europe, Asia, and North Africa.
The Incas had no formal written language. Instead, they used a system of knotted strings called quipu to record numbers and possibly some narrative information. This system may have been functional for accounting, but it was no substitute for a script that could record philosophy, law, literature, or science. Without writing, there were no books, no formal historical records, and no intellectual class equivalent to what existed in ancient Greece, Rome, or China.
They also didn’t use the wheel, not for carts, not for machines, not even for toys. Despite their ability to carve massive stones with remarkable precision, they transported materials without the use of wheeled transport. Even though they understood some basic mechanical principles, they failed to apply them in practical ways that other civilizations had mastered centuries earlier.
Practices That Shock the Modern Mind
Technological limitations aside, many of the Inca’s cultural practices would strike modern sensibilities and certainly 16th-century Spanish ones as deeply disturbing. The most notable example is child sacrifice. In rituals such as Capacocha, children were ritually intoxicated and then either buried alive or beaten to death to appease the gods. These weren’t isolated acts of desperation during famine or crisis. They were routine ceremonies carried out to mark festivals or imperial milestones.
There’s also archaeological and textual evidence of ritualistic cannibalism. Though not a daily practice, it was performed in ceremonial contexts and justified through religious belief. These actions were not unique to the Incas. Many civilizations have dark chapters, but they undermine any simplistic notion of a noble or enlightened indigenous utopia.
Why the Spanish Weren’t Impressed
When the Spanish arrived in the early 1500s, they came from a world that had already experienced the Renaissance. Europe had printing presses, formal universities, advanced metallurgy, and written legal systems. The Roman Empire, which had collapsed 1,500 years earlier, left behind aqueducts, amphitheaters, public baths, and roads that in many cases surpassed what the Inca had built.
The Spaniards were products of this long civilizational lineage. To them, massive stone temples built without writing, wheels, or iron tools were intriguing, but not awe-inspiring. In their minds, the presence of human sacrifice and cannibalism overshadowed any architectural or administrative accomplishments.
To modern eyes, it's easy to project value backward and celebrate the ingenuity of the Inca in isolation. But seen through the lens of global civilizational development, their society was a remarkable local peak, still far below the plateau reached by others centuries earlier.
The Dangers of Romanticizing the Past
In recent decades, there’s been a trend to glorify pre-Columbian civilizations as peaceful, spiritual, or ecologically wise. While there’s nothing wrong with honoring cultural heritage, this view too often downplays or ignores practices that were brutal and regressive. The truth is more complex: the Incas were capable administrators and impressive builders, but also adherents of a worldview that accepted horrific violence as divine necessity.
Historical analysis should strive for balance. We can recognize the achievements of indigenous civilizations without pretending they were more advanced than they were. A civilization can be both sophisticated and savage, capable and cruel.
The past should be understood in context but not whitewashed. If we wouldn't be impressed by a society in 2025 that just discovered the printing press, we shouldn't expect Spanish conquistadors to be impressed in 1530 by a society that had only just mastered stonework. The comparison is harsh, but it’s historically honest.
Segregation by Choice: How Identity Politics Reversed Integration
The Civil Rights Era and the Push for Unity
For much of America’s history, the country was racially segregated. There were separate schools, bathrooms, neighborhoods, and bus seats. This division wasn’t subtle. It was enforced by law and backed by violence. But over time, we dismantled that system. Through protest, policy, and cultural change, America moved toward integration. The goal was simple: treat people as individuals, not categories.
We got rid of the "Whites Only" signs. We told people to judge others by their character. We stopped sorting people by race or background. And for a while, we moved closer to that ideal.
Inclusion Reverses Progress
But in recent years, that progress has reversed. Segregation is coming back, but this time it’s happening under the banner of inclusion, safety, and identity.
Under the Biden administration, universities began hosting separate graduations based on race. There are also dorms, discussion groups, and events for specific racial or ethnic groups. What used to be called segregation is now rebranded as empowerment. But the outcome is the same: separation.
Male-Only Spaces Dismantled, Female Spaces Protected
This isn’t limited to race. For years, men weren’t allowed to have spaces separate from women. Any time a space was male-dominated, there were demands to open it up. Once women entered, the rules would change, and men would leave to create something new. Then the cycle would start again. But women were always allowed to have their own spaces. That double standard was accepted.
The Boy Scouts Example
Look at the Boy Scouts. For over a century, it was a space for boys. The Girl Scouts existed separately for girls. But then, in the name of inclusion, the Boy Scouts were forced to admit girls. The entire structure changed. The name changed. The culture changed. It stopped being a space just for boys. But the Girl Scouts didn’t follow suit. They didn’t open their doors to boys. They kept their female-only status. So what happened was simple: the male space was dismantled, but the female space was preserved. Inclusion only went one way.
Gender Ideology Turns on Women
The backlash came when third wave feminism embraced gender ideology. That opened the door for biological men to enter women’s spaces: locker rooms, prisons, sports, shelters—simply by identifying as women. The same arguments used to break apart male spaces were now applied to women’s spaces. But this time, the discomfort and objections couldn’t be ignored. That’s when the reversal began.
Gym Culture and the Demand for Male Spaces
In response, men are beginning to call for their own spaces again. This isn’t just theoretical—it’s playing out visibly on social media.
There’s a growing trend of female influencers filming themselves in revealing clothing, positioning themselves near men in gyms, then recording their reactions to try to catch them “staring.” Many of these videos are edited to shame the men publicly. Some women have even been seen mimicking sexual movements on gym equipment. These incidents go viral, and the men often have no defense. After the MeToo movement, any interaction—real or perceived—can be weaponized. If a man is caught on camera, even glancing in the wrong direction, he risks being labeled a creep or accused of harassment.
Because of this, some men are now asking for male-only gyms. The argument is simple: if women can have female-only gyms to avoid being hit on by men, then men should be able to have their own spaces to avoid being targeted, baited, or shamed online.
Digital Spaces and Gender-Based Separation
We’re now seeing women-only apps that explicitly exclude men. These platforms are often celebrated as safe spaces for women, but the same logic isn’t extended to men. As cultural tensions rise, men are beginning to seek similar digital environments—places where they can interact without fear of public shaming or false accusations. The demand for gender-based digital segregation mirrors what's unfolding in physical spaces like gyms.
Men are beginning to recognize the fundamental double standard: women are allowed to have as many segregated spaces as they want to distance themselves from men, but when men attempt to create similar boundaries, they’re met with accusations of sexism or exclusion. The frustration is mounting. Women have already voiced their discontent with certain gender dynamics, but now men are responding in kind—seeking their own spaces, physically and digitally, to reclaim autonomy and defend against unfair treatment.
Men are beginning to recognize the fundamental double standard: women are allowed to have as many segregated spaces as they want to distance themselves from men, but when men attempt to create similar boundaries, they’re met with accusations of sexism or exclusion. The frustration is mounting. Women have already voiced their discontent with certain gender dynamics, but now men are responding in kind—seeking their own spaces, physically and digitally, to reclaim autonomy and defend against unfair treatment.#### Voluntary Segregation as a Reaction to Cultural Breakdown
This is just one example of how the backlash is forming—not in policy, but in behavior. People are creating or demanding separate spaces because trust has broken down.
The Identity Grid Replaces Character
At the same time, everything is being viewed through the lens of identity. We’ve moved from a colorblind society to a race-obsessed one. People are encouraged to see themselves and others as categories: Black, white, male, female, trans, cis, neurodivergent, oppressed, oppressor. The focus isn’t on shared values or individual merit. It’s on which identity group you belong to and what your place is within that structure.
Intersectionality made this possible. It turned identity into a moral ranking system. The more boxes you check, the more credibility or victimhood you’re seen to have. Once that framework was adopted, it created a system where every group began demanding its own space, its own rules, and its own truth. We opened the door to permanent fragmentation.
Tribes Are Forming: Real-World Examples
People are breaking off into their own tribes. Open echoes are appearing around separatist ideas—though less in the form of organized marches and more through movements, groups, and symbolic actions rooted in identity. Discussions surrounding separatist living, autonomy, and cultural resistance are increasingly visible.
In Arkansas, a group called Return to the Land has developed a whites-only settlement in the Ozarks. Applicants are vetted based on European ancestry, and the community explicitly excludes people of other races, religions, and sexual orientations. It’s not theory—it exists.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the East Plano Islamic Center is developing a 400-acre master-planned community known as EPIC City. Although its founders say it will be open to all, the project is centered on serving the Muslim population. The Department of Justice investigated whether it violated housing laws. That case was dropped, but the controversy made headlines, showing just how politically charged identity-based planning has become.
There are also Black groups calling for cultural self-determination. Groups like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club in Dallas and the New Black Panther Party promote Black autonomy and community self-governance. In 2021, activists in Austin declared “Orisha Land,” a Black-led autonomous zone, in response to a police shooting. It was short-lived, but it showed how far the desire for separation can go.
We’re also seeing rising tensions directed toward Jewish communities. With the increase in identity-based movements, new lines are being drawn, and old animosities are reemerging. Rising anti-Semitism is being fueled by polarization—Islamists versus Jews, and even attempts to pit Christians against Jews. As society fractures into competing identity groups, Jews once again find themselves targeted, caught in ideological and cultural crossfires.
The Right to Disassociate
These examples point to the same conclusion: segregation is coming back, but not through legislation. It’s coming through voluntary disconnection—people choosing to live apart, build apart, and identify apart. Identity politics didn’t bring people together. It pushed them away from each other.
None of this is happening under law. It’s happening through culture, media, apps, hiring policies, schools, and everyday life. The right to associate is protected by the Constitution, and by extension, so is the right to disassociate. That’s what’s playing out now. People are pulling away. From each other. From institutions. From the idea of being just American.
Final Thoughts: From Recognition to Division
This is where identity politics has taken us. It started as a movement for recognition. But it led to division. And now, we’re watching as segregation returns, not by force, but by choice.
Why Men Don’t Care About a Woman’s Money
When it comes to dating and relationships, men and women value different things. While women often prioritize a man’s income and career, men generally do not care how much money a woman makes. This is not a flaw or a failure. It is simply a reflection of the different roles and expectations that still shape modern relationships.
What Men Want in a Partner
Men are not looking for a provider. They are not dating with the expectation that their partner will fund their lifestyle, support them financially, or retire them. Instead, men typically value beauty, loyalty, kindness, femininity, and emotional support. A woman’s income is irrelevant to most men because it does not enhance what they are looking for in a partner. In short, men do not benefit from a woman’s money, so they do not care about it.
Why Women Care About a Man’s Money
The dynamic is very different on the other side. From the first date, men are expected to pay. Dinner, drinks, movies, vacations — these costs usually fall on the man. As the relationship deepens, that expectation expands. The man is expected to provide stability, buy a house, cover bills, and sometimes even retire his wife.
This is why women care how much money a man makes: because they directly benefit from it.
Different Standards When It Comes to Money
In many relationships today, both partners work, but how that money is used often follows different standards.
The man’s money typically pays for the shared life: rent or mortgage, utilities, car payments, travel, and dining out. The woman’s money is more often spent on herself — beauty appointments, clothing, self care, and hobbies. In many couples, this dynamic is never discussed openly, but it plays out all the same.
The expectation is that the man’s income supports both people. The woman’s income supports the woman.
No Expectation That Women Provide
There is no widespread expectation that women will pay for the first date, cover monthly bills, or someday retire their husbands.
Because of this, men do not evaluate women based on their job title, salary, or earning potential. A woman’s income does not increase her value in a man’s eyes, because he is not planning to rely on it.
The Man as an Income Multiplier
For many women, a relationship with the right man represents an income multiplier. It offers lifestyle upgrades, financial security, and a better quality of life. That is why women are more likely to date across or up in terms of income, and why they care what a man earns.
Men do not see women this way. They do not expect their partner to multiply their lifestyle, fund their goals, or elevate them financially. So they do not need her to be rich. They do not need her to be ambitious. They just need her to be the kind of woman they want to commit to.
Conclusion
Men do not care about a woman’s money because they do not expect to benefit from it. Women care about a man’s money because they do. This is a reflection of different standards in relationships — standards that shape how each sex evaluates long term potential.
In a world where roles are supposedly evolving, this one remains remarkably consistent. A man is still expected to provide. That is why a woman’s money is not what most men are searching for.
The OnlyFans Debate: Myths, Margins, and Moral Battles
OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial platforms in the digital economy, widely known for hosting pornography and allowing creators to monetize it through direct subscriptions. While often framed as a tool for empowerment or entrepreneurship, many commentators now describe OnlyFans as a form of online prostitution.
Millions Earning Pennies
A viral claim recently circulated that “over 2 million women showed their naked bodies on OnlyFans for less than $50/month.” While the exact figure is difficult to confirm, it reflects a broader, well-documented reality: most creators on the platform earn very little.
OnlyFans has more than 2 million registered creators. The vast majority of the platform’s most active and visible users are women. Furthermore, the platform is overwhelmingly associated with pornography. Independent reports and public platform behavior confirm that explicit material drives the bulk of its traffic and revenue.
OnlyFans itself does not release detailed earnings breakdowns, but available data from third-party analysts and leaked financials indicate a steep drop-off in income beyond the top 1 to 5 percent of earners. Many creators in the bottom 80 to 90 percent earn well under $100/month after the platform takes its 20 percent commission. In this context, the claim that a large portion of women expose themselves online for minimal financial return is supported by broad trends.
China’s Rejection
While Western debates focus on exploitation versus empowerment, China has taken a firm stance against OnlyFans on moral and ideological grounds. In 2024, the Chinese government formalized a complete ban on the platform, labeling it a “corrupt Western disease” and reinforcing its long-standing policy against pornography and sexual commerce.
Though OnlyFans was already functionally blocked by the Great Firewall, Chinese authorities have moved to close remaining loopholes, targeting VPN access and overseas payment systems used by Chinese nationals to engage with the platform.
The government’s framing is explicit. OnlyFans is not merely a digital service, but a vehicle for Western values they view as corrosive to the socialist moral fabric. In banning it, they aim to protect cultural integrity, suppress perceived decadence, and maintain ideological discipline.
Cultural Mirror
These two developments, one rooted in economic criticism, the other in concern over social cohesion, underscore the polarized narratives surrounding OnlyFans.
In the West, it represents both opportunity and precarity. Millions seek quick income by producing pornography, yet most earn next to nothing and risk long-term reputational consequences. In China, the platform is not tolerated at all, dismissed wholesale as a symbol of cultural decline and foreign subversion.
OnlyFans stands at the intersection of capitalism, pornography, and ideology. Whether viewed as freedom, exploitation, or moral threat, it reflects the values of those examining it and the systems they inhabit.