StatCounter

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

“Now Is the Time of Monsters”

“Now Is the Time of Monsters”
by Jeff Thomas

“In ancient Rome, interregnum was the term given to the period between stable governments when anything untoward might occur, and sometimes did – civil unrest, warfare between warlords, power vacuums and, finally, succession wars. But eventually the dust would settle and the victors, whoever they might be, would at some point restabilize the empire, often with a new map, showing the latest lines of geographic possession.

In 1929, the Italian Antonio Gramsci was in a fascist prison, writing about what he considered to be a new interregnum – a Europe that was tearing itself apart. He anticipated civil unrest, war between nations and repeated changes in the lines of geographic possession. At that time, he was attributed as saying, “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”

And, of course, looking back from our vantage point in the twenty-first century, we have no difficulty in confirming that he was correct in his prognosis. The world war that followed brought forward the worst traits in mankind. The sociopaths of the world came center-stage. By the time the dust had settled, tens of millions were dead.

What we do have difficulty with is recognizing that the same pattern is again with us. National leaders and their advisors are spoiling for war, building up weaponry, creating senseless proxy wars in other nations’ backyards and playing a dangerous game of “chicken” with other major powers. This will not end well. It never does. Once the shoving-match has begun, it only escalates. At some point, whether it’s the false-flag assassination of an Archduke, as in World War I, or the false flag invasion of Germany by Poland, as in World War II, we can always count on some excuse being created to justify diving headlong into war.

It’s also true that, when empires get into economic trouble that’s too far gone for any viable solution, a trick that’s always employed by political leaders to keep the citizens from removing them from their seats of power, is to start a war. A people will, if they believe their homeland is in peril, accept the “temporary” removal of their freedoms. Even in the United States, the famed “Land of the Free,” political leaders have routinely imprisoned dissidents in times of warfare. People tend to get behind their leaders in wartime, no matter how undeserved that loyalty might be.

And so, now is the time of monsters, as Mr. Gramsci rightly stated. A time of uncertainty, when countries are in turmoil and would-be leaders are jostling for power with existing leaders. An interregnum.

Troubled times tend to bring out all the crazies – all the sociopathic-types that would find it hard to succeed in stable, prosperous times. In such times, the average person becomes worried that things are not going to turn out well. That’s perfectly understandable. Unfortunately, most people lack both the imagination and the courage to cope with how the times are impacting their lives. They instead rely on others to provide a torch that might help them escape from the darkness. Not surprising then, that every snake-oil salesman in town sees an opportunity to offer big promises – promises that he has neither the ability nor the inclination to fulfill.

At such times, the people of a country tend to become polarized, placing their faith in one political party or another, hoping that their party will “make the bad stuff go away.” In the US we see, on the liberal side, promises for “free health care for all,” a guaranteed basic income, housing for those who cannot afford it, and an endless stream of promises that, if the government were to implement them all, they will not be able to pay for them, even with 100% taxation from those who presently pay tax.

On the conservative side, we see promises such as “Make America Great Again,” with tax rebates that do not rejuvenate the economy, breaks for firms that have expatriated, but do not fool them into returning, claims to cut budgets, only to increase them, and promises to eliminate debt, only to expand it.

We see presidential elections in which one of the two leading candidates is a textbook narcissist, whilst the other displayed all the traits of senility. And we see a waitress elected to Congress by a substantial margin, raised to the status of heroine merely for promising all things to all people, whilst offering no plan as to how that might come about. Record numbers of candidates pour into the political arena, seeking a last grab at power prior to systemic failure.

To be fair, the US is by no means alone in delivering incapable people with nonsensical solutions to the higher offices. In the UK, each leading party states emphatically that the other party would be a disaster, yet neither party can come up with a working alternative. What they can do, as in America, is point fingers and shout invectives at each other.

In France, whilst the disconnected president essentially says, “Let them eat cake,” serving only to create further fury on the street. To be sure, the problem begins at the top. But it doesn’t end there. It sifts down to the proletariat, who, unable to come up with constructive solutions, create their own monsters, trashing the shops and burning the cars of people who had no hand in creating the problem.

But surely this is just a one-off phase, in which the best and brightest are temporarily pushed offstage, but will soon return, yes? Well, unfortunately, no. Historically, a period such as this one is followed by one of increased madness. Historically, the next step is societal breakdown. Riots, secessions and revolutions become commonplace, accompanied by economic collapse.

Out of these events come the worst monsters of all. It’s in the wake of such developments that the people of any country then turn away from those that made the empty promises and toward those who promise revenge against an ill-defined group who are characterized as having caused the problems. That’s when the Robespierres, the Lenins, the Hitlers – the greatest monsters – are swept into power. They invariably deliver the same message – that they’ll seek out the aristocracy, the gentry, the patricians, and strip them of their positions and possessions.

Invariably the way that this shakes out is not that the average man rises up, taking his “fair share” of the spoils. Instead, the leaders take the spoils and the proletariat are reduced to an equality of poverty. Our friend Mr. Gramsci found himself imprisoned by Benito Mussolini and died from illnesses incurred in prison. Unfortunately, his approach was to complain, but remain, as his country deteriorated around him. This proved, for him, to be the worst of choices. And, so it is today.”
o

"This Real Moron Thing..."











"Aphoristic Granularity, or Perhaps Granular Aphoristity. It’s Hard To Tell"

"Aphoristic Granularity, or Perhaps 
Granular Aphoristity. It’s Hard To Tell"
by Fred Reed

"The Column Racket Explained: A political columnist should choose a place on the Left-Right spectrum. It doesn’t matter which. He needn’t believe it but should never deviate from it. Readers do not want intelligence or original thought. They want affirmation, to be told what they already think, over and over.

Editors want predictability, not thought or insight. An editor’s nightmare is to wake up every morning and think, “Oh God, what the hell has Reed said now, and how much will the lawyers cost?” Consequently they want slot-columnists: The tame white conservative male, the black female mildly racist woman, the white liberal male, and so on. Predictability, predictability, predictability.

Politics compressed: At their purest, conservatives are heartless and liberals, goofy. Conservatives don’t want to pay for anything for anybody else, and liberals want to pay for  everything for everybody else. Conservatives see enemies where there are none; liberals don’t see enemies where there are. Countries deserve what they tolerate (may God preserve us). Left and Right are twin halves of a national lobotomy serving to forestall governance.  I need a drink.

America begins its wars by overestimating itself, underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war it is entering. This explains a lot.

More on the public prints: In political discourse, avoid the highbrow. Americans resent intelligence. They are unlikely, if under thirty, to know anything they didn’t learn from Tiktok. Don’t confuse them.

More on journalism: A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the ground. A reporter should know the difference.

On Liberal Politics: There is no more satisfying display of one’s virtue than public repentance for one’s sins. It is not necessary actually to have committed the sins.

When a politician says, “the American people,” or, worse, "the American Dream", put your hand on your wallet and send for a  rope. There is no greater sign of contempt for the populace.

Dictionary: “Unacceptable.” Acceptable.  Said to indicate something that is being accepted. It implies moral firmness on the part of the speaker while presaging nothing.

Defense: Offense.  Indicates capacity for armed attack on another country to get its natural resources ,or a transfer of money to the arms industry mediated by bribes. These transfers bear no relation to defense of anything. The last time the armed forces defended America was in 1945 or, arguably, 1812.

Supreme Court:  An auxiliary legislature of last resort.  Sometimes regarded as having to do with constitutionality, though there is little evidence for this.

United Nations:  An international organization having no discernible purpose. It serves as a venue for laudable speeches to which no one listens by countries which have no power.

War crime: Military behavior as usual when discovered by a reporter.

International law:  A phrase invoked to indicate the speaker’s piety without requiring action. Law if not enforced  means nothing. By tradition, it isn’t.

Religion clarified: A Methodist is a Baptist with shoes. A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a Buick. An Anglican is a Presbyterian with a stock portfolio. A Unitarian is a Democrat who believes that God is a force for community betterment.

Politics: People know when they are cold, wet, hungry, or scared. Most know little else. Polls reveal that large majorities cannot name the branches of government, can barely read, and even think that the sun revolves around the earth.  Politicians competitively shoo them in desired directions as if herding hamsters, which is how they view the electorate.

Fear is the best incitement, so tell  the electorate that something bad is coming to get them, the Russians or Chinese or almost anything frightening. Then increase the budget.

Women are realists pretending to be romantics. Men are romantics pretending to be realists, especially true of military men, who resemble Boy Scouts with scary hormones. It shows.

Democracy: First control what people know and then give them all the democracy they want.

Ignorance:  The normal state of humanity. Washington is a conspiracy to conceal ignorance. Knowing things requires time and effort better spent in running for reelection and soliciting bribes.  Reporters ask a senator, “What should be our policy on Afghanistan,” not “Do you have the slightest idea where Afghanistan is?”  The Senator replies, “Well, i think we need to support the Afghan freedom fighters in their struggle for democracy and to overcome the communist threat.” This disguises the fact that he doesn’t know where Afghanistan is and does not remind the public that they don’t know either.

The public will is often determined by the idiotic question, “Do you think the country is headed in the right direction?”  To know the direction in which the country is headed requires  familiarity with the behavior of tectonic plates, a familiarity few have. There is no hope. But, with tectonic plates, neither is there much hurry.

A working democracy  depends on limitation of choice. Ask the electorate whether  it would prefer universal medical care or an intercontinental nuclear bomber; decent schools or a goiterous military empire in countries nobody has heard of; or affordable houses for the young or tax breaks for billionaires, and they will tell you. Consequently these questions are kept off ballots.

Political  thought consists ninety percent of emotion and ten percent of misinformation. In fairness, in some cases the reverse is true.

Abraham Lincoln said that “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”  Being a politician, he did not add that you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, and that is enough.” This is the bedrock of democratic governance.

Military stupidity comes in three varieties: normally stupid; really, really stupid; and invading Russia. We should keep this in mind.

No government wants democracy. Thus they expend immense resources to convince the public that they already have it. This prevents attempts to get it.  Willy Bill selling fan belts at the NAPA outlet  in East Needle, Nebraska is easy prey for infinitely computerized social media run by smart people who spend their lives at manipulation. What passes for electoral democracy  is political ping pong between two parties equal in their contempt for a public they regard as equivalent to gerbils.

Donald Trump is the first President to combine fascism with daffiness.

American foreign policy fails because it is  made by people who have no idea what they are doing. A friend, a former senator, once estimated to me that ninety percent of the Senate don’t know where Myan Mar is. On the House China committee there is no one who reads, writes, or speaks Chinese, or has an academic degree in East Asia studies. The forty members of the House Science committee include one real scientist, a particle physicist out of Harvard, and two medical doctors. The Current President confuses Azerbaijan with Albania. Ask the Senate, charged with making foreign policy, what countries border on Iran, which they want to bomb.

Most people derive their ideology from the world. Zealots derive the world from their ideology. The ideology is static, so they never learn anything they don’t want to know.

Democracy  selects as leaders those least fit to lead. To be elected one must lie, cozen, and swindle, the degree of mastery  of these arts increasing with progress to higher office. Thus we are ruled by unprincipled provincial lawyers selected in popularity contests. We could do better by choosing men sleeping under park benches. If they remained asleep, this would be even better.

There you have it, everything worth knowing about the workings of the country. There is no  more to be learned. I expect that across America whole university departments of poly-sci will close in despair, and most sociologists will take poison. At least we can hope."

The Daily "Near You?"

Arvada, Colorado, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"In All Seriousness..."

"Thomas Edison said in all seriousness: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the labor of thinking"- if we bother with facts at all, we hunt like bird dogs after the facts that bolster up what we already think- and ignore all the others! We want only the facts that justify our acts- the facts that fit in conveniently with our wishful thinking and justify our preconceived prejudices. As Andre Maurois put it: "Everything that is in agreement with our personal desires seems true. Everything that is not puts us into a rage." Is it any wonder, then, that we find it so hard to get at the answers to our problems? Wouldn't we have the same trouble trying to solve a second-grade arithmetic problem, if we went ahead on the assumption that two plus two equals five? Yet there are a lot of people in this world who make life a hell for themselves and others by insisting that two plus two equals five - or maybe five hundred!"
- Dale Carnegie

"The More I Learn..."

"The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."
- Mark Twain

"Inevitable"

"Inevitable"
by Todd Hayen

"I used to believe that the only way we were going to get out of this mess was to flip sheep (apologies to those offended by my continued use of the word “sheep” - old habits die hard). Meaning that if we got everyone, or mostly everyone, to see what truly was going on, then we could stop the insanity. In other words, if everyone woke up there would be no more compliance, no more believing in the lies, no more falling into the agenda’s traps. Now I am not so sure.

It seems now that the only way this insanity will work its way out is either by a direct act of God or if we are willing to wait 1,000 years or so when it works out on its own. Maybe we just need to face Armageddon, let it happen, and try to live the best life we can before and while it’s happening. I don’t mean “give up,” I mean to still fight but focus the fight on things other than trying to flip sheep.

I know I’ve said this before, but now I am refining this idea a bit. Although I do believe once we know something, we can’t unknow it - meaning we can’t force ourselves into a state of denial and pretend all is rosy as the sheep tend to do. But maybe we should stop focusing on it so much and try to get back to the basics of joyous living. Did I really just say that? No, of course not.

I have found myself envying the sheep. I recently had a friend on FB question something I had posted (a comment actually on someone’s meme about chemtrails). She had said she simply did not understand what was being said negatively about natural contrails that jets innocently leave behind. I turned her on to a James Corbett video interviewing Peter Kirby about chemtrails. She responded with the usual disbelief - “How could people be doing this without anyone knowing - purposefully poisoning the earth and all of the people on it?”

I didn’t push it and just said, “You seem to be enjoying your life, keep doing that and don’t let this cat out of the bag. Let it go.” It was the first time I did something like that, and it felt right. I had the opportunity to possibly flip a sheep, and I didn’t take it. I believe, however, that this “letting go” only applies to sheep. Whereas before, I wanted sheep to learn the truth about the world, now I am not so anxious to be the one to wreck their day. They will figure it out soon enough.

Maybe this is an old person thing, and I am just tired. I have no young kids to look out for like so many of you do. I have little other than myself to sacrifice if the world goes down the tubes. I am not going to be here that much longer anyway. Although I do think some of this bad stuff is going to start happening long before I die, I am not so sure of that either.

Will another scamdemic hit soon, will social credit scores, CBDC, and Digital IDs come upon us that quickly, and if they do, will they have the devastating effect we all believe they will? Will we soon be living like the folks in "1984" or "Brave New World"?

Now, I don’t think I am going to die before much of that, but maybe the worst of it will not hit for another 20 years. Most likely I will be gone before then. Unless I get some shiny new body parts which will soon be available, but if shiny new parts do become available, I doubt if I will be able to afford them. All I am saying is that we will be faced with it soon enough, and maybe before we are, we should forget about trying so hard to stop it. As I type this I am getting nauseous. What an old geezer-coward I’ve turned out to be.

If it was possible to flip sheep I would say let’s keep flipping them. But since it is not possible to even make a dent in that woolly armor, then I say forget it. Most of you, I believe, quelled this effort long ago.

Maybe fighting at all is useless. When a person has terminal cancer, isn’t there a rational point to stop the effort to beat it and just enjoy what you’ve got left? Is that really a deeply defeatist attitude? I think falling somewhere in the middle might be a consideration. For us, it is different. As I said a minute ago, we don’t have the option, like most sheep do, to slip into complete denial. What we know, we cannot unknow.

The sheep are also not all that happy, happy, joy, joy. They obviously think something is afoot. It is interesting to observe their “inaccurate” concern. In the states, it is all about Trump destroying democracy, the constitution, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, and the rights of anyone who is not white and Christian (and male). When Biden was around, it was also about destroying Putin and Russia’s rampage to conquer the world, as well as Palestine and Iran destroying Israel and Islam in general destroying every Jew on Earth. So, sheep have worries, too, but in general, they are distracted from the truth.

I had been confused recently (before the US election) trying to determine who these memes are referring to, Trump or Harris - memes predicting the end of democracy, etc. Both sides were being accused of the same things. One of my recent favorites was a meme of a wolf eating sheep while saying he would protect the sheep and only ate a few of them. The sheep respond by saying to one another, “This guy is going to protect us, he’s the one for us!” I commented to the poster, “Who are the sheep?” The person posting the meme liked my comment, obviously assuming I was on her side. They think we are sheep, too.

I am wondering if there is a less obvious way to continue this fight. Maybe just by trying harder to create community and be more accepting of contrary views. I do think we shrews are better at doing that. Since we had all been categorized Trumpsters (whether we were or not), it is much easier for sheep (who had all been categorized liberals and Harris supporters - which they may or may not be) to hate us and not give us the time of day. This is where the real problem lies.

I am afraid now things will only get worse before they get better - assuming they ever will get better. Maybe it is time for us shrews to let go of sheep entirely - to attempt to create community without them. Not to reject them outright, but just not concern ourselves with them unless they voluntarily come into our fold. I don’t like the idea of “sides,” but I don’t think it is possible to ignore the fact that we are indeed polarized.

Although it may seem that I am suggesting we become complacent, I don’t think I am. We cannot become depressed though. When we fight, and then fail, and repeat that cycle, we can bring on depression. We must focus our efforts on success, not on things that are bound to fail, but rather on things we know we can be successful with. Like community, joy, and laughter coupled with a serious critical eye and a continued penchant for sniffing out the truth in a deeply illusional world.

I know it seems strange hearing this from me, Dr. Doom. I don’t have much to say in my writing other than pointing out negative aspects of our experience. I will continue to do this only because I think it is very easy for us to fall back to sleep. Maybe that is exactly what I am doing myself by writing this particular article. Maybe I have started to nod off, breathing in the intoxicating falsity of the good life still to be had that so many seem to be enjoying. If you feel the same, don’t let it happen. Stay awake."
o
Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here.

"When An Old Friend Takes Her Own Life"

"When An Old Friend Takes Her Own Life"
by Charles Hugh Smith

"When an old friend takes her own life, your own life is irrevocably diminished. What seemed to matter before no longer matters, and what seemed to make sense no longer makes sense. My friend had recently moved 1,000 miles away, to a town which had long extended a magnetic draw on her. But she knew no one there, and since her work was all done on computer, she toiled alone. Like any other human being in those conditions, she was lonely. Yes, she had a loyal companion in her dog, and two very close friends here in California, and a constellation of lesser friends like me; but it was not enough at a critical moment.

She'd had those moments before, and been saved: just as she'd gathered the pills to swallow, a friend had called, and she'd gotten past that moment of dark obsession. Of all the past days' memories and thoughts, one returns: what if I had sensed her despair and called her at that moment? And why didn't I sense her need for reassurance and human contact at that critical hour? I have often dreamed of her, and had done so just the week before; it was a vivid dream, not at all alarming, and I'd recounted it to her in an email. She'd made no response, and I'd given it no further thought. Was the dream a premonition? No; but perhaps it was a signal, if not of distress, then of some tendril of distress.

It is convenient is think our friends resilient, just as it is convenient for adults to believe children are resilient when turmoil or tragedy strikes the family. Yes, children are resilent--they are human beings. But they are not endlessly resilient, and their quiet after death or upheaval is not resilience or resolve, it is the numbing of terrible pain.

And so this false reliance on resilience nags at me; I was too self-absorbed to think through the underlying conditions in my dear friend's life, and how lonely she might feel. Her childhood was not positive, nor was her family more than grudgingly supportive; there were always squabbles over money and demands for fealty she could not meet. She was resilient, but only just so; and I should have been alert to the proximity of her limits.

But I am also keenly aware of the limits of my influence in her life; though we each wish with all our hearts that we could have saved her in that moment of supreme temptation and pain, there are limits to our influence.

If you think of your oldest, closest friends - I have known and loved her for 37 years now - then we cannot recall all the thousands of words exchanged or spoken, or the thousands of hours spent together. We recall some few words and scenes, and it is those few we have to cherish and ponder. But what caused us to recall those moments and not others?

We are ripe to influence and connection only rarely; even our closest friends only influence our thinking and emotions at certain unpredictable junctures. After the fact, often when things have gone awry, we remember what they told us, or the comment they made off-handedly, or perhaps most rarely, their earnestly offered advice which we'd promptly ignored.

And so I hold two uncomfortably conflicting truths: that I could have been, and should have been, a better friend to her these past few months, when she needed all her friends' presence and understanding. But feeling this, and knowing it to be painfully true does not alter the limits of my influence in her life. Perhaps I could have contacted her in just the right moment, when my call or words could have tipped her away from that terrible decision; but more likely, that is a vain hope of a heartbroken friend, looking back from the periphery of her life.

For there are limits to us, this poor amalgam of brain and emotion; yes, faith can help, pets can help, friends and family can help, medication can help, insight can help, resolve can help -but none of these, or all of them put together, is guaranteed to overcome the darkness within us at its bleakest. The sufferer must be attuned to that particular wavelength at that moment in time; and if they have spun beyond our reach, then our ability to save them is lost as well.

Those of you who were born with minds which don't follow the happier pathways, the easier pathways, know that the "normal" person cannot understand the despair felt by those prone to one or more of the many madnesses which plague the human mind and spirit. Yes, we all know despression and anxiety, but those blessed with standard-issue minds will never experience the bottomlessness the others experience.

In a peculiarity of natural selection, or God's will (perhaps, despite the false labeling imposed by language, they amount to the same thing), the human spirits with the most enthusiasm for life, the ones with the poet's spark, the ones with the keenest sensibilities and sensitivities to life, are the ones most often drawn to that terrible cliff of self-destruction.

Some may mock Thanatos, the urge to self-destruction, the yin to the will to live's yang, as illusion. But it is real, and if you have not felt it, then count your blessings.

It is ironic, and tragic, that the selfish among us, the bitter types who have soured on life and who tap an endless well of bile to blame others for their own difficulties, or those who always find the energy to trumpet their own self-glory, never end their own lives. They cling on, as if the will to sow discord and ego are indestructable. No, it is the fragile ones, the thoughtful ones, who are drawn to that dark edge, and who jump; for life is too painful to bear at times, and they think not of faith or the love of their friends and family, but of escape.

It is an illusion, a cherished one, and one I wish was true, that love alone can save a lovely soul in extremis. She was loved, dearly, and yet we who loved her could not save her. We cannot but wish with all our own lifeforce that we could have done so, but there are limits, even to love. How I wish I had felt an urge to pick up the phone and call her that day, that hour, in the hope that perhaps that simple act would have distracted her, or comforted her just enough to stay her hand. But I had felt no such urge, and so the moment was lost.

To wish for that is to wish for powers and strengths I do not possess; I am just another muddled, muddling-through human, struggling daily with my own weaknesses and demons, trying not to fail those I love in this life. But I cannot help but feel I failed her, and that haunts me, and will haunt me, even as I know that to want that power in her life is not the same as actually wielding it. Though it is natural to wish for a limitless ability to save such a dear soul, perhaps it is overstating our reach.

When an old friend takes her own life, then you come to know how little you knew of her and of her life in that distant town. There are limits on what a friend can know, at least a friend who is not in the inner circle; and perhaps even they cannot know.

We were close at times, something like cousins or perhaps at the very best, as she once told me, siblings; she had no brothers. There is no good analog or word for friendships with no romantic frisson between men and women. We did not look anything alike; I am tall and fair, and she was very petite, with skin and eyes far different from my own.

She was the much better writer, the one who deservedly won the notice of mentors and prize committees. In comparison, I am a plodder, the aspirant who rows along without attracting much notice because, well, I'm just not that good. I thought her beautiful, and liked looking at her; she had an enthusiasm for things, and life, which I admired and even envied at times.

Now she is gone, and my life is so much poorer. My only consolation, and it too is a poor one, is that I had just written her that I loved her very much, and had always loved her. She'd made no answering comment, for it was known, and understood; but I hope, in my secret heart, that it gave her some small solace to read it, and to know it was true."

"Life is an end in itself, and the only question as to whether 
it is worth living is whether you have had enough of it."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"How It Really Is"

"Government Shutdown Imminent As Health Care Deal Collapses"

Full screen recommended.
Snyder Reports, 12/9/25
"Government Shutdown Imminent
 As Health Care Deal Collapses"
Comments here:

"Everything is Changing Right Before Our Eyes - This Affects Us All"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, 12/9/25
"Everything is Changing Right 
Before Our Eyes - This Affects Us All"
"The truth about the economic crisis unfolding now is clear - everything is changing, from the housing market to risky investments. In this video, I share why the American dream feels out of reach for many, how generational shifts are impacting homeownership, and what you need to know about the current state of the economy. From unaffordable homes to skyrocketing debt, the challenges are real, but there are actionable insights to help you navigate this new reality."
Comments here:

Bill Bonner, "Massacre in Beziers"

The Death of Simon de Monfort at the Battle of Toulouse in 1218
"Massacre in Beziers"
by Bill Bonner

"Kill Them all. God will recognize His own."
- Simon de Monfort, perhaps repeating what 
was said by the Abbot of Beziers.

Baltimore, Maryland - "On the 22nd of July 1209, the crusader army arrived at the gates of Beziers. The town, in what is today Southwest France, was said to be a hotbed of wrongthink. They were there to confront the ‘bad guys’...heretics. These ‘Cathars’ neither robbed nor killed. They were worse; they stole souls. And so, a powerful army of crusaders and riff-raff, representing the regional hegemon, attacked.

But wait. The attackers faced much the same problem faced by the IDF in Gaza...or the US Navy in the Caribbean. All of the town’s residents were not heretics. Many of them were actually good Catholics. How were the attackers to know which was which? Simon de Montfort, the crusaders’ commander had his answer. “Kill them all,” he is alleged to have said. Which is what the crusaders did.

If there had been a ‘liberal’ media back then, it would have been outraged and appalled by the cruel, merciless and pointless “massacre in Beziers.” There was no such media to comment. But there is today, and it has finally gotten itself worked up to chronicle the backsliding of 21st century America to medieval standards. It is not so much the murder of people on boats...1500 miles from the US...who were allegedly going to commit a crime that causes their righteous blood to bubble up. But finishing off the survivors must have crossed some kind of line. For now, the video has been tucked away with the Epstein files. Still, it doesn’t take much imagination to have some sympathy for defenseless people adrift on the sea.

Killing shipwrecked sailors is an obvious crime...the worst kind of crime - senseless and intentionally wicked. Even in times of real war, enemy sailors are not gunned down in the water; they are plucked up and put in prisoner of war camps.

What is perhaps most amazing about this is that you can look all up and down the chain of command. You will find intelligent, thoughtful people. If they accidentally hit a puppy while driving home, tears might come into their eyes. Many go to church or temple, regularly recalling that we are meant to ‘do unto others as we would have them do unto us.’ Some identify as Republican. Others lean to the Democrats. But the remarkable thing is that all of them will commit murder if they get the ok from the higher ups. Senator Rick Scott: “Blow them to smithereens.”

Didn’t Senator Scott swear to uphold the Constitution? Has he never heard of the Ten Commandments? The Bill of Rights? Federal law prohibiting assassinations? The Uniform Code of Military Justice? Doesn’t he believe in the rule of law...and the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Where was the judge, jury...what was the charge...where was the evidence...what happened to due process?

The ‘liberal’ press dodges the interesting issues and focuses on the highest ups...and fixes the blame there. But the Trump gang has no monopoly on murder or indecency. It was Barack Obama who set the pace. James Bovard: "On February 3, 2010, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stunned Washington by announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing. Blair revealed to a congressional committee the new standard for extrajudicial killings: “Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has - is a threat to other Americans. We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

One of Obama’s first targets - an Islamic cleric, born in the USA, Anwar Awlaki. Mr. Awlaki was saying things Mr. Obama thought he shouldn’t. So, when Awlaki fled the country, Obama set an assassination plot in motion. Did the ‘liberal’ press howl with indignation? Did it demand an impeachment...a trial...a hanging? Nope. Instead, the New York Times reported in 2010 that “there is widespread agreement among the administration’s legal team that it is lawful for President Obama to authorize the killing of someone like Mr. Awlaki.”

Two weeks after killing Awlaki, another hit took out his 16-year-old son who had no connection to any terrorist organization. He was with a group of people drinking tea. God could sort them out. The Washington Post was on the story too. It assured readers that not only was Obama within his rights, he would suffer no damage at the polls as a result of his murder of the Awlaki family: "77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year."

The Post was right. Even after the New York Times revealed that Obama was not just a killer, but a serial killer, he was re-elected. Like Stalin, he personally approved the list of victims: “Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.”

Democrats and Republicans were okay with the killing spree. Rep. Peter King explained: “Drones aren’t evil, people are evil. We are a force of good and we are using those drones to carry out the policy of righteousness and goodness.” Mr. King was never even asked to explain how a ‘force of good’ could go on such a killing spree.  And none of the people responsible for massacres, assassinations, and senseless killing - neither terrorist nor narco-trafficker, neither crusader nor heretic...from Simon de Montfort (who died after getting hit in the head with a rock)...to Dick Cheney, Barack Obama and Pete Hegseth - may get what they deserve in this life. But you have to have faith; God will know what to do with them."

Monday, December 8, 2025

"2026 Predictions, I Hope You're Sitting Down"

Full screen recommended.
Canadian Prepper, 12/8/25
"2026 Predictions, I Hope You're Sitting Down"
Comments here:

"Moscow Christmas Decorations Tour 2025"

Full screen recommended.
Travelling With Russell, 12/8/25
"Moscow Christmas Decorations Tour 2025"
Comments here:

Musical Interlude: 2002, "An Ocean Apart"

Full screen recommended.
2002, "An Ocean Apart"

"A Look to the Heavens"

"Have you ever seen the Pleiades star cluster? Even if you have, you probably have never seen it as large and clear as this. Perhaps the most famous star cluster on the sky, the bright stars of the Pleiades can be seen without binoculars from even the depths of a light-polluted city. With a long exposure from a dark location, though, the dust cloud surrounding the Pleiades star cluster becomes very evident.
The featured exposure covers a sky area several times the size of the full moon. Also known as the Seven Sisters and M45, the Pleiades lies about 400 light years away toward the constellation of the Bull (Taurus). A common legend with a modern twist is that one of the brighter stars faded since the cluster was named, leaving only six of the sister stars visible to the unaided eye. The actual number of Pleiades stars visible, however, may be more or less than seven, depending on the darkness of the surrounding sky and the clarity of the observer's eyesight."

"Life Is Hard?"

"Life is hard? True - but let's love it anyhow,
though it breaks every bone in our bodies."
- Edward Abbey
"When I hear somebody sigh, "Life is hard,"
I am always tempted to ask, "Compared to what?"
- Sydney Harris
"We suffer more often in imagination than in reality. 
You want to live but do you know how to live? 
You are scared of dying but tell me, 
is the kind of life you lead really any different to being dead?"

"A Refining Process..."

“Life is a refining process. Our response to it determines whether we’ll be ground down or polished up. On a piano, one person sits down and plays sonatas, while another merely bangs away at “Chopsticks.” The piano is not responsible. It’s how you touch the keys that makes the difference. It’s how you play what life gives you that determines your joy and shine.”
- Barbara Johnson

"The 'Titanic' Analogy You Haven't Heard: Passively Accepting Oblivion"

"The 'Titanic' Analogy You Haven't Heard:
Passively Accepting Oblivion"
by Charles Hugh Smith

"You've undoubtedly heard rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as an analogy for the futility of approving policy tweaks to address systemic crises. I've used the Titanic as an analogy to explain the fragility of our financial system and the "glancing blow" of the pandemic: "Why Our Financial System Is Like the Titanic" (March 15, 2015)

But there's a powerful analogy you haven't heard before. To understand the analogy, we first need to recap the tragedy's basic set-up. On April 14, 1912, the liner Titanic, considered unsinkable due to its watertight compartments, struck a glancing blow against a massive iceberg on that moonless, weirdly calm night. In the early hours of April 15, the great ship broke in half and sank, ending the lives of the majority of its ppassengers and crew. Of the 2,208 passengers and crew onboard, 1,503 perished and 705 survived. The lifeboats had a maximum capacity of 1,178, so some 475 people died unnecessarily. Passengers of the Titanic (Wikipedia)

The initial complacency of the passengers and crew after the collision is another source of analogies relating to humanity's near-infinite capacity for denial. The class structure of the era was enforced by the authorities - the ship's officers. As the situation grew visibly threatening, the First Class passengers were herded into the remaining lifeboats while the steerage/Third Class passengers - many of them immigrants - were mostly kept below decks. Officers were instructed to enforce this class hierarchy with their revolvers.

Two-thirds of all passengers died, but the losses were not evenly distributed: 39% of First Class passengers perished, 58% of Second Class passengers lost their lives and 76% of Third Class passengers did not survive.

Rudimentary calculations by the ship's designer, who was on board to oversee the maiden voyage, revealed the truth to the officers: the ship would sink and there was no way to stop it. The ship was designed to survive four watertight compartments being compromised, and could likely stay afloat if five were opened to the sea, but not if six compartments were flooded. Water would inevitably spill over into adjacent compartments in a domino-like fashion until the ship sank.

What did the authorities do with this knowledge? Stripped of niceties, they passively accepted oblivion as the outcome and devoted their resources to enforcing the class hierarchy and the era's gender chivalry: 80% of male passengers perished, 25% of female passengers lost their lives. The loading of passengers into lifeboats was so poorly managed that only 60% of the lifeboat capacity was filled.

What if the officers had boldly accepted the inevitability of the ship sinking early on and devised a plan to minimize the loss of life? It would not have takes any extraordinary leap of creativity to organize the crew and passenger volunteers to strip the ship of everything that floated - wooden deck chairs, etc. - and lash them together into rafts. Given the calm seas that night and the freezing water, just keeping people above water would have been enough.

Rather than promote the absurd charade that the ship was fine, just fine, when time was of the essence, the authorities could have rounded up the women and children and filled every seat on lifeboats. Of the 1,030 people who could not be placed in a lifeboat, 890 were crew members, including about 25 women. The crew members were almost all in the prime of life. If anyone could survive several hours on a partially-submerged raft, it would have been the crew. (The first rescue ship arrived about two hours after the Titanic sank.)

Would this hurried effort to save everyone on board have succeeded? At a minimum, it would have saved an additional 475 souls via a careful loading of the lifeboats to capacity, and if the makeshift rafts had offered any meaningful flotation at all, many more lives would have been saved. Rather than devote resources to maintaining the pretense of safety and order, what if the ship's leaders had focused their response around answering a simple question: what was needed for people to survive a freezing night once the lifeboats were filled and the ship sank?

I think you see the analogy to the present. Our leadership, such as it is, is devoting resources to maintaining the absurd pretense that everything will magically re-set to September 2019 if we just print enough money and bail out the financial Aristocracy.

Whether we realize it or not, we're responding with passive acceptance of oblivion. The economy and social order were precariously fragile before the pandemic, and now the fragilities are unraveling. We need to start thinking beyond pretense and PR."
                        Full screen recommended.

The Daily "Near You?"

Saco, Maine, USA. Thanks for stopping by!