StatCounter

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

"The Day Electricity And Water Disappeared"

"The Day Electricity And Water Disappeared"
by Madge Waggy

"There is a version of the end that does not come with fire, explosions, or dramatic collapse, but with something far more unsettling: silence. It begins quietly, almost politely, with small interruptions that seem temporary, harmless, familiar. The lights go out. Phones lose signal. Screens freeze mid-motion as if time itself hesitated. People wait, because waiting is what modern life has trained them to do. Systems fail sometimes, but they always come back. That is the unspoken promise of civilization—that even if something breaks, there is always someone, somewhere, fixing it. But what happens when nothing comes back? When the silence stretches, deepens, settles into the walls, into the streets, into the space between people, until it becomes clear that this is not an interruption, but a condition?

The first true sign that something was fundamentally wrong was not the darkness, but the absence of water. Electricity can disappear and life can still function for a while, but water is different; it is immediate, physical, impossible to ignore. Someone turns on a faucet expecting at least a weak response, a stutter in the pipes, some lingering sign of pressure—but there is nothing. Not even air. That absence carries weight, because it reveals something most people never think about: water does not simply exist in cities, it is delivered constantly, forced through a vast system that depends entirely on power. Without that power, the system does not degrade gracefully—it stops. And when it stops, millions of people are left with no buffer, no reserve, no plan.

At first, the reaction is denial, and denial has its own rhythm. People check things repeatedly, as if repetition might somehow restore function. They move from room to room, from building to building, from street to street, searching for confirmation that this is localized, temporary, fixable. But as hours pass, a pattern emerges, and that pattern spreads. No lights anywhere. No signals. No movement in the systems that are supposed to respond automatically. It becomes clear, slowly and then all at once, that the failure is total. And with that realization comes the first fracture in collective thinking, because modern life is not built to handle total failure. It is built on assumptions, and those assumptions are now gone.

Water, or rather the lack of it, begins to reshape behavior almost immediately. People search for what they have, ration what little is available, and then begin looking outward. The problem is not just scarcity, but scale. In a small community, a well or a stream might be enough, but in a city, where millions depend on continuous supply, the absence becomes catastrophic within days. Toilets stop functioning, and with that, an entire layer of civilization disappears. Waste, which was once invisible, managed, removed without thought, begins to accumulate. At first, it is contained within buildings, but systems that rely on flow cannot function without it, and what does not move begins to stagnate. What stagnates begins to spread. And what spreads becomes impossible to control.

As people turn to natural water sources, another shift begins - one that is less visible but far more dangerous. Lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that once seemed abundant are suddenly under pressure from a population that has no alternative. The problem is not just that people are taking water, but that they are bringing contamination with them, because without sanitation, there is no separation between waste and survival. It happens gradually, almost invisibly, as human activity alters the environment in ways that cannot be reversed quickly. And then, as if following a script written long before, illness begins to appear. Not as a single outbreak, but as a convergence of multiple threats, each feeding into the same weakened system.

The progression is subtle at first, easy to dismiss, but it follows a pattern that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore as it spreads through groups and communities:

Initial discomfort - fatigue, mild dehydration, a sense that something is off.
Escalation - digestive distress, weakness, inability to retain fluids.
Breakdown - severe dehydration, loss of strength, impaired judgment.
Collapse - where the body can no longer compensate and begins to shut down.

What makes it particularly dangerous is not just the speed, but the feedback loop it creates. People need water to survive, but the water they have access to is making them weaker, reducing their ability to seek better sources, to move, to think clearly. It is a trap that closes slowly, giving just enough time for awareness to grow, but not enough for effective response.

At the same time, another system begins to fail - the one that most people never see, but rely on every day: the supply chain. Food does not appear in cities by accident; it is transported continuously, in massive volumes, coordinated through systems that require power, communication, and fuel. Remove those elements, and the flow stops. At first, stores still have stock, and people move quickly to secure what they can. But consumption does not slow, and without resupply, depletion is inevitable. Within days, the shelves are empty, not because food has ceased to exist, but because the mechanisms that distribute it are no longer functioning.

Hunger does not arrive as a sudden shock, but as a gradual pressure that builds until it becomes dominant. It changes how people think, how they interact, how they make decisions. What begins as concern turns into urgency, and urgency into something sharper, more focused, less constrained by the rules that once governed behavior. The transformation follows a pattern that is as psychological as it is physical:

Conservation - people reduce activity, try to extend what they have.
Obsession - thoughts narrow, focusing almost entirely on obtaining food.
Adaptation - standards change, things once considered unacceptable become options.
Action - people begin to take what they need, regardless of ownership or consequence.

It is at this stage that the social structure begins to shift in ways that are difficult to reverse. Trust, which once existed by default, becomes conditional, then rare. Interactions are no longer neutral; they carry weight, risk, calculation. Groups begin to form, not out of ideology, but out of necessity. Individuals alone are vulnerable, but groups can defend, can organize, can control access to resources. And with that organization comes hierarchy, because decisions need to be made quickly, and not everyone can make them at once.

Violence does not explode into existence; it emerges, slowly, in the spaces where systems used to enforce limits. At first, it is subtle - arguments that escalate, confrontations that go too far, situations where desperation overrides hesitation. But as people realize that there is no longer a higher authority to intervene, to punish, to restore order, the boundaries shift. What was once unthinkable becomes possible, then practical, then normal. The progression is not chaotic; it follows a pattern that reflects underlying human behavior when constraints are removed:

Opportunistic actions - taking advantage of unguarded resources.
Defensive aggression - protecting what one has from others.
Organized force - groups acting together to secure territory or supplies.
Dominance structures - where certain groups establish control over areas and enforce rules.

The city, once a place of density and opportunity, becomes something else entirely - a concentration of need without the means to fulfill it. Buildings that once offered shelter become liabilities, especially those that extend vertically. Without elevators, without water pressure, without lighting, upper floors become inaccessible, dangerous, impractical. Movement within these structures becomes a risk, especially in darkness, where visibility is limited and control is minimal. Gradually, people begin to leave, not in coordinated efforts, but in a steady flow outward, driven by the understanding that survival requires access to resources the city can no longer provide.

This movement outward creates pressure in new areas, places that were never designed to support large populations. Land that once sustained small communities becomes contested, not because it has changed, but because the number of people depending on it has increased beyond what it can support. The balance between availability and demand breaks down, and with it, the possibility of peaceful coexistence becomes more fragile. Those who were already there see the change immediately, because it affects not just their resources, but their security, their predictability, their control over their environment.

And through all of this, as the physical world reshapes itself around the absence of systems, another layer of thought begins to emerge, one that is harder to define but impossible to ignore. Systems of this scale are not supposed to fail completely, not all at once, not without partial recovery or isolated functioning. The totality of the silence, the absence of any visible attempt to restore what has been lost, begins to suggest something that people are reluctant to articulate, but cannot entirely dismiss. The idea forms gradually, not as a conclusion, but as a question that refuses to disappear:

Why did everything stop at the same time?
Why is there no sign of recovery anywhere?
Why has no authority re-established even minimal control?
And most importantly - who benefits from a world where the system no longer exists?

These questions do not have immediate answers, and perhaps they never will, but they change the way people interpret what is happening. Because once the possibility of intent enters the equation, the situation is no longer just a collapse. It becomes something else - something that was allowed, or even designed, to happen. And in a world where survival has already become uncertain, that possibility introduces a different kind of fear, one that is not tied to hunger or thirst, but to the realization that the systems people trusted may not have failed them accidentally. They may have been turned off.
Click image for larger size.
The Signal Beneath the Silence: There comes a moment, not sudden but inevitable, when the silence stops feeling like an absence and begins to feel like a presence, something that exists not because everything has failed, but because something has replaced what used to be there, something quieter, more controlled, more deliberate, and once that shift happens, people begin to notice details that did not seem important before, details that should not exist in a world that has completely collapsed, and yet they persist with a consistency that becomes harder to dismiss the longer one pays attention. It is not obvious at first, because nothing announces itself clearly anymore, but patterns begin to form in the background of perception, subtle alignments that suggest that the world has not gone dark everywhere, only in the places where people are still allowed to see.

The first clues are always indirect, because direct evidence is rare and unreliable, but indirect evidence accumulates in ways that are far more convincing over time. Roads that should be blocked are not, but they are also not used in the chaotic, desperate way that defines everything else, as if movement along them follows rules that are invisible to outsiders. Structures that should be abandoned show no signs of decay, not because they are maintained openly, but because they never reached the state of neglect that defines the rest of the environment. And then there are the moments that people hesitate to talk about, the ones that sound too precise to be imagination and too inconsistent to be confirmed, like distant lights that remain steady for hours without fluctuation, or the low, continuous hum of machinery somewhere beyond reach, always present but never traceable.

At first, these observations remain isolated, dismissed as stress responses or coincidences, but the longer the silence continues, the less convincing those explanations become, because coincidence does not repeat with structure, and stress does not produce identical details across different people who have never met. Slowly, reluctantly, people begin to connect these fragments into something resembling a conclusion, and that conclusion does not emerge all at once, but through a sequence of realizations that build on each other whether people want them to or not:

• The collapse affected everything that was publicly accessible, but not necessarily everything that existed.
• The absence of recovery efforts suggests not failure, but intentional non-intervention.
• The persistence of controlled, localized activity implies that some systems are still functioning in isolation.
• And if systems are still functioning, then someone, somewhere, still has access to them.

That last point is the one that changes everything, because it introduces inequality into what was previously assumed to be a universal condition, and inequality implies structure, and structure implies control. From that moment forward, the silence is no longer interpreted as emptiness, but as restriction, as if the world has been divided into layers that are no longer meant to interact in the way they once did. And once people begin to think in those terms, their behavior shifts accordingly, not in obvious ways at first, but in small, calculated adjustments that gradually reshape priorities.

Survival is no longer just about finding food or water, but about finding proximity to whatever remains operational, even if that proximity is based on nothing more than rumor or intuition. Groups begin to move differently, choosing directions not based on known resources, but on patterns, on whispers, on the faint suggestion that certain areas are less abandoned than others. These movements are cautious, often hesitant, because the closer people believe they are getting to something real, the more unpredictable the environment becomes, and unpredictability, in this new world, rarely means randomness.

There are places that feel wrong in ways that are difficult to define, locations where the usual signs of collapse are absent, but not replaced by anything recognizable. No visible activity, no open access, no indication of occupation—and yet something about them resists entry. People who approach these areas often describe the same sequence of sensations, even if they use different words: a growing sense of being observed, a subtle pressure that builds without a clear source, an instinctive hesitation that feels less like fear and more like recognition. Some turn back before crossing whatever invisible boundary defines these zones, unable to justify their decision logically but unwilling to ignore it.

Others continue. And those who continue do not always come back the same. Not broken, not visibly harmed, but altered in ways that are more unsettling precisely because they are so difficult to measure. They speak less, or not at all, about what they experienced. When they do speak, their accounts lack cohesion, not because they are lying, but because their memories seem fragmented, as if something interfered not with the event itself, but with the ability to retain it fully. And sometimes, the most disturbing detail is not what they describe, but what they avoid describing, the pauses, the sudden shifts in topic, the moments where language fails in ways that feel unnatural.

The Boundaries No One Sees: As these encounters accumulate, the idea of invisible boundaries becomes harder to ignore, not as a theory, but as a practical reality that shapes movement and decision-making across entire groups. These boundaries are not marked in any traditional sense, but they are defined by outcomes that repeat with enough consistency to establish their existence without needing physical confirmation. People begin to map them mentally, not through precise coordinates, but through shared experience, building an understanding of where it is safer to go and where it is better to avoid, even if the reasons remain unclear.

This mapping process reveals something even more unsettling, because the boundaries are not random. They form patterns, large-scale divisions that suggest organization rather than coincidence, as if the world has been partitioned according to criteria that are not visible from within. Some areas are consistently avoided, others are cautiously approached, and a few become points of quiet focus, places where the possibility of access feels just within reach but never fully realized. The logic behind this structure begins to take shape through observation, not as a confirmed truth, but as a framework that explains more than it leaves unanswered:

• Areas with complete collapse show no signs of intervention, as if they have been abandoned entirely.
• Transitional zones exhibit inconsistent patterns, suggesting partial control or limited access.
• Isolated regions display subtle signs of maintenance, indicating selective preservation.
• And the most restricted areas produce the strongest behavioral responses, even without visible enforcement.

This layered structure creates a new kind of world, one where geography is no longer defined by physical features alone, but by access, by control, by the invisible rules that determine who can move where and under what conditions. And within this world, people are no longer just navigating terrain, but navigating a system they cannot see, reacting to signals they do not fully understand.

The Question That Changes Everything: At some point, inevitably, a question emerges that cannot be ignored once it has been fully considered, a question that does not come from fear or speculation, but from the accumulation of too many consistent observations to dismiss as coincidence. It is not asked openly at first, because even thinking it feels like crossing a line that cannot be uncrossed, but it exists, quietly, in the background of every conversation, every decision, every moment of silence where the mind has time to connect what it already knows: If something is still functioning, and if access to it is being controlled, then why? The answers that follow are never certain, but they tend to move along similar lines, shaped by the same underlying logic that has guided every realization up to this point:

• It could be preservation, an attempt to maintain critical systems for as long as possible.
• It could be selection, determining who has access and who does not based on unknown criteria.
• It could be containment, limiting interaction between different parts of what remains.
• Or it could be something else entirely, something that does not align with any familiar purpose.

That last possibility is the one that lingers, not because it is the most likely, but because it is the least understood, and in a world where understanding has already become scarce, anything that falls outside known patterns carries a weight that is difficult to ignore. Because if the silence is not simply the result of failure, and if the remaining structure is not designed for recovery, then the current state of the world may not be temporary. It may be intentional. And if it is intentional, then the silence that replaced everything is not the end of the system. It is the system, in a form that no longer needs to explain itself.

The Shape of What Remains: By the time this question fully settles into the minds of those who are still capable of asking it, the world has already crossed a threshold that cannot be reversed, not because the damage is too great, but because the pattern has become too consistent to be accidental, too stable to be temporary, and too controlled to be ignored. What once felt like survival within chaos begins to reveal itself as survival within constraint, and that distinction changes the nature of every decision that follows, because chaos can be navigated through instinct and adaptation, but constraint implies design, and design implies purpose, even if that purpose remains hidden behind layers of silence that no one has yet managed to break through.

At first, people continue to behave as if recovery is still possible, as if somewhere beyond the horizon there are functioning centers preparing to restore what has been lost, but that belief weakens over time, not because it is disproven directly, but because it is never confirmed in any meaningful way. There are no signs of rebuilding, no coordinated efforts that extend beyond isolated pockets, no evidence that the old systems are being repaired at scale. Instead, what exists begins to feel self-contained, as if the world has been divided into segments that are no longer meant to reconnect, each one operating within its own limitations, its own boundaries, its own unspoken rules.

This realization does not spread through sudden revelation, but through repetition, through the steady accumulation of moments where expectation fails to align with reality, where actions that should produce results no longer do, and where patterns that should break under pressure instead remain intact. Over time, these moments begin to organize themselves into a framework that people may not fully understand, but can no longer ignore:

• Systems that once depended on each other no longer attempt to reconnect, suggesting deliberate separation rather than accidental disintegration.
• Access to resources appears inconsistent, not because resources are gone, but because they are unevenly distributed in ways that do not follow natural patterns.
• Movement across regions produces predictable outcomes, indicating that unseen variables are influencing behavior and consequence.
• And most importantly, the absence of visible authority does not result in true disorder, but in a quieter, more controlled form of stability.

That last point is the one that alters perception completely, because it challenges the most fundamental assumption people once held about the relationship between control and visibility. There was a time when authority needed to be seen to be believed, when power announced itself through presence, through enforcement, through undeniable proof of its existence. But in this new structure, none of that is necessary. Control operates without declaration, without explanation, without even acknowledgment, shaping the environment in ways that guide behavior without ever needing to confront it directly.

People begin to adapt to this reality in ways that are subtle but profound, adjusting their actions not just based on what they experience, but on what they anticipate, learning to avoid certain thoughts as much as certain places, because both seem to carry consequences that are difficult to predict but impossible to ignore. Conversations become shorter, more cautious, not because people have nothing to say, but because saying the wrong thing, even in private, feels like crossing an invisible line. Decisions are made with less certainty, more hesitation, as if every choice exists within a field of influence that cannot be mapped but can be felt. And in that hesitation, something deeper begins to take shape.

It is not fear in the traditional sense, not the immediate, reactive kind that comes from danger, but a slower, more persistent awareness that the boundaries of reality itself may no longer be as fixed as they once seemed. Because if the environment can be controlled without visible mechanisms, if access can be restricted without physical barriers, then the limits people are experiencing may not be purely external. They may extend into perception, into cognition, into the way reality is processed and understood at a fundamental level.

This idea is difficult to accept, not because it is impossible, but because it destabilizes the last remaining point of certainty - the belief that even if the world changes, the mind observing it remains its own. And yet, the evidence, fragmented and indirect as it may be, begins to suggest otherwise, forming a pattern that becomes clearer the longer it is considered:

• People recall events differently after leaving certain areas, even when those events should be recent and clear.
• Shared experiences lose consistency when discussed, as if details are being altered or removed between perception and memory.
• Some individuals exhibit sudden shifts in behavior without identifiable cause, as though influenced by factors they cannot articulate.
• And perhaps most unsettling of all, certain conclusions feel difficult to hold onto, as if the mind itself resists completing specific lines of thought.

If these observations are accurate, even partially, then the implications extend far beyond survival, beyond control, beyond anything that can be addressed through physical means alone. They suggest that whatever remains of the system is not only shaping the external world, but interacting with the internal processes through which that world is understood, creating a feedback loop where perception and environment influence each other in ways that are no longer fully separable.

In such a reality, resistance becomes almost undefined, because it is no longer clear where the boundary between self and system truly lies. If choices are influenced before they are consciously recognized, if thoughts are redirected before they are fully formed, then the concept of autonomy begins to lose its meaning, not abruptly, but gradually, eroding under the weight of uncertainty until it becomes something that is assumed rather than confirmed.

And still, despite all of this, life continues. People eat when they can, move when they must, form connections where trust is still possible, even if that trust is fragile and often temporary. The human instinct to survive does not disappear simply because the rules have changed; it adapts, reshapes itself, finds ways to persist even within constraints that would have once seemed impossible. But survival, in this context, is no longer just about endurance. It is about navigating a reality that may be actively shaping the very process of navigation itself.

Which leads, inevitably, to the final thought, the one that cannot be proven but refuses to fade, the one that exists at the edge of every observation, every pattern, every unanswered question: If the silence was not the end, but the beginning of something more controlled, more precise, more deliberate…Then whatever remains is not waiting to be discovered. It is waiting to see what people will become within it.

And in that quiet, controlled world, where nothing announces itself and everything seems just slightly out of reach, the most unsettling possibility is not that humanity has been abandoned, but that it has been left exactly where it is meant to be, observed not as it was, but as it adapts, as it changes, as it reveals, piece by piece, what remains when everything unnecessary has been stripped away. Not destroyed. Not forgotten. But reduced to something simpler. Something easier to measure. Something easier to watch."
o
Tip of the hat to The Burning Platform for this material!

"Home Depot Just Sent A Warning To Millions Of Workers"

Full screen recommended.
Snyder Reports, 4/28/26
"Home Depot Just Sent A Warning 
To Millions Of Workers"
Comments here:

Dan, I Allegedly, "Banks Are Taking Your Money, And You Don’t Even Know It"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, 4/28/26
"Banks Are Taking Your Money, 
And You Don’t Even Know It"
"Banks are quietly closing dormant accounts faster than ever, and millions of Americans don’t realize their money could be transferred straight to the state without warning. In this video, I break down the shocking changes to banking rules, including how inactivity periods have dropped from five years to as little as one year in some states. If you have a savings account, retirement fund, or old checking account you haven’t touched recently, you could be at serious risk of losing access to your money. I’ll also explain how unclaimed property works, how to check if you already have money waiting for you, and the simple steps you need to take right now to protect your accounts. From beneficiary mistakes to forgotten deposits and safety deposit box issues, this is information every American needs to hear. Don’t wait until it’s too late—take action today to secure your financial future."
Comments here:

"The 'Kill' Switch"

"The 'Kill' Switch"
by Dr. Robert Malone

"In 2021, Congress passed an infrastructure law, and inside it sits a requirement that future vehicles include technology capable of detecting impaired driving. The stated goal is simple. If a driver is drunk or clearly unsafe, the vehicle should be able to prevent operation. That is the mandate. It does not authorize remote control, and it was signed by Joe Biden, not Donald Trump.

The way this shows up is not as a single device but as a stack of systems that already exist. Cameras inside the cabin track your eyes, your face, your attention. Sensors read steering inputs, braking patterns, and lane position. Newer systems are being built to detect alcohol passively through breath or even through your skin on the wheel. The car is no longer just a machine you operate. It is a system that watches you, evaluates you, and increasingly decides whether you are fit to use it.

Call things by their proper name. This is not a switch someone flips from afar. This is a shift from mechanical control to software governance. The car becomes an intermediary between you and your own mobility.

At first, it arrives quietly. It starts in higher-end vehicles and works its way down. It is marketed as safety, convenience, and common sense. Insurance companies offer discounts if you agree to monitoring. Most people say yes. Why not save a few hundred dollars? Over time, the discount becomes the baseline. Opting out starts to cost you. Driving an older car, free of monitoring devices, will cost you, or maybe even make you uninsurable. The “choice” remains on paper, but in practice it fades.

This is a slow ratchet. The frog put in a pot of water as the heat is slowly turned up. Before he knows it and can jump out, he has been boiled alive. Control does not have to be imposed directly when it can be engineered through incentives. If your premiums, your financing, and eventually your access to services and cars depend on how a system scores your behavior, then the system does not need a kill switch. It already has leverage.

Private companies are central to this. Insurers like Progressive Corporation and Allstate are already building models around continuous driver monitoring. Today, it is framed as a discount program. Tomorrow, it becomes a pricing standard. You are free to opt out in the same way you are free to pay significantly more. That is not coercion in the legal sense, but it is pressure in the real world. Is it just a matter of time before “vintage” cars require higher premiums or are even uninsurable?

This is where the constitutional layer matters, and also where many people misunderstand it. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to limit government power, not the reach of private corporations. If a manufacturer installs monitoring in your vehicle and you agree to it through a contract, you are not dealing with state action in the traditional sense. That means many of the Constitutional protections people assume are there do not apply in a straightforward way.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It does not shield data that you have allowed a company to collect. That becomes especially important if that data is later accessed by law enforcement.

Courts have pushed back on warrantless tracking in some contexts, but the boundary between private data and government access continues to be eroded by Congress and the courts.

The Fifth Amendment raises a different issue. If your own vehicle is recording behavior that could be interpreted as impairment or unsafe driving, and that data is later used against you, the line between observation and self-incrimination begins to blur. Again, not settled law, but not a trivial question.

There is also a quieter risk that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with data. Once you normalize continuous in-cabin monitoring and behavioral scoring, you create a stream of highly personal information that has value well beyond safety. That makes it a target. If that data is hacked, leaked, or sold, it does not take much imagination to see how it could be misused. Detailed records of where you drive, how you behave, and even how you look or react behind the wheel could be exposed publicly or used to pressure, embarrass, or coerce.

Even without a breach, interpretation is not neutral. A medical event, a panic response, or a real threat, such as a carjacking, can appear to an algorithm as impairment. Stress, confusion, or erratic movement under duress may be flagged as unsafe driving.

The deeper problem is not any single amendment. It is the gradual erosion of autonomy through systems that operate just outside the traditional constraints of the Constitution. You do not need a new statute to restrict behavior if you can shape incentives or even mandates, so that companies can get people to restrict themselves.

A great deal can happen through contracts, pricing models, and industry standards. Private actors can create a system where monitoring is technically voluntary but practically unavoidable. Where opting out carries a real cost. Where data collected for safety quietly becomes data used for pricing, for liability, for access.

The space between direct government control and pure private choice is wide, and it is in that space that this system is likely to evolve. The fork in the road is still ahead. In a constrained version, these systems stay focused on clear impairment, and the data remains tightly limited. In the more likely version, the data layer expands because it is valuable, and once something is valuable, it is rarely left unused or monetized.

The mistake is to look for a dramatic moment when control arrives. It does not work that way. It accumulates. A discount here, a requirement there, a default setting that most people never change. Over time, the relationship between you and your vehicle is no longer direct. It is mediated by software, data, and incentives. The real question is not whether someone can flip a switch and stop your car. It is whether you still meaningfully control the terms under which you are allowed to drive it.

Representative Thomas Massie moved to force the issue directly, not with rhetoric or a direct overhaul of the bill, but with a funding cutoff. In January 2026, he introduced an amendment to the federal spending bill (H.R. 7148) that would have prohibited any federal funds from being used to implement or enforce the impaired-driving technology mandate buried in the 2021 infrastructure law. In plain terms, it was a defunding effort. No money, no rollout. The amendment failed, 164–268, which means the mandate continues forward on its current path.

What makes that vote politically revealing is not just that it failed, but who helped defeat it. Fifty-seven Republicans joined 211 Democrats to vote against Massie’s amendment and keep funding in place. Among the Republicans who voted no were names that span the party’s establishment wing, including Mark Amodei, Don Bacon, Stephanie Bice, Ken Calvert, Tom Cole, Mario Diaz-Balart, Brian Fitzpatrick, Andrew Garbarino, John James, Mike Kelly, Jen Kiggans, Mike Lawler, and Frank Lucas, among others. You can see the full official roll call here: House Roll Call Vote 43 (H.R. 7148 Amendment)

That vote tells you everything you need to know. The fight is not hypothetical. It is happening in appropriations bills and procedural votes, where programs live or die. And when push comes to shove, a nontrivial bloc of Republicans is willing to keep the funding stream intact, even for a program that is a step toward expanded monitoring inside privately owned vehicles.

The word RINO gets thrown around too easily. But here the line is not rhetorical. It is clear. Those Congresscritters who stand in the way of personal freedom are the same ones who treat the Bill of Rights as a relic instead of a constraint."

"Oil Production In The Persian Gulf Has Fallen 57 Percent From Pre-War Levels – Rationing And Shortages Are Coming"

by Michael Snyder

"They aren’t telling you the truth about what is coming. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens tomorrow, and there is no way that is going to happen, oil production will not return to pre-war levels for years. In other words, we are facing an extended global energy crisis no matter what happens now. Of course if the fighting resumes and more oil and gas infrastructure is destroyed, the consequences that we will experience will be even worse. We are already witnessing rationing and shortages in some parts of Asia because they are more dependent on energy from the Middle East than anyone else. But as nations all over the world run through their strategic reserves, rationing and shortages will become a lot more widespread during the months that are ahead of us.

Most people living in the western world have no idea how much damage has already been done to oil and gas infrastructure in the Middle East. According to Goldman Sachs, oil production in the Persian Gulf has declined by a whopping 57 percent from pre-war levels…"The war with Iran is having an enormous impact on the global oil market. According to an estimate by Goldman Sachs, oil production from the Persian Gulf region is down 57% from its pre-war level, or about 14.5 million barrels per day. The world is currently covering the shortfall by drawing oil from storage, including a record 400 million barrel release by members of the International Energy Agency (IEA)."

If the war ends soon, some of that production will be quickly restored. But there are many oil and gas facilities that have been completely destroyed, and it is being projected that it could take up to 50 billion dollars to rebuild that infrastructure…

Repair and restoration costs for energy-linked infrastructure as a result of war in the Middle East could hit $58 billion, Rystad Energy analysis shows, with the total for oil and gas facilities potentially up to $50 billion. Three weeks after we published an initial estimate of $25 billion in repair costs across Gulf energy infrastructure, the scope of damage has expanded materially. The continuation of military strikes drove up the number of impacted assets across the region before largely subsiding following an 8 April ceasefire between the US and Iran. This pushed the estimate for the average in potential total repair and restoration spending to $46 billion – representing the midway point in the range of $34 billion to $58 billion – across oil and gas infrastructure, inclusive of an average of $5 billion across industrial, power and desalination assets. The ceasefire, combined with stalled negotiations and renewed escalation risk, continues to shape the operating environment, alongside risks of disruption and potential blockades affecting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Even if reconstruction begins immediately, it would likely take until 2029 or 2030 before all of the oil and gas facilities in the region are fully restored. So what is the rest of the world supposed to do while we wait for that to happen? At this moment, everyone is running through their strategic reserves. For some countries those reserves will last for months, but for other countries those reserves will only last for weeks. Once the reserves are gone, shortages will start making a lot more headlines and prices will escalate significantly.

Of course the price of oil has already risen to very painful levels…Oil prices climbed almost 3% Monday as hopes for a peace deal between the U.S. and Iran dimmed and energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz remained extremely constrained. The price of international benchmark Brent Crude was up about $3, or almost 3%, to $108.36 per barrel early Monday morning, its highest price point in three weeks. U.S. West Texas Intermediate was up 2.6% before U.S. markets opened, at $96.85.

This is going to affect virtually every man, woman and child on the entire planet, because our entire way of life is fueled by energy. When energy prices go up, our standard of living goes down. Unfortunately, energy prices have been going way up since the start of the war…

In the United States, the cost of a gallon of gas has increased by over a dollar since the strait closed, and the cost of diesel is up nearly 50 percent. Gas prices in Europe have increased by around 10 percent, and the region is facing a jet fuel shortage and concerns about the flow of liquid natural gas (LNG). Asia is being hit even harder. Roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and LNG passes through the strait. Over 80 percent of this fuel goes to Asia. Several Asian countries, such as the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, are now facing a real energy crisis.

Some Americans are now spending more than $100 to fill up their vehicles, and the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has now surpassed the four dollar mark…The average price of gasoline in the U.S. rose 7 cents over the last week and currently stands at $4.04 per gallon, according to new data released by GasBuddy, an app that tracks gas prices across parts of North America and Australia. Within the U.S., that data comes from more than 12 million price reports at roughly 150,000 gas stations nationwide, according to the company.

What has shocked me is the apathy that I am seeing out there. Most people just assume that everything is going to work out just fine somehow. Our attention spans have become so short that most of us can no longer see what is coming just a few months down the road.

Thanks to the crisis in the Middle East, we are facing the worst fertilizer crisis in history. If nitrogen fertilizer is not applied to annual crops such as wheat and barley each season, yields will be way down…Nitrogen-based fertilizers such as urea must be applied each season for many crops and directly influence annual yields as well as quality parameters, including protein content in wheat. Farmers can cut back on other core nutrients, such as phosphate and potash, without immediate yield losses. Many farmers all over the world will not be applying nitrogen fertilizer this year. As a result, those particular farmers will be growing a lot less food in 2026.

I don’t know why this is so hard for some people to understand. Right now, harvest forecasts are being slashed all over the planet… Agricultural bodies, including the International Grains Council, are already cutting their forecasts for the next harvests, ​however. And the United Nations, which is trying to ​negotiate shipping access for fertilizer through the Gulf, has sounded ⁠the alarm over food security in developing nations. This is not a drill. This is really happening. What we desperately need is for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened as soon as possible.

Sadly, we are farther away from an agreement between the U.S. and Iran than ever. The Iranians feel like they have won the war and have all the leverage, and so at this stage they are not even willing to talk about their nuclear program with the United States at all…Iran is no longer willing to negotiate over its nuclear program at all, per Tasnim. Discussions will only cover ending the war, sanctions relief, compensation, and lifting the blockade. Nuclear issues “could be addressed later in a separate agreement,” only after the war has ended.

Nuclear was the central issue in the first round of Islamabad talks, with Trump saying it was “the only point that really mattered.” Iran has now removed it from the table entirely. Trump says the war won’t end without a nuclear deal. Iran says nuclear won’t be discussed until the war ends. The Iranians expect the Trump administration to give in, and the Trump administration expects the Iranians to give in. But neither side is going to give in, and it appears that it is just a matter of time before more fighting breaks out. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed, and it is likely to remain that way for an extended period of time."

"Why Iran Can't Be Bombed, Invaded, or Nuked Into Submission"

"Why Iran Can't Be Bombed,
Invaded, or Nuked Into Submission"
by Nick Giambruno

"Air power alone is not going to secure Hormuz or remove the Iranian government. Their command-and-control structure is a decentralized mosaic governed by preapproved wartime protocols, with a backup plan for every leader, including three to seven predesignated successors. Air power could not even dislodge the much smaller and poorer Houthis from Yemen. If the US is serious about having any chance of winning the war it started, it would require a big ground invasion.

Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) - back when Saddam was a "good guy"—he threw more than 500,000 Iraqi soldiers at Iran, had the backing of both the US and the Soviet Union, and used chemical weapons on a scale not seen since World War I… and he barely made a dent in Iran. Further, the Iran of today is orders of magnitude more powerful than the Iran of the 1980s.

The reality is that if the US is serious about invading Iran, it would likely require total mobilization. A successful ground invasion of Iran to overthrow the government, occupy the country, and pacify it enough to install a US-friendly puppet regime (i.e., Shah 2.0) would most likely require far more manpower and, in all likelihood, the return of the military draft, which Trump's press secretary recently refused to rule out. Even then, a full-scale US ground invasion would offer no guarantee of success. Remember, the US did not even succeed in neighboring Afghanistan, which is far more primitive, poorer, and not as well armed as Iran.

Unlike most other nation states in the Middle East, Iran (known as Persia before 1935) is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation. European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zigzags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like mountain borders. In the east, the Roman Empire generally ended where the Persian Empire began.

Iran has powerful friends throughout the Middle East - like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and various Iraqi militias - who are willing to fight. Further, Iran is Russia’s and China’s key ally in the Middle East. A US-aligned government in Tehran could help block China’s Belt and Road Initiative from pushing farther west and potentially cut off 14% of China’s oil imports. It would also hinder Russian trade through the Caspian Sea and serve as a launchpad for destabilizing Russia from its southern flank.

In short, bringing Iran under US influence would open the door to further undermining both Russia and China. For these two great powers, Iran is strategic depth. Russia and China cannot afford to let Iran fall. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see Russia and China support Iran with intelligence, weapons, supplies, and other forms of assistance that would make the conflict even more costly for the US.

Most importantly, just look at Iran’s topography. Similarly, Switzerland’s rugged mountainous terrain has helped protect it from invasion for centuries. And Iran (1,630,848 sq km) is not just the size of Switzerland (41,291 sq km), but the equivalent of roughly 40 Switzerlands.
When you consider all the factors, it becomes clear that a full-scale ground invasion of Iran is simply not workable. But that doesn’t mean the US won’t try.

For argument’s sake, let’s say the US successfully invades and captures the coastline and islands around Hormuz. That still wouldn’t stop Iran from using its ballistic missiles from further inland to destroy oil infrastructure across the Persian Gulf. Even if the US managed to reopen the Strait, Iran could ensure there was nothing left to export, making the effort moot. Here’s the bottom line: regardless of what the US does, Iran is likely to retain control over Hormuz.

Could the US or Israel Use Nuclear Weapons on Iran? Faced with the bleak prospects of a successful ground invasion, the US (or Israel) could resort to using nuclear weapons. Iran is well aware that the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons against it. It has contingency plans for that outcome to ensure the survival of its government. Iran’s plans also likely include making a dash for developing its own nuclear arsenal to be able to respond in kind.

Further, it’s doubtful that Russia and China would just sit back and do nothing if the US and Israel looked like they might nuke Iran. For example, Russia could decide to station nuclear weapons and Russian soldiers on Iranian soil as a deterrent.

Suppose the US and Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran. It would shatter the global taboo and effectively give other countries the green light to use them. Could Russia then nuke Ukraine or another part of Europe? Could China nuke Taiwan? What about India and Pakistan?

I was on a private call recently with a former US Army Special Forces veteran, who is very well-connected and knowledgeable about the situation. He said that if the US or Israel nukes Iran, there is a good chance Russia and China will immediately nuke the US and Israel with everything they have out of fear of being next. There is no such thing as "limited" nuclear war. Once the nukes start flying, the incentive is to "use it or lose it." Using nukes on Iran with the hope that it would remain "limited" would be rolling the dice with the future of mankind.

The consequences of the US or Israel nuking Iran would be catastrophic. It could trigger a chain reaction that threatens life on Earth. And while it is unlikely, in my view, because of the possibility that mutually assured destruction will lead to deterrence, it remains a real possibility - just not what I would consider the base-case scenario.

The conflict with Iran is not just a military crisis. It is a warning sign of something much larger. A prolonged war, a shutdown of Hormuz, a spike in oil prices, or a reckless escalation involving nuclear weapons would not stay contained in the Middle East. It would ripple through energy markets, supply chains, currencies, inflation, and the global financial system. In other words, the risks are not just geopolitical. They are personal."

Iranian Leaders Are Not Divided… The Trump Administration Is"

Iranian Leaders Are Not Divided…
 The Trump Administration Is"
by Larry C. Johnson

"Over the course of the last two weeks, Donald Trump and his national security sycophants have been parroting the claim that there is chaos among the Iranian political and military leaders and that no one is in charge. This is a lie… and I will shortly explain what I believe is the source of that lie. Here is a sample of what Trump has been saying: Truth Social post (around April 23–24, 2026): “Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is! They just don’t know! The infighting is between the ‘Hardliners,’ who have been losing BADLY on the battlefield, and the ‘Moderates,’ who are not very moderate at all (but gaining respect!), is CRAZY!” He has described the Iranian government as “seriously fractured” (noting this was “not unexpected”), using it as a reason to extend a ceasefire so Iran could produce a “unified” proposal.

In comments tied to canceling envoy travel to Pakistan (April 25–26), Trump cited “tremendous infighting and confusion within the Iranian ‘leadership.’ Nobody knows who is in charge.” He contrasted this with U.S. leverage and suggested Iran should simply call if serious about talks.

I believe the source of this “intel” is Israel and I believe that Trump and his advisors genuinely believe it to be true. Let me explain why this is not the case. The newly minted Ayatollah Khamenei, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, the Iranian Foreign Minister and the head of the IRGC are: 

The Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei is 56 years old as of 2026.
Speaker of the Iranian Parliament (Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf): born 23 August 1961, is 64 years old as of 28 April 2026.
Iranian Foreign Minister (Abbas Araghchi): born 5 December 1962, is 63 years old as of 28 April 2026.
Head of the IRGC (Ahmad Vahidi, Commander‑in‑Chief): born 27 June 1958, is 67 years old as of 28 April 2026.
President Masoud Pezeshkian is 71 years old as of 2026.

All men share two things in common… They fought in the Iraq War (1980 -1988) and all served in the IRGC. Pezeshkian was not a fighter, he was a medic, which means he was held in high esteem for the work he did in saving the lives of fighters. Just ask any combat vet what they thought of their medic, assuming the medic was squared away. This common heritage means that these men know firsthand the cost and the horror of war. It also means that the US has picked a fight with a country led by men who faced an Iraqi foe that was armed and funded by the US.

Men who have been in combat share a special bond with their fellow soldiers who know the horrors of war. The war with Iraq was particularly nasty because they experienced chemical weapon attacks which were facilitated by the US because the US provided the precursor chemicals and the intelligence used to target Iranian units. If anything, the current batch of Iranian leaders are the most formidable set of Iranian officials by virtue of their shared combat experiences.

While the Trump White House and the pliant Western media spin the tale of splits and dissension among the Iranian leaders, the opposite is true. The Iranian government is firmly united and willing to fight no matter the odds. Jeremy Scahill’s Drop Site news tells the story: "Senior Iranian Official to Drop Site: Iran Is Setting Its Own Terms for Ending the War A senior Iranian official with direct knowledge of internal diplomatic deliberations spoke to Drop Site News, offering a clearer picture of Tehran’s position as negotiations with the U.S. remain deadlocked and Iran prepares for two dramatically different paths that may unfold in the coming days: a return to diplomacy or a resumption of the war with the U.S. and Israel. 

1. On the conditions for resuming direct talks: “We’re currently moving forward with our own design, and we feel continuing negotiations doesn’t make sense until the U.S. government lifts the maritime blockade. The scope of the conflict has expanded, and naturally the issue is no longer purely nuclear.”

 2. On President Trump and U.S.’s approach to diplomacy: Iran believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been given unprecedented influence over U.S. intelligence estimates and White House decision-making. “Our country has had negotiations with the Americans at various levels over the past 30 years - formal and informal, public and back-channel. It’s as if they are showing up to a football match with rugby rules,” the senior official said.

Iran has total disdain for Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and views him as both oblivious of diplomatic processes and totally ignorant of technical issues. Kushner is viewed by Iran as Israel’s man at the table. Iran, the senior official said, does not see any reason to deal with these two without a figure like Vice President JD Vance present. 

3. On what Araghchi conveyed to Pakistani mediators: “We explained our technical positions to the Pakistani side. Regarding the nuclear issue, solutions that we had previously proposed were raised again so that we could reach a shared understanding with them. Our remarks were not directed at the Americans given that these are bilateral discussions. We believe that the intermediaries themselves should also be technically briefed on the proposals.” 

4. On what a serious U.S. negotiating posture would require: Iran has given no public indication it would alter its position opposing a transfer of its enriched uranium, but has also maintained it is willing to resolve the issue as part of a comprehensive settlement with the U.S. “These issues, on the ground, have clear and practical solutions, and we have always examined them in meaningful negotiations. Any serious negotiation on the American side must involve a large team, including experts and multiple government departments, so that they can properly understand and process a meaningful agreement that covers the various cross sectoral dimensions on their side.”

 5. On whether Trump can deliver a deal: “Our assessment is that we do not see [Trump] as capable of shaping the agreement. Our take is that they’ve basically decided to keep the war going until there’s a regime change” - which the official predicted would continue to fail.

While Donald Trump will spend the week doing his best imitation of Neville “Peace-is-at-hand” Chamberlain, Iran will not cave. Faced with such stubborn, determined opposition, it is likely that Trump will try one last gamble of US air strikes against Iran in hopes of weakening Iranian resolve. Having never been in combat, Trump’s threats are meaningless to men who have fought and survived a brutal war as young men. Now, as men in their late 50s and early 60s, this group of Iranian leaders are prepared to fight, and fight tenaciously."

Monday, April 27, 2026

"Is The Depopulation Agenda Real? Examining The Evidence"

"Is The Depopulation Agenda Real? 
Examining The Evidence"
by Mike Adams
"In 1969, the New York Times published an article covering a two-day elite event in which top scientists, government officials and NGOs all called for global depopulation agendas. Dr. Paul Erlich called for depopulation chemicals to be added to water supplies and food exports. President Nixon's science advisor said reducing population growth to zero should be the top priority of every government. Dr. Erlich even called for government-enforced reproduction quotas and forced controls on family sizes. This depopulation agenda has taken many forms - global warming, climate change, vaccine mandates, etc. - and now a global engineered fertilizer collapse that will lead to mass famine in 2026 - 2027. On our current course, potentially hundreds of millions of people will starve to death by the end of 2027. And there's no solution in sight."
View video here:

Musical Interlude: 2002, “Where The Stars And Moon Play”

Full screen recommended.
2002, “Where The Stars And Moon Play”
“Pamela and Randy Copus are the duo known as 2002. Randy Copus plays piano, electric cello, guitar, bass and keyboards. Pamela Copus plays flutes, harp, keyboards and a wind instrument called a WX5. Both musicians also provide all of the vocals on their albums, recording their voices many, many times and layering them to create a "virtual choir" with a celestial, angelic quality.”

"A Look to the Heavens"

“Will our Sun look like this one day? The Helix Nebula is one of brightest and closest examples of a planetary nebula, a gas cloud created at the end of the life of a Sun-like star. The outer gasses of the star expelled into space appear from our vantage point as if we are looking down a helix. The remnant central stellar core, destined to become a white dwarf star, glows in light so energetic it causes the previously expelled gas to fluoresce.
The Helix Nebula, given a technical designation of NGC 7293, lies about 700 light-years away towards the constellation of the Water Bearer (Aquarius) and spans about 2.5 light-years. The above picture was taken three colors on infrared light by the 4.1-meter Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA) at the European Southern Observatory’s Paranal Observatory in Chile. A close-up of the inner edge of the Helix Nebula shows complex gas knots of unknown origin.”

"How Easy It Seems..."

“A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man’s life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose.”
- George R.R. Martin
o
“Life has no victims. There are no victims in this life. No one has the right to point fingers at his/her past and blame it for what he/she is today. We do not have the right to point our finger at someone else and blame that person for how we treat others, today. Don’t hide in the corner, pointing fingers at your past. Don’t sit under the table, talking about someone who has hurt you. Instead, stand up and face your past! Face your fears! Face your pain! And stomach it all! You may have to do so kicking and screaming and throwing fits and crying – but by all means – face it! This life makes no room for cowards.”
- C. Joybell C.

"The Heaviest Burdens..."

 

"The Next Food Crisis Is Coming - 5 Ways History Says to Survive"

Full screen recommended.
Fiat History, 4/27/26
"The Next Food Crisis Is Coming - 
5 Ways History Says to Survive"
"The next food crisis won't look like empty shelves. It will look like full shelves you can't afford to touch. From the Irish Potato Famine to Bengal 1943, from Cuba's Special Period to the Soviet Grain Robbery of 1972 - every modern famine followed the same five hidden patterns. And one of them is activating in the global grain reserves right now. This video unpacks the five economic and historical laws of food collapse that economists like Amartya Sen spent careers proving - and the mainstream media still refuses to explain. You'll learn why famine is almost never about a shortage of calories, why the merchants in the middle always get richer, why local supply chains beat global ones every single time, and the one number you can track from your phone that predicts every food shock 12 to 36 months early. If you've felt grocery prices quietly compounding while your wages stayed flat - you're already in the early phase. The families who survive (and quietly prosper) are the ones who position themselves before the ratio breaks, not after."
Comments here:

"The New Layoff Strategy, Older Employees Are First To Go"

Full screen recommended.
Snyder Reports, 4/27/26
"The New Layoff Strategy, 
Older Employees Are First To Go"
Comments here:

"Millions Now Pay More for Electricity Than Rent - And It's Quietly Exploding"

Full screen recommended.
Across The States, 4/27/26
"Millions Now Pay More for Electricity Than Rent -
 And It's Quietly Exploding"
"Electricity bills keep rising - and it’s not just inflation. This breakdown of rising electricity costs explains why your power bill keeps climbing year after year. Here’s the thing: electricity pricing doesn’t behave like other expenses. Once rates increase, they tend to stick. There’s no quick drop back down. That slow, steady climb builds over time, turning small adjustments into long-term pressure on your monthly budget.

What most people miss is how demand has changed. Streaming, AI tools, and cloud services rely on massive data centers running nonstop. Add electric vehicles and home electrification, and the grid is under more strain than it was ever designed for. When usage grows faster than supply can keep up, prices naturally follow. The reality is, this doesn’t hit everyone equally. Older infrastructure, regional differences, and income levels all shape how heavy the burden feels. And it doesn’t stop at your utility bill - higher energy costs quietly push up prices across everyday goods and services."
Comments here:

"Surviving The Worst Economy In History, Prepare Or Go Homeless"

Jeremiah Babe, 4/27/26
"Surviving The Worst Economy In History, 
Prepare Or Go Homeless"
Comments here:

The Daily "Near You?"

Lehigh Acres, Florida, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"I Urge All Of You..."

“To me, there are three things we all should do every day. We should do this every day of our lives. Number one is laugh. You should laugh every day. Number two is think. You should spend some time in thought. And number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that’s a full day. That’s a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you’re going to have something special. I just got one last thing... I urge all of you, all of you, to enjoy your life, the precious moments you have.”
- Jim Valvano

"These 14 Small Mindset Shifts Will Change Your Life"

"These 14 Small Mindset Shifts Will Change Your Life"
by Ryan Holiday

"For the most part, we can’t change the world. We can’t change the fundamental facts of existence - like the fact that we’re going to die. We can’t change other people. Does that mean that everything is hopeless and permanently broken? No, because although we have that extreme powerlessness in one sense, we have an incredible superpower in another: We can change how we think about things. We can change how we view them, how we orient ourselves to them.

That’s the essence of Stoicism, by the way. The idea that we don’t control what happens, but we do control ourselves. When we respond to what happens, the main thing we control is our mind and the story we tell ourselves.

So one way to think about Stoicism itself then is as a collection of mindset shifts for the many situations that life seems to thrust us in. Indeed, Seneca’s "Letters," Marcus Aurelius’ "Meditations," and Epictetus’ "Discourses" are filled with passages, anecdotes, and quotes which force a shift in perspective. Here are 14 that I have taken from the Stoics over the years that have changed my life. I think they’ll do the same for you.

Everything is an opportunity for excellence. The now famous passage from Marcus Aurelius is that the impediment to action advances action, that what stands in the way becomes the way. But do you know what he was talking about specifically? He was talking about difficult people! He was saying that difficult people are an opportunity to practice excellence and virtue - be it forgiveness or patience or cheerfulness. And so it goes for all the things that are not in our control in life. So when I find myself in situations big and small, positive or negative, I try to see each of them as an opportunity for me to be the best I’m capable of being in that moment. It doesn’t matter who we are, where we are, we can always do this.

Every event has two handles, Epictetus said: “one by which it can be carried, and one by which it can’t. If your brother does you wrong, don’t grab it by his wronging, because this is the handle incapable of lifting it. Instead, use the other - that he is your brother, that you were raised together, and then you will have hold of the handle that carries.” Another way to say that is that there are multiple ways to look at every situation, multiple ways to determine how you’re going to react. Some of them are sturdy and some of them are not. Some are kind and resilient, some are not. Which will you choose? Which handle will you grab?

The world is dyed by the color of your thoughts. Marcus said, “The things you think about determine the quality of your mind. Your soul takes the color of your thoughts.” He also said, “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” If you see the world as a negative, horrible place, you’re right. If you look for shittiness, you will see shittiness. If you believe that you were screwed, you’re right. But if you look for beauty in the mundane, you’ll see it. If you look for evidence of goodness in people, you’ll find it. If you decide to see the agency and power you do have over your life (which as we’ve said is largely in how we think), well, you’ll find you have quite a bit.

There is a tax on everything. Taxes aren’t just from the government. Seneca wrote to his friend Lucilius, “All the things which cause complaint or dread are like the taxes of life—things from which, my dear Lucilius, you should never hope for exemption or seek escape.” Annoying people are a tax on being outside your house. Delays are a tax on travel. Haters are a tax on having a YouTube channel. There’s a tax on money too–and the more successful you are, the more you pay. Seneca said he tried to pay the taxes gladly. I love that. After all, it’s usually a sign of a good problem. It means you had a killer year financially. It means you’re alive and breathing. You can whine about the cost. Or you can pay and move on.

Poverty isn’t only having too little. Of course, not having what you need to survive is insufficient. But what about people who have a lot…but are insatiable? Who are plagued by envy and comparison? Both Marcus Aurelius and Seneca talk about rich people who are not content with what they have and are thus quite poor. But feeling like you have ‘enough’–that’s rich no matter what your income is.

Alive time or Dead time? This isn’t from the Stoics exactly, but close enough. Robert Greene once told me there were two types of time in life: Alive time and Dead time. One is when you sit around, when you wait until things happen to you. The other is when you are using that time productively, actively. You’re stuck at the airport - you don’t control that. You decide whether it’s alive time or dead time (you read a book, you take a walk, you call your grandmother). I had a year left on a job when Robert gave me that advice. I could have just sat on my hands. Instead, it was an incredibly productive period of reading and researching and filling boxes of notecards that helped me write "The Obstacle is the Way" and "Ego is the Enemy."

Anxiety isn’t escaped. It’s discarded. This was a breakthrough I had during the pandemic. Suddenly, I had a lot less to worry about. I wasn’t doing the things that, in the past, I told myself were the causes of my anxiety. I wasn’t having to get to a plane. I wasn’t battling traffic to get somewhere on time. I wasn’t having to prepare for this talk or that one. So you’d think that my anxiety would have gone way down. But it didn’t. And what I realized is that anxiety has nothing to do with any of these things. The airport isn’t the one to blame. I am! Marcus Aurelius actually talks about this in Meditations. “Today I escaped from anxiety,” he says. “Or no, I discarded it, because it was within me, in my own perceptions—not outside.” It’s not your parents that are frustrating you. They’re just doing what they do. You are the source of the frustration. That’s a little frustrating, but it’s also freeing. Because it means you can stop it! You can choose to discard it.

It’s the surprise that kills you. Stuff is going to happen, but what makes it harder is when it catches us off guard. The unexpected blow lands heaviest, Seneca said. That’s why we should practice the art of premeditatio malorum–essentially, a pre-mortem of the things that could happen in a day or a life. This takes the sting out of them in advance…it also lets us prepare and prevent. And for no one is this more important than parents and leaders. Seneca said that the one thing a leader is not allowed to say is, “Wow, I didn’t think that was going to happen.”

You can’t learn what you think you already know. Conceit, Zeno said, was the enemy of wisdom and learning. This was the essential worldview of Socrates, the hero of the Stoics. Think of Socrates’ method. He didn’t go around telling people anything. He went around asking questions. That’s how he learned so much and ended up becoming so smart. If you want to get smarter, stop thinking you’re so smart. If you want to learn, focus on all the things you don’t know. Humility, admission of ignorance–these are the starting points. This is the attitude that gets you further in life.

What good is posthumous fame? Marcus Aurelius knew he was famous. He knew they were building statues of him. He knew he would have a legacy. He also knew this was basically worthless. What good is posthumous fame, he asks in Meditations, when you’re not around to enjoy it?! He reminded himself too that you know, it’s not like the people in the future were going to be way better than the people alive right now - there will be idiots in the future too. What do I care about how many people read my books in 100 years? What matters is if I am doing my best right now, if I am taking pleasure and pride from doing my best right now. So stop trying to live forever by achieving all this greatness, stop trying to get more than you need, stop trying to perform for history. Do the good you can do now. Stop chasing something you will never touch. Legacy is not for you. You’ll be dead. Leave it to others.

People are just doing their job. I don’t just mean at work. After bumping into a particularly frustrating person, Marcus Aurelius asks himself, “Is a world without shamelessness possible?” No, he answers. “There have to be shameless people in the world. This is one of them.” This is just someone fulfilling their role. Seeing things this way not only prevents me from being surprised, but it makes me sympathetic. This person has a crappy job.It’s not fun to be them–they have to be one of the jerks that exist in the world. And then I remind myself that I am lucky that my job is to try to be a good person.

They don’t want you to be miserable. It’s strange that Stoics have the reputation for being unfeeling when Seneca wrote three very beautiful essays on loss and grief called Consolations. I read these essays whenever I lose someone or miss someone who I loved. Anyway, one of the lessons that hit me the most is when he is writing to the daughter of a now-deceased friend. He brings up a great point, basically saying, look, your dad loved you so much. Of course, he would be honored that you miss him, but do you think he would want his death to make you miserable? Would he want the mere mention of his name to bring you pain? No, that would be his worst nightmare. He would want you to be happy. He would want you to go on with your life. He wouldn’t want his memory to haunt you like a ghost–he would want the thought of him to bring you joy and happiness. Of course, we’re always going to feel sad when we lose someone, but then we can remind ourselves of this and try to smile too.

Opinions are optional. “Remember, you always have the power to have no opinion,” Marcus says. Do you need to have an opinion about the weather today - is it changing anything? Do you need to have an opinion about the way your kid does their hair? So what if this person likes music that sounds weird to you? So what if that person is a vegetarian? “These things are not asking to be judged by you,” Marcus writes. “Leave them alone.” Especially because these opinions often make us miserable! “It’s not things that upset us,” Epictetus says, “it’s our opinions about things.” The less opinions you have, especially about other people and things outside your control, the happier you will be. The nicer you’ll be to be around too.

The last one is the most powerful one, I think. And it’s about the thing we have the least amount of power and control over: the fact that we’re all going to die. But the Stoics want us to think about it differently…

Death isn’t in the future. It’s happening now. It’s easy to see death as this thing that lies off in the distant future. It’s a fixed event that happens to us once…at the end. This is literally true but it’s also incorrect. “This is our big mistake,” as Seneca points out, “to think we look forward toward death. Most of death is already gone. Whatever time has passed is owned by death.”

It’s better to think of death as a process - something that is always happening. We are dying every day, he said. Even as you read this email, time is passing that you will never get back. That time, he said, belongs to death. Powerful, right? Death doesn’t lie off in the distance. It’s with us right now. It’s the second hand on the clock. It’s the setting sun. As the arrow of time moves, death follows, claiming every moment that has passed. What ought we do about it? The answer is live. Live while you can. Put nothing off. Leave nothing unfinished. Seize it while it still belongs to us."

"Be Unshakable - Ultimate Stoic Quotes Compilation"

RedFrost Motivation, 
"Be Unshakable - Ultimate Stoic Quotes Compilation"
"Powerful wisdom from Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus"
Performed by Chris Lines

"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?"

“The History of the Middle Finger”

“The History of the Middle Finger”
by pappy

“Well, now… here’s something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to send it on to my more intelligent friends in the hope that they, too, will feel edified.

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore they would be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous English longbow was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as ‘plucking the yew’ (or ‘pluck yew’).

Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and they began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, “See, we can still pluck yew!” Since ‘pluck yew’ is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodentalfricative ‘F’, and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute! It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as ‘giving the bird.’”

How It Really Is"

“The only difference between the Republican and Democratic
parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when
corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference.”
- Ralph Nader
The best little whorehouse, well, anywhere...

"Too Far to Turn Back Now"

"Too Far to Turn Back Now"
by Will Schryver

"I believe there is a coalescing faction in Washington that is pushing to get out of this war without further delay. Militarily, it is a lost cause. Yes, I understand how many people think I’m nuts for saying such a thing, but that reality is becoming more apparent to more people with each passing day. Even so, I am inclined to conclude that the empire is into this gambit way too far to turn back now. Negotiation of a deal from their current posture is unthinkable. Iran is dictating terms.

The US blockade has been a farce so far. They have interdicted a couple ships for show. Many others have sailed on their merry way. Fact is, the US Navy cannot execute a tactically meaningful blockade. They have, at most, 17 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Arabian Sea. They will absolutely feel compelled to retain at least a dozen of those to afford protection to the two carriers. That leaves five destroyers to enforce a blockade ranging over 3000+ miles of mostly sovereign waters (Pakistan and India) from the Iranian coast of the Gulf of Oman to the Strait of Malacca. Good luck with that - especially if the Chinese decide to start escorting convoys with warships.

And so, back to the empire’s dilemma: even if they know they can’t sustain anything more than maybe another two weeks of high-intensity air strikes, they will almost certainly play that card in hopes of being able to improve their negotiating position. Of course, many people see the headlines about “three carrier strike groups” poised to rain death and destruction on the presumptuous Iranians, and they understandably assume it is true.

They don’t understand that the USS Poopy Gerry (CVN-78) is a ship in sore need of two years in the repair dock; a ship that is hiding out in the far northern reaches of the Red Sea, with three destroyers assigned to protect it until it can sneak back through the Suez Canal in the dead of night and limp back to Norfolk.

They don’t understand that the US Navy has already been struggling to sustain the USS Fraidy Abe (CVN-72) as it does figure-8s in the safe deep blue waters of the Arabian Sea - no bases in which to rest, recuperate, and replenish. Nothing but the increasingly scant pantries, refrigerators, and freezers of a ship that needs to feed 5000 people three meals a day.

And now a navy that was struggling to sustain a single strike group in the Arabian Sea will be faced with sustaining TWO of them. The USS Bush League (CVN-77) has arrived on station, presumably not any closer than about 800 km from the Iranian coast. This is a fleet whose combat-ready sustainability has an extremely short half-life.

The air force strike component in the region has not been strengthened to any significant degree during the course of this recent “ceasefire”. In fact, it has been weakened considerably since its high-water mark in late February. But a steady stream of C-17s has been delivering stuff of various kinds to the theater, presumably more air defense systems, interceptors, cruise missiles, and bombs.

The ground component remains entirely insufficient to do anything meaningful. A single Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Tripoli, a Brigade Combat Team from the 82nd Airborne Division, and several special forces units. Maybe amounts to 5000 combat effectives, but I doubt it. Besides, I don’t believe they could insert even a mere 3000 combat effectives without some fashion of disaster ensuing. I apologize for my certainty on this point, but in my considered opinion, anyone who believes the US can insert a ground force into Iran - be it 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 - is bats in the belfry crazy. It simply could not be done.

So that leaves them with an attempted reprise of the first couple weeks of this war: stand-off air and naval missile strikes. They will blow the whole wad on one last attempt to turn the tide of affairs. But they won’t disarm Iran. And Iran will then strike back with unprecedented salvos from their substantial stockpiles. And the state of affairs for the empire will go from bad to worse, with consequences as yet unforeseen."
o