I'm not usually one who jumps into these sorts of things. But as time goes on, everything about Jan 6th just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

Yesterday Oct. 22, 2025 the FBI Washington Field Office put out a Tweet that said;

"The FBI is still offering a $500,000 reward for information that helps identify the person who placed pipe bombs at the offices of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on January 5, 2021. As part of our ongoing investigation, we're releasing an updated video of the subject, which includes previously unreleased footage, higher quality video, and longer clips of the subject's movements."

https://x.com/FBIWFO/status/1981126112534057061

Screen capture from X/Twitter

Can We Trust What We See?

Why are the pictures grainy and cheesy like a Bigfoot picture?!

Really, this is the FBI?

Many of us already know, because of the grainy photos, that the timers which were supposed to have been attached to bombs at the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on January 5, 2021 — are not realistic.

You can't use a 60-minute kitchen timer (egg timer) to set off an explosive — the next day. There would be no reason to set off an explosion the day before Jan 6 — because the entire event would have been canceled.

Think about that for a minute.

Also, neither explosive device ever detonated.

Here's a picture from the full-screen video:

Full-screen capture from X/Twitter, click to enlarge

Somehow, CNN has a much clearer picture than the FBI, and it's from 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/01/29/exp-tsr-todd-dc-pipe-bombs-were-placed-the-night-before.cnn

CNN Jan 6th Pipe Bomb Picture, click to enlarge

If someone were trying to do anything, from any political standpoint, this makes no sense.

However, there is a scenario where it does make sense.

Media Influence and AI Manipulation

Tricking people is easy, but tricking the systems that trick people is even easier.

Consider, if AI is going to return data on Jan 6th, where is the data going to come from? It's going to come from the most repeated source(s).

If you can direct most of those sources with nonsense — people will see nonsense when they search the events of that day.

The idea is to get Trump's name associated with Jan 6th and "Bombs" as frequently as possible, such that most people will see the two together (subconsciously linking the two events together). Truth is not an issue, just that the two events were linked (however illogically). Never mind that the entire bomb plot is illogical, and could serve no legitimate purpose — and that's the giveaway.

The bomb plot serves no legitimate interest, it's an implausible and silly proposition — however, if repeated enough, people will remember it — and they'll remember Trump's name along with it.

Fast forward to today, and what do we see? The same unreasonable story being pushed again. Why?

Because the "No Kings" Protests were a flop, and didn't achieve any marked results.

And so, the next thing is to push and older narrative again, so people will believe that it has more merit than it does — because they've heard about it more than once.

That's literally what's going on here.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This is not a “bubble,” this is 100% on purpose (and predictable). A.I. (henceforth referred to as 'AI') is the “hot” investment for everyone right now – governments included – but it’s a trap.

The idea is to get enough money into a central vehicle (in this case AI in general) – that will fail, then people (and governments) will be in the same boat. You can only bail yourself out to a certain extent, then faith in the entire global system collapses.

So, to save the “global economy,” we’ll need a global (or at least globally connected/maintained) digital banking system that can track these kinds of trends (which humans/live people are already tracking) and stop these events from occurring.

We don’t need more regulations, or some digital currency(s) – to enforce the laws that are already in place – because the regulators in charge right now are failing to enforce those laws, only most people don't know/understand that.

A problem is created, a solution is "needed"

For example, take a look at what the World Bank is saying.

World Bank Releases Its First Report on the Circular Economy in the EU, Says Decoupling Growth From Resource Use in Europe Achievable Within Decade

BRUSSELS, December 6, 2022—Globally, extraction of raw materials stands at over 100 billion tons, annually. This staggering figure is driven by both the persistently high levels of material consumption in high-income countries and the rapidly growing needs in emerging economies.

The World Bank’s first comprehensive report on the circular economy in the European Union (EU)—“Squaring the Circle: Policies from Europe’s Circular Economy Transition”—states that the current “take-make-use-waste” linear model of economic expansion is increasingly unsustainable, not only on environmental terms, but also from an economic security and inclusion dimension. The report concludes, however, that comprehensive policy packages can reduce material consumption while still maintaining growth and welfare creation.

Countries in the EU are global leaders in promoting the Circular Economy transition, after making it a centerpiece of its growth strategy and embarking on a vast regulatory reform program. The World Bank report examines the EU's experience in furthering the circular economy agenda to elicit lessons that can benefit countries within and beyond Europe’s borders. The report also concludes that ambitious circular economy policies could reduce Europe’s aggregate material use by up to 11 percent and effectively decouple growth from the use of raw material resources within a decade.

Over the past two decades, total material use in the EU has decreased by 9.4 percent and the share of resources derived from recycled waste increased by almost 50 percent. However, while impressive, progress in transitioning to a circular economy appears more limited when viewed in relation to Europe’s actual material footprint.

“Our dominant ‘take-make-use-waste’ global economic model is unsustainable. Current global demand for natural resources exceeds our planet's regenerative capacity by a factor of 1.75; we simply do not have another planet.” said Gallina A. Vincelette. World Bank Country Director for the EU. “Europe is at the leading edge of the circular economy transition, but circular business models need to move from the niche to the mainstream. The good news is that the right policies, aimed at creating incentives on the pricing of natural resources, providing information for better decision making by economic actors, enabling institutions to mainstream circularity as a whole-of-government agenda, and unlocking investment - can enable significant progress.”

Europe’s private sector is the engine of the circular economy, however innovative circular economy business models remain limited in scale, depth, and speed of adoption. Average market penetration of these models stands at just five to 10 percent; recycled materials currently represent only 8.6 percent of raw material input, and the share of remanufacturing products compared to new manufacturing is just 1.9 percent. Without rapid scale-up, the sustainability potential of a circular economy will not be realized.

“While also paying the environmental costs of our current linear model, developing countries – particularly those whose economies are heavily concentrated on raw materials exports - also face trade related risks from circular economy policies enacted in high income countries,” said Sameh Wahba, Regional Sustainable Development Director for Europe and Central Asia. “Developing countries need to be central to the global transition towards a more circular economy.”

Finally, the report highlights that in Europe, the economic costs to be incurred from the decoupling between economic growth and material use could be offset by appropriate fiscal policies aimed at shifting the tax burden from labor to raw material extraction, use and waste.

From the very start, this "transition" is needed because it's a global "existential" problem.

"Stop questioning our motives, if we fail (to come to power) the entire planet will die."

This is often the rationale used to impose global dominance schemes. It's always about resource control. What happens when the government controls the means of "raw material extraction?" That's literally what they are going for here. Forget the means of production. This is the means – of the means of production. They're cutting out the possibility that someone has manufacturing resources – that might be able to work against their plans.

Taxes will allow full and total control of resource management – because that's the heart of a global technocracy.

When this transition takes place, who will know when, and where to move their investments, and at which critical juncture? If I had to guess, it would be everyone involved in the scheme from the start.

Too often people get caught up in the narrative, which is, "If we don't do this, we all die."

Of course, that's always been nonsense, and it always will be.

The "tell" is the use of the term "global." It's never US food insecurity, or European food insecurity. No, It's always global food insecurity.

"Why?," you might ask. Because "global" problems require "global" solutions... right...? Oh, and don't forget the fact that the technocrats require more power for each and every solution.

Back to circular trading

All of the circular trading taking place in the AI space is being done to usher in government backed digital currencies — because the only way to stop this "global economic problem" — is to turn over power to the same people who created the problem in the first place.

We’re in the middle of a directed market collapse, and AI investment is the vehicle to bring it about.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

When you take a step back from all of the things going on in the world, sometimes it feels like a bad movie.

I say this because there are too many "thought provoking" incidents within such a short period of time.

The probability of these events also underscores these events' likely probability as well as believability.

However, it's been observed that most people in the US are not paying attention -- not on a daily basis -- so chronology often does not consciously influence that which they perceive. Notice I say "perceive" and not watch, see, or witness. One can watch, see, or witness many events, but that doesn't mean that one has expended the time or energy to critically analyze them. As the saying goes, "Perception is reality."

Close scrutiny of "thought provoking" events usually leads to questions -- questions that might lead one to believe that the entire event doesn't follow any rational chronological outcome. If one is trying to spin a narrative, questions are not something you want to deal with. Overlapping logic, or reasoning, can result in people questioning the story that is to be sold.

Focus Groups

Those who run focus groups are all too often charlatans. They're frauds, they ask pointed questions, of their focus groups, and return an answer, and the people who hire them believe that these findings are reasonable (or at least believable to the general population). Of course, this requires those who hire focus groups to be rather far removed from "normal society" -- and they are, we already know this -- that's why they hire focus groups. People who live outside the normal sphere of life, require insight.

Political calculations are often focus grouped. That's why they are so ridiculous. Focus groups are how you end up with the ridiculous "Men for Harris" TV ad. It was so bad that people thought it was parody. They were seriously wondering how anyone paid for it -- and actually believed it would produce a positive outcome. I admit, I thought it was parody when I first saw it, I thought it was from SNL or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk4ueY9wVtA

- Man enough to lift 500[lbs] and braid the shit out of my daughter's hair

- You think I'm not man enough to rebuild a carburetor, I eat carburetors for breakfast

- I ain't afraid of bears, that's what bear hugs are for

- And I'll tell you another thing I'm sure as shit not afraid of... women...

- I'm not afraid of childless cat ladies, have all the cats you want

- Full-throated endorsement

- Man enough to admit I'm lost, even when I refuse to ask for directions

- Man enough to Raw Dog a flight

- Man enough to be emotional in front of my wife and kids

- Cry at movies, Love Actual, Goodwill Hunting, Westside Story...

Look at the comments:

The reasons that this ad is inauthentic are endless, the point is that someone -- someone on the Harris/Walz campaign -- was actually paid to come up with this ad. Never mind that they were likely trying to sink the campaign, those in charge didn't know better. Those in charge of the Harris/Walz campaign actually believed that men (or whatever they consider men) would see this, and feel encouraged to vote for a woman.

Those on the (within government) who attempt to manipulate the public are not very good at it. As a result, they hire firms who have convinced them that they are good at it, with data from focus groups and such, what we see here is the result.

Comically bad attempts at manipulating the public, by people who have never worked a real job, and truly believe that regular people are low IQ fools.

Charlie Kirk Assassination

Upon scrutiny, the narrative pushed by "the officials" as it relates to the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not believable.

It appears that no normal person has leaked video of the event. It was all "leaked" to TMZ and The New York Post. Nobody shared their private video of the event -- so there's no way to verify any of the footage that has been publicly available.

Are we to believe that an otherwise intelligent individual was planning out an assassination, studied the area and found a way to the roof without being seen, while simultaneously creating his own paper trail? Taking ridiculously long periods of time to disassemble and reassemble a gun -- multiple times -- just to leave it in a bush (wrapped in a towel) -- when he supposedly walked there with it in his pants leg? Why not just walk away with the gun in his pants leg? Why wrap it in a towel so that it would be clearly visible?

The supposed back and forth between the shooter and his he/she "girlfriend" sounds like it was written by someone much older. I'm 45, and I don't know anyone within 10-years of my age (older or younger) that uses the term "old man" to describe their dad, or "my love" to describe someone they care about.

None of what has been proposed passes the smell test.

Listen to all of this, you might find it interesting. This lawyer brings up some interesting facts that many people might have forgotten about.

Robinson's new attorney wants time to review the evidence before waiving a potential preliminary hearing.

An attorney for an 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday [09/29/25] for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson's newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Is it possible that the evidence is not as complete as people have been lead to believe?

The Aftermath

What followed Charlie Kirk's assassination is equally strange.

From many accounts, the crime scene was not very well secured. Some guy was filmed taking down the video camera that was right behind where Charlie Kirk as sitting -- and there has little to no mention of this -- other than Candice Owens claiming to have seen the video.

There's also the trans aspect. Which doesn't really make sense, because Charlie Kirk was not the tip of the spear as it relates to the trans issue. There is no real "tip of the spear" because pretty much everyone that's not indoctrinated -- believes that trans ideology is total nonsense. Kirk spoke on the issue, but was not the only, or the primary, one doing so.

Karlyn Borysenko, makes an interesting point here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/karlyn/p/why-im-extemely-skeptical-about-the?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The video where Erika Kirk is kissing Charlie's hand.

The following video is just bizarre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEhnL-fIZE

Why put something like this out there? This was done to invoke a response of some kind (from someone) but what kind of response, and from who, or what group?

Look at the comments on this:

You could look at the comments and say, "That's rude, someone is grieving a loved on here," but then, why is Erika Kirk making it a public issue. Why film it at all?

What's Really Going on Here?

There is massive manipulation in play here. None of this has seemed "real." The whole situation is like reading a litany of bad movie reviews.

However, those on the left that are cheering Charlie Kirk's assassination are indeed doing so. There have been many prominent people on the left who have been overjoyed that someone killed Charlie Kirk. And these people are not shy about it.

To what end does this serve? I don't pretend to know, as this event has been manipulated by both those on the left and the right.

All I know is that something isn't right.

However, even if it doesn’t pass -- why is it being proposed?!

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The government of California has officially crossed the Rubicon here. It is enough for legislators to signal that they want to block people from saying things which they, the state, disagrees with, but it's another thing when they adopt legislation that is designed to enforce that idea.

I don't need to get into the importance of "free speech" and why it's a good thing. We all understand this. But I'll briefly get into it anyway! The only reason to stop citizens from questioning their government--is the same reason that governments want to disarm the citizens--because the government plans on doing something horrible to the citizens, and they want to minimalize any pushback.

Likewise, when it comes to online speech--there is no reason to enact laws to limit it. There are already laws by which individuals can be held accountable for defamation, or slander; however, those laws don't protect politicians from being criticized. They also don't extend to people posting content that is accurate (something that someone said, or was documented to have said).

In comes California SB 771

There are many groups speaking out about this legislation.

This is a serious problem, and we all see where this can lead.

The Computer & Communications Industries Association is worried about this legislation.

"It’s essential that we protect users online, but SB 771 is not the right approach. By exposing platforms to vague and costly lawsuits, this bill would force services to become overly cautious and err on the side of censorship — removing far more speech than necessary and restricting legitimate conversations, all to avoid unfounded litigation. This risks undermining free expression, conflicts with federal law, and ultimately would make the online environment less open and less trustworthy. We urge the Assembly to reject this flawed measure and pursue balanced, effective solutions that will truly protect users while upholding constitutional rights and an open internet.”

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is also worried about the legislation.

Framed as a civil rights safeguard, SB 771 could enable politically motivated claims that conflate criticism of Zionism with antisemitism — a trend already visible in Meta’s content moderation policies, where “Zionist” is treated as interchangeable with “Jewish,” and in the push for platforms to adopt the controversial international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition has been widely criticized by hundreds of scholars and numerous Jewish organizations (including JVP and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice) for erasing the line between political critique and bigotry, raising serious concerns that SB771 could be used to suppress protected speech about apartheid, occupation, and settler colonialism in Palestine.

ADC condemns all forms of hate and stands firmly against discrimination in every form. SB 771 weaponizes civil liability to force platforms to remove content that challenges dominant narratives, particularly those relating to Israel and Palestine. By encouraging platforms to over-police content to avoid costly lawsuits, SB 771 can trigger a de facto “delete policy” — especially for Palestinian voices and those in solidarity with them.

As you can see, there's a wide ranging difference of opinion here--but they all agree that SB 771 is a bad idea.

Freedom of Speech at It's Core

You can't rally a cause, or a movement without free speech--that's a fact--this is indisputable.

Language connects us all (more than it divides us) and limiting the free and open sharing of information, by language or speech restrictions is against "collective humanity" as a whole--regardless of what religion you subscribe to.

Having a national language falls outside of these bounds, as it's not a limitation, a national language is required for proper legal and judicial review. Words mean things, and laws have to be based on those words, not "feels," not "potential interpretations," but what those words actually relate to in the physical world.

So, Where is This Legislation Now?

Let's take a peek.

This legislation is likely to pass.

Prepare yourself if you live in California--you're about to be effectively removed from the political process--act accordingly.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I wrote this the other day on Substack:

This is an odd subject, because I don’t think we’ve ever been here before as a society.

Generally, people from Western nations tend to honor the dead.

That is to say, human life has intrinsic value and worth. Those who relied upon, or where emotionally connected to the person who died—they have worth as well—this current crop of people on the left doesn’t see things this way.

Their worldview doesn’t work within the realm of how people generally operate. These individuals literally have no legacy. Who will grieve them when they die? Their kids are taught (by them) that they shouldn’t respect those who just died—because of a difference in opinion.

Moreover, who doesn’t want to be grieved when they die? Who doesn’t value life—when every living thing on the planet fights to stay alive? How can someone become so inverted?

This is not normal human behavior. We’re all selfish, if we’re honest. It’s part of what keeps us alive when outside circumstances might dictate otherwise—it’s part of being human.

But these people on the left are subject to a cause that promises them nothing. Literally nothing. They’re subjecting themselves to the worst kind of slavery. Their minds have been captured. They are by literal definition slaves.

These people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death are looking at life like it’s 3rd person (and I don’t mean by using pronouns). It’s as if they believe they can walk away after all this, and there is somewhere else that their mind truly resides (they’re separated from reality).

But there’s nowhere to go—at least not in the sense that those still living can interact with.

So what does this tell us?

It tells me (at least) that there are a whole lot of people who are “not all there” and are willing to commit to horrible acts—just because they are directed to do so. They are selfless—but selfless in service of something that will never benefit them—or their offspring.

This creates quite the dilemma.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

This enemy is new, in that they don’t really understand reality—and don’t even act within the confines of their own best interest.

This is like humans vs ants (and I mean that metaphorically, not literally) most of us, can’t imagine a world in which any people champion a cause that makes things worse (for them and for everyone else).

This leftist mindset just serves to create more of the angst and hopelessness that came before it.

Where do we go from here?

I have no idea, but I know that a lot of people are going to either wake up, or live miserable lives, because the clock is ticking—none of these people are getting any younger.

Time comes for us all. It’s what we do while we’re here that matters.

There people who are worried that those on the right are "canceling" people who endorsed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, but that argument ignores the core difference of what's happening here.

The left canceled people for telling the truth, things like, "Men can't have babies" and "There are physical differences between men and women." Basic biology was enough to get someone canceled by the left.

The people endorsing political assassinations are in no way on the same level as those stating biological facts.

These people aren’t just sharing “mean jokes” with their friends.

They are broadcasting their endorsement of assassination(s) on social media—many in video format—not in their DMs.

These people are being intentionally performative about it.

There is no "cancelling." The people publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death are bringing this upon themselves—through their deliberate and performative actions. They're effectively doxxing themselves.

The question is, “Why?” Who seeks the company of those who wish literal death upon those they disagree with?

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"