“[Government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.”
—James Madison, 1787

“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
—Dick Cheney, 2003

I want to talk about a piece of propaganda that hides among the obvious propaganda we’re bombarded with. The obvious propaganda:

• Israeli action in Gaza is self-defense.

• The Ukraine war was totally unprovoked.

• The AI usage explosion is good for the country.

• Oil prices are doing just fine.

I could go on. Now the hidden propaganda, the lie most people don’t spot:

• Your tax dollars fund the U.S. government.

Wrong. Totally false. Backwards, in fact.

Believing this makes us willing to be robbed at will by people who have too much, people who pick our pockets without a complaint. People who cut programs we need while giving big gifts to themselves.

In short, this is bamboozlement. Read to see why.

Money and Zero-Sum Games

Let’s start here. For us, money is a zero-sum game. We can’t create it, so we have to do things to get it (sell our labor, our couch, or lobby the government for gifts).

States like Idaho can’t create money either. When they need it, they have to do things to get it (tax people, sell state-owned land). For us and entities like these, money is a zero-sum game.

The U.S. government is different. For our government, money is not a zero-sum game. Our government can make it from nothing. When it wants things, it simply write checks and poof, the money exists.

Where does our government get money? Where does Kroger get coupons? Same place. Out of thin air.

Enemies of federal spending call this “printing money” and they’re right. But note: People who say this also know that our zero-sum statement is right — that taxes aren’t needed to fund the federal government. They understand that the statements above are right.

Government also destroys money by taking it back. You do pay your taxes, right? The government’s supply of money doesn’t go up when you pay taxes — infinite dollars + your payment is still infinite dollars. The money just disappears, and for us, supply goes down.

Again:

• For you, money is a zero-sum game. For the federal government it’s not. They make it from air.

Subscribe now

Airline Miles Are Money

For an analogy, consider “airline miles.” This is money in exactly this sense. Airline miles have value. You can spend them, but you can’t create them. To get them, you have to do things (buy tickets and fly). Airlines, however, can make as many as they like.

Airlines also control the supply of miles (which makes sure flights aren’t too cheap) by taking them back when they like. Remember that trip that once cost 20,000 miles? If it now costs 30,000 miles, your supply of miles goes down faster. Yet the airlines’ supply doesn’t go up — infinite miles + 10,000 is still infinite miles. The miles it takes in, like dollars the government takes in, just disappear.

If you keep that idea in mind — our government can make dollars at will — I can show you how you’ve been fooled.

The Lie That Keeps People Poor

Despite the fact the statement above is true, almost everyone with a voice and a mic says the opposite:

• “Do you really want your tax dollars to pay for welfare?”

• “They’re using your tax dollars to fund this war.”

At the federal level, “your tax dollars” have no relation to spending. Yet you hear the opposite a lot, from both left and right. Why?

There are two reasons: Either 1) people mechanically repeat what “everyone knows.” After all, your tax dollars is a phrase we’ve been hearing since birth. Or 2) they want to take things away from you — like welfare, food stamps, good railroads or Social Security — and that’s how they plan to get you to go along.

“Your tax dollars” — the government needs money from you. See how that works?

Why Say This Now?

Why say this now? Because there’s a lot of noise these days about our shiny two trillion dollar deficit and our high-trillion dollar debt. This tells you the 400 overlords running this place — did I say overlords? Of course I meant protectors — are fixing to take things away, and it won’t be more missiles or bombs.

Hold on to your Social Security and Medicare, such as it is. The assault is coming, just like it always does. From Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obama and Trump to Biden, our betters have constantly tried to take things away. And mostly they’ve been successful.

Why do they take things away if they know the government can fund whatever it wants? After all, when they want more money, they just print it up (see graph above). But no printing for you. I think it’s because they’re just mean. The cruelty is the point.

How will they win? They’ll win if you think dollars are limited, that you fund the federal budget, and “Golly, we just can’t afford to spend this much” (see image at top).

To protect yourself, just remember:

• They don’t think government needs your money. But it matters that you do.

Please, don’t be fooled. Protect what you have by knowing how this actually works.

I may follow this piece with further small explanations: Why do governments tax if they don’t need the cash? Why does the bond market exist? What is the deficit? And what is the national debt?

If you’re interested, stay tuned. These pieces will work together, connect a few dots. And thanks for reading this through.

Leave a comment

This is the last in a brief series that looks at this year’s ‘Super El Niño’ and what it may mean. The first, “A Record El Niño Is Coming,” noted the record El Niño sea surface temperature. The second, “More on the Next ‘Super El Niño,” took a deeper dive into what’s coming this year and next, and discussed what we’re in for just a little bit down the road, the next ten years or so.

I want to close with a more comprehensive summary of where we now stand by presenting a short page of charts, most of them actively maintained by James Hansen. (His main website is here. The homepage for his charts is here.)

I’ll keep this simple and clear. The pictures and not much text tell the story. This is mostly data only; measurements, not speculation.

Temperature

Discussions of temperature can refer to a number of regions: Global surface, sea surface, land surface, northern or southern hemisphere, the El Niño area, and so on. Consider these charts.

Global Surface Temperature

The solid blue line shows data through July 2026.

Land vs. Ocean Surface Temperature

The first of the two charts below shows land temperature change versus ocean temperature change relative to the base period. Data is complete through July 2026. Note that we’ve crossed +2°C on land.

Consider that when the ocean catches up with the air (when the planet is at equilibrium), it will take millennia for the system to cool down.

Daily Sea Surface Temperature — El Niño Area

This chart is from climatereanalyzer.org, updated to August 22. This is the “super El Niño” that has people worried. The chart at the link is interactive.

Climate Forcings

The term climate forcings just means “energy-in” and “energy-out” for the earth’s climate system. A positive “forcing” adds to the system’s energy, a negative “forcing” decreases it. Energy-in for the planet adds heat. Energy-out reduces it.

Retained energy is the net. When retained energy grows, the planet heats up.

The sun provides positive forcing; its energy heats the world. CO2 in the atmosphere is also a positive forcing, since like a blanket, it blocks escape for the heat created when sunlight strikes the surface.

Pollution from aerosols provides negative forcing. These microscopic solid or liquid particles shield the earth by reflecting the sun’s energy back before it can reach the surface and turn into heat. Other reflectants, like sea ice, are also negative forcings.

This is a simple concept, as simple as what happens when fire is lit under a pot, or ice is added to water — the water is heated or cooled, just as you’d expect.

Net Climate Forcing Today

That said, let’s look at a chart of energy-in and energy-out. It tells its own story. (Image courtesy of Leon Simons; red annotations are mine.)

The chart shows two measures of imbalance — Net GHG + Aerosol (the one I’ve marked in red), and the inner one, NASA CERES Satellite Observations (the one marked with a black square bracket). Regardless of how it’s measured, the imbalance is increasing rapidly. The fire is being turned up.

Subscribe now

Carbon Emissions and Renewables Growth

If energy imbalance is the problem, what’s causing that?

The black line at the top of the chart above (Total GHG Forcing) is the answer. Greenhouse gases increasingly go into the air, while particle air pollutants (the green line at the bottom of the chart) are decreasing dramatically.

What’s causing more greenhouse gases? The chart below has the answer: global energy consumption (a) and global carbon emissions (b) taken together. (This chart is from Hansen, updated through 2022.)

Here’s the same thing from Our World in Data (interactive chart at the link):

Below is the view from 2000 to 2025. It gives you a sense of the scale of renewable growth against fossil fuels:

If you think the problem is total energy growth, you’re probably right. If you think the problem is too little renewable growth, you’re also probably right. And if you think the problem is time, meaning we don’t have enough, I think you’re as right as it gets.

Unless there’s major news, I’ll probably put climate on the back burner here for a bit. But this should catch you up; you know where we are.

Looks like we’re still good on the AI front.

Leave a comment

This is a follow-up to our latest climate report (“A Record El Niño Is Coming”). There we talked about this summer’s unprecedented jump in sea surface temperature and noted the rising heat through much of the world.

We’re not alone in alarm; a number of publications have noted how unusual the coming El Niño will be and what it might bring. For example:

• Newsweek: El Niño Breaking 176-Year Record: The Impact on Florida, Texas, California

A potentially historic El Niño is strengthening in the Pacific, raising the prospect of shifting weather patterns across parts of the U.S., including changes in rain, storm risk and tropical activity affecting Florida, Texas and California.

Florida meteorologist Matt Devitt said in a Monday post on X that forecasts suggest this El Niño could surpass anything seen since at least 1850, potentially setting a 176-year benchmark.

While El Niño begins in the tropical Pacific, its effects can reshape weather patterns across the U.S.

The Devitt X post shows this:

How to read the chart: The numbers down the middle show the strength of each El Niño measured by how much temperature increase it caused. The predicted +2.65°C (4.77°F) is a lot for a weather system to absorb. The 2015-2016 event is estimated to have caused up to $90 billion in global damage directly, and the long-term effects of super El Niño disruptions run into the trillions.

In addition, the forecast above could be quite conservative. According to a similar article in Wired, “median temperatures for the Niño 3.4 region [a defined region of the Pacific] could reach 3.6 degrees Celsius above normal—even after accounting for the effects of long-term global warming” (emphasis mine).

For a sense of what this looks like graphically, here’s a chart from James Hansen showing the current temperatures (in red) charted with some of the previous “super” El Niños. (Note: Hansen uses a different measurable than the standard El Niño measurement — he uses the temperature of the upper 300 meters of the ocean instead of just surface temperature — so his numbers are slightly different.)

If the worst predictions are right, the red line will break above the top of the graph.

Below is a chart from NOAA that shows El Niño and La Niña temperature departures going back to 1950 (click to enlarge).

Gives a sense of the sweep of things, doesn’t it?

Subscribe now

What to Expect

As to what to expect this year and next:

• El Niños often mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes, but more and stronger Pacific typhoons (see here).

• Since the Pacific jet stream moves further south and east, the southern U.S. is made more wet and cold, and northern U.S. warmer and dry.

• Southern U.S. tornadoes may be stronger, and other storms stronger and more frequent.

• Economic effects can be great and unpredictable. According to Wired, “the 1997–98 El Niño resulted in a cumulative loss of approximately $5.7 trillion over the following five years.”

The Coming, Increasing Disaster

But the greatest effect may be on the longer-term climate system. Global warming, we know, is already accelerating. According to Hansen, the rate of temperature change has moved like this (see second chart here):

• 1970-2010 — 0.18°C / decade

• 2010-present (with no El Niño this year) — 0.30°C / decade

• 2010-present (with “super” El Niño this year) — 0.41°C / decade

Hansen’s rate has now been confirmed. Tweets by Ben See and Mike Hudema tell us this (annotations mine):

The average rate of warming from these five calculations is 0.43 degrees Celsius per decade, with the outlier at 0.48 (outliers are more often right than wrong in today’s keep-everyone-calm messaging game).

Which means that warming of +1.5°C will happen this year if it hasn’t happened already; that warming of +2.0°C will occur within 10 years; and that warming of +2.5°C will occur in the 2040s.

Almost everyone now alive will live through this.

What to Do

What to do is a topic on its own. I’ve written a little about it, and will write more in due course. But to short-form my own thoughts, do this:

• Stop trying to “fix” global warming. We’ll never get back to the always-growth capitalist world, the exploitive, predatious world of monsters with money and big-screen/smart-phone convenience. It will go, it can’t be preserved, and there are more good things to do than to fail to preserve it.

• Start building a good world based on what will remain, on what the new world will be. In football terms, don’t throw the ball to where the receiver is now. Throw it to where he will be. In this case, “where he will be” is after the real storm has struck. (Okay, a seriously mixed metaphor, but you get it, I’m sure.)

• Embrace courage, not fear. Humans were born resilient. Embrace your resilience as a positive thing.

• Mourn the death of this life, but rejoice in the life being born. There’s a lot packed into that statement, some visible, some surprisingly not. But start with this: Our happiness doesn’t depend on TVs and cars.

More to come. I hope you stay tuned.

Leave a comment

Our latest update is this, a daily look at global sea surface temperature for each year from 1982 through 2026. Guess who’s the star of the show — our own year, 2026. Get ready for new records to break.

We’re headed for the moon with this one, a major El Niño affecting the next two years. Climate scientist James Hansen has written about this earlier:

Another El Nino Already? What Can We Learn from It?

Abstract. The world seems headed into another El Nino, just 3 years after the last one. Such quick return normally would imply, at most, an El Nino of moderate strength, but we suggest that even a moderately strong El Nino may yield record global temperature already in 2026 and still greater temperature in 2027. The extreme warming will be a result mainly of high climate sensitivity and a recent increase of the net global climate forcing, not the result of an exceptional El Nino, per se.

Note: “not the result of an exceptional El Nino, per se.” This means both a) this will be an exceptional El Niño, and b) we can’t blame the next two years of record high temperatures on that fact alone.

Trouble ahead? I think so. Did I mention that global warming has accelerated? Just keeping you up to date.

Warm Seas, Warm Lands

Hot seas bring hotter land. This is what hotter land looks like, 2026 edition.

40°C is over 100°F. The dark and light purple regions (see chart above) are much warmer than that.

Subscribe now

How to Respond

If you want a way to respond to this difficult news, try this:

Leave a comment

“It’s really strange to be saying this at the age I am, and coming to the end of my days, and watching my country essentially commit suicide.”
—Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I want to feature the opening of this conversation between Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, once chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Glenn Diesen on Diesen’s often-excellent podcast. The video is below. A transcript of the opening section (lightly edited) appears at the end of this piece.

Wilkerson’s Journey

Wilkerson makes points that regular readers will recognize as constants here — the existence of twin coups, both bipartisan, and the unique position of President Trump as “the man who ripped off the mask,” not just from our cruel neoliberalism (witness ICE), but also our cruel foreign policy (witness Gaza and everything else).

What’s interesting to me, though, is that it’s Wilkerson saying all this, and he says it so well.

Consider this section. (I’ve edited it lightly, since Wilkerson tends to speak in parentheticals. See the full quote in the transcript.)

First of all, no one counted on […] this character we have at the head of our government right now. No one counted on the situation that is becoming, I think, rather dire for the American empire, being so accelerated, deepened, and made more profound by, I’m going to say it, not just a mercurial, strange, in some ways showing signs of deep dementia, grifter president with almost complete power because of a juncture of what I call the National Security State [and] the Predatory Capitalist State.

And of all things, we have in those two state-building efforts, since 1945 in particular […] what you have now is crossovers in these two states.

This observation is accurate: A mercurial, strange, demented grifter president now has near-complete power over the conjugation of two powerful states within the State, each of which has its own bipartisan life — the National Security State, and the Predatory Capitalist State.

These states rule us, they will continue to rule us until the structure that holds them up falls — that structure is greed and money, by the way, as Wilkerson points out when discussing the lost moment under Bill Clinton to create a true, peaceful, safe multipolar world (21:55 and following).

I know these ideas aren’t new to Wilkerson; he’s been saying things like this for a while. But this time he’s particularly striking and poignant.

The Glad and the Sad

Things are not everywhere bad. I’m delighted that Ahmed El-Sayed and his DSA kindred have won. I was crushed when, years ago, AOC went from sit-in queen to Nancy Pelosi’s new friend. For years I’ve wanted a caucus of actual rebels, an Open Rebellion Caucus, to form in the House and Senate, a Tea Party left, people who would burn the toes off each Harry Reid who tried to get their way. People who could take Dennis Kucinich’s plane ride and still tell Obama, “No thanks. Single payer, please.”

Didn’t happen then; Kucinich caved to Obama. Not going to happen now, certainly not in good numbers and certainly not in time, given the climate jackpot coming our way.

It delights me, though, that people are trying. It also delights me that people like Wilkerson — smart, Republican, prominent — he and so many others are seeing these facts.

• We’re ruled by predators, our rich, using the inherently coercive nature of states to maintain control.

• They’re building and constantly growing a national security machine second to none — almost science-fictiony in its reach and grasp, almost supernatural in what it can know, certainly pathological in its inhuman goals.

• To dislodge these structures means tearing down and completely rebuilding what we call “this modern life,” from economics to media to the way we build consensus and distribute wealth.

• Addressed or not, this modern world, with its pain and contradictions, cannot be sustained.

• People like Wilkerson, born in 1945, marvel at what their life has bracketed and seen — the start of the Empire almost on the day they arrived, and its end, as their own life expires. It’s a helluva tale.

Subscribe now

Transcript

DIESEN: [Very long opening question, leading to…] I was just wondering do you agree with this assessment, and if so, what are possible pathways for the United States? Let’s start with a massive question shall we? [laughter]

WILKERSON: I do in part agree. But let me let me give a couple of side views if you will.

First of all, no one counted on, in this exposé of the way things usually happen, whether it’s Britain or the United States now, or you could go back to other empires — no one calculated on this character we have at the head of our government right now.

No one counted on the situation that is becoming, I think, rather dire for the American empire, being so accelerated, deepened, and made more profound by, I’m going to say it, not just a mercurial, strange, in some ways showing signs of deep dementia grifter — what what other adjectives could I use? — president with almost complete power because of a juncture of what I call the National Security State and it’s being built since 1945 in particular in its present configuration. (The 1947 National Security Act sort of laid out the outline for it. Harry Truman didn’t like it. He didn’t like the fact Paul Nitze had been associated with it, for sure.)

But that state and then the other state: The other state is the Predatory Capitalist State.

And of all things, we have in those two state-building efforts, since 1945 in particular — they’ve been nascent for our entire 250 plus years; I’d say for 300 years if you want to throw the British in there as a adjunct to it or a teacher of it — what you have now is crossovers in these two states.

You have ExxonMobile, for example, whose prime customer in all the world is the Department of Defense, ExxonMobile being clearly a member of the Predatory Capitalist State, and the Pentagon being the supreme, premier member of the National Security State. And the Pentagon’s the greatest buyer of the product of the ExxonMobiles and others in the capitalist state, the Predatory Capitalist State.

And you have Lockheed Martin with a foot in both camps, as do most of the top six or seven defense contractors. They’re making weapons for the National Security State, but they are very much the most highly paid members of the Predatory Capitalist State.

So you have those two states-building efforts that are crashing together right now since 1945 abourning, crashing together right now. And the whole apparatus is totally misunderstood, maybe not even capable of being understood, and being malused and even in the configuration that they exist malused, by an idiot.

How do you get this? How do you get out of this? How do you get it in the first place? How do you get out of it?

I agree with your your summary though that we are looking at another time where — and I think this is key for people who want to understand the global dynamics — Trump may be deepening them, making them more profound in certain areas, but he ultimately is not in control of these global dynamics nor is anyone else in the West. We can fight and push and so forth like we’re doing, Europe in particular, US in particular, but you can’t control these dynamics because I think they’re inexorable.

And you defined it. It’s too simplistic for me to say it’s the maritime powers versus the continental powers, with for the first time in about 2,000 years, the continental powers showing every bit of their strength and penchant for victory, and the maritime powers basically retreating.

And let me footnote that for just a second and say the very singular, quintessential example of this — maritime powers retreating — is going to be when Iran sinks an aircraft carrier, or whoever does, someone’s going to. Aircraft carriers the capital ship of the maritime conglomeration if you will, mostly in America of course, but others have them — that’s going down. And when it goes down it is to a certain extent going to take the maritime regime with it.

The one reason that they aren’t even approaching Iran is because they’re deadly afraid of crossing that line where Iran will be the country that does it. They’re not Afghanistan. They’re not Syria. They’re not any of these countries you sail up to and send a few cruise missiles in and then say, “Aha, see what I did?”

No, they’re going to knock out one of these capital ships that is the quintessential symbol of the maritime group, if you will, led by the United States of course. And to have added another land power, essentially land power — [Iran’s] got some navy, but Trump has destroyed the whole navy [said sardonically] — but [Iran is] essentially a land power, and it’s a vast land power, size of Western Europe 92, 93 million people, and in a good solid geographic position with lots of natural resources that if they were exploited properly would make it even more powerful; oil and gas aren’t the only things they have — and you’ve added them to Russia and China.

So now your continental powers are not only vast, they stretch across the world. Russia alone, the largest country in the world. Add China to it. Add Iran to it. Now the continental powers are awesome in their potential and in their actual strength. And the American Empire and the maritime powers are receding, and in fact, the other powers in that group don’t really add very much to the maritime element of their power. The only really strong maritime power — and that strength is bleeding away every day — is the United States.

So all to say that in this global struggle that is inexorable, I think, it was just foreordained, if you will, by God and Providence that this power was going to shift back to the East from whence it came 2-3,000 years ago, and China would be the primary magnet — all of that is being contested, of course, but the contest now is bizarre.

And it’s bizarre because of this gentleman — I use that term guardedly — sitting at the top of the American empire and the obeisance that the rest of the establishment, our founding fathers, put together, is paying to him. The latest example of which is the Republicans caved and approved his lawyer as the attorney general, even though he’s already de facto the attorney general. So it wasn’t much of a move.

But we are just taking apart the very domestic fabric of our being, our essence as a state in the world, at the same time [that] we’re waging this contest with an utterly inept leader to wage it.

And I’m not going to say that there’s too many people below him in the legislative or the courts or any of the other parts of the government that are competent enough to take over either. And I’m not even sure there’s anyone competent enough to beat him in an election and to reverse the fortunes, if you will, from that perspective.

So we’re in a pickle, Glenn. We are in a pickle.

And because we did gain so much strength, and we punished so many people in the world, and we destroyed so many civilizations in the world — I mean that — we’re now hated as much as we are, looked at as being crazy, and I don’t know how you how you compensate for that while you try to fix enough so that at least you can go out with a fairly decent ... maybe something like England went out after the 1956 Suez crisis. Not a really good example, but nonetheless it’s the end of empire; Britain had started going down long before that.

I don’t know how you put this in geopolitical terms, in geo-strategic terms, in inexorable-powershift-terms, and deal with what we have in Washington right now. I don’t know how you can take it apart.

He should have been impeached. He should have been relieved of his duties. He should have been frog-marched out of Washington. Indeed, he probably should be in jail. But he’s not. Which on a lower scale demonstrates the inadequacy of our structure right now, and the feebleness of our structure, as well as it’s having atrophied over the 250 years it’s been in place.

I’m reading David McCullough’s “John Adams” for a second time, and I’m finding really interesting comments in there from Adams, Jefferson, Madison, the whole group of them, Hamilton, Washington even. I’m finding interesting comments that I highlight and then draw a line out and write a little marginalia about how that applies to today.

It’s eerie how many of them saw this coming — incoately, but they nonetheless saw it coming, Adams probably because he thought any democracy would kill itself eventually. But others saw it more in the terms I’m using now expressed in their language. Especially when the French Revolution broke out and everybody was kind of, you know, Jefferson was over here — “I love what the French are doing.” And Adam’s over here, saying what Burke was saying — “Watch out. This is a tragedy of the First Order.” And out of that turmoil comes a sort of look into what’s happening today that tells you we ain’t getting out of this. This is the end.

Now, what does that mean?

It doesn’t necessarily mean that America is not a country in the world

[that has] 340 million people and [that’s] trying to coexist, trying to get along. But it does mean our power is through, our world-spanning power is through.

The question is, how do we deal with that in this short term that could be highly destructive, not only of ourselves but others too, and get through it to a flat plane, if you will, that’s reasonably accommodating of our reduced power, and [still] continue as a country.

I don’t know how we do that, Glenn. And that’s really strange to be saying that at the age I am, and coming to the end of my days, and watching my country essentially commit suicide.

[…]

Oh, thank God.

Leave a comment

We featured an AI video earlier here (see “China and War”) in a political context, and I noted that the animation was surprisingly good, that it almost passes for real. The problem of late has always been the humans — faces, expressions and gestures.

To show how far AI has come, here are four short AI films for consideration.

Note: I’m not saying there’s a soul in any of this. I’m saying that for those of us seeking just entertainment, soulless may be enough, as it often already is.

Share

A Scene from The Odyssey

The first is a scene from Homer’s Odyssey made by the filmmaker Heavy Pulp using Grok Imagine. This Twitter thread offers detail on how it was constructed.

Music Video: ‘Coming Back Around’

Next is a music video, again by Heavy Pulp. It’s quite a catchy song and the editing is quite good. Note especially the expressions.

Trailer for ‘Back to the Future 4’

Now a trailer for an imagined film Back to the Future 4 created by NewOldMovies. The voices aren’t right and I’m not fond of some of the visual concepts, but I’m impressed by the “actors.”

There are quite a few channels like this, some quite popular. No wonder real actors are worried — and pissed. This stuff is coming along, and rather fast.

Feature-Length AI Film: ‘Ojai’

And last, here’s a full-length film called Ojai, by Heavy Pulp again. Says the director on the film’s main page:

The script was written over the course of 2 years from 2018 through early 2020.

Production filmed over the course of 27 days in September of 2020 on location in Ojai, CA with a very indie and now fully exhausted budget, and then edited for nearly 6 years.

Now, it’s releasing out into the world. …

As the script was inspired by real events and circumstances in my own life, there is a very real emotional arc running through it no matter how surreal or “indie” the movie may get at times. Because of that, I will always look back on this project and the process creating it with absolute reverence.

Clearly a labor of love, and clearly the AI had help. Still, the results are impressive. Here is the full-length trailer. I’m including it for its rendering of dramatic content, especially near the end.

If you want to watch the whole film, you can find it here. Much to think about.

Oh good.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

We’ve seen what today’s warfare looks like — sleek, cheap, deadly, Iranian drones versus aged, inaccurate, expensive American missiles ($20,000 vs. $4 million each); sitting-duck targets and bases (ours); ships so vulnerable we can’t afford to deploy them. The military world has changed, and we’re not a part of it.

Yet in their wisdom or hubris (or Bacchantean madness) our makers of war still think China the great international prize and they mean to go after it. (For more on China, see “Alfred McCoy: Controlling the 'World Island'” and “Iran, China and America's Great Game”.)

So for fun, let’s look at technology in China today.

Drone Shows

The Chinese have been putting on shows like this for a while.

In 2024, this show held the largest image ever formed by multi-rotor drones. More than 7500 machines were used in the display.

And this show in 2026 broke that record. It employed more than 22,000 drones.

Beautiful, yes? Now think: would you care to see this in battle, armed to the teeth? I would take these displays as military demonstrations. Not kidding.

China’s Next-Level Dog

Via Glenn Diesen, whom I’ve come to appreciate, we find this fun bit of Chinese technology. This is the most agile robot dog on the planet. (Turn off the sound if it plays.)

Looks great on the dance floor, right? Care to see one in battle? How about a dozen. A hundred.

A Fantasy War from China

And finally, an AI dream from China of some future war. My source is this post on Twitter, whose own source I don’t know. So take this as fantasy, M. Night Shyamalan-style. The AI is excellent, by the way; almost passes for real.

Did you notice the NATO flags on those blown-out cars?

This looks like our navy to me:

And at 1:32 there’s a not-quite American flag on one soldier’s sleeve.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

First, someone’s preparing for us. In fact, they’re already prepared.

Second, if we can’t beat Iran, a smart, mid-level power, this group will eat our lunch, spank our kids, sink our carriers, and send us home with a note to sit down and shut up. We’ve already lost.

I frankly don’t know what they’re thinking, our masters of war. The one-polar world is gone, and they’re acting quite mad. Won’t anyone wake them up?

Well, that’s reassuring:

Leave a comment

Things are heating up in the Gulf. Again. We could see the big one this time, a major explosion, or Trump could TACO. Again.

But Iran has decided, because the U.S. has violated the previous agreement so often and shown no consistency since, they will offer no slack, no give, in their next response. If Trump carries through on his bluster and launches a major attack, a really major attack, West Asia will be altered for years, perhaps till we die.

It’s possible we could wake in a week and nothing has changed; the misery we feel today will not be much worse. But let’s take a stroll to that second future, the bad one, the one where Trump fails to mentally sober himself and pulls the Strangelovian trigger. That could happen too.

If Trump Decides to Launch a Major Attack

If Trump decides to launch a major strike, a rage of revenge or even a landing of troops, there aren’t many pathways ahead. Either:

• The U.S. security state, in its wisdom, will raise its head above water and get in his way; or

• All hell will break loose.

If Trump really makes up his mind, those are the roads.

If the State Were to Try to Stop Trump…

Let’s look at the first — the State attempts to stop Trump. I wrote about that earlier. I think this is the least likely path, but if it occurs, here are all the State’s choices:

1. Persuasion

2. The 25th Amendment

3. Impeachment

4. His illness, death, or some kind of quiet removal

5. A public, forced removal (a coup)

The first choice is feasible, given the number of feints Trump has already made. But I wouldn’t count on it working; Trump’s frustration, the trap he’s now in and his sheer bloody mindedness could tip the balance at last. If so, he’ll insist the Pentagon act, and now. So what’s left?

Share

We can discount the next two choices. They’re not going to happen and they’re both impractical.

The fourth choice — remember, the man is not well — requires a compliant VP aligned with the State. Does that describe Vance? Probably, given that Trump will no longer be around.

And the fifth? I think an open coup would look wrong to far too many people. The forms, at least, of self-rule must be preserved.

So the State may step aside, and it probably will. But given the alternative — the fiery pit — the odds of an intervention are not quite none.

The Fiery Pit…

Which brings us to the other path. The hell of a hot new war and what it will bring has been often described, though not in the corporate press. Marandi laid it out here and others agree. Mainstreamers have talked about some of this, but not all; the focus on what damages Trump. Here’s the full shot.

• Iran, if Trump hits it “gates of hell” hard, will respond by devastating all attacking nations except Israel, especially those in the Gulf. Refineries, ports, energy generating stations, desalinization plants, all could be hit. Depending on which countries chose to host U.S. attackers, this could include all of the regional family dictatorships — Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Oman.

Jordan may get better treatment in terms of its infrastructure, but it will still be hit hard, given its role as Israel’s last shield in the region and host to the best surviving U.S. Gulf base. It’s worth noting that His Majesty King Abdullah II has already left for the UK, on business of course.

Gulf nations, all sand, no water, no food at all, will be unlivable for quite some time and gone from the map as states. That’s the first change.

Subscribe now

• Unless they launch their own weapons, I think Israel will be spared, at least for a while. They’re close to a civil war, and Iran may not want to block that. But I do think their day will come. The immediate Iranian goals are control of the Strait and elimination of U.S. capacity throughout in the region. Israel is far weaker than anyone is letting on, so Iran may wait and finish its other goals first.

• At some point though, Israel will probably launch. They’ve wanted Iran gone since almost the day they were born. For them, it’s a fight for existence, so expect them to go to war and attack to the end, or perhaps to the last mushroom cloud. I don’t see them ever surrendering their genocide, hubris, ambition, or Zionist dreams without a major last stand.

• If Israel does fight Iran, they will lose badly. How could they not? Israel’s a postage stamp, and Iran’s as big as Alaska with nine times the people. Iran can rebuild; Israelis, what’s left of them, can’t. They will likely expatriate and the land becomes Palestine. The regional road will be rough from that point on, but it won’t be what it was. (For my own thoughts on how Israel ends, see here.)

• The region’s oil-producing capacity will be lost for years, not just because of constriction (the Strait, the Red Sea), but destruction of infrastructure, which will take years to rebuild. This puts the world in a global energy deficit for a decade or more.

• The outcome of that you can guess — the D-word in spades. The 1930s were bad, but this could be quite a bit worse. Tucker Carlson is right — in the world as presently built, fuel is wealth and the lack of it, poverty. To maintain our modern life takes access to energy, in particular, access to oil, since our rulers have deliberately constrained most other choices. Without that access, the globe has to live on less, quite a bit less.

• The political consequences of that I’ll leave to the novelist in you. The range of outcomes is wide. There will be political outcomes. What they are is a guess.

A Child At the Wheel

We could avoid all this. Those odds are still high. The child could stand down, just as he’s done before. So none of this is predictive.

But if the child does not stand down, the above might be relevant.

Leave a comment

“Empires are, by dint of their extraterritorial reach and the perils inherent in the overseas deployment of armed forces, a surprisingly fragile form of government.”
—Alfred McCoy, To Govern the Globe

“The fight for control of Asia’s Pacific coast is six centuries old, and it will not end until the West has finally failed, or the chaos of climate makes mincemeat pie of everyone’s empire dreams.”
—Yours truly

This is a very good time to remember what all this war-stuff is about — aside from securing the absolute safety of Israel, a distracting side project.

The main project, controlling Asia — the so-called “world island” — has been a Western obsession for many hundreds of years. Ruled by greed and expansion almost since birth, the West tells a single tale for thousands of years: Athens, Alexander, Caesar; the global colonial rape we now call “exploration,” the British, Napoleon; Manifest Destiny, Nazis, our own unipolar try at the empire game — lust for conquest and wealth is the West’s middle name. With rare exceptions (the Mongols), only the West has sought global enslavement of others so eagerly and for so long.

We’re still in that project. The West’s current obsession with China has very deep roots. We wrote about all that last year, in this piece from our Book Club offerings. A second look now is rewarding. It’s reprinted below.

A note: For similar offerings, click the “Book Club” link at the top. Our thought-provoking pieces are mostly found there. (I’m especially pleased with our look at the nature of the state.)

Hat tip to one of our most perceptive subscribers, , for the reminder.

And finally, if you like this site, please share our posts. It’s amazing how much good that does. Thanks!

Share

Alfred McCoy: Controlling the ‘World Island’

Published August 8, 2025

We're approaching the end of our look at Alfred McCoy's To Govern the Globe, his examination of the centuries-long Western project to, well, govern the globe.

Links to previous parts of this series appear below:

• Introduction: ‘To Govern The Globe’ — A view from the edge of the cliff

• Alfred McCoy: The Quest for Global Control — The Iberian Age

• Alfred McCoy: A World in Transition and the Rise of Capital Rule — The Dutch encroach on the Spanish and Portuguese Empires

• Alfred McCoy: The British Empire and Scientific Racism — Justifying Western abuse in the 19th century

• Alfred McCoy: Controlling the 'World Island' (this piece) — Using sea power to dominate Asia

Here we’ll examine a single persistent notion, an idea that has driven the West since the global project began — the domination of Asia, which Western strategists came to call the “world island.”

Consider the image below, from McCoy’s Chapter 2, “The Iberian Age.” It shows the Portuguese Empire circa 1570.

Note that while this is ostensibly a map of trade routes and ports — not military installations per se — it foreshadows what’s to come in Western thinking.

Note also that the ports and routes consist of two parts — those that dominate littoral (coastal) Africa to secure the Portuguese slave trade, and those that dominate littoral (coastal) Asia to secure access to that continent’s great wealth. (Littoral, noun and adjective, comes from the Latin for “shore.”)

The slave trade eventually disappeared, but the domination of littoral Asia, the Asian coast, as a way to dominate the continent itself has informed Western strategists from that day through now. Why else do you think the West is today so upset about China building out islands in the South China Sea to use as bases? Answer: The West doesn’t want China to challenge Western control of its coast.

The West wants control for itself. The thinking behind dominating the coast of Asia goes way back. Let’s take a look through Alfred McCoy’s eyes.

What is Geopolitics

McCoy’s notion of “geopolitics” as a way of managing empires underlies the West’s whole strategy. From Chapter 1 (emphasis mine):

Geopolitics is essentially a method for the management of empire through the use of geography (air, land, and sea) to maximize military and economic advantage. Unlike conventional nations, whose peoples can be readily mobilized for self-defense, empires are, by dint of their extraterritorial reach and the perils inherent in the overseas deployment of armed forces, a surprisingly fragile form of government. They seem to require a strategic visionary who can merge landforms, seascapes, and societies into a sustainable global system, allowing such strengthened empires both extraordinary power and exceptional economic opportunity.

Empires are fragile and require extraordinary strategies to maintain. Hitler, for example, relied on the flawed geopolitical analysis of H.J. Mackinder — he thought the “world island” could be dominated by land — in his attempt to conquer post-Revolution Russia and prevent an Asian (Russia plus China) domination of Europe. That turned out badly.

Share

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, followed similar ideas when he armed Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in the late 1970’s in Afghanistan.

As an intellectual follower of Mackinder, Brzezinski would prove adept at applying the British don’s famous dictum about the geopolitical connection between Eastern Europe and Eurasia’s “heartland.”⁵³ Wielding a multibillion-dollar CIA covert operation like a sharpened wedge, Brzezinski drove radical Islam from Afghanistan deep into Soviet Central Asia. That geopolitical gambit drew Moscow into a debilitating decade-long Afghan war, which weakened the Soviet Union sufficiently for Eastern Europe, three thousand miles away, to finally break free of its imperial grasp.

Brzezinski was proud of this move, even when, decades later, the chickens returned to the roost and these wars began to come home.

“What is most important to the history of the world?” [Brzezinski] asked in 1998. “The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”⁵⁴

That’s geopolitics at work — modern attempts to dominate “the world island” by land or by sea. Needless to say, attempts to dominate by land have, all of them, failed.

Controlling the ‘World Island’ by Sea

Enter the American strategic thinker Alfred Thayer Mahan, a rather incompetent Navy captain and a more respected historian at the Naval War College. Mahan wrote extensively about the importance of sea power in the 1890’s, and his work formed the basis of American naval strategy in the Pacific from then until now. From Chapter 1 (emphasis mine):

When Washington [meaning the U.S.] took its first steps onto the world stage in the 1890s, an American naval historian, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, argued that sea power was, through the exceptional mobility of warships, the key to national security and international influence. His writings inspired Washington’s decision to build a blue-water navy and seize an empire of islands for naval bases stretching halfway around the globe, from Puerto Rico to Hawaii and the Philippines. Mahan’s international influence was extraordinary. His view that modern wars turned on a concentration of capital ships for a “decisive battle” would shape the strategies of Germany in World War I and Japan in World War II.⁴⁶

Mackinder’s and Mahan’s geopolitical ideas formed the basis of modern strategic thinking. Those ideas even preceded their writings and properly describe the Western Project from its start.

If we combine Mahan’s emphasis on naval strength as the means to control continents with Mackinder’s focus on the “world island,” we will find that a succession of leading empires—Portuguese, Dutch, British, US, and Chinese—have all tried to achieve global power by dominating that tri-continental landmass of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Indeed, Portugal’s sixteenth-century chain of 50 fortified ports around Africa and across the Indian Ocean seems strikingly similar to China’s current string of 40 commercial ports covering much of the same terrain. Of course, China’s position has also been strengthened by a transcontinental grid of railroads and pipelines. Beneath the visible, much-discussed issues of trade and technology, this geopolitical strategy has become a battering ram for Beijing to break Washington’s control over Eurasia and thereby challenge its global hegemony.

The ‘Pax Americana’

This leads us to consider the present imperial age, what came to be called (by Americans) “Pax Americana.” That American Peace was, from the start, to be achieved through empire, and according to Mahan, the leading geopolitical thinker of his day, that empire rested on sea power. In America’s case, that meant the need to dominate strategic Pacific islands (emphasis mine):

Written at a time when America was just beginning its ascent to global power and expanding its navy, Mahan’s book made the crucial argument that Washington needed both to build a battle fleet and to capture island bases that could control the surrounding sea-lanes—particularly in the Pacific. In marked contrast to the Royal Navy’s chain of fortified bastions that made an “extensive empire, like that of England, secure,” US warships with “no foreign establishments, either colonial or military” would be “like land birds, unable to fly far from their own shores. To provide resting-places for them … would be one of the first duties of a government proposing to itself the development of the power of the nation at sea.”¹⁷ In reviewing the book for the Atlantic Monthly, a young Theodore Roosevelt wrote: “Captain Mahan shows very clearly the practical importance of naval history…. We need a large navy, composed not merely of cruisers, but containing also a full proportion of powerful battleships.”¹⁸

China and the Pacific Littoral

The book contains a lengthy and fascinating discussion of the way the U.S. came to rule the Pacific. Consider, for example, that in the 1920’s much of the West had claims (“mandates”) to Pacific territories.

But in the end, World War II, which closed a dying imperial age, that of the British, had birthed the aforementioned Pax Americana, the next new world order. And under the veneer of what McCoy calls “liberal internationalism” — which means, for example, the ideals behind the U.S.-led United Nations — lay the reality of consolidating and keeping power. On this contradictory stance, McCoy cites George F. Kennan, the chief architect of U.S. post-War foreign policy, who saw the situation clearly:

“We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only about 6.3 percent of its population,” said George Kennan in 1947, when he was chief of policy planning at the State Department. “Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all … high-minded international altruism.”

U.S. global domination depended, then as now, on domination of the Pacific coast of Asia, the “Pacific littoral.” President Obama’s geopolitical strategy was to reduce American need for Middle East oil (a goal he accomplished) while simultaneously “pivoting toward Asia” and reinforcing our control of, you guessed it, the Asian coast.

As Obama withdrew troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington began rebuilding its chain of military bases and strategic alliances along the Asian littoral. In March 2014, a full battalion of US Marines was deployed at the port of Darwin, Australia, on the Timor Sea, well positioned to access the strategic Lombok and Sunda Straits that lead to the South China Sea. Five months later, the two powers signed the US–Australia Force Posture Agreement allowing for the basing of American troops and warships at Darwin.¹⁵⁸

Further north, in February 2016, the South Koreans completed a naval facility on Jeju Island, between that country and Japan, giving the US Navy access to a strategic port astride the East China Sea. Washington also signed an enhanced defense agreement with the Philippines, allowing use of several military bases astride the South China Sea.¹⁵⁹ In combination with its eight established air and naval bases in Japan, Washington had effectively rebuilt its chain of military enclaves at the edge of Asia.¹⁶⁰ To operate them, the Pentagon planned to “forward base 60 percent of our naval assets in the Pacific by 2020” along with a similar preponderance of Air Force fighters and bombers, which would be bolstered by “space and cyber capabilities.”¹⁶¹ By strengthening long-standing bilateral alliances, the Obama administration had taken the first steps, militarily speaking, toward rebuilding the US axial position on the Pacific littoral, which had long been central to its control over the vast Eurasian landmass.

Now perhaps we can understand the context of the Chinese reaction to these advances. The West has been encircling Asia with an eye to control since the mid-1400s. This is the Western Project, properly considered.

U.S. geopolitical strategy, from its earliest entry into the Western Project game, has been, explicitly, to control the Asian coast. It achieved that goal by the start of World War II, and by the end of the war and the years immediately following, achieved its strongest position to date in that region.

China, since the days of British domination, has worked to prevent Western domination of Asia. Its wish to build bases in the Spratley Island atolls are just the start of that struggle. This is what the conflict between the U.S. — inheritor of the Western Project — and China is actually about. It’s geopolitics American style.

The fight for control of Asia’s Pacific coast is six centuries old, and it will not end until the West has finally failed, or the inevitable chaos of climate makes mincemeat pie of everyone’s empire dreams. And now you know.

No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out;
And take upon's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies: and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
—King Lear, happy to exit the game and watch from the stands

God’s spies, observing packs of great ones like birds in a cage. That’s our approach to this piece. Not taking a stand on all the messy detail, the right or wrong, but simply watching what is.

L’Affair Graham Platner. Much can be said about it. The public focus, of course, is on his transgressions, which most people now think are real. The sincerity of his accuser is not in doubt, and though the timing of these accusations is highly suspicious — one week before the last day he can withdraw and allow the Party to choose someone else — no one now doubts his accuser. (If you want a more skeptical view, listen to this.)

That said, let’s look at the layers.

Share

Personal Tragedies

The personal part of the story has several parts. First, the arc of Graham Platner’s life. As a human tale of flaws and horrible outcomes, this is worth novelizing all on its own. The pain he has managed, the pain he is said to have caused; the massive national stage on which this is played; the lies, the betrayals; the heights and the fall. Seen from inside, the story has arc and sweep, desire and pain, tragic intensity, with unspeakable pain to come. The tale of his next six months, at home and alone, would itself draw eyes if those eyes could be carefully distanced, like those at a play, safe from the trouble on stage.

We could say the same about his two chief accusers, Jenny Racicot, the ex-girlfriend, and Lyndsey Fifield, the Kavanaugh-defending operative who dated him. Two complex stories as well. Racicot especially: Had she the purest of motives, her life and peace will be awful for years to come. This story is bad for everyone trapped inside it.

Tragic tales, played in the press before millions — thank God for our own anonymity, I hear all of you say.

The Mode of Attack

Second, the method used for the attack is worth our thought, independent of its validity in Platner’s case. The attack took place during a high-stakes political campaign; the combat took place entirely in the press. And the mode of attack is common, used many times.

Ian Welsh has this to say about how the great bring down those they want gone, what works and what doesn’t when deployed by the self-described left. Note: Welsh was writing in June, before the recent reports.

Establishment Attacks On Platner Are Classic Woke Attacks On The Populist Left

I think everyone who’s observed American, indeed, Western politics is aware that whenever a strong economic left winger comes along the attacks on him are almost always primarily about violations of “woke”.

Corbyn was attacked for anti-semitism, when he might be the most anti-racist person on the Earth. The idea that he was anti-semitic was laughable on the face, he’d be the first person putting his body on the line if there were actual threats to Jews. …

Woke is used because it works, especially sexual harassment allegations. It doesn’t just work against the left. New York Governor Cuomo was taken down for sexual harassment, which I always found hilarious, because this is a guy whose policies killed thousands of people during Covid when he stuck Covid patients in old folks homes. That’s gross negligent manslaughter, in my books, and he should have gone to prison, not just lost his job, but it was the sex stuff that took him down.

That doesn’t mean the Democratic establishment wanted him gone. Oh no. They supported him to the hilt against Mamdani in the NYC elections. Anything can be forgiven if you serve corporate interests, nothing can be forgiven if you don’t.

Platner’s the latest target, and man is he ripe. …

Al Franken was taken down by not much of a sin, a careless, sexist joke caught on film. His fall was engineered by one of his colleagues, a Democratic senator. Again, the same mode of attack.

So, added to the striking arc of Platner’s own story, we can add this observation: Someone wanted him gone, and this was the route. Cuomo was taken down by his sexual harassment. A man who murdered hundreds in nursing homes, and this instead was his enemies’ weapon of choice.

Why is this true? Though the reason is clear to many, it’s a subject all to itself.

Someone Wanted Him Gone…

Now let’s consider the impersonal part of the story, the part not involving people so much as power and political structures. Someone wanted him gone, and they found a way. Someone who? And why? What will the outcome be?

Let’s take these one at a time. Someone who?

The perp, I think, is the Democratic establishment — the party in Maine, the Senate bigs in DC, the vast machine that composes the DNC, its well-paid consultant class and wide-ranging servicing groups like print and televised media. The pile-on, when the accusations were more smoke than fire, began early, were clearly political, and deployed in defense of Janet Mills, the establishment’s preferred choice. Platner’s anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC stance didn’t help with that group, and is likely a cause on its own of his strong opposition.

And chief among all the perps is Sen. Chuck Schumer, who clearly places seating compliant Democratics above beating Republicans. The late Howie Klein’s DownWithTyranny is full of these tales. Here’s one from 2016:

A publicity-hound and dogged careerist, Schumer is widely considered a modern-day version of Boss Tweed, especially in the Senate, where he routinely tells candidates that it's his way or the highway.

Recently he had a run-in of this nature with Admiral Joe Sestak who he tried playing the my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours game with. Basically, he told Sestak that when he (Schumer) says “jump,” the only acceptable response is “how high, sir?” That's an odd thing for some draft dodging chicken hawk to say to the highest ranking military officer ever elected to Congress. It didn't end well and Schumer went out and helped recruit an unbelievably incompetent candidate for the primary, Katie McGinty, who has no chance of ever becoming a senator but will sop up Sestak's cash so he can't compete with [incumbent Republican Senator Pat] Toomey. That's how Schumer plays the game. Toomey, of course, is over the moon.

Toomey beat McGinty in the general election, proof that Schumer would rather a Republican win than a Democrat who won’t obey. This kind of story is salted all through DWT. Klein went to school with Schumer at Brooklyn’s James Madison High, and according to Klein, he was “aggressively selfish and greedy,” even back then.

That answers the why. Control of the party comes before winning elections. And support for Israeli genocide is clearly a must, certainly for Schumer and other top Dems of his type. In case he hadn’t heard, total Israel-related contributions to Schumer total $1,727,974. That money buys something, happily given or not.

Share

What’s Next?

The battle is shaping up now. As I write, I’m watching Rebecca Traister on MSNOW say Platner was always disliked by establishment Maine and national Democrats, largely because he brought people real hope for change. Yes, that what she said: real hope for real change. In my view, only the genuinely anti-establishment can do that.

There aren’t many Platner-like candidates ready to hand, but the name I’m hearing most is Troy Jackson. And Shenna Bellows is getting MSNOW support. I haven’t researched either.

Watch how the Party decides, and whom they nominate. Will Maine get a Harris-like coronation? A loyalist, solid pretender, or someone more real?

Then watch how Maine voters respond, especially those inspired by Platner’s rebellious stance. You’ll learn a lot.

Leave a comment

“A huge number of VPN companies are not real companies. They’re shell corporations, adware firms, offshore fronts, and former spyware vendors rebranded as privacy tools.”
—Addie LaMarr, here

Earlier this year we started to look at VPNs, what they are, what they do, and how the government treats them. The first part of that examination is here:

Bottom line: The government, in the interest of “keeping you safe,” always spies on VPNs. Always. Because, what are you hiding?

(For those who care, there’s never been a clearer example of the unbreakable government rule — “Surveillance for you, secrets for us and our friends” — than what’s shown in ’ recent piece, “Is Mitch McConnell Dead?”. The “ingrained secrecy of officialdom” is the mildest way to describe it. The rule is absolute.)

In that earlier piece, I promised more about VPNs. Here is that more. It’s a lot.

VPNs Were Created As Spyware

The heading above is correct. The VPN industry as we know it has a dark history. VPNs apps were initially created as spyware (“full spectrum traffic surveillance”), first by the Israeli government’s sinister Unit 8200, their equivalent of our NSA, and then so that Facebook, to gain competitive advantage, could hack through Snapchat’s encryption and spy on their teenage users.

From the video above (at 1:41):

By 2016, Snapchat had basically taken over as a go-to app for Gen Z. Teenagers were leaving Facebook and Instagram in huge numbers, and Facebook needed to know fast just how quickly that shift was happening.

Then Snapchat encrypted its traffic, and Onavo [Israeli-developed spyware that Facebook was using] was now blind. So Zuckerberg sent his team a clear directive. We need reliable analytics about Snapchat. You should figure out how to do this.

Facebook engineers launched something called Project Ghostbusters. It was a plan to bypass HTTPS encryption and restore visibility into Snapchat, YouTube, House Party, and other apps.

Facebook was eventually found out and, though it took a while, was forced to stop. That’s where the VPN industry as we know it was born, out of this spyware app (4:15 in the video).

[Facebook] opened the door, and others started copying the business model. Companies with histories in adware, spyware, and data harvesting began acquiring VPN services. Trust was not their goal. They just needed users to stop asking questions. Some of the most popular VPNs today are built on that exact same structure. They have the same incentives and playbook. And unless you’re looking deep under the surface, it’s nearly impossible to tell.

This is where it goes from sketchy to straight up sinister. Because a huge number of VPN companies are not real companies. They’re shell corporations, adware firms, offshore fronts, and former spyware vendors rebranded as privacy tools.

And maybe you’ve seen those independent VPN review sites, the ones that always seem to rank ExpressVPN and Ghost in the top three. Surprise, those sites are owned by the same company that owns the VPNs. And that company’s got one hell of a backstory.

Trust: A Thing to Be Sold

The industry, frankly, is rotten to the core. VPN companies — not all, but most — are exploitive by nature. The simplest way is neglect, selling you something you want that they never deliver. One of their pitches is privacy. Yet incidents like this seem regularly to occur (7:51):

In 2020, seven no-log VPNs, including UFO VPN and SuperVPN, were caught with 1.2 terabytes of exposed user log names, IPs, session timestamps, all wide open.

A “no-log VPN” is a VPN company that promises never to keep user metadata logs. These companies obviously lied.

Keep in mind, every free VPN — every free VPN — is getting its money from somewhere, and selling something to get it. If they’re not too unscrupulous, they give users the least they can in product-value, in order to keep their costs capitalist-low.

And if they are unscrupulous, well … they have all this data, and data is valuable.

Share

VPNs Can Be The Right Tool

VPNs can be a good tool — the right VPN, that is — but not in all circumstances. Use VPNs when you want to:

• Access a public Wi-Fi

• Bypass a firewall

• Access blocked regional content

• Reduce (but not eliminate) your tracking surface

VPNs are definitely not right, when used alone, for investigators and reporters. Computer fingerprinting is still a thing, and VPNs don’t solve that problem. You can still be easily identified in other ways.

The ‘Good’ VPNs

LaMarr’s list of ‘good’ VPNs isn’t long, and may not be comprehensive. So I’m just passing it on. VPNs that she recommends are these:

• Mullvad (Sweden)

• IVPN (Gibraltar)

• ProtonVPN (Switzerland)

See the video or transcript (below) for more explanation. I personally use ProtonVPN and I’m very pleased.

Leave a comment

Transcript

This is a lightly editied version of YouTube’s generated transcript. Though it’s good, it’s clearly not perfect. Inserted headings and emphasis are mine.

What if the privacy tool you trusted was designed to exploit you? You were told a VPN would keep you safe online, that it would protect your privacy. But what if the tool you just downloaded for safety was actually built to watch you? What if the tool you installed for privacy quietly recorded your behavior, your app usage, your habits, your online patterns, and sold access to that data?

In this video, you’ll learn how the most dangerous VPN ever created went undetected for years, how a major tech giant used it to spy on teens and crush competitors, and why today’s trusted VPNs are still using the same blueprint.

I spent months combing through leaked emails, court documents, and buried privacy policies that were never supposed to be read. What I found wasn’t illegal, but it was disturbing because the system was built to allow it.

This story isn’t about one bad company. It’s about how the entire VPN industry got away with it. how trust became a business model and why the next time someone promises you privacy, you’ll know what to look for.

[VPN Origins: Facebook, Israel and Snapchat]

Back in 2013, Facebook bought this small Israeli app called Onavo. It was built by cyber intelligence veterans from unit 8200 [the Israeli NSA]. The specialty in that unit was traffic interception, behavioral analytics, and deep packet inspection.

On the surface, Onavo was marketed as a data saving app, but in reality, it became one of the most powerful surveillance tools ever deployed on consumers. From the moment you installed it, every packet of data on your phone, including every app you opened, every background process, and every tap, was routed through servers owned by Facebook. That gave them full visibility into which apps you used, how often, how long you stayed, and what kept you hooked, and in some cases, even the content itself.

It was full spectrum traffic surveillance, and Facebook used it to spy on competitors, especially Snapchat.

By 2016, Snapchat had basically taken over as a go-to app for Gen Z. Teenagers were leaving Facebook and Instagram in huge numbers, and Facebook needed to know fast just how quickly that shift was happening.

Then Snapchat encrypted its traffic, and Onavo was now blind. So Zuckerberg sent his team a clear directive. We need reliable analytics about Snapchat. You should figure out how to do this.

Facebook engineers launched something called Project Ghostbusters. It was a plan to bypass HTTPS encryption and restore visibility into Snapchat, YouTube, House Party, and other apps.

Here’s how they did it. They created a fake root certificate to impersonate apps. They installed it through a VPN profile. It intercepted encrypted traffic. It decrypted that traffic and logged it and then re-encrypted it before sending it along.

From the user side, everything looked normal. But in reality, Facebook had just carried out a man-in-the-middle attack. the exact kind of tactic you’d expect from spyware or state surveillance programs.

And the people they tested on were teenagers aged 13 to 17. They were offered 20 bucks in gift cards to give Facebook full root level access to their phones. Even Facebook’s own VP of security warned, “No security person is ever comfortable with this.”

Eventually, in 2018, Apple banned Onavo for violating its privacy rules, so Facebook just rebranded it. They called it Facebook Research, code-named it Project Atlas, and used Apple’s enterprise distribution system to sneak it onto iPhones, bypassing the App Store entirely.

And their target was still teenagers. They paid kids, again, aged 13 to 17, $20 a month in gift cards to install the app and hand over complete root access. And it only stopped when TechCrunch broke the story in 2019. Apple responded by revoking Facebook’s enterprise certificates, which instantly killed every internal app Facebook employees were using at the time.

But did they actually stop? No. They kept the project alive on Android. They kept collecting data. They kept making billion-dollar decisions based on surveillance. This was a long-term business model designed with intent backed by technical expertise and strategically targeted at minors.

And yeah, this is the part where I have to be careful and censor what I say. YouTube is advertiser friendly, especially with VPN companies. So I can’t always show you everything here. That’s why I put the full breakdown, the documents, receipts, and my real docs inside the Cyber Resistance Club. If you want the uncensored version, it’s all waiting for you in the link below.

[The Industry Grows]

So here’s what matters now. Facebook was the first to do it this way. They used a VPN to collect user data under the label of privacy, and it worked. That opened the door, and others started copying the business model. Companies with histories in adware, spyware, and data harvesting began acquiring VPN services.

Trust was not their goal. They just needed users to stop asking questions. Some of the most popular VPNs today are built on that exact same structure. They have the same incentives and playbook. And unless you’re looking deep under the surface, it’s nearly impossible to tell.

This is where it goes from sketchy to straight up sinister. Because a huge number of VPN companies are not real companies. They’re shell corporations, adware firms, offshore fronts, and former spyware vendors rebranded as privacy tools.

And maybe you’ve seen those independent VPN review sites, the ones that always seem to rank ExpressVPN and Ghost in the top three. Surprise, those sites are owned by the same company that owns the VPNs. And that company’s got one hell of a backstory.

[Kape Technologies]

Ever heard of Kape Technologies? Didn’t think so, but that’s on purpose. Kape, formerly known as Crossridder, used to make browser hijackers and ad injection malware. In 2018, they changed their name because obviously malware wasn’t a great look. They then quietly started buying up the VPN industry.

Here’s what they own now. CyberGhost since 2017, ZenMate in 2018, Private Internet Access or PIA in 2019, and ExpressVPN, which was bought in 2021 for $936 million.

And that’s not all. Kape also owns the independent review sites VPN Mentor and Safety Directives, which consistently rank Kape’s own products at the very top of every best VPN list.

You’re not supposed to catch that. The same company that used to inject ads into your browser now controls multiple major VPN brands and the review sites that recommend them.

They built an entire surveillance ecosystem, monetized both ends of it, and slapped a privacy sticker on the front. One industry analyst put it like this. Kape’s network was explicitly designed to go after your data and your wallet.

Do you still feel safe with your VPN?

[Most VPN Companies Aren’t Honest]

Kape isn’t the only one playing this game. The VPN industry is littered with fake names, offshore shells, and state level entanglements.

Here’s just one example. Back in 2025, investigators found out that more than 20 of the top 100 VPNs in the app store were quietly owned by Chinese companies. That list included TurboVPN, VPN Proxy Master, and ThunderVPN, all tied to a parent firm connected to Jiu 360, a company blacklisted by the US government for national security risks.

Their ownership was masked through Cayman Islands and Singapore registered shells, but the traffic was routed through some very questionable infrastructure and users had no idea. These apps had millions of downloads.

Meanwhile, ExpressVPN, yes, the one owned by Kape, employed a former mercenary hacker from the UAE’s Project Raven. That’s a surveillance unit known for using zero days [a type of cyber attack] against journalists and activists. That executive stayed on staff even after the US fined him.

That’s the kind of decision that tells you exactly what kind of company you’re dealing with. And it gets worse when you look at all the claims these companies make, the ones plastered all over their websites, their ads, and their influencer deals.

Because one of the biggest ones is “no logs” [a promise to keep no logs]. Here’s the dirty secret of VPN marketing. “No logs” means absolutely nothing without proof. And most VPNs either don’t get audited, get fake audits from shady shell companies, or just outright lie.

Even when there is an audit, it’s usually a one-time thing, outdated, or only done on one server, or maybe a limited configuration.

When logs do exist, they leak. In 2020, seven no-log VPNs, including UFO VPN and SuperVPN, were caught with 1.2 terabytes of exposed user log names, IPs, session timestamps, all wide open.

All of them were running on the same white label infrastructure. All used fake company names, and all made the same hollow privacy promises.

[VPN Companies Sell Trust]

By the mid-2010s, VPNs had a problem. Nobody outside of niche tech forums cared about them. So the companies behind them pivoted and they started paying creators. And it worked. People who didn’t understand how VPNs actually function were suddenly promoting military-grade encryption and 100% anonymous browsing like it was toothpaste.

Audiences listened because trust scales a lot faster than truth.

And here’s the part no one talks about. For most creators, 60 to 70% of their income comes from sponsorships. And VPN companies pay really well. It’s $5,000 for a mid-tier channel, and up to $25,000 per integration for bigger ones, plus lifetime commissions on every sign-up. That’s 30 to 50% of every subscription for years going to creators.

In 2023, researchers reviewed 243 VPN ads on YouTube. 80% of them made false claims about anonymity, tracking protection, and security.

And the vast majority of creators? They never checked what was actually under the hood. There’s no incentive to verify a product when the pitch pays better than the truth.

But this isn’t about blaming creators. It’s about the system. Because under capitalism, trust becomes a product. And once it’s up for sale, privacy doesn’t stand a chance.

This is also why I have never accepted a sponsored post. If you are wondering what the hell you’re actually supposed to use to stay safe online, buckle up. We’re about to break down exactly what makes a VPN worth trusting, which ones actually pass the test, and what to use instead if you really want to protect yourself.

[What VPNs Do and Don’t Do]

Let’s clear something up real quick because most people don’t actually understand what a VPN even does and what it doesn’t.

At its core, a VPN is just a private tunnel. It encrypts your traffic between your device and the VPN server, and it hides your IP address from your internet service provider or ISP and local network. That’s it.

Here’s what that tunnel actually gives you. Your traffic is encrypted between you and the VPN. Your IP address is masked from the sites you visit. You get protection on sketchy public Wi-Fi. And yeah, it can help you get around geoblocks or [region-based] censorship.

But here’s what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t make you anonymous. It doesn’t block trackers, fingerprinting, or device IDs. It doesn’t stop DNS leaks unless you’ve configured it to. It doesn’t stop apps from phoning home. It doesn’t delete your history or clean up your metadata. And it definitely doesn’t protect you from fishing, malware, or shady browser extensions.

So bottom line, a VPN is just one layer or tool. If you’re not combining it with hardened browsers, encrypted DNS, sandbox apps, and solid data hygiene, you’re not getting privacy.

[Is a VPN Right for You?]

Now, let’s take it one step further because sometimes using a VPN isn’t just ineffective, it might actually be the wrong move. If you care about true anonymity, if you’re a journalist, an activist, a dissident, under threat, you should not be relying on a VPN.

Here’s why. VPNs are centralized. That means logs can be subpoenaed. Even no-log providers might still collect connection metadata. The VPN endpoint knows your IP and maybe even your payment info. And you’re still wide open to fingerprinting and behavior-based tracking.

So if you’re trying to dodge surveillance capitalism, a VPN won’t save you. It won’t block Google or Facebook or the thousands of analytics libraries buried in your app. What you need is browser hardening, and a serious rethink of your entire device setup.

That said, VPNs can still be the right tool. It just depends on your situation. They’re genuinely useful when you’re on public Wi-Fi and want protection from man-in-the-middle attacks. If you’re trying to bypass school, work, or government firewalls, if you want access to blocked content like different Netflix regions or censored news, you don’t trust your ISP or your country’s network infrastructure, or you’re trying to reduce your tracking surface by masking your IP.

Yes, VPNs still have a place, but you’ve also got to know when to use them and which ones you can actually trust. So what should you demand from a VPN before you even consider it?

Here’s a checklist. If they don’t pass every single point, walk away.

• Full-scope third party audit, not just a no logs claim. I mean, the whole infrastructure, the clients, the servers, the logging policies. No audit means no trust.

• Transparent ownership. Can you trace who owns the company, where they’re based, who’s on the team? If not, assume they’re hiding something.

• Open-source [software] clients. If you can’t see what the software is doing on your machine, you can’t verify a single claim they’re making.

• Anonymous payment options. If they require a credit card or PayPal, they’re tying your identity to your usage. Cash, Monero, crypto, or nothing.

• No connection metadata. No logs should mean no logs at all. that includes timestamps, bandwidth, and session IDs. If they keep any of it, it’s a red flag.

• Privacy first features like kill switches, DNS leak protections, WireGuard support, Tor bridge or multihop routing, and custom DNS resolver support.

• And finally, it must be paid. No exceptions. If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. And if any of that is missing, that’s not a privacy tool. That is spyware.

[Some ‘Good’ VPN Companies]

Which VPNs have actually earned the security community’s trust? These are the few providers that meet the bar, just what the security community actually respects.

First, we have Mullvad. It’s based in Sweden, no email required, and accepts cash by mail. It’s fully audited and has open- source clients. It offers Tor bridge support, and it is best for privacy-maxed users who don’t want to hand over any identity whatsoever.

Next up, we have IVPN. It’s based in Gibraltar. They have transparent audits and team disclosures and they block ads and trackers at the network level. It has anonymous sign-up and crypto payments. This one is best for users who want privacy by default and strong ethics under the hood.

And third, we have ProtonVPN. It is based in Switzerland. They have transparent ownership, which is by the Proton Mail team. It’s audited and open source, and they have a generous free tier with no data caps.

But Switzerland may soon force VPNs to log metadata. However, Proton has said that they’ll relocate if the law passes, and they’ve started moving their infrastructure. It is best for beginners who want a trustworthy, non-predatory VPN that they can grow with.

These aren’t perfect tools, but they are trustable and in a space where most others are built to extract, mislead, and exploit.

[Security Beyond VPNs]

So what should you use instead or alongside a VPN? Most people treat VPNs like the holy grail of privacy, but in 2025, they’re often the least important part of your setup. Because what actually makes you trackable usually has nothing to do with your IP address. It’s your browser, your behavior, your DNS traffic, your apps, your device ID. A VPN doesn’t touch any of that.

If you actually want to reduce your exposure, you need layers. And these tools do more for your privacy than any sponsored VPN ever will.

• First, we have DNS over HTTPS or DOH. Let’s start with what almost nobody configures, DNS. Every time you visit a website, your computer makes a DNS request asking where is the site located. By default, those requests are plain text. Meaning, your internet service provider or ISP and anyone else on the network can see everything you try and visit, even with HTTPS. Even with a VPN, unless your VPN encrypts DNS too.

DNS over HTTPS fixes that. It encrypts your DNS lookups and sends them through a trusted resolver like NextDNS, Cloudflare, or Controlled. You can even self-host if you’re advanced.

If your goal is to stop your ISP from tracking your browsing, DoH handles it cleanly without rerouting all of your traffic through a VPN provider that you don’t even know.

• Next, we have Tor browser. Tor reroutes your traffic through three relays, so no single point sees both who you are and where you’re going. It’s a powerful tool, but it’s not a magic cloak. It’s not true anonymity, and using it wrong breaks it fast. If you log into a personal account on Tor, you’ve linked your identity. If you act like it’s a normal browser by opening tabs, resizing windows, watching YouTube with your account logged in, you fingerprint yourself.

Tor is best when used carefully with no personal login, and a tight understanding of threat modeling. For high-risk situations where you need to reduce visibility, it works. But if you don’t need that level of obfuscation, skip it. You’ll just slow things down and expose yourself anyway.

• Next we have hardened Firefox. Most privacy leaks happen in the browser, not in the network. So start with using Firefox. Install uBlock Origin, disable Web RTC, kill telemetry, use container tabs, and now your browser isn’t leaking fingerprints, system info, or third party cookies every time you load a page. You’re already miles ahead of most people using a VPN alone.

• Browser isolation. If you’re using one browser for everything from banking, crypto, work, and research, then you’re fully linkable even with a VPN.

So, split your activity. Put crypto in one browser, personal accounts in another, work in a container tab or a virtual machine, and research in a hardened setup. Compartmentalization breaks the cross connections that adtech depends on. Even if one part gets exposed, the rest of your identity stays sealed.

• And self-hosted VPN. If all you want is encrypted traffic on public Wi-Fi, you don’t need to rent that tunnel from a shady provider. Spin up your own WireGuard VPN on a $5 virtual private server and now you control the endpoint without any mystery logs or surveillance as a service or middlemen. It won’t make you anonymous, but it will protect you from sketchy routers, firewalls, and lazy ISPs.

The bottom line is that a VPN is just one layer, and for most people, it’s not even the most important one. HTTPS encrypts your actual web traffic. DNS over HTTPS hides your DNS lookups. uBlock and hardened Firefox destroys trackers. And Tor, when used correctly, offers obfuscation, not invisibility. Browser isolation breaks profiling. And self-hosted VPNs let you route traffic without selling yourself out.

[Summary]

So if you’re only asking, “Which VPN should I buy?” you’re asking the wrong question.

It’s not just that VPNs could watch you. Some were made for that. And the people who are paid to tell you they were safe rarely checked if that was true. Companies hid behind shell firms. Creators repeated talking points, and privacy became something you bought, not something you understood.

You weren’t protected. You were sold to. And if that works on you, that’s because it was designed to.

The piece we discussed is here:

Along the way we covered several interesting topics. For example:

• Why does fiction often make facts more real?

• What was the Cult of the Airman and what’s the equivalent today?

I’ve known Arnie Arnesen for years and have been on her show many times. I hope you give this episode a listen.

A Complicated Man

Arnie and I also discussed a book I’m completing, a near-future political thriller called A Complicated Man. Stay tuned if you read thrillers — and let me know in the comments if you want to hear more.

Share

Note: This is my second venture with Substack’s podcast template. If this format gives you trouble, let me know. I’ll fix whatever I can. Thanks!

Leave a comment

“Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.”
—Larry Ellison, billionaire visionary and Oracle CEO

“This is a tale about power.”
—Yours truly

This is Part 2 of a series on the licensing revolution, the move by manufacturers to sell you something that you nevertheless don’t control. Ownership becomes licensing, and control stays with them. In the first part, I wrote:

Two of the most revolutionary inventions man ever made were created in the 20th century, one at its start and the other close to the end. Both offered the same innovation: a quantum advance in individual freedom and power.

I’m talking, of course, about the automobile, personal transportation, and the PC, your own personal computer.

Neither is now yours. The fate of the automobile is described at the link above. The fate of the once-personal computer is described below.

The Personal Computer and the ‘Personal’ Computer: Renting Back What You Own

This is a tale about power.

Before the PC and its business equivalent, the UNIX-based Sun Workstation, access to computing power was through IBM-style mainframes and minicomputers, like those made by DEC. None of these could be considered “personal”; they were too costly, and though they could accommodate multiple users at terminals, the computing itself was central and corporate-owned. You sat in front of a terminal, while a corporate-controlled processor did the work. Nothing was yours.

After the personal computer was created and available, the power was inside the box, which you personally owned and controlled. Check the headline and the first sentence of the advertisement below.

But today, thanks to Windows 11, that’s all been reversed. The machine is no longer yours; you only paid for it. As this writer put it:

An operating system is the most personal part of a "personal" computer, and it used to be that as a Windows user I didn't feel like I was renting my computer from Microsoft, but in recent years that feeling has all but evaporated.

It’s not just the feeling of ownership that has evaporated; it’s also the fact.

Share

Windows Owns Your Machine

In every sense but receipts and cash laid out, Windows owns your machine. And that’s due to get worse.

Let’s start with Windows update practices. The operating system updates itself at will, sometimes breaking your machine, and can reset your settings whenever an update occurs. Sydney Butler again, the writer quoted above:

I have lost count of the number of times that I’ve left my perfectly working Windows computer at the end of my work day, only to return to a completely broken computer that won’t boot the next morning. We have numerous articles at How-To Geek on how to stop Windows from updating, and the mere fact that readers are searching for this information should tell you something.

Forced, automatic Windows updates seem inevitable now, and with every workaround people come up with, the loopholes are closed. Updates can be delayed, but not deferred. Resistance is futile.

But it’s more than that. There’s the constant, built-in ads; the forced Microsoft Account logins; unstoppable AI everywhere; the AI-is-watching-you “feature” (called Recall); the moving of your data onto the Microsoft cloud; and, something we’ll cover more in a later piece, the dangerous TPM chip that every modern computer seems to have, which opens the door to the zero privacy hell loved by the Davos world.

As Rob Braxman puts it in this video (emphasis mine):

[1:17] Microsoft is quietly ending the era of the personal computer as we’ve known it. And [Microsoft CEO] Satya Nadella is being upfront, but he is not being understood by the average consumer.

So what people are seeing as visible issues are just the fluff. These are perceived to be important but actually only just small building blocks like Lego pieces to the entire big project.

Windows is being turned into something else entirely — an always watching, always AI-connected, cloud dependent system where your machine is no longer fully yours, even though you paid for it.

And the plan is for you to keep paying monthly for the privilege of having this AI control, but you won’t realize till later that this is no longer some progression from Windows XP. The average person isn’t really understanding this, but they are sensing the big picture. Something is afoot.

If you own a machine running Windows 11 on hardware with a TPM chip, that describes you. I could go on and on.

Recall and TPM

A couple of highlights before this gets too long. I may expand on these later.

• Microsoft Recall uses AI “to take images of your active screen every few seconds.” See more from Ars Technica here.

Microsoft claims (now) that the feature protects privacy. But is that really true? What if the government comes calling, Patriot Act-style? And will it always be true? Don’t count on it. (If Recall is turned on, instructions for turning it off are here.)

• The TPM chip — In his video, Braxman says [3:19], “TPM security chip [creates] verified identities in a Microsoft account with hardware monitoring.”

TPM does a lot more, but yes, it creates unique identities saved to a hardware chip and accessible whenever requested by authorized entities.

So, can you picture a world where every computer has your identity built into the hardware itself, available on request by “authorized” entities? Larry Ellison can.

If age verification is required, even on anodyne sites, the TPM chip will be used. And Digital ID will open that door for good.

Davos Man Larry Ellison Describes the World

Billionaire and Oracle CEO — whose son now owns CBS, Warner Brothers Discovery, Paramount Plus and more — looks forward to a world of total surveillance. Chris Hedges:

Oracle founder, business associate of Elon Musk and longtime Trump donor Larry Ellison, who recently announced a $500 billion AI infrastructure plan alongside Trump, urged nations to move all of their data into “a single, unified data platform” so it can be “consumed and used” by AI models. Ellison has previously stated that an AI-based surveillance system will guarantee that “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”

And that’s where we’re headed. Because “keeping you safe,” of course. Who’s “you”? Ellison and friends.

Leave a comment

I recently discovered that God’s Spies, this publication, has been given automatically enabled text-to-speech capability. This means that an audio version of the text is now available using Substack software alone. For me that’s good news, since I often consume text via voice (most of my reading for pleasure is audiobook novels).

This works for any Substack that has text-to-speech enabled. I find the AI-generated voice quite satisfactory, both for clarity and performance. Give it a try.

Subscribe now

Listening on Your Phone

Listening to God’s Spies on your phone is easy.

1. Open the Substack app.

2. Click Search at the bottom.

3. Type “neuburger” (no quotes) into the search field.

4. Click the God’s Spies icon (the birds) when it appears.

5. Click Posts near the middle of the page (next to Activities, which is pre-selected).

6. Click the Play icon (see below) and enjoy.

Listening on Your Computer

These steps are different, but easy.

1. Type “substack.com/@neuburger/posts” (no quotes) into the browser Location bar and hit Enter. (You can also type “substack.com/@neuburger”, then click Posts. It’s next to Activities, which is preselected.)

2. Click on the post you want to read or listen to.

3. At the top, click the Play icon (see image above) and enjoy the post.

This took me a while to figure out, but it’s not hard to do. The trick is to get the website into “Substack app” mode. From there the rest is easy.

Request for Comments

Does audio enhance your enjoyment of the material? Let me know if you find this helpful. I’m considering doing voice-over versions of posts in the future — recorded readings — if there’s sufficient interest. Thanks.

Leave a comment

As most have noticed, AI is entering our lives in a very big way.

Doctor’s offices are using AI to replace human scribes, which means whole visits must be recorded and saved. For how long? This can vary or be changed. And AI will soon decide whether you’re too disabled to drive your own car (for that, see here).

The rush toward AI — a rush to prop up the stocks and cut employees — is producing an AI fence between you and all of the corporate entities that run your life. For example, AI now guards the door between you and your next job or loan.

AI has also entered your dealings with the state. Will you be audited this year? AI will decide. How will your Social Security struggles be handled? AI will replace the humans who deal with your needs. And of course, AI policing is already here.

AI is not only “changing what it means to be human,” but for us little folks, us muppets, it’s replacing the human entirely in corporate and government interactions — because money, despite AI’s propensity for massive mistakes.

And that doesn’t begin to discuss AI battlefield murder, a use no one but those in control want to grow.

Gmail and AI

Which leads us to discuss AI’s intrusion into our digital lives. On most computers and websites, AI is ubiquitous. Today, let’s take a look at Gmail and AI.

The latest versions of Gmail, a web-based email client, have AI mail scanning and analysis turned on. If you want AI watching, no problem. Leave it turned on.

If you want to de-AI your Gmail account — to the extent you can, at least — these are the steps. I found this thanks to this Twitter account. The thread begins as follows (slight editing mine):

If you have a Gmail account, you need to read this.

Google's AI now scans your emails and attachments, bank statements, tax files, medical letters, all of it. It turned on by default, and there's a class-action lawsuit over how. […]

Google automatically turned on AI features in Gmail, Chat, and Meet for many users in late 2025. These features can read your emails, messages, and attachments to create summaries and suggestions.

Google says your emails don't train Gemini, but some users say they never clearly agreed to these AI features being enabled. Unless you turn them off, the AI can still analyze your inbox to provide these features.

The thread details the steps. As I worked through them, I found differences between his steps and mine, so here are the steps as modified by my own experience.

Share

Change Your Gmail Settings

Change the main Gmail and Google Workspace settings as follows:

1. Go to ⚙ Settings → See all settings.

2. In your browser’s search bar (Ctrl-F), search for the word “smart” (no quotes).

   

3. Find every mention of “smart” in the settings and turn it off. On my version of Gmail, that includes Grammar, Spelling, Autocorrect, Smart Compose, Smart Compose personalization, and Smart Reply. Your list may differ.

4. Make sure Smart Features, a major settings checkbox, is unchecked (see below).

   

5. Go to Google Workspace smart features and click on the Manage Workplace smart features settings button (above).

6. On the next screen, toggle everything off and click Save.

7. Go the bottom of the main settings page and click Save Changes (important).

Check Your Phone Settings. Delete Your Gemini History.

The writer advises doing the following as well:

Your Phone. The settings don't always sync between devices, so check the Gmail app separately.

Gmail app → Menu (☰) → Settings → Select your account → Turn off “Smart features and personalization” → Confirm.

And if you’ve used Gemini already:

Delete Gemini History. If you've used Gemini before, your chats may be saved, and some could be reviewed by humans.

Go to http://myactivity.google.com/product/gemini → Turn off Gemini Apps Activity → Delete Activity → All Time.

This removes your past Gemini chat history and stops future conversations from being saved.

I had no Gemini history, but that won’t be true for everyone.

Does All This Stop Google From Watching You?

You could say that Google is always watching you. This is their profit model: watching and selling you ads, watching and selling your profile. It’s why they’re so rich.

But it seems, at least for now, that turning smart features off in your Gmail and Google Workspace account means AI is no longer used to power those feature, and indeed is turned off. In addition, as of this writing, Google claims that Gmail smart features is not a backdoor way of training its AI. At least so far.

Will any of this always be true? No, but it seems true for now. If you care, I’d take these steps.

Leave a comment

Final negotiations will not commence until half of Iran’s frozen funds are released, oil sanctions are lifted, and the maritime blockade is removed.
—Part of the reported Point 14 of Iran’s plan for peace (source)

Several reports in the world press are citing Iran’s “semi-official Mehr news agency” to report the details of Iran’s 14-point plan. Since these are nearly identical to earlier Iranian plans, I’m taking these reports as valid.

I’m also printing those points below because, at least in the Western press, they are hard to find. They’re referred to, but not listed.

Note: Iran has said many times that American negotiators have privately agreed, then afterward publicly added or changed conditions, thus destroying previous agreements. This pattern has also been reported in the Western press.

That appears to be happening now. (See also here.) So watch as this plays out. Will we end with a real agreement or return to the status quo ante.

Below is the 14-point plan released by Mehr as drawn from two news services (here and here). Emphasis below is mine.

Share

Iran’s Most Recent 14-Point Peace Plan

Note the 14th point. Iran will insist on up-front compliance by the U.S. before Iran takes step to proceed. As Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi and others have said many times, under the JCPOA, Iran complied early, then watched as the U.S. reneged on its own obligations.

This is the problem for the U.S., and the point on which this all hinges. Can America actually bend and not just say it will at some future time? Watch this space.

The Iranian 14-Point Plan

1. Ceasefire across regional fronts — A permanent and immediate ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon.

2. US commitment to respect Iranian sovereignty — A U.S. commitment to non-interference in Iran's internal affairs and respect for its sovereignty.

3. Removal of naval restrictions — Lifting of the U.S. maritime blockade within 30 days.

4. Reduction of US military presence near Iran — American forces would be withdrawn or reduced in areas Tehran considers strategically sensitive.

5. Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — The waterway would resume normal operations within 30 days under arrangements agreed with Iran.

6. Suspension of energy sanctions — Restrictions on Iranian oil, petrochemical and related exports would be removed.

7. Economic recovery package — The United States and allied countries would provide at least $300 billion in reconstruction and development assistance.

8. Sixty days of nuclear negotiations — A two-month negotiating period would be established to reach a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of sanctions imposed by the United States, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

9. Reaffirmation of non-proliferation commitments — Iran would formally reaffirm its adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and restate that it does not seek nuclear weapons.

10. No additional pressure during talks — The United States would refrain from increasing troop deployments in the region or imposing new sanctions while negotiations continue.

11. Release of frozen Iranian funds — A total of $24 billion in Iranian assets frozen abroad would be released, with half made available before final negotiations begin.

12. Monitoring and verification mechanism — A system would be established to oversee compliance with commitments undertaken by both parties.

13. United Nations ratification — Any final agreement would require approval through a United Nations Security Council resolution.

14. Conditions and scope of final negotiations — Final negotiations will not commence until half of Iran's frozen funds are released, oil sanctions are lifted, and the maritime blockade is removed. Discussions regarding Iran's missile program and support for resistance forces are completely excluded from the agenda.

Leave a comment

I’m writing about a striking but unverified report by journalist Pepe Escobar:

Iran wants to end the war now, and is willing to detonate a nuclear device on Iranian soil to do it.

Is this statement true? I don’t know, but the answer could come rather soon. Would it work if they carried it out? I think, absolutely it would. If Iran said, “FAFO. We’re now North Korea,” Israel would know they face their own demise if they fight Iran now. Time for the new reality to finally take hold.

Where Things Stand Now

According to conventional wisdom, the state of the war is now a tenuous ceasefire, with a side dish of Israeli invasion and slaughter in Lebanon. Until recently, the U.S. has been regularly breaking the ceasefire — attacking small boats, shelling Gulf installations — and receiving slaps in return, proportionate responses to constant, aggressive offenses.

In the big picture, Trump has already lost, as have the U.S. and Israel. But if the game never comes to an end, so goes the thought, there can be no final score and no final defeat.

So the war is in limbo, a safe middle ground for attackers with no way to win. Limbo provides a time to rebuild, a time for well-battered Israel to catch its breath, and a time, under color of truce, for Israel to expand into Lebanon till the U.S. military, finally, bends to its will and once more starts bombing Iran.

A Permanent Hot Ceasefire?

What’s the next phase? I had thought, prior to this weekend, that Iran was misplaying its hand with a patient acceptance of Trump and Israel’s game of slap-and-negotiate, just enough slapping to hurt (or in Lebanon, collaterally kill), but not enough cause for Iran to strike back hard and restart the missile war. A sweet spot to be if you’re Trump.

How many of these insults would Iran be willing to take? It plays to Trump’s hand to find out, since winning the midterm elections is next on his tour, just after he liberates Cuba. In fact, Trump would like this phase to go on forever, or at least until after November. Israel is much more anxious for Iran’s collapse, but they’re patient, in public at least. So I thought a permanent “hot ceasefire” might be where we’d stay.

On the Iranian side, the IRGC, the military wing of the Iranian revolution, is not patient at all. Do Iran’s political leaders share their frustration? Or has this gone on too long, even for them? Escobar has an answer to that, assuming he’s right.

Share

Does Iran Have Access to Nukes?

As you know, I listen to many alt-media podcasts. Last week I heard Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA analyst with friends in multiple places, say that he and Pepe Escobar, a Middle East reporter, had heard from a source that Iran had gotten the bomb and was willing to use it to end the war for good. Certainly stunning if true.

Johnson said they couldn’t verify any of this, but he and Escobar were looking for verification.

We now have Escobar’s report, what he considers verification, via the podcast Dialogue Works, hosted by Nima Alkhorshid. The answer, according to Escobar, is yes, this is true.

Their full conversation appears at the top of this page. I’ve cued it to start at the relevant part of the discussion, but listen from the start if you wish. My comments and a transcript of that section appear below.

What Escobar Heard: Iran Has a Nuke and Will Use It to End the War

In the podcast, released Wednesday June 3, Escobar relates that during the previous week, he and Johnson heard from an “absolutely hardcore top-shelf source” about a call on the previous Thursday between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. (Recall that Pakistan is the intermediary in the current peace negotiations.)

The call lasted 105 minutes and Escobar’s source “had the full briefing.” In the call, Pezeshkian reportedly retold Sharif that:

1. There will be no more nuclear negotiations from now on, no more nuclear talks.

2. Even negotiation toward a “diluted JCPOA” is now off the table.

3. And in Escobar’s words, Pezeshkian then said, “If American threats persist, which is the case, then we should conduct the detonation of a nuclear device on Iranian soil, executed not as an act of war, but as an irreversible sovereign demonstration of capability to control escalation dominance.”

Again, stunning if true.

Escobar said he has reached out to Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei’s office for comment, and he expects a response by Friday, June 5. Whatever the response, Escobar will then publish what he has sometime next week.

As to what Escobar thinks the Iranians will say, he expects a “no-response response”:

We can imagine that the Iranians are going to go probably for plausible deniability because this is immensely sensitive. But it doesn’t matter. They can phrase [it] in a way that will be what the Americans call a no-response response. [The statement] can be sophisticated enough — and the Iranians are masters at it — [so] that you can read it any way you want, because obviously they’re not going to say that their president was lying to the Pakistani prime minister. That’s not the case.

If Pezeshkian actually said that to Shahif, he had a go-ahead from above. No question about that. Obviously [this shows] that we [Iranians] are fed up with all your [American] bullshit. And that’s it. If you keep provoking us, this is what we’re going to do. You should take this into consideration from now on.

Why Do This Now?

Why would Iran do this? And why do it now? The answer was mentioned above — perhaps Iran is done being jerked around. Escobar’s comment on that:

This could be the Iranians trying to tell the mediators, look, we are fed up. That’s it. We’ve been trying to tell you all the time that we are fed up. We have tried everything diplomatically. The Americans keep changing the rules of the game, and they keep violating the ceasefire.

So all that for Iran comes down to the same thing — they [the Americans] are untrustworthy, and they only understand a stark message if we deliver a stark message to them. So obviously, they [Iranians] talk to the mediators and tell the mediators, look you should tell the White House now that this is our definitive position. And if they don’t stop the provocations […] we are willing to end our [posture of] nuclear ambiguity.

If this is all true — a big if — the Iranians, cautious and hardliners, have had it at last.

Transcript

A transcript of the part of the conversation discussed above is printed below, edited lightly for clarity. The interview took place on Wednesday, June 3. This part starts at 16:22. All emphasis below is the speaker’s.

ESCOBAR: So, Nima, I have to go back to the bombshell of the week, which Larry [Johnson] and I revealed on Monday. And for that, we are both getting a lot of flack from everywhere. Totally expected. […]

During the past week, we got information from an absolutely hardcore top-shelf source about what happened between President Pezeshkian and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif. It was a phone call last Thursday that lasted 105 minutes and our source had the full briefing about the phone call.

During this phone call, something immensely important happened. President Pezeshkian told Sharif over the phone that, number one, there are no more nuclear negotiations from now on.

Number two, why? Because the Americans are not respecting the Iranian order for the proceedings that the Iranians were basically talking about every day. First, you end all wars, including blockades, including the Israeli war against Lebanon and Hezbollah. Number two, we start discussing Strait of Hormuz and only on the third stage we get to trying to get a new nuclear dossier.

So Pezeshkian said number one, no more nuclear talks.

Number two, even the remote idea of trying to have negotiations leading to a possible new nuclear deal, which would be a sort of a diluted JCPOA — not even that, the Iranians are saying.

And number three, which is the killer — and I want to quote the words of how the source put it to us. This is what Pezeshkian said. So we have to assume that the conversation was Farsi and Urdu on the phone, maybe with an English translator for both sides because Pezeshkian doesn’t speak English [and] Sharif does. So there was a translator involved. Maybe this is a direct translation from Farsi to English.

So Pezeshkian said, if American threats persist, which which is the case, then we should conduct the detonation of a nuclear device on Iranian soil, executed not as an act of war, but as an irreversible sovereign demonstration of capability to control escalation dominance.

Well, this is as incandescent as it gets, right? So, what happened immediately afterwards?

First of all, you know that Pezeshkian would never say that to the Pakistani prime minister without clearing it with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. It’s quite obvious, isn’t it?

Assuming our source is that ... In fact, Larry [Johnson] and I, we kept asking questions one day after another, until he [the source] said, “Look, if I didn’t want this information to be in the public domain, I would never have passed it to my Pakistani connection, [and?] I pass it to you.”

So he, I would say, backs his information a zillion percent, because this guy is on the table. This guy is in the direct negotiation between Iran — indirect, sorry — between Iran and the US on the Pakistani side. So he’s on, you know, top of the chain.

So what would lead Iran to pivot from nuclear ambiguity, which is the current Iranian position, to having an undeniable demonstration on Iranian soil?

And, of course, everybody’s asking the obvious questions.

What kind of bomb is that? Is this an Iranian bomb — meaning totally developed indigenously in Iran, and it’s very easy because Iran has excellent scientists. Wouldn’t be a problem [for them] to develop a nuclear weapon.

Did they have outside help? In this case, there are a few candidates. The number one candidate is Russia. Did they get, let’s say, a ready made bomb from either Pakistan or North Korea? It’s also possible. Did they have input from North Korea? Because the discussions at the nuclear level between Iran and North Korea have been very very strong for quite a while.

So obviously nobody knows anything about that [these questions] and the source did not elaborate on that, first of all because he was basically telling us what happened during the phone call.

[…]

So what happened immediately afterwards? Sharif, the prime minister, when he heard that, said wow! He understood the seriousness of it all. So he ordered his foreign minister [Mohammad Ishaq] Dar, who was in New York, to call the Americans immediately. So he [Dar] called Marco Rubio, and Marco Rubio said, no, come to Washington. So the next day he goes to Washington, and he sits down in front of Rubio, and he explains the whole thing. This was on May 29th. That was last Friday.

And guess what happened on May 29, last Friday? Trump stopped talking and acting and ordering any kinetic action against Iran. Immediately afterwards.

[ED. NOTE: Trump’s reported angry phone call with Netanyahu took place on Monday, June 1.]

Okay, now we’re back [to] this week. Considering once again that Trump’s attention span is [that] of a kid and he lasts only a few seconds or minutes. Perhaps he even forgot what he learned last week from Rubio himself — Rubio briefed him, right? So now [U.S.] kinetic action is back.

But we can detect a different tone already on Trump. He’s not threatening Iran anymore for the past few days. That’s where we get to [Trump saying] okay, I’m going to stop by Tehran and have a nice meeting with Mojtaba Khamenei. Before he was saying he was going to annihilate Iran, he was going to send Iran back to the stone ages [finger quotes], he was going to exterminate a civilization, you name it.

So the tone changed. That’s already quite quite something, because... And then there’s an extra thing, two things that Dar told Rubio in Washington face to face.

Number one, Iran will not surrender any of its highly enriched uranium. Nothing. And that’s a final position. The U.S. simply cannot change this position. We all know that Iran was never willing to transfer highly enriched uranium outside of Iran. We already knew that. But now the Americans have a confirmation from the Pakistani foreign minister directly to them.

And number two, Dar told Rubio that China is directly involved, because China has delivered state-of-the-art strategic defense systems, especially shoulder-fired MANPADs, via third countries so they have plausible deniability.

You’ve seen the rumors of the Americans commenting that China is supplying high tech to Iran. Well, they already suspected that. Now they got a straight out confirmation from the Pakistani foreign minister.

What this means? This means that this trio, this triad, this strategic alignment, is totally in effect, and it’s Iran, Pakistan and China working together.

So you can imagine how freaked out the Americans are after that, and there’s nothing they can do against it. First of all, because they are counting on the Pakistanis to help get some sort of off ramp with Iran, even though the Americans obviously have no idea what they [themselves] want. Number one, they keep changing their demands one day after another. If they agree on something, the next day they change again.

So the possibility of having a a deal between Iran and U.S., I would say, are less than zero, as it goes on.

What if there’s no deal? What the Americans are going to do? They’re going to restart the war? No, it’s impossible for them. They don’t have the means. It’s totally opposed by US domestic opinion. They know that every scenario leads to a quagmire even worse than what they are [in] now. And worse, the Iranians are prepared for the war to go on, and that’s what they have been demonstrating with these provocations, one provocation after another. Okay, so now we’ll respond 1.5 times harder and soon maybe more. They’re not intimidated — on the contrary. So this is where we are.

In terms of this hypothetic nuclear bomb, I am waiting for a response from Iran, and this is with our friends at the Cradle — I’m sure you all know that I am a columnist for the Cradle as well.

So I sent them the article that I already wrote which basically what I’ve have been explaining to you this past few minutes is inside the column, and it’s going to land at the desk of one of the members of Mojtaba Khamenei’s inner circle. And that’s the great thing. He said, yes, I will respond. It was supposed to be tonight, It’s probably going to tomorrow night. Tomorrow night I would say Iran-Moscow timeline. So when we get to Friday, we will already have a response that is practically official because this guy is at the top of the food chain in Tehran.

And then I want to publish the column telling all the story, including the official uranium position, and then that’s it.

So we can imagine that the Iranians are going to go probably for plausible deniability because this is immensely sensitive. But it doesn’t matter. They can phrase [it] in a way that will be what the Americans call a no-response response. And it [the statement] can be sophisticated enough — and the Iranians are masters at it — [so] that you can read it any way you want, because obviously they’re not going to say that their president was lying to the Pakistani prime minister. That’s not the case.

And if Pezeshkian actually said that to Sharif, he had a go-ahead from above. No question about that. And obviously [this shows] that we [Iranians] are fed up with all your bullshit. And that’s it. If you keep provoking us, this is what we’re going to do. You should take this into consideration from now on.

So this is where we are.

Leave a comment

Our subject is oil and our leadership’s love of its use. Consider this comment by Iranian professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi:

Marandi makes several statements:

• Trump is emptying the strategic oil reserves to keep U.S. gas prices down.

• In doing this, he’s “preventing demand destruction.”

• When the strategic reserve is empty, the real price of this war at the pump will hit with a bang.

• When that time comes, Americans will rebel against the war and force Trump and his people to ask for an actual peace along Iranian lines.

For the record, what Iran wants now, as explained in this recent discussion (at 5:27), are sanctions relief, return of its frozen (stolen) assets, acceptance of the new reality in the Strait of Hormuz, and a permanent end of the war, including against the Lebanese and Palestinians. Will we get there? My guess is no.

But today let’s focus on the phrase “demand destruction.”

Subscribe now

Demand Destruction

“Demand destruction” for a commodity means the destruction of people’s interest in owning it. The automobile, for example, destroyed the demand for horse-drawn carriages and carts.

Demand destruction can occur in several ways. Loss of a supply of something, when there are alternatives, will destroy the demand for the unavailable product. If the earth were suddenly deforested (assume this for the sake of illustration), people would turn immediately to other products for building and making things.

That’s exactly what’s happening to the demand for fossil fuels, or would happen if Trump and other world leaders were to let nature take its full course — “nature” in this case being reduction in oil supply as a result of this war.

For those in the pro-climate camp, who consider climate control their long-term job one, isn’t demand destruction exactly in line with what’s needed in any case?

I understand that without Trump’s oil release from the U.S. strategic reserve, petroleum, which is already priced near $100/bbl, would easily cost $20–$40 more today, with an upper bound close to $200/bbl if Hormuz were to stay closed for an extended period of time.

Share

Trump’s Commitment to Oil

I find all this interesting, given Trump’s total commitment to oil as both an energy source and nostalgia for America-as-was, a world when oil and the nation that owned it were kings — the Happy Motoring life that men like him grew up with and loved.

It’s nostalgia for the old energy source that dooms the old empire when a new energy source and empire arrive to replace it: wind for the Dutch, coal for Great Britain, and oil, certainly, for us.

Demand destruction is a crime in the Trump plan for America, and also, I think, for the 20–30% of his voting base that will stick with him till he dies, or they do, or both.

It’s not just his love of power, his sheer bloody mind, or the cash that fed his campaign that drives his determination to drown us in oil. It’s love of the dying past, by a dying old man. Our leadership class is filled with dying old men.

Leave a comment

As regular readers know, cyber-security and the surveillance state is one of our regular beats. The subject is huge, so it’s best swallowed one bite at a time. (Yes, I know that’s a pun.)

Today I want to introduce two related subjects, and in so doing, introduce two YouTube authors whose work is worth following. The first topic is VPNs. The second is data collection and data poisoning.

Both involve videos. Sorry, but that can’t be helped. See here for an explanation of why I’m relying on those. (Hint: It’s an experiment.)

I find these subjects too important to ignore. If you agree, please read on.

Spying on VPNs

We’ll do this in two parts. First, listen to the video below. It’s just 10 minutes long. , the author — I’m avoiding the term “creator”; it’s too au courant, and a bit of a glory phrase — starts with a history lesson, the story of when James Clapper, DNI chief under Obama, lied under oath to Congress when questioned by Senator Ron Wyden about spook state spying directed at U.S. citizens.

There’s a reason she starts there. Wyden was actually speaking to the American people when questioning Clapper.

Then she pivots to the question of VPNs. Are they spied on as well? Short answer: Yes, the government always surveils VPN traffic. How do we know? Because it’s Wyden who’s asking the question.

There’s so much more to say about VPNs (preview here), but I’ll save that for a separate piece.

By the way, you may be asking yourself — was Clapper ever punished for lying under oath to the Senate? The answer: Of course he wasn’t; lying is job number one for people like him. He skated clean away.

Share

AI and Data Poisoning

One of the ways to fight back against state surveillance is to poison the well of data they’re collecting on you. The way this surveillance works is interesting: Everything they collect — and they try to collect everything — goes into a pool or a well, available for later examining whenever they want. They don’t have to use it now, nor does it have to be classified for later. That takes too much time.

It just has to be collected and saved. Then, when someone with power wants data about someone they target, everything about that person can be dredged up and seen in detail.

The examiner can be anyone with status. Advertisers who want to milk you have access to your data. So do police and DAs — if someone reaches their radar, they have access to the whole picture, meaning the whole picture.

The surveillance state also has access. This includes its arresting and punishing arms, like Homeland Security, the FBI, and the like. Does the CIA have access? I wouldn’t bet two cents it’s not open to them. This also includes ICE and everyone who cares about what anyone wants to call a “domestic terrorist” — like anti-genocide protesters and occasionally, Proud Boys types, if a Democrat runs the show.

How about political actors, looking for a way to clobber ballot-box threats? Could they be given a peek for oppo purposes? I wouldn’t bet against it. Perhaps a thorny journalist with too much information could have his or her history laid bare, just to quiet uncomfortable questions. Does this happen? I’ll leave you to ponder the odds it does.

Back to poisoning the well, there’s more than one way to make its water undrinkable, to make the data contained in it unreliable.

Interested? I was. Consider watching this video by Addie LaMarr. It’s just twelve minutes long, and she makes the case it’s possible.

There are many more videos on this subject — if you’re interested, do a search. You may like what you find.

Leave a comment

The world has conspiracies, and people have theories.

A Conspiracy Theory Is a Theory

This is about “conspiracy theories.” A conspiracy theory is a theory you’re branding as false. Some truly are false. Despite arguments to the contrary, I’m pretty sure astronauts did land on the moon. I’m also sure Biden won in 2020, and Nazis killed millions of Jews. Some “conspiracy theories” are truly not true.

On the other side of the coin, I’m certain Kennedy was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and it’s now beyond proof that the State had Malcolm X murdered, in particular, the FBI and NYPD. Some “conspiracy theories” are actually right.

And some seem possible but are yet to be settled. These can sound unsettlingly wild, yet the cases seem to make sense: Does the U.S. have alien spacecraft? There are quite a few whistleblowers who say they do. Does the vertical collapse of the 9/11 towers mean something other than airplanes caused their destruction? Based on the conflicting evidence, it’s sure seems possible. Of these theories, only God knows. At least for now.

See what this means? There are indeed right and wrong theories. There are also conspiracies. But the phrase isn’t used to hold thought. It’s used by the Say Anything crowd* to win, to shut down debate.

The White House Ballroom Theory

A good example of this “conspiracy theory” theory is the White House ballroom. When this idea came out in January, it was soundly rejected.

I went out on a limb to repeat this; it’s clearly a theory, cobbled together from a pile of suggestive evidence, but with no direct proof. And because it involved the beloved security state, bipartisan media gave it no credence at all.

Until they did, thanks to Trump and his mouth. I suggest rereading my piece at the above link. We’re still not being told to what use this massive military structure will be put, but we may find out.

The Thomas Massie Affair

This leads us to Israel. A number of theories these days involve the Israelis. Was Israel involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk? Former U.S. counterterrorism chief Joe Kent, Tucker Carlson, and others like the Breaking Points hosts (see discussions in recent shows), seems to think the idea is possible at least.

Another wild theory? Perhaps, though it’s not beyond thought that Israel would murder for gain. The evidence before us about Israel’s limits is clear: When it comes to power, Israel has no limits. And that’s not a theory.

Which leads to another idea. Yes, it’s a theory. And yes, I’m out on a limb, at least for now. But the following is plausible, if not proven yet.

Share

Was the Massie Election Stolen?

The question: Was massive vote fraud involved in Thomas Massie’s electoral loss?

The answer involves what you think of the turnout numbers as discussed by the following writers. Are their statements factually true? Apparently so. Is their analysis flawed? Perhaps; it will take more resources than I have to vet this idea.

But on the surface, I can’t say no, this idea is too wild. Nor would I put it past any political party — including the Israeli government — not to blatantly hack the vote when winning is paramount.

So please consider the following, all from the platform formerly known as Twitter.

1. Massie Turnout Grew 19%. Opponent Turnout Grew 350%.

There’s a big statistical problem with the voter turnout. According to this, overall turnout increased by 100% (i.e., double the number of voters). And while Massie’s turnout increased by 19%, turnout against him increased by 350%.

In other words, of the roughly 100,000 new voters in this small district election, Massie captured about 9,000 of them, while Gallrein captured an astonishing 41,000, a better than 4-to-1 split. In the real world, where both sides are highly passionate, the new-voter split should favor both candidates to a less one-sided degree.

On this basis alone, the election should be audited. Look at the graphic above (source: this thread). Then read the summary below (edited slightly for readability).

THE NUMBERS DON’T WHISPER. THEY SCREAM.

Massie gained votes. Turnout doubled.
His opponent vote didn’t grow. It exploded.

2024 opponent vote: 12,664
2026 opponent vote: 57,822
That’s a 356.6% surge.

Total turnout jumped from 52,593 to 105,361.

2. Gallrein Attracted New Voters With No Voter Passion

Historically, a massive increase in voters indicates passion — voter passion, not just donor passion.

According to this report, Gallrein had votes, but little real voter support. His rallies were sparsely attended, his victory party drew something like 100 people (and no politicians), and almost no one from real Kentucky contributed to his campaign. The money was all from outside.

So what we're supposed to believe is that a guy who only had 75 donations from Kentucky, an empty victory party, and nobody at his rallies, managed to double turnout from 2024 plus get all 10k mail in ballots

There’s video of that “victory party” here. Where were those passionate new voters? Nowhere in sight. Perhaps nowhere on earth.

3. Those Mail-In Ballots

I’m not one to undermine mail-in voting; I live in Oregon and love how our system works. But I’d love to know who those 45,000 new Massie-haters are?

This tweeter notes three facts, two about historical precedence…

Ed Gallrein increase the voter turnout, in his race against the incumbent “Thomas Massie” by 356%. This has never once happened in any primary election in U.S. history going back to the 1970.

Total voter turnout out in a primary increased by over 100%. Going from 52,593 in 2024 to 105,361 in 2026. This has also never once happened in a primary election since 1970.

… and one about mail-in votes (emphasis mine):

Thomas Massie lost by 10,280 ish votes. Ed Gallrein received 10,854 mail in votes yesterday.

If election officials are bent, any election can be faked. This sounds like Trump, I know, but that doesn’t make the statement not true. Election perversion and theft is old in America. Honest audits quell doubts.

Please quell our doubts, or we’re left in Charlie Kirk land, wondering if someone hidden did something wrong. Again.

*From the God’s Spies Urban Dictionary

The “Say Anything” crowd : People who will say absolutely anything to win. For the Say Anything crowd, words don’t carry a thought; they’re deployed to create an effect. Meaning is not the goal, since they speak just to win. Most often said of politicians, supporters, and donors.

Leave a comment

UPDATE: In the interview below, James Li, who was on the ground in Kentucky, discusses how he saw the election playing out. Bottom line: He didn’t see evidence supporting the vote hack theory, and he finds the turnout-caused-by-advertising explanation plausible.

There’s much more in the interview worth listening to. (Time: 39 minutes)