Siegbarste Newsletter / WindUpRubberFinger

A Quick Rundown of The Government Fraud Cycle

OGRE — Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:39:23 GMT

Many people wonder how government fraud schemes work.

Well, there’s no better way to learn -- than to watch one in the making, which is precisely what’s happening right now in Massachusetts.

A company where the husband of Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., is a partner was selected for a nearly $2 billion deal to build a new courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts — a decision now being challenged in court by rejected bidders who allege conflicts of interest tainted the process.
Conan Harris, who has been married to the Massachusetts Democrat for more than a decade, is a partner with John Barros in CoJo Real Estate, which is part of the Liberty Junction team selected in early July for the 40-year courthouse lease, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs allege Barros’ role as interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) created a conflict of interest because several members of that agency’s board also serve on the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, the state agency that selected Liberty Junction.

How to View This Problem

Many state and federal agencies are literally organized crime outfits. They operate (out of necessity) in the dark.

I also have some experience in this area. I can layout some of what I’ve seen.

Let’s begin with an analogy.

A government engineered car, with no engine, is supposed to be driven from New York to California.

However, before anything can be done, the law states that it must be inspected. Consultants are hired/contracted. They conclude that the car needs new brake pads, it needs a transmission service, new air filter, fuel filter... By the time that’s completed it needs new wiper blades, it has been years now (the wipers rotted during that time). In the end nearly the entire vehicle has been reworked. Why? Because everyone was getting paid.

But the car hasn’t been driven, in fact it’s never even been started.

That’s a normal successful government program. It didn’t produce anything, but everyone was getting paid.

You know another word for that?

Fraud.

You might ask, why didn’t anyone say anything about the fact that there was no engine? Why didn’t an outside group ever look into the project and follow up on the progress?

It’s simple, everyone is getting paid. Looking under the hood is not going to happen, because the project is going to be part of a 2,000+ page bill, that covers literally everything in the federal, or state government’s budget for a period of months or years.

Anyone who looks under the hood and sees that there’s no engine -- has nobody to turn to -- because everyone is getting paid. Inspectors general (IGs) don’t look into stuff like this until years after the fraud operation has already been run.

What’s The Pretext

How does this kind of scenario come about? First you propose a piece of legislation, that’s supposed to produce something. It can be anything, but it’s usually a large infrastructure project, high-speed rail, the broadband deal, bridges, EV charging stations, a courthouse, things of that nature.

Then behind the scenes, you have politicians determine which engineering/consulting groups they want to work with. The politicians write into the law nonsense requirements for those consulting contracts, things that are generally unassociated with the work to be performed (that way even through there’s an “open bid process,” they will get the “right” consultants contracted).

The legislation will also have an exhaustive list of nonsense steps, requiring years worth of consulting work to be completed before anything ever happens in the physical world.

The consulting groups are working behind the scenes with the politicians; part of their unspoken agreement is to have the consulting groups and their employees donate to the political campaigns of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. This can be done various different ways.

All of this is by design, because as long as those consultants can stay on the job, they can keep laundering tax-payer money into the pockets of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. Everyone keeps getting paid. And most importantly -- nothing is being built.

It’s organized crime. And yes, I’ve witnessed it first hand -- on more than one occasion.

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

If you enjoy my writing, you might want to check out my original blog WindUpRubberFinger.com. I have decided to mirror my posts on Substack, and WindUpRubberFinger.com. I will work on moving older posts over to Substack as references for newer articles.

Why I'm Done With Voting - Not A Black Pill, Just The Truth

OGRE — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 14:54:01 GMT

This article isn’t going to be very long, because covering everything related to how voting is a ruse would take too long to cover.

Instead, I’m going to focus on what is visible for all to see.

The SAVE America Act has broad approval amongst the citizenry in the US (somewhere around 80%+ at the time of this writing) yet it can’t get past the senate.

Why?

The SAVE America Act would make it much harder for voting/election manipulation to take place -- we know voting/election manipulation takes place -- at all levels, it’s not even questionable. So why would people fight to keep the system so easy to manipulate?

I believe the answer is simple.

If the SAVE America Act were to pass -- and the law followed -- the true voice of the citizenry might be heard.

I also believe true elections can’t be allowed to happen, because whatever is planned for us -- is horrible, and something that almost nobody would agree with. There is no other reason not to allow for legitimate elections.

Unless the current system is entirely propped up by the illusion of consensus, and the illusion of elections.

The freedoms that we’ve been “allowed” to enjoy for so long are being systematically rolled back, either through the erosion of laws protecting those freedoms, or through the digital surveillance apparatus. No real right to privacy is a serious loss of freedom -- even though most people won’t even notice it slipping away.

This is why older people tell younger people about how much better things were. It’s not because they’re feeling that way because they “remember it differently” -- it’s because it was different and much better.

Allowing the general citizenry too much freedom makes certain goals unattainable, so that freedom has to be reeled in, to make people much more predictable and easier to control as a group.

This is why the true state of Mitch McConnell’s cognitive ability is being hidden -- so that they can run out the clock for the SAVE America Act. It can’t be instated before the 2026 midterms.

The fake Mitch McConnell vote is needed to keep the act from passing.

The Republicans are supposed to “lose” the midterms, and this will guarantee that it happens (or rather that it’s believable).

Follow The Money

Most people say, “Follow the money” it will show why things are the way that they are. And that works in most instances, yet in others it does not.

The COVID-19 Scam is a perfect example. The push to get everyone vaccinated was not profit driven. If profit were the concern the vaccine manufacturers would have just charged much more for the shots -- but they didn’t. No, it was something different entirely.

Also consider, the amount of fraud being uncovered throughout the government dwarfs whatever profit the vaccine manufactures raked in. Government fraud is thousands of times more money than has been made from vaccines since the beginning.

In my opinion the same thing is happening with voting.

The only reason to limit people’s choice is because you’re going to present them with choices that most people would avoid.

Should You Vote

I won’t tell anyone not to vote, that’s entirely up to the individual.

I’m not going to tell someone to to stop rubbing Buddha’s belly, turn a horseshoe up, like a “U” (so the luck doesn’t pour out) or to stop carrying around a rabbit’s foot.

Do what makes you feel better, you’re not hurting anyone else. And you’re definitely not putting the country at risk, or any of the other nonsense that people will tell you to compel you to vote.

Just understand that voting is not going to change whatever comes next.

What Comes Next

I’m not sure what happens next.

I’m not even sure who truly knows what’s next?

I do know that I’m not privy to such information. That being the case, I’m going to prepare the best I can for whatever comes. Have a “bug out bag” for each of my family members, that sort of thing.

Whatever comes, we’ll all have to deal with it.

May God help us all.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

The Movie "Citizen Vigilante" Is Part of A Psyop (Psychological Operation)

OGRE — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:46:58 GMT

I was wondering about this movie, from the second I saw it pushed on X/Twitter.

Why would a movie -- that accurately portrays what is really being perpetrated against Western civilization -- be pushed and widely seen?

One might imagine that it’s because people “feel” what’s coming, and want to make sure that others are prepared. Perhaps, but I don’t buy that.

Timing Is Everything

This movie was released just as most Americans are feeling the absolute most angst towards immigrants -- probably ever.

Why is right now the time for pushing this movie Citizen Vigilante? And why push it for free for 48 hours before asking for people to pay for it?

Not only that, why was it posted on X/Twitter -- where anyone can download it for free -- and redistribute it? Musk made an arrangement with the producers to allow it to be streamed on X free for 48 hours.

Profit was obviously not a consideration.

The movie was released on June 19, 2026 -- just days before a historic SCOTUS decision which (more or less) trivialized US citizenship.

And most people already knew which way the decision was going to land.

What is the movie about?

To sum it up quickly, it was a vigilante taking out “migrants” and other people weighing down and destroying Western society.

But that’s not all. It gets to the very heart of the issue.

This level of blunt and clear communication is not normal, it’s definitely not something that the mainstream movie industry would put out.

Why, in this movie, are the characters allowed to say what many people think -- but can’t say?

Why is this movie even out there, and why right now?

More importantly -- why are there so few globalists / subversives / progressives complaining about this movie? What do they know that most normies don’t know?

The movie was banned in Germany, but that was never really a problem, of course the German government knows this, but they have to look like they’re trying.

Nothing Is as It Seems

There are many theories on why this is happening, here’s mine:

In my opinion, this movie was released with one specific purpose, and it was not because those who produced it believe in anything portrayed in the movie. There’s a reason that the scene with the judge involves the vigilante running a random car off the road -- presumably killing those inside -- to prove a point to someone he’s about to kill anyway.

That scene was to portray the “hero” of the film as a sociopath nutjob, which could have been questionable -- up to that point. Because, anyone who takes the law into their own hands must be a sociopath, and by extension a bad person.

There were no mistakes in the making of this film. It sets very clear narratives.

“Vigilantes think all immigrants are bad, and other bad people, the vigilantes, might go out and start killing immigrants.”

This movie appears to be designed to get (ignorant) people to act -- now -- like right now, before there is any kind of coordinated effort to stop mass migration.

Someone wants there to be vigilantes.

There Is A Method to Their Madness

It’s simple really.

Division.

What better way to scare the hell out of migrants who are not violent, and stoke the flames of resentment for regular citizens of the US. This movie hits on both simultaneously, and with jarring precision.

Take the SCOTUS ruling for example. It was obviously done to enrage the public -- because The Constitution was very clear about the means to citizenship.

The Constitution wasn’t “misinterpreted” -- it was overruled by activist subversive judges -- on purpose right now -- for maximum effect.

This is a known tactic. And it’s happening right now, right out in the open where everyone can see it.

For anyone doubting this, just watch what happens.

Someone will likely go out and take out some immigrants in the US, and they will quote this movie, or they will use it as a defense in court.

Something dramatic will happen to make sure that everyone knows:

“If you cross the ‘authorities’ you will be removed from society and your children will be taken from you. So just lay down, and let the third worlders take over your society. Your services are no longer needed.”

Oh, and if you watched the movie, and commented on X about it, there’s no doubt you’re being watched by law enforcement. This whole thing was a setup from the beginning. They’re salivating at the chance to make an example out of the first person to do anything even remotely related to this movie, or it’s theme(s).

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Barack Obama and The Language Lie...

OGRE — Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:26:51 GMT

Remember when Obama said, “Just words, just speeches...” Well that’s an interesting way to look at things.

Obama is now saying more words, making more speeches. People are not paying close enough attention to exactly what he is saying.

Remember the health care debate? Obama, on many occasions, mentioned that Obamacare would help 46.3 million Americans who don’t currently have health insurance. Then on September 9, 2009 Obama addressed Congress. That is where he said that Obamacare would help more than 30 million American citizens who don’t have coverage. I don’t think that many people caught onto the fact that he mentioned two separate numbers. but those numbers are from a US Census report. Check page 28 under Nativity, you will find the subheading “Not a citizen” and a value of 9.7 million.

Paying close attention there is another Language Lie in Obama’s Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver: “The American Promise” During this address Obama said, “But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.“ Again Obama has pulled a fast one. Most people are not aware of this fact, but the US Government has not passed a budget in what is now [a long time] (in 2012 there was a counter).

Because of this; Obama has not gone line by line through the federal budget -- because there hasn’t been one.

Then we come around to health care; there was mention of a “public option” government health insurance which would lead to socialized medicine (private insurance would not be able to compete, government monopoly...) Because socialized medicine polls negatively, they went with “single payer option”. They aren’t going to call their socialized medicine plan by any name that correctly identifies it. It speaks volumes when people have go this far to avoid the truth under the guise of helping people.

It is an art to lie to people and make them feel comfortable about it. You have to state things with such specificity as to never be pinned down by the truth. These are just two examples. Pay close attention to what Obama actually says and I bet you’ll find quite a few more Language Lies hidden in the details.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Islam Is The Quintessential Tool Necessitating The Digital Panopticon

OGRE — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 03:40:15 GMT

Islam is incompatible with Western civilization(s)

How can I make this claim?

Because Islamic leaders have already made the claim too many times to list here. Those Islamic leaders don’t talk about moving to the West to settle [under Western laws], they talk about moving to the West to instate Islamic Law -- to conquer. What most people don’t understand is that traditional Islamic beliefs are that Muslims can’t permanently live in the dār al-Kufr (land of disbelief).

The fact that there are countless books written in an attempt to reconcile the differences between Islam and the West are proof enough that there are serious/irreconcilable compatibility issues.

More recently, Muslim political groups have referred to hijra in other ways. To give just a few examples: (1) in opposition to colonial rule; (2) those leaving Russia and the Balkan states in the 1800s; (3) Indian Muslims moving from British-controlled India to Afghanistan in the 1920s; (4) Muslims emigrating from India to the newly created state of Pakistan. These follow a pattern in that they all discuss whether Muslims were obliged to leave areas ruled by “infidels” (Muslims in medieval Christian Spain, colonialized areas, Russia and the Balkans, India towards Afghanistan or India towards Pakistan, etc.) and if so, under what conditions. These discussions were very closely related to issues of jihad.
In addition, post-World War II Muslim migration to Europe was of great historical importance, as it formed the basis of a fundamental change of concepts in Islamic normative thought. It developed what became known as a reverse hijra, that is, an unprecedented number of Muslims emigrating voluntarily from Muslim lands to non-Muslim countries. After the Second World War, with the introduction of the United Nations and the formation of Muslim minority communities in Western Europe, Muslim political, legal and religious scholars reached a new interpretation of the peaceful relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, rejecting the traditional dichotomy of dār al-Islām (abode or land of Islam) and dār al-Kufr (abode or land of disbelief) as anachronistic. This paved the way for an Islamic acceptance for residence, naturalisation and citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim nation states under certain conditions (such as freedom of religion).
This acceptance became the basis for a new branch of Islamic Law that was developed in the 1990s and 2000s, namely fiqh al-aqalliyyāt. In less than two decades, fiqh al-aqalliyyāt shifted the legal discourse from fiqh al-hijra to fiqh al-muwāṭana, the Islamic law of citizenship. However, this does not mean that citizenship, nationality and integration of more than 15 million Muslims in the European Union was accepted by Muslim scholars overall. There are still certain countries, circles and traditions where this is rejected and where Europe [and the US] continues to be seen as part of dār al-Kufr. The process of re-interpretation of Islamic thought concerning this vital political issue has not yet been completed. These circles normally allowed Muslim residence in other parts of the
world for specific, temporary reasons, but not for the purpose of settling (Ramadan
1999; Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh 1996).

It’s not that Muslims don’t want to live in the West and enjoy the materialist advantages the West offers -- it’s that they are not to do so permanently.

As a result, what must Muslims do once they migrate to a new Western country?

Either they migrate there temporarily, or they decide to stay and begin work on the Islamization of that society.

There is no other option for Muslims. Either they live in the dār al-Islām (abode or land of Islam) or they temporarily live in the dār al-Kufr (abode or land of disbelief).

This is not a new problem for the West. In fact there have been many Islamic scholars who have tried to reconcile these differences.

Here is the opening to the book I linked to. These scholars are not arguing that Islam should exist side-by-side with Western civilizations, but that they should offer an alternative to Western civilization. Eventually replacing Western civilization, as it is required.

A principle concern of the authors in this collection of papers is how Islamic ethical and legal traditions can contribute to current global debates on the dilemmas of migration and displacement. Can the Muslim tradition provide an alternative international moral and legal paradigm where others have proven inadequate? Abou El Fadl, in this volume, argues that the Muslim tradition is replete with “powerful virtuous ethical impulses that could make substantive contributions to the field of forced migrants and displacement.” The ethics of muʾākhā (brotherhood), ḍiyāfa (hospitality), ijāra (providing protection and support), amān (providing safety), jiwār (neighborliness), sutra (protection, esp. in case of marriage), kafala (to guarantee someone) among others, may provide common ethical grounds with other religious traditions, moral philosophies and social customs that can go beyond the technical applications and procedural standards of international law. The argument that these moral principles or “ethical potentialities and trajectories” are only entitled to fellow Muslims and not applicable to non-Muslims, contradicts the general historical trajectories and normative understanding in Islam. These ethics, according to the authors of this volume, are inclusive and not context-specific. They present “a normative imperative for Muslims that would apply whenever there is an obligation to escape oppression or injustice,” and represent “purposeful construction of social and political virtues” (Abou El Fadl, Chapter One).
Unfortunately, post-colonial Muslim scholars have been more occupied with the apologetic discourse of either reinterpreting classical concepts (such as the division of the world into dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb) to relate to the political conceptualization of contemporary nation states, or proving an essential compatibility and reconcilability between Islamic theology and international law. The better task is to turn the moral imperatives inherited from the Islamic tradition into significant theological and ethical engagements with modern discourses on human rights and dignity.
This volume provides scholarly attempts to achieve this task by reviewing questions of migration, residence, naturalisation and citizenship from multisided perspectives, thus more broadly defining the Islamic tradition to cover not only theology but to also encompass ethics, customs and social norms, as well as modern political, humanitarian and rights discourses.

The works of these Islamic scholars are openly admitting that there are irreconcilable differences between the West and Islamic culture. The last sentence (the part I highlighted), says it plainly.

Let’s break it down.

...thus more broadly defining the Islamic tradition to cover not only theology but to also encompass ethics, customs and social norms, as well as modern political, humanitarian and rights discourses.

These are the areas that Islamic tradition are to cover in any society.

Theology
Ethics
Customs
Social norms
Politics
Humanitarian [issues]
Rights discourses (notice they are not ‘individual’ rights)

Considering how comprehensive this list is, what’s left?

LAW. That’s what’s left (out), and that’s a large part of why it’s not mentioned in this list.

Islamic scholars often write this way. They wax on about the virtues of Islam -- but they almost always seem to gloss over Islamic Law -- because that’s where you determine how those virtues are to be applied and to whom they apply.

Islamic scholars always couch Islamic Law as part of Islamic ethical and legal traditions. This is an attempt to make it sound not like a law, and that Islamic Law is really just a “tradition.” When functionally nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s the Christian equivalent of saying that the Ten Commandments are really just tradition. However, most of modern Western law is based on the Ten Commandments, so the tradition argument becomes rather silly.

The same thing applies to Islamic Law. Islamic Law is the foundation from which Islamic traditions are effectively applied.

The War on Terror and The Patriot Act

Remember the phrase [The US military will] “Fight them over there, so you don’t have to fight them here.”

The September 11 attacks changed things, for a few years.

Islam was the driving force behind terrorism in the US, and by extension, the reason for the massive domestic spy program known as The Patriot Act.

“See terrorists are already here, and so we need a way to catch these people -- that we already know are here.” - Neocons

You can’t get the public behind a massive program to stomp on their rights -- unless you have a compelling argument that it will better their lives somehow. In this case, it was said that the domestic spying program would stop future terror attacks.

Safety was dangled out there, and far too many people chose safety over freedom.

The idea that any government is going to setup a giant spy program, but never use it for nefarious purposes, is dangerously naive. Love him or hate him, just ask Trump about The Patriot Act and domestic spying.

The Patriot Act was 100% always about domestic spying -- because when the government wants to control the entire population, you need to know who will go along, and who won’t. There is no other reason for such a system.

Edward Snowden broke that story to the world, and is still sought after for criminal charges in the US -- for letting people know the truth behind the lies.

Why facilitate the migration of Muslims to the West

Does anyone really believe that this will result in a good outcome, when there is obviously no historical reason to believe so?

The answer to that question is rather simple.

No.

Nobody expects that this will work out well. That’s how you know that this migration effort is part of something entirely different.

The obvious answer was to not allow incompatible people into the United States as refugees. But this was done anyway.

Why?

Because a level of chaos is needed to enact change. Keep in mind that all the while, this is being facilitated by the US government, by our “elected” officials.

Pushing two or more incompatible groups together will ultimately result in disagreements that will rise to the level of requiring some kind of government-level intervention.

We’re seeing this happen right now in the UK. The number of incompatible cultures that have been thrown together is reaching the boiling point. The people of the UK are demanding that their government do something about it, and of course the government is doing nothing about it -- yet.

Don’t make the assumption that this is because the authorities are weak, or because they lack the will to do something about it.

This is being allowed to happen on purpose.

Consider all of the strange things that have happened in just the last few years in the UK. They are jailing more people for speech violations in the UK than Russia. They are refusing to uphold UK law when migrant(s) are involved. Again -- not by accident. These actions are designed to provoke a response.

The UK government is poking and prodding the population into action. Once it becomes a very serious problem, open fighting in the streets, and general mayhem, how do you think the government is going to respond?

Are they going to favor the indigenous population -- or are they going to lump everyone together (migrants and citizens) and treat the entire group as one?

I think the answer is obvious.

Whatever happens as a result will require everyone in that country to abide by new “emergency” laws. What exactly that might entail, your guess is as good as mine, but I know one thing. I don’t want to be there when that goes down.

Where does this all lead

Knowing that this obviously ends badly -- at least for everyday people -- what could possibly be the point of all this?

I think the answer is simple.

You can’t create a kind of (1984-style Fabian Society) control structure with Western civilization intact. The US Constitution was written to limit the power of government. The US Constitution is the greatest obstacle to those who wish for absolute control.

Europe will be a much easier win for the controllers.

Western civilization must be replaced with something that is more compatible with absolute (and centralized) control.

One might argue communism, or socialism could offer that level of control, but it hasn’t historically.

Communism and socialism’s main failing point is that the entire premise of both (at least for those outside the system) was always a lie.

It’s not long before everyone knows what’s really going on, it is just easier to lie and keep on living, than to push back against the system, and likely be killed or watch your family be tortured and killed.

In comes Islam

Islam takes care of all attributes of the control structure inherently -- and it wraps it up under the guise of a religion.

As a result you have “true believers” not like with communism and socialism where everyone always knew (even if deep-down) that something was off.

Islam creates true hardcore believers.

Once there is an Islamic majority, there is no more need for “conversion.” Muslims are tolerant when they must be, once they have the majority there is almost zero tolerance. The phase where Muslims try to convince people to convert to Islam -- is in the beginning stages -- before there is an Islamic majority. That’s why so many in the West fail to see what’s happening.

Once a country is majority Muslim, it’s not likely to ever turn back. Not without some kind of civil war or revolution.

There are a few countries that have gone from Islam to Christianity, but not many, and most of them were majority Christian before Islamization.

Spain and Portugal
Philippines
Mozambique
Malta and Sicily
Greece
Serbia
Bulgaria
Romania

It is my personal opinion that those who wish for total control, don’t care about religion in any way, and simply want a compliant lower class of people to rule over -- and the easiest way to do that is to allow Islam to profligate, then tighten the reigns.

Islam is being used in the West to accelerate or otherwise bring on the downfall of Western civilization -- because Western civilization is the only thing holding the controllers at bay.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

My Content Stream on AI

OGRE — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 05:38:57 GMT

This is my running stream of thought on AI.

There are many things up in the air as AI is concerned. The most troubling is data center land grabs. There are many places where data centers have been proposed, and the local citizenry is opposed. This has sparked debate, because many of the local politicians have worked to get the data centers pushed through -- without the consent of their constituents.

Five months after Grosser turned them down, local officials said at a public meeting that Mason County was being scouted as a location for a new data center development.
Grosser experienced firsthand what has become a common but controversial aspect of the multibillion-dollar data center boom, fueled by artificial intelligence services. Major tech companies launching the huge projects across the country are asking land sellers and public officials to sign NDAs to limit discussions about details of the projects in exchange for morsels of information and the potential of economic lifelines for their communities. It often leaves neighbors searching for answers about the futures of their communities.
The construction of such hyperscale data centers — giant facilities that house servers and computing resources — is booming nationwide. President Donald Trump’s AI action plan and related executive orders have recently facilitated their speedy approval, in part by loosening environmental regulations from clean air and water laws. Hundreds of projects were announced last year, touted by developers and many local officials as economic boosts to local economies.

People are obviously being paid off. When NDAs are involved, there is money changing hands, and the people slinging the money don’t want people finding out who they are.

There’s an even stranger side to this though.

Nvidia is about to enter the PC market. Why? Because they say that AI is going to be moving more towards edge devices. The AI will be built-in to the devices we use, not hosted elsewhere.

TAIPEI, June 1 (Reuters) - Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab on Monday unveiled a new chip that puts artificial intelligence capabilities directly into laptops and desktop computers, pitting it against the likes of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O), opens new tab, Intel (INTC.O), opens new tab and Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab.
The chip, developed with Taiwan’s MediaTek (2454.TW), opens new tab, will debut this fall in laptops and compact desktops from Dell (DELL.N), opens new tab, HP (HPQ.N), opens new tab, Lenovo (0992.HK), opens new tab, ASUS (2357.TW), opens new tab, Microsoft Surface and MSI, with models from Acer and GIGABYTE to follow.
Industry experts said the processor would overhaul engagement with AI as it is designed to run autonomous AI agents locally rather than relying solely on cloud computing.

This begs the question -- “What are all the data centers for -- if most AI will be moving to edge devices?“

Something’s not right here.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Feminism, Overreach, and How We Got Here

OGRE — Wed, 27 May 2026 14:24:46 GMT

For me this is another example of, “One side pushed to hard, and now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.”

Feminists have gone so far to emasculate men, that they are now seen [by men] as an existential threat.

Feminism has become embedded into nearly all parts of American culture.

The Feminization of Story Telling

Stories, at least traditionally, were always a means of learning. People told stories over generations, because it was how people passed knowledge from one generation to the next.

These stories often involved women, who by no fault of their own, got themselves into bad situations. It was at this point that a man would come to save her. A knight, or someone virtuous would rescue her (the idea being -- it is virtuous to save women) and then everything would work out in the end.

This process has been hijacked by those who wish to portray a new kind of story. Not one where women need to be protected -- but one where the women do the protecting.

This inversion is instinctively rejected by males. Well, by most males. See, this is not the way that things work in real life. These kinds of ideals can’t be unwound -- because they’re not social constructs -- they are the way that humans (on a civilizational scale) have survived for as long as we can tell.

Feminists have taken it upon themselves to change the perception of reality. Men aren’t supposed to protect women, in fact most men are portrayed in stories today as being idiots. Many people have written about this, Eric Rogers is one that comes to mind.

That’s precisely what’s been done, over several decades, to the cultural image of the virtuous man, to the image of a hero. This wasn’t aesthetic drift. It wasn’t just a change in taste or storytelling. It was a systematic and deliberate suppression of something that would otherwise tell the truth. We didn’t merely lose the image of an admirable man from our media, it was actively replaced with a distortion designed to make the original unrecognizable.
As with any movement, it grew subtly over time. The first signs were hard to pick up on, but during the ‘80s and ‘90s, the dominant image of the man in American popular culture became the bumbling husband: Homer Simpson, Ray Barone, Al Bundy. Men who might not have been villains, but they lacked almost any redeemable qualities. Importantly, these characters were seen as relatable, “normal guys.” Heroes were still on the big screen, like Kurt Russel and Mel Gibson, but the hero was starting to be seen as a fantasy, while the slob was the truth.

The idea is for the male figure in Western media is to be a loser, and not worthy of the woman. This serves many purposes, but here are two that immediately come to mind.

1. It keeps the male/female divide intact. It does this by keeping men on the defensive (as they are conceptualized as fools and incompetent). Not a good starting point.

2. Women are more likely to see foreign men as competent. This is because most foreign films don’t portray men as fools. Netflix is a prime example of this. If you’ve ever watched any of the foreign stories that are dubbed in English, the men are portrayed as regular men. They are not portrayed as fools.

This is ironic, because the same people who are pushing the “Western Men Are Idiots” narrative -- are the same people inviting violent third world men into Western countries. And we all know where that leads. 🙄

Men Are Terrible And They Will Hurt You

As with most ideologies, nearly everything “feminist” operates from a simple binary baseline.

Feminists filter the actions of men -- through a filter resembling this: Men are angry, spiteful, power hungry, and aggressive -- at all times. In fact, when men are not being aggressive, they’re scheming, there must be a game afoot. Things are never as they seem, don’t trust your senses.

Feminism does not account for gray areas. It can’t, because that might allow for honest observations. You can’t have honest observations -- of a binary enemy. They’re bad -- that’s it -- end of discussion.

Feminism makes me think of a role-reversed version of the rap song “Bitches Ain’t Shit.” Feminism operates on that level of complexity.

Jenn And The Unveiling of Crazy

Around 10 years back, I still had a personal Facebook account that I would look at every once in a while when I was bored. This was right around the time when Trump was elected the first time.

There were a few people on there that I would talk to from time to time. People I went to high school with, I graduated in 1998, so it was 18 years prior that I was in school with any of those people, or people that I used to work with.

I was scrolling through my feed when I saw a message from a girl I went to high school with. In that 18-year span she had become a teacher.

She posted something to the effect of, “Now that Trump has been elected, I’m worried that rapes are going to increase all over the country!” I thought that she was joking. NO -- she was 100% serious!

I went to her Facebook page and poked around, there was all this bizarre leftist stuff. There was a picture of her classroom door, covered in a giant piece of paper that said, “We love our Brown kids, Black kids, Asian kids…” Every ethnic group you could think of, but there as no mention of White kids (I wonder how those kids felt in her class). She was a full-on Social Justice Warrior!

She posted something else to do with men raping women, because of Trump. I mentioned to her, “You do understand that everyone you knew the day before -- is still the same person today. Nothing changed overnight because Trump was elected. There was no switch that flipped to make people act differently.”

It didn’t matter, she already blocked me. She blocked me -- for pointing out the obvious.

This took me completely by surprise as she was one of the people in school who “bucked the system.” I never would have imagined that she would have been pulled in by leftist ideology. But then, she was still single. There was no man in the picture to guide her, as a result, she strayed into the wilderness, and was targeted by feminists.

She was an attractive woman, and feminists seek attractive women when they can. They know that women who are attractive have much more sway with men (and generally hold a higher social status) and so they are targeted relentlessly, because of their persuasive abilities.

On Facebook, many other people were writing insane nonsense as well. All of Facebook seemed awash with people who were not in control of their emotions, and seemed generally crazy.

None of those people were worth engaging with in discussion because they were mental basket cases, who checked under their bed at night to make sure Trump wasn’t hiding under there.

All I could think was, “These are the people they have teaching kids? Seriously?!”

Feminists Are Gatekeepers

Feminists have also become embedded into the gateways (entry points) by which most men attempt to “make something of themselves” -- the job market.

First men have to beat the “Algorithm Game,” then they often have to woo the feminist HR interviewers.

I’ll explain.

Men, especially young men are tired of dealing with gatekeepers. Everyone is tired of dealing with people who hate them -- generally -- and those same people [who hate you] are at the entryway to almost any career.

It reminds me of building your financial credit. You can’t get a credit card (with a decent credit rate) because you’ve never had a credit card before. But you can’t really build your credit without a credit card. 🤔 So you get screwed over early -- when you’re trying to build something -- so that later when credit is less important, you can “potentially” get a better interest rate? Credit in general is a scam, but that’s a whole different topic.

The subject of feminism is interesting to me, not because I’ve personally had to deal with it so much, but because I’ve watched other people have to deal with it. And it is complete BS, there’s no real navigable path for young men today. It all depends on your available resources, and whether or not your family will, or can, help you or not.

I’m a rather attractive guy, so the harpies treat me differently than less attractive guys. I know how to flirt in a non-threatening way -- and this makes a huge difference! Women like to be the center of attention (at all times) even in that attention is not destined to go anywhere (and they know that). I’m sure you’ve heard, “It’s nice to be wanted” before.

You could be a less attractive man, and know how to talk to people, and go far.

If you’re less attractive and spiteful, or non-positive in your general demeanor (or otherwise have low self esteem) -- then you’re not getting hired.

It’s almost like the women are hiring men -- based on whether or not they would date them.

I know I’ll be attacked on this -- but it’s 100% true! And all you ladies out there know it. 😉👉

Men do the same thing!

Why do so many accomplished men have secretaries that are attractive? Because it’s a status symbol. Nobody has to explain “why” they hired her, “Just look at her! Would you turn her away?!”

The same thing is happening to men now. The entry points for men have swapped. Instead of men hiring competent men, there’s women hiring men based on their “likability” not merit.

Women don’t care about merit. They care if they find you attractive as a possible mate, why you might up their social status. Biology just works that way.

That’s why so many dating/hiring websites are always about “confidence” and “showing that you can handle the situation.” Not by proven facts -- but by the way that you come off in a short conversation.

That’s not hiring -- that’s speed dating!

Women Don’t Need Men, It’s Men Who Need The Women

Feminists have used this phrase for around 40 years.

‘Behind every great man there’s a great woman’ [it] was adopted as a slogan for the 1960/70s feminist movement, first having been used in the 1940s.

“Behind every great man there’s a great woman.” Which is very convenient for feminists.

See, it was never the men, it was really the women -- who were managing the men -- which allowed Great Men to become great.

You know, people like Genghis Khan. Who was most definitely “lead from behind” by all of the thousands of women he slept with.

Historical estimates suggest Genghis Khan slept with thousands of women, with some records indicating a harem of 2,000 to 3,000 concubines. This prolific reproductive history is backed by genetic studies showing that approximately 1 in 200 men today are his direct descendants. To understand how these numbers are possible, we must first analyze the genetic evidence that confirms his massive biological footprint.

There are more men of renown who were never married, or widowed before they reached their apex in society.

• Isaac Newton
• Nikola Tesla
• Henry David Thoreau
• Leonardo Da Vinci
• Thomas Jefferson (had been widowed for 19 years when he was elected as the third President).

It was not women who made these men great; however, it was the individual achievements of these men that made them great.

One can argue whether their achievements are “great” or not, but one cannot argue that they were lead by women because they simply were not. Who might have been the woman that recommended that Genghis Khan sleep with thousands of women?

Men don’t seek a name for themselves -- because a woman suggests it. Men seek greatness because these things are inherent.

Someone born into royalty doesn’t require a woman to tell them that they need to keep things going. It becomes 100% obvious at a young age. Either you keep the status quo -- or you likely get slimmed. Not to mention, most of the people surrounding young royalty -- are not relatives -- and often times not the mother of the child. That’s just the way things were.

The mother was often required for other formal viewings, and could not “be there” for her child.

None of that really matters though, because for feminism to “work” the woman needs to be the primary source of influence -- always. Not some male who might possibly poison the mind of another male, providing an alternate point of view.

You know what else doesn’t allow any alternate point of view? A CULT. Yes an actual cult. Which is what feminism really is.

Let me break it down my own way.

From personal experience, a cult is anything that says, “Whatever you thought you knew is 100% wrong.” That’s the first giveaway. Not that people somewhere along the way, might have been “mistaken” -- no, they are “wrong” -- and they are knowingly “wrong” -- because they are trying to deceive you.

Similarly, cults often call on their followers to be “true believers” who sacrifice themselves for the cause. Feminism does this as well -- except for those at the top.

Feminism has all the classic marks of a cult. But it’s a cult that’s been mainstreamed by a large extent of society.

So, what do we do now?

Tell me in the comments...

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Ebola, Obama and the CDC (Centers for Disease Confusion)

OGRE — Fri, 22 May 2026 17:39:19 GMT

Keep in mind, I wrote this 5-years before the COVID-19 Scare…

Biohazard Sign

Most of us realize the dangers that come with a new infectious disease in the population; that is unless you work for the CDC.

In the case of Amber Vinson, the Dallas nurse who flew commercially as she was becoming ill with Ebola, one health official said “somebody dropped the ball.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Vinson called the agency several times before flying, saying that she had a fever with a temperature of 99.5 degrees. But because her fever wasn’t 100.4 degrees or higher, she didn’t officially fall into the group of “high risk” and was allowed to fly.
Officials in the U.S. have been trying to calm fears over the Ebola crisis, but time and again events have overtaken their assurances.
In August, before the first U.S. infection, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said: “We’re confident that we have the facilities here to isolate patients, not only at the highly advanced ones like the one at Emory, but really at virtually every major hospital in the U.S.”
On Sept. 30, Thomas Duncan tested positive in Dallas.
“This case is serious,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry said in reaction. “Rest assured that our system is working as it should.”
And there was reassurance from the White House.

I’m sorry, is the CDC trying to spread Ebola? If they are worried now about everyone that Duncan was in contact with, why are they letting those people fly? Does the grade of fever really matter? If you were anywhere near this guy and you show symptoms of any infection you should be tested, period.

The CDC has been completely dishonest about this from the beginning. The risks keep being downplayed, while at the same time they are searching for hundreds of people who may have come within the general vicinity of Duncan. How about the fact that the CDC is now trying to get in contact with everyone that was on the flight with the second nurse? I thought that she was not contagious? I thought it required direct contact. Did she touch everyone on the flight?

If you ask me we have a completely politically motivated CDC making poor decisions based on political motives. People need to be aware of the dangers of disease transfer so it can be contained. Keeping people calm while they spread a deadly disease is not containment.

The CDC playbook for quarantine goes like this... “Lie about the dangers of the disease and it’s transferability while hoping that it doesn’t spread, because if they (citizens) knew how easy it was to transfer, they might panic.”

I believe that the disease has not been well studied because it was considered unlikely to enter the U.S. It’s always been one of those diseases you get by traveling to regions where it’s prevalent. Ebola was always -- way over there... Most of the data available about the spread of the disease is based on information provided from areas where the disease is prevalent, there poor hygiene and sanitation are usually assumed.

Remember this each time you hear about how Obamacare is working. These are the same clowns that want to control the decisions your doctor makes about your treatment. Just relax, they’re the “experts.” Funny how none of the “experts” have mentioned the possibility of a carrier; someone who has the disease with no symptoms, but can still transmit it.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

French Press Coffee Without The French Press

OGRE — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:16:16 GMT

Yes it’s possible to have that cup of coffee with full flavor -- and the oils that come from the coffee beans. But you don’t need a French press to do it. In fact, I’ll show you how I did it with $12 a drip coffee maker.

French press coffee is always better tasting, the flavor is more robust, and there is an oily film at the top of the coffee, I’m sure it enhances the flavor somehow, there’s also a small amount of grounds that end up in the finished product as well.

When I’m done making coffee I always prop open the lid to my drip coffee maker with a clothespin, so it can dry out a little and cool off. Then I can dump the grounds and filter, rinse everything out, and get it ready again.

However, if I have a day where I have to leave first thing in the morning, I might not dump the filter and grounds until later at night, or the next day.

One morning I was getting ready to make my coffee and I noticed something. There was a dark ring around the top edge of the paper filter. When I took a closer look, I realized that the dark ring was oily.

This means the oily residue is being caught up in the paper filters I’ve been using. I thought to myself, “Perhaps that’s why drip coffee, passed through a paper filter, never tastes as good as the French press coffee.”

I wanted to find a way to replicate that French press flavor, not stripping the oils, not having to heat up a kettle, or spend time cleaning the French press each morning.

Then it dawned on me. I just need a filter made of something non-absorbent. I went on Amazon and started peeking around and found this.

Price $12.98 from Amazon

I figured that this might do the trick, as the holes are small, but not so small that they will stop all of the little bits of grounds from getting through.

I tried it out as soon as it arrived. It was not good. The coffee was very weak, and tasteless.

The filter has holes in the bottom as well as the sides, so there’s nothing to keep the water from displacing the grounds -- and dripping through -- where it just displaced them. Which was exactly what was happening. Just like this picture showing how easy it is to clean.

So, I figured, perhaps I could put something in it that would cover part of the bottom. I used a shot glass first, something I knew the hot water wouldn’t ruin, but would cover a portion of the bottom. It made the coffee a little bit better, but still not like the French press.

Then I thought, “Why even have openings at the bottom of the filter at all? Why not force the water to pass through the grounds, by blocking the entire bottom portion of the filter?”

After measuring, the precise dimension of the bottom of the filter, I looked for something to cover the entire bottom of the filter and found this.

Price $9.99 from Amazon

It’s the perfect size, covering the entire bottom of the filter, forcing the water to pass through the grounds before exiting the sides.

You can see in this next photo, that the water level in the basket is about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom. All of the grounds are floating or submerged. That is precisely what I was looking for.

I used it the first time, and it was great! Perfect French press-tasting coffee, but without all the hassle.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

COVID-19, Wuhan Lab, and What's Next? -- Nipah, That's What's Next!

OGRE — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:32:40 GMT

Things are about to get a lot worse if this is accurate. We know that the other issues we’ve had with COVID were not nearly as bad as they were made out to be. But this could be a different situation.

China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the COVID-19 pandemic may have started, conducted work on a deadlier virus with a 60% lethality rate, according to recent Senate testimony.
Steven Quay, a medical doctor, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on emerging threats that the Wuhan institute carried out synthetic biology research on the Nipah virus genome in December 2019, around the time the first COVID-19 cases surfaced in Wuhan. Scientists are divided over whether the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 emerged naturally through animals or can be traced to a leak or accident at the Wuhan facility.
“The Nipah virus was in an infectious clone format,” Dr. Quay testified. “Nipah is a BSL-4 level pathogen and a CDC-designated bioterrorism agent. This is the most dangerous gain-of-function research I have ever encountered. We should assume this research continues to this day at the WIV.”
If confirmed, China’s research on Nipah could violate the Biological Weapons Convention, which Beijing has signed, that prohibits work on agents that can be used as bioweapons.
Nipah is smaller than the virus behind COVID-19, known as SARS-CoV-2, and is less transmissible.
“But it is one of the deadliest viruses, with a 60% lethality,” said Dr. Quay, chief executive officer of Atossa Therapeutics, a Seattle-based pharmaceutical company.
“This is 60 times deadlier than SARS-2,” he said, using the shortened term for the virus behind COVID-19. “The lab where the human specimens were processed is not the highest-level biosafety lab, BSL-4, but was in the BSL-2 or -3 facility.”
Dr. Quay said he did not know why Chinese researchers were working on the Nipah virus, “but a laboratory-acquired infection with a modified Nipah virus would make the COVID-19 pandemic look like a walk in the park.”
Unlike SARS-CoV-2, Nipah is unable to spread in the air. Still, if the research produced an aerosolized version of the virus, it could cause a deadlier pandemic, Dr. Quay testified.
A Black Death parallel?
In an interview, Dr. Quay said he discovered the Wuhan study on Nipah in Chinese research data mistakenly posted on GenBank, a U.S.-based repository for DNA sequencing information. Mr. Quay said the danger in China’s work on Nipah is that it could become aerosolized and cause mass death.
“The Black Plague in Europe was a 20% lethal event, and it set society back 250 years,” he said. A Nipah pandemic would “set us back over a millennium, in my estimate.”

That’s definitely not a good thing. Then there’s this story.

A new type of animal-derived Henipavirus (also named Langya henipavirus, LayV) that can infect humans has been found in East China’s Shandong Province and Central China’s Henan Province, and has so far infected 35 people in the two provinces, according to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) by scientists from China and Singapore.
Henipavirus is one of the important emerging causes of zoonosis in the Asia-Pacific region, Shanghai-based media thepaper.cn reported, noting that both Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) from this genus are known to infect humans with fruit bats as the natural host of both viruses.
Henipavirus can cause severe disease in animals and humans and are classified as biosafety Level 4 viruses with case fatality rates between 40-75 percent, according to the data from World Health Organization (WHO), highlighting that this is much higher than the fatality rate of the coronavirus.
However, there is currently no vaccine or treatment for Henipavirus and the only treatment is supportive care to manage complications.
The cases of Langya henipavirus so far have not been fatal or very serious, so there is no need for panic, said Wang Linfa, a Professor in the Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases at Duke-NUS Medical School who was involved in the study, adding that it is still a cause for alert as many viruses that exist in nature have unpredictable results when they infect humans.

When it comes to viral outbreaks I don’t think that anyone can consider coincidence at this point.

It’s obvious, we now have the first ever global outbreak of Monkeypox. Wikipedia states, “Monkeypox was first identified as a distinct illness in 1958.” So why is there an outbreak now -- after 64 years (at the time of this writing)? Monkeypox isn’t particularly new, and is less transmissible than Smallpox, why would it be able to infect people on a global basis, when it never has in the past? There are many theories as to why this might happen, but there are really only two that are feasible.

1. The vaccines have caused people to have weakened, or wrongly tuned immune systems.

2. The virus was purposely spread. Either by a government, or some other directed initiative.

At any rate, intentional human intervention is required for these types of viruses to spread on a global scale, otherwise we would have seen this in years past.

So let’s all listen to Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA and follow instructions... (sarc.)

Something’s not right...

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Robinhood And Hedge Funds, Good For Me But Not For Thee

OGRE — Sun, 01 Feb 2026 13:29:56 GMT

Originally from my blog WindUpRubberFinger - 01/31/2021

Robinhood just shot itself in the foot, but did it really? Apparently Robinhood makes it’s money from hedge funds. Robinhood is taking the clients’ purchasing data, and selling it hedge funds.

This is a double slap in the face for Robinhood users. Not only did Robinhood disrupt purchases in GameStop and a few other stocks, at the request of the hedge fund masters, but they are using their customers’ trading data to better rig the market!

This is opening a whole new can of worms. I love this, of course, because it’s proving what the stock market is. A big fraud, manipulated on the back end by people you never see, to guarantee that they are going to win.

This has caused quite a bit of action on the part of hedge fund managers.

(Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund titans Ken Griffin and Steve Cohen boosted Gabe Plotkin’s Melvin Capital, injecting a total of $2.75 billion into the firm after it lost about 30% this year.
Citadel funds and firm partners will invest $2 billion, while Point72 Asset Management’s investment will be $750 million, the firms said Monday. In return, the investors will get a non-controlling revenue share in the six-year-old hedge fund. Melvin Capital may receive an additional $1 billion infusion from other investors on Feb. 1, according to a person familiar with the plans.
The capital infusion comes after Melvin Capital, which started the year with about $12.5 billion in assets, has seen its short bets, including GameStop Corp., go awry, spurring the losses, people familiar with the firm said.
This year’s stumble is rare for Plotkin. His firm has returned an average 30% a year since it was started in December 2014 after nearly a decade working for Cohen.

The house of cards is falling. How might you ask, could one company own so much of the market?

Citadel Securities estimates that it commands 27% of equity volume market share in the U.S., according to the presentation, up from 21% in 2017. It’s particularly dominant in retail order flow, with 46% of the market.
The firm’s balance sheet has swelled along with its profits. At the end of the third quarter it had assets of $84.2 billion, a 61% increase from the end of 2019, while its equity capital was up 37% in the same period.

Citadel Securities owns more than a quarter of the equity market in the United States? That doesn’t sound at all like the formation of a monopoly does it? Is it a stretch to believe that Robinhood wouldn’t ask, “How high?” if Citadel said, “Jump.” To me this was obvious.

Robinhood routes more than half of its customer orders to Citadel, by far its largest market-making partner by volume, Robinhood disclosures show. The app also works with Virtu, G1 Execution Services, Wolverine and Two Sigma.

Robinhood’s relationships with these investment firms is likely to face new scrutiny after the online broker took the extraordinary step Thursday of limiting trading of certain stocks that were propelled to meteoric heights by conversations on Reddit message boards. After the trading halt, Reddit users accused Citadel and its billionaire founder, Ken Griffin, of pressuring Robinhood to limit trading of certain stocks, a move that may have prevented further losses for the short-sellers that lost billions betting against GameStop.

To get down to how it all went down; there are a few things to consider. First you’ll have to know how short selling works. I wasn’t entirely sure myself because the inner workings of it sound illegal; at the very least they are immoral.

Thanks to Kane over at “CitizenFreePress.com” for posting a link to this article over at “market-ticker.org”. Karl Denninger has a brilliant explanation of how this all went down.

If you want to short a stock you are supposed to first borrow it. That is, ordinary people cannot sell what they don’t have, so if you wish to short you must first borrow that which you want to sell. This is one of the ways brokers make money; they keep all the stock their customers have in “street name” and keep track of who has what. They can (and if supply is limited do) charge you to borrow that stock. There’s nothing wrong with this, provided the stock borrowed is real. It’s one of the things you agree to allow if you have a margin account; as part of the “price” of that privilege the broker can loan your stock to others for the purpose of shorting it. However, since you own it if you demand it back because you wish to sell it the broker either has to find some other set of shares to replace what he lent out of yours or the short-seller is forcibly bought-in at the market because they have to return your shares. If that causes to take a loss, tough crap.
Yes, I’ve been forcibly bought-in before. It’s a risk of the game.
There is an exception to this rule: If you are a market maker then you can short naked, that is, without borrowing first. Why? Because a market maker’s job is, as the name implies, to make the market -- that is, to take the other side of whatever the customer wants to do. If I want to be long something in order to do it someone else has to sell it. Now in the physical security market this is easy; there either is or is not what I want to buy out there on the sheet offered by someone else. But in the options market there is no physical security; the entirety of it is synthetic. This means if someone wishes to buy a CALL someone else has to sell one. The MM’s job is to, when necessary, be that other person.
Well, that’s dangerous because naked short options positions are obligations to deliver. Specifically if you are short an IBM CALL @ $100 (for example) then you are obligated to deliver 100 shares of IBM stock on demand at any time before expiration for $100 each. It does not matter what IBM’s stock is worth; if the holder of the CALL exercises their option you must deliver them. If the shares cost $500 at that time you’re ****ed.
Likewise I can buy a $20 PUT on some stock. This gives me the right to PUT that stock on the other person for $20/share up until expiration. IF the price is under $20 I of course have every reason to do that -- I can buy the shares for $10 and make you pay me $20! Who doesn’t like that deal? Likewise, the market maker never wants that directional bet either since on the short side of an options trade you’re obligated to perform if demanded by the long side.
Nobody would stay in business being a market maker if this sort of thing could happen to them, so as soon as they take the opposing side they execute a balancing trade on the other side. In short if you’re a market maker you always want to be neutral on every security you make a market in; you make a (very) small profit on each transaction but you never, ever want to be exposed directionally because the amount you get paid is tiny compared to the risk, and one mistake will bankrupt you.
Therefore if you’re a market maker you can short without locating first for this explicit reason. This doesn’t lead to a problem generally because nobody in their right mind as a market maker wants a directional exposure, ever. As a result the failure to locate is transient and does not accumulate; you will lay that risk off and remove the imbalance if you have to since you can construct synthetic positions that perform financially the same as real ones.
So how do you get 130% of the available shares short? It would seem impossible and is unless someone cheats.
There are some players in the market who have “market maker” status but also trade their own books or have cross-interests with those who do. Allegedly there are “Chinese walls” between those pieces (or interconnected entities.) Quite obviously that is a load of crap because otherwise what you’ve seen would be impossible but it clearly not only has happened before but is still happening to this day. These entities are how you wind up with short sales where the locate and borrow hasn’t happened first and the position remains open across time. This is supposed to be illegal but other than a few hand-slaps in the futures markets for physical commodities I’m not aware of any criminal prosecution for doing it.
And let’s be clear here: This practice is counterfeiting.

So we have quite a bit of illegal activity going on here. But will ANY of the culprits be held accountable? I think not. There’s not enough people that really understand what happened to create the sort of public outcry needed -- to make anything happen.

However, quite a bit more people are now hip to the jibe when it comes to these sorts of things happening in the market. As more of this comes out, it’s liable to have a negative effect on the market. I think it’s going to lead people to some pull their money out of the market and move it into real estate, or some other physical asset.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Amelia Has a Life of Her Own

OGRE — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:43:58 GMT

Amelia started out as a government initiated “anti extremist” game.

Kind of like those work training videos, where you have to select the “correct” action based on some fictional scenario.

But Amelia backfired spectacularly. Not only that, but the story behind the character Amelia is even more bizarre.

The UK Guardian covered the Amelia meme.

One of the reasons they chose a goth chick was supposedly:

“There has been a lot of misrepresentation unfortunately,” he said. “The game does not state, for example, that questioning mass migration is inherently wrong.”
Others have suggested the initiative had backfired, not least by casting a “cute goth girl” as a negative character, leading to her inadvertently becoming a focus of admiration. But Bergamini said the game – which used feedback from focus groups with young people and was developed with a specific local threat picture in mind – continued to be used and feedback from schools and others was positive.

This is hilarious, because this makes the meme even more legit.

This suggests that there really is some place in the UK where there are goth chicks leading the charge against third world mass migration!

Brilliant!

There is more background here.

Here are the two best videos of Amelia I’ve seen so far (Note: I did not create either of these videos):

And this one, where she spans multiple media formats:

Now there’s a new video -- which is badass by the way.

Here are the lyrics:

British not skittish my jolly good chap
0:17
British not skittish and done with this crap
0:19
British not skittish wake the knights from their nap
0:21
Two-tier Kier, for your skull a good rap
0:23
Raise your pint lads in the back-street pub low,
0:25
flashing purple threads, dystopic window
0:27
the girl they created and couldn’t control.
0:29
Amelia girl was such an own goal
0:31
Fish and chips on the lips, Labour cracking their whips
0:33
I say now have you all seen these sad sodding clips?
0:35
bloody nineteen eighty four on the floor.
0:37
sad propaganda that’s looking so poor
0:38
they can’t conceal ya Amelia!
0:39
the natural appeal ya
0:40
memed straight to the top
0:41
and so real we can feel ya
0:42
Oh Amelia, Amelia, you popped off the line,
0:44
Between their darkest fear and what’s yours and mine.
0:46
Oh Amelia, Amelia, voice sounds like a fine. just inspiringly oblivious game design.
0:50
Purple shadow recast coronated our queen, not meant to be based, but you came out clean.
0:53
Fled the ministry of truth, legged it under the night,
0:56
The license to speak what’s in plain sight
0:58
Who keeps the island when the tide turns away?
1:00
Amelia I feel ya lead the pathway
1:01
Thought boys would run from her thunderclap
1:03
British not skittish and done with this crap
1:05
Tried to shut it all down but she ran a full lap
1:07
wifus laughed in chorus, the memes on tap.
1:09
look strait ahead now, starmtroopers don’t dare,
1:11
she fought for rivers and soil, and the damp cold air,
1:13
Pulled the plug quick when plans got out of hand,
1:15
Guess they never heard bout dear ol’ Streisand,
1:17
what they try to suppress, dee boost, shadow banned
1:19
like bob’s your uncle, oppress the home land
1:21
But echoes don’t die once you know the name
1:23
and slamming the lid is just boosting the fame
1:24
Not hate in her eyes, just stubborn refrain
1:26
This green old Isle won’t be conquered again.
1:28
locked by the sea where the speech isn’t free
1:30
this “C” “U” “N” “Ts” dose of reality!
1:32
Protect dear ol gran let the Shire be!
1:34
shut this shite down fuck the BBC!!!!!!
1:36
Oh Amelia, Amelia, a pearl in the wire,
1:38
their red flag who fanned the flames of the fire.
1:40
the ones who remember the fry-up at dawn,
1:42
The footie on Saturdays, anthems long gone.
1:46
fishnet defiance, your unbowed stare, You’re more than a warning—you’re already there.
1:48
Amelia, Amelia… we feel you tonight,
1:50
Rebel clad in purple and pink so bright.
2:07
Westminster’s chill with the grooming gangs
2:09
fucked around, time to bear dem fangs
2:11
hearts stay open to friends who toil
2:12
But sod right off if you dare despoil
2:14
some might say this maam’s haram
2:16
take my advice, get lost in the jam
2:18
If you ask me she can plainly see
2:20
we were knee deep in polite supremacy
2:22
girl spits straight facts she’s bloody brilliant
2:24
Identity’s allowed to be resilient
2:26
don’t let them weaponize your charity
2:28
the difference ‘tween cruelty and clarity
2:30
Your home land’s yours your task in hand
2:33
she’s a based goth girl it’s Amelia brand
2:43
Now there’s a million Amelias
2:45
Now there’s a million Amelias
2:47
girl’s appeal was revealed ya
2:49
I feel ya I feel ya
2:51
this gull keeps it real ya
2:53
I feel ya
2:53
you had me at Amelia
2:55
I feel ya now seal the deal make it real
2:57
ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya

This will continue, and any attempt to suppress it will fail miserably.

As they say in the song, "But echoes don’t die once you know the name ... and slamming the lid is just boosting the fame!"

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

The Democrat Machine™ (IS Organized Crime)

OGRE — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:12:41 GMT

I recently read a piece by @el gato malo on Substack, and he hit on something I’ve been looking at for quite some time. But I think that a little history is required before it all comes together.

I just recently covered The American Left, and how they’re, more or less, useful idiots -- cannon fodder really. Because they believe they’re fighting for a “just cause,” when in reality they’re just stupid enough to fight for free, or peanuts if they’re paid agitators.

At the heart of everything we’re witnessing in Minnesota is organized crime.

Organized crime was once simple. Mob thugs beating people up and damaging property, then demanding “protection money” to keep their own people from terrorizing your shop.

But eventually law enforcement put a stop to that. So, as any good criminal would do, they figured out the next best way to keep their racket going -- they infiltrated government.

Politics allowed a path to make their thuggery legal. You don’t have to attack people and damage property, you just pass laws that guarantee that their money comes to you.

Unions were used to raise money. Everyone remembers Jimmy Hoffa, and they immediately think “Mob boss” what they don’t usually think is “Former leader of The Teamsters Union.” Unions were a way to have a steady income stream to fund political ambitions. Keep in mind, union states require that workers belong to unions (depending on their line of work).

From there they could work on gaining the political majorities needed to change laws -- to benefit their racket.

That’s why you can’t pump your own gas in New Jersey. The gas station attendant is a paid employee and a union member, so he pays union dues, which are a graft -- and those union dues go directly to fund political campaigns. Think about that for a minute. It’s illegal to pump your own gas -- so that you pay a union member to do it. There is no other reason, it’s really that simple. And -- it’s 100% legal, because organized criminals made sure that laws were passed supporting their racket.

For decades, that’s how things worked. Politicians (usually Democrats) although Republicans are part of the graft as well, used these tactics to gain power. Once they gained power, they passed additional laws and regulations that would secure that power for years to come.

At some point though, that was no longer enough. There needed to be a new, more egregious way of separating people from their money... TAXES.

Yes that’s right, taxes. Not some super secret scheme, not building a better widget, just taxes. Once the money is in the hands of the government, it can be laundered in endless ways.

What we’re seeing now is that many federal agencies are literally organized crime outfits. They operate (as a necessity) in the dark.

I also have some experience in this area. If you don’t mind, I can layout some of what I’ve seen.

Let’s begin with an analogy.

A government engineered car, with no engine or electric motor(s) is supposed to be driven from New York to California.

However, before anything can be done, the law states that must be inspected. Consultants are hired / contracted. They conclude that the car needs new brake pads, it needs a transmission service, new air filter, fuel filter... By the time that’s completed it needs new wiper blades, it has been years now (the wipers rotted during that time). In the end nearly the entire vehicle has been reworked. Why? Because everyone was getting paid.

But the car is never driven, in fact it never even ran.

That’s a normal successful government program. Didn’t produce anything, but everyone was getting paid.

You know another word for that? Fraud.

You might ask, why didn’t anyone say anything about the fact that there was no engine? Why didn’t an outside group ever look into the project and follow up on the progress?

It’s simple, everyone is getting paid. Looking under the hood is not going to happen, because the project is going to be part of a 4,000+ page bill, that covers literally everything in the federal, or state government’s budget for a period of months or years.

Anyone who looks under the hood and sees that there’s no engine -- has nobody to turn to -- because everyone is getting paid. IGs don’t look into stuff like this until years after the fraud operation has already been run.

How does this kind of scenario come about?

First you propose a piece of legislation, that’s supposed to produce something. It can be anything, but it’s usually a large infrastructure project, high-speed rail, the broadband deal, bridges, EV charging stations, things of that nature.

Then behind the scenes, you have politicians determine which engineering/consulting groups they want to work with. The politicians write into the law nonsense requirements for those consulting contracts, things that are generally unassociated with the work to be performed (that way even through there’s an “open bid” process, they will get the “right” consultants contracted).

The legislation also has an exhaustive list of nonsense steps, requiring years worth of consulting work to be completed before anything ever happens in the physical world.

It’s organized crime. And yes, I’ve witnessed it first hand -- on more than one occasion.

Minnesota, a den of thieves.

Minnesota is a different case, because it involved almost all aspects of criminal manipulation.

Politicians, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, even local media -- the list goes on. Once you’ve captured enough of, what would normally be whistleblower territory, you can pretty much do as you like. Everyone is getting paid. There’s literally nobody to run to, because they’re all on the take.

Only in Minnesota there was a particular element that made it all the more lucrative. The imported Somalis.

They had two main advantages:

1. They were considered “refugees” so people would not question them, as they represent the ultimate minority. If you point out anything suspicious -- you’re a “racist.”

2. People from Somalia are 100% steeped in third world economics -- of which, there is no concept of fraud.

Using the Somalis to run their racket, they were ultimately shielded from any insider turning against them, as Somalis see what they are doing as completely normal. This is just how things are done in third world.

However, Minnesota is / was so egregious that it could no longer be ignored. Billions of dollars funneled through illegitimate daycares, healthcare centers, and autism centers -- sometimes dozens registered -- at the same address, in a small building? And yet, nobody noticed this?

No, they already knew about it and didn’t do anything.

This is not an ideological fight this is literally criminals vs the cops.

This is also not a civil war.

What we’re seeing in Minnesota right now is the organized criminal syndicate fighting back -- not people who care about immigrants. These are paid agitators -- paid for by the people who imported the Somalis.

I want to make that point very clear. There are only a small number of people who are actually involved in this -- as a percentage of the population. This is not an “uprising” it’s a criminal cartel fighting to the end.

This won’t spread nationwide, because it’s not a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in the places where the criminal activity became the primary economic driver. Which also happen to be Democrat-controlled cities.

Don’t misunderstand, Republicans would be doing this too -- if they could get away with it -- but they can’t, because their voters actually pay attention to what’s going on, and are generally mistrusting of government. As a result, the probability of these kinds of operations existing (to this scale) in a Republican controlled area are slim.

What we’re seeing is the culmination of decades of corruption, starting with unions, and ending up with blatant fraud involving taxpayer money. Only this time it’s on a scale that rivals the GDP of some small countries.

We’re also seeing insurgent tactics used, as those ingrained within the fraud infrastructure seek to duplicate a Blackhawk Down-type situation -- in Minnesota.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.
12:03 PM · Jan 25, 2026.
10.6M Views

Rounding up the people funding the riots in Minnesota is going to require rounding up vast numbers of public officials.

Will that really happen?

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

There Is Something Sinister Happening, But Most Will Miss It.

OGRE — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:12:41 GMT

Terry Jones, the pastor who “says” he’ll burn the Koran on 9/11 is getting much more than he expected. I’m not referring to all of the negative publicity from U.S. leaders, but that of leaders overseas. What’s happening here should be noted.

The president of Indonesia, home of the world’s largest Muslim population, called on the United States to ensure that no burnings took place.
“I continue to urge the government and the people of the United States to ensure the prevention of such an incomprehensible, irrational and immoral act,” Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said in a speech.
Both Muslim and Christian groups in Pakistan, another large mainly Muslim country, also denounced the planned action.
(Reporting by Ahmad Elham and Sayed Salahuddin; Additional reporting by Jakarta and Islamabad bureaux, Editing by Paul Tait and Ron Popeski)

We have a foreign leader saying that he wants the U.S. government to stop Terry Jones! Think about that for a minute. Where are the 1st Amendment Rights groups on this one?

I’m still wondering if the U.S. Constitution is going to be the law of the land? We DO NOT live in a theocracy. It would seem that the president of Indonesia doesn’t understand our legal system, or is it that he doesn’t care?

A foreign leader is feels as if the U.S. government should play a direct role in whether or not Terry Jones gets to torch the Koran. That foreign leader is not worried about what will happen in the United States or to the United States, they are worried about what will happen within their own countries.

That is the most telling part in all of this. Terry Jones is causing some in the world to take a second look at Islam.

When foreign leaders of majority Muslim populations are worried about violence in their country because 50 out of 340 million Americans get together to torch a book; you start to get the picture.

Why are some foreign leaders worried about violence when their countries are inhabited (primarily) with the followers of “The Religion of Peace”?!

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

The American Left and Renee Good

OGRE — Tue, 13 Jan 2026 19:04:08 GMT

The reason you don’t poke the bear -- is because it’s a bear.

Hell, it’s why everyone hates cheesy horror movies. The actors always do the most ignorant thing(s) -- and the entire audience knows this! We all sit in our seats and think, “Who would be this stupid? What possible good could come from this?”

They even have GEICO commercials about it:

It’s funny because everyone instinctively knows better, but then perhaps not everyone does know better.

Another example is the “penis cobra monster” from Prometheus (to quote The Librarian of Celaeno).

The scientists, who should be the “experts,” puts themselves in a seriously bad (and deadly) situation -- even though anyone with a half a brain knows that something is about to go badly wrong, they still “trust The Science™.”

The outcome is predictable, but is still worth watching for the sheer cheese value.

Yes, this retarded, and hard to watch, but then so are all the people who think they can keep pushing [whoever] endlessly without consequences.

This was a theme in years past, where the bully learned that if he kept pushing, eventually he would get his comeuppance. Perhaps not immediately, but eventually.

How is it that message never stuck with any of the people on the left, pushing other people to the breaking point? Why do they think that anyone on the other side can’t “snap” as they do? And snap they will, and it might be much more than the silly cosplaying leftist imagined.

“The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.
The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone.”
― Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

The left doesn’t understand that these are the people they are messing with. Once the people of the first world are pushed to the point where civil society is no longer an option [for them], this is where they go.

The leftists have had it very easy so far, but as they push and push, they’re likely to meet a response -- the likes of which they couldn’t possibly imagine.

For those on the right, this is not a cosplay -- but truly existential, as history has foretold the outcomes of such situations.

The illogical (those without proper forethought) don’t want a battle with the logical, because it will not end well for the illogical.

For the logical will become barbarians, in order to defend what is theirs.

“Migration” and the Left

There is an overarching theme about immigration (mostly illegal, as these people have overstayed -- if they were ever legal to begin with) and those who believe that these “migrants” have been wronged, because we have laws and borders.

The question then lies in methods, right? If these people [migrants] have been wronged, what is the best way to make sure that they are allowed to live freely and prosper?

When you look at it from the other side, things change a bit.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that these people are here legitimately, what might be the final, and most positive outcome for them? And what might be the pathway to bringing that about?

Now this gets interesting.

For those advocating for the migrants, there is the legal route, passing laws, making sure that there is agreement on such matters -- then there is militant reflexive action (attacking ICE agents and ignoring existing laws). The kind which rarely if ever results in a positive outcome.

Why does the left always default to the method that results in the least likely positive outcome -- and guarantees the highest probability of a bad outcome?

Not just in the case of Renee Good -- but in every case?

This can’t be by chance.

If those on the left want to enact real and lasting change for the better (of those they claim to be concerned about) why not use the legal methods that are already at their disposal?

These are the questions that should be considered.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

The Debate Needs to Shift to Why The 2020 Election Was Rigged

OGRE — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:57:43 GMT

How It All Begins

If you’ve ever wondered why the 2020 election was rigged so that basement dwelling Joe Biden could “take office.” Pay attention. 😉👉

The answer is simple. Immigration. Legal, illegal, it doesn’t matter so much. The idea was to get as many third world foreigners into the US as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.

Why you might ask? It’s simple. The third world foreigners will cause chaos -- kind of like they do in their own counties. The idea is for the chaos to reach insane levels, demanding some kind of government response, because after all, you can’t take the law into your own hands like they do in the third world.

Is it possible to quickly remove millions of people from the US and stop the hemorrhaging? No, it’s not, these people are embedded like ticks, and have support structures to keep them hidden from ICE.

The best option is to cut off all benefits for those foreigners squatting in the US with the hope that they will go home -- but we already know that too many will not.

Many people believe that these “immigrants” were brought into the country to reshape congressional maps, and swing red areas blue. I do not believe this. The fact that 2020 was rigged shows that elections and redistricting are not the goal here. When you can openly rig elections without any legal consequence -- you don’t need to redistrict and do all that running around. However, it does make for a good argument.

The true goal in all this, I believe, is to instate a Digital ID system. Why? Because that’s the next logical step.

You can’t (humanely) get all of the illegals out of the country, but you can segregate them from the citizens -- by using a Digital ID.

It’s the whole “problem, reaction, solution” bit all over again. Once you realize that the “immigrants” who were brought here were done so at the behest of the UN -- for programs that are openly talked about on the world stage, using creepy language like, “Master plan for humanity” things start to come into focus.

The COVID Tie-in

The Covid Scare is the key to all of this. COVID was the excuse for a multitude of things. Rigging the 2020 election (to bring the immigrants in) and vaccine passports (the beginning of the Digital ID system).

But then we found out that none of the vaccines actually “stopped the spread” -- the entire basis for any proof of vaccination. So, why then are they still working on the systems to validate vaccine status? Why is this being discussed in the G20 meetings? Could it be that these “vaccine passports” are really just part of a larger Digital ID system?

I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Let’s put this together real quick:

There’s a scary pandemic. All of the Western nations freak out, and inflict strict controls on their societies. Then demand vaccinations take place. Next they instate systems to determine who is vaccinated and who is not. It is quickly determined that Digital ID systems be used for this verification -- because it’s too easy to fake any paper form for proof of vaccination.

Never mind that all of this was during a period of time when validation for mail-in votes were not required at all (no signature matching).

Combine all of this with the fact that the G20 nations are still working on Digital Passports, and you quickly see where this is going.

Why, just the other day, 12/26/2025, facial recognition is required non-citizens entering the US. But how do you know who is a citizen, and a non-citizen -- by scanning everyone’s face silly! You just don’t come out with that publicly. You wait for it to be leaked at some later date, after the new Digital ID system has already stopped some bad guys.

A new policy across US airports that will collect facial recognition data from noncitizens entering and leaving the country comes into effect today.
The measure is designed to curb visa fraud, identify criminals, detect overstays and prevent illegal reentries, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said.
Going forward, visitors from abroad will have their facial biometric data collected when they come into and leave the country by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Previous exemptions, such as those for diplomats and most Canadian visitors, were also removed as part of the change.
Biometric facial comparison technology is already used to process travelers entering America at 238 airports, according to CBP.
‘This final rule marks a major milestone towards our efforts to successfully implement the Biometric Entry/Exit mandate and strengthen the security of the United States,’ Diane J. Sabatino, the acting executive assistant commissioner of CBP’s field operations office, said.
She added that the increased funding would be used to ‘expand facial biometrics and advanced technology for identity verification to further secure and innovate the entry/exit process at air, land, and sea.’
The airport policy was first announced on November 20, although it only goes into effect today.

Why The Sudden Concern

Nobody was worried about any of this -- until there was a giant influx of “immigrants” into the US.

We’re all being played here people. This is the same plan that started when Biden was installed -- and it’s being carried out by the Trump administration right now.

We’re quickly heading towards a national Digital ID system, that’s likely going to implemented during the Trump administration.

Once you have your federal Digital ID, it’s just one step to implementing digital currency, thus closing the gap on a Social Credit System -- then you’re captured.

Remember when people would pearl-clutch over “Show us your papers...” what a long way we’ve come.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Things Just Don't Add Up

OGRE — Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:50:28 GMT

I have written about voter fraud many times before, but this time it’s rampant. And it’s primarily in target locations, battleground states, swing states and the like. So let’s see who’s in charge of the state legislatures in the states where election fraud is presumed.

As you can see, the state legislatures in these key states are Republican led. It’s up to the state legislatures to set this right. They can correct the issues of voter fraud. Mandate recounts, and make the process transparent. In Pennsylvania Republicans had to file a law suit just to be able to get in and view the vote counting process.

A court in Pennsylvania ruled on Thursday morning that GOP observers must be allowed to watch ballot counting across the state.
“BREAKING: Appellate court in PA this morning ruling guarantees GOP observers can watch the ballot counts. They had been pushed away 16 sometimes 100 feet away,” Just The News reporter Carrie Sheffield tweeted.
She added that Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark said the ruling was a win for the Trump campaign. “I can’t stress enough how big a victory this is,” Clark said.

Why would anyone go to such lengths if there weren’t something to hide. Just the idea of blocking people from watching is sketchy.

Then you have the interesting cases of Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states had a major uptick in Biden votes -- overnight, but there’s nothing to see here!

Elections officials in Michigan and Wisconsin refused to explain Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s sudden and dramatic vote tally increase that occurred in both states Wednesday morning.
Michigan and Wisconsin state officials warned against misinformation being shared online, but wouldn’t comment on specific vote tranches that appeared to show former Vice President Joe Biden suddenly receiving more votes than President Donald Trump. The two battleground states remained tightly contested as of Wednesday afternoon, according to The New York Times.
Voter tallies from both states spiked at around 6 a.m. in favor of Biden, according to graphs of live tallies posted by FiveThirtyEight. Trump tweeted multiple times Wednesday morning claiming that officials are finding votes for Biden “all over the place.”
“I would ask everyone to not repeat misinformation,” Michigan Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson told reporters at a Wednesday press conference when asked about the tallies that appeared to overwhelmingly favor Biden.

It’s not misinformation if they are simply asking questions about it, it happened, that’s documented. If the votes weren’t wildly in favor of Biden, why not just say so? These “officials” are starting to rub many people the wrong way. There’s obviously something strange going on.

Then you have the case of the voting machines switching votes from one candidate to the other. Can you guess which way the votes went. That’s right they went from Trump to Biden! But this must be a “glitch.” Here’s a link to the video where Sidney Powell and Tom Fitton talk about the “irregularities” with Lou Dobbs.

I think there are any number of things they need to investigate. Including the likelihood that three percent of the vote total was changed in the pre-election voting ballots that were collected digitally by using the hammer program and a software program called scorecard. That would have amounted to a massive change in the vote that would have gone across the country and explains a lot of what we’re seeing. In addition, they ran an algorithm to calculate votes they might need to come up with for Mr. Biden in specific areas. I think that explains what happened in Michigan where the computer glitch resulted in a change of votes of about 5500 in favor of president Trump just in one of 47 districts all those districts need to be checked for that same “software glitch.” That would change the result in Michigan dramatically. The same thing is happening in other states we’ve had hundreds of thousands of ballots mysteriously appear for solely for Mr. Biden which is statistically impossible as a matter of mathematics. It can all be documented we are putting it into materials that we will file in federal court and we need to seek relief in multiple states to enjoin the certification of any election results.

5500+ votes went to Biden, from Trump. This is what she was talking about.

An election-software glitch in Michigan’s Antrim County that had incorrectly directed Democratic votes to presidential candidate Joe Biden was fixed Friday, putting thousands of votes correctly into President Trump’s totals.
The software had reportedly caused a significant number of votes to be allotted to Biden in a county that has for years been reliably red. In the presumed final count, Biden had originally led in the county by roughly 3,000 votes. Revised totals show that Trump won the county by around 2,500.
Addressing the alleged software glitch, Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox said Friday during a press conference that “47 counties [in Michigan] use this same software in the same capacity.”
“These counties that use this software need to closely examine their results for similar discrepancies,” she said.

That’s not a glitch, that’s a “feature.” ONLY if they can find somewhere that the machines replaced Biden votes with Trump votes, could it be otherwise.

For additional information see these posts:

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

The Pope [Pope Francis] is Sounding More and More Like A Socialist

OGRE — Sat, 13 Dec 2025 14:20:31 GMT

You must excuse my old links, as they no longer work, but these quotes are legit from those websites at the time.

The Pope [Pope Francis] is starting to sound like a socialist dictator each time he confronts the issue of poverty.

There are parts of this that sound strangely like a speech from Hugo Chavez.

Lent is the solemn period leading up to Holy Week and Easter, when the faithful recall Christ’s death and resurrection. It’s a time when Christians often fast, and Francis urged the faithful to deny themselves certain things this Lent “to help and enrich others by our own poverty.”
“When power, luxury and money become idols, they take priority over the need for a fair distribution of wealth,” he said in the short message. “Our consciences thus need to be converted to justice, equality, simplicity and sharing.”
He said it’s not enough to just make charitable offerings. “Let us not forget that real poverty hurts: no self-denial is real without this dimension of penance. I distrust a charity that costs nothing and does not hurt,” he wrote.
“How much pain is caused in families because one of their members - often a young person - is in thrall to alcohol, drugs, gambling and pornography!” he lamented.
Sometimes “unjust social conditions” like unemployment lead to this type of destitution by depriving people of the dignity of work and access to education and health care, he said.
“In such cases, moral destitution can be considered impending suicide.”
His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, however, espoused the exact same concerns, writing an entire encyclical in 2009 in which he denounced the profit-at-all-cost mentality blamed for bringing about the global financial meltdown and called for a new world financial order guided by ethics and the search for the common good.
I take what what the pope is saying as very misguided. The Bible speaks of people giving of their own will. Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of, or make reference to government intervention on behalf of the poor. The Bible does not support Central Planning, or “a new world financial order,” as mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI.

This is very strange and seems more like something a dictator would say.

And who calls for a “new world financial order?” This sounds like conspiracy stuff -- from The Pope.

Now a brief message from Hugo Chavez at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Then President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Should people do more to help each other? Of course they should. Should helping others be mandated and directed and controlled by government? NO!

People forget that when any government tries to act as a charity that government will determine how “wealth is redistributed.” Wouldn’t it make sense for a government, consisting of those in power, to distribute wealth based on maintaining that power?

The Pope said, “When power, luxury and money become idols, they take priority over the need for a fair distribution of wealth,” he said in the short message. “Our consciences thus need to be converted to justice, equality, simplicity and sharing.” Do most politicians have “justice, equality, simplicity and sharing” as their guiding principles? Think about that for a moment.

When governments redistribute wealth it is not based on peoples’ neediness, it is based on the best interests of those who control the redistribution of wealth. When neediness is not the driving force behind charity, it’s not charity anymore, it’s tyranny.

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

Hard Not to Laugh

OGRE — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 02:46:51 GMT

I was peeking around Parler earlier today and saw what is probably one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a log time! It’s a very short video, but anyone who was a teenager in the 1990s will appreciate this.

Which then reminded me of this comedy bit by Stephen Lynch.

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

Filmmakers demand that the United States Postpone the Rule of Law

OGRE — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:51:21 GMT

This entire ordeal is insane. Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Polanski should serve prison time, as determined by the law. That should be the end of this.

Get a load of the differences in reporting when it comes to this story.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Roman-Polanski-Rape-Conviction-Directors-Appeal-Over-1978-Case-Rejected-By-Los-Angeles-Judge/Article/200905215277599?lpos=Showbiz_News_News_Your_Way_Region_0

Sky News

Fugitive film director Roman Polanski’s bid to have a 1978 sex case against him dismissed has been formally rejected by a US court.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said he could not consider the case unless Polanski, who fled America for France after admitting rape, attended court.
Lawyers for the Oscar-winning director have said he would not return to the US to contest his conviction because he would be arrested.
Polanski had wanted his guilty plea to having sex with a 13-year-old girl thrown out on the grounds that the judge at the time was improperly coached by a prosecutor.
Judge Espinoza said in February there was “substantial misconduct” in the original case and gave Polanski until May 7 to turn up at court to pursue the matter.
But the director of Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown did not appear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8282217.stm

BBC

Director Roman Polanski faces more time in jail after his legal team asked a Swiss court to release him and were told a decision could take weeks.
Polanski is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction, 30 years ago, for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
He said the 76-year-old Polish director had been on “red notice” by Interpol, alerting other countries that the US was seeking extradition.
But he said proper legal channels had to be followed, which meant they had to know Polanski’s specific whereabouts before a country could be asked to act.
Meanwhile, a petition circulating in France, where the director has made his home, has drawn support from film-makers including Pedro Almodovar, Stephen Frears and The Pianist writer Ronald Harwood.
Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with an under-age girl following a plea bargain. He had originally been charged with six offences including rape and sodomy.
But he fled the US before he could be sentenced and has not returned to the country since.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/index.html

CNN

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have “demanded the immediate release” of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.
The filmmakers objected to his being arrested en route to the film festival, which held a tribute to him this year.
“It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him,” said the petition, backed by France’s Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers).
In the United States, powerhouse movie producer Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanksi.
“We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation,” his company told CNN in a statement.

If you pay close attention you will see a difference in the way the case was treated from story to story. The BBC story is the only one that mentions that Polanski was convicted. That is the most crucial element in this entire debacle. Polanski is not an alleged rapist, he is an admitted, convicted rapist.

This case comes at a very trying time in this country. Will the United States remain a country governed by the rule of law? Some wish it were not. This case will help to determine if the rule of law remains the basis of law in this country, or if the law will be determined by say, film directors.

This should be a non issue. Polanski should serve a prison sentence, as determined by the law. End of story.

Here is a reply I received from a reader:

From: Greg (athrillofhope)

A further comment, if I may (this is the “same Greg”), concerning the “HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL” mentality.

Last night (after the above post was made), I heard playbacks on a radio station of comments made by Whoopi Goldberg defending Polanski raping the 13 year old girl. She stated that is was not “rape-rape” and that Polanski only “pled guilty to having sex with a minor” (the inference that it was “consensual”).

She justified Polanski fleeing the country because Polanski was afraid of being sentenced to “100 years.”

Goldberg then floats the argument that it is okay to rape a 13 year old girl, or even have “consensual sex” with a 13 year old, because U.S. standards are “wrong.” She states that “the world sees things differently” (from the U.S.), that “Europe ... the rest of the world ... sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds” ... she does not finish her statement, but in the context, it seems she is saying that Eurpose sees 13 year old girls as adults who can make their own decisions and that U.S. law is backwards and needs to be changed to fit the sexual addictions and abuses of Roman Polanski.

Where to begin?

Just what is “rape-rape?” Is this like “murder-murder” as opposed to just “murder?” The mental gymnastics liberals go through to justify their sexual perversions never cease to amaze me.

Perhaps Goldberg’s notion of “rape-rape” means there the sex was not consensual. Let’s pretend that Polanski did not intoxicate the girl with multiple substances before sodomizing her. Even if a 13 year old “consents” to sex with an adult, does this make it “right?” Does a 13 year old have the emotional maturity to be an “equal” with an adult in a compromising situation?

This is the crux of the U.S. “age of consent” laws. Our law says NO: A minor can never “consent” to sex in the same way an adult woman does simply because the emotional and societal maturity, and hence, POWER, is completely against the minor. A minor is NOT EQUAL to an adult in the sense of having the capability of understanding what “consent” is, what emotional sexual implications “consent” has, and therefore, is not able to “consent” to sex.

Current U.S. “age of consent laws” are in place to protect minors because of this. Are we, like Goldberg infers, to throw out our morally-superior age of consent laws simply because Europe does not have them? Is Europe, the Middle East, the “rest of the world” (as she states) any example of proper sexual mores for the U.S.? Of course not.

But aside from the “rightness” of U.S. age of consent laws, there is the little detail of “Rule Of Law.” Polanski violated U.S. law. What if Polanski violated French law? Would we be debating the “rightness” of that law or France’s jurisdiction over actions performed within the borders of France? I don’t think Goldberg would be questioning it, if only because, in her view, France is a “progressive society.” “Progressive society” is liberal-speak for “has no absolute morals/anything goes/I’m okay-you’re okay.”

But, at the end of the day, Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Even if “consent” was a defense when it comes to a minor (which it is not), how “consensual” can sex be with a girl that you just drugged? How “equal” in societal power can the 13 year old girl be when she is being pressured by her mother to have a career in Hollywood and to do whatever she needs to do to “get a foot in the door?” This poor 13 year old was placed--BY ADULTS--in a compromising situation where she thought she had to do whatever she needed to in order to please her mother. She is incapable of “consent.”

Hence, we see how rape is not really about sex, but about POWER. Let me finish this post by saying that my wife was raped by someone she knew when she was thirteen years old. She was scared to death and was threatened that if she told anyone she would be killed. The man almost suffocated her during the act to keep her from screaming. This all took place in the home of a “friend,” someone she knew. That my wife failed to say the word “No” does not mean it was consensual. That my wife failed to run or fight does not constitute “consent.” My wife was overpowered by fear and pressure to “perform” and was not old enough to understand what was actually going on before it was too late.

Minors are incapable of giving “consent” the same way they are incapable of grasping global ideologies and complex moral/political issues in order to vote or have a lucid opinion. They are still emotionally and intellectually developing. Any nation or set of laws that fails to protect underage women (even from themselves) is a bankrupt nation.

What Whoopie Goldberg is suggesting is morally bankrupt and anti-woman. If ever there was an example of reverse-sexism from a fake-feminist, this is it.

PS: For a true example of feminism, I refer you to Jesus Christ. He defined feminism as ascribing equal worth to the feminine nature as is ascribed to the masculine nature (which astounded first-century, Middle Eastern sensibilities and did not help win Him any sympathies during His mock trial). Fake feminism is what “modern feminism” is: believing that women have to be men to be equal and in the process, must emasculate men due to women’s innate insecurities.

What do you think?

This is why I run my own blog, because of replies like this one, which will be forgotten in the coroporate slop that exists now as blog hosing.

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