Authored by Dr David Bell via DailySceptic.org,

I once worked in communities supported mainly through a form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Most money was received from the government for no (or token) work, or from mining royalties where others worked digging on the communities’ lands. There were walls black and heaving with cockroaches while children slept with dogs on stained mattresses below, and babies covered head to toe in pustular scabies while the mother complained about a sore back.

This was not universal, but not uncommon.

Other communities that stood out as strong and healthy had people working hard for a living – particularly in roles that reflected their culture – a very different economy.

Men who once worked hard to support families lose the reason to do so when it makes no real difference, when basics of life and leisure are equally available to those who work for them and those who do nothing. It is not a political issue, just a human behavioural and psychological one. Removing the need to work and the dignity that striving and succeeding brings, especially for one’s family, leads to inaction, loss of interest in the world, a loss of role, loss of dignity and depression. This is dampened by alcohol or drugs. Wives and children suffer by being beaten up by drunk, frustrated and drug-addled men. Having two frequently drunk parents ensures children are malnourished and aimless.

This is not theoretical – it is seen all over the world where people of one culture are overrun by those of another and confined to subservience, economic and societal irrelevance, and handouts. Some people and communities break out of it, usually by finding ways to grow their local economy and achieve some form of self-governance and self-reliance. Breaking out is not common and requires an opportunity, the possibility, to do so.

Our brave new technocratic world

The road much of the ‘developed’ world is currently on is towards UBI, but without that potential for escape. I use this term ‘developed’ in a technological sense – not a human sense – as it denotes technology rather than awareness. UBI will be introduced as a panacea to the problem of artificial intelligence replacing a lot of jobs. The use of AI is increasing because it can accumulate wealth for investors more reliably than employees can. Amazon’s plans to replace humans with robots will not only mean a few hundred thousand human jobs gone at Amazon, but lots more high-street shops boarded up and their employees and owners gone. AI may be overplayed or not, but what Amazon is doing will be widely repeated.

The people out of work, by and large, will be city and town dwellers who must obtain their food from shops (or Amazon). They will need to be given money or food vouchers to do this. Governments will provide these, because they cannot afford responsibility for abject poverty on a mass scale, and many in government also mean well. People will increasingly rent their housing from Blackstone or a similar corporate entity rather than own it, further increasing their dependence. For a while, some people will play online games or draw pictures and grow token lettuces on their balconies, but knowing this is just window dressing on life. Then they will go the way of the communities at the top of this piece, taking families and communities with them.

Government UBI will happen – it already does to some extent in the widespread use of welfare payments, but the future will see it on a far, far larger scale. It will not be cash handouts but digital currency. This will be a tightly controlled version, as in a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), because the government will claim responsibility to control the money it dispenses. CBDC is essentially food vouchers, and intended to be. Your UBI will be yours as long as you use it for what the government allows, within the time it allows.

Well-meaning people are already building the social acceptability for this. Those suggesting now that a virtuous society should prevent food vouchers or unemployment benefits being used for sugar-based drinks or tobacco believe already that dependent people have lost the right to autonomy. Again, this is not at all theoretical.  It is exactly what this form of money is intended for. Most people in society will see its introduction as a good thing, as they are fine limiting the freedom of others if they beileve it serves a greater good.

Living as safe as slaves

In countries like Canada, if you protest against the government you can already lose your right to buy or sell. If you need permission to obtain the basics of life and cannot make your own choices on the pursuit of happiness, and you are punished for questioning those who restrict you, then you are in a master-slave relationship. In time, most people will become essentially a slave of the UBI provider, the government. This is the design behind UBI and CBDCs. It is why very rich people, the people who own the AI and robotics that are going to make so much human labour superfluous, see this as an excellent path.

All the above will not seem at all dystopian. Governments will control their populations as part of ‘saving the world’ and will readily convince a majority of the population that being saved is a good idea. We need governments to save us from climate catastrophe by stopping us travelling, as our children are already told. We need large corporations to save us from pandemics, including those the same corporations’ laboratories may develop. We need ever more expensive pharmaceuticals injected into us to save us from the scourge of obesity – to save us from our own inability to control our eating. We will certainly need saving from mass unemployment and the inability of a large part of the population to earn their own keep.

Saving people is, after all, the government’s job. As the last few years have shown, convincing populations to indulge in self-harm on the pretext of being saved is much easier than we thought. We will slip back into slavery, into a feudal system, because most people will choose it.

A conversation we are unlikely to have

So, we need to talk about UBI because a lot of people think it is a harbinger of a great future, but it is something else. They think people will somehow flourish when they have nothing much useful to do, when they get money for being idle and compliant and there is no compelling incentive to get out of bed in the morning. A temporary social welfare net is what society should do to protect its members and act with decency. UBI – permanent free money for the majority – is something else entirely. It will ensure that the vast majority can never break out of their lot and recover any semblance of the real economic autonomy necessary for societal flourishing.

The UBI future is simply a return to the default of human societies through the ages – feudalism – but without even the relative purpose found in walking behind a plough. Human nature leads us to want to stay on top if we are already there, or wallow in depression if there is no potential for improvement. Depression, drugs, violence, neglect – this is the UBI and CBDC future.

Over the past few hundred years many societies broke free of feudalism. This freedom has been a brief time in the sun. Accepting or rejecting Universal Basic Income as a basis for fixing the rapidly approaching decimation of useful employment will determine whether the sun keeps shining or we return to the oppressive societal default. Slavery for many will seem easier than struggling, and far safer. Once dependent, the luxury of struggling may be gone. We need a real conversation before we turn irretrievably down that road.

With just two months left until Warren Buffett, 95, departs as CEO of the iconic conglomerate he made into one of the world’s largest investment companies over the past 60 years, earlier today Berkshire reported in its latest 10Q filings that its cash pile soared to a new all time high of $381.7 billion in the third quarter, an increase of $37.6 billion for the quarter, which translate to $420 million per day, and $17 million per hour.

At the same time operating earnings jumped 34% to $13.5 billion from $10.1 billion, as the firm’s insurance underwriting profit more than tripled in the third quarter boosted by lower insurance losses, offsetting declines in the Insurance-investment income and Berkshire’s Energy company.

The $13.49 billion quarterly operating profit, or $9,376 per Class A share, grew from $10.09 billion a year earlier. Currency fluctuations accounted for more than two-fifths of the increase.

While results benefited in part from an absence of major catastrophes such as hurricanes, Berkshire auto insurer Geico’s pretax underwriting profit fell 13% amid higher claims and a 40% increase in underwriting costs, which the firm said is due to “increased policy acquisition-related expenses” i.e., advertising, to acquire new policies in a period of soaring insurance costs. Additionally, insurance will likely face headwinds as falling interest rates reduce income from Berkshire’s cash holdings, which also occurred in the third quarter.

Meanwhile, Berkshire’s utilities business, which runs PacifiCorp, MidAmerican and NV Energy, posted a 9% decline in operating earnings, to $1.5 billion over the period, and reflected legal bills from wildfires, and higher costs from natural gas pipelines and Northern Powergrid in Britain. Berkshire is still evaluating how U.S. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed in July might affect the viability of its renewable energy projects.

One especially sore point was Pilot, which posted a $17 million loss in the third quarter. Berkshire said the decline is driven by lower wholesale fuel and retail margins, as well as higher expenses. “The Pilot business is not really doing very well,” Shanahan said. “I’m interested to see what the plan might be to turn that around.”

On the positive side, the BNSF railroad boosted operating earnings rose 6% to $1.4 billion, on lower fuel costs and “improved employee productivity” while revenue from the transportation of agricultural and energy products grew, driven in part by slightly higher grain exports.

Berkshire’s $30.8 billion of net income, or $21,413 per Class A share, rose from $26.25 billion a year earlier. Net results include gains and losses on stocks Berkshire is not selling. This adds volatility, and Buffett believes such results are useless in understanding his company.

Also of note: revenue for Berkshire, which is seen by many as a mini model of the broader US economy due to its extensive diversification, grew just 2%, slower than the overall U.S. economy’s growth rate. 

Economic uncertainty and waning consumer confidence have been drags, Berkshire said, stalling sales growth at the Clayton Homes homebuilder and reducing revenue from Duracell batteries, Fruit of the Loom apparel and Squishmallows toymaker Jazwares.

“Berkshire, which is often considered a microcosm of the U.S. economy, isn’t even keeping up,” said Cathy Seifert, a CFRA Research analyst with a “hold” rating on Berkshire. “Investors will struggle to find a catalyst for this stock.”

Turning to the company’s investment activities, for the 12th straight quarter, Berkshire sold more stocks than it bought for its $283.2 billion equity portfolio…

… whose largest holdings are Apple, American Express and Bank of America.

In fact, at $13.7BN in sales in Q3, this was the most aggressive purging of risk since the same quarter in 2024. 

“There isn’t much opportunity in Buffett’s eyes right now,” said Jim Shanahan, an analyst for Edward Jones.

For Berkshire’s bulls this may be vexing, since earlier this year, Buffett appeared to be back on the hunt for deals, with the acquisition of a $1.6 billion stake in UnitedHealth Group and a $9.7 billion deal to buy OxyChem last month. But the famed billionaire remained on the sidelines in the third quarter. Berkshire Hathaway offloaded $6.1 billion of shares during the period. 

Also notable: after a burst of stock buybacks in the aftermath of the covid crash, Berkshire has not repurchased any of its own stock since Q2 2024…

…. which may explain why Berkshire’s stock price has significantly lagged the broader market, and is now trading where it was last August 

“I think that sends a very powerful message to shareholders,” said Cathy Seifert, an analyst at CFRA Research. “If they’re not buying back their shares, why should you?”

And since Berkshire isn’t buying either others shares, or its own, it had to park all this record cash somewhere; and once again it did so by buying a record $183 billion (net) in treasuries in the quarter, bringing total purchases during the past 12 months to a record $540 billion. 

Berkshire’s massive holdings of T-Bills is also why the firm’s net investment income declined 13% to $3.2 billion amid lower short-term interest rates.

As previously reported, Buffett, 95, is set to end his six-decade tenure as chief executive at the end of the year. Vice Chairman Greg Abel, 63, will succeed the legendary investor, though Buffett will remain chairman. Abel is known as a more hands-on manager than Buffett.

It is unclear what he will do with Berkshire’s record cash, with options including paying the $1.03 trillion conglomerate’s first dividend since 1967. Berkshire is planning to use $9.7 billion of cash to buy Occidental Petroleum’s chemicals business, a transaction announced on October 2. James Shanahan, an Edward Jones analyst who upgraded his Berkshire rating to “buy” in September, said the company’s resistance to spending more cash during this year’s market rally has been disappointing.

“If you feel like stocks are expensive, including your own shares, you’re eventually going to be right, but you can be wrong for a long time, and that’s what happened here,” he said.

And indeed, it’s not just Berkshire that has not been buying back its own stock: investors have voted their apprehension about Berkshire’s outlook and pending management change by selling its stock. Since Buffett announced on May 3 he would step down, Berkshire’s stock price has fallen 12%, and trailed the S&P by 32%. For all of 2025, Berkshire is 11% points behind the index.

“Impatient investors feel an urgent need for Berkshire to deploy its cash, and have been casting their nets elsewhere,” said Tom Russo, a partner at Gardner Russo & Quinn in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which invests $10 billion.

Russo has owned Berkshire stock since 1982 and said Berkshire remains “extremely well-positioned” for the long term. “Berkshire isn’t going to deploy capital that won’t increase intrinsic value on a per share basis,” he said. “Knowing that guides Berkshire means investors won’t have to second-guess it.”

The conglomerate owns close to 200 businesses that also include chemical and industrial companies, and familiar consumer brands such as Dairy Queen and See’s Candies. As noted yesterday, many US businesses which rely on the strength of the consumer has been hammered in recent weeks because while the AI trade continue to soar, the US consumer has hit a brick wall and even Goldman Sachs is warning that the deterioration in K-Shaped economy is starting to spread from the lower income class to America’s otherwise unstoppable middle class. 

Berkshire has not made a huge acquisition since paying $32.1 billion for aerospace parts maker Precision Castparts in 2016, a deal which ended up being a disaster. 

“Abel has a tremendous opportunity,” Shanahan said. “He has a lot of available cash and by all accounts he is an excellent operator, so he may want to deploy capital in Berkshire’s operating businesses to improve their performance.”

Still, despite the earnings gains and massive cash pile, the firm’s tepid revenue growth in the period is not going to help investor sentiment, according to CFRA’s Seifert.

“I’m struggling to find a catalyst” for an increase in the stock price, she said.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is another bizarre filing from Mark Elias, the controversial Democratic lawyer who helped to secretly fund the infamous Steele Dossier. In a new filing, Elias is challenging the district in New York City with the lone Republican member as violating the state voting rights act. Elias is effectively arguing that voting Republican is evidence of racism.

In the petition, voters bring a New York Voting Rights Act challenge, arguing that the Eleventh District “provides Black and Latino Staten Islanders “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect a representative of their choice and influence elections in New York’s 11th Congressional District (“CD-11”), in violation of the prohibition against racial vote dilution in Article III, Section 4(c)(1) of the New York Constitution.”

The filing occurs after New York moved to further gerrymander the state, aiming to eliminate more Republican members of Congress. Across the country, Democrats have pushed for such gerrymandering, but in New York, the efforts are particularly extreme.

Trump received 45 percent of the vote. Republicans are confined to a small handful of districts. It is still too much for Elias.

Elias has not only been sanctioned in past litigation, but past courts have also criticized his group. In Maryland,  Elias filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found violated not only Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech, and free elections clauses. The court found that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”

It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign.

During the campaign, reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. Weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

It was not just reporters who inquired about the Clinton campaign’s role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and categorically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

Back to the latest Elias filing. There is a pending case before the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais that could curtail or end the use of race to set voting districts to favor black voters under the federal Voting Rights Act.

However, this is a novel claim that, even a gerrymandering state striving to reduce Republican members, a district is racist because it favors the election of a Republican  Thus, as Professor Josh Blackman noted “in a district where Democratic voters cannot elect a Democrat, they can bring a VRA claim, even in an overwhelmingly democratic state where there is not even a scintilla of evidence of racial discrimination.” However, the opposite is not true. In a red state with overwhelming Republican majorities, a district that effectively bars the election of a Republican could not be grounds for a VRA claim.

The filing proclaims that the heavily Democratic gerrymandered state shows that “New York has become a national leader in protecting voting rights.” It emphasizes that the state goes further than the federal VRA:

“the NY VRA does not require the plaintiff to show that a district could have been drawn that would have a majority of residents of a single protected class. A plaintiff need only show that the current district map is responsible for the protected class’s lack of electoral influence based on the existence of racially polarized voting or the totality of the circumstances.”

The filing makes clear that Black and Latino voters support democrats and thus a Republican member favoring the GOP dilutes their votes:

“Black and Latino voters on Staten Island are politically cohesive and consistently and overwhelmingly support the same candidates, which the rest of the electorate consistently opposes. At the same time, the white majority on Staten Island overwhelmingly supports the same candidates and votes as a bloc to usually defeat Black and Latino voters’ candidates of choice.”

In other words (with translation):

“Black and Latino voters on Staten Island are politically cohesive and consistently and overwhelmingly support [Democrats], which the rest of the [District] opposes. At the same time, the white majority on Staten Island overwhelmingly supports [Republicans] and votes as a bloc to usually defeat Black and Latino voters’ [Democratic] candidates of choice.”

So, even in a state that has artificially reduced Republican members and is claimed as a model of districting to enhance minority voters, any district that favors Republicans is still evidence of racist discrimination in voting. Presumably, the only way to truly guarantee the protection of minority voters in New York City is the effective elimination of any Republican member.

A new bombshell report by Americans for Public Trust (APT), based on IRS Form 990s and media reports, reveals that five foreign “charities” have funneled nearly $2 billion into American leftist nonprofits, injecting what can only be described as a far-left extremist European policy agenda and toxic social-engineering campaigns into U.S. institutions like cancer. The report alleges that these foreign influence operations, exploiting the dark webs of the NGO world, also bankroll part of the protest industrial complex that has waged an ongoing color-revolution-style operation against President Trump, his supporters, and seeks to dismantle the Make America Great Again movement.

APT’s 31-page analysis (first revealed on Fox News), backed by grant records, shows that while foreign nationals can’t directly donate to U.S. political candidates, there is an alarming interconnected web of transatlantic funding networks into the NGO world where foreign billionaires bankroll American far-left nonprofits to unleash all sorts of activist campaigns. This unchecked foreign philanthropy risks undermining U.S. sovereignty, and according to APT Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland, who told Fox News, “foreign money is coming in, and it’s trying to erode our democracy.”

Here are the five foreign funders outlined in the report:  

1. Quadrature Climate Foundation (UK) – $530 million

2. KR Foundation (Denmark) – $36 million

3. Oak Foundation (Switzerland) – $750 million

4. Laudes Foundation (Switzerland) – $20 million

5. Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) – $553 million

The key findings are shocking:

Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF): Founded in 2019 by hedge-fund billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya. Has given roughly $530 million to 41 U.S. groups, including ClimateWorks Foundation ($147 M), Growald Climate Fund ($80 M), Grantham Foundation ($80 M), Windward Fund ($49 M), and Sunrise Project ($36 M). QCF also funds controversial solar-geoengineering research and “climate litigation and regulation advocacy.”

KR Foundation: Danish climate charity tied to the Carlsberg family. Has provided $36 million to 53 U.S. groups backing climate litigation, ESG advocacy, and fossil-fuel divestment. Major recipients include Center for International Environmental Law ($1.4 M), Conservation Law Foundation ($0.4 M), Oil Change International ($2.2 M), and Fossil Free Media ($1 M). It even funded The Associated Press ($300 K) for climate-related programming.

Oak Foundation: Swiss-based trust founded by British billionaire Alan Parker. Gave >$750 million to 152 U.S. groups advancing “climate justice” and lawsuits against fossil-fuel firms.

Key recipients include:

• Environmental Law Institute ($650 K, creator of the Climate Judiciary Project)

• Community Change ($1.6 M, linked to Free DC protests)

• Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($108 M)

• New Venture Fund ($67 M)

• NRDC ($6.5 M)

• Tides Center ($8.2 M)

Laudes Foundation: Established in 2020 by the secretive Brenninkmeijer family (C&A clothing empire). Has sent $20 million to 17 U.S. groups promoting ESG disclosure, “climate-friendly diets,” and equity mandates. Largest grants: Pulitzer Center ($3.7 M) for climate-justice reporting, Ceres ($1.7 M), Community Initiatives ($1 M), and World Resources Institute ($2.8 M).

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF): Run by British hedge-fund billionaire Sir Christopher Hohn. Sent $553 million to 39 U.S. entities before pledging in late 2025 to halt U.S. funding after APT’s exposure.

Key recipients include:

• Energy Foundation China ($70 M) — under House investigation for links to former CCP officials

• Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development ($25 M)

• Environmental Defense Fund ($17 M)

• Sunrise Project ($36 M)

ATP points out that these funding flows exploit gaps in U.S. oversight laws, which prohibit foreign election donations but allow influence through 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations. Through the nonprofit world, foreign billionaires can conduct foreign influence operations through leftist nonprofits, including funding protest industrial complex against Trump, get-out-the-vote drives, anti-Trump ads, lobbying, and whatever else.

Sutherland said, “There’s not a question about where it’s going and where it is coming from. We know that it’s foreign money coming into our U.S. policy fights, climate litigation, research, protests, lobbying, you name it“. 

Besides funding anti-Trump protests, Sutherland warned about one very alarming use of the dark European money that flowed from the Oak Foundation into a group called Community Change. “They are the front group that has led the charge against Trump’s crackdown on crime. So again, we’re seeing where foreign money coming in to protest, litigation, training is ending up,” she noted. 

“It seems clear to me that this foreign money is coming into the United States because they want to implement their extremist European vision for America,” Sutherland concluded. “And it seems to me that when you take a look at the money, they just want to have a more extreme United States that is radicalized and further left than what we want.”

The pattern of foreign foundations exporting nation-destroying far-left policies into the U.S., funding protests (and possibly even riots), and working to dismantle President Trump’s agenda, chosen by the American people, serves as an urgent wake-up call for Republicans about the unchecked flow of foreign philanthropy pouring billions into the dark NGO world.

APT is urging policymakers to fix this absolute mess by:

• Close FARA loopholes;

• Require foreign-funded nonprofits to disclose sources;

• Consider banning foreign financing of politically active 501(c)(4)s;

• Investigate whether foreign charities violated U.S. law through advocacy or litigation.

What’s clear is that it’s not just European billionaires exploiting America’s NGO network … it’s happening from around the world, from Latin American Marxists to Communist China. It’s as if globalists and the Democratic Party are weaponizing nonprofits in a coordinated effort to undermine President Trump’s agenda, with the ultimate goal of regime change.

Remember this…

📊We traced $294,487,641 to the official No Kings 2.0 partners & organizers…all funneled through the same “Riot Inc.” dark-money networks:
💰 Arabella network $79.7M+
💰 Soros network $72.1M+
💰 Ford network $51.7M+
💰Tides $45.5M+
💰 Rockefeller $28.6M+
💰 Buffett $16.6M+ pic.twitter.com/b6zFla79UP

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) October 16, 2025

What’s clear is that the Trump administration should pivot from Antifa focus to now cleaning up the NGO world – and we’ll make it easy for those White House staffers (see the tweet above) and also there’s a foreign influence angle. On the other side of the world, there’s Neville Roy Singham’s NGO network, and perhaps Rubio at State would be interested in investigating Marxist foreign influence operations originating from Latin America as well.  

* * * 

Full Report:

So much for these protests being “organic” … 

Via Watches Of Espionage,

It’s Halloween, which means it’s time for a special spooky edition of the W.O.E. SITREP, or Situation Report, our monthly compilation of news and events related to watches, intelligence, national security, and the military, all paired with our riveting commentary. 

From a high-profile heist targeting literal crown jewels in Paris to Vice President JD Vance returning to his Apple Watch-wearing ways to a French politician accused of hiding his luxury watch, to a major slowdown in Swiss watch exports to the US, it’s been a big few weeks for the broader Watches of Espionage community. 

As ever, all of that is in addition to a satisfying smattering of watch crime, including the heartwarming story of a would-be luxury watch thief targeting exactly the wrong guy. So please, lean back, check the buckles on your five-point harness, and let’s dive into the SITREP. 

$102M in Jewels Stolen From the Louvre in Brazen Heist – Are the Pink Panthers Back?

On Sunday, 19 October, a team of highly choreographed thieves disguised as construction workers carried out one of history’s most daring robberies at one of the world’s most high-profile locations, the Musée du Louvre in Paris. Arriving shortly after the famous museum’s opening, four thieves entered the Louvre with a vehicle-mounted lift, wielding power tools that they would use to open display cases containing jewels with direct connections to French royalty, including Empress Eugénie, wife of Napoleon III. 

Even more important culturally than for their considerable material value, which has been estimated at 88 million Euros (approximately 102 million freedom dollars), the stolen jewels accompanied the thieves on a pair of awaiting scooters, making good their escape. While I am not as dedicated a student (fan) of criminal activity as W.O.E., the heist bears all the hallmarks of the Pink Panthers, a Balkan-based criminal organization responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen jewels and luxury watches in the early 2000s. 

It’s too soon to say whether this is an actual Panthers heist, as the group appears largely disbanded, or Panthers-inspired, but we will be eagerly monitoring any developments going forward. 

Swiss Watch Exports to the US Plummet by 56%

Over the past few months, we’ve done our best to follow the rapidly evolving global tariff situation, particularly as it relates to Switzerland, the birthplace of so many of the great watches at the center of our Use Your Tools ethos. The current tariff for Swiss watches entering the United States stands at 39%. Established back in August, the weighty figure has cast a long shadow over export statistics. In September, Swiss watch exports to the US dropped by over 55.6% to 157.7M Swiss francs (approximately $198.5M), according to the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry. Even more surprisingly, the United States is no longer the number one market for Swiss watches, with the UK taking over the top spot for the first time in a long time.

If you appreciate Swiss watches and don’t want the inevitable price hike brands will likely be forced to implement, this is not great news. As we’ve speculated before, the 39% figure is likely intended to apply pressure to the Swiss government for bargaining purposes, which appears to be working. However, how this will shake down is anyone’s guess. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree we don’t want a $10,000 Rolex to suddenly become a $14,000 Rolex, which seems to be where we’re headed. Only time will tell. 

JD Vance is Wearing His Apple Watch Again 

In a move eliciting deep sighs among intelligence professionals everywhere, Vice President JD Vance was once again spotted wearing an Apple Watch while en route to the 250th anniversary US Marine Corps celebration at Camp Pendleton in California. After W.O.E. penned an open letter to the VP earlier this year, warning him of the CI risks of the Apple Watch and other connected devices, we had hoped Vance got the message. However, nine months later, I guess we have to take this ride one more time. 

As VP, Vance is a priority intelligence target for bad actors around the world. His Apple Watch constantly transmits data, GPS, audio, heart rate, location, and movement, all potential entry points for foreign intelligence services. Even with Apple’s security, any connected device can be hacked, period. For these reasons, CIA and NSA both warn against wearing connected devices during sensitive discussions for a reason. A smartwatch isn’t just a gadget to track your Zumba class; it’s a live sensor platform on your body.

For Vance, the fix is simple: go analog. A mechanical watch doesn’t upload your heartbeat to the cloud or broadcast your location to adversaries. When the time is right, we have plenty of ideas for watches that honor the VP’s personal history without placing his personal information and even his safety in jeopardy. 

Bill Clinton & Dubya Wear Watches While Celebrating the Navy’s 250th 

Along with the US Marine Corps, the US Navy also celebrated its 250th anniversary with a series of ceremonies and international military exercises. Former presidents Bill Clinton (42) and George W. Bush (43) also got in on the action, penning letters in front of the press honoring the Navy’s history. If there’s one thing we love about a letter-writing photo op, it is that watches are often front and center, with Clinton wearing his Panerai Radiomir Black Seal PAM00292 for the occasion. An established watch nerd, Clinton has worn watches from Panerai, Cartier, JLC, Audemars Piguet, and other brands. 

Bush, who is historically loyal to his modest white dial Timex Indiglo with an American flag at 12 o’clock, has broken our hearts by wearing an Apple Watch. Sure, he’s not the priority intelligence target he would have been while in office, but it still hurts to see an important political figure give up the analog life in favor of monitoring their heart rate or knowing how many theoretical flights of stairs they have climbed. That detour aside, the history of watches and US Presidents is deep, bipartisan, and intriguing. Read our article on the subject HERE. 

Former Cyber Security Exec Accused of Selling Secrets to Russia & Buying Watches with the Proceeds 

In a developing story that we intend to cover with a dedicated Dispatch, a tech executive at a defense contractor has been accused of selling trade secrets to a buyer in Russia to the tune of $1.3 million. The accused, Peter Williams, is the former general manager at Trenchant, a division of a company called L3Harris that develops hacking and surveillance tools, typically for Western government organizations. Between 2022 and 2025, Williams is accused of stealing and selling eight trade secrets to an unnamed Russian party. 

This appears to be espionage, but where it falls under the purview of W.O.E. is in DOJ documents that call for the forfeiture of Williams’ home and assets, allegedly purchased with his misbegotten funds. Among the goods ordered forfeited were twenty-two watches, including several replica Rolex models, as well as an authentic Grand Seiko, a couple of Tag Heuers, and several Apple Watches. It’s a wild story. Stay tuned for more. 

French Politician Accused Of Hiding Luxury Wristwatch

Diving deep into international politics, Louis Boyard, a prominent member of France’s far-left Unbowed party, was accused of removing his watch before a television interview. After being filmed in the act, many online had words for Boyard, including Argentina’s radical right-wing President Javier Milei. Boyard is famously critical of the ultra-rich, which led Argentina’s president and the rest of the internet Illuminati to accuse the French politician of hypocrisy, assuming the watch he was hiding was a Rolex, Patek Philippe, or something else ostentatious.

All was not as it seemed, however, and Boyard quickly clapped back with a video where he reveals the watch in question was, in fact, a modest Tissot, stating, “Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t have a Rolex, I have this watch, which costs €295. My friends bought it for my 25th birthday, thanks, guys!” While the narrative here didn’t play out as intended for Boyard’s critics, the situation emphasizes the power of watches as tools of communication in political scenarios. Boyard could be shining us on, but whether it was in fact a $10,000 Rolex or an affordable Tissot PR 100, we can agree that his watch is doing a lot more than simply telling the time. 

Man Robbed of Rolex, Jewelry, & Cash While Pumping Gas

Delving into watch crime, a man in Memphis, TN, was robbed of his $7,000 Rolex, $17,000 in jewelry, and $4,000 in cash while pumping gas at a Circle K. Details are sparse, but the victim told investigators he was getting gas when a man approached from behind, brandished a firearm, and demanded he “empty his pockets” before absconding in a black sedan with tinted windows. Surveillance cameras captured the perpetrator, but no arrests have been made. Given the value of the stolen goods, we can’t help but wonder whether this was a targeted crime, but the incident still serves as a reminder to be aware of your surroundings at all times, and maybe, just maybe, don’t carry $28k worth of stuff on your person. 

We have discussed the most common modalities for luxury watch theft in a separate article, and this is another reminder that even your local gas station may be unsafe. If you’re flexing your AP at an upscale bar in Mayfair or going out in Miami looking for paid evening company with a GMT-Master II on your wrist, you’ve made yourself a target, but apparently, you will also need your head on a swivel just to wear your Richard Mille to gas up the ride. What is the world coming to? 

Would-be Rolex Thief Targets the Wrong Guy

In a heartwarming case of mistaken identity, an armed man jumped out of a car in West Hollywood, California, hell bent on stealing a Rolex he spotted on the wrist of a pedestrian. Proof that the Uno Reverse Card is a real thing, the intended target turned out to be a former professional fighter who proved reluctant to surrender his timepiece, instead peeling back the lid on a can of whoopass that, despite his assailant’s loaded gun, ended with the freshly-pummeled thief pinned to the ground awaiting the arrival of law enforcement. According to eyewitnesses, the man’s girlfriend, with whom he had been walking, also got a few licks in. And they say no news is good news. 

Final Thoughts 

As October winds down, the kids go trick-or-treating, and we collectively transition into soup mode, this month’s SITREP proves that the broader world of Watches of Espionage remains as unpredictable and entertaining as ever. From jewel thieves channeling Ocean’s Eleven in Paris to politicians fumbling their horological optics to a former professional fighter serving a would-be thief his comeuppance and VP Vance once again tempting the SIGINT gods, there’s never a dull moment when timepieces intersect with power, crime, and culture. 

Remember, whether you’re wearing a $300 Tissot or a $30,000 Rolex, your watch says something about you, sometimes more than you intend. We’ll see you next month. 

If you enjoyed this article, please consider signing up for our weekly free newsletter for further updates HERE.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

As we’ve previously highlighted, Democrats have lost culture.

With that comes another massive problem for them. The kind of people they attract.

Conservative pundit Mollie Hemingway provided Democrats with a simple home truth Wednesday, that once again explains why they’re doomed.

During an appearance on Fox News, Hemingway was asked to explain why extreme left Rep. AOC has been so intent on verbally attacking former swimmer turned gender ideology critic Riley Gaines.

Hemingway noted that “the base of the Democrat party really has become angry women.”

“And women who are angry tend to be very mean to other women who are smarter or prettier or more successful or braver than they are, and that’s what we’re seeing here,” she added.

“The idea that any member of Congress would claim that anyone in the country doesn’t have a real job, which was her, you know, insult most recently against Riley Gaines, it’s just laughable,” Hemingway asserted.

“Particularly laughable when we’re dealing with a government shutdown caused by AOC and her buddies deciding that they don’t want to do any work right now,” the pundit further stressed.

“But it’s a situation where the entire party has kind of been overtaken by angry women, and that is going to cause a little bit of a political challenge for them,” she outlined.

Hemingway: The base of the Democrat Party really has become angry women and women who are angry tend to be very mean to other women who are smarter or prettier or more successful or braver than they are. pic.twitter.com/leiRvxrxuO

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 28, 2025

The Democrats are the Party of Karens.

pic.twitter.com/JgOmypgc5m

— Orpheus (@Antoine01686702) October 29, 2025

To be more specific, angry White liberal women in their 40s and 50s.

I could write volumes about my theories on why this is, but suffice it to say I believe they are mad at life choices they are too old to change and too young have self-reconciled.

So they blame Republicans.

— IT Guy (@ITGuy1959) October 29, 2025

Ya think? pic.twitter.com/IYy40HnbgX

— Katie Scarlett (@Katiescarlet2) October 29, 2025

pic.twitter.com/gT5lRHOtuj

— Arthur Dent (@ArthurDent2024) October 29, 2025

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast on Friday for a three-hour conversation covering a wide range of topics, including the upcoming unveiling of the second-generation Tesla Roadster, which he said “will have crazy tech.”

“Look, I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever. This is some crazy, crazy technology we got in this car. Crazy technology. Crazy crazy. Let’s just put it this way. It’s crazier than anything James Bond. If you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that,” Musk told Rogan. 

Musk said that this product unveiling will be “unforgettable” and even hinted at a flying car.

He continued, “My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. If Peter wants a flying car we should should be able to buy one.” 

Elon on the upcoming Roadster: “Look, I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever. This is some crazy, crazy technology we got in this car. Crazy technology. Crazy crazy. Let’s just put it this way. It’s crazier than anything James Bond. If you took all… pic.twitter.com/kNsz9j8gi9

— Dillon Loomis (@DillonLoomis) October 31, 2025

Recall that shortly after Musk unveiled the Roadster in 2017, he discussed adding a “SpaceX package” with cold-air thrusters for boosting downforce and acceleration. 

However, a “SpaceX package” for the next-generation Roadster seems far-fetched. We suspect Musk will instead unveil a two-seater eVTOL vehicle called the Model A, developed by the SpaceX-backed company Alef Aeronautics.

At the start of 2025, Alef released the “first-ever video in history of a car driving and vertically taking off,” according to a press release earlier this year.  

Here’s the SpaceX-backed flying car in action. 

A US made flying car has started test flights with a 300k price tag, 170 km range and already 3300 pre orders 🚗✈️

pic.twitter.com/eLz4jHapED

— Tansu Yegen (@TansuYegen) September 3, 2025

About a year ago, Alef received a Special Airworthiness Certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration for its Model A, which allowed the startup to fly the eVTOL at limited locations for exhibition, research, and development, including the latest demonstration.

This airworthiness certification would be very critical for Musk’s upcoming demonstration, which he said could happen by the end of the year. 

Related:

• Watch: SpaceX-Backed EVTOL Takes Flight, ‘Jumps’ SUV In City

• Hey Pilots, FAA Issues Final Rule For “Powered-Lift” Rating, Paves Way For Air Taxis Over US Cities

• SpaceX-Backed Flying Car Startup Gets FAA Nod

Alef is also developing a four-passenger sedan called the Model Z. 

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

Back in the distant past of 2010, Ben Bernanke sat before Congress and lied his ass off assured everyone that quantitative easing was “temporary” and would be “reversed” once the emergency had passed.

It was supposed to be a short-lived anomaly, a controlled detour from monetary orthodoxy. The balance sheet would shrink, markets would normalize, and the Fed would quietly step back into the shadows.

Here we are fourteen years later. The detour has become the highway.

Keeping with the adage of “there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program”, this week, the Federal Reserve effectively threw in the towel on quantitative tightening, announcing that the steady runoff of its asset portfolio will halt.

Balance sheet reduction has ended—not with a bang, but with a nervous clearing of the throat. The same central bank that insisted it could unwind trillions in emergency asset purchases now quietly concedes that those assets are not going anywhere.

“Temporary” has matured into a permanent fixture of the Federal Reserve System, as I knew would happen 7 years ago ago when I wrote an article called “The Fed Is Gutless And By The Time We Realize, It’ll Be Too Late”.

The largest obstacle is the Fed’s own balance sheet. The central bank bought trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities at ultra-low yields, driving mortgage rates to levels that helped inflate an enormous housing bubble. These securities now sit underwater. The Fed earns roughly 2 percent on them while paying close to 5 percent to fund them.

It is losing money every single day by holding assets it cannot afford to sell.

“F*ck.” – Jerome Powell (probably)

And it truly cannot sell them. The Fed owns nearly a quarter of the entire agency mortgage-backed securities market. If it attempted to liquidate those holdings, mortgage markets would seize up almost immediately. Rates would spike, home prices would dive, and taxpayers would take the mother of all loss realizations—hundreds of billions of dollars that the Fed has kept conveniently tucked under the “unrealized” label. The balance sheet would implode on impact, and Congress—normally uninterested in the arcana of central bank accounting—would suddenly become very interested.

That political risk alone guarantees inaction. No Fed Chair wants their legacy to be “person who accidentally sparked a housing and banking crisis by admitting that the balance sheet was a financial sinkhole.” Safer, apparently, to let the problem slowly bleed out and hope the public doesn’t notice.

Ending QT is the clearest admission yet that the Fed has no realistic path back to pre-crisis monetary conditions. The balance sheet grew from just over $4 trillion to nearly $9 trillion during the Covid era, and rather than meaningfully reduce that footprint, policymakers are now floating the possibility that asset purchases could resume in the not-too-distant future. In other words, quantitative tightening may already be over for good. The new normal is the old emergency policy, relabeled as stability.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

The Fed is trapped between inflation and insolvency. Raise rates further, and its portfolio losses deepen while financial markets buckle. Cut rates aggressively, and inflation revives before the public has forgotten the last round. The system has become dependent on cheap liquidity, and withdrawing that support risks revealing how fragile the structure beneath it truly is.

The uncomfortable truth is that the Fed did not merely intervene in markets. It became the market. And once a central bank makes itself the indispensable buyer of last resort for an entire asset class, there is no clean exit. There is only the slow realization that the temporary measures were permanent commitments all along.

It would be easier to respect the institution if it simply admitted the obvious: this is not policy mastery but policy entrapment. The Fed insists it has tools to deal with whatever comes next. Perhaps. But none of them are painless, and none of them restore the credibility lost over a decade of insisting the opposite of what has now occurred.

Speaking only for myself, and not as advice, I continue to prefer assets that do not depend on the Fed’s expertise or honesty for their value. Gold and silver come to mind. Again, that is my personal opinion—not a recommendation. But when the central bank’s balance sheet looks more like a leveraged hedge fund’s, and the people running it appear shocked to discover that duration risk exists, it seems prudent to hold something with no counterparty.

Bernanke’s promise of “temporary” quantitative easing deserves to be etched into history as a monument to wishful thinking, if not outright deception. There is no going back.

The Fed is stuck with the choices it made, and the rest of us are stuck with the consequences. And that’s the number one thing I think of when preparing my investing outlook going forward.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

The epicenter of America’s power bill inflation crisis stretches across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, where far-left state and city leaders have swallowed the globalist “climate crisis” pill, which even Bill Gates admitted last week that the climate crisis narrative was fake news.

The result of these leftist extremist “green” policies has been the systematic degradation of regional power grids in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states, as reliable fossil-fuel generation was prematurely retired in favor of unreliable, intermittent solar and wind. These nation-destroying green policies have gutted spare grid capacity (read here) just as demand surges from data centers, onshoring, and the broader electrification push (read here), culminating in today’s power bill crisis. 

A recent Goldman Sachs report by analyst Carly Davenport found that “higher power bill inflation has been the most pronounced in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and California in the past three years.”

It’s no secret that the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and California are governed primarily by Democratic leaders who have pushed at least a decade of climate crisis hoax narratives to justify massive “green” funding, some of which was funneled into NGOs, and to advance the progressive utopia narrative that solar and wind power would deliver clean skies and save, most importantly, planet Earth from immient climate catastrophe. Yet this fantasy was far from reality. There was never going to be a green utopia, only what millions of Americans across these states are now realizing: unaccountable Democrats have left them with a power bill crisis.

Davenport told clients:

Residential utility bill inflation has accelerated in certain regions, raising concerns about customer affordability. A few states in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic such as MD, CT, DE and DC, as well as California, have seen accumulated bill inflation of 29% in the past three years (20pp above CPI), while other states such as MI, ND, AR, SD and LA had bill growth of only 5% in the same period (Exhibit 2). Interestingly, the states with higher bill inflation during this period have deregulated or competitive power markets, and those with lower inflation are in traditional regulated markets. We provide more details on power market fundamentals and utility bills within.

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States Hit Hardest by Power Bill Crisis 

The topic of power bills is beginning to dominate local political discussions across these states. In the New Jersey governor’s race, power bill ads seen by Republicans were criticizing the Democratic Party’s failed green energy policies. And the Maryland Freedom Caucus of lawmakers joined forces with other conservatives in surrounding states to combat and break the far-left’s stranglehold on the region.

“Politicians and special interest groups have traded energy independence for a delusional climate cultist ideology, and every Maryland family is paying the price with skyrocketing bills and a rapidly dwindling energy supply,” Maryland Delegate Brian Chisholm told local TV station Fox Baltimore.

Chisholm continued, “We stand firmly united with our colleagues in neighboring states to deliver real, adult solutions and finally put an end to the childish nonsense impacting our state.”

We’ve told readers. 

In one year, this will be the most popular chart on this site pic.twitter.com/h93gWXMoNL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 11, 2025

Related:

•  Power-Bill Crisis Spreads From Maryland To New Jersey, May Doom Democrats As ‘Green’ Implodes

• MSM Finally Understands Power Bill Crisis “Now A Major Political Issue”

What’s entirely clear is that the power bill crisis began with green policies that have now backfired in an epic way, and it will continue to drive power bills higher. Ahead of the Midterms, Republicans are likely to seize on this topic as they seek to break the Democratic Party’s stranglehold over the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions, which have been transformed into unaffordable living, elevated violent crime, and illegal alien safe havens.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Whenever you delve into the modern history of internal national conflict you’re bound to come across post-crisis accounts from people who said “We never saw it coming…” or “The violence hit us from nowhere…” Generally speaking, these were the people who weren’t paying attention and they just happened to survive by sheer luck.

I think of this dynamic a lot these days. I see a large contingent of American society (perhaps 25% of the population) which has been radicalized or brainwashed beyond all reason or repair. These people (leftists) operate deep within a protective bubble of propaganda and zealotry; they function within a hive mind that does not deviate from the demands of their gatekeepers. They cannot be reasoned with, nor can they be satiated. They lust for power and the suffering of anyone who opposes them.

One can see an immediate difference between the sides. Conservatives are so independent we in-fight constantly. We might agree on basic values (even in this we sometimes argue), but in terms of policy and action we rarely shake hands.

For the political left, any disagreement with the majority leads to immediate ostracism. The hive mind does not tolerate individual rebellion. Only the gatekeepers can change the mindset or the mission of the mob.

It is strange then that this dichotomy has resulted in conservatives, with their values of liberty and independence, seeking order. Meanwhile leftists, in their Orwellian uniformity of thought, seek chaos and the deconstruction of civilization. You would think the relationship would be reversed, but this is the way it has always been.

Looking back on the events of the Bolshevik Revolution and the long list of Marxist disruptions in Europe following WWI, it should not have been at all surprising to Europeans that domestic conflict would erupt. It should not have been surprising that people would follow their natural inclination to rally around their founding heritage rather than submit to the cultural and moral relativism of the radical left.

Fascism was popular exactly because it offered shelter from the chaos and degeneracy of communism. The war and brutality that followed was seen as a balancing of the scales. Europeans wanted to ensure that the communists would never get a chance to wreak havoc again.

To be clear, both systems of governance are authoritarian and can lead to monstrous outcomes, but communism’s love for economic sabotage, mob actions and political violence are almost always a precursor to a fascist crackdown. The public does not embrace fascism in a vacuum, they must be compelled by an existential threat.

The question is, can communist subversion be defeated without using “authoritarian” measures? Is a constitutional republic equipped to deal with this kind of threat? When someone wages war on your society internally, is there a way to fight them while remaining civic minded? Probably not.

What we are witnessing in the US and Europe today is, in every way, a Marxist/Communist insurgency. It’s difficult to determine what stage we are at in this war. We have moved well beyond the stage of propaganda and mob influence into the realm of political violence, with multiple assassination attempts and terror attacks against civilian targets.

The gatekeepers for the woke communist movement are obviously Democrat politicians and media influencers. They have been consistently and actively encouraging mass hysteria and violence. They have used media spin to protect activist groups like Antifa, pretending that such organizations don’t exist. Whenever activists cause harm or death, the media and political leaders immediately move to defend that action as if it was justified.

When asked why Democrats are continuing down the path of militancy, their response is that Donald Trump is a “dictator and a fascist.” Yet, these same people can’t seem to come up with a single legitimate example of HOW Trump is acting like a dictator.

Deportations of illegal immigrants? Most countries on Earth have basic immigration laws and enforce them much more harshly than the Trump Administration does. Cuts to federal programs and employees? The President is perfectly within his power of office to reduce waste in the federal government. How about using the National Guard in US cities? Democrat leaders in those cities have aided violent activists, helping to disrupt ICE operations while threatening the lives of agents. If they don’t want the National Guard in their cities they should stop waging war on immigration officials.

From Trump’s remodeling of the White House ballroom to the US troops countering drug smugglers, everything Trump does is blown out of proportion by Democrats into an “end of democracy” scenario. Their useful-idiot followers then take these claims as permission to create even more turmoil.

The government shutdown in particular is becoming a nexus point for this agenda. The Senate needs only five Democrat votes to reopen the government with a clean funding bill, but Democrats refuse to see reason. Meanwhile, they are blaming Republicans for the consequences of the shutdown, specifically seeking public pain as leverage over conservatives.

Trump is already being held accountable for a prolonged shutdown of EBT. The Democrats know their audience well. They know that the free-stuff army is entitled, vicious and easy to manipulate.

I warned about this outcome at the beginning of the month; Democrats are fighting hard for the shutdown to continue because it creates greater fear in their constituency. However, if Republicans fold then Democrats will use the same threat of civil unrest over and over again. The government will be under their control even though they lost the elections.

Democrat rhetoric has been even worse than usual.  DNC Chair Ken Martin recently argued on MSNBC that:

“The Democratic Party’s job right now is to win elections. That’s our focus. But we may be nearing the moment where we are truly in a dictatorship and an authoritarian regime here has completely shredded the Constitution. Then elections don’t matter, and then the resistance looks completely different. And we may be nearing that moment.”

Senator Chuck Schumer also made provocative statements calling for “resistance” against Trump:

“This is tyranny. This is what happens in dictatorships… I don’t care if you’re Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, moderate – people should be forcefully rising up against this…”

In an odd and obviously inciting discussion on MSNBC, Joy Reid and Jasmine Crockett sent out multiple signals to leftists, barely disguising their intent:

Joy Reid: “We’re in a moment where the MAGA crowd is armed to the teeth, and they’re not shy about it. So, everybody needs to pick up a weapon – whether it’s a vote, a protest sign, or whatever it takes – because this isn’t just politics anymore; it’s survival.”

Jasmine Crockett: “Absolutely, Joy. This is a war, this isn’t a battle. We’re talking about the soul of this country, about whether democracy survives or gets crushed under fascism. And yeah, we need to arm ourselves with everything we’ve got—truth, turnout, and tenacity. The other side declared war on us long ago.”

Numerous Democrats across social media are announcing, in no uncertain terms, that they want conservatives dead and Trump allies humiliated or eliminated. When they return to a government majority and get power back, they say conservatives are going to pay a terrible price for daring to oppose them.

But if we’re living under a fascist regime as they assert, then how could they possibly expect to return to government power? If elections are still an option, then leftists must not be too serious about their claims of fascism.

A perfect example is the New York mayor’s race, which is is going much like I predicted months ago.  Zohran Mamdani (a champagne socialist/communist with wealthy parents) is holding a steep lead in polling over all other candidates. As I noted when the race began, Mamdani is the natural end game of the political left – A combination of all the groups that hate western civilization, concentrated into a single man.

Democrats are doubling down.  Mamdani proudly mentioned this in a recent campaign speech, arguing that the correct path of Democrats is to blindly charge forward. In other words, they should not self reflect on their long list of failures, but dive headfirst into radical chaos.

Prominent Democrats like AOC and Bernie Sanders are openly endorsing Mamdani. Like it or not, this is the course that their party is taking, which means violent conflict is inevitable.  If Dems are being honest in their rhetoric to “get revenge” on conservatives once they return to power (there’s no reason to think they are joking), then the rules of survival dictate that leftists can never be allowed to return to power.

If Democrat leaders continue on the path of disrupting deportations of illegals and threatening immigration officials, then Americans will increasingly support National Guard intervention. The public may even support the arrest of those same politicians.

If leftists incite mass violence over the loss of SNAP benefits, the gatekeepers will have to be arrested or removed from the country. One can question the constitutionality of the reaction, but the path that led us to this is undeniable. Leftists are provoking these responses; they are making peaceful resolution impossible.

They have gone so far over the top in their behavior, I have to ask: Are they doing this on purpose to trigger a civil war, or an authoritarian response? Do they really believe they will be able to use national instability as a weapon to get what they want?

My long running theory ever since Trump ran for office in 2016 is that he represents a perfect scapegoat for a leftist/globalist induced collapse of the US. In fact, for many years I have posited that if real conservatives and patriots (not Neo-Cons) ever gained legitimate government power, the elites would simply crash the system around our ears and make it look like it was our fault.

This plan seems to be unfolding right now. Progressive gatekeepers are using far-left activists as cannon fodder to induce a crisis, or a domestic war.

Think about the Bolshevik Revolution: The gatekeepers spurred a revolution of the poor and the working class, yet Lenin and Trotsky both came from upper-middle class wealth (like Mamdani). Hell, Karl Marx came from an upper middle-class family and married into his wife’s riches. When his debts and refusal to work a steady job caught up with him, he lived off the money of rich benefactors.

The gatekeepers of the left rarely share the struggles of the downtrodden workers they purport to represent, they only use the working class and the poor as tools to gain power and destroy their ideological enemies.

This is what Democrat leaders are doing with the mentally ill rabble they have accumulated. They are aiming the naive and unhinged horde at the guts of the country and they are hoping to create enough mayhem that Trump, conservatives, nationalists, all of us get blamed for the uncompromising response that follows.

Maybe they are hoping that in the process, conservatives will haphazardly jump on the bandwagon of totalitarianism; that we will look like the villains. I think the progressives are underestimating the average American’s resolve to see order restored. Playing the victim may not help them garner much public empathy this time.

It’s hard to say what the end result will be, but I’m finding it difficult to see an outcome that doesn’t include considerable conflict and, unfortunately, bloodshed. And, to be frank, most of it is likely to befall the leftist side. For the sake of their own self preservation, I hope they realize they’re only being used to further an agenda, and their gatekeepers don’t actually care what happens to them in the end.