Quote:A very interesting column... COMPLETELY NEUTRAL...

Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel. He had been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, hits the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that, in the final analysis, must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!



The 545 vs. 320,000,000 People


-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 320 million who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but for-profit private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate together in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving budgets, appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Representative Paul Ryan. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate during that time.]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 320 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts – of lying, incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they do not receive social security, but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.



If they want an annual pay raise, each and every year, whether they do their job or not, its because they want it that way.


There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; or to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; or to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.



Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption, care or interest to manage their own employees... We should vote ALL of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.


This might be funny if it weren't so true.



Be sure to read this "poem" all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
'Cause He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?



Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had almost no national debt ($80 billion), had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'


I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!



Then at election time, vote these jerks out of office and replace them with responsible candidates who will

listen to the Voice of the People!



GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!!

Quote:We shared sourced, measured analysis to relevant subreddits. Standard posts. No rule violations. No inflammatory language. These posts were not downvoted into obscurity — they were removed. Silently. No notification. No rule citation. No moderator message. You post. You check back an hour later. The post does not exist.

...

Within minutes — not hours — of a post going live, the comments section would fill with personal attacks.


These were not substantive disagreements. Nobody said “here’s why your orbital mechanics are wrong.” The comments attacked the act of posting:

“Why are you spreading this garbage.” “Another conspiracy nutjob.” “People like you are the problem.”


...

The accounts posting them shared common hallmarks of inauthentic behavior: sparse post histories, sudden activity spikes on this single topic, and near-identical rhetorical structures across supposedly independent users.

...

THE SENTINEL ASSESSMENT: The academic layer operates differently than the platform layer. Reddit uses blunt force — removals, bans, floods. The academic firewall uses procedural legitimacy. A single gatekeeper with the right title can strangle a paper in the crib by calling it “limited interest.” The result is the same: the anomalous data never reaches the discourse.

...

Greenewald has filed thousands of FOIA requests across three decades. He has documented that the CIA does not always deploy Glomar. A request about a potential terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Colombia received a straightforward “no records” reply. An inquiry about an Iranian F-14 incident near a nuclear facility — same. The Defense Intelligence Agency released an actual intelligence report on Comet Hale-Bopp in 1999.

Terrorism. Nuclear threats. Previous comets. All received direct answers.

The third interstellar object in human history received a classified wall. . . .


THE SENTINEL ASSESSMENT: The Glomar response is the capstone of the suppression gradient. At the platform level, the operation is crude — bots, bans, brigades. At the academic level, it is procedural — editorial gatekeeping, silent database edits. At the government level, it is legal — statutory classification authority invoked to seal records on an object that has been publicly declared harmless. Three layers. One objective. Narrative containment.

...

The Glomar response isn’t protecting methodology. It’s protecting a conclusion.

The academic gatekeeping isn’t maintaining standards. It’s maintaining a narrative.

And the platform suppression isn’t organic backlash. It’s the outermost ring of a containment operation that originates at Langley and radiates outward through every institution that touches this topic.

Quote:April 1, 2026 / Joseph P. Farrell

There will be a certain type of individual out there that will cheer this article, so before you dye your hair pink, or green, or purple, and join "the revolution", let me note that normally I would share the initials of the individual who brought this article to my attention as a way of thanking them. In this case however, the individual who shared it is known by me to be a transgendered individual, who like me is as appalled by what is going on in this Canadian "law" as I am, and presumably many other traditionalists are.  I therefore do not today mention those initials in an effort to protect that individual's privacy and security. Here's the story:

Canada’s House of Commons passes ‘anti-Christian’ bill that would criminalize quoting Bible

Quote:Early Wednesday evening, MPs from the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, in a 186–137 vote, passed Bill C-9, known as the “Combatting Hate Act.” Conservatives, NDP, and Green Party MPs voted against the bill in a rare form of unity among the usually opposing parties.
...

In comments sent to LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) blasted the passage of Bill C-9 and called upon “Christians and pro-life advocates to prepare for increasing hostility.”

“With the passage of Bill C-9 in the House, Christians and pro-life advocates will almost certainly face an entirely new level of hostility, as the door swings open to actual persecution under a cloak of supposed legality,” said CLC’s Campaigns Manager David Cooke, who is also a Christian pastor.

Cooke said the Bill C-9 was framed as a law going after “hate,” but, in reality, it is a bill that religious leaders from various faith communities “say could lead to hate-related charges against believers – empowers ideologically-driven police officers and judges to target, for the first time, the very word of God on matters of life, family, and faith.
...
“The battle to defend religious freedom in Canada has now moved to the Senate, which, unfortunately, Justin Trudeau has spent the past decade stacking with anti-Christian bigots like Kristopher Wells, a radical LGBT activist who I suspect will relish the opportunity to criminalize parts of the Bible as ‘hate speech,’” he said.

Now, while I fully suspect that the radicalized LGBT movement may be one of the targeted groups the legislation is designed to secure to the Liberal party of former Prime Minister Justin Turdeau or current Prime Minister Mark Carnage, I suspect that there are other, much deeper backers to the measure, and that the real objective is much more long term, and that the "protected and privileged class" of people are not even enumerated in the LGBT alphabet soup that constitutes modern "inclusivity" and "diversity".  I suspect, in fact, that there are two privileged classes that are the real privileged targets, and therefore the real backers, of the bill. The first of these are what I will simply call the "libertine debauched and degenerate", or the LDD, "community".  You may remember them if you, like me, lived through the smoky haze of the Woodstock disaster during "the summer of love" in 1969. It was, to be blunt, a drug-hazed sex orgy with booze and rock music. No restraints.  None whatsoever. It was libertinism on parade. Had Martin Luther been alive at the time, he might have thought he had died and gone to Muenster.

The second class of people are - in my opinion - the Zionists in all their stripes and varieties. Recall that just in the past few weeks, we have see a Roman Catholic lady dismissed from Mr. Trump's "Religious Liberty" Commission simply for disagreeing with evangelozionism and for maintaining traditional Roman Catholic (and for that matter, traditional Christian) doctrine that the "third temple" is Christ's humanity itself, and hence, the Resurrection and the Church. It has nothing to do with modern political Israel, nor does that view mean one ipso facto hates Jews or is "anti-semitic". But not so according to the "Commission", which promptly forced the lady to resign.

This was followed by denunciations of media personalities Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and others, for adhering to and advocating similar views and calls for them to be jailed or interred in camps for such views by - you guessed it - a Zionist who maintained that to advocate them was anti-semitic. In other words, the real long term objective here, in my opinion, has nothing to do with "hate speech" or transgenderism or homosexuality or whatever else one may think. The real objective here, the deep politics and deep objective,  is to target anyone maintaining that traditional Christian teaching on the Incarnation itself and its implications for "temples" and "blessings". Once that can be branded as hate speech and banished from the marketplace of ideas and the dispensationalist heresy securely enthroned in its place, then it is a free and open field for evangelozionism. One doctrine says that literally everyone is chosen of God because that human nature which Christ took on is common to all; the other denies that, and maintains that there are only the chosen race, and the lesser cattle. The one view built western civilization; the other view is building the rubble in Gaza.

See you on the flip side...

Quote:UPDATE 29MAR26: right on cue, WTO members to hash out global digital trade rules.

According to the US Department of the Treasury’s just-released, unaudited financial report for FY2025, the United States government has USD 6.06 trillion in assets, USD 47.78 trillion in liabilities, for a net position of -USD 47.7 trillion. This does not include long-term unfunded Social Security and Medicaid liabilities, which are reported separately and add roughly another USD 100 trillion.

Nor does this include the notorious “black budget” which, by definition, is not accounted in public reporting.

The estimated GDP for the United States for FY2025 is USD 31.5 trillion.

The country’s liabilities are an order of magnitude more than its assets, and if you took all the goods and services produced and delivered in the country for one year to pay down the debt, you’d still have USD 10 trillion in liabilities, which is still more than the assets. The Treasury declared the government insolvent, which hardly comes as a surprise.

I’ll let that sink in for a moment.

There is no single-source number for the total value of the United States, including public and private assets over liabilities. Depending on who you check with, the US is worth somewhere between USD 170 trillion and USD 500 trillion all in, with somewhere on the order of USD 149 trillion in consolidated debt.

Let’s take a middle of the road estimate and say the United States are worth USD 300 trillion. If a sovereign entity could be seized and liquidated, they’d have to sell off Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and everything from Malibu to the Mississippi River to pay off the debt.

Fortunately, there’s no superior court (yet) that can adjudicate such things, so bankruptcy is not a consideration.

The Big Question is, how are the United States still a viable entity?

The US is a unique case. It issues debt in its own currency (United States dollar), has a deep, liquid bond market (Treasuries are global collateral), and has an independent central bank (Federal Reserve private corporation). Top that off with having the global reserve currency that is wound into nearly every transaction on the planet, and you have the recipe for carrying huge amounts of debt—though not endless.

One of the common tricks the US pulls is foreign aid. Give countries piles of dollars every year, which are then used to buy goods and services on the open markets. This maintains velocity in the dollar, which is essential to maintaining a viable currency. Like all other assets, if there’s no demand for a currency, then it’s value in real terms quickly drops.

There are a number of economic slights of hand that can slowly reverse such fiscal irresponsibility, but I don’t think that’s the plan.

Instead, what I see is someone on the verge of declaring bankruptcy running up their credit cards in an orgy of consumerism before tapping out. The most logical reason behind this is that “they” are ready to launch a new system that will basically reset the whole ball of wax.

The key to modern economic theory is “velocity of money”. The metal system of centuries past was entirely to slow and cumbersome, so along came paper money. That worked for a century or two, but it’s been tweaked to its fullest extent now. Digital tokens and “coins” is the new darling, increasing efficiency and sending velocity into the stratosphere. It also happens to work rather well for interplanetary financial systems, which we are clearly heading for sooner or later.

There is clearly no will to clean up the dollar system. Instead, all indications are that the US is squeezing all the power and control out of the husk before tossing it on the trash heap of history. The Great Reset is upon us and all the signs are that this year may be the critical mass for digital and crypto currencies. Hang on to your wallet!

As I wrote this, King Lear kept playing in my head. It seems appropriate:

Quote:Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
Crack nature’s moulds, all germens spill at once,
That make ingrateful man! — King Lear, Act III, Scene II

Si mundus vult dicipi, ergo dicipitatur.

=====

Today’s cinematic nugget is probably long forgotten if ever known. It’s called Mister 880 (1950), with Burt Lancaster and Dorothy McGuire in a quaint romcom about a Secret Service agent trying to catch a counterfeiter while falling for a UN translator. Ah, the good ol’ days when folks believed governments were benign, agents were sincere good guys, and the justice system functioned.

Quote:Governments are command-and-control systems. They operate by establishing loyalty tests called “citizenship.” Compliance is rewarded with a grab bag of “benefits,” which amount to little more than robbing you blind and demanding gratitude when some portion is handed back. Most of these “benefits” are rebranded as “rights”—privileges arbitrarily granted, modified, or revoked through the ritual of “voting”.

I’ve been watching the SAVE Act circus in the United States with some amusement. If you haven’t been following this particular bit of legislative theatre, here’s the short version.

The SAVE Act requires a “citizen” to present proof of citizenship in person to register to vote in federal elections. No online registration. No mail-in. Show up, documents in hand. As currently framed, it does not require proof at the polling station itself—only at registration.

A “federal election” means offices created by the Constitution: President, Vice President, Senator, and Representative. Everything else—governor, mayor, dog catcher, ballot initiatives—falls under state law.

So what does the SAVE Act actually require?

In plain terms:

• A passport; or
  
• A state-issued photo ID plus a birth certificate; or
  
• A REAL ID-compliant state ID that shows place of birth.
  

And now we arrive at the inevitable question: What, precisely, is REAL ID?

REAL ID is a standardized identification system created after 9/11. To obtain one, you must provide:

• Proof of identity (passport or birth certificate)
  
• Social Security number
  
• Proof of residence
  
• Proof of lawful presence
  

In other words, REAL ID is already a structured mechanism for proving who—and what—you are within the system. The SAVE Act simply extends that mechanism into the voting process. If you wish to continue receiving “benefits,” you will comply with the expanding set of hoops.

None of this is particularly exotic. I’ve lived in four states and six countries, travelled to more than sixty, and I can lay my hands on my passport and original birth certificate at a moment’s notice. These are baseline requirements across the planet if you expect to move freely on it.

My Indonesian national identity card lists my place of birth. It conforms to the same general framework as REAL ID. Or, put more accurately, REAL ID conforms to a global standard already in place. Refer to ICAO Doc 9303 for passports, ISO/IEC 7810 and 14443 for ID cards, ISO/IEC 19794 series for biometrics, ISO/IEC 18013 for mobile/digital identity, and ISO/IEC 24760 for security and identity management.


Most people already have these documents. If you don’t, acquiring them is not exactly scaling Everest. A birth certificate can be obtained from a county registrar in a matter of hours. With that, a passport follows in a few weeks. Expedite it, and you’re done faster.

If these requirements disenfranchise a subset of the population, then we’re forced to ask an uncomfortable question: what, exactly, is the threshold for participation? Voting presumes a minimal level of engagement with the system. If you cannot produce basic documentation of identity, you are already operating outside that system.

Frankly, I don’t know why anyone bothers voting at all.

The United States hasn’t experienced meaningful policy deviation since the 1963 coup d’etat, regardless of which team is nominally in charge. The individuals who actually run the machinery are neither elected nor removable. Everything else is theatre—occasionally entertaining, rarely consequential.

Participation in the system requires compliance with the system. If you comply—if you vote—you are granted a defined set of privileges and access points: welfare, social security, and the rest of the bureaucratic buffet.

Curiously, the system never requires proof of citizenship when extracting value from you—taxation proceeds without hesitation. But the moment you attempt to reclaim any portion of that value, documentation becomes paramount.

That asymmetry is not an accident.

Your regional system is also not isolated. It plugs into a broader global framework—treaties, agreements, reciprocal recognition of documents. The paperwork that defines you is designed to be interoperable across jurisdictions. Your “citizenship” is not merely local; it is part of a network.

Which brings us to where this is heading.

The logical endpoint is a fully tokenized identity system—a “life token” tied to each individual from birth. Much of the groundwork is already in place. Documentation is being digitized, standardized, and linked.

At some point, your identity will not be something you carry. It will be something that carries you.


Your token will contain:

• birth location (to the precise coordinate);
  
• education records;
  
• medical history;
  
• financial transactions (income, expenses, property, investments);
  
• travel patterns;
  
• consumption habits; and
  
• social interactions.
  

Everything. Persistent, portable, and instantly accessible.

Access will be granted through biometric confirmation—fingerprint, retina, face. No paper. No ambiguity. No escape from the ledger.

The SAVE Act is a small piece of that larger puzzle. It mirrors parallel efforts worldwide. On the surface, the reasoning is tidy, even appealing. After all, you wouldn’t want a “non-citizen” influencing your system or getting a free piece of your pie, would you?

The argument sells itself.

But observe the structure: each interaction with the system grants it further authority to demand interaction. Compliance compounds. The spiral widens from the moment and place of your birth.
You are not simply participating. You are reinforcing the framework that governs you.

Voting is often described as a right or a duty. It is neither. It is a contract. You apply (register). You provide documentation. You undergo vetting. You are granted participation.

Sound familiar?

It should. It’s the same structure as employment, licensing, banking—pick your domain. The system is fractal. It repeats itself at every scale. And like any contract, it comes with terms.

You submit to authority. In return, you receive access to benefits. Break the terms, and access is revoked. The language may differ, but the mechanism is identical.


What’s remarkable is not that such systems exist. They always have. What’s remarkable is how willingly people engage with them while insisting they are expressions of freedom.

The alchemy is simple: transform individuals into “citizens,” then convince them that participation equals agency. It doesn’t. It equals compliance. See Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “license”.

If you want “rights,” you cannot simultaneously accept a system that reclassifies them as privileges contingent on behavior. The moment a right can be revoked for non-compliance, it is no longer a right. It is a permission slip.

And permission can always be withdrawn.

We are moving toward a world in which identity, access, and authority are fully integrated into a single, continuous system. It will be efficient. It will be seamless. It will be sold as convenience. It will also be total.

None of this requires conspiracy theories or fever dreams. It is the natural evolution of bureaucratic systems combined with modern technology. Once the infrastructure exists, it will be used. Always has been. Always will be.

So when you hear about the SAVE Act, or any similar measure, don’t fixate on the specifics. The particulars are interchangeable. Focus on the pattern. The system expands. The requirements grow. The documentation deepens. The compliance tightens. And each step is presented as necessary and reasonable.

Because, taken individually, they are. Collectively, they form something else entirely. You can opt out, of course. But opting out has consequences. It always does. The system is designed that way. Participation is rewarded. Non-participation is penalized—quietly, efficiently, and without much fuss.

Which brings us back to the central point: Governments are command-and-control systems.

Everything else is branding.

Si mundus vult dicipi, ergo dicipitatur.

=====
Today’s cinema du jour is an oft-forgotten quasi-documentary called Gattaca (1997). Ethan Hawke and Jude Law put on masterful performances, portraying the dystopian world we are entering even now. The word play with “invalid” is inspired, and the lengths to which both characters go to game the system is nerve-wracking. Andrew Niccol’s writing and direction are efficient, creating a detailed world that holds together quite well.

Quote:One of the best movie lines of all time comes from Morpheus in The Matrix (1999):

Quote:“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room.
You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television.
You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church…when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

Don’t know if you’ve actually read “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There”, by Lewis Carroll. Long before the Wokians changed “mental illness” to “transitioning,” even decades before Orwell’s MiniTrue was revising history on the fly, there was Humpty Dumpty.

Humpty is a fragile character teetering precariously on a wall, spouting academic nonsense as lexical authoritarianism. At any moment, he could collapse under the weight of his own bullshit. I am a big fan of this character, and have been since I was a child. I loved the wordplay and the obvious attempts to control reality through the use of language.

Humpty is a precise and damning satire of exactly the world we live in now. Wars are actions, peace kills, men are women, and women have no clear definition at all. Arbeit macht frei writ large.

Humpty claims words have the meaning he gives them, and there is no such thing as common usage and clear definitions. He is the personification of legal “codes”; they are codes precisely because they manipulate language to hide meaning and intent, and foster a class of “interpreters,” known commonly as politicians, lawyers and attorneys.

The entire purpose of the legal class is to jumble clear language, purée logic, and obfuscate truth in order to bamboozle the masses and keep us in a perpetual state of confusion and anxiety. By controlling the clear meanings of words, the “authorities” can control how and what we think. Even when you know the “official” definition of a word is complete and utter hogwash, you are forced to use it because the rubes think they understand it.

Humpty Dumpty’s famous exchange about word meanings echoes a timeless political tactic:

control the vocabulary → control the debate

This interpretation has made Humpty Dumpty a frequent reference in discussions of propaganda and ideological language. “Illegal aliens” become “undocumented workers”. Humans can “identify” as anything they want, even when everyone knows it is plain and complete rubbish. There are no “sexes,” just endless and ever-changing lists of “genders”. As George Carlin said, “Shell shocked somehow became post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Sucking the life out of language is mind control in its highest form. If I can force you to say that black is white, then I have power over you by controlling what you say and how you say it. I am sitting dead center of your intellectual self, filtering everything you think and say.

Here’s a perfect example—and you’ll have to turn off your trained emotional response: up until the 1970s or so, the word “nigger” was not unusual on broadcast TeeVee. The famous SNL skit with Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase is a prime example, though Archie Bunker dropped it numerous times with comic effect.

At some point, a major effort was undertaken to make this a “forbidden” word. The simple mispronunciation of a river in West Africa can drop an adult American to their knees. Mind you, at the same time the old forbidden words have become commonplace.

The fear and visceral response that has been implanted around this particular word is telling. There is hardly the bat of an eyelash over any other racial or ethnic slur (limey, spick, kraut, frog, etc.), and the control mechanism only exists in the US and possibly Canada. Out here in the real world, no one gives a hoot.

In fact, Americans in China have rather entertaining responses to the Mandarin version of “uh” or “um”. It sounds like “nee gah”. I’ve heard of fights breaking out.

Humpty Dumpty’s most famous line is, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” When Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things,” to which Humpty answers, “The question is which is to be master—that’s all.”

English has by far the largest lexicon of any language on the planet, with roughly one million words. When there are so many ways to express any idea in English, and with laser precision too, it is amazing that we have let a small cabal of authoritarians take control of our vocabulary. Censorship is both a physical and mental process. It is at once the banning of actual communication media, but it is also controlling the words we use and how we use them.

It is vital that we take back and protect our languages. The meanings of words have been weaponized to control our thinking and discourse. The Humpty Dumptys of the world are fragile and hollow, and they are precariously balanced. A stiff breeze can destroy their power, so we must push at every chance to help unseat them.

Quote:“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.”

So dust off that thesaurus and reclaim your mind! Freedom is only a synonym away.

Si mundus vult dicipi, ergo dicipitatur.

There’s a perfect film for today’s topic that I bet most folks don’t know about: Pontypool (2008). It’s a Canadian film from folks most of us have never heard of, about a mind virus that is literally transferred through English words. It’s a very good film and pairs well with such classics as Fahrenheit 451 (1966). I think you’ll find it compelling.

Quote:Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the Epstein documents have been slowly disappearing off the official site—especially those having to do with the Rothschilds. The Iran War has at least had one tangible benefit, from a certain point of view.

It’s very telling to me that Eric, Don-Don and Ivanka have quietly backed away from Dear Old Dad. All three were ever-present during the first administration, Don-Don and Barron were highly visible during the 2024 campaign, but all of them have simply vanished in the mediaspace. One might interpret that as the kids being aware that Dear Old Dad is losing his mind.

From 2017 to 2020, there was a global phenomenon called “Q” or “Q-Anon”. That whole operation seems to have faded completely from mass memory, except for perhaps a couple of commentators (looking at you X-22).

I wrote 35 articles (full list at bottom of link) over those years, examining in depth the Q Phenomenon, and came to the conclusion that it was a major propaganda operation that superficially functioned as a marketing campaign, but was primarily a network mapping project.

My full argument is laid out in my series, but for our purposes here I want to focus on a major theme of the Q Operation: Trump was recruited by a secret cadre of “generals” to oversee the dismantling and final destruction of the NeoCons and American empire. While the proposition stretches credulity, let’s assume it’s true for the sake of argument.

A great number of people now believe that Trump has lost his ever-lovin’ mind, and objectively that is hard to refute. Attacking Iran, shattering his MAGA movement, turning on allies like Massie and Green, breaking nearly all his campaign promises, at least concerning foreign policy, and possibly breaking his fragile economic “recovery” all point to a man in mental collapse.

However, if we place these data points in the context of Q’s assertion that Trump’s true purpose is to destroy the Deep State, the picture suddenly shifts.

Let’s suppose that the Deep State is so entrenched in global governance that it cannot be voted out, revolted against, or otherwise done away with. If the US dollar is a “track and trace” tool to follow Deep State penetration, then they are dug in like ticks on the blood supply of the world. The only way to kill the Deep State is the same theory behind chemotherapy in cancer treatment: bring the patient to the brink of death, hoping the cancer cells will die before the rest of the patient.

If we assume this theory, then global chaos, medical shut-downs, energy wars, and non-sensical agenda-less policies seem to line up. In order to kill the petrodollar and the Military-Industrial Complex once and for all, it must be stretched to the utter limit until it is ‘splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds’ (see JFK who was also shot at).

Q said on numerous occasions that we are in a war taking place far above the heads of us peons. Anyone doing an objective analysis can clearly see that World War III started back in December of 2020, and is still raging around the planet. There is not a single human, much less a nation, that is unaffected by global shut-downs and energy shocks, not to mention soaring food and commodity prices. While hot conflicts are still fairly limited—the Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran—more are likely to spring up soon.

If the goal is to reset the entire planet, killing the dollar hegemon and ensuring that the desire and ability to wage hot war are finally trampled, then we seem to be on the right path.

Is any of this possible? All things are possible. Is any of it plausible? It depends on how much power you ascribe to the elites of the world.

We have long lived in a fascist architecture, where corporations have superseded national de jure governance and borders. The BRICS represent a somewhat more humanist and organic movement, while the West and the dollar are clearly little more than corporate enforcers of a de facto control system.

So, the Question comes down to: is/was Q real, and did it represent an actual “insider” effort to destroy the Deep State (corporatism)? Or was it a sophisticated psy-op designed to rally support for the elites defending their Ivory Towers?

My conclusion was the Q is/was absolutely real, and that it had clear agendas and planted a great number of thought memes that have since become “mainstream” thinking (see Pizzagate for one). It was a global phenomenon at the time, with “Anons” springing up in every corner of the planet, and enthusiastic Q Fans showing up at every Trump rally. That’s not the work of a couple of influencers in the Philippines operating a chat room. Not even Pet Rocks were that big.

Since the end of World War II, we’ve lived in an oddly contrived “reality” designed to pacify the masses. Blinky lights and dingy dongs in boxes have kept us all pleasantly distracted, while the big kids ruled the roost. It appears we are now in an existential battle for humanity, with Borg cybernauts on one side, and flesh-and-blood humans on the other.

It all comes down to two choices: either Q was telling the truth and Trump was recruited to lead the crypto-war against the Deep State; or, a man who has been under mental and physical attack every minute of the past 11 years has lost his ever-lovin’ mind.

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

Si mundus vult dicipi, ergo dicipitatur.

=====

I wracked my brain to think of an unusual and/or little-known flick to illustrate today’s theme, and I came up with Winter Kills (1979). It’s clearly based on the JFK/RFK drama, and the direction is a bit shaky—one of William Richards’ early films—but with Jeff Bridges, John Huston and Anthony Perkins in the cast, who cares? Well worth a rainy Sunday afternoon. This is JFK (1991) written by Franz Kafka and directed by Orson Wells, and presaging Arlington Road (1999). Go for the triple feature!