Polish Government Lied About Kraków Mass Shooter’s ‘Far-Right’ Ties. By Kurt Zindulka at Breitbart.

Warsaw initially described [the Kraków gunman, who killed nine people] being “fascinated with far-right ideologies” before admitting that the claim was merely an “initial hypothesis”. …

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

The assertion that the shooter was aligned with the far-right was immediately picked up by the international press and dominated initial discussions surrounding the attack. …

On Sunday, the Polish daily Super Express reported that the 24-year-old suspect — who has now died of gunshot wounds received during the initial police response — had “no ties to any right-wing parties or extreme right-wing organisations”. The paper added that security services have also found no trace of him being tied to the extreme right online, citing several sources with knowledge of the investigation.

Polish publisher Onet reports today that police found a Gadsden ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ flag in the man’s room, which may have erronously informed the initial statement. The prosecutor, however, clarified that there were no symbols associated with far-left or far-right associations found on his walls.

The national prosecutor’s office said: “This flag isn’t universally associated with any extremism. It’s used for various purposes, including the snake on one of Metallica’s albums”. …

The gunman did not leave any document outlining his motivation in his car or at his home. … Those who knew the alleged attacker have also denied that he was on the far-right. …

Oh really?

Meanwhile, Warsaw paper of record Rzeczpospolita reported that evidence was found indicating that the suspect may in fact be an “ultra-leftist”, with a source from the Kraków police saying that they had found images of him “posing with flags”.

Antonio Graceffo at Gateway Pundit:

Poland’s left-leaning Tusk government and international media labeled Kraków gunman Michał Oksiński far-right, but prosecutors found no evidence of a right-wing affiliation, while images circulating on X from deleted Facebook accounts attributed to him appear to show him posing with an LGBT Pride flag and mocking the pope. …

Other photos and posts circulating on X claim to show the gunman marching with left-wing demonstrators behind banners reading “Refugees Welcome” and “Without states, without borders,” and supporting other left-wing causes.

Carlo Martin:

In Poland, the prosecutors in charge of the investigation into the Kraków attack have OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED that there is NO EVIDENCE that the terrorist Michal Oksinski is “far-right”.

With this, Donald Tusk’s government have been exposed as LIARS for claiming something that was not true.

Australian ABC reported the mass shooting, not providing many facts, but stated three times that the shooter was believed to be “far-right”. You think they will correct that lie?

hat-tip Matthew T.

Let’s Talk About Fraud. By Sarah Hoyt. We didn’t want to go there, but this is worth considering.

I think there’s massive fraud because, even when machines aren’t used, it’s insecure by design. …

I also think there’s massive fraud when the right wins. I just think the right beat the fraud in those cases. …

Like most — right? — Americans, and because I grew up reading American fiction, I viewed this as “our little flaw” which mostly happened in Chicago and was funny ah ah. And it might have been, mostly, without the added floodgates of Motor Voter. I mean, we know at least one presidential election was stolen before that: JFK’s. But it was the occasional election, not endemic, right?

I thought that until 2012 when I volunteered to poll watch. 1/3 of the people who came in were told that they had already voted. ONE THIRD. I was told in Denver it was 2/3. At least in some precincts. I don’t know if it’s true. I wasn’t there. And people were sent away happy because they were allowed to “provisionally vote.”

They didn’t know the provisional votes aren’t counted unless the election is close enough for them to matter. And the bad votes CANNOT BE GOTTEN OUT.

Fraud? Dear Lord. In 2012 we were already choking on fraud.

There was hope in this though. With all the fraud, the left BARELY squeaked a victory in Colorado. BARELY. And they knew how much fraud was in it, because then they — AGAINST THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTORAL REFERENDUM — instituted “vote by mail” as the default system. The most easily fraudable system. On the excuse of “saving money” which as we all know is the left’s main worry, isn’t it? Fiscal responsibility. Right.

Then came twenty twenty, aka the hokey stick election. And every election more states go vote by mail, which ends up putting more and more states in the “taken over by the puppet masters” camp.

I’m still surprised we got in 2024 and I THINK the only reason we did is that we’d figured out what the fraud was in 2020 and obviated that. …

Why do you think only the Dems do it? Is it just because they are the only party opposing voter ID, which 80%+ of voters want?

First of all, I don’t. It’s the dems and the controlled opposition. But IF THE RIGHT WERE FRAUDING to any significant amount, the press would be on it like flies on sh*t. You know it, I know it, my cat, Havey knows it, and he was never that smart and is now dead.

So the left is mostly fraud. They know it. As hard as they fight against even minor clean ups of elections. THEY KNOW IT. Without the fraud, they’re done. …

2026 involves some new type of fraud:

2026 is clearly a new animal. So, I’m going to tell you what the reasons I have to suspect the fraud was NEXT LEVEL.

First of all, the numbers.  … There is no way in fricking heck the Dems pulled a new 10 million voters out of Marx’s dead ass. That’s fricking impossible. Particularly since there have been a number of self-deportations, etc.

Also if true, there is this: The 15% band. Is it true? I don’t know. but one of my friends on the night said that there appeared to be a 15% swing everywhere he was looking.

Because a lot of you aren’t mathematical, let me explain: for the 15% to be a steady band across the country, it would take a miracle. Like, a pigs are flying overhead to winter in FL type of miracle. It’s not possible. Particularly in elections that are local by nature. It’s never that steady. Some places the swing would be 5% or 10% or 2%.

It is however indicative of a PROGRAMMATICAL fraud. i.e. something programmed in. …the thumbprints of a computer program all over it, and prima-facie evidence of tampering.

“In 15 states, every single county shifted blue: 1,304 of 1,304. What are the odds?”

But wait, there’s more. Two very weird things happened in these elections …

The highly unlikely one: the cities reported first. The big machine cities, where they’re finding votes in car trunks for two weeks after? They reported first. That’s enough to make you go “Uh, I wonder”…. Of course, if the fraud was already baked in, they COULD.

The absolutely utterly impossible: the left outperformed the polls. As skewed to the left as the polls are that’s … unlikely. As incapable of shutting up with their incessant signaling as every leftist everyone knows is, that’s impossible. …

Hmmm:

The dems were stealing signs again. I don’t mean retail stealing opponent signs. I mean stealing signs as a coordinated campaign from above.

This is stupid if you’re doing it to influence people. I don’t think that’s how people decide whom to vote for. HOWEVER it is a masterful way to do battle space preparation for fraud. When your guys wins by ONE BAZILLION VOTES people go “Well, I didn’t see any signs for opponents” and it quiets them down. …

The other thing was the “plans” that DataRepublican revealed for the “color revolution” i.e. to strike back at Trump if he declared the results fraudulent AND the revolts and destruction in Europe. [See The US is facing a color revolution designed to overthrow its government next year.]

Look, I recognize patterns when I see them. In 2020 it was the BLM peaceful yet fiery protests. They were never big enough or widespread enough to threaten the country. BUT THEY WERE ENOUGH TO SCARE JUDGES. So that when the blatant fraud was brought before them, they found reasons to refuse the cases.

In 2026, it was the protests in the rest of the west, the attempted coup in Poland, and the threat of doing the same here. … Which means Trump feels his hands are tied on revealing/persecuting the fraud unless it’s in your face obvious. Which it is, but not in ways that are easy to explain to the man on the street who thought 2020 was too opaque to be obvious fraud. …

Conclusion:

My conclusion is that there was fraud. Massive fraud.

Massive, hard to prove fraud, which members of our government are afraid to contest for fear of a revolution/civil war. …

No, I don’t think we can prove fraud. Or at least not right now in a way that the dear little LIVs [low information voters] will get it through their heads. The normalcy bias holds.

More on the signs of fraud here, here, and here.

The massive leftist campaign on social media for the US midterms. By Elizabeth Stauffer at Legal Insurrection.

The explanation:

CNN contributor and progressive activist Van Jones explained to colleague Kaitlan Collins precisely how Democrats were able to pull off their surreal blowout victory. “Now it can be told,” Jones said with a sly grin on his face.

“How did we win the narrative on affordability? Was it just these nice little Democrats out there running for office and going to — No. The Republicans never figured out what we were doing.

“There’s something called the American Accountability Network. Tens of thousands of online humans — not bots — coordinated to make the affordability message a winning message online.” …

“32.5 million people hit on Instagram every day, 88.8 million hit on Twitter, X every single day. And 185 million hits on Facebook every single day. And they never figured it out.”

“The Republicans could not understand. It wasn’t bots, it was actual human beings. The most effective online organizing campaign … flew under the radar screen.

Driving the kitchen table affordability message and tying that to Democrats on a positive and Republicans on a negative. …

“And what that meant was, everywhere you go, people are talking about affordability.”

Jones noted that “they couldn’t get any traction on these cultural war issues anymore,” but had “figured out how to get around all that.”

Analysis:

I would call [this campaign] manipulative, nefarious, and unscrupulous. However one views it, the operation was so effective that even many Republicans fell for it.

Well aware that the party had nothing real to offer the American people, and desperate to escape the political wilderness they’d inhabited since November 2024, Democrats fabricated a lie and pounded it into voters’ minds ‘every single day.’

While both parties spend big to win the messaging war, there is something deeply cynical about inventing a narrative and then flooding social media with it until repetition does the work that evidence cannot.

Think about how advertisers capture our attention. We don’t have to study every advertisement or consciously weigh every claim. A slogan here, a familiar phrase there, a headline glimpsed while scrolling — repeated often enough, a message can begin to feel like something we already know. Familiarity can pass for credibility.

Now apply that approach to political messaging on a massive and unprecedented scale. …

Strategy:

Democrats have waged similar disinformation campaigns in every election since Donald Trump arrived on the political stage in 2015. From that point forward, elections stopped being about issues for Democrats. Their overriding priority shifted from debating policy to destroying Trump and securing one-party rule in the U.S.

Ahead of the 2016 presidential election, the party manufactured the Russian collusion hoax. The ensuing investigations stretched through the 2018 midterms, casting a shadow over the very legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.

The party’s strategy in 2020 was two-fold. As the Twitter Files revealed, Democrats colluded with the FBI, Big Tech, and the legacy media to suppress damaging coverage of the Biden family’s influence-peddling business and then-candidate Joe Biden’s declining cognitive abilities ahead of the election. Simultaneously, they pushed the disingenuous narrative that Trump posed a threat to “our democracy.”

In 2022, affordability actually was a pressing issue. When voters cast their ballots that November, inflation stood at 7.7%, down from its 9.1% peak several months earlier. To divert attention from that reality, Democrats made abortion the centerpiece of their campaign. The Biden FBI also raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August that year.

Well maybe. It still doesn’t explain how the Democrats did much better than the polls, which are biased in their favor. Or how the Republicans lost so decisively despite scoring slightly more votes than in the previous midterms.

Our democracies have been hacked. By Brivael Le Pogam.

Not the voting machines. Everything around them. The hack has five layers.

1. NGOs. Organizations funded by private fortunes and public grants that litigate, lobby and shape policy without a mandate from anyone. When the vote says stop, they take the vote to court.
2. Think tanks. They write the ideas before politicians say them. Whoever funds the ideas sets the menu before you get to order.
3. Political money. Campaigns cost more every cycle. The candidate who reaches you is the one donors chose first.
4. The new electorate. Instead of winning back the voters they lost, parties started betting on the voters they expected. In 2002, American strategists announced that demographic change would deliver a permanent progressive majority. In 2011, a French think tank close to the Socialist Party advised the left to build a new coalition of graduates, youth, minorities and urban France, rather than fight for the working class it was losing. When a party stops trying to convince the people and starts waiting for a different people, the contract is broken. …
5. Supranational bodies [Europe only]. Rules written in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg that no national parliament can undo. A law voted by your representatives can be struck down by judges you never elected and can never remove.

None of these layers is illegal on its own. Together, they form a system that decides, before you vote, what you are allowed to vote for. That is the hack. The machine still runs, but someone else wrote the code….

Why did she believe that?

Immigration is where the gap is widest. Two countries, same disease, two different outcomes:

• In France, for years, around six in ten citizens have said there are too many immigrants, and seven in ten that policy is too lax. Law after law is passed. Nothing moves. The anger stays, and it grows.
• In the United States, in 2024, 55% of Americans wanted less immigration. They voted. Policy changed, fought in court at every step, but it changed. Two years later, only 29% still want it reduced. When the vote delivers, the anger falls. …

The hack does not rig the count. It shapes the menu. But as long as the vote can still punish whoever is in power, the code can still be rewritten. …

Losing its legitimacy:

A system that has lost its legitimacy cannot stay in between for long. It has only two exits. Both are dictatorship.

1. Soft: Power that no longer needs your vote eventually stops asking for it. Speech gets regulated for your own safety. Inconvenient parties get sidelined, inconvenient candidates disqualified, inconvenient results overturned. Elections remain, the way the Senate remained under the emperors: as decoration. Tocqueville saw it coming in 1840. A tutelary power that does not break wills but softens them, until a people of citizens becomes a flock to be managed.
2. Hard: When people realize their vote no longer counts, they stop believing in voting and start looking for a man. Someone who promises to smash the system that ignored them. Rome lived it. A republic that stopped listening to its people ended with Caesar. …

The only exit that avoids both is the one in the middle: give the vote its meaning back. … The way out is to reconnect power with the people. Referendums on what actually matters. Full transparency on who funds whom: NGOs, think tanks, campaigns. Decisions brought back to those who answer to voters. And a civilization that dares to say again what it is.

The vote is a civilization’s pressure valve. Close it, and the pressure goes somewhere else.

Votes must have meaning again (particularly in Europe where they are especially meaningless):

So let me be clear, because almost no one else will say it.

There is no soft landing. A people whose vote no longer counts will not stay quiet forever. A power that no longer needs the people will never hand itself back. One of them will win.

• If the managers win, you get the soft dictatorship: rules without consent, elections without consequence, citizens without a say.
• If the anger wins, you get Caesar.

History has never written a third ending for a captured republic. The only thing that ever stopped it was the vote, and the vote is exactly what has been hacked.

France:

France has one election left to prove its vote still means something. Maybe two. After that, the question will no longer be whether this ends in dictatorship. Only which one.

Mass migration increases GDP. But is it a financial benefit for the people already living in the country? By Elizabeth Nickson at Absurdistan (who was European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine, and wrote for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post).

Governments and banks reckon that any migration is a net financial benefit, because the immigrants must be fed and housed, which adds to GDP:

The migration storm that hit us post Covid? … Migration is calculated to be a net positive in the balance sheet of every country. They pay some tax, they contribute to GDP. Therefore numbers are guestimated and added to GDP.

Because migration is believed and is calculated to be a net positive in the balance sheet of every country. … The central banks, hedgies and funds “believe” it and besides, they love lowering labor costs.

Hmmm. Really?

Countries need billions of new dollars to pay for migrants. So when a country is catastrophically broke, like Spain this summer, bang! a hundred thousand new migrants and the economy can stumble forward by borrowing money allowed by the European Central Bank, which sees migrants as a positive.

Canadian example:

In the demented Dominion, calculations have hardened around an annual spend of $80,000 per migrant in their allowance, medical, dental, housing and food needs. That is not considered to be a cost by the government. It’s counted on the growth side of the budget….

In the demented Dominion we pay for their “jobs” too, either directly hiring them in the public service, bulking it out unnecessarily, or financing their small businesses. Add another $50K per to the bill. Annually. Because few ever get on their feet. …

If mass migration from the third world really increased GDP so everyone became richer, you’d think we would have noticed by now:

The U.K. after Thatcher, according to [British ex-PM] Truss, median income was equivalent to that of the U.S. Today? Fifty percent of U.S. income. … That’s what globalism has done to the U.K. …

In the demented Dominion, our upper middle class earn ONE-THIRD of that of a member of the upper middle class in the U.S. That is what globalism has done to Canada. Made growing your family impossible. …

Recently in Australia there has been a public recognition that mass migration has lowered GDP per capita, even while slightly increasing GDP. Surely a massive red flag.

To go off on a related tangent, fast growth seems not to be “allowed” any more in the West. It would require reversing some favorite narratives of the globalists, and it would also require many small banks making local decisions about creation of credit (i.e. money, in today’s system), which upsets the current banking monopoly by a few large banks:

What was Truss’s crime? It was growth. She wanted growth. She wanted an end to Net Zero, she wanted fracking and drilling in the North Sea. She wanted tax cuts for corporations AND people. She wanted Investment Zones all over the U.K., where green, DEI, ESG regulations were over-ridden by the Need for Growth. Her plan abolished tax on tourist purchases, and stamp duty, which is a tax on transactions like buying land, houses etc. It reduced employer contribution for state benefits. It was a classic growth budget. It opened the economy for growth.

Same as Trump. Same as every conservative head of state. Common as mud, typical of every single leader since time immemorial. …

That very day, the day she announced a mini-budget for growth, the entire financial system hunted her to exhaustion and killed her off…. Within a couple of weeks, they forced her resignation. That is what they do to every head of state that wants to grow.

Is going for growth a root cause of TDS? What role has the monopoly on money creation played in all this? I’ll bet this never could have occurred under a gold standard — because it never did.

Assimilation versus multiculturalism. By Handre:

Rome grew for five centuries by absorbing outsiders on one condition: they had to become Roman.

Trajan came from Spain, and Septimius Severus came from Libya. Newcomers learned Latin, served in the legions, took Roman names, and became citizens of the empire.

Emperor Trajan, 117 AD

In 376, the Goths [settled] inside the empire as an autonomous people, the first time Rome admitted an entire Germanic nation as a unit. Nobody asked them to become Roman. They kept their own leaders, warriors, and church.

Alaric, a Gothic commander holding a Roman military post, sacked Rome in 410, and in 476 a Germanic general, Odoacer, deposed the last Western emperor. …

Lesson learned the hard way:

A society absorbs newcomers as fast as it can teach them its ways. Beyond that rate, newcomers keep their own ways, and the host culture shrinks into a minority within its own borders. In both cases, rulers made the decision, and the provincials who lived beside the newcomers paid for it.

Either they assimilate into the host culture, or the host culture falls to the newcomers.

Now, increasingly as their numbers grow, Muslims in Australia vote for Muslims, Indians for Indians, and so on.

Commentary Australian Greens:

“We are giving vote to him because he is in Tarneit [a suburb in Melbourne’s west]. We will like you to support him because he is in Tarneit… He is the best person I know him from the last 20 years.”

This is what the Greens have reduced politics to.

Utter incompetence and zero ideas. It has become about the mass migration of voting blocs who only vote for their own.

There are entire blocs now where Muslims vote for Muslims, Indians vote for Indians, and so on. And that is not how we maintain social cohesion as a society. This fragmentation has to end.

“We are giving vote to him because he is in Tarneit. We will like you to support him because he is in Tarneit… He is the best person I know him from the last 20 years.”

This is what the Greens have reduced politics to.

Utter incompetence and zero ideas. It has become about… pic.twitter.com/eVQycSE0hN

— Commentary Australian Greens (@GreensAU2) November 7, 2026

The battle for control of AI begins: money and total control.

Bernie Sanders:

I will soon be introducing a bill to give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America.

This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people.

I will soon be introducing a bill to give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America.

This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people. pic.twitter.com/y3ERWOsRfs

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 2, 2026

 

Stephen L. Miller (NOT the WH Chief of Staff, but the other one):

Mostly the concern I see on the political right over AI is cultural because there’s nothing more that the political left and the Democratic Party wants than to get their claws into AI.

Because once an AI is programmed to tell people that boys can become girls it’s the death of truth.

Data centers being built isn’t the problem, the data in those data centers is.

David Sacks (silicon Valley tech investor and Co-Chair of Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology):

I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right. …

What could be more in the public benefit than using half the wealth generated by these companies (which trained for free on the collective knowledge of humanity) to pay down the national debt? There is no ideological bias in that philanthropy.

The blob’s control will greatly increase:

There’s just one problem. Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward.

Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI — a system with even more totalistic power over information, decision-making, and human behavior.

We saw how social media was weaponized to censor conservatives (including President Trump) in the last Democrat administration. The definition of “trust & safety” expanded to mean protecting the public from supposed psychological harms, micro-aggressions, and disinformation (you know, like hearing conservative ideas or true facts about Covid).

That “safety” agenda as applied to AI will be vastly more powerful and Orwellian.

AI won’t just moderate posts; it will curate reality — with the ability to rewrite history, enforce ideological conformity, influence policy at scale, mass surveil Americans, and condition the benefits of the many systems it controls on approved behavior.

America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a CCP-style social credit system in the U.S. — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control.

Conservatives are right to fear where this is all headed but ought to think more carefully about how regulations they are flirting with now (that are widely celebrated among those with a long history of lust for Big Government) will be used against them the next time a Democrat administration is in power.

On the one hand, AI can be used to give a leftist blob near total control over our lives. On the other, AI can be used to fully understand government spending and fix the leaks and fraud, thereby crimping the style of the party of patronage.

In any case, now that someone else has built it, Bernie and the lefties want to own it.

Albanese growing public servants wages ever faster. By Thomas Henry in The Australian.

Fresh figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the commonwealth public service headcount has swelled by 14.7 per cent since the Albanese government came to power, almost double the rate of the rest of non-public sector workforce, while its wages bill has blown out by 35 per cent over the same period.

Notice that the wages bill grew at over twice the rate of the headcount.

Team big government looks after its own. Maybe Fukuyama was right, and history ended when the Berlin Wall came down. The ideological tussle over, that’s when the left started a new life as a party of patronage.

UPDATE:

Young men of the far-Right are the danger, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission. By The Civilisationists.

Islamic religious and political belief should be overlooked, because it is not as great a threat to our society as young socially conservative men, says the AHRC.

The taxpayer-funded commission is demanding that more attention must be paid to the anti-female, anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual prejudices of young men. It argues that an online world of men, called the ‘manosphere’, is radicalising young men towards extremist Christian views and the far Right.

Allies:

The submission by the AHRC to a federal parliamentary committee echoed the demands made by Muslim imams in this country and the Islamophobia Envoy.

Several commenters consider this intervention from the AHRC to be a far-left assertion and ideologically motivated. The AHRC cited extreme left-wing academic research papers to support their arguments.

Fighting obvious truths:

The AHRC told the government that modern research reveals that there is a dangerous belief that feminism and gender equality have disadvantaged men and that traditional gender hierarchies are best.

The commission stated that such ‘harmful narratives’ should be fought against. Equally important was fighting against Islamophobia, and therefore religious motivation should be removed from Australia’s terrorism laws.

Reality:

The submission to parliament by AHRC is in total contrast to submissions made by Australian security and intelligence agencies, which see terrorism as the potential product of extreme religion and ideology.

The opposition home affairs spokesman Jonno Duniam decried the advice of the AHRC. He said “It passes as very strange that the religious and ideological convictions driving violent extremists should somehow be regarded as secondary considerations. You cannot effectively combat radicalisation if you are reluctant to confront the beliefs and ideologies that motivate people to commit acts of terrorism.”

Borderline censorship. You can so see the censorship they want to impose.

US election, more short takes.

Young white men went from being Bernie Bros in 2016, to Trump soldiers in 2020 and 2024, and then turned against Trump in 2026 because he did little to end their persecution in the job market:

 

Immigration won Trump the 2024 election, but wasn’t a big factor in 2026 because he’d largely fixed the problem. Come 2028 however, when the presidency is in play again, immigration might resume its place as the biggest issue.

 

Surprised?

 

20 million more votes than in 2022:

In 2020 Biden got 20 million more votes than Obama ever did. Perhaps those extra voters sat out 2022 and 2024, but came back in 2026?

Is AI the solution to stopping the woke left? By Brivael Le Pogam.

Mr. President @realDonaldTrump

You want to drain the swamp? Then stop doing it by hand.

The West’s problem isn’t the left or the right. It’s that public money has become the only money in the world nobody really watches. Trillions flowing through grants, government contracts, nonprofits, NGOs, subcontractors of subcontractors. And at every level, a leak.

Audits show up three years too late. Inspectors are overwhelmed. Fraudsters know it. Corruption isn’t a bug in the system. It’s the system running at cruising speed. …

AI can watch the public money carefully:

Plug Palantir into every dollar that leaves a public account. Every elected official, every senior bureaucrat, every agency that signs a check with taxpayer money. Total traceability, in real time. Every anomaly flagged in hours, not years. Fraud doesn’t become riskier. It becomes impossible.

Note the direction: we don’t watch the citizen. We watch power. Whoever spends other people’s money gives up the right to opacity. That’s the deal.

 

 

What will happens if the current corruption continues:

You’ve already started. Finish the job. Because if you don’t, there are only two outcomes.

The first: the state becomes a patronage machine. Public money buys loyalties, communities, votes. The Islamo-leftist alliance settles into the cracks, collectivism wins by exhaustion, political Islam pours through the breaches, and at the bottom of the slope there’s a caliphate. Not through war. Through subsidies.

The second: the right, fed up, seizes total control and turns those same tools against the population. Mass surveillance, checks and balances dismantled, a techno-authoritarian state that solves corruption by abolishing freedom. Just as dystopian. Only more efficient. …

No wonder the globalists are afraid of AI:

The technology is ready. All that’s missing is political will.

Musk was onto something. No wonder the left went berserk over DOGE. The left has essentially become a coalition of people who use the state for money and power, at the expense of ordinary people. Milking the cracks in the system that no one is noticing, living off the leaks of money, living high on the hog while bleeding the state in countless little ways.

The only way to stop that coalition of parasites is to watch public money carefully. And, because the government has become so big and complicated, that requires AI.

Democratic whiplash — The Globalist Empire fights back. By Joanne Nova.

Right now, President Xi will be happy. …

Trump won’t be able to appoint cabinet members or judges after January 3 when the new congress is sworn in. He certainly won’t get legislation passed, but then it appears he hardly got anything passed anyway — like the SAVE AMERICA ACT, even when Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. It would have ensured voter ID but apparently some Senators on both sides didn’t want that. …

The Democrats can investigate and impeach but unless the can get to 60 votes in the Senate, nothing will stick. And attacking Trump always seemed to make him stronger. But the Democrats have won 54 seats and two seats are yet to be decided. … If the Democrats [had reached] 60 they [could] overcome a filibuster. But they would need 67 Senators to agree to break Trump’s Veto, or to convict him and remove him in an impeachment.

One man was never going to be able to roll back globalism in two years:

Ultimately the Globalist Blob has had 30 years to create this mess, and they worked together to try to stop him succeeding at every step. The EU, China, Iran, foreign bankers (some domestic bankers), the deep state, most of the media, the ivory tower academics, and the corporate giants that profit from Big Government — they all need the MAGA movement to fail.

Some argue the GOP wanted him to fail too and barely lifted a finger in the midterms. They’d rather lose elections but keep their sinecures and benefits and rule over the carcass. …

Whither AI?

One large side-effect of the midterm elections is that suddenly the AI revolution has brakes it didn’t have last week. Many of the candidates promised to slow AI development. And there were also separate votes on AI measures in some states … Of the 46 proposals that were voted on, voters chose to limit AI in nearly every single instance. …

It’s another point that will make the Chinese Communist Party very happy. In the existential race to reach the Superintelligence singularity first, this was a great result for China.

Who benefits?

How far left will the US now go?

DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer confirms their platform includes:

– Abolishing the Senate, presidency, & Supreme Court
– Abolishing ICE, borders, & prisons
– Defunding the Pentagon
– Mass amnesty for illegals

DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer confirms their platform includes:

– Abolishing the Senate, presidency, & Supreme Court
– Abolishing ICE, borders, & prisons
– Defunding the Pentagon
– Mass amnesty for illegals pic.twitter.com/rPQiT9HCXN

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 26, 2026

 

Jonathon Turley:

Various sites are running lists of targets as influencers such as Hasan Piker is posting on “WE’RE GONNA PUT YOUR ASS IN JAIL EVERYONE GET MORE WOKE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

The conditions on the Hill are only likely to make such rage politics more appealing with the new Congress.

Glenn Reynolds:

Now we have prominent Democrats talking about throwing their opponents in jail, seizing Elon Musk’s companies — after throwing him in jail for, I dunno, the crime of being in opposition I guess — and enacting various changes, like packing the Supreme Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, and opening the borders to ensure that no election can remove them from power again.

That’s “late democracy.” Very late. …

A moral and religious people doesn’t crow about imprisoning or executing its political opponents, or locking politics down to ensure that they reign forever.

And people who do that sort of thing lose the protecting cloak of legitimacy (though they will try to cling to it). If norms don’t protect their opponents, what’s the argument for not seizing power by force and stringing them up? The paper walls of court-packing and state-adding are no protection against the universal political solvent, force.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon and took Rome because his political opponents were going to subject him to sham trials and probably take his life. The last residuum of the old Republic couldn’t stop him, and Rome became a less lawful place. …

Just a few election cycles ago, Mohammed Abdulrahman El-Sayed and James Talarico would have been utterly unelectable. Now they’re winning candidates. In this world, much conventional wisdom based on politics in the old world is no longer valid.

 

The insane cult of Russell Brand. By Brendan O’Neill at spiked.

The lanky, slimy git has been found guilty of rape and sexual assault. The man who hoodwinked the liberal elite with verbose bollocks about revolution before becoming the God-botherer-in-chief of the crank right will now only have a cellmate to dump his word salads on. Thoughts and prayers for whoever that turns out to be.

The Brand case was both horrible and entirely unsurprising. The court heard how he pinned women down, mauled them in hallways, ignored their pleas to stop. He used the ill-gotten stardom showered on him by TV stiffs and liberal editors — fools paralysed with awe by his windy charlatanism and sixth-former word-vomit — to surround himself with young women. Then he preyed. He now faces a hefty jail sentence.

Yet is anyone shocked? JK Rowling put it best when the charges were first brought against him: ‘It’s always the ones you most suspect.’ He had serious sex-pest energy. They say you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover but you should if he’s 37 and still wearing spray-on jeans and 17 necklaces. …

He might have titillated the posh left and later the batshit right with his salacious gibberish, but there wasn’t a normie in the land who’d let their daughter within a mile of him. …

It’s time to turn the spotlight on every Oxbridge muppet who fell for the grift of a man whose only skill was stringing together five-syllable adjectives in a chimney-sweep accent. Long before he became a digital John the Baptist for Tucker Carlson and incels, he was the dahling of Britain’s liberal (sic) intelligentsia (sic). Looking back, it was completely mental. The BBC lapped up his drivel like a cat at milk. He was hardly ever off Newsnight, chewing the cud with Jeremy Paxman and Emily Maitlis about ‘revolution’ and whatnot. …

The right was just as bad. When the left was done with Brand — finally realising he wasn’t actually the messiah in low-crotch jeans — the right lapped him up. He converted to Christianity and became a garrulous fixture in MAGA-adjacent circles. …  As recently as September, he appeared at a conference with RFK Jr and JD Vance.

The Cult of Brand really was insane. The midwits and lightweights of both left and right built an altar to this one-trick carnival act.

Russell Brand Convicted In UK Court On Charges Of Raping While Not Muslim. By The Babylon Bee.

“Everyone knows the rules,” said Mr Justice Joel Bennathan. … “If you had just been a Muslim when you had done these things, we would simply look the other way, of course.”

At publishing time, Brand had petitioned to officially change his name to “Muhammad Brand” in hopes of receiving a more lenient sentence.

I can’t help wondering if he was allowed to behave badly while he was proselytizing the left’s narrative, but once he switched away from the left they found misbehavior from ten and twenty years ago and shut him up. No one on the left ever has to answer for this sort of bad behavior.

Lesson for rapists and pedos: Be prominently of the left, and you might never be investigated or prosecuted. Jimmy Saville springs to mind.

Islam is way ahead of the modern left on this. The sentence for apostates is death.