Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Fentanyl Kills 100,000+ Year

Kristofer Ferreyra, 23 months.

Joel Romero, 15 yrs, Miami, FL.

Alyssa Kittendorff, 17 yrs, Downey, CA.

Kermani Gray, 13 yrs. 

Cali Anne Sylvis, 21 yrs, 2002-2023, Weatherford, Parker County, Texas.

Raymone Aragon, 22 yrs.

Brooklyn Jade Bowers, 19 yrs., 2003-2022, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Ella Sweeney, 20 yrs.

Miah VanHouten, 16 yrs. 

Jaci Hinsey, 15 yrs. 

Tyler Williams, 13 yrs.

Shaun Hunter, 16 yrs.

VALERIE ANNE SMITH: Today, research shows babies cry for connection, comfort & regulation, that is crucial to their development, trust, & so much more

For 1,000s of years, babies slept with their mothers. They were never left alone. They were held, rocked & fed when hungry.

Did you know the 'cry-it-out' method didn’t even exist before the early 1900s? Until two men came along...Psychologist John Watson & Dr. Luther Holt pushed the idea that babies should be left to cry. Before that, families co-slept, rocked, or responded to babies’ needs without the concept of strict training. These doctors believed responding too much to infants would 'spoil' them, an idea that shaped decades of parenting advice. They said babies should be trained, isolated & controlled. That babies had to fit the assembly line & office schedules of their parents. Dr Watson had 4 children, 3 attempted suicide & 1 succeeded [. . .]. His remaining 3 children blamed him for their psychological pain & damage. Watson died alone, isolated & estranged from his family...the same painful way in which he brainwashed millions of parents to treat their babies. Dr Watson's granddaughter is quoted as stating, "my grandfather's ideas were a legacy of psychological damage." These methods became parenting norms...not because they were right, but because they worked for the system. A system that demanded efficiency. Not connection. You're not being manipulated by your baby by attending their needs. You're resisting rules built for factories, not families. Your instincts aren't outdated. They're what kept our species alive & emotionally healthy. Without abandonment issues & the ability to have emotional connection with others. Today, research shows babies cry for connection, comfort & regulation, that is crucial to their development, trust, & so much more.

SAMA HOOLE: The deer belonged to the king. The barley belonged to the king. The peasant belonged to the king. And the king ate venison while the peasant ate gruel. This wasn't about protecting animals. It was about controlling protein access.

1066, England. William the Conquering just taken the throne.

Within months, he issues the Forest Laws. Hunting deer is now forbidden to anyone below noble rank. The punishment isn't a fine. It's death. Not execution by sword, which would be quick. Execution by hanging, slow strangulation, body displayed in the village square as a warning. Sometimes they'd blind you first and let you starve instead. The cruelty was the point. These weren't conservation laws. The deer population was massive. Herds roamed freely across thousands of acres of "royal forest" that just happened to include the land peasants had been hunting on for generations. The real reason becomes clear when you look at what replaced venison in the peasant diet. Bread. Lots of bread. Grain-based gruel. Pottage made from whatever vegetables they could grow. The lords continued eating venison. Multiple deer per week. Whole roasted boars. Fatty game birds. Their tables groaned with meat at every meal. The peasants ate grain and were told it was God's will that only nobility could hunt. The Church backed this up with sermons about knowing your place in the divine order. A peasant family could watch deer walk through their barley field, destroying their crop, and be executed for killing the deer to feed their starving children. The deer belonged to the king. The barley belonged to the king. The peasant belonged to the king. And the king ate venison while the peasant ate gruel. This wasn't about protecting animals. It was about controlling protein access. A population fed on grain is weaker, more compliant, easier to manage. A population eating meat is stronger, more energetic, more likely to cause problems for the ruling class. The Forest Laws stayed in effect for 800 years. Eight centuries of restricting meat to the elites while forcing the masses onto grain. And during those eight centuries, the peasant class got shorter, weaker, more disease-prone with each generation. The nobility, eating their venison and boar, stayed tall and strong. You can see it in the armor. Noble armor from the 1400s fits a 5'10" man. Peasant remains from the same period average 5'3". Same genetics. Different diets. The nobility ate what humans evolved eating. The peasants ate what they were allowed to eat. The elites have always known: Control the meat supply, control the population.

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

3:30.  Why is the Muslim Brotherhood a threat to American National Security? 

3:36.  It's a profound threat to our national security not so much because it has elements of terrorist networks within it and it supports terrorism.  But an even deeper threat is it's colonizing us.  It's waging a civilizational jihad against us to build population centers, to silence critics, to make themselves indispensable parts of political coalition and to take political power.  So they're looking at playing a very long game in our country, and it's not to come here to become Americans and to assimilate.  It's to impose what they feel like they're morally bound to do, and that is to impose Islamic law over the US Constitution.

4:22.  I knew that a lot of this was happening in Europe.  I mean we see the effects of it throughout the streets of London, Paris, certainly Brussels, but I didn't know it had gotten that bad already in the United States.

4:35.  It's getting there. Europe is already 20 years ahead of us, a generation or two ahead of us.  And it has been going on really since the early mass movements, like the Communist movements, the, you know, the anarchist movements.  They sort of spawn in Europe and then they come over here.  But they're very well embedded in many communities where you can see in places like Minneapolis, or now you've seen in the election of this Mayor [Mamdani] of New York.  They have colonies down in Texas, really in pockets all around the country, large and small, and they're in some of the . . . most of the immigrants are harmless, but if they go to a mosque, that's a Muslim Brotherhood mosque. They're going to get gradually radicalized very softly, almost imperceptibly, not to come out and endorse terrorism or push people out into the streets to support Hamas which some of them do.  But the really long-term civilizational Jihad mosques, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, will just sort of gradually assimilate people, raise their children this way by going to their religious schools, and create a civilization within a civilization that will never assimilate with us.

5:54.  Why do they care about us?  I mean one of the great Muslim Brotherhood ideologues and this was the organization that was founded in Egypt but the Egyptian ideologue site could tub famously came to the United States I can remember.  It was the 40s or the 1950s but he was grossed out just looking at a community church dance and these were you know we're very modest people in a modest dance but he took it as a sign of corruption and rot and lust and all these different things. So why wouldn't they just avoid America why did they feel that it's their need now to take over America?

6:32.  Well, that's the place for everybody to come.  If America is the real threat whether it's American culture as Sayyid Qutb said or whether it's American support for Israel or American support for other countries that are Muslim majority countries they're just not Muslim Brotherhood countries where the greatest power to support everything they hate so they have to colonize us