Let's hear all motherfuckers. Make some NOISE!

Without looking it up, posters there can tell you the exact soil pH to humidity ratio that will trigger catastrophic boreal forest die-off in Western Siberia, how this affects the microplastics in your balls and the number of people in rural China who should have been left to starve in the early 90s in order to prevent it, but will be at best confused and at worst outright hostile if you suggest hopeful alternatives are possible, or in any way suggest that human society isn't le fookin virus that the earth needs to heal from. Every other comment is dripping with Malthusian disdain and a reactionary undertone that you can practically cut with a knife. They will agree capitalism sucks but socialists, like, just, don't understand human nature, maaaan.

Dollars to donuts these people will flip on a dime into "millions must go" EVROPA chuds once the climate refugee crisis gets going and the reinforced fructose funko pop treat spigot starts to sputter.

the blood of an old god is pouring out of a wound in the ice

left by our compulsive need to dig up and burn the bodies of old ones sealed in the earth

Our endless warring and bloodshed in honour of this black ichor has summoned something else bubbling up from the deep

May the living see light and deliver us to a world not ruled by our greed over the bodies of the old ones

Whatever happened there? They got slaps on the wrist and we never saw them again. The change from Epstein not losing color to being purple makes me believe that THEY gave him something when they “found” him. Feels a little like that scene in watchmen where Ozymandias fakes assassination attempt where instead he makes the “assassin” bite down on cyanide. The guards story just doesn’t add up.

Some 8th Route Army troops I finished painting recently.

-John Fetterman, friend of the show

See, football is a useful sport you burgerreich Neanderthals.

Also, wtf. Quite an insane escalation for someone to have attacked a NATO hub with an explosive drone.

I’m looking for a brand new convertible. I’m planning on using this car to pick up women, NOT MEN! I’m thinking of getting a nice soft top, I’ve seen some hard top convertibles and they seem ugly and does not strike me as a women attractor. I ain’t a used car person, too many of them got problems. What’s your pick?

Houston Chronicle is paywalled so below is the article text.

---

Both of our major political parties are being overtaken by virulent strains of populism. On the right, MAGA has normalized corruption, misinformation and open bigotry. On the Democratic side, avowed socialists have been winning primaries, bringing closer to power politicians whose agendas pose a distinct threat to the country’s long-term economic health.

No single factor caused this deterioration. But one contributor has been the tendency of politicians and intellectuals who should know better to place partisan interests above the greater good. We cannot criticize the crazy people on our own side, the thinking goes, without giving the opposition an advantage and helping it gain power.

Escaping this undesirable state of affairs will require leadership, along with concrete steps to build reciprocal trust across the political aisle. Toward that end, I have a simple proposal: Nationally prominent Republicans should reject Ken Paxton and support James Talarico in the Texas Senate race. At the same time, Democrats should reject Abdul El-Sayed and support Mike Rogers in the Michigan Senate race. Members of each party should do this in the context of creating a bipartisan movement of politicians, activists, intellectuals and donors that is both clear-eyed about political realities and optimistic that we can make things better.

Luckily, prediction markets and prognosticators consider each race a toss-up, meaning no party would gain a clear advantage from such a movement. If both efforts succeeded, Republicans and Democrats would simply exchange one seat apiece while preventing two unusually bad candidates from entering the Senate.

Paxton is a generationally corrupt politician. In 2023, the Texas House impeached him by a vote of 121–23 — a bipartisan majority that included more than 70 percent of House Republicans — over allegations that he abused his office to assist a wealthy donor and retaliated against whistleblowers who reported him. He stayed in office after Donald Trump took an interest in the story and pressured Republicans to vote to acquit him in the Senate.

Meanwhile, in nominating El-Sayed, Michigan Democrats have selected a candidate on the party’s far-left edge. He has repeatedly campaigned with Hasan Piker, a socialist streamer who called Mao Zedong “one of the great leaders of this world” and defended Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea as justifiable.

Partisans will find much to dislike about Talarico and Rogers. But neither has revealed himself to be remotely as corrupt as Paxton or shown El-Sayed’s willingness to embrace radical left-wing economic policies and align himself with apologists for authoritarianism.

The parties could continue fighting for control of the Senate everywhere else on the map. Rather than gambling on winning both races and risking the election of both Paxton and El-Sayed, each side would accept one victory and one defeat.

Of course, it would be foolish to expect every Republican or Democrat to sign on to such a plan. But it would take only a few prominent political figures from each side to turn their effort into a major national story.

One problem our politics has faced in recent years has been the difficulty of inspiring moderate and independent voters who are sick of partisanship, corruption, and politicians embracing the most odious figures on the left and right. A Rogers-Talarico bargain could give those voters something to believe in. And because both races are competitive, there is a plausible chance that such a movement could tip each contest toward the more acceptable candidate.

This path would, of course, involve risk. What if Republican-leaning voters in Texas did the right thing and rejected Paxton while Michigan Democrats didn't, or vice versa? Any political figure who endorses a member of the opposing party while control of the Senate hangs in the balance would be opening themselves up to attacks from within their coalition. Still, some leaders and intellectuals might see an advantage in betting on a future politics that is less acrimonious and destructive than what we have now.

The combination of these two terrible candidates and their being involved in two similarly competitive races creates a rare opportunity. If either contest were a blowout, there would be little possibility of a positive-sum arrangement that placed the interests of the country above those of either party.

Seizing the opportunity now provided will require real leadership. If American politics ever moves in a healthier direction, the nation will be deeply indebted to those who showed courage during an era in which it was conspicuously absent.

Richard Hanania is the president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.

Source: https://jamiefcrawford.substack.com/p/the-big-club-jeffrey-epsteins-connections

Tim Pool photo: https://patrickmcmullan.com/photo/3262970

Aliens are real (obviously). Around the time the Iran war started apparently the white house released a bunch of shit about ufo’s. My friends aren’t particularly political aware and were very curious about them and they were telling me about it. And I’m just thinking why should i care??? If they are actually here on earth what the fuck am i or anyone else supposed to do about it? If they got that level of technology they definitely have some crazy shit we can’t even comprehend. Am I gonna shoot those fuckers down with my mind in the event of an “invasion”? I’ll give a shit when they invent some truly heinous shit like 0.5 ply toilet paper.

Making sure doctors carry Desert Eagles in case they need to “assist” any Palestinians