One incident after another it’s sickening.

Mother kills her daughter in Queens NY. Grandfather of the child was in the house at the time.

Mother kills her husband and son in Pennsylvania.

Father kills his entire family including his sons and daughter and grand kids.

16 year old boy walks into a school with a shot gun and kills 3 kids and a teacher and thank god someone came by and shopped the boy. Mother bought the gun for this boy.

Lindsey Clancy murders her three innocent children.

What is the common thread in all of these cases? Folks around these people were aware of how mentally ill these people were and still had children near them and in some cases these people had access to guns.

The 16 year olds mother in Oregon bought him a shot gun for his birthday. He used that weapon to kill those kids.

There is way too many of these incidents.

I remember throughout the 2000's and even early 2010's, you used to frequently see advertisements for donating to charities that help children. That's it. They helped children.

Somewhere down the line it changed from "children" to "girls". The charities now specifically target one gender of children.

These are selfish people man. To even go to child focused charities and then decide who matters because of their gender. And they wonder how they got such a bad rep. Its because of stuff like this. I can't even remember the last time I saw an ad that just talked about children in general.

It's the distinguishing characteristic between the wannabe tyrants and the true leaders. The true leaders say here's an offer, would you accept this of your own free will? And the tyrants say the apocalypse is coming and everything and we're allowed to do everything to forestall it. Right.

Including controlling you and everything that you do. That's the problem. And that's how they get people to fall in line. They fall in line through fear - well, fear and force. But if you then turn to fear and compulsion as your means of governance, then you're a tyrant. I don't care what your excuse is. It has to be invitational.

That's when it gets scary when you see governments telling people that they have to fall in line or these are horrible consequences for you not agreeing to what we're saying.

- Dr. Jordan Peterson (Joe Rogan Experience #2308 - Jordan Peterson)

“Katie, do you need this?” he said he told her. “I don’t think you need this.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has fired Katie Zacharia as press secretary, advisers to the president said, ending her turbulent week-long stint as the White House’s top spokesperson.

Trump told reporters earlier he had asked Zacharia to reconsider her role, all but declaring her brief tenure in the job over.

“Honestly, if I were you, I’d reconsider,” Trump said he told Zacharia on Friday morning.

He said they would speak when he returned to the White House and he would leave the decision to her. But he did not sound particularly encouraging of his embattled press secretary.

“Katie, do you need this?” he said he told her. “I don’t think you need this.”

Zacharia had captured Trump’s attention as a conservative commentator on television, and her hiring occurred quickly after other candidates were deemed ineligible because of critical comments they made about Trump.

Trump did not initially think Zacharia’s performance at her first press briefing was as bad as some of his advisers had, two sources familiar with the discussions said. However, her interviews that followed — specifically her Thursday night appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity — and conversations he subsequently had with his allies convinced him that it was untenable for her to remain in the role, they added.

Her five-day-long tenure ultimately came in shorter than that of Anthony Scaramucci, whose 11-day tenure as White House communications director in 2017 is now used as a measuring stick for the relative longevity of embattled White House officials.

This post only references some of the content from the original article. For the full read, please access the article through this post.

Trump's new press secretary grilled over lawyer credentials

1. Dont talk about all your aches and pains, I really dont want to hear it over and over again.
2. Dont try to dress a guy or give him advice on what he does all day long, don't like it when a guy is really into video games? Dont date guys that are really into video games. Stop trying to change him. Dont nag him about his diet or friends, if you dont like him leave him, hes not a project, if he does change it will be in ways you dont like or predict.
3. Don't wear a mask around him, if you're planning a life with him let him know who you really are, let go of your desperate attempt to avoid loneliness by wearing a mask of someone you're not just because you're afraid of being alone.
4. Take responsibility for your mistakes, recogize them, admit them, apologize and make a change not to repeat them. Dont blame other people for your mistakes.
5. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
6. Dont victimize yourself. Dont redefine words into something else.
7. Respect boundaries.
8. Stop placing yourself in his position before making judgments, he doesn't think like you
9. Dont be a feminist when it suits you and traditional when it suits you, thats called being a hypocrite.
10. Being with you is not the sum total of your contribution to the relationship, you have to actually bring something to the table.
11. Offer to sign a prenuptual agreement if he asks to marry you.
12. Dont change into a monster after marriage because the courts in the US gives you so much financial and emotional leverage to destroy him in case you divorce.

I saw a list of this crap from who I thought was a woman telling men to do better on r/life they didn't let me post this

We always get to see people on modern social media circles talking about how they found atheism or agnosticism while being in a religion. So how about we flip that script?

Cliché or not, they do say that when you get into philosophy, you run far away from God. You become not only sceptical of God, but utterly bitter towards Him. But then the saying seems to add that when you go too deep into philosophy and its distinctions, you start finding God. I am not accepting nor rejecting this claim, but a saying is a saying.

About my journey.

The most freeing realization that I had the privilege of experiencing was understanding that every conversation, every moral claim, will eventually end in some sort of a faith claim. And I realized this while arguing with a rather old gentleman with anti-natalist ideals (I am a natalist), whom I had met in a political procession of all places.

At some point in our conversation, something just clicked in me. There are fundamental differences in our presuppositions that we cannot get over, no matter how much we try. Every single syllogism that we were coming up with was always just coming from those presuppositions that we simply could not debate around.

To him, with his anti-natalist viewpoint, potential suffering is the worst of all evils and should be prevented as a moral obligation. From this claim, he is ready to concede a universe without human existence or even the existence of life.

To me, with my natalistic viewpoint, the potential of experience itself, to exist, is better than non-existence. To me, human beings are the only 'things' in the universe that have the ability to create order in a fundamentally chaotic universe that is travelling towards the eventual absolute heat death. In a nutshell, existence > suffering.

And there is no objective way that any of these presuppositions can truly be proven invalid or unsound. That is an impossible thing to do.

Someone will just believe existence is better, someone will believe non-existence is better, and there is no way to empirically or logically measure which one is the 'better' path.

Then

The freedom that came with the realization of faith claims also came to bite my existential dread back with the good old question: why?

Why can two people, even if given the absolute same preconditions, still have different faith claims that they subscribe to? (Look up how twins can differ ideologically.)

I, during my raging teenage days, used to be a raging communist, an anti-natalist, and also a very pro-choice person. When I was 17–18, I literally used to go to union protests for our local garment workers with the communist student wing of our local university (fun fact, we got beaten by those same workers one day).

But now, I am not a communist anymore. My hate for communism is almost esoteric at this point. Somehow, I have decided that every single human life is worth living and then somehow told myself that grounding morality in something transcendental is better than morality being subjective and agent-dependent.

Why? Was it because I was exposed to more information about humanity, human life, political ideologies, and different philosophical schools of thought about morality? Is that why? Can't be, can it? Because everyone else has access to this same information, but they do not seem to subscribe to my framework.

Now, coming back to God.

I am not here to write about the transcendental argument for the existence of God, or the Watchmaker argument, the ontological argument, the first-cause argument, none of that. Because every single one of them requires a presupposition as a faith claim.

Rather, I want to talk about God as an archetype. An archetype of order, an archetype of 'good'. Well, I guess if you are someone who digs into this stuff, you can probably guess I am greatly influenced by Jordan B. Peterson here.

Every single human being is familiar with sacrifice, but what is sacrifice? Sacrifice is no different from the work we do or the process of gaining maturity. What it means to be mature is to replace our short-term, self-centered, biological whims with the ability to delay gratification, plan for the future, and engage in reciprocal play. This is also basically what work is: preventing ourselves from engaging in actions that immediately satisfy our urges, delaying that instant gratification in the hope of gaining something 'better' in the future.

I asked myself, what could be the ultimate form of this sacrifice? The answer that my mind gave me was sacrifice towards God. Is it absolute mumbo-jumbo that means nothing? Yes. But is there a chance that this archetype of God can create a better society from an utilitarian moral worldview? Also yes.

Then comes the problem of morality. How do you classify something as moral and something else as immoral?

You can say that whatever is in the natural order of things is moral and whatever is not is immoral. Cannibalism and sexual assault happen in nature very, very naturally. Are those morally justifiable behaviors?

Or you can say general consensus, but if tomorrow humanity wakes up and 51% votes that you need to be murdered because your face is funny, would that be a morally justifiable action?

If morality is just something subjective that the human mind came up with, what is truly wrong or truly bad? Anyone can just justify anything and condemn something else.

If morality, for someone means the least amount of suffering possible, the problem arises: who is going to define what that least amount of suffering is? Can someone just say, "This guy has been in a coma for two years, and if he wakes up, he is going to suffer, so we shall cease his life functions"? In that way, we can ensure the least amount of suffering.

Or, like in Hitler's Germany, if we find out that a seven-year-old girl is slowly going to develop polio-related complications, and for the greater good of the Reich we need to euthanize the girl, would that be morally justifiable? Because, at some point, it was a general consensus that such actions were justified.

What I am trying to say, without an archetype of God, as Jordan B Peterson once coined Him as the ultimate fictional character, absent God, morality becomes nothing. It becomes nothing but a tool for the ones' in power and with charismatic authority to use for their own benefit. No grounding of morality in an external is an invitation of the Chaos Gods from Warhammer40k.

That's all for now, I apologize for not structuring the writing properly. I am writing it on the go, but I want to end with the note that, I am still learning, going through everything. And so far, I have realized that I would rather like to live in a society, that has its moral code come from something of a transcendental archetype rather than vibes and feelings.

Thank you, looking forward to reading your replies.

The US petro dollar which was set up by the Richard Nixon administration in 1970s after moving the off of the Gold Standard. The country’s economic and financial system is completely dependent upon this system surviving and growing.

Every time a nation tries to move off of the petro dollar such as Libya and Venezuela there has been some kind of intervention. As long as these oil rich countries continue using this system and is closely allied to the US those governments are safe.

With the turmoil and war in Yemen the stability and continuity of the current Saudi government is in severe crisis.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp

https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/10/12/ukrainian-drones-hit-three-of-russian-tech-giant-yandexs-data-centers-in-four-days-ukraines-president-says-the-bots-thinned-out-too/

You have to look and see where things are still beautiful. And where there's still something that's sustaining and you know, you narrow your timeframe. And you'd be grateful for what you have and that can get you through some very dark times.

And maybe even successfully if you're lucky, but even if unsuccessfully, that maybe it's only tragic and not absolute hell - and you can do that you know, in the worst situation, you can make it only tragic and not hell.

- Dr, Jordan Peterson

Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving to all our fellow Canadians. We tend to celebrate a tad earlier compared to our neighbors down south for those who are confused on the timing. Hope everyone's taking the time to count their blessings and is having a good time eating (or planning to eat!) with loved ones.

And if you're lucky enough to actually see a cat on the street today, don't forget rule 12!