https://x.com/i/spaces/1OwxWXgedDqKQ
Join us. Trump's Global War Room: Columbia, Venezuela, Houtis...
https://x.com/i/spaces/1OwxWXgedDqKQ
Join us. Trump's Global War Room: Columbia, Venezuela, Houtis...
https://x.com/wcdispatch_/status/1900714510463226159
Join us to discuss Act Blue and corruption
The Top 10 Reasons Hannibal Lecter Was a Terrible Therapist
Hannibal Lecter, a name synonymous with refined taste, intellect, and, well… eating people. While his reputation as a gourmet cannibal is well-documented, less attention is paid to his qualifications—or rather, his glaring disqualifications—as a therapist. Sure, he had a certain charm, a knack for psychoanalysis, and an eloquent way of making you spill your darkest secrets over an imaginary glass of Chianti, but let’s be honest: Dr. Lecter should have lost his license faster than you can say “fava beans.”
Here are the top 10 reasons why Hannibal Lecter was an absolute trainwreck as a mental health professional.
1. Cannibalism is Not an Evidence-Based Intervention
No matter how much we emphasize “integrative therapy,” there is simply no reputable psychological framework that supports eating your patients (or their enemies) as a path to self-actualization. Even Carl Jung, with his deep dives into the unconscious, would have frowned upon serving shadow work as an entrée.
2. Extremely Poor Boundaries
Lecter didn’t just blur the lines between therapist and client—he nuked them from orbit. Confidentiality is important, but when your therapist is using your darkest fears as leverage for manipulation (or worse, dinner plans), it’s safe to say they’ve overstepped professional ethics.
3. His Treatment Plans Were Just… Murder
Some therapists use cognitive restructuring. Others use exposure therapy. Lecter? He used carefully curated homicides to “help” his clients. Encouraging people to kill their problems—literally—is neither productive nor covered by insurance.
4. Sessions Were Basically Interrogations
Therapy should be a safe space where clients explore their thoughts and emotions at their own pace. But with Lecter, it felt more like a high-stakes chess match where the wrong move could result in you being sautéed. If your therapist makes you feel like a defendant at the Hague, you might want to reconsider your provider.
5. Dual Relationships to the Extreme
A big no-no in therapy is engaging in dual relationships—being both a therapist and something else (friend, business partner, accomplice to murder). Lecter took this to a whole new level by also being a predator, chef, and uncomfortably invested life coach.
6. Excessive Gaslighting
A little bit of Socratic questioning? Sure. Straight-up distorting reality to make his patients lose all sense of self? Less ideal. Lecter had a knack for getting people to doubt their own sanity, which is sort of the opposite of what therapy is supposed to accomplish.
7. No Telehealth Option (Unless You Count Creepy Letters from Prison)
In today’s fast-paced world, accessibility is key in mental health care. Yet Lecter had a notoriously exclusive practice, only offering therapy in dimly lit rooms, high-security prisons, or elaborate murder dens. And while his letter-writing skills were impressive, most clients prefer Zoom over cryptic messages written in calligraphy.
8. Excessive Use of Negative Reinforcement
Good therapists use positive reinforcement to encourage growth. Lecter, on the other hand, used threats, psychological warfare, and occasional acts of gourmet vengeance. That’s not just negative reinforcement—that’s full-blown psychological terrorism.
9. Didn’t Take Insurance
We get it, therapy can be expensive. But Lecter’s price of admission—your soul, your integrity, and possibly your liver—was a bit steep. Out-of-network fees are bad enough without the added risk of being marinated.
10. Too Many Clients Ended Up… Dead
Ultimately, the biggest red flag in any therapist’s track record is a high rate of “client attrition” (read: murder). Lecter had an alarming tendency to ensure his patients never left therapy—because they never left at all. And while many mental health professionals dream of a long-term client relationship, keeping them in your basement is not the goal.
Final Diagnosis: Would Not Recommend
Hannibal Lecter may be an intellectual, a connoisseur, and a man of refined tastes, but as a therapist? One-star review. Would rather repress trauma forever than have a session with him.
Propaganda
Trump’s Political Mastery: Exposing the Left’s Contradictions
President Donald Trump is once again exposing the hypocrisy of his opponents. His latest move has forced Democrats into a position where they are openly demanding the release of a alleged terror supporter while ignoring American hostages still held by Hamas.
Democrats’ Hypocrisy on Full Display
Democrats are rallying to support someone who is alleged to have ties to terrorism, based on video evidence viewed by some observers while staying silent on innocent Americans being held captive. Trump is making sure the public sees their priorities loud and clear. This isn’t just a minor contradiction—it’s a blatant example of selective outrage.
By taking a strong stance on defending American interests, Trump has pushed his opposition into a corner. They are now in the uncomfortable position of advocating for someone who is against America’s values while failing to demand justice for actual American victims. This sends a clear message: their political agenda matters more to them than American lives.
Trump’s Strategy: Make Them Show Their True Colors
Trump has mastered the art of making his opponents expose themselves, often using widely circulated media and video evidence to shape public perception. By directing attention to these key issues, he forces Democrats and the media to react, and in doing so, they reveal their true priorities.
This isn’t the first time he’s used this tactic. Whether it’s border security, foreign policy, or law and order, Trump consistently forces the opposition to take radical, unpopular positions. Every time they react emotionally, they weaken their own stance. The result? The public sees who is really looking out for America.
The Media’s Role in Protecting the Left
The mainstream media plays a crucial role in shielding Democrats from their own contradictions. They selectively cover stories to fit their preferred narrative, ignoring facts that don’t align with their agenda. But Trump knows how to cut through this bias. His strategy ensures that these contradictions become impossible to ignore. Even when the media tries to cover for the left, they are forced to report on the controversy because it dominates the national conversation.
This latest situation is just another example of Trump’s ability to control the narrative. By making his opposition reveal their misplaced priorities, he strengthens his position as a leader who puts America first.
Conclusion: Trump is Always Three Steps Ahead
Politics is about controlling perception, and no one does it better than Trump. He knows how to highlight hypocrisy, shift the conversation, and force his opponents into self-inflicted damage. As his presidency continues, expect him to keep exposing the left’s contradictions, leaving them scrambling to justify their indefensible positions.
https://x.com/wcdispatch_/status/1899286058463793476
The Dems Big Play: Crash the Market
Who Controlled the Pen? Oversight Project Probes Biden’s Autopen Presidency
In a provocative new investigation, the Oversight Project, an arm of the Heritage Foundation, has ignited a political firestorm with a bold claim: “Whoever controlled the autopen controlled the Biden presidency.” The group asserts that nearly every official document bearing Joe Biden’s signature during his four-year term—from January 20, 2021, to January 20, 2025—was signed not by the former president’s hand, but by a mechanical autopen. The sole exception? His July 21, 2024, letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. This revelation, the Oversight Project argues, raises profound questions about the legitimacy of Biden’s administration and who truly held the reins of power.
The Autopen Enigma
An autopen is a device that replicates a person’s signature with mechanical precision, often used by public figures to manage the sheer volume of documents requiring their mark. Its use by U.S. presidents is not new—John F. Kennedy reportedly employed one, and George W. Bush famously used it to sign the 2002 Iraq War resolution while overseas. But the Oversight Project contends that Biden’s reliance on the autopen was unprecedented in scope, covering virtually all executive orders, proclamations, and official correspondence during his tenure.
The investigation began with a meticulous collection of Biden-signed documents. “We gathered every document we could find with Biden’s signature over the course of his presidency,” the group stated in a post on X. By comparing these signatures, they found a striking consistency—too perfect, they argue, to be human. Examples from an August 2022 executive order and a December 2024 proclamation show identical loops and strokes, hallmarks of autopen precision. In contrast, the signature on Biden’s withdrawal letter is noticeably different: shakier, less uniform, and, according to the Oversight Project, the only clear evidence of Biden’s own hand.
A Signature of Doubt
The group’s findings have fueled speculation about Biden’s capacity and involvement in his administration, particularly in his later years as age-related concerns grew louder. One outlier beyond the withdrawal letter may be Biden’s December 2024 pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Samuel Dewey, an attorney with Heritage, described this signature as “shaky” in an interview with Real America’s Voice, suggesting it too was handwritten. Yet, across thousands of other documents, the Oversight Project sees a pattern of delegation—or, as they imply, dereliction.
To bolster their case, they cite an anecdote from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who recounted a conversation in which Biden allegedly admitted he didn’t recall signing a 2024 executive order pausing liquid natural gas exports. If true, this lends credence to the theory that Biden may have been detached from key decisions, with the autopen serving as a proxy for unnamed aides or advisors.
Who Held the Power?
The Oversight Project stops short of naming specific culprits, but their rhetoric is pointed. “If Biden wasn’t signing these documents, who was authorizing the autopen?” asked Kyle Brosnan, the group’s chief counsel, in a statement to Fox News Digital. “And if someone else was calling the shots, what does that mean for the legitimacy of his presidency?” Theories abound on X and conservative media, with fingers pointing at figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, Chief of Staff Ron Klain (who served until 2023), or even a shadowy cabal of unelected bureaucrats.
Critics, however, dismiss the investigation as a partisan stunt. Legal scholars note that autopen use is well-established and does not inherently undermine a president’s authority, provided it is authorized by the president or his designee. “The Constitution doesn’t require a president to sign every document with a quill pen,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “This is a manufactured controversy unless there’s evidence Biden was unaware or incapacitated.”
The Evidence So Far
Independent verification lends some weight to the Oversight Project’s claims about signature consistency. Fox News Digital analyzed over 20 executive orders from the Federal Register between 2021 and 2024, finding uniform signatures across the sample. Yet the group’s broader assertion—that autopen use equates to a hijacked presidency—remains speculative without concrete proof of unauthorized control.
The Oversight Project vows to continue its probe, leveraging Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover White House logs or correspondence about the autopen’s operation. “This isn’t just about a signature,” they wrote on X. “It’s about who was running America.”
A Legacy in Question
As Biden’s presidency recedes into history, the autopen controversy adds a layer of intrigue to an already polarizing tenure. For supporters, it’s a distraction from his policy achievements; for detractors, it’s evidence of a figurehead presidency. Whether the Oversight Project’s investigation unearths a smoking gun or fizzles into obscurity, it has already succeeded in one regard: planting seeds of doubt about who truly wielded power behind the Oval Office desk.
Syrian Regime Accused of Targeting Christians Amid Violent Crackdown
https://m.primal.net/PaRZ.webp
Introduction
Recent reports from Syria indicate a surge in violence against religious minorities, particularly Christians, as the country’s new rulers consolidate power. A violent crackdown in the Alawite region has resulted in over 1,000 deaths, including at least 745 civilians, in just the past two days. The escalating violence, which includes reports of looting, forced evacuations, and targeted killings, has sparked international concern over the fate of Syria’s Christian population.
Mass Killings and Sectarian Violence
The latest wave of violence follows the fall of the Assad government, with security forces linked to the new Islamist regime clashing with fighters loyal to the ousted leadership. The offensive has been particularly brutal in Syria’s coastal regions, historically home to Alawite and Christian communities. Reports indicate that:
Entire villages have been attacked and burned.
Christian families have been forced to flee, with some seeking refuge at a Russian military base.
Armed men with automatic weapons have been filmed abusing and capturing Christians, leading to fears of a systematic campaign of persecution.
Eyewitnesses describe widespread looting and executions, echoing the sectarian violence that marked earlier phases of the Syrian Civil War.
Christians in Syria: A Community Under Siege
The Christian population in Syria has long faced challenges, particularly during the country’s decade-long conflict. Under Bashar al-Assad, Christian communities were generally tolerated, but they also faced restrictions. However, Islamist extremist groups, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, have historically targeted Christians, leading to mass displacement.
Before the war, Christians made up about 10% of Syria’s population.
Since 2011, hundreds of thousands have fled due to war, persecution, and economic collapse.
With the fall of the Assad regime, fears of renewed persecution have intensified.
According to human rights monitors, the current wave of violence is among the worst in recent history, with the potential to erase what remains of Syria’s Christian heritage.
International Response and Ongoing Developments
The international community has been slow to respond to the latest crisis, though humanitarian organizations have called for immediate action to protect religious minorities. Meanwhile, Russia, a longtime ally of Syria, has provided shelter to fleeing civilians at its military bases but has not publicly condemned the attacks.
With sectarian tensions at an all-time high, the future of Syria’s Christian population remains uncertain. As violence escalates, calls for intervention and accountability grow louder, but whether global powers will take action remains to be seen.
FBI Investigating Alleged “Honeypot” Operation Targeting Trump Campaign
https://m.primal.net/PaQi.webp
Recent reports suggest that the FBI is investigating allegations of a covert operation during the 2016 election, allegedly authorized by former FBI Director James Comey. A whistleblower claims that undercover female agents, referred to as “honeypots,” were used to infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign under false pretenses. The inquiry, now being overseen by newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel, is raising significant questions about the bureau's conduct and political impartiality.
Whistleblower Claims: The Alleged Operation
According to a whistleblower's testimony, the FBI deployed two female operatives in an off-the-books operation in 2015, before the official launch of the controversial "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into the Trump campaign. These operatives allegedly worked their way into the campaign’s inner circle by feigning romantic or sexual interest in key figures.
The whistleblower further claims that:
The operation was not officially documented, bypassing standard FBI procedures.
The agents accompanied Trump and his team at various points during the campaign.
The intent was to gather intelligence and potentially set up compromising situations for members of the Trump team.
If these allegations prove true, they would suggest a serious abuse of power within the FBI, exceeding the already contentious surveillance tactics used during Crossfire Hurricane.
FBI’s Internal Investigation Under Kash Patel
Under new leadership, the FBI has launched an internal review of these claims. Director Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, has prioritized transparency and accountability within the agency. While Patel has acknowledged the whistleblower’s claims, he has also disputed aspects of the allegations, particularly regarding the role of one specific female agent involved.
Director Patel stated:
"We are looking into the matter to determine if any unauthorized or improper activities took place. However, I want to be clear—some of the claims being circulated are not entirely accurate."
Despite this caution, Patel has confirmed that he is reviewing internal records and communications to assess whether any misconduct occurred under the previous FBI leadership.
Implications and Political Fallout
The investigation has reignited debates over FBI overreach, particularly regarding its handling of politically sensitive cases. The Trump campaign has long asserted that federal agencies improperly targeted it in an effort to undermine Trump’s candidacy and later his presidency. If substantiated, these allegations would lend weight to claims that the FBI engaged in partisan tactics under the Obama administration.
Key questions that remain unanswered include:
Who authorized the alleged operation?
What intelligence, if any, was gathered using these “honeypots”?
Were other intelligence agencies, domestic or foreign, involved?
Did this effort influence or intersect with Crossfire Hurricane?
As the investigation unfolds, political and legal ramifications are likely. If evidence emerges supporting the whistleblower’s claims, it could prompt Congressional hearings, potential criminal charges, and further erosion of trust in the FBI.
Conclusion: A Scandal in the Making?
While the FBI has yet to confirm the full extent of these allegations, the implications of such a covert operation are profound. If true, they would represent one of the most significant abuses of power in modern U.S. intelligence history. As Director Kash Patel leads the internal review, all eyes will be on the FBI to see whether this is a genuine pursuit of accountability or another politically charged controversy.
Why Syria is Strategically Important to Russia from a Military Perspective
https://m.primal.net/PaQV.webp
Russia's deep military involvement in Syria is not just about supporting an ally—it is a key component of Moscow's global strategy. Syria provides Russia with critical geopolitical, military, and strategic advantages that enhance its influence in the Middle East and beyond. This article explores the military significance of Syria to Russia, from access to the Mediterranean to power projection and arms testing.
1. The Tartus Naval Base: Russia’s Mediterranean Foothold
One of Russia’s primary military interests in Syria is the Tartus naval base, its only naval facility outside the former Soviet Union. Located on Syria’s western coast, Tartus allows the Russian Navy direct access to the Mediterranean Sea, reducing reliance on the Black Sea Fleet, which must navigate the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits under Turkish control.
With Tartus, Russia can:
Maintain permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean.
Support naval operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
Counterbalance U.S. and NATO naval forces, particularly the U.S. Sixth Fleet.
In 2017, Russia secured a 49-year lease on Tartus, expanding its capabilities to host larger warships, including nuclear-powered vessels. This reinforces Russia’s ability to project power far beyond its immediate borders.
2. The Khmeimim Air Base: A Key Power Projection Hub
The Khmeimim Air Base, located near Latakia, is Russia’s most important air facility in Syria. It provides Moscow with a critical forward operating base to support air campaigns, intelligence gathering, and force projection.
From Khmeimim, Russia can:
Launch airstrikes across the region with ease.
Conduct electronic warfare and reconnaissance missions.
Maintain rapid response capabilities for future conflicts.
The airbase is well-fortified, equipped with advanced S-400 air defense systems, making it a stronghold against aerial threats from adversaries, including NATO forces or Israel.
3. Syria as a Testing Ground for Russian Weapons and Tactics
Russia has used the Syrian conflict as a live testing ground for its latest military technology and tactics. Combat in Syria has provided invaluable real-world experience for Russian forces, allowing them to refine:
Air-to-ground operations using Su-34 and Su-35 fighter jets.
Drone warfare and reconnaissance.
Precision-guided missile systems, such as Kalibr cruise missiles.
By testing weapons in combat conditions, Russia not only enhances its military effectiveness but also boosts the export appeal of its arms industry, using Syria as a showcase for potential buyers.
4. Counterterrorism and Securing Russia’s Southern Flank
Moscow has justified its intervention in Syria by citing the need to combat terrorism, particularly ISIS and other extremist groups. Russia fears that battle-hardened jihadists from Syria could return to the Caucasus region or Central Asia, fueling insurgencies within Russian borders.
By engaging these groups in Syria, Russia aims to:
Prevent spillover of extremism into Russian-controlled regions.
Dismantle jihadist networks before they reach Russian soil.
Demonstrate counterterrorism capabilities to allied nations.
5. Challenging U.S. and NATO Influence in the Middle East
Russia’s presence in Syria serves as a direct challenge to U.S. and NATO influence in the Middle East. By supporting the Assad government, Moscow ensures that Syria remains a key partner, rather than falling under Western-backed regimes.
This allows Russia to:
Disrupt U.S. influence in the region.
Strengthen alliances with Iran, China, and other anti-Western blocs.
Position itself as a mediator in Middle Eastern affairs.
Conclusion: Russia’s Military Commitment to Syria is Long-Term
Russia's military presence in Syria is not temporary. With long-term basing rights, strategic naval access, and airpower projection capabilities, Moscow has secured a firm foothold in the Middle East. By maintaining its presence in Syria, Russia ensures that it remains a key military player on the world stage, capable of challenging Western dominance and securing its own geopolitical interests.
Ultimately, Syria is not just a battleground for Russia—it is a critical outpost for its global military ambitions.
The Rise of Ghost Cities: Where Did Life Go?
https://m.primal.net/PaPp.webp
China's urban landscape is transforming in an unsettling way. Once-thriving cities are turning into ghost towns, villages are merging due to depopulation, and businesses are collapsing. The question being asked more and more frequently is: Where did all the people go?
Reports and videos emerging from China suggest that the country may be grossly overcounting its population numbers. This demographic decline, exacerbated by the One-China policy and the effects of COVID-19, is causing a real estate market crash of unprecedented proportions. Official sources indicate that there are more than 50 ghost cities across China, where vacant skyscrapers and desolate streets tell the story of an economy in distress.
Zhangjiakou: A Stark Example of Collapse
Among the most notable ghost cities is Zhangjiakou in Hebei, where real estate values have plummeted drastically. In the Garden City property development, home prices have dropped from 12,000 yuan to a shocking 600 yuan per square meter—a staggering decline of over 95%. Properties that once cost 1 million yuan are now worth only tens of thousands, rendering many investments worthless.
Hegang and Jiaxing: The Vanishing Populations
Hegang was one of the first cities to experience a collapse in property prices, with values dropping to mere tens of thousands of yuan for entire homes. In some of China’s largest ghost cities, skyscrapers that were designed to house hundreds of families now contain only two tenants—or none at all. Meanwhile, Jiaxing in Zhejiang is another city suffering from extreme under-occupancy. Despite the project being completed 3-4 years ago, the occupancy rate is below 20%, and real estate values have tanked from 18,000 yuan per square meter to just 5,000-6,000 yuan.
A Real Estate Crisis with No End in Sight
China’s real estate market was once seen as a pillar of its economic growth, but with empty streets, abandoned buildings, and an evaporating population, it’s becoming clear that something is deeply wrong. The lack of demand is sending property values into free fall, with homeowners and investors left in financial ruin. In some ghost cities, there are barely any cars on the streets, further emphasizing the eerie emptiness of these once-bustling areas.
As more videos and reports surface, the question remains: Did China’s population decline more than its government is willing to admit? The crumbling real estate sector, deserted urban centers, and mass business failures point to a demographic crisis that is only getting worse. If these trends continue, China’s economic stability could be in for an even greater reckoning than previously anticipated.
Elon Musk Challenges Putin, Asserts Starlink’s Importance in Ukraine War
https://m.primal.net/PaPL.webp
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has once again stirred controversy by claiming that he challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin to a "one-on-one physical combat" over the ongoing war in Ukraine. Musk’s bold statement, made via social media, comes in response to criticisms of his stance on the conflict and his involvement through SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network.
Musk has positioned himself as a crucial player in Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression, providing the Ukrainian military with Starlink internet service. He asserts that Starlink is essential for Ukraine’s military operations, enabling secure communications, intelligence gathering, and strategic planning in the face of Russian cyber warfare and infrastructure attacks.
Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Starlink has played a pivotal role in maintaining Ukraine’s connectivity, particularly in regions where traditional internet and communication networks have been disrupted. Musk’s involvement, however, has not been without controversy. While praised for his support, he has also faced criticism for his at-times unpredictable statements and suggestions about resolving the war, including past comments advocating for peace negotiations that some perceived as overly accommodating to Russia.
Recently, Polish politician Radosław Sikorski responded to Musk’s claims, emphasizing that Starlink services for Ukraine are funded by the Polish Digitization Ministry at an annual cost of approximately $50 million. Sikorski warned that if SpaceX proved unreliable, alternative providers would be sought. Musk, in turn, dismissed Sikorski’s concerns, stating, "Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink."
Musk’s latest comments have added fuel to the debate over the role of private companies in geopolitical conflicts. While his contributions to Ukraine’s military capabilities remain significant, his combative rhetoric has also drawn scrutiny from political figures and governments involved in supporting Ukraine.
The continued use of Starlink by Ukrainian forces underscores the increasing importance of private sector technology in modern warfare. As the war rages on, Musk’s involvement—both through his technological contributions and his public statements—ensures that he remains at the center of geopolitical discussions regarding Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty.
AOC Remains Silent on Accusations Stemming from Elon Musk’s Call for Investigation
https://m.primal.net/PaOG.webp
Summary:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has not responded to accusations following Elon Musk’s call for an investigation.
The controversy stems from her former aide, Diego de la Vega, who self-deported after working in her office while undocumented.
Musk’s post on X has fueled speculation about the legal and ethical concerns surrounding de la Vega’s employment.
Ocasio-Cortez and Musk have a history of public clashes, adding to the political tension.
No official investigation has been confirmed, but the situation has sparked widespread debate and media scrutiny.
As of the latest reports, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has not publicly addressed the specific accusations that have surfaced following Elon Musk’s call for an investigation into her. A post on X by @remarks on March 9, 2025, featuring images of both Musk and Ocasio-Cortez, quickly garnered attention and sparked a flurry of reactions on the platform, with users debating the implications of Musk’s demand.
The controversy centers on recent revelations about Ocasio-Cortez’s former aide, Diego de la Vega, who self-deported to Colombia after working as her deputy communications director while undocumented. According to reports from outlets like the New York Post and the Washington Free Beacon, de la Vega, an Ecuadorian immigrant who overstayed his visitor’s visa since 2001, left the U.S. for Bogotá, citing newfound “freedom of movement.” Ocasio-Cortez reportedly praised de la Vega, calling him “amazing” and expressing affection for him, but has not clarified how her office managed his employment status, including potential compliance with federal immigration and tax laws.
Elon Musk’s call for an investigation, posted on X earlier on March 9, has intensified scrutiny on Ocasio-Cortez, with some users speculating about the legal and ethical ramifications of employing an undocumented individual in a congressional office. Responses to Musk’s post ranged from support, with users urging swift action, to criticism, with others demanding an investigation into Musk’s own immigration history.
Despite the mounting pressure, Ocasio-Cortez has not issued a direct statement addressing these specific allegations. However, she has previously clashed with Musk publicly. During a House Energy and Commerce hearing on February 25, 2025, Ocasio-Cortez labeled Musk a “billionaire con man with a lot of money,” criticizing his influence in the Trump administration’s efforts to slash federal spending and bureaucracy through the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This ongoing feud, detailed in reports from Common Dreams, underscores the tension between the two figures, with Ocasio-Cortez accusing Musk of orchestrating a “plutocratic coup” against government agencies.
The lack of a response from Ocasio-Cortez on the de la Vega controversy has fueled speculation and debate on X, where users shared images suggesting financial transparency issues, such as Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of reported donations from AIPAC. Meanwhile, critics argued that Musk lacks the authority to initiate such investigations, given his non-congressional role.
As of now, no official investigations or charges have been confirmed against Ocasio-Cortez related to de la Vega’s employment. However, the intersection of Musk’s public call, the aide’s self-deportation, and Ocasio-Cortez’s silence has created a significant political firestorm, with the public and media awaiting her response to these unfolding events.
AI Shipbuilding and the Future of Naval Power: Palantir & HD Hyundai’s Game-Changing Partnership
https://m.primal.net/PWed.webp
In a move signaling the future of shipbuilding, HD Hyundai’s Executive Vice Chairman, Chung Ki-sun, recently met with Palantir CEO Alex Karp at Palantir’s Washington, D.C., office to discuss their ongoing collaboration on the AI Shipyard project. The meeting reinforced their joint commitment to integrating artificial intelligence into shipyard operations and exploring further opportunities within the defense industry.
The Future of Shipyards: AI-Powered and Data-Driven
Since 2021, HD Hyundai has been working on the Future of Shipyard (FOS) project, an ambitious initiative aimed at revolutionizing shipbuilding through digital transformation. The project seeks to enhance productivity by 30% while reducing construction time by 30% by the year 2030.
At the heart of this transformation is Palantir’s Foundry software, which enables real-time data analysis and optimization within shipyards. Foundry collects and processes data from hull assembly plants, identifies workload imbalances, and allows virtual testing of ship engine configurations. This sophisticated AI-powered system ensures that ship construction is not only more efficient but also cost-effective.
Dual-Purpose Shipyard: Civilian and Military Applications
The AI-driven shipyard being developed through the FOS project serves both civilian and military purposes:
For Civilian Use: The project focuses on commercial shipbuilding, optimizing shipyard productivity, reducing costs, and improving efficiency through AI, automation, and digital twin technology. The goal is to accelerate ship construction times and enhance sustainability in the industry.
For Military Use: The partnership between HD Hyundai and Palantir also extends into defense applications, particularly with the development of unmanned surface vessels (USVs). These autonomous naval ships could serve military and strategic purposes, highlighting a broader defense industry collaboration.
While the primary focus is on commercial shipbuilding, the shipyard’s advanced AI-driven infrastructure and automation capabilities can be adapted for defense applications, making it a dual-use technology initiative.
Broadening the Scope: Defense and Unmanned Surface Vessels
The collaboration between HD Hyundai and Palantir extends beyond commercial shipbuilding. In September 2024, the two companies began working on an unmanned surface vessel (USV) project, a crucial step toward integrating AI and automation into maritime defense. As geopolitical tensions rise, autonomous naval solutions are becoming increasingly valuable, and this partnership positions both companies at the forefront of military shipbuilding innovation.
The Role of Digital Twins and Industry Partnerships
In addition to its work with Palantir, HD Hyundai has partnered with Siemens to develop real-time visualizations of ship designs and operations through digital twin technology. This initiative, built on Nvidia’s Omniverse platform, enables shipbuilders to simulate construction processes before implementation, further optimizing efficiency and reducing costs.
A Look Ahead: The Autonomous Shipyard
The ultimate goal of the FOS project is to create an intelligent, fully autonomous shipyard by 2030—one that relies minimally on human intervention. By leveraging AI, automation, robotics, and data analytics, HD Hyundai is laying the groundwork for a new era of shipbuilding where intelligent systems manage every aspect of production.
With continued investments and strategic partnerships, HD Hyundai and Palantir are setting the stage for the future of maritime technology, ensuring that shipyards evolve into cutting-edge hubs of AI-driven efficiency and innovation.
The Socialist & Communist Left’s Playbook: How They Use Rules for Radicals Against the Right
https://m.primal.net/PWeE.webp
The modern Left doesn’t operate randomly—it follows a well-documented strategy. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the guidebook for radical activism, outlining the tactics that socialist and communist operatives use to undermine their opponents. The Left has perfected these methods, using them to manipulate public opinion, silence dissent, and maintain control over political discourse.
Below are the core rules from Alinsky’s guide—rules that socialists and communists on the Left use daily against conservatives, Republicans, and anyone who dares to challenge their agenda.
1. Power Comes from the People—But Only When It Serves Them
Alinsky preached that real power comes from mobilizing the masses. Today’s Left has weaponized this by using unions, activist groups, and media propaganda to push their radical agenda. Groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa aren’t organic movements—they are funded, trained, and deployed to create the illusion of mass support while working to silence conservatives.
2. The Ends Justify the Means
The radical Left has no moral boundaries. Lying, cheating, and manipulating the system are all fair game if they help advance their political goals. Whether it’s election fraud, political persecution, or media censorship, nothing is off-limits because their ultimate goal—total power—is all that matters.
3. Know Your Enemy—And Destroy Them
Alinsky taught radicals to study their opponents’ weaknesses. The Left relentlessly targets conservatives with lawfare, investigations, and character assassinations. From Donald Trump to everyday Americans who oppose their ideology, anyone who threatens their control is smeared, censored, and blacklisted.
4. Create a Perceived Threat
Socialists and communists constantly manufacture crises to justify their policies. Climate change, "domestic extremism," pandemic hysteria—these are all tools to consolidate control. By keeping the public in a perpetual state of fear, they can justify government overreach and crush resistance.
5. Use Humor and Ridicule to Destroy the Right
Mockery is one of their most powerful weapons. They brand conservatives as “racists,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “domestic terrorists.” Late-night hosts, social media influencers, and Hollywood elites work together to ensure that traditional values are always portrayed as outdated, hateful, or ridiculous.
6. Make the Right Follow Their Own Rules
Alinsky taught radicals to weaponize their opponent’s values against them. The Left demands that conservatives play fair while they break every rule in the book. They call for “civility” while unleashing mobs, demand “election integrity” while rigging the system, and insist on “free speech” while banning dissenting voices.
7. Keep Pressure on Constantly—Never Let the Right Breathe
The radical Left never stops attacking. Whether it's endless investigations into Trump, January 6 prosecutions, or pushing new “woke” policies, their strategy is simple: keep conservatives on the defensive 24/7. The goal is to exhaust, demoralize, and ultimately crush all opposition.
8. Offer a “Better” Future While Destroying the Present
They push socialism, universal income, and free everything as a utopian vision while intentionally wrecking the economy, erasing American values, and making people dependent on the government. A weak and desperate population is easier to control.
9. Pick a Target, Freeze It, and Destroy It
They don’t attack the entire Right at once—they isolate and destroy individuals. Look at how they demonized Trump, Tucker Carlson, and any conservative who speaks out. They make an example out of key figures so that others are too afraid to resist.
10. Use Small Wins to Build Their Socialist Takeover
They know they can’t seize control overnight, so they take incremental steps: first control the media, then infiltrate schools, then weaponize corporations. Step by step, they push America further left, knowing that by the time most people wake up, it’ll be too late.
The Path Forward for Conservatives
If the Right wants to fight back, they need to understand the enemy’s playbook. Alinsky’s tactics thrive on conservatives being passive, polite, and trusting the system. The only way to stop this radical agenda is to expose their tactics, push back at every level, and refuse to play by their rigged rules.
The battle isn’t just political—it’s cultural, economic, and ideological. The Left is playing for total power. The question is: Will conservatives fight back before it’s too late?
The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Orchestrated Crisis and the Radical Left
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, a political theory developed in the 1960s by sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, has long been a subject of controversy. Originally designed as a method to force systemic change by overwhelming government welfare systems, this strategy has been linked to various left-wing movements and figures throughout modern American politics. A widely circulated diagram attempts to map out connections between radical activists, organizations, and even former President Barack Obama, suggesting a concerted effort to implement crisis-driven political transformation.
Understanding the Cloward-Piven Strategy
Cloward and Piven introduced their strategy in a 1966 article titled The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty. The central idea was to flood welfare programs with enrollees to the point of collapse, thereby forcing the government to implement radical economic reforms. The strategy was rooted in the belief that a crisis could accelerate political change in favor of progressive policies.
This method of leveraging chaos for political gain has been cited as an influence on later activist movements. Some critics argue that elements of the strategy have been adapted beyond welfare and applied to broader societal disruptions, including political protests and economic upheavals.
Saul Alinsky and the Tactics of Community Organizing
Saul Alinsky, a political theorist and community organizer, is often associated with similar radical strategies. His book, Rules for Radicals, emphasized the importance of grassroots mobilization and confrontation as a means of achieving social and political change. The diagram suggests that Alinsky’s methods provided the framework for the Cloward-Piven approach to crisis-driven activism.
Connections to Left-Wing Organizations
The chart in question draws connections between several leftist organizations, including:
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) – Founded by Wade Rathke, ACORN was known for its voter registration drives and advocacy for low-income communities. Critics accused the organization of fraudulent practices and radical activism.
SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) – A prominent 1960s radical student organization with members such as Bill Ayers and Carl Davidson. SDS played a major role in anti-war protests and leftist political movements.
The Weather Underground – A militant offshoot of SDS, co-founded by Bill Ayers, known for its involvement in violent protests and bombings during the 1960s and 1970s.
George Wiley’s NWRO (National Welfare Rights Organization) – An organization that sought to expand welfare enrollment as part of the Cloward-Piven strategy.
The chart implies that these organizations, working together with media outlets like MoveOn.org and NARAL, were part of a broader effort to implement a crisis-driven political agenda.
Funding and Influence
Another key claim of the diagram is the involvement of influential donors and foundations in funding these activities. Figures such as billionaire George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, are alleged to have financially supported many of these groups. The diagram suggests that financial contributions played a critical role in sustaining the operations of organizations that sought to implement Cloward-Piven-style tactics.
The Barack Obama Connection
Perhaps the most politically charged claim in the diagram is its suggestion of ties between Barack Obama and these radical organizations. Before his presidency, Obama worked as a community organizer and had associations with figures like Bill Ayers and groups like ACORN. While these connections have been widely debated, some critics argue that his rise to power was influenced by the same activist networks that promoted Cloward-Piven-style disruptions.
Obama’s involvement with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a philanthropic initiative co-founded by Bill Ayers, is often cited as evidence of his connection to radical elements within the left. Additionally, his administration's policies, particularly in areas like healthcare and economic stimulus programs, have been interpreted by some as aligning with the long-term goals of the Cloward-Piven approach.
Conclusion: Crisis as a Political Tool
Whether one believes the diagram’s claims or not, the underlying premise is clear: crisis can be an effective political tool. The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been used as a lens through which critics view leftist activism, arguing that manufactured crises are used to push radical policies. While some see these tactics as necessary to achieve social justice, others warn that they can lead to government overreach, economic instability, and political polarization.
As political discourse continues to evolve, the debate over orchestrated crisis strategies remains relevant. Whether applied to welfare, voting systems, or broader societal upheavals, the question remains: To what extent are political movements intentionally creating crises to reshape the system?
