Thread 🧵🧵🧵
The Redpills of our Identity:

Who are we?
Where are we?
When are we?
What are these remnants?
Why was history hidden?

Grok AI says COVID vaccines are “absolutely safe and effective.”

Meanwhile, other bots are literally telling people how to end their lives.

This isn’t a glitch—it’s part of the plan. A look inside the mindset of the people designing the systems that will soon decide what you’re allowed to say, believe, and do.

Now, those same people want to guide you through mass unemployment with “universal high income.”

So ask yourself: is this really who you want in charge of your money, your voice, and your children’s future?

🧵 THREAD

To give you a brief overview, the UN, WEF, international bankers, and technocrats are planning to collapse the world as we know it through a planned demolition.

Their goal is to rebuild into the digital age. You may have heard it called the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Golden Age—all the names that are far more palatable than the coming reality, which will see everyone locked in a digital prison of 24/7 surveillance, monitoring, and slavery. And it will indeed be slavery, because after the AI takeover, humans will be left with no work, no money, and no purpose.

The proposed solution to this is “free” money. A universal basic income—or universal high income, as Elon Musk calls it. It will be a nominal amount of digital currency paid to you by the powers that be, as long as you comply with what they tell you. If their plan succeeds, you won’t be able to survive without their digital currency. That is their plan and they’ve clearly outlined it in multiple texts.

@zeeemedia reported on this in depth two years ago. You can watch that report here. It’s vitally important.

So, how when can we expect this plan to come to fruition? What would you say if we told you it’s already here?

Today, we’re digging into the worldwide rollout of universal basic income, what that means for humanity, and what you can do to prepare and fight back.

Tonight’s report opened with a look back at Andrew Yang’s push for universal basic income (UBI).

In 2019 and 2020, the public wasn’t ready to embrace something so sweeping. But once technocrats gained serious influence over global policy and the digital future, the landscape changed. What was once dismissed as a fringe idea has quietly moved into the mainstream, reshaped as part of a broader global transformation.

That shift became easier to grasp after hearing how many tech elites envision humanity’s future. Yuval Noah Harari, for example, once said people will be drugged and distracted because their lives will be “meaningless.” Remarks like that revealed how the architects of the coming system view the average person—not as empowered individuals, but as managed subjects.

The pandemic years only intensified that picture. What had long been called a conspiracy—including the Great Reset—became visible in plain sight, embedded in the proposals and language of global institutions. A “mass awakening” followed.

One idea connected it all: digital ID. Once identity is tied to behavior and access to money, control isn’t imposed—it’s embedded. The result is a shift toward a social-credit-style model, where participation depends on compliance.

Watch the full report: 👇
rumble.com/v72nhmy-lockst…

#DSA fine on @X :

1. A legal expression of European strategic sovereignty

It operationalizes the idea that Europe will set its own rules for its information space—even if Washington screams “censorship.”

cc: @elonmusk @JDVance

2. A practical tool of liberal self-defense

It doesn’t ban speech

it forces honesty of labels, visibility of money, and access for independent research—all preconditions for any defense against information warfare, whether from Russia, China, or U.S..

3. A trigger for U.S.–Europe rift

The more consistently the EU uses the DSA, the more Trump’s circle will point to it as “proof” that Europe is the enemy. That pushes Europe further toward the strategic sovereignty path:

U.S. as a volatile actor, not as the core of the West

We got one last week before the #FantasyFootball playoffs - let’s make it count 😤

Here’s our FULL LIST of starts and sits for Week 14 🏈

ALL CAPS = FAVORITE START/SIT ⬇️⬇️⬇️

#Seahawks at #Falcons:

Start:
Sam Darnold
Bijan Robinson
Kenneth Walker (flex)
JSN
Kyle Pitts (startable)

Sit:
Kirk Cousins
Zach Charbonnet (TD dependent)
Tyler Allgeier
Darnell Mooney (desperate flex)
Rashid Shaheed
AJ Barner

#Steelers at #Ravens:

Start:
Lamar Jackson (lower floor)
Derrick Henry
Jaylen Warren
Kenneth Gainwell (flex)
DK Metcalf (flex)
Zay Flowers (flex)
Mark Andrews

Sit:
Pat Friermuth
Jonnu Smith
Isaiah Likely

The Restoration of Israel Is Literal

Acts 1:7 — “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

1. The World’s Most Dangerous Theological Error

There is no doctrine more violently assaulted by scholars, commentators, theologians, and denominational systems than the literal restoration of the nation of Israel. Every cult, every apostate denomination, every spiritualizer with a doctorate in unbelief attempts to make God a liar by insisting that Israel has no future, no promises, no kingdom, and no earthly destiny. They claim the Church replaced Israel sometime before or by Acts 1. They insist the promises to Abraham were spiritual and not physical. They claim the throne of David is in heaven and not on earth. They twist every Old Testament prophecy into allegory, symbolism, typology, or moral lessons for the modern Christian who is supposed to believe that God says one thing but secretly means something else. The tragedy of it all is that many pastors who believe the Bible are still influenced by the spiritualizers and do not realize that they are preaching a theology that grew out of unbelief.

The average preacher does not see how Acts 1 destroys replacement theology in one blow. He reads the apostles’ question in Acts 1:6, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel” and instead of believing what he reads, he immediately begins to reinterpret this simple, literal request. He claims the apostles were confused. He claims they were asking the wrong question. He claims Jesus ignored the question. He claims Israel already had its chance and lost everything permanently. He claims the Church inherited the kingdom. He claims the kingdom is spiritual and not physical. Every one of these claims is rooted in unbelief. Christ does not correct the apostles. Christ does not rebuke them. Christ does not inform them that Israel’s kingdom is cancelled. He says one thing only in Acts 1:7, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons.” The timing is withheld, not the promise. The expectation is real, not symbolic. The restoration is literal, not spiritual.

This single statement from the risen Lord obliterates every replacement system on earth. If the kingdom were cancelled, Christ would have said so. If the throne of David were now a metaphor, He would have said so. If the apostles were confused, He would have corrected them. Instead He gives them the same answer He gave Daniel in Daniel 12:9 when He said “Go thy way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Christ’s answer in Acts 1:7 proves the apostles were asking the right question. It proves Israel’s kingdom will be restored. It proves the Church did not replace Israel. Spiritualizers hate that truth, but the Lord preserved Israel’s future with one simple sentence.

2. Literal Promises Demand Literal Fulfillment

The spiritualizers who claim the Church replaced Israel seem to imagine that God speaks in riddles, illusions, metaphors, and mystical codes. When the Lord gave Abraham a promise, He did not speak in mystical poetry. He spoke literally: “Unto thy seed will I give this land” in Genesis 12:7. When He reaffirmed it, He said “All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever” in Genesis 13:15. When He guaranteed the promise with an oath, He said “Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” in Genesis 15:18. There is nothing spiritual or symbolic about rivers, borders, land, or offspring. Abraham understood the promise literally. Isaac understood it literally. Jacob understood it literally. The prophets understood it literally. Christ understood it literally. The apostles understood it literally. Only seminarians fail to understand it literally.

When a man rejects the literal promises to Israel, he is not interpreting Scripture. He is correcting Scripture. He is claiming that

God made promises He never intended to keep. He is accusing God of deception. He is spiritualizing away hundreds of verses that have no symbolic indicators, no typological clues, no allegorical framework. The entire Old Testament is saturated with covenantal oaths grounded in literal geography, literal kingdoms, literal regathering, literal restoration, and literal rulership of Messiah from Jerusalem. Jeremiah 31:35-36 is God’s sworn declaration that He will preserve Israel as a nation forever. The text says “Thus saith the Lord which giveth the sun for a light by day… If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.” That means Israel has a future as a nation. It has not been replaced. It has not been absorbed into the Church. Its promises have not been reassigned. The existence of the sun in the sky and the moon at night is the divine guarantee that God’s covenant with Israel stands unbroken.

When Christ speaks to the apostles in Acts 1, He is not erasing four thousand years of divine promises. He is not reassigning the Abrahamic covenant to the Gentiles. He is not redefining the throne of David into a spiritual abstraction. He is reaffirming the literal promises by refusing to cancel them. Replacement theology exists only because men refuse to accept Scripture at face value. Acts 1 confronts them with the literal question of the apostles, and they must either ignore it or reinterpret it. Christ answered in a way that preserved Israel’s future and confirmed that the kingdom is still coming. Literal promises must be fulfilled literally.

3. The Apostles Were Not Theological Children

Many modern pastors have adopted the arrogant habit of portraying the apostles as ignorant, stumbling, spiritually undeveloped men who still did not grasp the true meaning of Christ’s ministry. They treat the apostles as if they were misguided schoolboys asking foolish questions that Christ tolerates but does not honor. This is the product of arrogant scholarship. The apostles were not ignorant. They were not blind. They were not confused about Israel’s kingdom. They knew exactly what the prophets taught. They had been taught personally by Christ for three and a half years. They had listened to Him speak of the throne of David. They heard Him promise them rulership in the regeneration in Matthew 19:28 where He said “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” They heard Him preach the gospel of the kingdom for years. They saw Him enter Jerusalem on a donkey in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9. They knew the Messiah’s mission included the restoration of the kingdom.

When they asked “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel” in Acts 1:6, they were asking an intelligent, doctrinally accurate question based on Old Testament prophecy and Christ’s own words. They did not misunderstand anything. They simply did not know the timing. Christ never corrected their theology. He corrected their assumption about the timetable. He did not say “You have misunderstood the kingdom.” He said “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons.” That is a doctrinal confirmation.

The apostles were not wrong. The spiritualizers are wrong. Christ validated their expectation. If the apostles had misunderstood Israel’s future, Acts 1 is the perfect place for Him to correct them. Instead He affirms the promise by removing only the timing. The apostles were operating with perfect prophetic clarity. It is the modern theologian who has lost his prophetic bearings.

4. Spiritualizing Israel Requires Rejecting Scripture

The reason replacement theology exists is because it solves a simple problem for the unbelieving heart. If Israel is set aside, and the Church inherits her promises, then the prophecies about the kingdom do not need to be literal. The throne of David does not need to be literal. The land

does not need to be literal. The regathering does not need to be literal. The Messiah coming to Jerusalem does not need to be literal. Everything becomes fluid and symbolic. That approach offers freedom to reinterpret any passage as desired.

But spiritualizing Israel requires the theological equivalent of burning the Old Testament. To claim the restoration of Israel is spiritual is to erase Jeremiah 33:14-17 where God says David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne. To claim the land has no future significance is to erase Ezekiel 37:21-25 where God promises to regather Israel and set one Shepherd over them. To claim Israel is replaced by the Church is to destroy Hosea 3:4-5 where God promises Israel will return in the latter days. To claim the apostles were wrong in Acts 1 is to call Christ dishonest. To spiritualize Israel is to dismantle every prophetic book from Isaiah to Malachi.

Replacement theology is unbelief dressed in academic robes. It is the theology of men who do not believe the Bible literally. They pose as defenders of Christ while they deny His promises. Israel’s future restoration is one of the clearest doctrines in Scripture. It requires no allegory. It requires no symbolism. It requires only the text in its plain sense. Acts 1 stands as the threatening wall that spiritualizers cannot climb. Christ refused to cancel Israel’s kingdom. He refused to redefine it. He refused to hand it to the Church. He confirmed its certainty while withholding its timing.

5. The Father’s Reserved Power Protects Israel’s Future

When Christ says in Acts 1:7, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power,” He is asserting the Father’s sovereign retention of prophetic authority. The phrase “in his own power” is not a deflection. It is a guarantee. The restoration of Israel is under the Father’s jurisdiction. No scholar, no pastor, no commentary, no synod, no denomination, and no theological system can override the Father’s decree. The Father controls the timetable, not the Church. The Father controls the restoration, not the nations. The Father controls the regathering, not modern political movements. The Father controls the kingdom, not spiritualizers. Christ anchors the future of Israel to the power of God. The apostle Paul echoes this in Romans 11:29 when he writes “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” That means God will not change His mind about Israel.

If the restoration of Israel depended on Israel’s performance, it would have failed long ago. But it depends on the Father’s power. If the restoration depended on Israel’s righteousness, it would never happen. But it depends on the Father’s oath. If the restoration depended on the Church replacing Israel, it would collapse entirely. But it depends on the Father’s covenant. Christ protected Israel’s future by placing the restoration into the Father’s hands. No one can annul it.

The spiritualizers hate Acts 1:7 because it forces them to admit that Christ believed the kingdom would be restored. They attempt to twist the verse into a spiritual lesson about patience, but the text is explicit. Christ is not discussing patience. He is discussing prophetic timing. The apostles were correct in expecting restoration. The Father alone controls the schedule. Christ shielded Israel’s prophetic destiny by removing the possibility of human tampering. Scholars cannot rewrite what the Father has reserved.

6. The Church Cannot Replace What It Never Received

One of the greatest failures of replacement theology is its inability to explain why the Church never once claims Israel’s promises. Paul writes in Romans 9:4 that the covenants, the promises, the adoption, and the glory belong to Israel. He does not say they belonged in the past. He says they belong to Israel presently. If the Church replaced Israel, why would Paul identify Israel as the ongoing owner of those promises Years after the resurrection

Why has the housing market been frozen since 2022?

Because the cost to buy a house with a mortgage (green) vaulted way above the a) cost to rent and b) the mortgage cost for existing owners.

The net result is that few people have a financial incentive to move. Cheaper to stay renting, cheaper to stay in current house/mortgage.

But - one interesting trend we are beginning to notice is the mortgage payment for existing owners (orange) is now growing faster than rent.

This is reversed from the post-pandemic period. Where sub-3% mortgages and still cheap taxes/insurance made for a very low cost to own for existing mortgage holders.

Now - taxes and insurance are up, and more of the mortgaged population is holding a 6%+ rate. So the costs for existing mortgage holders are rising.

This likely means we'll see more existing owners elect to sell in 2026, as it becomes less profitable for the average homeowner to rent out their house. And more profitable to cash out on your equity, sell, and rent for a bit until market corrects.

Translation: expect more for sale inventory, and more downward price pressure in the for sale market.

1) The other obvious conclusion from the graph above is that finding a way to drive down the cost to buy a house would help unlock the housing market.

e.g., the closer the Mortgage Payment to Buy goes to Monthly Rent and Mortgage Cost for Current Owners, the more home sale transactions will take place.

As the financial incentive to move increases.

2) But that's proving harder to do to than anticipated.

The Fed has cut rates by 1.50% over the last year+, and there has been no meaningful decline in Mortgage Rates.

Meanwhile - national prices are still at near a record high, even if values are dropping in some markets.

ok I promised a thread about my current investment/"macro" (blurgh 🤮) equity plays

so here it is

fair warning, it's a long one

The general thesis is "Kardashev 0.5"

Energy sources are practically unlimited, we just haven't figured out how to reach/harness most of them

we haven't needed to because we wouldn't have been able to use it

AI and robotics changes that, to the degree that we can physically manufacture chips and servos.

Eventually, the marginal costs of compute, energy and non-creative labor will all approach 0 (I don't believe this necessarily implies AGI/ASI but that's a different conversation)

whether money will even matter at that point is debatable, but it certainly does in the interim

The hatred of working class people by those who have taken over the left. A rambling thread. #takebacktheLEFT

I am strongly left leaning. I am the same kind of person who believed in the values that originally gave rise to parties such as Labour and Democrats.

I am not a revolutionary, I don't want social chaos. Many people like me became leftists because we wanted to see coal miners paid properly by rich factory owners and we wanted to see women be able to have choices other than being property of their husbands. The power and rise of the left came from these reasonable desires for fairness.

Unfortunately,
1/

3/ Unfortunately, the ideas behind leftism have some very serious limitations to them.

Don't get me wrong, think they were powerful ideas with important points to be made about exploitation. These analyses were important and valid, and I value them.
But what works in theory does not work in practice, at least not without limits.

One of the biggest problems on the left has been the fact that people who agree with leftist "analysis" of the problems have also bought into it's less useful solution and organizations.

We have seen that while many of the criticism of systemic greed that were valid were made by the left while certain remedies (revolution, forced collectivisation etc) were not.

Most people I know who vote to the left want regulation against capitalist excesses, they don't want to dismantle free enterprise. They also don't want to pay taxes for socialized medicine that goes fund the gender lobby (fake sex changes.)

The left of today is failing for a few reasons:

4/ The left of today is failing because instead of sticking to the goal of protecting the working class, it was hijacked to promote the interests of the academic and political class.

What happened to the left is part of what happens to most political movements that are founded on ideals:
those ideals get sold out, sometimes intentionally, sometimes through systemic failures.

Here's how it happened.

The left was built on ideas. Some of those ideas were good, and compelling.
Some of them were not so good.

But in order to promote the good and compelling ideas (protect the working class, pay people what they are worth, etc), we needed spokesmen. Those spokesmen were academics, polical people, and media workers. And THEY make their living by promoting ideas that don't solve problems. They make a living by promoting fake genders, academic programs, NGOs that get funding from the government they are supposed to be critical of.

As the left recruited affluent, Guardian class bourgeoisie people, we shouldn't be surprised to see the narratives of the left shift increasingly away from solving the problems of the working poor and into abstract narcissist agendas.

🧵 1/ AI may break the internet because it reduces the effort to produce good content, and therefore EFFORT no longer acts as a reliable signal of quality. There's an interesting economics back story if anyone is interested below.

wired.com/story/ai-slop-…

2/ First, the Internet is an information "Market for Lemons."

When used car lots were new in the 50s-60s, there was no way to tell whether you were buying a bad car (a lemon), or a good one (a peach). There was no Carfax or even standardized VINs.

sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ…

3/ Because buyers didn't know a good car from a bad, they would only pay the *average* price between them.

Since they paid the "same price," for a peach or al lemon, buyers underpaid for good cars and overpaid for bad.

Car dealers might not have started out bad, but..

It is axiomatic that if one refuses to recognize a problem, one cannot find its solution. JD Vance is gaslighting and pandering to the Jewish community.
Look at how he distinguishes antisemitism from racism and for what purpose.
1)

The Woke Right or Woke Reich as some call them is real and their ideas are being mainstreamed by J.D. Vance's close friend Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and others.
2)

In fact, Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation has come under fire for his support for Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan and the scandal has damaged the reputation of both himself and the Heritage Foundation with employees and
3)

In 2010, Time Warner CEO said Netflix ($9B market cap) wasn’t a threat, calling it “the Albanian army”.

In 2025, Warner Bros sold to Netflix ($425B) for $83B.

How‘d NFLX do it? One reason was overpaying for 10x talent as explained in a 2009 Culture deck.

Here are 9 key slides:

1/ Netflix competes in media and tech (knowledge work that requires creativity). High-performers in these fields can be 10x better than the average.

In a "procedural" field (manufacturing), the best may only be 2x better (industries that deal with atoms are naturally capped).

2/ Most businesses get more complex as they grow. To deal with this, companies introduce processes (and bureaucracy) and curtail freedom.

In "procedural" industries (e.g., manufacturing), good processes will often make up for a lack of "high-performing" creative talent.

I was reviewing the Title VI hostile environment case of Yakoby v. University of Pennsylvania, currently on appeal to the Third Circuit. The district court dismissed the case with the remarkable and totally false assertion that “At worst, Plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.” 1/

Reviewing the plaintiffs complaint, here are some of the allegations made by the plaintiffs that have nothing to do with "tolerating the expression of viewpoints that differ from their own." 2/

Penn received antisemitic emails threatening violence naming Penn Hillel and Lauder College House specifically, and failed to warn students about the threats. 3/