Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

DISCLOSURE: Marco Rubio Confirms UFOs Are Flying Over U.S. Nuclear Sites

I TOLD YOU THIS WAS COMING!

For over 10 years, I have been telling you on this website that the “Alien Card” would be the last to be played.

I have been telling you that there will literally come a point in the future when Government officials and “Mainstream Media” would report to you that Aliens are here.

Well folks, that time seems to be now.

Here is Marco Rubio telling you point blank that UFOs have been observed flying over our military and nuclear facilities.  We don’t know what they are.  And they’re not ours.

Now allow me to explain all of this….

This is called Disclosure or at the very least “Soft Disclosure”.

Marco Rubio does not go on camera and say this unless he gets very clear permission and instructions from those higher up than him, so the fact he’s saying this on camera in a new video tells you the Government wants this information to be blasted out right now.

Also, we would NEVER reveal such a vulnerability like this unless there were a much bigger plan and ulterior motive, understand that.

The USA (and any other country for that matter) would not just admit there are things flying in our airspace that are not ours but we can’t stop them and we don’t know what they are.

We would NEVER admit that, unless there was something much bigger going on here.

Keep reading

On the Precipice of Authoritarian Rule

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened to unleash the armed forces on more American cities during a rambling address to top military brass. He told the hundreds of generals and admirals gathered to hear him that some of them would be called upon to take a primary role at a time when his administration has launched occupations of American cities, deployed tens of thousands of troops across the United States, created a framework for targeting domestic enemies, cast his political rivals as subhuman, and asserted his right to wage secret war and summarily execute those he deems terrorists.

Trump used that bizarre speech to take aim at cities he claimed “are run by the radical left Democrats,” including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. “We’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room,” he said. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.” He then added: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Trump has, of course, already deployed the armed forces inside the United States in an unprecedented fashion during the first year of his second term in office. As September began, a federal judge found that his decision to occupy Los Angeles with members of California’s National Guard — under so-called Title 10 or federalized status — against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom was illegal. But just weeks later, Trump followed up by ordering the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, over Governor Tina Kotek’s objections.

“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late last month. And he “authoriz[ed] Full Force, if necessary.”

When a different federal judge blocked him from deploying Oregon National Guardsmen to the city, he ordered in Guard members from California and Texas. That judge then promptly blocked his effort to circumvent her order, citing the lack of a legal basis for sending troops into Portland. In response, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act — an 1807 law that grants the president emergency powers to deploy troops on U.S. soil — to “get around” the court rulings blocking his military occupation efforts. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed, in confused remarks from the Oval Office.

Experts say that his increasing use of the armed forces within the United States represents an extraordinary violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That bedrock nineteenth-century law banning the use of federal troops to execute domestic law enforcement has long been seen as fundamental to America’s democratic tradition. However, the president’s deployments continue to nudge this country ever closer to becoming a genuine police state. They come amid a raft of other Trump administration authoritarian measures designed to undermine the Constitution and weaken democracy. Those include attacks on birthright citizenship and free speech, as well as the exercise of expansive unilateral powers like deporting people without due process and rolling back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers.

Keep reading

How Much the U.S Really Spends to Defend Other Nations From Military Aid to Global Bases and Deploying Navel Fleets

The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to defend countries that pose no direct threat to its borders. From maintaining troops and bases across Asia and Europe to deploying carrier strike groups in distant seas, Washington shoulders an immense financial burden to uphold what it calls the global security order. Nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel depend heavily on U.S. protection — a policy that blends deterrence, influence, and strategic dominance. But few Americans realize just how much this protection actually costs.

A vast network of overseas bases

The U.S. military maintains around 750 overseas bases in more than 80 countries, supporting about 200,000 active-duty troops stationed outside the continental United States. These facilities — from Okinawa and Yokosuka in Japan to Osan and Camp Humphreys in South Korea, Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean — serve as the backbone of U.S. global power projection.

Operating and maintaining these installations costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $55–70 billion annually, according to estimates by the Department of Defense and the Costs of War Project at Brown University. While host nations like Japan and South Korea contribute to housing and infrastructure expenses, the majority of the logistical, training, and personnel costs still fall on Washington.

For example:

  • Japan: The U.S. spends about $5.5 billion per year on operations, personnel, and logistics, even though Tokyo contributes about $2 billion through its “host-nation support” program.
  • South Korea: About $3.5–4 billion per year in U.S. military expenses, partially offset by Seoul’s contribution under the Special Measures Agreement.
  • Germany: Roughly $4–5 billion annually to sustain troops and infrastructure, including bases like Ramstein and Grafenwoehr.

These bases are not only costly but strategically positioned — allowing the U.S. to respond to crises in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe without delay.

Keep reading

Who Counts as English?

Back in February, Konstantin Kisin and Fraser Nelson sparked a national debate over the meaning of Englishness. During a podcast discussion, Kisin — who has Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry — proclaimed: “I am not English, and I will never be English, and I don’t think Rishi Sunak is English”. Nelson disagreed, opining that “Rishi Sunak is as English as Tizer and Y-fronts”. Kisin responded, “He’s a brown Hindu. How’s he English?” To which Nelson replied, “Because he was born and bred here.”

Kisin and Nelson’s positions reflect two distinct views of what it means to be English. On one view, someone can only be English if they have English ancestry. On the other, they needn’t have English ancestry so long as they were born in England, have a British passport and are well-versed in English culture.

Naturally, Kisin’s remarks caused a certain amount of controversy, provoking the usual charges of ‘racism’. This is despite him having clearly stated that he does not consider himself English. Kisin addressed his critics in a follow-up video, pointing out that Sunak had explicitly stated that he ticks ‘British Indian’ on the census. And in the original debate with Nelson, he’d already admitted that “we’re all British, that’s fine with me”.

Indeed, the distinction between British and English is one that both Kisin and his defenders have relied upon. For example, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote in the Telegraph that “I am British Asian” but “I cannot be English”.

To my mind, however, the debate can’t be so easily resolved because this distinction depends on the historically contingent fact that England is a nation within Britain. How would Braverman identify if the UK broke up and England became a separate country? How should French citizens who are not ethnically French identify? Should they say, “I cannot be French”? What about German citizens who are not ethnically German? And so on.

Furthermore, it turned out that Kisin had spoken too soon when he quoted Sunak in his follow-up video. The former Prime Minister subsequently came out and said, “Of course I’m English”, dismissing the notion that he wasn’t as “slightly ridiculous” since it would imply that even players in the England cricket team do not count.

It’s true that the native English are a distinct people, who can be demarcated not only from Indians but also from other European peoples, like Poles, Swedes, Italians and Russians. In a genetic study that sampled participants according to the rule that all four grandparents were born in the same country, Britons formed their own cluster. This cluster overlapped to a large extent with the cluster formed by Irish participants, and to a lesser extent with the clusters formed by participants from other nearby countries.

Hence if ‘indigenous’ means anything — and I do think it means something — then people with significant ancestry from the British cluster are indigenous to Britain.

Keep reading

China accuses US of major cyber-attack

China has accused the US National Security Agency (NSA) of waging a “major” multi-year cyberattack on the Chinese agency responsible for keeping national time.

In a statement posted on its official social media account on Sunday, the Ministry of State Security (MSS) said it had “obtained irrefutable evidence” that the NSA infiltrated the National Time Service Center. The covert operation allegedly began in March 2022, aiming to steal state secrets and conduct acts of cyber sabotage.

The center serves as China’s official time authority, issuing and broadcasting ‘Beijing Time’ to key sectors including finance, energy, transport, and defense. A disruption to this critical piece of infrastructure could have caused widespread instability in financial markets, logistics and power supply, according to the MSS.

According to the MSS, the NSA first exploited a vulnerability in the foreign-made mobile phones of several staff members at the center, gaining access to sensitive data.

Keep reading

British troops given powers to shoot down drones on sight: Telegraph

British troops will be given new powers to shoot down drones threatening Britain’s military bases, The Telegraph reported on Oct 19, citing an upcoming announcement on Oct 20 from British Defence Minister John Healey.

Mr Healey is expected to unveil his vision on how to protect Britain’s most critical military bases in response to a growing threat posed by Russia, the newspaper said.

Although the new powers will initially apply only for military sites, the British government was “not ruling out working to extend those powers” to other important sites like airports, the Telegraph said, citing a source.

Currently, troops can use specialist counter-drone equipment which can track incoming drones, hijack signals, and divert them, according to The Telegraph.

The new proposal will give soldiers or Ministry of Defence Police a “kinetic option” to shoot them on site, which they can only do now in extreme circumstances, The Telegraph further added.

Mr Healey’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Britain’s Defence Ministry could not immediately be reached.

Keep reading

Alert: Spanish Priest Facing Years in Prison for Comment That Offended Muslims

If you pay any attention to American ideological discourse, you’ve no doubt heard the one about “Christian nationalism.”

It’s this bogeyman idea that Christians are trying to take over the world politically, culturally, and spiritually (as if that’s a bad thing).

For anyone paying attention to the world, however, you’re no doubt aware of just how perilous — and powerless — life is for Christians outside of America’s protection.

Father Custodio Ballester, a Catholic priest in Spain, is facing the possibility of very real prison time on charges of “Islamaphobia,” according to a harrowing report from The Christian Broadcasting Network.

Ballester is facing up to three years in prison for this charge, as well as fines.

The big crime? Answering a question about the possibility of an interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

(It can’t be stressed enough that this happened in 2016, nearly a full decade ago.)

“This renewed revival of Christian-Muslim dialogue, paralyzed by the alleged ‘imprudence’ of the beloved Benedict XVI, is far from a reality,” Ballester wrote in a letter, responding to the question. “Islam does not allow for dialogue. You either believe or you are an infidel who must be subdued one way or another.”

The Christian Broadcasting Network added: “In a 2017 YouTube video, Ballester expanded on his 2016 remarks, warning that Islam not only poses a threat in Europe, but also that in many Muslim-majority countries, Christians face persecution.”

Despite the rote — and fairly accurate — description of Islamic culture, Ballester incensed the Association of Spanish Muslims Against Islamophobia.

Keep reading

Changes to Food Stamp Program SNAP Coming in November

Federal officials plan to enforce changes to the food stamp program, formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), beginning in November.

The changes will cut federal funding for SNAP by $187 billion through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. SNAP gives money to people to buy groceries.

Here are the changes that are coming.

Updated Work Requirements

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the requirements that SNAP recipients work are being changed.

The requirement that recipients work a minimum of 80 hours per month to receive food stamps for more than three months every three years remains the same. While the requirement used to only cover adults aged 18 to 54, it will now be in place for adults who are younger than 65.

Another change regards people with dependent children. Parents with children who are not yet adults used to be exempt from the work requirement. Under the bill, parents will only be exempt if they have one or more dependents aged 13 or younger.

The bill also removes exemptions for people who are homeless, veterans, and individuals aged 24 and younger who aged out of foster care.

Keep reading

Patel aims to protect civil liberties, reform the FBI to prevent serial weaponized spying

Director Kash Patel says his team is working on implementing new civil liberties protections at the FBI and touted his effort to refocus the bureau after confirmation that the investigative agency collected expansive phone data on Republican senators, House members, staff, and White House officials. 

He said his team has, or is currently working on, implementing new civil liberties protections at the FBI and touted his effort to refocus the bureau on its core mission. 

“We’ve ended that regime,” Patel told Just the News in a wide-ranging interview with the Just the News, No Noise TV show which aired on Wednesday. 

30 million lines of telephone data

Earlier this month, Just the News reported that the FBI collected call data on Republican senators and one House member as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6 Capitol riot. 

Just the News also reported on Tuesday that congressional investigators had collected 30 million lines of phone data mapping contacts between conservatives and the Trump White House in the name of investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. The data was later offered to the bureau on the eve of the 2024 election. 

Patel: “It is law enforcement first”

“We’ve already implemented changes. We’ve already informed Congress we won’t be grabbing their cell phone records or their staff or cell phone records for just a sense of weaponization,” Patel said. 

He told Just the News a big part of preventing these abuses in the future is refocusing the agency on its core mission, to enforce the law and investigate crimes. 

“So the good news about this FBI, it is mission focused,” Patel said. “It is law enforcement first, and it doesn’t matter if you’re red or blue or in between, or where you live, we are going to come in and root out not just criminality, but corruption in every single town in this country.”

Internal documents unearthed by Patel’s FBI and turned over to Congress showed that Special Counsel Smith obtained the phone records from eight senators and one House member in President Trump’s orbit. 

Keep reading

Nonprofits Cruelly Normalize Poverty for Climate Virtue

The last two decades should have been a period of accelerating economic development for Africa, South America and much of Asia. Discoveries of abundant oil and gas supplies offered a rescue from poverty, industrial stagnation and poor access to electricity and other basic services.

Instead, they got a man-made disaster, a deliberate slowdown of growth driven not by geographical disadvantage or domestic inefficiency but by a global campaign to divert affordable fossil fuels from poor nations.

Examples abound. At the United Nations’ COP26 of 2021, more than 30 governments and a number of public financial institutions committed to the so-called Glasgow Statement, also known as the Clean Energy Transition Partnership. The objective was to end new public finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022 and instead prioritize “green” energy.

The European Investment Bank stopped financing all fossil fuel projects by the end of 2021, affecting billions in planned natural gas infrastructure. Major European pension funds and commercial institutions – BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale – reduced or eliminated support for development projects for oil, natural gas and coal, citing targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The coercion was unequivocal: Pursue fossil fuels and lose access to Western capital. The opposition to hydrocarbons was embraced by Western nonprofit organizations and even by people who had made money from oil.

Just Stop Oil, a malicious anti-fossil fuel outfit, has been bankrolled by the Climate Emergency Fund and Hollywood filmmaker Adam McKay, maker of the alarmist movie Don’t Look Up. The fund draws heavily on contributions from Aileen Getty, heir to the Getty oil fortune, and other wealthy donors.

Rainforest Action Network, Sunrise Movement, Oil Change International, and 350.org are just a handful of so-called non-profit organizations that inject funds into domestic campaigns across the developing world. 

Keep reading