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.

Why Politicians Always Get Richer in Office (and You Don’t)

Think about your last job. Ever gotten a secret tip about the company’s next big merger right before the public announcement? Yeah, didn’t think so. For the rest of us, acting on that would land us in hot water – maybe even jail time. But inside the marble corridors and hushed committee rooms? Different story altogether.

They call it “congressional stock trading,” which sounds very official and boring. What it really means is politicians legally using information they learn because of their jobs – stuff you and I aren’t privy to – to buy or sell stocks. Government earmarks billions for a new defense project boosting a specific drone manufacturer? Funny how certain portfolios suddenly get heavier. Massive legislation passes changing healthcare subsidies? Watch how health insurance stocks move right after the vote.

It’s not telepathy. It’s not “expert analysis.” It’s being on the inside track while everyone watches the race from the nosebleeds. They write their own rules about disclosures, enforce them weakly against themselves, and pat themselves on the back for “transparency” that resembles fogged-up glass.

The Golden Parachute Club

You leave your job, you get maybe a handshake or a parting gift. Their journey is different. The moment someone announces they aren’t running again or loses an election, something fascinating happens: headhunters scramble. Suddenly, that junior Senator with average name recognition lands a seven-figure advisory role at a defense contractor. That obscure committee chair suddenly becomes a “consultant” for the very industry they supposedly regulated.

This is the “revolving door.” It spins both ways. Industry insiders walk into key government jobs to “oversee” their former colleagues. Then, politicians glide effortlessly back out into lucrative “consulting” gigs, “think tank” positions, or board seats for companies that directly benefited from legislation they championed. The currency here isn’t expertise you can find on LinkedIn; it’s relationships, favors owed, and the warm, cozy feeling they generate in corporate boardrooms. They call it “private sector experience.” We see pawns completing their mission and collecting their rewards.

Political Chameleons and Real Estate Magic

Ever tried buying property in a booming market? It’s expensive, cutthroat. Now imagine getting insider knowledge about a planned government development – a new highway extension, a federal complex, a mass transit hub destined for a forgotten corner of your district. Information like that is pure gold dust.

It’s not uncommon to see lawmakers snapping up parcels of land or properties just before major, undisclosed public projects become known. The value explodes. Sudden windfalls from “smart investments.” They disclose the gain eventually, but the how and the why? Buried under layers of complex paperwork and shrugs. Did they foresee the future? Or did they peek behind the curtain? The coincidence meter pings off the charts more often than it has any right to.

It goes beyond dirt. Think zoning changes voted on by local officials who own large chunks of real estate nearby. Think obscure amendments slipped into massive bills that funnel taxpayer dollars towards building projects conveniently adjacent to land held by those well-connected individuals. Follow the geography. The map tells its own story.

Keep reading

Another Nuclear Warning From Medvedev, This Time Over Tomahawks

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a nuclear warning in the face of reports that Washington may authorize transferring US long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

President Trump’s latest remarks weighing in on the issue saw him veil his intentions in usually cryptic wording. Aboard Air Force One while traveling to the Middle East earlier Monday he had said Tomahawks are a “very offensive weapon,” noting, “honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Headlines throughout the say said he ‘might’ approve of sending them. These are missiles capable of hitting Moscow. This is also as last month Trump surprised observers by claiming that Ukraine could still ‘win’ the war and actually regain territory.

Medvedev’s chilling response on Monday spelled out that this “could end badly for everyone … most of all, for Trump himself,” according to a translation of his Telegram post.

“It’s been said a hundred times, in a manner understandable even to the star-spangled man, that it’s impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight,” Medvedev, who serves as the Russian Security Council Deputy Chair, further noted.

Medvedev here is alluding to Russian strategic doctrine. In a scenario where Moscow leaders believed or suspected a nuclear payload had been launched at Russia, its military would have the right to respond in kind, with nukes.

The past couple months have seen Trump and Medvedev direct threatening messages at each other, particularly related to Trump proclaiming that he had deployed a pair of nuclear submarines somewhere near Russia.

Thankfully it has all so far been confined to social media barbs, and not any clear instance of either side’s strategic forces being placed on emergency alert.

But Medvedev’s latest message is meant as a clear ‘red line’ warning to Washington – that things could rapidly and uncontrollably escalate in Ukraine if the US sends Tomahawk missiles to use against Russia.

Keep reading

Stabbed 20 Times in Back of Neck and HeadOfficials Re-Confirm … Suicide

Ellen Greenberg’s 2011 death is officially ruled a suicide — again — the ruling coming after the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office dug back in for a second look at the case in which a woman was found with multiple stab wounds in the back of her head and neck.

The ruling is sure to spark major controversy … Greenberg, a 27-year-old Philly teacher, was found dead by her fiancé in 2011 … she’d been stabbed 20 times in the back of her neck and head, with a knife protruding from her chest. Her death was initially ruled a homicide … but after a meeting with Philly PD, assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Marlon Osbourne determined she died by suicide.

Fast-forward to February 2025 … under pressure from Greenberg’s family, the medical examiner’s office revisited the case … and is maintaining the same manner of death.

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Lindsay Simon re-examined the case and, in a 32-page report released Oct. 10, concluded, “while the distribution of injuries is admittedly unusual, the fact remains that Ellen would be capable of inflicting these injuries herself.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports Simon discovered 20 more bruises on Greenberg’s body, and three more “perforations in the skin” that hadn’t been documented in the original autopsy … but still ruled her death a suicide.

The decision is definitely stirring the pot again … people are asking the obvious — how does someone stab themselves over and over in the back and head and call it suicide?

TMZ reached out to the Medical Examiner for an explanation on how they think Ellen could’ve done it herself … so far, no word back.

Keep reading

DeSantis Admits Marijuana Legalization Is Popular With Florida Voters Even Though He Opposes It

The Republican governor of Florida is conceding that “more people probably agreed” with a marijuana legalization ballot initiative he helped defeat last year than sided with his prohibitionist viewpoint—but he argued that it was the “morally right” choice for him to intervene to prevent the sale of “dangerous stuff” in his state.

At an event hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute on Saturday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) talked about his administration’s uphill work to dissuade voters from approving both the cannabis measure as well as a separate reproductive rights initiative during the November 2024. While both initiatives received majority support from voters, they failed to meet the state’s high 60 percent threshold required to enact constitutional amendments.

In the speech, DeSantis claimed that the marijuana proposal, Amendment 3, wouldn’t just have legalized cannabis but also made it a “constitutional right to possess and smoke it, including in public,” while giving one company in particular “a lot of benefits,” seemingly referring to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign’s largest financier Trulieve.

“Somehow you got people that are going to spend a lot of money to basically make us California through the back door with these initiatives and these amendments,” DeSantis said. “The marijuana people spent $150 million on this. The abortion people spent $130 million. So we had to contend with $280 million of spending on very misleading language—and, let’s just be honest, they were pushing issues in which probably more people agreed with them than agreed with me or agreed with us.”

“Marijuana was somewhat popular,” the governor said in comments first reported by Florida Politics. “I didn’t do it to be popular. I did it because it was the right thing to do. So we were having to deal with navigating all this.”

Despite raising money to finance ads opposing the cannabis measure, DeSantis said governors don’t officially “have a role in these amendments.” He faulted “special interest” parties and the state Supreme Court approval of the initiative language that he described as a “mistake.”

“I mean, most people that get elected in my positions like mine, all their advisors say, ‘stay away from this. There’s nothing for you to gain by getting involved in this. All you’re going to do is alienate supporters,’” he said. “And that may be true, but that also wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It wouldn’t be the morally right thing to do. So I was in a position. I had this platform as governor. I had a megaphone. There were things being proposed that would be harmful for my state.”

“In terms of the marijuana, I mean, you can’t function as a state if you smell marijuana everywhere—if these kids are doing it,” DeSantis said. “And this isn’t the marijuana they had in Woodstock. This is really, really dangerous stuff, so it would have been terrible for Florida.”

Keep reading

Legalized Mass Murder & the Balkans

Trump is on the WRONG side of this war with Russia, and this is the most significant risk of taking us into World War III. You cannot deal with the Balkans as if it were any other place in the world. The region has experienced centuries of imperial domination, forced religious conversion, and forced assimilation. Because these groups lived side-by-side for so long, their grievances are almost exclusively against each other. A Serb’s historical trauma is often linked to a Croat or an Ottoman (Bosniak), and vice versa. There is a cyclical pattern of eternal vengeance in the Balkans. The violence of the 1940s was avenged in the 1990s, creating a seemingly endless cycle where each generation feels it must settle the score for the last.

Then there has been the political manipulation—the most critical factor in the modern era. The hatred was not a spontaneous outburst; it was carefully, deliberately, and ruthlessly manufactured by elites for political gain over time. Bandera of Ukraine launched his ethnic cleansing to terminate anyone without Ukrainian blood to forge their own country, which today are the Neonazis who still market and display Bandera’s image following his call for ruthless ethnic cleansing. His image dominated the Maidan Revolution of 2014.

In conclusion, the ethnic hatred in the Balkans is a tragic story of how deep historical fault lines, when combined with the modern political tool of nationalism and weaponized by unscrupulous leaders, can be exploded into catastrophic violence. It is a stark warning about the power of history and the danger of politicians who use ethnic identity as a weapon. The West is now supporting the followers of Adolf Hitler. The ethnic hatred of the Ukrainians toward Russians started the separation movement of the Donbas when they were killing Russian-speaking people in Odessa, and the West turned a blind eye because the victims were Russians.

Keep reading

Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Study Finally Sees the Light of Day — And the Results Are Staggering

Health journalist and film producer Del Bigtree has just released his new film An Inconvenient Study, which follows Bigtree’s years-long exchange with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, a doctor who is about as pro-vaccine as they come.

In 2016, Dr. Zervos crossed paths with Bigtree, who urged him to take on something public health had avoided for decades: a study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Dr. Zervos agreed, determined to prove Bigtree and other vaccine skeptics wrong. At the time, he vowed, “Whatever the results, they get published.”

Both the buried study and the film are now available for everyone to see.

Before diving into Zervos’s findings, the film laid out prior evidence raising serious questions about vaccine safety.

One striking example came from Dr. Peter Aaby. Once a vaccine believer, Dr. Aaby became a skeptic after discovering that the DTP vaccine he helped promote for African children led to 2.3 times higher mortality among the vaccinated.

Decades after launching the DTP program in Guinea-Bissau, Dr. Aaby realized only half the children there had received the shot — giving him a perfect comparative study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The DTP vaccine did protect against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but there was also more than a twofold increase in overall mortality. The results stunned Aaby, who now speaks openly about what he discovered.

“It’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing. We don’t,” he now teaches.

Keep reading

Unhinged Oklahoma State University Professor Placed on Leave After Threatening and Reprimanding Student Who Spoke at Event Honoring Charlie Kirk

An Oklahoma State University student says he was reprimanded and threatened by a university staffer simply for wearing a Turning Point USA “47” hat while speaking in honor of Charlie Kirk.

Joshua Wilson, a junior and Senate University Chairman at OSU, says the confrontation came out of nowhere during a routine one-on-one meeting with a student government coordinator, News9 reported.

What started as a heartfelt tribute to Kirk, who was assassinated by a radical leftist, quickly devolved into a chilling lecture on “triggered” family members and veiled warnings about his future at the university.

Wilson said the hat, a white ball cap emblazoned with a gold “47” (for Donald Trump as the 47th President) and the Turning Point USA logo, wasn’t intended as a political statement.

He and a friend decided to speak briefly at a student government meeting to honor Charlie Kirk, who had visited the campus earlier this year as part of his Turning Point USA Campus Tour.

“Me and my friends were so distraught, but the first kind of thought that came to our mind was, ‘What do other students kind of think right now?” Wilson told News9. “If we’re this pained by it, if we’re worried about what may happen to us also, what are other students worried about?”

Donning their TPUSA hats, they stepped up to remind their peers that open dialogue, not censorship, is the bedrock of America.

“We thought, OK, we have our turning point hats, let’s go to student government and show our constituents they don’t have to be afraid to have a conversation and to speak about what they believe in, and that’s what we did,” Wilson said.

“It wasn’t something that was partisan. It wasn’t something that we were supporting Trump, you know, but it was a hat that symbolized that conversation is what built this country, what should maintain it.”

During the meeting, Wilson said his message was met with applause and support. No one, including the staff member who would later reprimand him, voiced any objections at the time.

“For me personally, it has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever, it’s just something I got at an event that meant a lot to me,” Wilson said.

“In that meeting, I hope that with the student government where I was giving my speech, I hope it was expressed that was not the issue, not partisan politics, but just the issue or the crux of the idea of why I brought the hat to campus was that students shouldn’t feel afraid, and we can go forward.”

A week later, Wilson said he was summoned to a private meeting by the staffer who had been present at his speech. He described feeling threatened and cornered.

During the meeting, which Wilson recorded and obtained by News9, the staffer admitted she was offended by his attire, saying:

“I have family who don’t look like you who are triggered by those hats and by that side.”

Wilson said he calmly explained that his hat was not about partisan politics, but about honoring free speech and the First Amendment. The staffer allegedly replied that if he “questioned that belief,” his year “might not be easy.”

Keep reading

Trump’s plan, Blair’s hand

Those who don’t die will meet again

There is an old saying that goes, “Those who don’t die will meet again,” which somehow fits politicians perfectly, because sooner or later, they all reappear on the political scene.

In fact, shortly after the announcement of the formal recognition of Palestine as a state, the United Kingdom sent former Prime Minister Tony Blair with the task of hindering the Palestinian self-determination process, in accordance with the so-called “Peace Agreement” of then-US President Donald Trump. A truly masterful move.

This decision once again highlighted the usual hypocrisy and colonial mentality of Washington, London, and, more generally, the West.

Who remembers Tony Blair?

It is worth giving a brief summary, because his presence is by no means a random choice.

The Middle East knows Blair well, especially for his infamous conduct during the 2003 Iraq War, alongside then-US President George W. Bush, leader of the so-called “war on terror.” On the strength of false accusations about weapons of mass destruction, Blair dragged Britain into a conflict that caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, earning himself a well-deserved reputation as a war criminal. Nothing new, you might say, since the United Kingdom has been an imperialist entity for a long time.

This confirms that Blair is the last person who should appear in an organization called the “Peace Council.”

While Bush retired to a quiet life painting dogs and portraits of Vladimir Putin, Blair continued to make himself indispensable in the Middle East—and to reap considerable profits from it. After resigning as prime minister in 2007, he was appointed special envoy of the international “Quartet” – composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – officially committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A coincidence? No, not at all: the choice of an emissary with close ties to Israel made any progress towards genuine peace impossible, which shows us how much it was in the interests of the Western powers to maintain a certain tension in the region. At the same time, Blair’s diplomatic activities were intertwined with a network of extremely lucrative business deals in the region: consulting for Arab governments and private assignments, such as the one he took on in 2008 as senior advisor to the American investment bank JP Morgan, which paid him over $1 million a year.

No philanthropy, no spirit of humanitarian aid. When Blair attended meetings in the Middle East, no one knew which Tony Blair they were dealing with: the Quartet envoy, the founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, or the head of the consulting firm Tony Blair Associates.

On the other hand, the beauty of conflicts of interest is that they always pay off well.

For example, in 2009, he obtained radio frequencies from Israel to create a mobile phone network in the West Bank, in exchange for a commitment from the Palestinian leadership not to bring accusations of Israeli war crimes to the UN for Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008, during which approximately 1,400 Palestinians were killed in 22 days. Blair had private economic interests linked to that agreement: both Wataniya and JP Morgan had a lot to gain from the opening of the telecommunications market in the West Bank.

It is therefore easy to imagine that Blair will also have a certain interest in Trump’s plan for Palestine, perhaps with his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, committed to “changing the world,” perhaps by helping Israel and the United States build the infamous 5-star resort that businessman Donald Trump has long dreamed of, as if capitalism and the tyranny of foreign investors could suffice for the Palestinians in place of freedom and security.

It therefore seems that the West’s “brilliant idea” (sic!) is once again to entrust the fate of Gaza to international war criminals. Not bad, right?

Today, Blair appears not simply as an “advisor,” but as an official charged with protecting the joint interests of Israel and the West in Gaza and managing the post-war transition phase.

Tony Blair’s experience in Iraq is a clear sign of his unreliability on the Palestinian question.

During the US invasion in 2003, thousands of civilians were killed and entire cities were destroyed. Blair, who convinced President Bush to wage that war, admitted years later that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the military campaign had been based on falsified intelligence reports.

Despite these admissions, no international court has ever tried him for the serious violations of international law he committed.

Today, paradoxically, the same person is being proposed as a key figure in the “reconstruction” of Gaza, based on a supposed peace plan that in fact only protects Israeli interests.

Keep reading

Northern Territory bans men from women’s prisons

The Northern Territory Chief Minister has announced a ban on men in women’s prisons in response to a bizarre situation where inmates around Australia are being housed based on gender delusions rather than biological reality.

Lia Finocchi­aro spoke out after a paedophile who sexually abused his own daughter was placed in a women’s jail in Victoria because he claims to be a woman, and a female prisoner in South Australia was raped by her violent gender-deluded male cellmate.

The Chief Minister also insisted there were no men in the NT’s jails, where aboriginals make up 90% of the adult prison population and almost 100% of youth detainees, and said she wouldn’t be “confused by this woke agenda driven by Labor governments”.

“There should be no men in women’s prisons, full stop. I can tell you now, here in the Northern Territory there are no blokes in women’s jails and we’re not having that here, not on my watch,” she told The Australian.

“We’ve got really clear guidelines around this. Labor had a weaker process but we want to make it really clear that if you are a man and you’re fundamentally equipped as a man, if I could put it that way, then you belong in a men’s prison.

“If you’re born a bloke, you go into a men’s prison. At the end of the day, this is really about women’s safety. It’s about women’s dignity.”

She went on to describe placing men who claim to be “transgender” in women’s prisons as “absurd” and “our nation’s shame”, and accused Labor state governments of being “obsessed with social engineering” and pursuing “ideologically driven law and policy”.

Ms Finocchi­aro made the announcement following a letter from Women’s Forum Australia to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and every state and territory leader objecting to the practice of placing inmates in jails based on their so-called gender identities.

“This practice is dangerous, dehumanising and in direct violation of international human rights standards,” Women’s Forum Australia chief Rachael Wong wrote.

Keep reading