…by an expert.
Tucker Carlson Explains World War 2 https://t.co/seFlgYlod8
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 22, 2026
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Elon’s Tit For Tat
I believe Elon Musk is planning on using the Retaliator strategy to deal with aggression from the Democrats. The Retaliator strategy is a behavior in evolutionary game theory that begins peacefully but fiercely defends itself if attacked. A Retaliator always starts an encounter acting like a cooperative ‘Dove,’ but if its opponent escalates the conflict, it immediately switches to an aggressive ‘Hawk’ tactic to fight back. If the opponent backs down and becomes peaceful again, the Retaliator matches that shift and reverts to a Dove. This conditional flexibility allows Retaliators to cooperate efficiently with peaceful neighbors while successfully punishing bullies and predators without being exploited. It combines a preference for peace with a credible willingness to retaliate, and in competitive terms outperforms both indiscriminate aggression and unconditional submission. When a Retaliator meets a Bully (e.g., the Democrat Party), the interaction quickly exposes the Bully’s empty bluff. The Bully begins the encounter aggressively by playing like a Hawk, which instantly triggers the Retaliator to abandon its peaceful default and fight back fiercely. Because a Bully usually retreats when faced with real aggression, it panics and flees when the Retaliator pushes back with sufficient force. As a result, the Retaliator wins the entire resource with a low risk of injury, dominating the Bully and driving it toward evolutionary extinction. The Doves benefit by from being around a Retaliator as well, gaining friendly interactions with it, and protection against bullies. The Retaliator’s strength lies not in seeking conflict, but in making exploitation unprofitable and unfounded agression costly. It cooperates whenever cooperation is possible, fights decisively when fighting becomes necessary, and stops fighting as soon as the threat has passed. In evolutionary terms, its success comes from aligning peaceful intentions with effective deterrence, and a willingness to use extreme measures when necessary. It’s the right choice.
— Owen Lewis (@is_OwenLewis) October 21, 2026
The Planned Coup
As she asks, who decides when your government is legitimate?
đ¨đ¨ THE ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK / THE DEMOCRACY FILES: A PRIMER đ¨ I will be using this thread to track all drops, so bookmark it. I spent most of yesterday backing everything (now 312 gigabytes) up in various sources and getting the materials out to others. I also produced an AI video (below) to explain the whole thing to others are not on đ – feel free to distribute. Here’s the primer: USAID, the foreign aid agency, had a democracy office. Inside the agency, it was called DRG. Officially, DRG administered "democracy assistance." They’d go inside countries they thought were sliding into authoritarianism and help the opposition there. That assistance included election monitoring, judicary support, independent media, and civil society building. You may have heard the term "color revolution." The model comes from Serbia in 2000, where trained student activists brought down Milosevic with the help of Western governments, after sustained protests. With the help of USAID’s democracy office, this model was implemented in many other countries to topple governments: Georgia’s "Rose Revolution" in 2003, Ukraine’s "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and many more. Then last year, DOGE shut down USAID. But the USAID democracy office didn’t stop. They formed a group called the Democracy Renewal Group, the same initials as their office (USAID Democracy, Human Rights, Governance). Their goal: apply their own playbook to the United States itself. This goal became a plan, called Renew American Democracy (RAD). It invoked the "4 B’s" framework. Block – use lawfare and protests to make life harder for the Trump administration. Bridge & Belong – control dialogue and win people over. The final and most important B is Build. Build means redesigning the American government itself, and the crisis is the opening. In their own words: "We can take that breakdown moment and leverage it for a big structural reform, you know, refounding moment." – Danielle Reiff, DRG lead. Calls show DRG working alongside DSA on ideas of creating a different government, one that does away with the Constitution itself. DRG does not run the Block operations. They hand it to UDA, the United Democracy Alliance. One organizer calls it a "huge galaxy": lawsuits, street protests, non-cooperation. They list No Kings, Indivisible, MoveOn, 50501, and many other mega-activist NGOs among their members. Another organizer calls UDA Erica Chenoweth’s project. Chenoweth is the Harvard professor behind the three-and-half-percent rule of regime change: get that share of a country’s populace onto the streets, and historically, the movement wins. The UDA is very "hush-hush." They have no website, no roster, no filings. Then come the red lines: things the Trump administration could do, such as calling the Insurrection Act on protesters, that would mean that the federal government, in their words, "crosses the threshold into illegitimacy." Nobody voted on those lines. There was no public debate. These red lines were developed within secretive working groups, and in a paper addressed to governors and staff. In the words of Reiff/DRG: "So that if there is a red line crossed in terms of a Constitutional crisis, like everyone’s already pre-organized. And so Mike Smith actually said, he goes, oh, you guys have the day after tomorrow plan." Cross a line, and the paper’s options include states refusing to lend their resources to federal officials, and governors convening what it calls a "Third Continential Congress." Running the UDA’s Insurrection Act working group: Rear Admiral Mike Smith (RET) of National Security Leaders of America (NSL4A). NSL4A is also credited with operationalizing UDA, the blocking operations. NSL4A consists of about 1,600 ex-officers, spies, diplomats. They’re turning red lines into indicators and running a situation room to monitor them throughout the midterms and beyond. The NSL4A’s lawyers told them to stop recording meetings in case of subpoenas. But the rest of the network continued to record. DRG works in conjunction with Renew to Thrive (R2T), which ended up accidentally publishing 400+ calls and thousands of documents. These calls and documents were never meant for our eyes, but it’s them, on tape. Thousands of NGOs and billions of dollars are involved in this endeavor. Most of them believe they’re saving democracy. The problem is that people who spent their careers deciding when other countries’ governments had lost their legitimacy wrote that test for ours, in private, and planned for what comes after. Who decides when your government is legitimate?
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 22, 2026
This is important so here is my best attempt at summarizing Data Republicanâs troubling find: For decades, USAID employees have successfully wielded our tax dollars to provoke unrest in foreign countries with the goal of replacing âillegitimateâ governments with their preferred governments. Elections present a favorable setting for orchestrating such unrest and political âtransitions.â Now that domestic USAID funding has dried up, a shadowy band of ex-USAID employees and former military/intelligence/diplomacy officials has begun implementing an active plan to provoke unrest in our own country with the goal of declaring our federal government as âillegitimateâ and replacing it with a completely restructured US government. This type of mass unrest could quite plausibly be used to nudge Trump to cross a âred lineâ such as declaring martial law or invoking the insurrection act. Crossing any red line presents an opportunity to say, âSee look! Heâs an evil dictator! This is the only way we can stop him!!â And too many people will believe it and uncritically go along with it. Iâll pause here to say I know, I know. It all sounds like a grand conspiracy theory. Itâs not. Nobody is saying all elected Democrats are secretly in cahoots to stage a coup. No. This is about a relatively small group of specific unelected operatives pulling the strings to manipulate elected Democrats and media outlets and well-meaning citizens. How do we know? We have clear recordings documenting it. Data Republican always brings receipts. Please donât be fooled. This powerful group claims to be saving democracy. But their plan is not at all about saving democracy. Itâs about controlling it.
— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) October 21, 2026
[Update a while later]
Laughing Wolf is hopeful.
[Via Sarah Hoyt]
And this is related: Iran, China, and Cuba are directing protests in America.
Why There’s No Hope For California
I am fully dead đâ ď¸ so good https://t.co/mI6Et6d3Wi
— Elizabeth Barcohana (@E_Barcohana) October 21, 2026
The Second Amendment
…remains the Constitution’s red-headed stepchild.
But hopefully not for much longer.
There has been no more massive violation of civil rights in history than gun laws. Including the fact that the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed, lest they defend themselves from people who wanted to lynch them. And we know what the political party of those people was, and that party’s position on gun freedom has not changed.
This Year’s Continuing Resolution
Even by recent standards, it’s a disaster.
CRs are always a disaster, of necessity. It sure would be nice if Congress could actually pass a budget, like in the old days.
The End Of The World
We only have one month left.
OK, not really. As noted, the actual concern should be underpopulation, not overpopulation.
Space Superiority
What does it really mean, and how do we achieve it? A useful essay by Courney Stadd.
On The Hypocritical Backlash Against Shane Gillis
Women are dishonest about this stuff because theyâre programmed to be. Their greatest weapon is their sexuality, but they also face social backlash for being too overtly transactional with sex, so women embrace ambiguity where theyâre able to use sex to their advantage while maintaining plausible deniability Some examples: -Wearing sexy is outfits isnât for the male gaze or to flex on other women for status, itâs just to feel good about themselves apart from any social factors -Dancing provocatively is not a sexual display, itâs just recreational fun -Marrying a rich guy isnât about the money, heâs a good guy who provides security for their family -Wearing makeup and high heels to work isnât to impress men and sway them, itâs just to feel confident I want to address a tangent here, which is that women will argue that these things are not sexual displays, because they do them at social events that are exclusively other women. I reject that: itâs still an indirect sexual display for the purpose of status Sexual attractiveness is perhaps the purest form of status that a human can possess. Youâre desirable merely by your existence, you donât even have to do anything. Women recognize this in each other and they will begrudgingly, although often subconsciously, recognize the status of other women who are more attractive (âugh, sheâs so hot, maybe I should set her up with one of my successful guy friendsâ). When women dress up for other women, theyâre showing that theyâve got the goods to be a high status social ally. Itâs a flex. Back to the main point, which is that we subsume our sexual behavior beneath socially approved motives. The thing is, women often arenât being duplicitous when they say these things: their minds have convinced them that itâs the truth The human brain is incredible at rationalizing our baser desires. Men genuinely like sports. The reason we like them is probably because in our evolutionary environment, games like that prepared us for war. But men wouldnât say they like sports because itâs preparation to kill the neighboring tribe; our brains simply find them fun. We enjoy doing adaptive things without consciously thinking about them Women engage in sexual signaling and sexual competition without deliberately thinking about it, and thatâs a superpower because they can be disingenuous without lying. Their brains have disguised their motivations even to themselves. They donât know why theyâre doing what theyâre doing. Women donât want sexual behavior to be discussed explicitly, because it makes it more difficult for them to use it to their advantage. The ambiguity and optionality work to their advantage. If a hot guy hits on them, they can receive the advance. If an ugly guy hits on them, they can reject him and say they werenât asking to be hit on. If one woman tries to slut shame another for an outfit that distracts men, the wearer can claim that sheâs simply wearing something thatâs comfortable and cute Ironically, women also canât acknowledge that this is why theyâre upset, because the whole game is that they have to avoid discussing it directly and explicitly. Thatâs why all the outrage and criticism deflects from whether these outfits are overtly sexual (they obviously are), and turns it into jockeying over social status and norms where women try to make it verboten for men to even comment on it Shane Gillis, by making a snarky comment, threatened womenâs sexual power and sent their defense mechanisms into overdrive
— Porter (@ParkSlopeFlngsm) October 15, 2026
Who Are The Fascists, Again?
If no one goes to jail over this, they’ll do it again next time they’re in power.
[Update a while later]
Related:
Dear Secretary Bessent @SecScottBessent, My name is Everett Stern. In 2010 I was a compliance officer at @HSBC. From a back office in New Castle, Delaware, I watched billions of dollars move to drug cartels, sanctioned regimes, and terrorist organizations. The enemies of the United States. I documented it, I escalated it, and when the bank would not act, I took it to the @FBI, the @CIA, and eventually the @SECGov. The result was a $1.92 billion settlement. At the time, it was one of the largest in American history. It was also about five weeks of the bankâs profit. Not one banker was charged. Not one went to prison. I paid a different price. I lost my career, my savings, and my place in the industry I had trained for. I was blacklisted. Every door in American finance closed at once. I slept on a camping cot in a 300 square foot apartment because I could not afford a bed, and I waited tables at @PFChangs to eat. I tell you this not for sympathy, but so you understand that I know exactly what it costs to do the right thing in American finance, and exactly how little the system does in return. I made that sacrifice because I believed it would change something. Yesterday, your department fined @BankofAmerica $1.2 billion for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, some of it tied by your own findings to Chinese laundering networks, narcotics, and the southwest border, alongside 475 apparent sanctions violations touching Russia, Iran, and global terrorism. The bank admitted it willfully violated the Bank Secrecy Act. Fourteen years after HSBC. A bank with âAmericaâ in its name. And once again, not one individual charged. Secretary Bessent, I want to say plainly what I believe you already know. The fines are not working. A fine is paid by shareholders, absorbed by the balance sheet, and forgotten by the next earnings call. Bank of America reported earnings this morning. Nobody who set the alert thresholds, nobody who decided the 2024 cease and desist could wait, nobody who chose the backlog over the law will lose a single thing they value. Their lives are untouched. That is the entire reason the behavior repeats. This is money laundering. This is blood money. Money that reaches a cartel buys fentanyl that kills Americans. Money that reaches a terrorist organization buys the next attack. This country has fought a war on drugs and a war on terror for decades, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, and all the while we have allowed the financing to flow through institutions we charter and regulate. Cut off the money and we win. We have never seriously tried. There is also a question of equal justice that I cannot let go. Before I walked into the FBI building to report HSBC, I stopped in front of the Great Seal on the wall and read the words engraved beneath it: âJustice is the defense of our liberty.â I believed that. I still want to. But every day in this country, people go to prison for crimes that are nothing next to moving money for the people who want Americans dead. A suit, a title, and a corporate badge should not be a shield from the consequences that apply to everyone else. If a street dealer goes to prison for what he sells, the banker who moved the cartelâs money should be standing next to him. I also want to raise something that is rarely said in these conversations. Why has no one inside Bank of America come forward the way I did? The answer is that everyone in American banking knows what happened to me, and to the whistleblowers who came after. The last person who spoke up is the only policy anyone believes. That is a culture problem, and it starts with leadership, in the banks and in the agencies that regulate them. This is not a political issue. It has spanned administrations of both parties. It is a national security issue, and I am asking you to treat it as one. Three things would change the math overnight. Refer individuals for criminal prosecution. Not the analyst in the queue. The executives who set the thresholds and chose the risk. One banker in handcuffs would do more than every fine in Treasuryâs history combined. End âtoo big to jail.â An institution cannot be too big to fail and too big to jail at the same time. If it is the first, it must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And if Bank of America will not act as Americaâs bank, review its charter. A national charter is a privilege granted on behalf of the American people. It should be conditioned on not moving money for the people trying to kill them. Secretary Bessent, you said yesterday that these actions send a clear message that even the biggest institutions are not above the law. With respect, the institution was never the problem. The people inside it are above the law, and they know it. Until that changes, I will keep writing letters like this one, and the next bank will keep paying the next fine. I gave up everything I had to stop this. I am asking you to use the power you have to finish it. Respectfully, Everett A. Stern HSBC Whistleblower Founder and Intelligence Director, Tactical Rabbit
— Everett Stern (@EverettStern1) October 14, 2026