Let’s pretend I don’t know shit about shit. Model me however you like. Treat me as hostile, naïve, irrational, too angry, too certain, too profane, too whatever. It does not matter. The concept I am arguing is simple enough that any idiot can understand it, and it is simple enough that the Secretary General of NATO has no excuse for getting it wrong. A general is not a general because he speaks well. A general is a general because he marshals men and materiel and makes delive

The modern information war has a special weakness for medical fortune-telling. It sounds clinical. It sounds brave even. It feels like truth-speaking against a corrupt regime. But it is precisely the opposite: a betrayal of science disguised as righteousness. A physical therapist announcing that President Trump has “two to four months to live” is not merely overconfident. The claim is anti-scientific at the level of first principles. It is the kind of claim that cannot be ma

Democrats are not stupid. That needs to be said plainly, because much of the criticism they receive implicitly assumes it. They are, in fact, often quite sharp at the tactical level. In committee rooms and on the House floor, Democrats regularly land effective blows: sharp questioning, clean soundbites, compelling visuals, and moments of moral clarity that expose President Trump and his MAGA cultists for exactly what they are. This is hand-to-hand combat, and on that terrain

Mark Rutte’s obligation as NATO Secretary General is not to flatter power, manage egos, or buy time through personal rapport. It is to defend the alliance’s integrity by making betrayal costly  and resistance credible . That is the starting point—and it is precisely where Rutte has failed. If President Trump is allowed to continue acting against the alliance, NATO will not be destroyed by external force. It will be dismantled from within, through normalization of coercion, de

You are the goddamn Secretary General of NATO. Your job is not to be an auxiliary public-relations agent for President Trump at Davos, and it is not to engage in personality maintenance that can be screenshot, posted, and repurposed as leverage against the alliance. Yet that is precisely what happened when President Trump published your private message—one laced with flattery (“what you accomplished in Syria today is incredible”), an offer to use your “media engagements in Da

In asymmetric politics, regime security  is the causal driver; narcissism is, at most, a surface amplifier. To model the enemy as acting from narcissism is to mistake noise for signal and to mis-predict behavior under pressure. Regime security explains consistency under contradiction . Narcissism does not. President Trump’s actions—toward Greenland, NATO, Ukraine, tariffs, allies, and enemies—exhibit a stable objective function: preserve personal power, weaken constraints, an

Kyle Kulinski just said the quiet part out loud : we are now at the point where it is difficult to tell whether President Trump is a “Manchurian Candidate” or simply a dumbass whose actions are indistinguishable from one. If you accept that framing—even for the sake of argument—then the conclusion is no longer optional. It is no longer reasonable to model President Trump as anything but the enemy. Not as a rival. Not as a misguided nationalist. Not as a chaotic negotiator. No

Part One argued something simple and stubborn: regimes do not collapse in a straight line. They bend. They absorb stress. They look stable—until the last small step flips the classification and everything changes at once. The Mandelbrot set is the cleanest mathematical picture of that fact: wide interiors of stability separated by sharp, treacherous boundaries where a tiny movement changes the outcome. This is Part Two. The claim here is that what Mark Carney did at Davos is

I do not ignore Jason J. Smart because he lacks access, credentials, or visibility. I ignore him because his analysis fails at the only standard that matters in asymmetric warfare: correct attribution of intent once ambiguity has collapsed . At this stage of the conflict—post-confirmation, post-pattern, post-exposure—continuing to model President Trump as a confused participant rather than an aligned actor is not caution. It is error. The core failure. Jason J. Smart understa

Gavin Newsom can do good things. He can pass legislation that materially improves lives. He can appoint capable administrators. He can navigate budgets, manage crises, and deliver outcomes that, in isolation, deserve acknowledgment. None of this is in dispute. The failure lies elsewhere. True leadership is not measured by a ledger of achievements accumulated under favorable conditions; it is measured by behavior under pressure—when incentives run against principle, when appea

President Trump’s letter to Norway is not merely false, unhinged, or embarrassing. It is diagnostically valuable. It shows that the fabrication rate —the density at which reality is replaced wholesale by invention—has crossed a critical threshold. The document does not contain a mix of truths, distortions, and lies. It contains only fabrications , stacked so densely that no sentence relies on any shared external reality. When a regime reaches this point, analysis must change.

When agents of the state begin to rely on anonymity, silence, and institutional shielding rather than law and legitimacy, something fundamental has already broken. That is the context in which Jonathan Ross  now finds himself. Not as a rogue. Not as an aberration. But as a man standing at the fault line between collapsing impunity and reasserted accountability. To be clear at the outset: this is not a claim about what Ross will  do. It is an analytical claim about what someon

We do not need secret dossiers, hidden tapes, or speculative recruitment narratives to understand President Trump’s role in the current collapse of alliance trust. We do not need conspiratorial thinking. The data is public. The history is documented. The pattern is legible. What is required is not imagination, but correct attribution of agency. Your recent work continues to misframe the problem by speaking of “the United States” as the actor when the decisive variable is Pres

This article corrects a growing analytical misalignment in Western geopolitical commentary. Paul Warburg’s work on Russia remains technically competent, but his framework fails at the decisive point of the current crisis: the role of President Trump as an active agent in the degradation of the transatlantic alliance. Where Warburg hesitates, Vlad Vexler  makes the democratic danger legible, and Pyotr Kurzin  supplies the acute structural awareness required to interpret it cor

Trust, in a world shaped by asymmetric warfare and internal sabotage, is not conferred by résumé lines, institutional pedigree, or proximity to power. It is earned through consistency of insight over time, freedom from conflicted incentives, and demonstrated capacity to reason across complex systems without collapsing into slogans. This section explains why NATO can trust John R Raymond now , specifically when he warns that Donald Trump has not yet reached his final low, nor

The end-state has arrived: the invader is being positioned as the reasonable party, and the invaded is being indicted as the obstacle to peace. I have been warning that this was the terminus of the long lie chain—an outcome engineered over many months, not stumbled into by accident. This week it became explicit presidential language. On January 15, 2026, President Trump told Reuters that Vladimir Putin was “ready to make a deal” and that Ukraine was “less ready,” naming Presi

Telling people not to counter-protest a neo-Nazi–style rally in Minnesota is not prudence; it is a surrender of civic responsibility that contradicts the ideology of free speech itself. The argument that counter-protests “risk escalation” or “give President Trump an excuse” collapses under scrutiny. It replaces the duty to exercise rights with a speculative fear of authority—and in doing so, it normalizes the very coercion it claims to avoid. Freedom of speech in a democratic

Contemporary assessments of President Trump’s responsiveness to advice misconstrue the mechanism of his rhetorical mimicry. He is not genuinely shaped by the “last person in the room,” nor does he authentically integrate professional counsel.  Instead, he steals concepts  — borrows moral framings articulated by others, particularly those grounded in constitutional or ethical restraint, and rebrands them as his own. Within the civil-military domain, this dynamic has surfaced m

Marjorie Taylor Greene has done something rare in modern American politics: she has inadvertently testified—on camera, in her own words—to the core claims the Left has been making about President Trump’s movement for a decade. Not by recanting her extremism, not by discovering conscience, and not by becoming perceptive. She is still an opportunistic loon... yes. But she proved somethings the way compromised insiders always do when they finally collide with the machine they he

Every collapsing political cult has a predictable endgame. The loudest zealots eventually become liabilities. The opportunists sense the wind shift and pretend they were always “independent.” The true believers fracture into feuds and purity tests. Yet one figure remains, white-knuckled on the railing as the ship lists and floods: the Last Rat Launderer—the credential-costumed functionary whose entire value is not what he believes, but what he can legitimize. He does not mere