Deleted Account

Public Key

npub1h6lmk2e9tu9p9fq8zdsrefrqdfck75wgq8lwpfygnmpv8ev7narq54k0xw

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsta0am9vj47zsj5sr3xcpu53sx5ut028yqrlhq5jyfaskruk0f73spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsger0f3

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1h6lmk2e9tu9p9fq8zdsrefrqdfck75wgq8lwpfygnmpv8ev7narq54k0xw

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-25 01:33:19 UTC

- reply

More than a decade of near lockstep rent increases across large landlords.
2015 → steady climb
2020 → surge
2023+ → “cooling”
Now they call it a gift.
It’s not.
It’s coordinated pricing power hitting its limit.
When concentrated ownership produces the same outcome year after year, it stops looking like a market and starts looking organized.
They didn’t stop because they chose to.
They stopped because the next 10% wouldn’t clear.

2026-03-25 01:22:27 UTC

I’m old enough to remember the receipts — and accounts like @nprofile…2c0g carry that forward.
Documentaries, blogs, interviews, FOIA — years of people trying to understand and document.
Agree or disagree with conclusions, that commitment to truth-seeking mattered.
We shouldn’t lose that.

2026-03-25 01:15:53 UTC

- reply

This is awesome.
My grandparents were big on composting — it just made sense.
Wish I had the time and resources to do it like that. Great work.

2026-03-25 01:05:43 UTC

- reply

He was the guy calling out wars, narratives, and regime change.
That’s what set him apart.
Now the tone sounds closer to what he used to criticize.
That’s why it stands out.
Not the words — the pattern break.
Off script… or following one that isn’t his?

2026-03-25 00:05:20 UTC

- reply

They didn’t remove complexity — they removed the people who could navigate it.
Those people still exist.
They were just too expensive for a spreadsheet.
Now the system runs without understanding — and this is the result.

2026-03-24 23:02:56 UTC

- reply

Insurance: “We negotiated this down to $10,000 for you”
Cash price: $1,050
Congrats, your membership saved you nothing.
Deductibles are the real scam — you’re self-paying, just at inflated “network” prices.
What’s interesting is Surest: no deductible, no coinsurance, you see the actual price before you go. Different providers show different prices, you pick one, pay a flat amount.
It’s basically insurance that finally behaves like cash-pay instead of billing roulette.
If you’ve never heard of it, look it up — and honestly, push your HR team to offer it.

2026-03-23 01:51:51 UTC

- reply

🤣
Fair...
almost as funny as the marvel sequel of the Avengers...

2026-03-23 01:28:15 UTC

- reply

Great job @nprofile…mzdd !!!

2026-03-21 00:10:47 UTC

- reply

Yup. FAFO at a generational scale.
Used to be you had to pay for front row seats to watch empires make these decisions in slow motion. Now it’s general admission and the whole world is in the theater.
The remarkable part isn’t that two economists from completely opposite schools — Austrian and MMT — are both saying a crash is coming. The remarkable part is that nobody in the room where it matters is surprised, nobody is course correcting, and the institutions that were supposed to prevent this were the first ones captured by it.
2008 wasn’t a warning. It was a rehearsal. And instead of breaking up the players that nearly brought the house down, we handed them the deed.
Fast dollar collapse doesn’t care about your politics. It doesn’t care about your party or your portfolio allocation or which administration you voted for. It lands on everyone simultaneously — and historically it lands hardest on the people who were already closest to the edge.
This was always the destination of the road chosen. Some of us just had better maps than others.
Buckle up

2026-03-21 00:04:54 UTC

- reply

Sad and predictable. The bond markets just said out loud what every working family in that city has been living quietly for years. The light bill knew. The grocery receipt knew. The neighbor watching from the driveway knew.
Nobody listened then either.
The people who engineered this won’t absorb the consequences. They never do. The ones who can’t leave will pay for it — and they’ll be told it’s still somehow someone else’s fault.
This is what governing from an echo chamber produces. Eventually the math stops being polite about it.

2026-03-21 00:00:02 UTC

- reply

LOL..... Sad...

2026-03-20 22:47:18 UTC

- reply

CBDC controls your money. 15-minute cities control your movement. Population replacement controls your culture. The TRUMP AMERICA AI Act controls your information infrastructure.
Same blueprint. Different columns. Same building.
None of this is coincidence. This is architecture. And the American citizen is not the intended occupant — they are what it is being built around.
Wake up. Read the bills. Connect the dots. The window to do something about it is always shorter than it looks.

2026-03-20 22:31:33 UTC

- reply

James, Identify the Source — And Understand What You're Wasting
James Carville recently delivered a profanity-laced tirade against Donald Trump that I won't fully repeat here. You've likely seen it. The rage was visceral, personal, and total — by his own admission the singular organizing focus of his entire life's concentration.
And I want to say something that may be unpopular on all sides of this conversation:
That is not resistance. That is captivity.
I'll be transparent — I detest many of the actions and decisions being made in positions of power right now. I can look at policy, at consequence, at real human cost and say plainly: this is wrong, this is harmful, this needs to change. That is discernment. That is legitimate.
But what Carville demonstrated is something categorically different. That is a man operating on a frequency that does not lead anywhere good — for him, for the discourse, or for the people he believes he is fighting for.
Scripture doesn't mince words on this:
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age." — Ephesians 6:12
The enemy of what is good and right in this world is not a person. Not a politician. Not even a particularly destructive administration. The battle is spiritual in nature and it manifests through systems, through institutions, through the capture of minds and the corruption of power. When you reduce it to personal hatred of one man — when that hatred becomes the single organizing principle of your existence by your own confession — you have not identified the enemy. You have become useful to it.
Satan is described in Scripture as the god of this age, the prince of the power of the air. Rage, hatred, personal obsession — these are not weapons against that. These are frequencies that serve it.
And this is what makes it particularly consequential.
James Carville is not a random angry commenter. He is a seasoned political strategist with decades of real influence, access to the rooms where decisions are shaped, and an audience that genuinely listens to him. He helped elect a president. He has the ear of serious people across the political establishment and beyond.
A man with that kind of reach, operating purely on the frequency of personal hatred, is not just hurting himself — he is poisoning the well for everyone in his sphere of influence. The people listening to him don't just absorb the anger, they model it. They carry it into their own conversations, their own decisions, their own communities. Rage is contagious at scale — and James Carville has scale.
The greater the platform, the greater the responsibility to operate from something higher than hatred. The world does not need more amplified rage from influential voices right now. It desperately needs the opposite — people with real access and real reach who can think clearly, speak precisely, and point toward something constructive.
I refuse to hate a person. I was specifically instructed not to. I can name wrong clearly. I can resist it clearly. But the man is not my battle — the principalities working through and around all of us are.
James — genuinely — give yourself some peace. Not for Trump's sake. For yours. The hatred you're describing isn't hurting him. It's consuming you. And it is not going to produce one single outcome you actually want.
You are better than this. Your influence is too important for this. The people in your sphere deserve a voice operating from clarity and purpose — not a man whose entire focus by his own words is personal hatred of one individual.
Identify the real source of what you're feeling. Then decide if that source deserves the only life and platform you've been given.

2026-03-20 22:14:05 UTC

"Woe to you who desire the Day of the Lord! Why would you have the Day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light." — Amos 5:18
God doesn't just warn us against predicting it. He warns us against desiring to hasten it. Against positioning ourselves as participants who can arrange the conditions, move the pieces on the board, and trigger fulfillment on a human timetable. That is not faith — that is presumption. And it carries its own judgment.
What we are watching unfold in the world right now — in the Middle East and beyond — involves actors who genuinely believe they are engineering prophetic conditions. That they understand the blueprint well enough to accelerate the clock. Some of them hold real governmental influence. That should sober every believer paying attention.

2026-03-20 21:48:16 UTC

- reply

A Side Note Worth Adding:
One of the men who built the office you currently hold — Thomas Jefferson, writing near the end of his life — left this as practical wisdom for the next generation:
"When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, an hundred."
He wrote that in 1825. A year before he died. As words he knew might be read after he was gone — and he still chose restraint as one of the most important things worth passing forward.
That letter sits in the Library of Congress today.
The office hasn't changed. The weight of the words that come out of it hasn't changed. What has changed is the medium — you now speak instantaneously to the entire world with zero friction between impulse and broadcast.
That's not power. That's exposure.
The world is watching. More importantly — the families, the children, the ordinary people absorbing the consequences of every unconsidered word — they're not watching.
They're living it.
Count to a hundred, Mr. President. Jefferson earned the right to give that advice. So does anyone paying attention right now.

2026-03-20 21:38:04 UTC

- reply

Mr. President, You've Been Played — and the World Knows It
Donald Trump recently said about Iran:
"I don't want to do a ceasefire. You know you don't do a ceasefire when you're literally obliterating the other side."
Let's be honest about what actually happened here — because the framing matters enormously.
You didn't attack a nation in any conventional sense. You didn't neutralize a military command structure. You didn't decapitate a government. What you did was take direction from an ally with its own agenda, dismiss the counsel of your own administration from multiple angles, and authorize the assassination of a religious leader — not a head of state, not a prime minister, not a general — a religious figure. In front of his own people. In front of the entire world.
Do you understand what that does?
You didn't weaken a regime. You created a martyr. And there is no military technology on earth — no bunker buster, no carrier group, no sanctions package — that can unmake a martyr once you've made one. That image is permanent. It lives in the consciousness of hundreds of millions of people and it will be passed to their children and their children's children. History is full of examples of what happens when empires make that mistake, and none of them end well for the empire.
The assessment that Iran is "obliterated" because they lack the conventional force projection to respond in kind is a profound misreading of how asymmetric power works — and frankly, how faith works. You cannot bomb a religion into submission. You cannot drone-strike a theology out of existence. These are things that men far more studied in the region than the current DC echo chamber have been saying for decades, and they were pushed out of the room precisely because they said them.
Here is the harder truth: a man of your documented intelligence and instinct for leverage has been maneuvered. The ally that benefits most from this sequence of events is not the United States. The strategic outcome that is now unfolding — broader regional destabilization, accelerated alignment between adversarial powers, and the moral isolation of American foreign policy in the eyes of the global south — does not serve American interests. It serves a narrower agenda that was never fully disclosed to the American people.
This is not about being anti-Israel or pro-Iran. This is about asking the most basic strategic question: who benefits, and at whose expense?
Real people are paying the price. Families. Businesses. Communities on multiple continents. The cost of this miscalculation is not abstract — it is landing on ordinary people who had no vote in any of it.
Mr. President, the men who agree with everything you say are not your advisors. They are your ceiling. The ones you need are the ones you stopped listening to — the ones who told you this path leads somewhere you don't want to go.
There is still time to recalibrate. But not if the metric for success is how completely you've "obliterated" the other side.
That's not victory. That's the setup for the next forty years of blowback.

2026-03-20 21:21:42 UTC

- reply

Welcome to the Club, Don — But Keep Walking
Don Lemon recently said something worth noting:
"Bibi Netanyahu has been saying for 40 fucking years that Iran was two weeks away from a nuclear weapon. Just like Donald Trump has been saying forever — two weeks he's gonna fix the economy, two weeks he's gonna bring down the cost of goods, everything is two weeks and none of it ever happens and yet people are still brainwashed by the cult leaders."
He's not wrong. The "two weeks away from an Iranian nuclear weapon" alarm has been ringing since the early 1980s. The goalposts have moved so many times they've worn a groove in the turf. That's a documented, verifiable pattern — and it deserves to be called out.
So credit where it's due: Don Lemon spent the better part of his career as a reliable spigot for whatever narrative his network needed him to move that day. Now he's off that leash, building his own platform, and apparently starting to look around and ask questions. That's admirable. Seriously.
But partial awakening is still partial.
Notice what he did — he paired Netanyahu with Trump. That framing tells you something. A man who has genuinely broken free of institutional narrative doesn't reach for ideologically convenient targets. He applies the same ruthless consistency everywhere. Where's the "two weeks" critique on WMD intelligence in Iraq? On NATO expansion promises? On the Federal Reserve's perpetually "transitory" inflation? On energy independence timelines across five administrations of both parties?
The two-weeks problem isn't a Netanyahu problem or a Trump problem. It's a power problem. It's what institutions do when they need public compliance but can't deliver on truth.
What Don experienced for decades in network cable news has a name — and it's not a conspiracy theory. It's access journalism. It's corporate ownership consolidation. It's the career incentive structure that rewards anchors who stay inside the lines and quietly ends the careers of those who don't. You don't need a shadowy operation when the architecture of the system does the work automatically.
The fact that Don is now outside that architecture and beginning to see the pattern he participated in — that matters. But seeing one corner of the room isn't seeing the room.
The advice is simple: don't swap one set of approved targets for another. Do the hard work. Go to primary sources. Follow the money and the policy continuity, not the personalities. And understand that what we've been watching unfold for the last 50 years isn't a left problem or a right problem — it's a capture problem, and it runs through every major institution we were taught to trust.
Keep going, Don. You're at the beginning of something. Don't stop here.

2026-03-17 15:39:06 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the reference, will look it up!

2026-03-17 13:29:36 UTC

- reply

Anyone see this?
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs98rtffnzd0jus63utdm80qq8c7283wqysjrywm3pfkfcqn465xrcdvcnnm
Sound familiar to the 9/11 play? PDB (8/6/2001) and national intelligence estimate of "no one ever thought" .......

2026-03-17 13:26:19 UTC

- reply

9/11 anyone? Remember the National Intelligence Report / (PDB) and Rice/Bush stating no one ever imagined planes hitting the towers, meanwhile its on the front cover of the report?
Now here is an interesting Podcast by Simon Dixon
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsfjq9ml6h6rmwm7h5clesr5eys6r347ptv8j5xgmw284nz95axltqdy2mlr
🤔😎🤨

2026-03-13 21:43:26 UTC

- reply

And that’s exactly the type of centralized control Bitcoin was created to bypass.
BUT!!!!!
Money infrastructure is too important to be open to everyone.
VS
Anyone should be able to participate without asking permission.
The upside is openness.
The downside is that it can turn into speculation and scams...
Extremes in both views...
But as we have witnessed "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord Acton

2026-03-13 21:41:03 UTC

- reply

And that’s exactly the type of centralized control Bitcoin was created to bypass.
BUT!!!!!
Money infrastructure is too important to be open to everyone.
VS
Anyone should be able to participate without asking permission.
The upside is openness.
The downside is that it can turn into speculation and scams...
Extremes in both views...
But as we have witnessed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ~ Lord Acton

2026-03-13 03:02:13 UTC

- reply

The FDA announcing a unified platform for tracking adverse events is a welcome technical improvement. Consolidating fragmented databases and making reports easier to access is long overdue. Transparency and better data tools are always a step in the right direction.
That said, modernizing the reporting interface doesn’t automatically resolve the deeper concerns many people have about the system itself. Passive reporting databases have always had limitations—underreporting, inconsistent data quality, and the inability to establish causation without deeper investigation.
More importantly, the real criticism directed at the FDA over the years hasn’t been about the lack of dashboards or databases. It’s been about trust, transparency in decision-making, regulatory independence, and whether safety signals are investigated thoroughly and communicated openly.
A new platform may make the data easier to see, which is good. But rebuilding confidence in public health institutions requires more than improved software—it requires consistent accountability, rigorous oversight, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable findings when they arise.
Technology can improve visibility. Trust still has to be earned.

2026-03-13 02:47:21 UTC

- reply

Disgusting... Sad... It will come here, justice is slow... I hate to see bloodshed and so many innocent, one day our innocent will pay the same tragic price... I pray daily this isnt so but, something tells me what comes around... goes around.. what you sow, you will reap...

2026-03-13 02:30:23 UTC

- reply

Until... 2030 (The Plan)... LMAO.... Hubris @ Large

2026-03-11 13:10:50 UTC

- reply

I recently revisited a discussion around The Great Taking by David Rogers Webb, and it forced me to think more carefully about how ownership actually works in modern finance. Webb’s core point—that most people don’t truly hold their financial assets directly but instead hold beneficial claims through layers of custodians and clearing systems—raises legitimate questions about how secure those assets really are in a systemic crisis. It challenges the common assumption that a brokerage statement equals direct ownership.
That conversation naturally leads into Bitcoin, which many people—especially in communities like Nostr—see as an answer to that problem. The idea is simple: if you control the private keys, you control the asset. No broker, no clearinghouse, no intermediary chain that could potentially rehypothecate or freeze your holdings. In theory, that creates a form of financial sovereignty that traditional markets do not provide.
However, I remain cautious. Bitcoin’s promise of independence from centralized finance exists alongside realities that introduce new uncertainties. For one, the origin of Bitcoin remains opaque. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is still unknown, and while the protocol is open source and decentralized, the lack of historical clarity inevitably raises questions about how the system began and why it was allowed to develop so freely in its early years.
Another concern is the relationship between Bitcoin and governments. While the protocol itself may be difficult to control, the access points to it—exchanges, banking rails, and taxation systems—are not. Nearly every on-ramp and off-ramp requires identity verification and transaction records. The blockchain’s transparency, which is essential for trust and verification, also means transactions can be traced once an address is tied to a real person. In that sense, the same transparency that gives Bitcoin integrity can also create a form of financial surveillance.
There is also the issue of volatility. Even when Bitcoin is used in peer-to-peer transactions, its price swings—often influenced by large institutional players, derivatives markets, and macroeconomic policy signals—make it difficult to treat as stable money. While institutions and governments do not control the network itself, their actions in adjacent markets clearly affect its price and perception.
All of this leaves me in a position that is neither dismissive nor blindly optimistic. Bitcoin represents a genuine technological innovation that addresses some of the structural weaknesses in modern financial custody. At the same time, it operates within a broader economic and political environment that is still evolving.
So the question isn’t simply whether Bitcoin is safe or unsafe. The deeper question is how a decentralized monetary network will coexist with governments and financial systems that historically expect to control money and the mechanisms of exchange. The answer to that question will likely determine whether Bitcoin becomes a durable store of value, a parallel financial system, or something else entirely.

2026-03-11 12:42:57 UTC

- reply

https://youtu.be/dk3AVceraTI
Most Excellent @nprofile…m94j
Listening and half way is outstanding, thanks for the note

2026-03-11 12:25:01 UTC

- reply

China’s youth losing confidence in the future shouldn’t surprise anyone.
When housing becomes a speculative asset instead of a basic commodity, wages lag behind living costs, and households need two incomes just to stay afloat, belief in the system starts to erode.
People stop spending, delay families, and focus on survival rather than prosperity.
That pattern isn’t unique to China. It’s increasingly visible across much of the developed world.

2026-03-11 12:04:51 UTC

- reply

I see your note, but I don't see what your replying to: what book is it?

2026-03-11 03:24:48 UTC

My notes are just my personal opinions on current events.
Not looking for followers or popularity. If something I write encourages someone to research an issue or think more deeply, that’s enough.
Grateful for Nostr as a neutral space without algorithmic feeds shaping what people see.

2026-03-11 03:19:50 UTC

Just sharing honest opinions on geopolitics and current events.
Not looking for followers — just real conversation.
Bots following accounts is honestly unsettling.

2026-03-11 03:17:11 UTC

About 30 years following geopolitics and watching how narratives evolve around global events.
Posting observations on current news and looking for conversation with people, not bots.

2026-03-11 03:04:37 UTC

- reply

I’m putting this mildly because there’s a lot more historical depth behind this than most headlines acknowledge.
The current rhetoric around Iran — threats, regime change talk, nuclear alarmism — didn’t appear out of nowhere. The United States has been deeply entangled in Iran’s political trajectory for decades. From its relationship with the Shah, to the upheaval that led to the rise of the Ayatollahs, the region’s instability is tied to a long history of intervention, miscalculation, and failed intelligence assessments.
For more than twenty years, Israeli leadership — especially Benjamin Netanyahu — has repeatedly warned that Iran was “months away” from nuclear weapons. That rhetoric has been used to push urgency, escalation, and pressure on U.S. policy makers again and again.
Yet here we are decades later, still hearing the same warnings, the same calls for confrontation, and the same shifting narratives about regime change versus negotiation.
Meanwhile the global stakes are enormous. The Strait of Hormuz sits on the edge of disruption, world energy markets are at risk, and the region is sliding toward a conflict whose objectives remain unclear.
When the public messaging swings between threats, denials, and sudden calls for negotiation, it’s hard not to feel like much of what’s being presented is political theater. After decades of missteps, intelligence failures, and shifting justifications, people are right to question whether the strategy behind this escalation is grounded in reality or simply repeating the same cycle.

2026-03-11 02:57:14 UTC

- reply

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to restructure deportation appeals, citing concerns about due process and changes to how immigration courts operate. I understand the concern about preserving legal safeguards, but it’s hard to ignore how the system ended up in this position in the first place.
The immigration court backlog didn’t just emerge from vague “institutional drift.” It grew out of years of policies where large numbers of people crossed the border, were processed, and then released into the country while waiting for hearings that might not occur for years. When the system became overwhelmed, it created an environment where legitimate asylum claims and questionable or coached claims alike could move through the same overloaded pipeline.
That failure to properly vet and distinguish genuine cases from rehearsed narratives — often shaped by NGOs, legal networks, and advocacy groups operating across borders — has contributed directly to the crisis. When millions of cases are funneled into a system that lacks the capacity or political will to adjudicate them quickly, the result isn’t compassion or order. It’s paralysis.
This didn’t happen overnight. The vulnerabilities in the system were obvious for years, and everyone involved knew the backlog would eventually become unmanageable. What we’re seeing now is the predictable result of a system that was allowed — and in some cases encouraged — to operate far beyond its limits.

2026-03-11 02:48:00 UTC

- reply

South Korea is upset about the U.S. redeploying Patriot air-defense systems from the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East. That frustration is understandable — when defensive assets are suddenly shifted out of a region, allies are left wondering how firm American commitments really are.
Ukraine gets brought into these conversations a lot, but Ukraine isn’t even a NATO member. That conflict is primarily a European security issue, and Europe has far greater direct stake in it than the United States. It’s a completely different strategic question than our formal alliances.
What stands out here is the inconsistency in how Washington exercises independence in its decisions. When Europe pushed for deeper engagement around Ukraine, the U.S. was at least willing to debate limits and burdens. Yet when Middle East dynamics tied to Israel escalate, Washington often appears far quicker to reposition resources and shape policy around that theater.
Over time that kind of selective urgency raises questions about strategic priorities. Allies notice when decisions appear driven less by consistent national strategy and more by the pressures of particular regional conflicts.

2026-03-11 02:43:40 UTC

- reply

Donald Trump has never had much trouble looking people in the eye and saying whatever he believes will move a situation toward the outcome he wants. That isn’t unique to him—politicians across the spectrum have done the same for decades—but it seems like many people have forgotten that reality.
That said, I wouldn’t go so far as to claim everything he says is a lie. During his first term, I believe many of his actions were at least intended to move in what he saw as the national interest.
What’s changed, in my view, is the last several months. Something about the direction of his decisions and priorities feels markedly different. Whether that’s political pressure, alliances, or broader geopolitical influence, it increasingly appears that the outcomes being pursued are not aligned with what many Americans would consider the national interest.
You don’t have to believe every statement is false to question whether the trajectory of recent actions is serving the country first.

2026-03-10 23:05:53 UTC

- reply

When Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is fighting a cruel enemy that wants to destroy them and therefore needs tens of billions more in wartime spending, that’s a familiar narrative used by governments throughout history during conflict. Every side in a war frames the other as an existential threat to justify extraordinary mobilization and cost.
What makes this conflict particularly difficult to ignore is the massive imbalance of power. Israel possesses one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, while Palestinians largely lack a conventional army and often resort to far more primitive means of resistance.
History shows that perspective shifts depending on who holds power at a given moment. In earlier periods, when Jewish groups in the region resisted foreign rule, those same kinds of actions were described by the ruling power as terrorism, while supporters saw them as resistance against occupation.
That doesn’t automatically settle the moral questions involved today, but it should remind people that wartime rhetoric and the narratives used to justify it are rarely as simple as leaders present them.

2026-03-10 23:00:53 UTC

- reply

A head of state should represent the entire nation, not publicly declare allegiance to a specific ideology, religion, or foreign political movement. Doing so risks disenfranchising large portions of the citizenry who may not share that belief. In a constitutional system, the executive’s role is to execute laws and policies set by the legislature, not to elevate personal ideological commitments above the national interest.

2026-03-10 22:56:25 UTC

- reply

Criticism of a nation-state’s policies — including Israel’s — should be evaluated the same way as criticism of any other government. Disagreement with Israeli policy does not automatically equate to hostility toward Jewish people.

2026-03-08 13:39:35 UTC

- reply

I think a lot of people are badly underestimating how much frustration is building among ordinary Americans. When leaders swear an oath to represent their citizens but instead ignore them, economically squeeze them, and drag the country into decisions people never asked for, trust doesn’t just erode — it disappears. At that point it stops being about ideology or party and becomes something much more basic: people realizing the system no longer serves them. History shows that when that disconnect grows long enough, pressure builds until something gives.
From fiat systems to information flows and the amount of truth surfacing everywhere, the old “boiling frog” analogy doesn’t even apply anymore. The frog isn’t sitting in tepid water — the pot is already boiling, and ordinary people can feel the temperature. The people living normal lives, trying to pay bills and raise families, see the strain far more clearly than the political and media bubbles pretending everything is still under control.

2026-03-08 13:39:02 UTC

- reply

2026-03-08 12:57:24 UTC

- reply

This is about as accurate as I can think of… A lot of symbolism there… Their reaction is genuine sentiment and is appreciated.

2026-03-08 12:53:56 UTC

- reply

I don’t feel bad for governments being held accountable. If they walked into a trap, that’s on them. What I worry about are the innocent people who will pay the price. This isn’t going to end with some neat “regime change.” It’s the kind of escalation that spreads tragedy across the world.

2026-03-08 12:24:53 UTC

- reply

Only one "cult" on earth that I am aware of today (Modern Times) enjoy and actively support the sacrificing of babies (murdering), mutilation of genitalia, etc..... Hmmm... I am 100% confident it's geographic location isn’t Iran.. Some other geographic location comes to mind....

2026-03-08 12:11:44 UTC

- reply

THROWBACK NOTICE: (IRAQ 2.0)
“babies taken from incubators” story** from the lead-up to the **1991 Gulf War**, which became one of the most powerful emotional arguments used in the U.S. to build support for military action against Iraq. The wording people often remember as *“cutting babies’ heads off”* or similar atrocities is a **later rhetorical shorthand**, but the original claim was about **Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators and leaving them to die**.
Here is the precise timeline.
---
## 1. When the story was introduced (1990)
**October 10, 1990**
A 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known publicly only as **“Nayirah”** testified before the **U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus**.
She claimed that Iraqi soldiers:
> “took the babies out of the incubators… and left them on the cold floor to die.”
The testimony was broadcast widely and repeated across media and government statements. ([Eritrea Ministry Of Information][1])
Key effects:
* Repeated by multiple **U.S. senators** during debate on war authorization.
* Cited by **President George H. W. Bush** in speeches.
* Widely reported on television and newspapers.
* Became one of the most emotionally powerful arguments for **Operation Desert Storm (1991)**.
Although **Colin Powell** was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, the story was **mainly promoted by the Bush administration and members of Congress**, not introduced by Powell personally.
---
## 2. What the story actually was
Later investigation found:
* “Nayirah” was **not a nurse** and **had not witnessed the event**.
* She was actually **the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States**.
* The testimony was part of a **public-relations campaign run by Hill & Knowlton** for a group called **Citizens for a Free Kuwait**, funded by the Kuwaiti government. ([Wikipedia][2])
---
## 3. When it was exposed as false
**January 1992**
After the war ended, journalists and human-rights investigators revealed:
* Nayirah’s identity.
* The PR campaign behind the testimony.
* Lack of evidence for the incubator killings.
These revelations showed the testimony had been **misleading and likely fabricated**. ([Wikipedia][3])
---
## 4. Timeline summary
| Event | Date |
| ------------------------------ | ---------------- |
| Iraqi invasion of Kuwait | Aug 2, 1990 |
| “Incubator babies” testimony | **Oct 10, 1990** |
| Gulf War begins (Desert Storm) | Jan 17, 1991 |
| War ends | Feb 1991 |
| Testimony exposed as false | **Jan 1992** |
---
**Key point:**
The incubator-baby story circulated for **about 15–16 months** before it was publicly exposed as false, and by then the war had already occurred.
---
[1]: https://shabait.com/2009/10/19/did-saddams-soldiers-throw-babies-from-incubators-in-kuwait/ "Did Saddam's Soldiers Throw Babies From Incubators In ..."
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait" History of Kuwait"
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony" Nayirah testimony"

2026-03-07 19:00:00 UTC

- reply

Marvel couldn't have done it better, Avengers 2.0....

2026-03-07 18:55:12 UTC

- reply

IMHO - We are being setup to fall. Theatre or not, Agreed on or not, Emergent or not, US is being put into a very dark place fast.

2026-02-23 02:41:04 UTC

- reply

For accurate and up-to-date information on U.S. border and immigration policy, consult:
• The White House press releases
• CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) newsroom
• Federal Register (official record of executive actions)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcements
In short: There is no credible report confirming that U.S. borders will be closed on March 1st. The viral video you saw appears to be misinformation without verification from any official government source.

2026-02-15 00:25:48 UTC

- reply

The onus is on the community, not the protocol.
A protocol does not think, judge, shadow-ban, or censor. It only routes information.
Accountability belongs to individuals and communities choosing what to engage with—not to the rails themselves.

2026-02-15 00:20:50 UTC

- reply

and if it happens to me or anybody else on Primal then I won't be here either and the battle will continue for free speech.

2026-02-14 22:23:38 UTC

- reply

The core distinction they miss is this:
These rights are not granted by the state.
They are endowed by God.
That’s the difference.
When speech is treated as something the government may regulate “responsibly,” it is no longer a right—it is a revocable privilege. The American framework rejects that premise entirely. Our founders did not create free speech; they recognized it as pre-existing, inherent, and beyond the authority of rulers.
The state exists to protect natural rights, not redefine them.
Once government claims the power to decide what speech is “responsible,” it claims sovereignty over conscience, thought, and moral agency.
That is not freedom with responsibility.
That is obedience with permission.
Responsibility lies with the individual before God—not with bureaucrats before ideology. Speech may persuade, offend, or challenge, but it does not become violence simply because authority fears its consequences.
Rights that come from the state can be taken by the state.
Rights that come from God cannot—only violated.
And history is very clear about what happens when governments forget that difference.

2026-02-14 22:10:34 UTC

- reply

I really resonate with this.
What you’re describing isn’t just fear of job loss—it’s the tension between predictable stability and earned freedom. I’ve been on both sides of that divide. I was once part of the outsourcing machine, and I walked away because it was corrosive—to people’s lives and to my own sense of morality.
I started out as an entrepreneur too. It was the hardest and best time of my life. I was wildly successful, employed hundreds, and carried the weight of many lives depending on me. But success also paints a target on your back. It breeds enemies you didn’t know you had, and it forces you into a constant state of vigilance that few people talk about.
Today, I find myself seeking corporate stability again—not out of ignorance, but humility. Predictability has value. But I deeply admire the fact that you’re an entrepreneur at heart and willing to bet on yourself when circumstances force the question.
The world is changing faster than anyone wants to admit. I suspect many who believe corporate roles are “safe” will face this same reckoning. In the end, it’s the people hardened by experience—who’ve built, failed, adapted, and carried responsibility—who tend to be the most resilient.
As for the five lives depending on you—my heart goes out to you. I know that stress. I know those sleepless nights. One thing I didn’t see mentioned, and something that carried me through, is the belief that God is sovereign. He doesn’t always send answers the way we expect—but He always provides. The fact that you’re carrying those five lives already tells me you’re not alone in this.
This kind of honesty and encouragement—that’s community. That’s being human. And it’s exactly what the modern world tries to strip away.
Keep the faith. You’re fighting the good fight.

2026-02-14 21:56:44 UTC

- reply

The SAFE Act isn’t radical.
It’s corrective.
Requiring government-issued photo ID to vote reflects overwhelming public consensus—not partisan extremism.
According to Pew Research Center (Aug 2025):
• 95% of Republicans support voter ID
• 71% of Democrats support voter ID
• Only ~16% oppose it
That’s not division. That’s agreement.
When a policy with broad, cross-party support is blocked, diluted, or framed as “harmful,” the issue isn’t democracy—it’s who controls the rules of legitimacy.
A system that refuses basic identity verification while demanding compliance everywhere else isn’t protecting voters.
It’s protecting ambiguity.
The SAFE Act is about restoring trust by aligning elections with the same standard required to:
• board a plane
• open a bank account
• access government services
Consent matters.
Legitimacy matters.
And a small administrative class doesn’t get to override the will of the majority while claiming moral superiority.
Democracy doesn’t fail because citizens are trusted.
It fails when systems are designed to operate without accountability to them

2026-02-14 21:41:46 UTC

- reply

I couldn't agree more, as grievous as the children are what's even more is the betrayal of every human being on the planet, and it takes form in tyrannical, force or coercion in about everything in your life.

2026-02-14 21:23:30 UTC

- reply

The irony is obvious:
What’s sold as “safety” for younger users has far less to do with protection and far more to do with conditioning.
This is about shaping acceptable language.
Reinforcing approved narratives.
And training people—early—to outsource judgment to authority.
That isn’t safety. That’s indoctrination.
The architects of centralized moderation don’t trust citizens to think, choose, or disagree.
They believe control of speech is control of minds—and history shows they’re right to believe that.
That’s exactly why the founders of the United States enshrined freedom of speech:
not because speech is harmless,
but because power cannot be trusted to decide truth.
Decentralized systems matter because they remove the babysitter.
They force responsibility back onto individuals—where it belongs.
Free speech was never meant to be safe.
It was meant to be free from governors of thought.

2026-02-14 21:12:28 UTC

- reply

I reject the idea that disagreement equals harm.
I reject the collapse of harassment, violence, and discrimination into the same bucket as dissent, preference, or moral disagreement.
When institutions declare that opposing views are “threats,” what they’re really doing is asserting control over speech, not protecting people.
Adults do not need a centralized authority to curate reality for them.
We are capable of choosing what we consume, who we listen to, and what we reject.
Platforms that silence voices at the gateway don’t create safety — they create compliance.
And once speech is treated as something to be managed, power inevitably decides who is allowed to exist in public discourse.
That’s why decentralized systems matter.
Not because everyone agrees — but because no one gets to decide for everyone else.

2026-02-14 21:00:49 UTC

- reply

two or three people I saw have lost voices on upscrolled , I have not seen a single person on Primal lose their account or handle because someone got their feelings hurt or didn't agree with what they were saying.
It's up to the community at large to support whatever platform they prefer, I strongly encourage and support people to stay with Damus or Primal if they care about censorship and freedom.

2026-02-14 20:57:42 UTC

- reply

There’s a real difference between platforms that act as gatekeepers and platforms that act as clients.
One model assumes a centralized authority should decide whose voice is acceptable, quietly removing people when they cross invisible lines.
The other assumes we’re adults—capable of choosing what we consume, who we follow, and what we mute—without needing a referee to silence others “for our own good.”
That distinction matters.
Free speech isn’t about forcing anyone to listen.
It’s about not having your voice removed at the gateway.
On Nostr / Primal, responsibility lives with the user—not the platform.
And that feels a lot closer to how open systems are supposed to work.

2026-02-14 12:14:19 UTC

- reply

Did you see Yannik Schrade interview? Loved his quote "privacy is core of freedom, it is protecting your intercore as a humanbeing from forces that don't want you to be at the end of the day"

2026-02-14 11:54:43 UTC

- reply

I know primal doesnt let you see views, keep pushing on here, very free here @nprofile…69yj people need to hear your voice.

2026-02-14 11:52:50 UTC

- reply

I love the fact Primal and nostr is being real with not restricting your content Ryan, been a follower of yours for a few years. I deleted my account on that other when Incouldnt find your handle.
Thanks for your work!!!

2026-02-12 12:38:47 UTC

- reply

@ryanmatta why do I not see you when I search for your handle or your last name on UpScrolled but yet I can find you on Primal?

2026-02-12 11:58:18 UTC

- reply

I joined once I found NOSTR and have not went back to X.

2025-12-30 23:24:24 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/aa0574d892302b8362eaaf7d7e783322c47a1a9495cf07de653eb9eadbeffe53.png

2025-12-25 02:11:02 UTC

- reply

You posted this and no context, are you feeding this bullshit?

2025-12-03 02:52:34 UTC

- reply

context?