I have no doubt that Elon Musk will be a part of this effort. If only we could have legal elections.

Why waste money? Israel does not need a US embassy: they already own the White House.

Our ancestors are the guardians of our history. By telling their stories and preserving their memories, we keep their voices alive and forge a connection between them and ourselves. We walk our own path in their footsteps. Their experiences and their legacy serve as a compass, guiding us in the right direction.

From Nordic Roots

Roth Notes: How many of our young people even know who their grandparents are, much less the origin of their line? How many care? Without our ancestors we would not exist. They worked, suffered, bled, and died making a great nation. A great nation we take for granted. My people, the Saxons, defeated three Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest. I have an ancestor that fought the Redcoats in the Revolution. My great grandfather fought the Yankees. His daddy was instrumental in supplying the Army of Northern Virginia.

Don’t forget your roots. I don’t.

It’s striking how much cooler it is beneath the trees. Almost as if that were a solution. Sarcasm off…

Anyone can feel how much cooler it is under a tree within just a few seconds. You don’t need a study, an expert, or a press conference for that. You simply have to stop, breathe, and feel.

Beneath an ancient canopy, the air is alive. Asphalt, on the other hand, stores heat, radiates it back for hours, and turns our cities into ovens.

And yet, trees are being cut down.

By the very people who champion nature conservation. By a political movement that calls itself “Green.” To me, this is a contradiction that could hardly be greater.

Ancient peoples knew that trees were sacred. They saw them as the pillars of the world, the link between heaven and earth. A spirit dwelt in every oak; a memory lived in every forest. Whoever felled a tree took more than just wood—they disrupted the balance.

Today, we call the destruction of our roots “progress.”

We talk about climate protection while trees that have stood for decades vanish. We speak of sustainability while concrete seals off more and more of the earth. We give speeches about the future while sawing away at the very thing that makes our present bearable.

Perhaps the greatest problem isn’t the heat.

Perhaps it is the arrogance of certain politicians—the belief that they can replace the laws of nature with ideology.

Nature cannot be deceived. It knows no party lines. It knows only cause and effect.

Anyone who sacrifices forests and then positions themselves as a climate savior should ask themselves whether they are truly protecting the Earth—or merely a political narrative.

The trees will not speak for us.

They fall in silence.

And one day, that very silence will be louder than any campaign speech.

From Huter der Irminsul

Jesus never explicitly addressed the topic of "women in leadership positions" with any general statement, rule, prohibition, or teaching on gender and authority in ministry or society.

The Gospels contain no recorded words from Jesus like "women may lead" or "women may not… https://t.co/HLLlyHi7aj

— NC Renegade (@jackisatraitor1) July 1, 2026

In the mid-80s the first consumer PCs were released. In 1991 the first website. In 2007 the iPhone and Netflix. In 2022 ChatGPT and consumer AI.

Overall, has life gotten progressively better since the mid-80s, or worse? Are we healthier and happier than we were in the 1970s and before? Is the natural realm in a better state?

Futurists/Technophiles could try and argue that society worsened despite these new digital technologies and not because of them, but that doesn’t cut it. If digital technologies don’t guarantee a better standard of living than why would we embrace them, at a cost? I’d argue that they are at best futile, at worst harmful.

The reason is simple: Tech innovation always cascades downwards from the top of the pyramid. It is not distributed evenly and simultaneously, or from the bottom up. The financial ‘elite’ get first dibs; they seize, manipulate, dominate, commodify and monetize the tech before it reaches the masses. They use it to maximize their efficiency (profits), which means they use it to exploit the masses and environment more optimally.

Whom does it serve? Not us. You might think that AI is making your work more efficient, but are you getting paid more for that efficiency, or is it your employer who is benefitting? Some of you may have worked out how to earn more by using AI, but before long a competitor will arrive to undercut you. New efficiency always sets a new base level, and the job market and living costs adapt, so that before long you’re back on the same rung of the ladder as everyone else.

Similarly, you might think that your smartphone loaded with Google Maps benefits you… until you realise that Google is monetizing you as a dataset. Netflix is cheaper and easier than Blockbuster video, until Netflix is $15 a month, collecting data on you and feeding you globo propaganda… and it still has ads.

And if we colonize Mars, Elon Musk and his buddies will have a $50,000 shuttle-service ready to take you to their ready-made city complete with ready-made taxes, civic duties and a new Mars Constitution guaranteeing you freedom from anti-Semitism, religion and tradition.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a hi-tech future won’t be concurrent with a decrease in quality of life, of freedom, and of dignity. It’s delusional – a cope. If you want freedom and dignity, it will only be found by using tools that cannot be centrally served, surveilled and remotely controlled.

From The Fyrgen

… and a video …

This is a year of strange anniversaries.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, a band of revolutionaries declared their independence from a king.

America’s founders rejected concentrated power. They denounced standing armies. They distrusted government secrecy. They risked their lives to escape a ruler who could tax without consent, wage war without accountability, and govern without meaningful restraint.

Twenty-five years ago, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, America embarked on a very different journey.

The federal government claimed extraordinary emergency powers. Surveillance expanded. Wars multiplied. Executive authority grew. Constitutional safeguards were weakened in the name of security.

One anniversary marked a revolt against empire. The other marked the normalization of it.

Thus, the question is not whether America survived 250 years.

The question is whether the principles of 1776 can survive the American police state.

Continue reading …

The World Is Becoming Increasingly Divided By Fertility

One group of countries now has too few births to naturally replace its population, while another continues to see population growth driven by higher fertility rates. This demographic divide has major implications for aging populations, labor markets, immigration, and future economic growth.

Continue reading …

Roth Note: When I taught an ethics class at the military school, I asked the cadets a series of rhetorical questions. “Let’s say there’s a village in Africa with 100 starving people; would you feed them?” The cadets answered in the affirmative which resulted in my second question. “What do well fed people do?” No answer from the cadets, so I answered for them. “They breed.” Next question, “Now that they’ve bred we have 500 starving people. Do you feed them?” Again the cadets answered in the affirmative. Last question, “Let’s assume you do this repeatedly until you have one million and to feed them you must take food from the mouths of your family. Do you feed them?”

Which is better, to let 100 starve or one million? And yes, I know about teaching them to fish and farm. That’s been tried. Consider the result.

As outgoing Kier Starmer prepares to depart amid cratering approval ratings and deep public disillusionment, his ‘Pride’ reception remarks this week reveal a leader more focused on cultural signalling than addressing Britain’s pressing crises.

Can we please get back to having a serious country, rather than “the gayest parliament of all time anywhere in the world”? pic.twitter.com/6e7xzLIAky— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) July 1, 2026

He praised what he called global leadership in representation, stating Westminster is “the gayest parliament… anywhere in the world” and telling attendees to “celebrate that.”

We really don’t care about cocks in frocks, chutney ferrets or rug munchers.

What we do care about is our daughters being groomed or our sons being stabbed and the way our country has been hollowed out by immigration. We care about our elderly, our nation’s security.— ? Humbug ????????? (@_MrsBetSlocombe) July 1, 2026

So we actually need a government focused on delivering for the country as a whole regardless of their sexual preferences but we actually get a government striving to be the gayest. It’s just pathetic— Blue G ? (@Graham93201) July 1, 2026

I’d settle for the most practical, productive and least corrupt parliament, but I guess how gay you are is the metric now. ?— Lee Strato (@leestrato) July 1, 2026

Was it for this men died in the air, at sea, in burning deserts, freezing mountains, stinking jungles and prison camps?— The Lion In Winter ?? (@LordOfMundane) July 1, 2026

Continue reading …

Roth Note: Weimar 2.0? Let’s hope there’s a solution.

From Moon of Alabama

Vice President JD Vance was heavily involved in the ceasefire MoU with Iran. The first part of the Memorandum extended the ceasefire to Lebanon and was supposed to guarantee it sovereignty.

At the same time or shortly thereafter Secretary of State Marco Rubio negotiated an agreement with Lebanon and Israel which guarantees a continuation of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanese land.

The Lebanon agreement is thus a direct attack on the MoU with Iran.

Via The Cradle we find some interesting speculation how this is an expression of a power struggle within Trump’s White House coterie:

The agreement between Lebanon and Israel cannot be understood through bilateral negotiations alone. It also reflects shifting power dynamics in Washington, where US policy toward Lebanon is shaped not only by official institutions, but by competition within the administration and the Republican Party, alongside pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, particularly the Zionist lobby and the hardline Lebanese Christian lobby.
…
[This] is reflected in the quiet contest within the American right, particularly between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who represents the traditional pro-Israel Republican establishment, and Vice President JD Vance, whose camp has been more cautious about US involvement in West Asia.
…
According to sources familiar with the matter, these tensions have extended beyond policy differences. Vance was reportedly angered after learning that Rubio had been planning a tour of the Gulf without consulting him beforehand. He also suspected Rubio of working behind the scenes with US envoys Jared Kushner, and possibly Steve Witkoff, in ways that could undermine Vance’s diplomatic achievements. Those close to Vance increasingly believe that Rubio, Kushner, and Senator Lindsey Graham have formed an informal alliance aimed at sidelining him ahead of the next presidential race.

Rubio has long been captured by the Zionist lobby while Vance is creature of tech billionaires. Which side has more firepower if there is a competition?

Roth Note: Seems another case of the lesser evil for those who still think voting harder will work. We can have either a Zionist or a transhumanist married to a Pajeet. Sigh …

They are here in Cherokee County.

Bottom line: The post accurately describes the flow of funds, the creation and funding of Freedom 250 via the National Park Foundation, the specific IMLS grant transfer and its use for PragerU-linked Freedom Trucks, the spending percentage on that grant, Parscale’s company’s operational role, and his FARA status. These are not fabricated — they are backed by official spending records and reporting from outlets like NOTUS. The “scheme” or “laundering” language reflects a critical interpretation of these legitimate structural and transparency issues rather than proven criminal activity.

Grok