Owners Of Russian Ship Ursa Major Declare Sinking An “Act Of Terrorism”
The Russian cargo ship that sank on Tuesday in the Mediterranean Sea following a mysterious explosion in its engine room was described as an “act of terrorism,” according to the vessel’s owner.
Reuters cites the Russian news agency RIA, which reported on Christmas Day that Oboronlogistika, the ship’s owner and a subsidiary of the Russian Defense Ministry’s military construction operations, stated that the cargo ship, named Ursa Major, had been targeted in “a terrorist act.”
On Monday, Ukraine’s main intelligence directorate reported the cargo vessel was “sent by Russia to retrieve its weapons and equipment from Syria, broke down off the coast of Portugal due to a malfunction in the fuel pipe of its main engine.”
Russian cargo ship Ursa Major has sunk in the Mediterranean after suffering a catastrophic engine room explosion, according to Spanish authorities. 14 crew have been rescued, while two are still missing, according to Spanish media. pic.twitter.com/KbZTq1DuRs
The ship tracking website Marine Traffic shows Ursa Major’s last location was drifting on the high seas near Portugal before sinking on Tuesday.
Neither RIA nor Russian authorities have provided additional color about the claimed terrorist attack on the cargo vessel or who they suspect is responsible.
We asked earlier this week: “The big question for the Ursa Major is whether any US Navy submarines with special forces units lurk beneath.”
If the terrorist attack claim is confirmed, the fear is that the battlefield in Eastern Europe is broadening outside the region.
Nearly three years into the Russia-Ukraine war and marking the second Christmas, Free Press’ Jay Solomon recently asked: “Is World War III Already Here?”
Christmas is, above all else, a time for putting aside the petty grievances and differences that separate us from one another and finding meaning in something greater than ourselves.
Some of the best works of literature and cinema about the season examine this spirit of selflessness, which can seem antithetical to “America First” values when cast in a particular light. But at its core, the spirit of Christmas is quintessentially the same as that which brought millions of people to the polls in November to re-elect Donald Trump.
Attempting to catalog all of the thousands of Christmas movies, of course, would be an impossible feat, but below is a list of nine (plus honorable mentions) that resonate particularly well with the MAGA message.
While the list leaves a lot open to interpretation as to what constitutes a “Christmas” movie or a “MAGA” movie, the one prerequisite was that the themes of both had to be prevalent enough to be immediately recognizable.
Thus, Rambo: First Blood may have included a scene with Christmas decorations in it, but it did not make the cut—even though it might be considered a MAGA classic—because the movie itself does not directly involve the holiday. And although the BB gun subplot in A Christmas Story may have promoted Second Amendment rights for some, that was not an explicit message so much as it was a sign of the times.
We will kick things off with the low-hanging fruit—the only Christmas classic (to date) known to include a cameo from future two-time President Donald Trump himself.
The sequel to one of the most beloved modern Christmas classics is now one of the most beloved MAGA classics due to Trump’s cameo appearance. Much of the film revolves around the iconic Plaza Hotel, which Trump owned at the time but went on to sell in 1995. (Maybe he found out that the desk clerk also moonlighted as a transvestite.)
Another memorable scene takes place at the Wollman Rink, a public ice-skating ring with strong ties to the former Manhattan real-estate magnate. And as an added bonus, the movie features an early appearance from MAGA-friendly comedian Rob Schneider as the bellhop.
Unfortunately, some of its other actors, including Macaulay Culkin and Daniel Stern, have attempted in recent years to use the movie’s renewed relevance as a platform for petty political attacks, and any royalties from it benefit them as well.
Honorable mention: While stylistically very different and not specifically centered around Trump himself, MAGA fans might also consider watching A Lion in Winter, the star-studded 1968 Oscar-winner about an aging ruler who—like Trump—has three sons and must decide who is best fit to carry on his dynasty.
The 1985 box-office smash came at the very peak of the Ronald Reagan era, just two years before the famous Berlin speech that saw Reagan urging Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” and four years before the official fall of the Soviet Union. It was the last of the Rocky films to be directed by Trump-backer Sylvester Stallone (who fittingly described the Republican leader as a “Dickensian” character) until 2006’s Rocky Balboa.
While the Cold War-jingoism resonated with Republicans during the Reagan era, Stallone’s climactic victory speech also underscores the ideas of mutual respect and healthy dialogue as a means to peace.
“In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that’s better than 20 million,” Rocky Balboa says after his defeat of Ivan Drago. “I guess what I’m trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!”
He then wishes his son a Merry Christmas, as the fight took place on Christmas Day. Although the holiday does not figure prominently into the plot, it is one of several action movies whose inclusion of Christmas elements has sparked debate.
However, because the Soviet Union was typically hostile toward religion and did not formally recognize Christmas as a holiday, Balboa’s sacrifice in forgoing the holiday season for the greater good of his country may have been an important reminder that many of those in uniform may not have had the luxury of returning home for the holidays.
Honorable mention:The aforementioned Rambo: First Blood has holiday decorations, but the ever-controversial Die Hard, set during the Christmas season, is the best known of all the Christmas “action” movies that have audiences divided, featuring rogue cop John McClane (portrayed by Bruce Willis—another rare Hollywood Republican) taking on a network of terrorists in New York City.
Ref star Denis Leary unfortunately made the decision in a 2016 gag appearance with late-night host James Corden to attack Trump by rewriting the words to his 1990s gag song “A**hole” for that year’s campaign against Hillary Clinton. It was a hamfisted attempt at comedy then, and it has aged particularly poorly given Trump’s resonance with the American voting public—many of them the same blue-collar types whom Leary tried to appeal to with his updated Archie Bunker schtick.
Leary’s 1994 holiday hit The Ref also aged poorly for its other star, Kevin Spacey, but those able to suspend their disbelief can appreciate the fantastic comedic timing that Spacey and co-star Judy Davis have as a bickering couple on the verge of divorce. There may be one or two obligatory Republican “digs” slipped into the script, but those only accentuate the absurdity of an affluent and insufferable New England family that loves to virtue-signal but finds itself utterly out of touch with anything beyond their own selfish needs and desires—until the outside world forces its way into their lives.
Leary, as a cat-burglar caught in the middle of a hostage situation gone awry, is the perfect foil for the limousine liberals, presaging the “Tea Party” movement that would arrive 10 years later.
Honorable mention:While the only reference to American politics in 2003’s Love Actually may be the scene with Billy Bob Thornton as a Bill Clinton/George W. Bush hybrid of an uncouth, self-serving American president, the movie’s other plots have become well known for their anachronisms—including toxic, anti-MeToo workplaces, trans/LGBT humor and fat shaming, plus a kid gatehopping past airport security and not getting shot. For those who don’t know the holiday classic by heart, consider pouring everyone a cup of spiked eggnog and turning it into a fun drinking game every time something happens that you could never get away with 20 years later.
Like other selections on the list, the star of this early Coen Brothers movie, Tim Robbins, is an outspoken leftist in real life, which can make it difficult to identify with the character. Yet, it also serves as a reminder than many of the classically liberal values once embraced by the Left have now been embraced and appropriated by MAGA-style populism.
It involves a corporation (with the great Paul Newman as a member of its board of directors) that selects Robbins’s character as its top executive in hopes of tanking the stock to permit a corporate buyout. But Robbins generates an idea that is both deceptively simple and wildly appealing, leading the plot to backfire.
The movie is set over Christmas, with its climax occurring on New Year’s Eve, and has some yuletide thematic elements at the end appearing to echo stories like A Christmas Carol and It’s a Wonderful Life.
Honorable mention:Others have pointed out in the past that when the full set of facts is taken into consideration, the true hero of It’s a Wonderful Lifeis Henry Potter, a stockholder in the Bailey Building and Loan company who is forced to pay the price for its bad business decisions. Like Trump, Potter falls the victim to a socialist plot that uses propaganda and lawfare to slander him into submission. Although the movie ends with George Bailey having prevailed, there are hints that a world where Potter never existed would be far worse than one where Bailey never existed.
Why it counts: Globalist elites’ excesses/depravity
Stanley Kubrick’s final movie, based on Austrian author Arthur Schnitzler’s 1926 novella “Dream Story,” changes the events from a Mardi Gras celebration to a Christmas one, adding more to the surreal quality of the cinematography.
The 1999 Tom Cruise film has secured a unique place in pop culture, even inspiring a recent AI tribute by the Dor Brothers that featured world leaders attending a similar masked ball.
Kurbrick also drew much of the film’s aesthetic from accounts of a real-life 1972 black-tie ball hosted by Baroness Marie-Hélène de Rothschild that was heavy on Satanic symbolism.
Theories about members of the globalist elite engaging in such bizarre behavior, often connected to Satanic undertones and sex-cults, have continued to snowball in recent years, ranging from the secret cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein’s client list to the rumors of the Clinton–Podesta Pizzagate conspiracy, to the accounts of cocaine-fueled orgies involving members of Congress and the annual Davos conference hosted by the World Economic Forum.
Honorable mention:Rod Serling’s 1964 made-for-TV adaptation of A Christmas Carol, titled Carol for Another Christmas was a star-studded propaganda piece commissioned by the United Nations to persuade Americans that the UN did not have a communist agenda in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. It resurfaced in 2012 after Turner Classic Movies began re-airing it. But hindsight makes the propaganda all the more obvious and blatant, perhaps exposing just how left-wing globalist groups like the UN have used Hollywood to undermine American interests.
Monty Python alum Terry Gilliam directed this 1985 dystopian tale (released just weeks after Rambo IV) about a cog in the system who, shortly before Christmas, discovers a serious mistake caused by a literal bug in the machinery. The discovery sends him into a Kafkaesque spiral of tension-escalating plot twists. While trying to break free from the system, he is himself detained and tortured, with the ending leaving it ambiguous as to whether freedom in this society is truly attainable.
Honorable mention:The Nativity Story, a 2006 retelling of the birth of Jesus tells the familiar tale with an emphasis on the Magi (not to be confused with MAGA), the three wise men who arrived on Jan. 6—known to Christians as the celebration of the Epiphany. King Herrod of Judea sought help from the visiting Oriental trio in locating the Jewish messiah, whom he feared would supplant him as ruler. Although the king resorted to drastic measures—demanding the slaughter of innocent babies, much like the modern Left’s abortion agenda—the Magi refused to cooperate, making them the original J6 political dissidents.
The 2002 third installment in the comedic series that coined the term “Bye Felicia” finds friends Craig (portrayed by red-pilled rapper Ice Cube) and Day-Day forced to get jobs as security guards after a thief dressed as Santa steals all their Christmas presents. The movie also features a turn from Terry Crews (another red-pilled actor, best known for his turn as President Camacho in the modern cult classic Idiocracy) as a newly-released inmate who picked up homosexual tendencies while incarcerated.
Honorable mention:Jim Varney’s redneck hero Ernest P. Worrell returns to his most famous role in 1988’s Ernest Saves Christmas, in which the hero becomes Santa Claus after the original Santa leaves his magic bag in the back of Ernest’s cab in Orlando.
Made during the peak of the COVID-19 hysteria, this 2021 movie, with an ensemble cast led by Keira Knightley, begins as the typical “home for the holidays” comedy set at a British country estate. However, it later takes a genre-bending turn that is as jarring and drastic as the arrival of the pandemic was in March 2020. It is one of the few on this list that may have spoilers, so viewers who don’t mind dampening the holiday spirit (definitely not one to watch with the kids) should watch it for themselves.
Honorable mention: The Stephen Spielberg-produced Gremlins, written by future Harry Potter director Chris Columbus, remarkably is considered a kid-friendly movie—or, at least, it was when it first came out in 1984. However, it too blends heartwarming and nostalgic family comedy with significantly darker elements after a specimen of Chinese origin, the mogwai, makes its way to small-town America. A scientist (biology teacher Mr. Hanson) then ignores the rules for containing it, leading to a catastrophic epidemic that seem a lot like the gain-of-function research advocated by ex-COVID czar Anthony Fauci.
With the exception of The Nativity Story, none of the films listed connect with the religious component of the Christmas holiday. That has much to do with its commercialization and sanitization by Hollywood and others to make it more inclusive and profitable.
I, for one, take no issue with the idea of everyone sharing in a seasonal yuletide spirit regardless of belief (this year, Christmas happens to coincide with the start of the relatively minor Jewish holiday of Hannukah), but ultimately there is only one thing that “Christmas is all about,” and nobody articulates that as well as Linus in this 1965 animated classic, which has prevailed over all the efforts by the Left to memory-hole it.
Honorable mention: Aliens envious of Earth’s culture, travel there to kidnap two children, along with Santa Claus, but later decide that it is unreconcilable with their own culture in 1964’s Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, made for an estimated budget of around $200,000. They attempt to sabotage Santa’s toymaking industry and to replace Santa with one of their own kind, but the plan fails, much as the Left’s so-called Great Replacement strategy via open borders cannot conquer the Western cultures they are seeking to supplant with their reverse-colonization scheme.
The trial of Daniel Penny split many observers into two camps—one passionately for and the other fiercely against the defendant, who restrained Jordan Neely in a chokehold on a New York subway in May 2023 and Neely died.
The first camp brands Penny, who was acquitted of the charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, a brave hero who was protecting others from Neely. They say Penny is a victim of overreach by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The second camp calls Penny a killer with no regard for the value of a poor, ill, homeless man’s life.
Representative of the view showing disdain for Penny were public comments made by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose district includes part of Queens. Before the trial began, she called him a “murderer,” and after the verdict, she criticized him again, saying Penny “does not have remorse about taking another person’s life.”
Defense lawyers, who unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial, complained to Judge Maxwell Wiley about the “circus-like” atmosphere fostered by loud, angry, sometimes menacing protesters on the street outside the courthouse.
Protesters had made threats against their client and against jurors if they didn’t vote to convict, defense lawyer Thomas Kenniff told the judge.
The trial began in late October and ended with Penny’s acquittal on Dec. 9. Despite the acquittal, the case raises questions about the challenge of holding a fair and impartial trial in an age of 24/7 social media saturation.
David Dorfman, a professor of law at Pace University in New York City, said he believes the “toxic social media environment” and the politicization of the justice system made it difficult to have a fair trial, in a case that the government never should have brought in the first place.
Divine Pryor, executive director of the Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions, said he doesn’t think the 24/7 coverage of the Penny case or the street protests exerted undue influence on the course of the trial or the outcome.
“There are always non-evidentiary pressures that emerge during any high-profile trial that come from arenas outside the judicial process, and they are usually shaped and guided by the media,” he said. His organization, a New York-based nonprofit, advocates for criminal justice reform.
“Unfortunately, I was not surprised by the verdict, and I did not expect a conviction on any of the charges, because he was immediately portrayed as a ‘war hero’ who was, once again, protecting the community,” Pryor said in an email to The Epoch Times.
“He was able to make bail and obtain legal counsel, and he won the hearts of the public. The fact that he was a middle-class, white male—well, what’s understood needs no explanation,” he said.
Pryor said he views the Penny case as similar in some ways to the Bernhard Goetz case in the ‘80s. Goetz shot and injured four young black men who he believed were trying to rob him on a subway in December 1984. In that case, public perceptions of crime, and the races of the people involved, may have shaped perceptions even before the case went to trial, Pryor suggested. The jury ultimately convicted Goetz of carrying an unlicensed firearm but acquitted him of attempted murder.
As a defense lawyer, Kenniff saw it differently. He sees non-evidentiary pressures as a negative influence not just in this trial, but in a politicized justice system more generally.
“There were certainly efforts to malign our client and poison the jury pool against him. I think Steven Raiser and I were successful in beating back against much of that, but I can’t say it didn’t impact things,” Kenniff said in an email to The Epoch Times.
Intimidation of jurors from activists and protesters demanding a certain outcome presents a “real risk,” he said.
“We saw attempts at that in this trial, where witnesses admitted they were afraid to testify favorably towards Mr. Penny out of fear of retribution. However, the jury refused to be swayed by any of that, and for that we’re grateful,” Kenniff stated.
Harvey Kushner, chair of the criminal justice department at Long Island University, said the social media-driven pressures that moved Penny’s defense lawyers to argue for a mistrial may be all the more severe in years to come.
“If you look at the Penny case, you can’t compare it to other times, because the media have changed so dramatically,” Kushner said.
“This was all over the media, people were not only viewing it but interacting with it on Facebook, TikTok, and X. The way they process it is different today.”
In making its case to the jury, the defense evoked a situation that some or all of the twelve men and women could identify with, having rode the subway themselves and having found themselves in vulnerable situations where no police officers were on hand to respond in the event of an immediate physical threat.
The incident that defense lawyers Steven Raiser and Thomas Kenniff and lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran, debated in a lower Manhattan courtroom began on May 1, 2023, when an uptown F train pulled into the Second Avenue station.
Before the doors closed, Neely entered the train and immediately began acting in a manner that frightened and alarmed passengers, according to several who took the stand during the trial.
Neely, who had a record of 42 arrests and an outstanding warrant for his arrest on an assault charge at the time, threw his jacket onto the ground and began shouting that he was hungry, homeless, and did not care whether he went back to prison on Rikers Island.
That was when Penny, who had been listening to music on his earbuds, asked a stranger to hold the earbuds, and then got up, moved behind Neely, and applied a chokehold he had learned during his time in the U.S. Marines.
Direct and cross-examination dwelled extensively on the amount of time that Penny restrained Neely and on the physical and physiological factors that caused Neely’s death a short time later.
Nonetheless, witness after witness reiterated the sheer terror that Neely’s conduct caused them.
Though called to the stand as government witnesses, these men and women of diverse professional, personal, and ethnic backgrounds gave a version of events that could only buttress the defense position that passengers on the F train had a reasonable and immediate fear for their physical safety.
Lori Sitro, a research director at an agency in the city, described feeling particularly vulnerable because she had her small boy with her on the train. Under direct examination from a prosecutor, Sitro said that Neely’s threats were explicit, and frightening.
“He was shouting in people’s faces, ‘I don’t have water, I don’t have food, I don’t have a home, I want to hurt people, I want to go to Rikers, I want to go to prison.’ And he was getting increasingly belligerent,” Sitro recalled.
From the witness stand, Sitro performed a brief pantomime of lunges that she said Neely made toward passengers on the train. His conduct made her so fearful for the safety of her son, that she moved a stroller in front of him as an impromptu shield.
Another passenger, a teenaged student named Yvette Rosario, recalled feeling such terror that she thought she would pass out, and burying her face in the chest of a friend who stood next to her.
Dan Couvreur, the founder of a financial startup, said the incident far surpassed tense, unpleasant things he had witnessed on the subway before. “The anger, the aggressiveness, and that tone set it above these other situations that I’ve seen,” he said.
Yet another witness, Alethea Gittings, who was on her way to a dentist’s appointment when the trouble started, attributed a highly explicit threat to Neely. “If I remember correctly, he said ‘I don’t give a damn, I’ll kill a [expletive], I’m ready to die,’” she testified.
Gittings further testified not only to thanking Penny for his actions, but to agreeing, without any pressure on Penny’s part, to speak to police about what had happened.
The defense made much of the accounts of these men and women, who suddenly found themselves in a tense and terrifying situation and in need of someone to come to their aid.
Syrian Christians Protest Presence Of Foreign Jihadists After Christmas Display Burned
Starting Monday night and into Tuesday, large demonstrations broke out in Christian areas of Damascus and other parts of Syria over the continued presence of foreign jihadists in the country.
The ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has vowed to protect the sizeable non-Muslim communities of Syria (Christians, Alawites, and Druze) following the overthrow of the secular-leaning President Assad and his Baath government, but deep fears have remained that an Islamic state based on Sharia law will emerge.
HTS Abu Mohammed al-Jolani is currently trying to appease Western and external backers by saying all the ‘right things’ in public—but Christians in particular are deeply fearful given that since the jihadist takeover of the country there have been several acts of anti-Christian vandalism and attacks.
Under the prior Assad government, Christians and others had a high degree of religious freedom. Churches would sound bells on special holidays, Christmas lights and decorations would be prominent in December, and special festivals would often take over entire streets and neighborhoods in celebration.
The pre-war Christian population was commonly estimated to be ten to twelve percent of the population, but since 2011 many have fled. Christians have also been killed or kidnapped over the years by Western and Gulf-backed militants, including priests and two bishops who were Christian leaders in Aleppo.
The Christian community of Latakia put up their traditional Christmas tree in the “American” quarter.
They hesitated for some time, fearing a backlash from HTS. But decided not to assume that it would be frowned on. This is the tree and celebration. pic.twitter.com/nMDT2EiDo9
While Jolani is trying to send positive signals to the US government and others over the future of Syria’s Christians, Church leaders and the people are not waiting around.
On Tuesday night Christian districts in and around Damascus as well parts of Hama countryside erupted in protest after the day prior armed men set fire to a large Christmas display in the Christian town of Suqaylabiyah, in Hama governate.
Below is a scene from one of the largest Christian areas of central Damascus Tuesday night:
We reject fighters from Chechnya or any other foreign fighters.
As Christians and Muslims, we stand united as one people.
This is the message the protesters are trying to deliver to the people of Damascus:
Raise your cross; the raising of the cross is salvation.
“We demand the rights of Christians,” the protesters chanted, many carrying crosses. Other slogans demanded a future role in the country for all Syrians, and that churches and the religious freedom of everyone must be protected.
A regional source has described the initial Christmas tree burning which outraged Syria’s Christians as follows:
Video footage that circulated on social media on 23 December showed a large Christmas tree burning in Hama’s Suqaylabiyah – a Christian neighborhood. The tree was set ablaze on Monday by foreign militants under HTS’s command. Some reports said the militants were from Chechnya, while others said they were Uzbeki fighters.
HTS deployed a military official to the scene of the burning to condemn the incident and vow punishment for those responsible.
“Protests led by Syrian Christians also took place in Sahnaya, Jaramana, Hama, and other areas of the country,” the same outlet reported.
Church leaders remain on edge given that foreign militants control broad swathes of the countryside and are able to attack non-Muslims with impunity. HTS has also at times conducted acts of “intimidation” – for example by entering church services in Damascus while openly brandishing rifles.
Christians are telling HTS that if they are serious about governing, they must immediately kick the foreign jihadists out of the country. The black flags of ISIS have also been spotted in various parts of the country, and are sometimes even sported by HTS members themselves.
The foreign jihadists entered the country in the first place during the prior 13 years of war, often crossing into Syria from NATO-member Turkey and with the tacit support of the Western and Gulf anti-Assad alliance.
* * *
For more on the history of Christians in Syria and persecution at the hands of fanatical militant groups during the past decade of war, see Syria Crucified…
This is a great book by @BradRHoff and Zachary Wingerd about the experiences of Syrian Christians during the war. I Highly recommend, and it’s especially worth reading now with this HTS/AQ offensive on Aleppo. pic.twitter.com/49Wco335qW
This Christmas, the dinner table will offer more than turkey and pudding. Expect curious relatives to test your crypto savvy and ask how to join the bull market. Are you ready for the spotlight?
This festive season, your “orange pill” credentials are on trial. Will you dazzle with eloquent arguments on decentralization and monetary sovereignty or crumble like a stale mince pie and just stammer, “Number go up!” under the holiday spotlight?
Fear not — here are some tips to steer your family and friends through the crypto conversation.
Remember: You’re not a crypto guru and can’t predict the future
One of the first things you must do is make sure they know that any action taken “is their responsibility.”
Inexperienced investors might mistake you for a crypto guru, but let’s be honest — that’s probably not the case. Chris Burniske, partner at venture capital firm Placeholder and former blockchain products lead at ARK Invest, put it:
“No one knows anything for sure about markets. The only people you know for sure are lying, are those who say they ‘know for sure.’”
When crypto markets roar in a full-blown bull run, everyone feels like the next Warren Buffett. Stay humble — admit you don’t have all the answers. Remind them not to follow your footsteps blindly like a herd of sheep. Caution is key, even in the frenzy.
Give them context on where we are in the bull market
As Bitcoin dominates headlines, everyday investors with little experience often succumb to FOMO — the fear of missing out — and rush in without fully understanding the risks.
Retail investors are often desperate to get in fast, driven by the overwhelming hype where everybody seems to be becoming rich with crypto.
Successful crypto traders counter their human instincts — they buy when crypto attention is low and sell when euphoria sweeps the market. Retail investors, on the other hand, often follow the herd, driven by emotion rather than strategy.
Burniske said the “painful reality” is that rising cryptocurrency prices inevitably draw attention, which fuels further buying. The feedback loop, which he nicknamed the “attention cycle,” accelerates when prices become extraordinary.
“The later we are in that attention cycle, the worse the entry.”
Burniske advises, “Give them context on where we are currently in the cycle.” He believes the market has been in a bull run for two years and may now enter its final stages.
So, what should you do when their “appetite for crypto exposure remains insatiable,” even if it’s possibly the wrong time to enter?
Burniske believes they should enter with an equal proportion to Bitcoin, Ether and Solana with a ratio of 50%/25%/25%. Burniske said that if they get trapped if the market turns into a bear market, at least “they’re holding quality.”
If they’re tempted to dive into altcoins or memecoins chasing get-rich-quick schemes, Burniske recommends advising them to allocate no more than 10% of their total investment while reminding them that it’s “at their own risk.”
Timing the crypto exit is the real challenge
Stepping into the crypto markets is easy. Many retail investors dive in with excitement, quickly seeing gains as the bull market drives prices upward. But remember, what goes up must come down.
The conditions for the crypto markets have rarely been more favorable, particularly in terms of crypto regulation and institutional adoption.
The rise of the Bitcoin ETF market capitalization. Source: CoinGlass
Given these transformative changes, some believe the historical four-year Bitcoin cycle will be replaced with a supercycle, where assets trend ever upward.
But don’t bank on it. Burniske warns that this could lead retail investors to miss the opportunity to take profits at the market peak.
“‘Supercycle’ is without fail a collective delusion.”
Burniske acknowledges that “ETFs and potential sovereign buying ‘could’ mean we don’t have as brutal a bear in the future for BTC.” However, he cautions, “Anything that goes 100x quickly is prone to at least an 80-90% crash at some point, structurally — too many people sitting on profit.”
Bitcoin’s price performance peaks and lows from prior cycles. Source: Caleb & Brown
Burniske said that it’s hard for people to grasp how sharply a cryptocurrency can decline. However, given you’ve probably roundtripped your own bags in at least one previous cycle, you can warn them of the problem. “Since you’ve lived it, you know, and now you can teach them.”
Nothing is certain except death and taxes
Armed with the knowledge you’ve given them about what to buy and when to sell, there are still further common mistakes investors can make, according to Burniske.
When investors sell during a bull market, they may watch the coin continue to soar, as no one can predict when the peak has been reached. Burniske advises teaching new investors to resist FOMO and avoid reinvesting profits in an attempt to chase further gains. This is “generally a horrible idea.”
This practice is risky because if the market suddenly collapses, investors could owe more taxes on realized gains than the value of the assets left after the crash.
To avoid falling into this FOMO trap, he recommends placing the gains out of the crypto market for 12–18 months in traditional accounts, which can provide some interest (crypto stablecoins have additional risks). This reserved money will be used to pay tax liabilities.
Once taxes are settled, the cycle can begin anew. Burniske recommends “sniffing around again” in crypto markets when sentiment turns to apathy, typically around 12 months after the peak.
Wall Street cheat sheet: the psychology of a market cycle. Source: ResearchGate
As an experienced crypto investor, it’s crucial to help guide new investors to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the next bull market. Encourage them to get interested in crypto when the attention cycle is low — or non-existent. If done right, they’ll be well-positioned to educate other newcomers who might jump in during the next wave of hype.
“Theoretically, Yes”: Goldman Says US LNG Can Replace Russian LNG Imports To EU
Samantha Dart, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman, published a note to clients outlining five key questions and answers about the US-EU liquefied natural gas trade. This comes just days after President-elect Donald Trump threatened the EU with a barrage of tariffs unless Brussels ramped up purchases of American LNG.
For context, last Friday, Trump wrote on Truth Social:
“I told the European Union that they must make up their tremendous deficit with the United States by the large-scale purchase of our oil and gas. Otherwise, it is TARIFFS all the way!!!”
Dart told clients that the US is already Europe’s largest LNG supplier and a key source of supply growth. She said replacing Russian LNG with US LNG imports could raise shipping costs and European prices to incentivize re-routing cargoes.
She said such a shift would have minimal impact on US LNG export revenues, as total export capacity remains fixed, adding exporters with long-term contracts with proposed US LNG projects would benefit. However, Europe’s decarbonization strategy may limit the willingness of European companies to make long-term NatGas commitments with US exporters.
Dart laid out key questions and answers about the US-EU LNG trade that help clients understand that US LNG Gulf exports can “theoretically” replace Russian NatGas flowing into the EU.
1. How much US LNG is exported to Europe?
US LNG exports averaged 91 mt over the past year (Dec23-Nov24), of which 47 mt or 51% were delivered to Europe. US LNG exports to Europe have grown significantly in levels and as a share of total US LNG exports since the European energy crisis in 2022, peaking in 2023 (Exhibit 1).
2. Are US LNG volumes sold in the spot market or are they contracted?
The vast majority of US LNG sales are under contract. That said, US contracts typically have flexible destination ports, in that the buyer is not obligated to deliver to a particular location. This allows buyers of US LNG to re-sell or re-direct cargoes to higher-paying destinations. This was evident during the European energy crisis, when European gas prices increased sharply relative to the rest of the world. Even as total US LNG exports grew, this worked as an effective incentive for US LNG deliveries to non-European destinations to contract by 41%, while European deliveries increased by 197%[1], as seen in Exhibit 1.
3. What portion of European LNG imports come from the US?
The US has become the single largest source of LNG to Europe, averaging 46% of imports into the region over the past 12 months (Exhibit 2). Most European LNG imports are sourced from Atlantic Basin suppliers to minimize shipping costs. Importantly, the US is also the primary source of likely European LNG import growth, based on long-term LNG contracts signed by European buyers since the start of the Ukraine war. US volumes contracted by European buyers in the period add to just under 16 mtpa, which is more than with any other single supplier globally (Exhibit 3).
4. Can US LNG replace Russian LNG imports into the EU?
Theoretically, yes. US LNG deliveries to non-EU countries are currently approximately 18 mtpa above the levels observed during the peak of the European energy crisis, suggesting there is enough flexibility in the market to replace Russia’s current 17 mtpa of LNG exports to the region. However, such a reallocation of flows might offer little benefit, if any, to Europe or the US. Less optimal routes for LNG deliveries (for example, longer routes for Russian cargoes) would likely lead to higher freight costs. In addition, European import costs might go up in order to motivate the re-route of US cargoes that would have otherwise opted to deliver elsewhere.
Total US LNG exports would also not increase as a result of this reallocation, given that US LNG export capacity would not be impacted in the process.
5. How could Europe support growing US LNG exports?
Additional long-term contracting by European buyers with proposed US LNG projects would be the most impactful measure the EU could take to support higher future US LNG exports, as this would increase the likelihood such contracted liquefaction projects reach a final investment decision (FID). As of now, the forward curve for European gas prices suggests new long-term US LNG export contracts are in the money through at least 2027 (Exhibit 4). That said, Europe’s decarbonization goals might limit European companies’ appetite for long-term commitments to grow natural gas use. In fact, when we look across all long-term LNG contracts signed since the start of the Ukraine war, European companies are far behind Portfolio player companies and Asia importers (Exhibit 5).
It appears that Goldman believes Trump’s ‘America First’ policy of replacing Russian LNG to Europe with American LNG is “theoretically” possible.
The Christmas truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the “Great War” leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public. Stanley Weintraub has broken through this barrier of silence and written a moving account of this significant event by compiling letters sent home from the front, as well as diaries of the soldiers involved. His book is entitled Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce. The book contains many pictures of the actual events, showing the opposing forces mixing and celebrating together that first Christmas of the war. This remarkable story begins to unfold, according to Weintraub, on the morning of December 19, 1914:
Lieutenant Geoffrey Heinekey, new to the 2nd Queen’s Westminister Rifles, wrote to his mother, ‘A most extraordinary thing happened. … Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men. … It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours. (p. 5)
Weintraub reports that the French and Belgians reacted differently to the war and with more emotion than the British in the beginning. The war was occurring on their land and “The French had lived in an atmosphere of revanche since 1870, when Alsace and Lorraine were seized by the Prussians” in a war declared by the French (p. 4). The British and German soldiers, however, saw little meaning in the war, and, after all, the British king and the German kaiser were both grandsons of Queen Victoria. Why should the Germans and British be at war, or hating each other, because a royal couple from Austria was killed by an assassin while they were visiting in Serbia? However, by December 1914, hundreds of thousands of soldiers had been killed, wounded, or were missing since the beginning of the war in August (p. xvi).
It is estimated that over eighty thousand young Germans had gone to England before the war to be employed in such jobs as waiters, cooks, and cab drivers, and many spoke English very well. It appears that the Germans were the instigators of this move towards a truce. So much interchange had occurred across the lines by the time Christmas Eve approached that Brigadier General G. T. Forrestier-Walker issued a directive forbidding fraternization:
For it discourages initiative in commanders, and destroys offensive spirit in all ranks. … Friendly intercourse with the enemy, unofficial armistices and exchange of tobacco and other comforts, however tempting and occasionally amusing they may be, are absolutely prohibited. (p. 6–7)
Later strict orders were issued that any fraternization would result in a court-martial. Most of the seasoned German soldiers had been sent to the Russian front while the youthful and somewhat untrained Germans, who had been recruited first, or quickly volunteered, were sent to the Western front at the beginning of the war. Likewise, in England young men rushed to join in the war for the personal glory they thought they might achieve and many were afraid the war might end before they could get to the front. They had no idea this war would become one of attrition and conscription, or that it would set the trend for the whole twentieth century, the bloodiest in history, which became known as the War and Welfare Century.
As night fell on Christmas Eve the British soldiers noticed the Germans putting up small Christmas trees along with candles at the top of their trenches and many began to shout in English, “We no shoot if you no shoot.” (p. 25) The firing stopped along the many miles of trenches and the British began to notice that the Germans were coming out of the trenches toward the British, who responded by coming out to meet them. They mixed and mingled in no-man’s-land and soon began to exchange chocolates for cigars and various newspaper accounts of the war which contained the propaganda from their respective homelands. Many of the officers on each side attempted to prevent the event from occurring but the soldiers ignored the risk of a court-martial or of being shot.
Some of the meetings reported in diaries were between Anglo-Saxons and German Saxons, and the Germans joked that they should join together and fight the Prussians. The massive amount of fraternization, or maybe just the Christmas spirit, deterred the officers from taking action and many of them began to go out into no-man’s-land and exchange Christmas greetings with their opposing officers. Each side helped bury their dead and remove the wounded so that by Christmas morning there was a large open area about as wide as the size of two football fields separating the opposing trenches. The soldiers emerged again on Christmas morning and began singing Christmas carols, especially “Silent Night.” They recited the 23rd Psalm together and played soccer and football. Again, Christmas gifts were exchanged and meals were prepared openly and attended by the opposing forces. Weintraub quotes one soldier’s observation of the event: “Never … was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war.” (p. 33)
The first official British history of the war came out in 1926 and indicated that the Christmas truce was a very insignificant matter with only a few people involved. However, Weintraub states,
During a House of Commons debate on March 31, 1930, Sir H. Kinglsey Wood, a Cabinet Minister during the next war, and a Major “In the front trenches” at Christmas 1914, recalled that he “took part in what was well known at the time as a truce. We went over in front of the trenches and shook hands with many of our German enemies. A great number of people [now] think we did something that was degrading.” Refusing to presume that, he went on, “The fact is that we did it, and I then came to the conclusion that I have held very firmly ever since, that if we had been left to ourselves there would never have been another shot fired. For a fortnight the truce went on. We were on the most friendly terms, and it was only the fact that we were being controlled by others that made it necessary for us to start trying to shoot one another again.” He blamed the resumption of the war on “the grip of the political system which was bad, and I and others who were there at the time determined there and then never to rest … Until we had seen whether we could change it.” But they could not. (p. 169–70)
Beginning with the French Revolution, one of the main ideas coming out of the nineteenth century, and which became dominant at the beginning of the twentieth century, was nationalism with unrestrained democracy. In contrast, the ideas which led to the American Revolution were those of a federation of sovereign states joined together under the Constitution, which severely limited and separated the powers of the national or central government in order to protect individual liberty. National democracy was restrained by a Bill of Rights. These ideas came into direct conflict with the beginning of the American War Between the States, out of which nationalism emerged victorious. A principal idea of nationalism was that the individual owed a duty of self-sacrifice to “The Greater Good” of his nation and that the noblest act a person could do was to give his life for his country during a war, which would, in turn, bring him immortal fame.
Two soldiers, one British and one German, both experienced the horrors of the trench warfare in the Great War and both wrote moving accounts that challenged the idea of the glory of the sacrifice of the individual to the nation in an unnecessary or unjust war. The British soldier, Wilfred Owen, wrote a famous poem before he was killed in the trenches seven days before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. He tells of the horror of the gas warfare, which killed many in the trenches and ends with the following lines:
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues — My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
The German soldier was Erich M. Remarque, who wrote one of the best antiwar novels of all time, entitled All Quiet on the Western Front, which was later made into an American movie that won the 1930 Academy Award for Best Picture. He also attacked the idea of the nobility of dying for your country in a war, and he describes the suffering in the trenches:
We see men living with their skulls blown open; We see soldiers run with their two feet cut off; They stagger on their splintered stumps into the next shell-hole; A lance corporal crawls a mile and half on his hands dragging his smashed knee after him; Another goes to the dressing station and over his clasped hands bulge his intestines; We see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces; We find one man who has held the artery of his arm in his teeth for two hours in order not to bleed to death.
I would imagine that the Christmas truce probably inspired the English novelist and poet Thomas Hardy to write a poem about World War I entitled “The Man He Killed,” which reads as follows:
Had he and I but met By some old ancient inn, We should have sat us down to wet Right many a nipperkin!
But ranged as infantry, And staring face to face, I shot at him as he at me, And killed him in his place.
I shot him dead because — Because he was my foe, Just so: my foe of course he was; That’s clear enough; although
He thought he’d ‘list, perhaps, Off-hand like — just as I — Was out of work — had sold his traps — No other reason why.
Yes, quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down You’d treat if met where any bar is, Or help to half-a-crown.
The last chapter of Weintraub’s book is entitled “What If — ?” This is counterfactual history at its best, and he sets out what he believes the rest of the twentieth century would have been like if the soldiers had been able to cause the Christmas truce of 1914 to stop the war at that point. Like many other historians, he believes that with an early end of the war in December of 1914, there probably would have been no Russian Revolution, no communism, no Lenin, and no Stalin. Furthermore, there would have been no vicious peace imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and therefore, no Hitler, no Nazism, and no World War II. With the early truce there would have been no entry of America into the European War and America might have had a chance to remain, or return, to being a Republic rather than moving toward World War II, the “Cold” War (Korea and Vietnam), and our present status as the world bully.
Weintraub states that
Franklin D. Roosevelt, only an obscure assistant secretary of the navy — of a fleet going nowhere militarily — would have returned to a boring law practice, and never have been the losing but attractive vice presidential candidate in 1920, a role earned by his war visibility. Wilson, who would not be campaigning for reelection in 1916 on a platform that he kept America out of war, would have lost (he only won narrowly) to a powerful new Republican president, Charles Evans Hughes. (p. 167)
He also suggests another result of the early peace:
Germany in peace rather than war would have become the dominant nation in Europe, possibly in the world, competitor to a more slowly awakening America, and to an increasingly ambitious and militant Japan. No Wilsonian League of Nations would have emerged. … Yet, a relatively benign, German-led, Commonwealth of Europe might have developed decades earlier than the European Community under leaders not destroyed in the war or its aftermath. (p. 167)
Many leaders of the British Empire saw the new nationalistic Germany (since 1870–71) as a threat to their world trade, especially with Germany’s new navy. The idea that economics played a major role in bringing on the war was confirmed by President Woodrow Wilson after the war in a speech wherein he gave his assessment of the real cause of the war. He was campaigning in St. Louis, Missouri, in September of 1919, trying to get the US Senate to approve the Versailles Treaty and he stated,
Why, my fellow-citizens, is there [anyone] here who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? … This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.
The great economist Ludwig von Mises advocated a separation of the economy from the government as one important solution to war so that business interests could not get government assistance in foreign or domestic markets:
Durable peace is only possible under perfect capitalism, hitherto never and nowhere completely tried or achieved. In such a Jeffersonian world of unhampered market economy the scope of government activities is limited to the protection of the lives, health, and property of individuals against violence or fraudulent aggression. …
All the oratory of the advocates of government omnipotence cannot annul the fact that there is but one system that makes for durable peace: A free market economy. Government control leads to economic nationalism and thus results in conflict.
Weintraub alludes to a play by William Douglas Home entitled A Christmas Truce, wherein characters representing British and German soldiers have just finished a soccer game in no-man’s-land on Christmas day and are engaged in a conversation which very well could represent the feelings of the soldiers on that day. The German lieutenant concedes the impossibility of the war ending as the soccer game had just done, with no bad consequences — “Because the Kaiser and the generals and the politicians in my country order us that we fight.”
“So do ours,” agrees Andrew Wilson (the British soldier).
“Then what can we do?”
“The answer’s ‘nothing.’ But if we do nothing … like we’re doing now, and go on doing it, there’ll be nothing they can do but send us home.”
“Or shoot us.” (p. 110)
The Great War killed over ten million soldiers and Weintraub states, “Following the final Armistice came an imposed peace in 1919 that created new instabilities ensuring another war,” (p. 174). This next war killed more than fifty million people, over half of whom were civilians. Weintruab writes,
To many, the end of the war and the failure of the peace would validate the Christmas cease-fire as the only meaningful episode in the apocalypse. It belied the bellicose slogans and suggested that the men fighting and often dying were, as usual, proxies for governments and issues that had little to do with their everyday lives. A candle lit in the darkness of Flanders, the truce flickered briefly and survives only in memoirs, letters, song, drama and story. (p. xvi)
He concludes his remarkable book with the following:
A celebration of the human spirit, the Christmas Truce remains a moving manifestation of the absurdities of war. A very minor Scottish poet of Great War vintage, Frederick Niven, may have got it right in his “A Carol from Flanders,” which closed,
O ye who read this truthful rime from Flanders, kneel and say: God speed the time when every day Shall be as Christmas Day. (p. 175)
Dramatic Video Shows Azerbaijan Airlines Passenger Jet Crash In Kazakhstan
An Azerbaijan Airlines commercial jet carrying 62 passengers and five crew members crashed in the Kazakhstani city of Aktau. The Embraer ERJ-190 attempted an emergency landing following initial reports of a “bird strike.” Early reports indicate there are 28 survivors.
“Flight #J28243 that crashed near Aktau Airport in Kazakhstan is an Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190 with registration 4K-AZ65,” flight tracking website Flightradar24 wrote on X.
Flightradar24 said, “J28243 took off from Baku at 03:55 UTC time and was flying to Grozny. The aircraft was exposed to strong GPS jamming which made the aircraft transmit bad ADS-B data. At 04:40 UTC we lost the ADS-B signal. At 06:07 UTC we picked up the ADS-B signal again before it crashed at 06:28 UTC.”
Flight #J28243 that crashed near Aktau Airport in Kazakhstan is an Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190 with registration 4K-AZ65.#J28243 took off from Baku at 03:55 UTC time and was flying to Grozny. The aircraft was exposed to strong GPS jamming which made the aircraft… pic.twitter.com/rM1Q0jmMPt
Russian media outlet RIA News said the loss of partial flight controls was due to a “collision with birds,” forcing the pilot to declare an emergency and attempt a landing at Aktau.
Dramatic videos of the landing approach and crash were posted on X.
New video shows plane carrying 72 people crashing near Aktau Airport in Kazakhstan. At least 10 survivors pic.twitter.com/SKGdc1vqFa
Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190AR has reportedly crashed at Aktau Airport after having declared an emergency. There were five crew and 67 passengers onboard. More details to follow. pic.twitter.com/8DLjed1tsT
#J28243
So from the wreckage we can know:
-maintenance hatches are opened.
-stablizer was trimmed at maximum nose down position.
Don’t know if it was indeed set at this position inflight or just being moved by the impact force, but it could tell us something. pic.twitter.com/4Fu57XaOGa
Perhaps one way to crush altitude with loss of flaps…
This video captures the moments before Azerbaijan Airlines plane crash, showing the aircraft repeatedly ascending and descending before impact. pic.twitter.com/ysRQcJWbXh
“When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.”
– Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist
The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.
The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.
Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?
What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?
Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.
The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?
What would Jesus – the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire – do about the injustices of our modern age?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.
Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.
Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”
Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.
After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.
When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.
Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?
Consider the following if you will.
Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.
Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.
Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.
From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.
Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.
Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.
Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”
While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.
Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.
Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.
Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.
Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.
Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.
Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.
Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.
Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.
Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.
Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.
As Christmas Eve approaches, the sky above promises more than twinkling stars and festive cheer. A massive celestial visitor, known as the “Christmas Eve asteroid,” is hurtling toward Earth at astonishing speeds.
While its approach is being closely monitored by NASA, the sheer size and velocity of this space rock have sparked fascination and a hint of unease. What makes this event so remarkable?
Could this asteroid pose a threat, or is it simply a fleeting guest in the cosmic dance of our solar system?
Asteroid 2024 XN1: Key Facts
Asteroid 2024 XN1, discovered on December 12, 2024, is set to make a close approach to Earth on Christmas Eve. Measuring between 95 and 230 feet in diameter—comparable to a 10-story building—this celestial object will pass at a distance of approximately 4.48 million miles from our planet, about 18 times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Traveling at a velocity of 14,743 miles per hour, 2024 XN1 has been classified by NASA as a near-Earth object (NEO). Despite this classification, experts confirm there is no risk of collision. Astronomer Jess Lee from the Royal Greenwich Observatory notes, “It will be very far away, around 18 times further away from the Earth than the Moon is, and so with this predicted path won’t come close enough to hit the Earth.”
The significance of monitoring such asteroids is underscored by historical events like the Tunguska explosion in 1908, where a similarly sized object caused extensive damage over Siberia. This event flattened approximately 2,000 square kilometers of forest, highlighting the potential impact of near-Earth objects.
Potential Impact and Historical Comparisons
While asteroid 2024 XN1 is on a safe trajectory, understanding the potential impact of such celestial bodies is crucial. An asteroid of this size, measuring between 95 and 230 feet in diameter, could release energy equivalent to 12 million tons of TNT if it were to collide with Earth. This immense force could devastate an area of approximately 700 square miles, underscoring the importance of monitoring near-Earth objects.
Historical events provide sobering insights into the potential consequences of asteroid impacts. The Tunguska event of 1908, for instance, involved an object estimated to be about 120 feet in diameter—comparable to 2024 XN1. This explosion occurred above the ground and knocked down 80 million trees over a vast area in Siberia.
More recently, the Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013 demonstrated the destructive potential of smaller asteroids. A 66-foot-wide asteroid exploded in the atmosphere over Chelyabinsk, Russia, releasing energy equivalent to an estimated 150 kilotons of TNT. This event caused significant damage and resulted in numerous injuries, highlighting the need for vigilant monitoring of near-Earth objects.
How NASA Monitors These Asteroids
NASA employs a comprehensive approach to detect, track, and assess near-Earth objects (NEOs) like asteroid 2024 XN1, ensuring planetary safety through advanced monitoring systems and collaborative efforts.
One of NASA’s key tools is the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), a state-of-the-art detection system capable of scanning the entire dark sky every 24 hours for NEOs that could pose a future impact hazard to Earth. Operated by the University of Hawaiʻi’s Institute for Astronomy for NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), ATLAS enhances the ability to detect potential threats well in advance.
In addition to ATLAS, NASA has developed Sentry, a highly automated collision monitoring system that continually scans the most current asteroid catalog for possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years. Sentry’s next-generation algorithm, Sentry-II, improves the evaluation of NEA impact probabilities, enabling more accurate risk assessments.
NASA is advancing its monitoring capabilities with the development of the Near-Earth Object Surveyor (NEO Surveyor), a space-based infrared telescope designed to discover and characterize most of the potentially hazardous asteroids larger than 140 meters in diameter. Scheduled for launch in 2027, NEO Surveyor will enhance the detection of asteroids that are difficult to observe with ground-based telescopes, filling a critical gap in humanity’s ability to detect potentially hazardous NEOs.
Beyond detection, NASA has tested methods to alter the trajectory of potentially hazardous asteroids. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, conducted in 2022, successfully demonstrated the ability to change an asteroid’s motion in space through kinetic impact. This mission marked a significant milestone in planetary defense, showcasing a viable method to protect Earth from future asteroid threats.
Through these sophisticated systems and missions, NASA continues to enhance its ability to monitor and mitigate potential asteroid threats, ensuring that objects like 2024 XN1 are detected and tracked well before they pose any risk to Earth.
Why This Matters: A Wake-Up Call
The close approach of asteroid 2024 XN1 serves as a compelling reminder of Earth’s vulnerability to near-Earth objects (NEOs). While this particular asteroid poses no immediate threat, its flyby underscores the critical importance of vigilant monitoring and preparedness.
Asteroids of significant size have the potential to cause catastrophic damage upon impact. Historical events, such as the Tunguska event in 1908, demonstrate the devastating effects of asteroid collisions. In that instance, an asteroid explosion flattened approximately 2,000 square kilometers of forest in Siberia. Similarly, the Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013 resulted in widespread damage and injuries. These incidents highlight the necessity of proactive measures to detect and mitigate potential threats.
NASA has been at the forefront of developing technologies to address the risks posed by NEOs. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, conducted in 2022, successfully demonstrated the ability to alter an asteroid’s trajectory through kinetic impact. This mission marked a significant milestone in planetary defense, showcasing a viable method to protect Earth from future asteroid threats.
As of December 2024, NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office reports the detection of nearly 28,000 near-Earth asteroids, with new discoveries occurring at a rate of about 3,000 per year. This ongoing surveillance is crucial for early detection and risk assessment, enabling timely implementation of mitigation strategies.
The flyby of asteroid 2024 XN1 should not be dismissed as a mere astronomical event. Instead, it should galvanize global efforts to enhance our planetary defense capabilities. Investing in advanced detection systems, conducting impact risk assessments, and developing deflection technologies are essential steps to safeguard our planet from potential future threats.
A Celestial Reminder for Earth’s Safety
The Christmas Eve asteroid, 2024 XN1, reminds us of the delicate balance Earth maintains within the vast and unpredictable cosmos. While its approach is a harmless spectacle this time, the potential devastation such objects can cause is a stark reminder of our planet’s vulnerabilities. Events like the Tunguska explosion and the Chelyabinsk meteor highlight why vigilant monitoring and investment in planetary defense strategies are non-negotiable for our future.
As we marvel at the wonders of the universe, it’s crucial to recognize the significance of efforts by NASA and other space agencies in safeguarding humanity. The success of missions like DART demonstrates that we have the tools to prepare for potential threats. However, this requires global cooperation, continued research, and enhanced detection systems.
Asteroid 2024 XN1 will pass without incident this Christmas Eve, but it leaves us with a valuable lesson: the cosmos is a dynamic, ever-changing arena, and staying prepared is essential. In the words of renowned astronomer Jess Lee, “The universe constantly reminds us of its vastness and unpredictability. It’s up to us to respect and adapt to it.”
