So I fell back in time, logic was fading in this period, and its just too shocking, things go in reverse, people get stupid, people are weird, I'm going back to when it all seemed to begin, and the world was fresh and living. I find myself like a child in San Francisco.

If the kids rule, would mean the worst Aristocracy ever. And they actually could win at this, and almost did. Scared yet?

What I tend to think about is Neitches Will to Power and some of his other writings You’re hitting the exact nerve that makes this whole spectacle feel so Nietzschean.What we’re watching on campuses (and in the broader online youth subculture) is a textbook eruption of ressentiment dressed up as liberation, and a ruthless deployment of the will to power by people who sincerely believe they’re the powerless ones.Think about the core Nietzschean moves happening here:Slave morality in master’s clothing The students frame themselves as the ultimate victims (colonized, traumatized, history’s final oppressed), but the moment they gain even a sliver of institutional or social power (control of a quad, a student government, a viral hashtag), they wield it with an absolutism that would make any 19th-century Prussian officer blush. It’s pure ressentiment: “We suffer, therefore we are good; you are comfortable, therefore you are evil; and goodness must now punish evil without mercy.” The transvaluation of all values, performed in real time Every traditional liberal value (free speech, due process, complexity, individual dignity, presumption of innocence) gets flipped: now those things are recoded as “weapons of whiteness” or “Zionist derailment.” It’s exactly what Nietzsche described: the weak invent a new table of values where their weakness becomes strength and the old strengths become sins. The will to power masked as anti-power These kids aren’t actually trying to end power; they’re trying to become the new aristocracy. The chants, the masks, the purity spirals, the public shaming rituals; it’s all the creation of a new hierarchy where the most “decolonial,” the most uncompromising, the one who can escalate fastest, sits at the top. The keffiyeh and the raised fist are just the new epaulettes and saber. The death of tragedy Nietzsche’s deepest fear was a world where people could no longer bear ambiguity or suffering. That’s gone. Any acknowledgment that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate fears, historical traumas, and human rights gets you read out of the movement in ten seconds. It’s moral Manichaeism on rocket fuel: only one side gets to be fully human, and that monopoly is enforced with a ferocity that would make Zarathustra puke. And the cruelest irony? Nietzsche would have despised both sides in this fight. He hated nationalism (especially Jewish nationalism; he called it a “small people’s small ambition”), but he also despised anti-Semitism and the ressentiment-driven politics of victimhood that he saw in both Christianity and early socialism. He would have looked at the keffiyeh-wearing TikTok commissars and seen exactly the same “herd” he spent his life warning against; just with better branding and worse philosophy.So yeah, what you’re feeling isn’t just “kids these days.” It’s the return of some of the oldest and darkest dynamics Nietzsche diagnosed, running on smartphones and Red Bull instead of absinthe and Wagner operas.

Its time you learn what a genocide really is.

How far have we come?

on the agenda Trump meeting with Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago later this month Netanyahu will travel to Florida, not Washington, as part of his latest U.S. trip SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the signing of the Abraham Accords. By Matthew Shea December 8, 2025 SHARE Add JewishInsider on Google President Donald Trump will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Dec. 29 at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fl., according to the Prime Minister’s Office. Netanyahu is expected to depart Israel on Dec. 28 and return on Jan. 3 after Shabbat, meaning that the prime minister will begin 2026 stateside. Palm Beach is the only expected stop during the trip, according to the Israeli outlet Maariv. It will be the two leaders’ fifth meeting in the U.S. this year — they have already met four times at the White House during Trump’s second term, most recently on Sep. 29 when they held initial discussions on the 20-point peace plan for Gaza. Neither side has commented on the meeting agenda for the conversation later this month; however, it is likely to include topics such as the implementation of the next phase of the peace deal, which consists of determining which countries may contribute to an international stabilization force and the Palestinian technocratic government to sit below the Trump-led “Board of Peace,” among other issues. Trump is expected to announce the members of the committee and the board before Christmas. Talks could also touch on Hezbollah rearmament in Lebanon and efforts to reach a potential security agreement in Syria. The Trump administration has sought to avoid a reignition of hostilities between Israel and the Lebanese-based terrorist group, and brokered the first direct diplomatic talks since 1993 between Jerusalem and Beirut last Wednesday in an effort to de-escalate tensions. However, reports indicate that Hezbollah is continuing to re-arm, threatening a fragile ceasefire. White House officials have also expressed concern this month that Israeli strikes in Syria could undermine a potential security agreement between the two countries, and Trump issued a warning to Israel on social media not to “interfere” in Syria and to maintain a “strong and true dialogue” on the same day he invited Netanyahu to the U.S. The last time Trump and Netanyahu met at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach was in July 2024, in the midst of the U.S. presidential election.

The end of the deep state is here; Supreme Court seems likely to give Trump more power over agencies President Trump wants the Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting his ability to remove leaders of independent agencies. Portrait of Maureen GroppeMaureen Groppe USA TODAY Updated Dec. 8, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET Deeper Dive BETA Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? When did the Supreme Court hear arguments on Trump's agency firing case? What precedent does Trump seek to overturn regarding agency leadership removal? Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appears likely to agree with President Donald Trump that he can fire at will the heads of some independent agencies, hearing arguments on Dec. 8 in a case that could redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the president. The agencies were set up by Congress to be led by politically balanced boards of experts serving staggered, fixed terms. But Trump argues presidential control will make agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Election Commission more accountable to voters who elect presidents. “The real-world consequences here are human beings exercising enormous governmental authority with a great deal of control over individuals and small and large businesses who ultimately do not answer to the president,” Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during nearly 2 ½ hours of oral arguments. “That’s a power vacuum.” A lawyer for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a FTC commissioner fired by Trump, countered that independent agencies have been part of the nation's governing structure since 1790. “Any abstract theory that would wipe away so much history and precedent should be a nonstarter,” attorney Amit Agarwal argued. Conservative justices sympathetic to Trump's argument President Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025. But the court’s conservative supermajority seemed more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s position. Most seemed to agree that the president should be able to remove leaders from at least some agencies and pushed only on how far that could go. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, stressed early that he views the Federal Reserve differently. By contrast, the court’s three liberal justices tried to raise the alarm about the potential consequences of letting presidents control agencies that Congress tried to insulate from political interference. “The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power,” Justice Elena Kagan said, “not only to do traditional execution, but to make law through legislative and adjudicative frameworks." Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox. Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox. Delivery: Varies Your Email In response, Justice Samuel Alito gave Sauer the chance to argue that the results won’t be disastrous. “In fact, our entire government will move towards accountability,” Sauer agreed. But Agarwal said a president could “just on a whim decide tomorrow that everything the agency has been doing is wrong.” Trump wants Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent The headquarters of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, DC, November 18, 2024. Trump wants the court to overturn a 1935 decision limiting a president's ability to remove leaders of multimember administrative agencies, a decision the court has been chipping away at since 2010. Under the “unitary executive theory” that conservatives have advanced for years, the Constitution gives presidents complete control over executive functions, which must include the power to remove commission members. In 1935, however, the Supreme Court said the FTC’s duties were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” The Department of Justice argues that even if that was a correct interpretation of the FTC in 1935 − which it disputes − it no longer is. Supreme Court could topple yet another campaign finance limit Supreme Court to take on controversial Trump policy on birthright citizenship Supreme Court lets Texas use congressional map favored by Trump Supreme Court not ready to tackle prayers at football games again Supreme Court to review controversial policy at US-Mexico border to limit asylum seekers Trump ratchets up pressure on Supreme Court not to overturn his tariffs Will the Supreme Court treat Trump's tariffs like Biden's policies? Amy Coney Barrett says 'I'm nobody's justice.' That includes Trump. “It was grievously wrong when decided,” Sauer told the justices. He had a receptive audience. Chief Justice John Roberts called that 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a “dried husk of whatever people used to think it was” because it has “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today.” But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal justice, asked Sauer if the court has ever overturned such a long-standing precedent with a major impact on how the government operates. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said. Expert predicts court will overturn Humprey's Executor Kevin King, a partner at Covington & Burling law firm who focuses on appellate and administrative and constitutional law matters, expects the court to overrule − not just further curtail − Humphrey’s Executor. That would mean Trump could remove heads of the FTC and of similar agencies. But King said Kagan’s probing about the potentially far-reaching consequences on other agencies could make a difference when the justices meet privately to discuss the case. “Even if Justice Kagan is not on the winning side of the vote here,” he said, “she nevertheless is influencing the court’s reasoning, and her questions may lead some of her colleagues to take a more cautious and narrow approach here.” Trump declared all federal agencies are under his control The Supreme Court from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. After taking office, Trump declared that all federal agencies are under his control. “The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” the president said in a March address to Congress. That same month, Trump fired the two Democratic members of the five-member Federal Trade Commission board, Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The FTC enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws affecting virtually every area of commerce. He’d already removed Democratic members of two federal labor boards and would later fire the three Democrats on the CPSC. The Supreme Court allowed the firings to proceed while it decides whether Congress had the ability to limit the reasons regulators could be removed to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Supreme Court will later consider Federal Reserve case Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook attends the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's 2025 Jackson Hole economic symposium, "Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on Aug. 23, 2025. One question hanging over the case is whether the court will treat the Federal Reserve Board of Governors differently, as the justices suggested they might earlier this year when issuing a temporary ruling about firing labor commission members without cause. And the court did not allow Trump to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, deciding instead to hear arguments in January on his claim that he has just cause to remove her. Slaughter’s and Cook’s cases are among at least four the justices are deciding in the coming months that test Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority. The court is also weighing whether Trump can impose sweeping tariffs on imports even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise revenue. And the court will decide if Trump's interpretation of the Constitution means he can deny citizenship to some babies born in the United States. A decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by the end of June.

A baby whose life was cruelly taken before it had begun. All because of hate breeding hate in a never-ending circle for generations. Now Mila is lying in the arms of her father safe from any evil that walks on this earth. Their faces will be remembered, their memories will live on.

יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog @Isaac_Herzog · Dec 1 Translated from Hebrew Today, at a beautiful and thrilling spot on the Mount Hermon site, we excitedly launched the book “Mount Hermon Site - The State's Site - The First 50 Years,” which documents the story of a site that has become a symbol of remarkable achievement and love for the land. A living testament to the strength, resilience, and spirit of the State of Israel. Even after two years of a tough campaign, we are proving that we continue to build, rehabilitate, and advance. The Mount Hermon site has reopened, and soon construction will begin on a large and significant hotel there that will attract visitors from all over the world. If one wants to dream big - one day this magnificent site, which serves as a border meeting point between Israel, Syria, and Lebanon - could become an international site of glad tidings and peace.

It takes a special kind of historical illiteracy to brand a people as "colonizers" while standing on the ruins of their ancestors' temples. When we strip away the modern political jargon and look at the forensic evidence, the accusation collapses under the weight of archaeology. As an Iranian, I look at the history of Judea and I do not see a dispute over real estate. I see a crime scene that looks painfully familiar. My own ancestors watched their Zoroastrian Fire Temples destroyed or buried beneath mosques. The method of Islamic expansion has always been building directly on top of the indigenous holy sites to demonstrate that the new power has crushed the old. This is exactly what happened in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock sits upon the Jewish Temple Mount not by accident, but by design. It was a deliberate act to assert dominance over the preceding faith. Ironically, by building on top of Jewish ruins, the conquerors permanently cemented the proof of who was there first. If you dig into the soil of this land, you find Hebrew coins, ancient scrolls, and the foundations of synagogues dating back three millennia. You do not find the artifacts of a lost "Palestinian" nation. For centuries, pilgrims and travelers recorded their encounters here. They wrote of Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Druze. Yet there is no record of a distinct "Palestinian" people prior to the twentieth century. That identity is a modern construct, appearing only after the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty. - Armin Navabi

Hamas weapons found frozen in glacier.

What I liked about my time work is the math. It's the sexiest math ever.

Home Everyday science Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets Giant mesh tunnel with swirling particles flowing on a dark blue background. Photo credit: Getty jimalkhalili Published: December 7, 2025 at 6:00 am The nature of time is one of the most profound and longstanding problems in physics – one that no one can agree on. From our perspective, time seems to steadily progress forward with each tick of the clock. But the closer we look, the more bizarre time becomes – from equations that state time should flow as freely backwards as it does forwards, to the strange quantum realm where cause and effect can flip on their heads. Could it even be that time itself is an illusion? What makes time so confounding is that we have three very different ways of defining it, which don’t easily fit together. The first definition comes from the equations that describe how things change over time. We have many such equations describing everything from the motion of tennis balls to the decay of atomic nuclei. In all these equations, time is a quantity, referred to as ‘coordinate time’. Time is no more than a mathematical label to which we can assign a particular value. The second definition of time comes from Einstein’s theories of relativity, where it’s a dimension in addition to the three we’re familiar with. It’s a direction in four-dimensional spacetime. Our picture of reality then becomes one in which all times – past, present and future – are equally real and co-exist, just as all points in space are equally real. More than that; time has a deep connection with gravity according to General Relativity, where the shape of spacetime is influenced by gravity. Much of the effort at the forefront of theoretical physics over the past half-century has been devoted to unifying General Relativity with the strange world of quantum mechanics. Mathematical frameworks that attempt to do this are known as theories of quantum gravity. But how do we reconcile these two notions of time – the quantum mechanical idea, in which time is a mere parameter, versus the relativistic idea that time is a dimension in spacetime? I call this ‘the first problem of physical time’. Time in quantum gravity The reason it’s so difficult to reconcile quantum mechanics with General Relativity is that their mathematics are fundamentally incompatible. Not only that, but quantum effects primarily govern very small scales such as subatomic particles, while gravity impacts much larger scales such as planets and galaxies, so trying to create an experiment where both scales are not only relevant, but can be accurately measured, has proved exceedingly difficult. Early attempts at unifying a quantum description of reality with the 4D spacetime of General Relativity led John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt to come up with an equation – the Wheeler-DeWitt equation – in 1967, in which time no longer appears at all. What they were attempting to describe is the quantum state of the entire Universe, independent of time. This, many physicists have suggested, means that time might just be an illusion. But should we be so radical or dismissive about time? We’ve come a long way since then, so how does time enter current attempts to develop a theory of quantum gravity? Here, things get very murky. Some approaches still start from something like traditional coordinate time, but then add time again as part of a spacetime with more dimensions than the four we’re used to. In other approaches, time emerges from more fundamental concepts about the Universe. Time might even turn out to be ‘quantised’, meaning that if we were to zoom down to small enough scales, we would see both time and space as lumpy. So, we end up with quanta (atoms) of spacetime. Combining quantum mechanics and General Relativity is all well and good, but there‘s one key mystery it doesn’t address: why does time only seem to flow in one direction? Illustration depicting superstring theory - red, yellow, orange and purple wavy lines cross over each other. Superstring theory, which views the constituents of the Universe as vibrating strings rather than points in space, is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and General Relativity, but requires a wholly different understanding of time - Image credit: Science Photo Library This brings us to the third definition of time, stemming from thermodynamics, which describes the properties of large numbers of particles treated in terms of macro quantities like heat, temperature and pressure. Here, time is neither a dimension nor a label, but a direction – pointing from the past to the future. This is typically phrased as being in the direction of increasing entropy: our unwinding Universe, balls rolling downhill, ice cubes melting in a glass of water and so on. However, despite all the irreversible processes we see around us, the fact is that, in all the fundamental equations of physics, reversing the direction of time doesn’t prevent the equations from working. That is, time could point either way and we wouldn’t be able to tell the future from the past. Yet we see a clear difference between the past and the future. This is ‘the second problem of physical time’. How do we reconcile the fact that our equations work just as well whichever way time is running with the irreversibility of time that we experience in the world? For this, we might have to look towards the quantum domain and the strange phenomena of entanglement. Read more: Could there be a time particle? Nuclear clocks: How ultra-precise measurements will let us probe the Universe like never before Why does time move so slowly when I'm at the gym? Quantum entanglement Quantum objects like electrons or photons can have properties that are not fixed before they’re measured, such as location, momentum, energy or spin direction. That is, they can exist in a ‘quantum superposition’ of having a range of values at once, such as being spread out in space or spinning in two directions at the same time. Only when we choose to observe a property do we force the quantum system to decide on one of the many options of that property it was co-existing in. But if, before our measurement, an electron interacts with a second one, then this second electron can be ‘infected’ by the superposition of the first. It’ll also find itself in a limbo state prior to measurement. We say the two electrons are quantum entangled and we have to describe them as a single quantum entity. Quantum entanglement (illustrated here) is a theory that links two particles across time and space. Changes to one particle will be reflected in the other Quantum entanglement (illustrated here) is a theory that links two particles across time and space. Changes to one particle will be reflected in the other - Image credit: Science Photo Library The strange feature of entanglement is that observing just one of the two electrons also forces the second to snap into one of the available options in its superposition. This will happen at the same time, however far apart they are. And it’s not even the entanglement between two electrons that needs to be considered. The entire Universe can become – indeed will inevitably become – quantum entangled with its surroundings. In fact, we should stop thinking of quantum entanglement as some sort of bizarre phenomenon that only rarely happens in nature, or that it’s ‘spooky’, as Einstein once said. Rather, it’s one of the most, if not the most prevalent process in the Universe. So, how can it help us demystify the nature of time? In 1983, Don Page and William Wootters first suggested a link between time and quantum entanglement, rescuing time from the timeless Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Imagine that some hypothetical quantum clock is entangled with its environment. Instead of thinking of the clock being in a superposition of two locations in space, we can combine them into an entangled clock+environment system in a superposition of states at different times. Now, when we measure the clock by reading the time, it forces the clock’s environment to snap into what it was doing at that time only. So, what if we think of the overall state of the Universe, which might be timeless, as being composed of two parts: (1) a clock and (2) everything else? For us, embedded within the ‘everything else’, perceiving a particular time amounts to measuring the clock at that time, so we perceive reality – the clock’s environment, aka the Universe – at that moment. But, viewed from ‘outside’ the Universe, all times co-exist and there’s no ‘passage’ of time, as Wheeler and DeWitt argued. Quantum causality If quantum mechanics tells us that a system can be in a superposition of states at two different times, then this has an even more fascinating consequence when we consider the ordering of cause and effect. That is, for something to occur, the cause must come before the effect. Consider two events, A and B, such as flashes of light made by two sources in different places. Cause and effect means there are three possibilities: 1) Flash A happened before flash B, and via some mechanism, could have triggered B; 2) Flash B happened before Flash A and could have triggered it; 3) Neither one could have triggered the other because they are too far apart in space and too close in time for a triggering signal to have been sent from one location to the other. Illustration depicting entropy, orange particles gradually disperse from a thick orange circle in the centre of the image. Entropy, the idea that the order of a system breaks down as time moves forwards, is perceived as being inevitable and irreversible. But our theories appear to suggest otherwise - Image credit: Science Photo Library Now, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity states that all observers, no matter how fast they’re moving relative to each other, see light travelling at the same constant speed. This strange but simple fact can lead to observers seeing events happening in different orders. For option (3) above, two observers moving relative to each other close to the speed of light might disagree on the ordering of flashes. Thankfully, there’s no danger of an effect coming before its cause (known as a ‘violation of causality’) since the events are too far apart for either to cause the other. However, what if options (1) and (2) coexisted in a quantum superposition? The causal order of the two events would no longer be fixed. They would exist in a combined state of Flash A happening before and triggering Flash B, and of B happening first. We see then that cause and effect can become blurred when we bring quantum mechanics and relativity together. It gets even weirder when we introduce gravity via General Relativity. Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Imagine two quantum entangled clocks, each in a superposition of different heights above Earth’s surface. According to General Relativity, this would mean the two clocks tick at slightly different rates, due to the slight difference in the gravitational field. The superposition here is a combination of State 1 in which clock A is higher than clock B, and so ticking a little faster, and State 2 in which the clocks are swapped over. Until this combined entangled state is measured by reading the time on one of the clocks, it’s not possible to determine the ordering of any events recorded by the two clocks. And if we can’t determine which events are in the future and which are in the past, we arrive at the possibility of events acting backwards in time to cause events in their past. If, at the quantum level, events in the past can be affected by events in the future, then all bets are off. While some physicists argue that causality is sacred and must be preserved at all costs, others have argued in favour of the idea of retrocausality (the future affecting the past) and even of quantum time travel. It may well be the case that even if we find our true theory of quantum gravity, time will turn out not to be one single concept, but rather a multi-faceted, complex thing. Perhaps it really does retain its different properties depending on how we’re using it: a dimension of spacetime, a coordinate to be measured against, and an irreversible arrow. All of these are only meaningful in the approximate, zoomed-out way we subjectively perceive time. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, we need to dig even deeper into the mysteries of time.

I intend on helping to make you feel good and not hitting you with fake news. You'll know the difference.

The gifts are to the gift of a good new day, clearly some happiness is on it's way!

If I want a better world than its time to restart UPLIFTING THOUGHTS!

I am entering the the room of brightness, touched by the love around me, and there they are, my one and only's. Friends to embrace with soul, as shining bright, to heal the world.