Doug Casey on the Fed’s Big Pivot and What’s Next for the Economy

Reporter Calls Out Harris For Bussing People To And From Rally

Time To Rebel: We Are Now Entering The Total Censorship Stage Of Global Tyranny

And Now, RFK is Back OFF the Ballot in Michigan

On September 1, Megan Sasser and her family caught a massive alligator while hunting the Yazoo River in Mississippi. The alligator weighed 802 pounds and measured over 14 feet long, just shy of the state record. Sasser and her five family members, experienced gator hunters for a decade, launched their boat around noon on opening day. After enduring a three-hour storm, they spotted the gator over 100 yards away with binoculars. Initially estimating it to be 10-12 feet long, they approached for a closer look. When the gator submerged, they waited patiently. “At that point, we had no idea how big he was,” Sasser says. “We just knew he was a good gator.” Once the gator resurfaced, the crew hooked it with large treble hooks on bait-casting rods. After a fierce hour-long battle, Sasser managed to secure a third, larger hook attached to a 60-foot hand line. Mississippi law requires hunters to “secure” gators before dispatching them, so they snared the alligator in two spots and brought it alongside the boat. “We decided we were going to dispatch him, and then he started to death roll,” Sasser recalls. After rolling about 10 times, damaging the hooked poles, the gator finally stayed still long enough for the crew to use a 20-gauge shotgun. Too large to fit in their boat, they hitched it to the side and headed to the boat launch. “We were just a few pounds shy of the record weight,” Sasser says, “but we’re not disappointed. It was still the catch of a lifetime.” The post Hunters Land Massive 802-Pound Alligator in Mississippi appeared first on Anomalien.com.

While it’s long been established that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred, recent studies have focused on when this happened. Now, a new study published in Scientific Reports has pinpointed where this interbreeding likely took place. Researchers analyzed the geographic distribution of both species in southwest Asia and southeast Europe during the late Pleistocene, the period when the two species are known to have interacted. Their findings suggest that the interbreeding likely occurred in the Zagros Mountains, a mountain range spanning modern-day Iran, northern Iraq, and southeastern Turkey. The Zagros Mountains would have provided an ideal environment for these encounters. The region’s varied biodiversity and topography could have sustained large human populations and attracted groups from other areas, serving as a natural bridge between the cooler Palearctic region and the warmer Afrotropical region during Pleistocene climate changes. This location aligns with both archaeological and genetic evidence. The Zagros Mountains are home to numerous archaeological sites containing remains of both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens. One notable site is Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq, where the best-preserved Neanderthal skeleton ever found was discovered, alongside evidence of a possible ritual burial involving pollen-covered remains. Around the same time Neanderthals inhabited the region, the Persian Highlands also played a crucial role in the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa. This supports the idea that the area was a key meeting point for these human species during the time interbreeding is known to have occurred. The legacy of this ancient interbreeding still exists in modern populations. Since the Neanderthal genome was first sequenced in 2010, it has been shown that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA in non-African populations comes from Neanderthals. These genetic contributions affect a wide range of human traits, including facial features, pain sensitivity, and susceptibility to conditions like COVID-19 and depression. The post Scientists Pinpoint the Likely Location of Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding appeared first on Anomalien.com.

PBS News Hour host Geoff Bennett and New York Times columnist David Brooks desperately tried to spin the news that former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Rep. Liz Cheney will be voting for Kamala Harris as some profound, potentially game-changing moment in the campaign. Bennett hyped the elder Cheney’s credentials, “So, Dick Cheney, stalwart conservative, no one can accuse him of being a RINO, Republican in name only. He served, I think, four Republican presidents, if memory serves me correctly. What do you see as the significance of their dual support for Kamala Harris?”     After joking that perhaps Cheney will become a hippy, Brooks declared, “For a lot of Republicans, character comes before policy and I think the Cheneys are among those Republicans and there were a lot of Bush Republicans for whom that was just an article of faith.” Brooks then suggested that the Cheneys and people like them could willingly associate with the Democratic Party because it hasn’t been taken over by extremists: The other interesting thing is about how interesting a decade the 2010s was, when the Republicans had a total hostile takeover from outsiders, Trump and MAGA. And so it left all the Bush people I know, like, we can't support this, not all, but 80 percent of the Bush people. And President Bush and Dick Cheney are among them. The Democrats had an attempted hostile takeover from Bernie Sanders, but it didn't take. And so they're a party that's still unified, and the MAGA is a party that's left behind a lot of people like Dick Cheney, and a lot — not only Dick Cheneys, but suburban Republicans who voted for Bush and Cheney. The Democratic Party claims to be the party of women, but can’t even bring themselves to say men can’t get pregnant. They can’t even talk about the Middle East without worrying about offending anti-Semitic college students. As it was, Bennett later asked, “Does the support from the Cheneys make it harder for a George W. Bush to stay on the sidelines, or does it make it harder for a Chris Christie, a Chris Sununu, or a Bill Barr, for that matter, to say that Kamala Harris is worse?” After claiming “Bush seems to be the happiest guy on Earth on the sidelines,” Brooks claimed, “a lot of people are like, I can't vote for these people. I can't vote for either of these people. Cheney gives a little permission structure to people, okay, I'm not just going to sit it out. I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris. I need to step up and save our republic from this. And so I think it will help with a certain segment on that point.” Every election cycle, some Republicans support the Democrat and vice versa. A Kennedy and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate have endorsed Trump, and the Teamsters’ boss spoke at the RNC, but PBS only focuses on Republicans for Harris because she is their preferred candidate. Here is a transcript for the September 6 show: PBS News Hour 9/6/2024 7:31 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: So, Dick Cheney, stalwart conservative, no one can accuse him of being a RINO, Republican in name only. He served, I think, four Republican presidents, if memory serves me correctly. What do you see as the significance of their dual support for Kamala Harris? DAVID BROOKS: Who knows. Maybe he's swinging left. He's going to move to Park Slope. He's going to become a hippie. No. BENNETT: That, I'd like to see. BROOKS: For a lot of Republicans, character comes before policy and I think the Cheneys are among those Republicans and there were a lot of Bush Republicans for whom that was just an article of faith. The other interesting thing is about how interesting a decade the 2010s was, when the Republicans had a total hostile takeover from outsiders, Trump and MAGA. And so it left all the Bush people I know, like, we can't support this, not all, but 80 percent of the Bush people. And President Bush and Dick Cheney are among them. The Democrats had an attempted hostile takeover from Bernie Sanders, but it didn't take. And so they're a party that's still unified, and the MAGA is a party that's left behind a lot of people like Dick Cheney, and a lot — not only Dick Cheneys, but suburban Republicans who voted for Bush and Cheney. … BENNETT: Does the support from the Cheneys make it harder for a George W. Bush to stay on the sidelines, or does it make it harder for a Chris Christie, a Chris Sununu, or a Bill Barr, for that matter, to say that Kamala Harris is worse? BROOKS: No. Bush doesn't — he loves it on the sidelines. Bush seems to be the happiest guy on Earth on the sidelines. I think I'd just emphasize something Kimberly said, which is a lot of people are like, I can't vote for these people. I can't vote for either of these people. Cheney gives a little permission structure to people, okay, I'm not just going to sit it out. I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris. I need to step up and save our republic from this. And so I think it will help with a certain segment on that point.

Less than a month ago, I dedicated an entire segment of my show to make it clear that some moments or ideas, like anti-Semitism, are so vile that they must be confronted and addressed immediately. Failing to do so will undermine our side’s ability to win on any front, as the impact of associating with such ideas is deeply contaminating. Although I’m used to disappointment — something every conservative learns quickly — I never expected to see “retconning Hitler” on my 2024 election bingo card of regrets. This discussion has now reached a level where even Tucker Carlson, perhaps the most influential voice in our movement since Rush Limbaugh’s passing, is engaging with it. Even insurgencies need guardrails to avoid becoming what they initially opposed — a warning central to everything Orwell ever wrote. Let me be clear: I like and admire Tucker personally and professionally. I pushed hard for him to host the Leadership Summit for the presidential candidates in Iowa in 2023. We spoke at the same event in 2022, and he’s one of the few peers in this industry with whom I’ve ever made a point to take a picture. He’s also the only prime-time personality on Fox News who has ever featured me on his show, and he’s the reason my 2021 book, “Faucian Bargain,” hit No. 1 overall on Amazon for a second time. But I have no idea why he would choose to entertain a discussion suggesting that “Churchill was the real villain” — implying that Hitler was merely misunderstood — just eight weeks before a crucial election, especially when our opponents have spent the last eight years trying to label our candidate as “literally Hitler.” What possible good could an “ackshually Hitler” conversation do ever, especially amid a must-win election on the largest platform in our movement? It's one thing to host the conversation, but playing along with it is entirely different. Tucker never really challenged the easily debunked claims made by the dime-store “historian” he featured as the voice for this discussion. The conversation included one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in my career, from the so-called historian Darryl Cooper: “[Churchill] didn’t kill the most people or commit the most atrocities, but …” Stop. Do not continue. Just ... stop. Do you know what is a pretty good rule of thumb to determine the villain of the story? Typically, that would be the one who commits the most atrocities! So this “historian” Cooper can’t even stand up to his own cross-examination, let alone someone else’s. George W. Bush, who once made the cosmically self-refuting claim “I am suspending free market principles to save the free market” called, and he wants whatever remains of his motor function back. Many of us first discovered the brilliant historian Victor Davis Hanson through his numerous appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show before Tucker was unfairly fired. You know things are bad when Hanson takes the extraordinary step of writing a detailed rebuttal of a conversation hosted by Tucker. Citing the massive audience Tucker introduced Cooper to, Hanson felt compelled to confront the “surprising number of flawed theories” Cooper presented without challenge. Hanson did just that, thoroughly and in great detail. I understand — we don’t want to replace old gatekeepers with new ones. But we all need guardrails, which are not the same as gatekeepers. I’m sure Tucker, like the rest of us in this business, wouldn’t host a conversation that “just asks questions” about mainstreaming pedophilia or “ackshually child porn.” This shows that some guardrails already exist, and for good reason. The question then becomes what are they, and who gets to decide what they should be? Do I think Tucker is a wink-and-nod anti-Semite? No. Do I think he is checking boxes of things, no matter how incendiary, that he feels like mainstream media won’t allow through their increasingly narrow and culturally Marxist Overton window as a middle finger to the establishment? Yes. And for that, he has earned all the popularity he currently has. Even insurgencies need guardrails to avoid becoming what they initially opposed — a warning central to everything Orwell ever wrote. Tucker risks playing into the negative branding (e.g., racist, anti-Semite, fascist, Nazi) that his and our detractors are eager to use against his critical voice. I would like to make the following public proposal to Tucker, who, again, is a man I like and admire: One great way to demonstrate you’re just a skeptic of the postwar consensus and the decades-long pro-Zionist foreign policy bent of the United States, and not an actual anti-Semite, is to host “just asking questions” dialogues both ways. Might I suggest multi-best-selling author Jonathan Cahn? He is a Messianic Jew, one of the most successful Christian authors in the country, and someone who is also immersed in the topic of spiritual warfare Tucker has highlighted in recent years. Jonathan is also very pro-Israel and obviously very Jewish himself.I would love to hear these two great minds go back and forth for an hour; wouldn’t you? I think it’s perfectly fair to debate whether a still relatively new (in ecclesiastical terms) eschatological theory should play a role in influencing American foreign policy, which Cahn’s view does. And I think that can be done without needing to retcon Hitler and thus open our entire movement up to the possibility of confirming our enemies’ worst smears. Platforms such as iTunes are already skittish enough about hosting right-wing content as it is, despite our massive audiences. No need to further fuel the censorship frenzy. If we’re really just “asking questions,” then let’s ask questions from multiple sides. After all, the Overton window doesn’t like an outspoken Messianic Jew like Cahn any more than it wants to entertain “ackshually Hitler.”

Bumping up the difficulty of a specific game by using mods is a tale as old as time. For Starfield players, there are two clear avenues to approach this: gun combat and space combat. If you've played any Starfield, you'd know that space combat isn't the most challenging thing in the world, especially since, if you want to become an unkillable force, you can dump all your stats into improving your ship for fighting. Now, one modder has made it their mission to make space combat hard, even for those with a tricked-out ride. Continue reading New Starfield mod makes space combat more thrilling and deadly MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Starfield mods, Starfield outposts, Starfield traits

'Says It All'! Trump Responds After Dick, Liz Cheney Endorse Harris-Walz and Dems Proudly Accept