Good Morning Assos

A little of this, a little of that...

[Jon Root @JonnyRoot_]

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey IS the Trojan Horse. Let me explain…

The Trojan Horse is a deception, meant to be invited in as an innocent gift & piece of art, yet it contains the elements used to destroy its receiver.

The Odyssey is portrayed as simply an adaptation of an ancient, epic poem, yet it contains subversive elements that can lead to further destruction within film/society.

Odysseus is completely deconstructed. He is no longer a witty, cunning, & wise, and powerful leader. He’s as Emily Wilson calls him in her recent liberal, feminist translation of The Odyssey, “a complicated man” - a deconstruction of the hero portrayed in the source material, prior to Wilson’s rewrite.

Women are seen as victims, never the villains. They’re powerful, as if Nolan is purposely trying to shame/take down the patriarchy…

- Clytemnestra is a victim who simply takes vengeance against Agamemnon. They try to justify her affair and the murder of her husband instead of showcasing her lack of loyalty destroying the juxtaposition between her and Penelope who remains loyal to Odysseus for DECADES.
- Helen of Troy is the victim of an abusive marriage with Menelaus, which leaves her scared.
- The witch Circe paints all men as “pigs” at their core.
- Penelope talks about taking the throne, while calling her son weak and unworthy.
*None of these depictions are faithful to the source material that has been passed down for millennia.

This movie is loved by many, yet it includes many liberal ideologies those people fight against.

The diverse casting is an overt distraction, and political message. Nolan has duped hundreds of thousands of movie goers into believing these casting don’t matter in the grand scheme. It’s a slippery slope to welcome in more trans actors/actresses and race-swaps in future films.

This movie is accepted by many who have fought against the Trojan horses in our society that have ruined homes, schools, churches, relationships, and business. People are lost in a 3+ hour lotus flower of a movie that is objectively a desecration of western society’s quintessential story of the hero’s journey.

Subversion of the source material is what has ruined so many IPs, franchises, and adaptations over the last decade, especially.

The acceptance and embrace of this film will only lead to more subversive works. Nolan has duped society into believing poems like Homer’s The Odyssey can be downplayed as “just a fantasy”, which downplays the poem as “up for interpretation” to its core, so it can be destroyed with the insertion of modern political ideologies.

That line of thinking presents the source material, the intended core motivation of its characters, and the message ingrained in the story that has made it last for thousands of years, not as something to be faithful to, but something to be molded into our own modern image. Nolan is now elevated above Homer, unlike Peter Jackson, whose motivation was to honor Tolkien in his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

This movie is the 1619 Project of Homer’s work. It’s presenting a different story, and redesigned characters, in order to redefine what made The Odyssey so compelling & long-lasting in the first place.

It’s now a story about “welcoming the stranger.” An allegory seemingly for immigration and sanctuary cities 🤦🏼‍♂️

As this film is paraded into the walls of the Dolby Theater in Hollywood for the Academy awards, Elliot Page will be treated like a hero, maybe even nominated for an award, and it will be used as a weapon to further destroy foundational works of art, just like Amazon has done to Lord of the Rings, Disney has done to Star Wars and Snow White, HBO to Harry Potter, etc.

The acceptance of this film is what will lead to further adaptations that empower directors, writers and studios into subversive retellings and propaganda-filled revisionist histories that work to upend foundational aspects of western culture.

If that happens, we can only blame ourselves…

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Rep. Gill: "Is it important to be polite?"

Smithsonian Director Hartig: "Yes, sir"

Gill: "The Smithsonian lists politeness as an attribute of white supremacy"

[Sall Grover @salltweets]

As insane as this claim is, it’s actually no more insane than a man claiming to be a woman in the first place.

[Cernovich @Cernovich]

Big Tech needs new talking points. The current slop isn't working. Big Tech censored Americans during Covid to protect China. They outsource jobs and use H-1Bs to suppress wages. They have foreign LP's in their venture funds. Nobody thinks Big Tech bros are patriotic.

[Sunny @sunnyright]

A prominent, major and mainstream conservative politician in the UK was recently beaten to death with a hammer

Feel like that should probably be getting more attention

[Mike Netter @nettermike]

He told his students to go to the windows.
Get out. Jump if you have to.
Then Liviu Librescu walked to the classroom door and pressed his body against it.
He was 76 years old. He weighed 140 lbs
The gunman was in the hallway.
It was April 16, 2007. A Monday morning. Solid mechanics class at Virginia Tech, Room 204. Twenty-two students, most of them 19 or 20 years old.
At 9:45 AM, gunshots echoed through Norris Hall. Room by room, the shooter was working his way down the corridor.
Liviu heard it. He understood immediately.
He had survived the Holocaust. He had survived a labor camp. He had spent decades living under Communist oppression. He knew exactly what evil sounded like.
He told his students to escape through the windows. Second floor — it was a drop, but they'd survive. Then he walked to the door and held it shut with his body.
The shooter tried to force it open. It wouldn't move.
He fired through the door. Wood splintered. Bullets came through.
Liviu stayed.
Behind him, students were climbing out the windows. Dropping to the ground. Running. One by one, all twenty-two of them got out.
The shooter kept firing through the door.
Liviu held it shut until every student was safe.
Then the bullets killed him.
When police arrived, they found his body at the door.
All 22 of his students survived. Not one was injured.
Liviu Librescu was born on August 18, 1930, in Ploiești, Romania.
He was Jewish. In 1941, when he was eleven years old, Romanian authorities sent him and his family to a labor camp. His father died there. Liviu survived. When the war ended, he was fifteen.
He went back to school. Studied engineering. Earned a doctorate from the University of Bucharest.
But Communist Romania had no interest in allowing a Jewish intellectual to succeed. He was blocked from academic positions. Passed over for jobs he deserved. He applied to emigrate. The government kept refusing.
Finally, in 1978 when Liviu was 48 years old — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin personally intervened. Romania let him go.
He had spent most of his adult life trapped in a country that didn't want him.
In Israel, he taught at Tel Aviv University. Published over 300 papers. Became an international expert in aeroelasticity — the science of how air flows over aircraft wings.
In 1985, Virginia Tech offered him a position. He moved to Blacksburg, Virginia. He taught there for 22 years. His students loved him — demanding but kind, high standards, genuine care.
He was still teaching full-time at 76. Still publishing research. Still showing up every Monday morning for solid mechanics.
April 16 was the first day of Passover — the Jewish holiday celebrating liberation from slavery and oppression.
Liviu Librescu died on the day his tradition sets aside to celebrate freedom.
He spent his entire life escaping death and oppression by luck, by persistence, by the intervention of others. And on his last morning, he chose to stand at a door so that twenty-two young people could have the future he had fought so hard to reach.
He could have run. He could have hidden. He could have climbed out a window with his students.
He chose to stay.
The Virginia Tech shooting killed 32 people that day — the deadliest school shooting in American history at the time.
Room 204 had zero casualties.
Because a 76-year-old Holocaust survivor held a door with his body until every student behind him was gone.
His funeral was held in Israel. Students from Virginia Tech flew across the ocean to honor him. The Israeli government awarded him the Star of David Medal posthumously. Virginia Tech named a scholarship in his memory.
His son said his father died the way he lived — protecting others.
A man who survived everything evil threw at him for 76 years.
On his last day, he made sure 22 kids survived too.
Professor Liviu Librescu. August 18, 1930 — April 16, 2007.
Holocaust survivor. Labor camp survivor.
302 published papers. 22 years at Virginia Tech.
22 students out the window.
He held the door.

[Wesley Yang @wesyang]

When the Democrats say "we can't throw transgender folx under the bus" what they mean is that they will use state power to force you to participate in the autopedophilic fantasies of male sex fetishists

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

Reminder: the Crusades were a response to over 400 years of Islamic aggression against Christians and Europe.

632: Muhammad dies.

635: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Damascus.

636: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Antioch.

637: Muslims conquer the Holy Land.

639: Muslims conquer the first Christian country Armenia.

641: Muslims conquer the Coptic Christian country of Egypt.

650: Muslim armies reach southern Italy and Cyprus, taking thousands of captives as "slaves" and "concubines."

711: Muslims invade Spain, and by 715, they have occupied most of it.

717: Muslims besiege Constantinople but are repelled.

730: Muslims invade France, only to be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.

792: The ruler of Al-Andalus calls for the invasion of France, and Muslim armies are assembled to attack it again, but they are repelled.

827: Muslims invade Sicily and Italy, persecuting monks. Sicily remains under Islamic rule until 1092.

846: Muslims invade Rome and force the Pope to pay tribute.

848: A third invasion of France occurs, and they are repelled for a third time.

909: Muslims occupy Sardinia.

937: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is burned down by Muslims, and more churches in Jerusalem are destroyed.

1009: Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.

1012: Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Christians.

1071: Turkish Muslims attack the Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1094: Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos asks Western Christendom for help against the Muslim Turkish invasions.

1095: Pope Urban II finally declares the First Crusade.

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

Mao Zedong was responsible for so many deaths in China that you can see it on a chart of global life expectancy

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Here are TEN questions that I have for any climate alarmists reading, and I hope I can get some honest answers down in the comments:

1️⃣ You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius.

2️⃣ What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain.

3️⃣ What makes CO₂ “air pollution”?

The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.”

But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die.

4️⃣ Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare?

5️⃣ The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens?

6️⃣ If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math).

7️⃣ What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know?

8️⃣ If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on?

9️⃣ Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy.

🔟 Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.

[AG @AGHamilton29]

Mao was responsible for 40-60 million deaths…

This was the main speaker for the College Democrats conference.

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

“Transgender” student has a total meltdown over being misgendered

We have a serious mental health crisis in this country.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Every financial pitch for wind energy reads like a dream: free fuel, zero carbon, declining tech costs and guaranteed commercial profits. It's a glowing corporate narrative.

Step past the PR and examine the balance sheets and a deeply troubled picture emerges — one built on rapid asset degradation, market cannibalisation and vast institutional subsidies.

On paper, a turbine has a lifespan of 20 to 25 years. On the ground, mechanical entropy starts on day one. Offshore wind was promised as the ultimate energy frontier — with stronger, more consistent breezes far from land-use disputes.

Instead, it turned into a financial pressure cooker. Saltwater corrosion, massive subsea foundation engineering, specialised vessel shortages plus extreme environmental stress drive capital and operational expenses to astronomical levels.

The narrative of renewable wealth hides a fundamental truth: intermittent mechanical hardware exposed to harsh elements is expensive to build, costly to maintain and brutal to replace.

As first- and second-generation fleets hit their economic end-of-life, the bill for repowering, grid integration and system firming will land in one place only: on the consumer’s electricity bill.

That contrast between glitzy PR and industrial reality is precisely where the true economics lie. When you peel back the financial models, the story isn't about perpetual green profit.

It is about soaring costs, mechanical wear and the complex financial architecture designed to keep assets afloat - regardless of market reality. (End Part 1/2)

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

“Fire seasons are growing worse.”

Unlike you, I have numbers. Let's look at them.

Globally, annual total wildfire burn area, as measured by the MODIS instrumentation on NASA satellites, has decreased at a rate of approximately 1.39% per year since 2002.

For forests specifically, there is little change with the linear rate being a slight decrease of 0.46% per year.

In parts of western North America, there have indeed been modest increases in wildland fire burn area since the 1980s. But western and boreal North American forests still burned more than they do now prior to the early 20th century (e.g., Swetnam et al., 2016; Chavardès et al., 2022).

🔗https://t.co/9sYAnYbnBA

🔗https://t.co/GdYetz3FiO

And, according to Stephens et al. (2007), between 4.5 and 12 million acres of forest / brush burned annually, on average, in modern-day California prior to westward expansion in the 19th century. Even 2020's allegedly unprecedented wildfire season (4.2 million acres burned) didn't reach the lower bounds of what was typical in the pre-industrial climate.

🔗https://t.co/79WUppYUXE

The increase in fire burn area out west since the early 1980s is mostly an artifact of the buildup of brush and small-diameter fuels on the forest floor caused by (a) decades of fire exclusion and (b) a lack of good forest management. Nature is just returning to pre-American / European settlement norms.

While you could make the argument that the trends toward a drier American southwest have made the environmental conditions more favorable for fires to spread (and I'd agree that there might be some truth to that), there are no hard lines of evidence suggesting that the ongoing drought (which has been persistent for much of the last 25 years) has anything to do with carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

The desert southwest has a long, documented history of severe megadroughts, several of which have exceed the ongoing drought. The Medieval Megadrought, for instance, lasted more than 400 years from 900–1300 AD (Cook et al., 2004).

🔗https://t.co/cDYishn7Rh

Morgan & Pomerleau (2012) further support the idea of a Medieval Megadrought with a study on Cliff Lake in the Sierra Nevada. They concluded that waters in Cliff Lake were ~5 meters lower than present levels for a period of ~50 years more than 600 years ago. They were able to determine this by radiocarbon dating the wood and noting where the stump is submerged.

🔗https://t.co/YpRV5e2JOu

The fact of the matter is fire seasons today are much more benign than they used to be, largely thanks to fire exclusion. But that very policy is now having some unintended consequences that are beginning to lead to a reversal in downtrends regionally.

It has very little, if anything to do with the one part per 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO₂ since 1850.

[Bjorn Lomborg @BjornLomborg]

2026 Fire in Asia is tracking low

Halfway through 2026, Asia has burned less than average 2012-25

Every continent is below average, and Africa, the Americas, and Europe are at record lows

Media only showing stuff burning leaves us badly informed

https://t.co/iDqlYckvRT

You can see all the references in my Twitter thread:
https://t.co/c1gWhtRaBe

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Scientists Kesten Green and Willie Soon found that the UN's climate models simply don't work.

"IPCC climate models lack predictive validity and cannot guide policy," say the researchers.

When tested on real forecasts instead of theory, the CO2-based models failed, often performing worse than just a random guess. Whereas simple models based solely on solar activity worked far better, even decades out.

The whole 'climate crisis' depends on these models, not on actual measurements, but many run as much as 5C too hot.

The IPCC was never about testing if man-made warming is actually real. It was built to promote the idea that it was real.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

There's nothing that climate alarmists hate more than when I post graphs or graphics of daily maximum temperatures (Tmax).

They will accuse me of “cherry-picking,” claiming that I need to look at the “average mean temperature” (Tavg) because that's where the real story is with regards to climate change.

I have been researching / posting on climate change for almost a decade, and I am well acquainted with every trick they have in the book. And the reason why alarmists like Tavg over Tmax is because Tavg shows the big warming trends that suit their narrative while Tavg often doesn't on a station-by-station basis.

But how is Tavg calculated, you might ask?

Well, you take the daily Tmax measured that afternoon and daily Tmin measured that morning, add them up, and then divide them by two. Easy enough, this is just basic algebra in statistics 101.

But Tmin values are highly contaminated by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).

Surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and brick have a high heat capacity and store more solar energy during the day than vegetation or bare soil. So, after sunset, this stored heat is released gradually, slowing the nighttime cooling of the urban environment. Buildings also inhibit a lot of that infrared radiation from making it back to outer space.

Cities also tend to have more mechanical turbulence in the lower atmosphere because buildings increase surface roughness. In rural settings, the surface cools rapidly after sunset, but the air a few hundred or few thousand feet up doesn't. This causes what's called boundary layer decoupling, and leads to temperature inversions, especially in the fall and winter. But in an urban environment, buildings enhance turbulence and therefore vertical mixing, which brings warmer air aloft down towards the surface.

Together, these prevent the air just above the ground from cooling as quickly at night, which the figure on the left shows. This effect is strongest when a site is first developed beyond pure wilderness conditions (so this affects rural and suburban environments too), but it has grown larger spatially across the global land surface because more land is being developed with time. This significantly affects Tmin trends, which is a significant (and perhaps the main) reason why Tmin (and by extension, Tavg) has gone up, at least in the mid-latitudes.

In rural settings, Tmin is also affected by corn sweat (evapotranspiration off of corn that increases the vapor pressure; that is, the humidity, which means higher dew points and higher Tmin).

On the right, I plotted the annual mean Tmax (red), Tavg (green), and mean Tmin (blue) for Huntsville, Alabama from 1920 to 2025. As you can clearly see, the annual average Tmax has not increased at all. The statistically significant increase in the Tavg, though, comes entirely from the even larger increase in Tmin, which is driven by the UHIE. And this is not just exclusive to Huntsville; you can see it in Fresno or Boston and virtually anywhere else that isn't purely rural and removed from cornfields.

I like using Tmax because that value represents how warm (or hot) it actually gets (which is relevant to global warming) and, more importantly, it represents a well-mixed boundary layer where UHIE is minimized without having to adjust data using hypotheticals and curve fitting.

Alarmists hate Tmax because it doesn't usually paint the picture of doom and gloom that gets people hype for their cause for political action.

[Handre @Handre]

Envy needs an ideology, and socialism has always been happy to provide one. Mises wrote a whole book about this in 1956, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, and the diagnosis holds up: people who resent the outcomes of voluntary exchange will always search for a doctrine that transforms their resentment into virtue. The woke left found theirs.

Notice what wokeism and socialism share at the root. Both start from the premise that unequal outcomes prove injustice. You earned more than your neighbor? Exploitation. One group outperforms another in median income? Systemic oppression. Neither doctrine ever asks whether people made different choices, took different risks, or produced different value for others. Asking that question would ruin everything, because the entire project depends on assigning blame rather than understanding prices, profit, and loss.

Once you accept that unequal outcomes equal injustice, you need a corrector. Someone powerful. Someone with the authority to override contracts, seize property, and redistribute according to a moral hierarchy the planners themselves define. That job description has exactly one applicant: the state. This is why the woke activist and the socialist always arrive at the same policy desk, demanding rent control in New York, wealth taxes in Sacramento, hiring quotas in every HR department from Seattle to Brussels.

Marcuse and the Frankfurt School figured out decades ago that the Western worker refused to play his assigned role as revolutionary. He got rich instead. Capitalism handed him a car, a house, and air conditioning, and he stopped listening to men promising utopia through expropriation. The revolutionaries needed a new client base. Class became identity, but the machinery stayed identical: oppressor and oppressed, guilt and grievance, revolution and rule.

The love affair with socialism, then, follows logically. Wokeism supplies the moral demand for coercion; socialism supplies the economic apparatus of coercion. Neither can survive in a world of private property and voluntary exchange, because in that world you rise by serving customers, not by capturing committees. Venezuela ran this experiment from 1999 onward. The grocery shelves reported the results.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

MIT atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen has said "there will be no climate catastrophe."

"When someone says half a degree more and it's the end of the species, that's not science, that's theatre," says Lindzen.

Every apocalyptic prediction, from famine to ice-free poles to snowless winters, has failed.

And they'll keep failing.

2030 will pass, 2050 will pass, 50 years will pass -- there will be no climate catastrophe.

Lindzen isn't a fringe voice, he's a leading atmospheric scientist, author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed papers, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences.

Today's climate agenda, he argues, isn't about data, it's about power. "It's about controlling policy, controlling economies, and reshaping society under the guise of a crisis that doesn't exist."

The real threat isn't climate change. It's climate policy.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

When someone tells you that “97% of climate scientists agree,” a good follow-up question to that is, “What exactly do 97% agree on?” That mankind contributes to climate change in some capacity? Or that we are facing a climate crisis? Those are two very different positions. Now, we know that the “97% consensus” was a botched statistic, but you can nonetheless play ball. I don't think 97% of scientists agree on anything except that they do not want to lose government (taxpayer) funding.