[FOX] "Waffle House" is trending on Twitter in reaction to a video of an employee deflecting and slapping down a chair that was thrown at her during a fight at one of the chain's restaurants in Austin, Texas.
The original video, which is more than two minutes long, shows the lead-up and fight between multiple Waffle House customers and employees.
The employee who was struck with two chairs has gone viral for her quick reflexes and impressive deflection. Civilized behavior be hard. Continued on Page 47
#2
Waffle House video the other day of an employee recounting a customer interaction that involved the customer not getting that hash browns are fried on a griddle - in oil...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/30/2022 5:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ref #1: We do seem to be returning to a more...primitive time.
BTW: The Waffle House at North Leg in Augusta, GA. at one time held the record for most Fri/Sat night Shootings. It's very near 3 popular nightly Motels.
#9
I don't know why people keep trying waffle house workers. They have been putting up Mayweather numbers for years. It's like they train your ass to fight if you work there.
Posted by: Chris ||
12/30/2022 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
^ they see it all. They only go if their trained eye says the other fool is gonna go...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/30/2022 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Here's a slo mo version of The Chair Toss. If all the advertising agencies in all the world had tried to develop an image-building campaign for Waffle House, they couldn't have done better than this.
Posted by: Matt ||
12/30/2022 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#12
It's almost as if Waffle House employees need to be equipped with high-voltage high-capacity tasers.
Oh and a fully pressurized firehose behind the counter.
#13
Feral diversity on display. Just imagine what cultural additions to our bountiful urban landscape the new 6 million welfare-residents Jojo has let in will introduce?
[The Exposé] Yesterday we published an article that highlighted that the United Nations’ ("UN’s") "30×30" goal is the biggest land grab in the history of the world. It is the theft of land and natural resources on a grand scale. To convince the public the UN’s goal is a "good thing," the World Economic Forum ("WEF") and the World Wildlife Fund ("WWF") have chosen three leading influencers — Greta Thunberg, Jane Goodall and David Attenborough — to market the ideology under the guise of a "new deal for nature."
But these three marketeers aren’t just mis-selling the "new deal for nature," at least two of them — Goodall and Attenborough — are openly marketing depopulation, the killing of billions of people, under the fraudulent "climate change" ideology. Perhaps Thunberg is their apprentice and will take over the reins when one of her mentors has been "depopulated."
In this article, we take a brief look at Goodall who is portrayed as a kindly grandmother that wouldn’t hurt a fly and someone even our youngest can trust. However, as with the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood, she is not as her public image or name suggests. After learning a little about Goodall’s underlying beliefs, wisdom would say that children should stay well clear. Children should only watch documentaries or films associated with these marketeers in the presence of responsible adults. Adults who can negate any nuances which have been deliberately included to "nudge" or manipulate beliefs towards ideologies that are harmful not only to us but also to our natural world.
#1
What? You mean all those National Geographic TV shows were misleading? You know, Attenborough has that classy, cool English accent and he sounds so knowledgeable and wise. How could this be?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2022 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
These people are beyond help. We have to get off this planet or die. The Sun will eventually expand and consume the place. We are the only species here that understand that. In order to save even others, we have to head outward. That is not going to be done with their program.
I bet he has a real cool place in the Cotswolds. Why would you wanna go to Mars when you could live in the Cotswolds? You'd want everybody else to go to Mars.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2022 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There's nothing wrong with reducing populations. It's just a question of proper sifting. It was the primary task of the State to cull human society's predators, assholes and nuisances anyway. Somewhere along the way, humanist 'sanctity of life' and equality bullshit entered our philosophical paradigm and gave the State an excuse to slack off. Or the populations of countries would have decidedly been rational, cleaner and just better folks.
Hell, most of our problems wouldn't exist if not for self-righteous fools trying to be better'n they were made to be.
If we took to slaying every sunni moslem male on sight for example, giving them a chance to convert or die, we could kill off a couple hundred million easy before the rest give up and become Buddhists or whatever. The world could bury Allan forever, like Huitzilopotchli.
These idiots would get what they want, we would be able to forget a very shitty chapter in human history, and humanity could move on to conquer the stars.
#6
The two are not mutually exclusive. Hitler was, after all, fond of dogs and small [Aryan] children... so long as they were well-behaved.
As it happens, Jane Goodall is kind to children. She has a son of her own, who has three children with his Tanzanian wife. They live next door to Ms Goodall in Tanzania. When we were in Brussels, she came to visit the mother of one of trailing daughter #1’s classmates at the international school there, and graciously let the child bring her in one day for Show & Tell. This kind of thing was so common at that school that we only found out when td#1 mentioned it in passing as we were watching something about gorillas some months later.
Where civilised life once abounded,
A couple of cranks, Gaya-grounded,
Evict us from Earth
And declare a rebirth
Peopled solely by... Greta. [astounded]
Lady of the Gadflies? "Ms. Thunberg, we presume?" Or do they actually propose flattening the giraffe graph? If so, how?
#15
It is not about population or the environment. It’s about power. Them over everybody else - not Jane Goodall. Jane was/is interested in apes. Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates and the other ones at the top understand and agree with the math behind achieving their agenda. We are useless eaters in their book. The want control of us in the same way that the Party operated in 1984.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/30/2022 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
So why did she procreate?
Posted by: Jan ||
12/30/2022 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I know little about her. She looks to be a good women who bought off on the stupidity of some pretty corrupt individuals. It surprised me that, at one point, they conned Helen Keller to speak on behalf of eugenics back in the day. Sometimes good people get conned into a temporary bad position. Sometimes faithful Christians get conned, for a short time or a long time. Our true enemies are not people but the spirits that serve evil. There are people that consistently serve evil that become proxies for our enemies. I don’t know Jane to be a disciple of Mengele.
Musk has begun an avalanche of truth where all of of conspiracy theories are beginning to be shown to be reality. As the snow rolls down the mountain many people will reach their point of when they can no longer support evil. We know already that they have/had a baby part industry. Likely, the full truth will be more horrible. Let’s be prepared to welcome back reasonable people to the human side as everything comes to the surface.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/30/2022 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
Kaidong Chen's lawsuit against the Albany Unified School District in California took a step closer to the Supreme Court after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the the school system. The next step would be a larger panel and then the Supreme Court.
I wish the Supreme Court would take up the case (which already is 5 years old) tomorrow but the wheels of justice turn at the speed of government with 13 holidays and three months of vacation each year.
Classmates Chen and Cedric Epple disparaged other students in a social media account accessed by 13 students. The lads used the N-word. The school system got wind of this and expelled them.
But the expulsions violated the state constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Justices have ruled that off-campus speech is not the business of the schools and that hate speech is protected. Hate speech is the reason we have a First Amendment. We have it to protect what you don't want to hear as well as what you do want to hear.
Judges Daniel P. Collins (a Trump appointee), Roslyn O. Silver (a retired Clinton appointee) and Robert M. Gould (another Clintonite) ruled that Chen and Epple can be kicked out of school over a private communication.
Precedent be damned!
In his concurring opinion, Gould wrote, "I write separately to express my views on the topic of hate speech, disturbingly present in both the facts of the case before the panel and regrettably, a reemerging threat to society throughout the nation today. I reaffirm the viewpoint I stated when another case involving hate speech in schools came before this court: 'Hate speech, whether in the form of a burning cross, or in the form of a call for genocide, or in the form of a tee shirt misusing biblical text to hold gay students to scorn, need not under Supreme Court decisions be given the full protection of the First Amendment in the context of the school environment, where administrators have a duty to protect students from physical or psychological harms.' Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2006) (Gould, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc), vacated on other grounds, 549 U.S. 1262 (2007).
#1
Yes it does. Hate speech is protected speech. Once the government can decide what is hate speech, anything it doesn't like will magically become hate speech. And you are going to jail for saying the government is inefficient and wasteful.
#2
In totalitarian states, such as Soviet Russia, anything the State does not approve of is Treason! Note that the definition of 'Hate Speech' is equally subjective...
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Continued on Page 47
[PJMedia] The old antisemitism was more a right-wing than a left-wing phenomenon — perhaps best personified by the now-withered Ku Klux Klan.
A new antisemitism followed from the campus leftism of the 1960s. It arose from and was masked by a general hatred of Israel, following the Jewish state’s incredible victory in the 1967 Six-Day War.
That lopsided triumph globally transformed Israel in the leftist mind from a David fighting the Arab Goliath into a veritable Western imperialist, neocolonialist overdog.
On campuses, Middle-East activism, course instruction, and faculty profiles are now virulently anti-Israel — and indistinguishable from anti-Jewishness.
When columnist Ben Shapiro spoke at Stanford University in 2019, left-wing posters were plastered around campus depicting Shapiro as an insect menace. A "BenBGon" bug spray bottle in Nazi fashion unsubtly suggested that a chemical agent is the best remedy to make sure Jews "be gone" from the premises.
The avowed socialist Representative Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., retweeted the old propaganda boast, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
Tlaib knew well "to the sea" could mean only the extinction of Israel itself and its 7 million Jews. She deleted her tweet, but only after an outcry of protest.
Anti-Zionists and leftist Palestinian activists Linda Sarsour and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. — "it’s all about the Benjamins" — often made no effort to hide their antisemitism.
Yet now a dangerous new, new antisemitism is trending, predominantly among African-Americans — especially prominent politicians, celebrities, and billionaires.
Continued on Page 47
#2
Leftists hate anything that works, as opposed to their clearly brain-damaged fantasies.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/30/2022 5:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think Trump had a recent dinner with 2 Nazis. I don't think Justin Fuentes and Kanye West can properly be described as leftists.
The leftists don't give a damn about Jew or Gentile, they hate righties which includes very, very few Jews. This entire article misses the reason Ben is hated, it is not because he's a Jew, he'd be equally hated as a Gentile on college campuses.
#6
I nominate him/her/they to the Whoopi Goldberg chair of the U Cal Berkeley University faculty.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/30/2022 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
So Whoopie Goldberg only took a Jewish name to enhance her acting career. Where are the culture approtiationists? I guess it's OK if you denigrate the culture later.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/30/2022 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"new antisemitism is trending"
Is this actually new, or is noticing it new?
Posted by: James ||
12/30/2022 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It’s not new, James, but has reached a tipping point where it is no longer just spoken of privately because the majority would find it offensive; they now believe the majority would agree with them.
[samf.substack.com] Following Sam’s example I thought I should try to assess my own performance over the past year. From the moment we set up the substack it was clear that the big issue for me was going to be the Russian threat to Ukraine. I wrote five pieces in the period before the war and another 35 once it started. In the pre-war pieces the question was whether there was going to be a war and if so what form it might take. Once the war began the issue became one of its likely course. The big questions were - and sadly still are - about who was ’winning’, how long the fighting would last and what it would take to bring it to an end, along with the risk of nuclear use and the economic dimensions of the war.
Many of my posts have been as much backward as forward looking, trying to explain the background to events. When looking forward I have been wary of predicting. One person above all is responsible for this terrible wars, and while trying to make sense of Vladimir Putin’s priorities and presumptions is essential to any analysis, I cannot claim any special insight into his decision-making. Moreover, while one can normally expect a stronger force to prevail over a weaker one, the tactics and strategies employed make a difference, as they have done to a remarkable extent in this case. This war has been extremely focused, in that it has largely take place on Ukrainian territory. At the same time it has involved many countries, most committed to supporting Ukraine, a few sympathetic to Russia, others looking to mediate, and all taking to varying degrees an economic hit from the knock-on effects of the war.
My preference therefore has been to talk about trends, possibilities, and developments coming into view. Wars pass through stages, depending on the fortunes of the two sides in battle, their ability to keep forces supplied and reinforced, and the shifting impacts of such factors as terrain and weather. One also has to be aware that both sides are trying to shape perceptions. On the Russian side the habitual lying means that the inclination is just to dismiss whatever the Kremlin says, although it has been important to try to explore the ongoing debates in Moscow. On the Ukrainian side, at times military prospects have been played up to boost morale and to encourage support, and then played down, to underscore the dire consequences if more Western support is not forthcoming.
For all these reasons, it can be hard to look ahead much beyond the current stage of the war, never mind the one beyond. Nonetheless it is important to try. I have always accepted that my assessments may turn out to be wrong and misleading, but this is my area of professional expertise and it would have been a cop out to abandon the effort and say that it is all too uncertain.
Continued on Page 47
#1
A very useful piece for clarifying my thinking. Thank you, Besoeker.
I believe that this war is unusual in its moral clarity. Russia’s case for invasion was flimsy and fabricated. Even if the case had been stronger, neither the original act of aggression nor the cruelty and brutality of Russia’s methods could be justified. I felt sure from day one that this was not a war Russia could actually win, in the sense of being able to conquer, subjugate, and pacify Ukraine, and that its defeat is vital not only for the future of Ukraine but also for the future of European security and international order. Its military performance has been consistently poor. But none of that translates easily into a Ukrainian victory and even when Ukrainian forces have come out on top, the battles have been gruelling. The damage done by this unnecessary war will take years to put right. So when people ask me if I am optimistic, I say that I am in believing that Ukraine will prevail in the end but not when I think about the additional suffering this will entail.
.... Since early September my analysis of Putin and his strategy has become much bleaker. He has come to frame this war as a sort of civilisational struggle, far more than an effort to protect Russian-language speakers in the Donbas. As soon as the annexation of the four Ukrainian provinces were announced in September it was evident that he was making a serious peace deal almost impossible.
[TAC h/t AOSHQ] Ukraine has a new Western backer. It’s not a nation-state, or a military contractor. It’s the financial firm BlackRock.
Ukraine announced Wednesday that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a video teleconference with BlackRock Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink. The pair apparently struck a deal to coordinate investment efforts to rebuild the war-torn nation.
A readout of the meeting on the Ukrainian president’s website boasted BlackRock’s involvement, calling the firm "one of the world's leading investment managers" and noted that it "manages client assets worth about 8 trillion dollars."
"Zelenskyy and Larry Fink agreed to focus in the near term on coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channelling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy," the readout claimed.
The release also stated that some BlackRock executives would visit Ukraine in 2023 to fulfill their advisorial duties. "In accordance with the preliminary agreements struck earlier this year between the Head of State and Larry Fink, the BlackRock team has been working for several months on a project to advise the Ukrainian government on how to structure the country’s reconstruction funds," according to the Ukrainian government.
One such preliminary agreement struck between BlackRock and Ukraine was a memorandum of understanding signed by the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy and BlackRock Financial Markets Advisory in Washington, D.C., on November 10, 2022. The memo said that BlackRock FMA would advise the Ukrainian government, specifically the Ministry of Economy, on an investment roadmap for the reconstruction of Ukraine’s economy.
BlackRock’s press release about the November 10 memo is chock full of hollow corporate speak. According to the release, BlackRock will work with Ukraine "on establishing a roadmap for the investment framework’s implementation, including identifying design choices for the envisioned setup, structure, mandate and governance."
A previous meeting in September between Zelensky and Fink, apparently arranged by Andrew Forrest of the Fortescue Metals Group, laid the groundwork for the Ukrainian government’s growing cooperation with BlackRock. The Ukrainian President and the BlackRock CEO reportedly discussed how to attract public and private investment to Ukraine.
Back in the states, the NYC-based investment firm has been making major headlines. A report from the Wall Street Journal over the summer claimed BlackRock was one of several major investment firms causing distortion in the housing market. The report laid out how BlackRock, and firms like it, are using their massive amounts of capital to buy up single-family houses, jacking up prices in the process.
There are two immediate economic effects of the aforementioned price increases. First, higher housing costs benefit the properties already owned by BlackRock, especially in areas where the firm has invested heavily. The second effect is the artificially high prices crowd out working families, leaving only the wealthy or investment firms with massive amounts of capital at their disposal as the only players left in the market. In Houston, for example, the billionaire Fink reportedly accounts for one-quarter of recent home purchases. He’s simply buying up entire neighborhoods and using them as rentals. BlackRock is helping create a permanent renters class, though it’s long been understood that homeownership is one of the key elements to building wealth and maintaining the American middle class.
It is all rather infuriating: one can almost guarantee BlackRock is getting paid handsomely by the Ukrainian government for advising on this reconstruction roadmap. And where is the Ukrainian government currently getting its funding, given its economy is in shambles and war is an expensive undertaking? The United States government, of course. By the end of the calendar year, the U.S. will have provided $13 billion in direct budgetary support for Ukraine’s government to avoid shortfalls and outright bankruptcy, and President Joe Biden has promised to support Ukraine for "as long as it takes."
So, BlackRock gets paid by U.S. taxpayers via the Ukrainian government to devise a plan that ensures the success of their future investments in Ukraine, made from money gained by making American housing unaffordable. With a deal like that for our financial and political elite, why would they ever want peace?
[YouTube] In Ukraine, perhaps no weapon has caused more losses, or decided more engagements than the artillery.
With contested airspace both side have turned to the big guns to support their operations - and both have consumed ammunition at a prodigious rate (albeit Russia many times faster than Ukraine).
In this episode - I look at the question of production and supply and ask the question - are Russia or Ukraine going to run out of shells in 2023
#1
...I think the Russians will have a virtual shortage of shells; that is, they will have a sufficient quantity but will have so many unusable/defective rounds that they might as well be short. On the other hand, the Ukranians are staring down the barrel of an actual shortage of shells - the pipeline from the NATO countries is going to dry up, and even with new production starting, it won't be enough.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/30/2022 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They should keep drawings and dummy samples for study of Ukrainian proctologists for the next century or so.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/30/2022 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hey, wouldn't it be great if the both ran out of ammo and couldn't kill each other anymore? Well, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2022 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
[Gateway] There could be trouble on the near horizon for the United States food supply as multiple factors could lead to scarcity at the grocery store.
Agricultural experts are sounding the alarm for 2023 as inflation, uncooperative weather, and federal regulations are set to strain American farmers and other producers.
Stephanie Nash, an activist with the conservative group Turning Point USA and fourth-generation member of a dairy farming family in California and Tennessee, told Fox News in an interview Tuesday that the country is on the cusp of a supply crisis.
Skipping down:
But no matter where farmers are, she said, it will be difficult for smaller operations to stay in business in 2023.
"If you look at Big Corp, Big Government, they are the ones killing off family farmers and ranchers and reaping the benefit of Americans at the grocery store," Nash said.
"That’s the truth of what is happening in America, and that’s the truth of what will happen if we don’t start to wake up and support local."
Nash is not the only one predicting shortages.
Emphaisis added.
Go Green Go Hungry. BUT the biggest threat to small family farms (those under a couple thousand acres) are tax laws, especially inheritance tax laws. Corporations do not have to pay them every generation to stay in business.
#6
^ Ironically, the new "cultural revolution" is all about cramming people into dense urban areas and shutting off the country.
See: Soylent Green; Logan's Run; Red Barchetta
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/30/2022 6:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I need to note.
I am also seeing a growing number of items with BB dates closer in (Feb/Mar 2023). Items that usually run 18 to 24+ months out, when being placed on the shelves initially.
#8
Ref #6: It's not an economic issue, it's a control issue. The elitists have willed it once again.
Warsaw Ghetto
On October 12, 1940, the Germans decreed the establishment of a ghetto in Warsaw. The decree required all Jewish residents of Warsaw to move into a designated area, which German authorities sealed off from the rest of the city in November 1940. The ghetto was enclosed by a wall that was over 10 feet high, topped with barbed wire, and closely guarded to prevent movement between the ghetto and the rest of Warsaw. The population of the ghetto, increased by Jews compelled to move in from nearby towns, was estimated to be over 400,000 Jews. German authorities forced ghetto residents to live in an area of 1.3 square miles, with an average of 7.2 persons per room.
#10
Soon but already here manufactured foods. Texture and taste all primary goal. I joke now with people that the landfill has been so busy they now offer a buffet. You get plenty of fiber.
#15
Walmart keeps running out of canned Great Value Mini-Ravioli and has been for months... Not a staple I agree but there is a marked shortage of "Economy priced" items on the shelves -- people have already bought all of them and they are not getting restocked like they used to.
[YouTube] The German Armed Forces are on low ammunition stocks and the €100bn special fund initially only made limited provisions for new ammo. Join Chris as he chats about German rearmament, bureaucratic processes, political infighting and future spending plans for the Germany army, air force and navy.
Continued on Page 47
[American Thinker] They hate us. Oh boy, do they ever.
Remember Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union address?
That’s a constitutionally mandated document, by the way, but more importantly, why?
What was in there that was so vile as to justify such an act? Nothing. So, why?
They hate us.
We say things they don’t like. The truth of our assertions is often admitted by them later. But at the time we say it, we are shouted down. Our speech is censored, which is colossally bad enough. But we lose our jobs. We lose our income. We are called the nastiest of things.
And when it’s proven they have censored us, do they apologize? Are they mortified as they should be? Do they swear to amend their ways?
No. They want to keep on doing it. Why?
Because they hate us, and hating us is not only O.K., it is good. Indeed it is the height of morality. It is good to hate us.
Our problem is that we do not fully realize this. We have only recently even begun to contemplate the truth of this, and we are in shock.
We should be. They are like demons possessed.
What they don’t realize is that in hating us, they are hating themselves, too. They are cutting the branch we all sit on. But they insist on it.
An example is the withdrawal from Afghanistan. To withdraw is one thing. To withdraw so as to weaken us (giving up that strategic airfield near China, giving up so many weapons, deserting our own citizens, not informing our Western allies that also had troops there) is another thing.
Continued on Page 47
It was nowhere near as easy as they make it seem in movies and nautical fiction, and many was the ship-misidentification that altered the potential trajectory of history. By Frederick C. Leiner
December 2022 Naval History Magazine
[USNI] In naval historical fiction set during the Age of Sail, the difficulties of identifying ships at sea are typically nonexistent or glossed over. For instance, in C. S. Forester’s brilliant novel Ship of the Line, one of the critical events in the life of Captain Horatio Hornblower results from the identification of a ship and her signals. In the autumn of 1810, Hornblower’s 74-gun ship-of-the-line Sutherland is patrolling Rosas Bay, off the southern coast of Spain, when the masthead lookout spots a sail, “right in the wind’s eye, sir, an’ comin’ up fast.” Coming from the direction of the wind, the stranger’s pennant and any signal flags would be streaming directly at the Sutherland. The lookout soon identifies the ship as a frigate, and “British by the look of her.”
Perched on the masthead, 80 or 100 feet above the main deck, and equipped with a spyglass, with the horizon perhaps 20 miles off, a lookout might be able to discern a larger warship-like frigate perhaps as far as 15 miles distant, if the weather were clear and sea conditions allowed.1 Forester, however, refers to “stormy waters” and a “grey sky,” what William Bush, the Sutherland’s first lieutenant, calls “blowing” weather, which surely would limit the view. Sometime later—Forester does not indicate how far off the oncoming ship is or how much time has elapsed—with the ship’s topsails in sight, “white against the grey sky,” Stebbings, a sailor at a carronade near Hornblower, identifies the approaching ship as the Cassandra, a 32-gun frigate. Stebbings has no spyglass nor even a vantage point, but he is proven right, even though had the Cassandra been hull down, she still presumably would have been several miles away. The Cassandra signals that a French squadron, which the Sutherland cannot see, trails far behind her. Read the rest at the link Continued on Page 47
[NavalNews] Interview with Vice Admiral Arie Jan de Waard, Director of the Dutch Defense Materiel Organization (DMO) on three major naval program for the Royal Netherlands Navy: Walrus class submarine replacement program, Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigate (ASWF) and rMCM.
The interview was recorded during NEDS 2022 on 17 November 2022. (NEDS stands for “NIDV Exhibition Defence & Security” – NIDV stands for “Netherlands Industries for Defence and Security”).
VADM de Waard discussed the following topics:
00:55 – The roles of DMO
01:39 – Status of the Walrus-class submarine replacement program
04:04 – What new capabilities for the future submarines
06:13 – When will the submarines be operational
07:03 – Status of the ASWF program
07:50 – rMCM program
10:59 – Impact of the war in Ukraine on Dutch programs
Dutch Naval Programs
Future Submarines
The Dutch “Walrus-class submarine replacement program” reached a new milestone in November 2022: The Ministry of Defense (MoD) of the Netherlands submitted the request for quotation (RFQ) for 4 new submarines from 3 candidate shipyards.
The candidate yards are Naval Group, Saab Kockums and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems . They are expected to submit their bids around the summer of 2023. The winner will be announced before the end of 2023. Two future submarines are expected to be operational by 2035 in order to replace the last two in-service Walrus-class submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[FOX] "Waffle House" is trending on Twitter in reaction to a video of an employee deflecting and slapping down a chair that was thrown at her during a fight at one of the chain's restaurants in Austin, Texas.
We do seem to be returning to a more...primitive time. 
[The Exposé] Yesterday we published an article that highlighted that the United Nations’ ("UN’s") "30×30" goal is the biggest land grab in the history of the world. It is the theft of land and natural resources on a grand scale. To convince the public the UN’s goal is a "good thing," the World Economic Forum ("WEF") and the World Wildlife Fund ("WWF") have chosen three leading influencers — Greta Thunberg, Jane Goodall and David Attenborough — to market the ideology under the guise of a "new deal for nature."
[YouTube] In Ukraine, perhaps no weapon has caused more losses, or decided more engagements than the artillery. 
The German Armed Forces are on low ammunition stocks and the €100bn special fund initially only made limited provisions for new ammo. Join Chris as he chats about German rearmament, bureaucratic processes, political infighting and future spending plans for the Germany army, air force and navy.
