And then there were three: Eric Adams does the right thing

The New Neo Posted on by

Current NY Mayor Eric Adams was actually my favorite Democrat of the three competing in the 2025 New York mayoral race, which I suppose isn’t saying much. But he didn’t have a chance to win, and his presence was making it even more likely that the especially abominable Mamdani would win. So I’m glad Adams dropped out:

Mayor Eric Adams dropped out of New York City’s mayoral race Sunday amid escalating pressure to clear the crowded field in a last-ditch attempt to stop socialist Zohran Mamdani’s election to City Hall.

The bombshell move came after weeks of back-and-forth over whether Adams would bow out of the race, in which he is polling fourth, far behind frontrunner Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and also, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. …

The mayor noted his campaign’s inability to fundraise, taking aim at the city’s Campaign Finance Board for repeatedly denying him millions of dollars in matching public funds, which put him at a massive disadvantage compared to his opponents.

Adams was fourth in the polls, after Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa (the Republican). Who’ll drop out next – if anyone? My best guess – although I wouldn’t bet a ton of money on this – is that the answer is “no one.” Cuomo’s best chance to win would be if Sliwa drops out, but Sliwa is the only Republican and he might hope that the other two will split the Democratic vote and let him squeak past. I doubt that would ever happen; there just aren’t that many Republicans in New York City. Cuomo certainly wouldn’t drop out without Sliwa dropping out; it would basically guarantee a Mamdani victory if it became a two-way race between Mamdani and Sliwa. And besides Cuomo is a huge egotist. And of course Mamdani the frontrunner isn’t leaving.

If you believe this poll from two weeks ago, even in a two-way race between Mamdani and Cuomo, the former wins. Add Sliwa into the picture and Mamdani’s margin increases. But there’s still time for Cuomo to close the gap.

What a mess.

Iran snapback – and more talk of Israeli hostage deal

The New Neo Posted on by

Did the UN finally do something right? The snapback has arrived:

Sweeping UN economic and military sanctions have been reimposed on Iran – 10 years after they were lifted in a landmark international deal over its nuclear programme.

The new measures took effect as the three European partners to the deal – the UK, France and Germany – activated the so-called “snapback” mechanism, accusing Iran of “continued nuclear escalation” and lack of co-operation.

Iran suspended inspections of its nuclear facilities – a legal obligation under the terms of the 2015 deal – after Israel and the US bombed several of its nuclear sites and military bases in June.

Its President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted last week that the country had no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

The reintroduction of sanctions – which Pezeshkian described as “unfair, unjust, and illegal” – is the latest blow to a deal that was heralded as a turning point in Western relations with the long-ostracised Islamist nation when it was first struck.

Oh, it was a turning point all right. A terrible one. Thanks, President Obama.

From Rubio:

The Security Council’s decision on September 19 – reaffirmed on September 26 – to restore these restrictions sends a clear message: the world will not acquiesce to threats and half measures – and Tehran will be held to account.

President Trump has been clear that diplomacy is still an option—a deal remains the best outcome for the Iranian people and the world. For that to happen, Iran must accept direct talks, held in good faith, without stalling or obfuscation. Absent such a deal, it is incumbent on partners to implement snapback sanctions immediately in order to pressure Iran’s leaders to do what is right for their nation, and best for the safety of the world.

I wouldn’t sit on a hot stove till that happens.

As for the Israeli hostage deal that’s said to perhaps be imminent, I’m highly skeptical. But here’s the report:

The White House has signaled it aims to finalize elements of a Gaza deal, with Trump declaring the effort in “final stages.” Israeli officials, meanwhile, have sought to narrow remaining gaps before the meeting.

Background reporting indicates the plan links a stabilization force in Gaza to governance reforms and a pathway involving the Palestinian Authority, points that have stirred debate in Jerusalem. …

According to reporting ahead of the summit, the leaders are expected to focus on securing the hostages’ release, establishing a durable ceasefire, and charting interim administration and security arrangements in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli officials expect Netanyahu to also bring up the issue of West Bank sovereignty.

Trump has framed the moment as an opening for “something special” in the region.

And Hamas? Is there any chance they’ll say yes to whatever this deal might be? I highly doubt it. And then [my emphasis]:

“I think we are very close,” Trump said in remarks at the White House. But if Hamas fails to agree to the plan, the president said Israel could continue its campaign. “Bibi, you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do,” he added.

The 20-point U.S. plan to end the war begins with an immediate ceasefire and proposes Hamas release all of the hostages within 72 hours in exchange for a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops with the aim of a permanent ceasefire, according to the White House.

Hamas members who commit to peace and lay down their arms will be given amnesty, offering them a pathway to rejoin civilian life, while those who wish to leave Gaza will be offered safe passage, the White House said.

Full humanitarian aid will resume, administered by the United Nations and its organizations, the Red Crescent, and other groups. According to the plan, Gaza will be redeveloped “for the benefit of the people of Gaza.”

“I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace and if Hamas rejects the deal, which is always possible, they’re the only one left,” Trump said. “Everyone else has accepted it.”

“Which is always possible” – quite an understatement from Trump.

It seems to be in the air: more mass shootings over the weekend

The New Neo Posted on by

If it sometimes seems as though these things are contagious, it’s because they probably are. Not literally contagious, of course. But susceptible minds read about a mass shooting or see a video, and a few of them think, “What a good idea!” – and carry out that idea in their own idiosyncratic way.

Assassination attempts are similar. The two failed Trump attempts occurred close together, and back in 1975 two women in California decided, within three weeks of one another, that it would be a nifty idea to assassinate the relatively innocuous and seemingly non-divisive President Ford (one of these women, Sara Jane Moore, died the other day at the age of 95 and I might write a post about her in the not-too-distant future).

This horrific Southport, North Carolina, shooting seems to have been perpetrated by 40-year-old Nigel Edge Max, a bona fide crazy person – a brain-injured schizophrenic who had a previous history as a Marine sniper in Iraq. The shooter decided that it would be a nifty idea to use his unfortunately not-rusty-enough skills to fire from a boat on patrons enjoying themselves at a waterfront restaurant.

It might strike you – as it struck me – that the suspect’s name seemed like something out of a fantasy, and in fact he had changed it in from the original. He had one of those “troubled” histories which should surprise no one:

The suspect, formerly known as Sean DeBevoise before he changed his name in 2023, reportedly has a complicated and troubled past, and law enforcement sources indicated that he engaged with numerous Q-Anon conspiracy theories. He also once escorted former “American Idol” contestant Kelly Pickler to the CMT Music Awards, but later sued her, claiming she had tried to kill him by poisoning his drink.

He also filed several other lawsuits accusing organizations of plotting to murder him, and he wrote a book called “Headshot: Betrayal of a Nation,” where he described his injuries and theorized that it constituted an additional plot to murder him.

Extremely paranoid. He doesn’t seem to be on the left, and I guess if he was indeed a Q-Anon follower we can safely say he was in some sort of fringe group category that could roughly be described as being on the far far right (perhaps the anarchist right? – anarchy can be on right or left). But I doubt the murders in North Carolina had much if anything to do with politics.

RIP to the three people who were murdered. The suspect was caught because the police had a good description of his boat. From the authorities:

“Chief Morris already said that he was a resident of Oak Island, and was well-known to law enforcement, but he wasn’t quite as well known in the criminal court system,” District Attorney Davis said Sunday. “There were some minor contacts over the years but nothing significant in his past, which would give us any indication that he was capable of such horrors.”

Well, the combination of being an ex-sniper and a brain-injured paranoid schizophrenic might be an indication.

Then there was a mass shooting at a Mormon church in Michigan, plus a fire, that killed four people – with a fifth being the perp, who was shot by police. Strangely, this man was also an ex-Marine of about the same age, who had served in Iraq, but unlike the NC perp he had not been in combat nor had he been wounded at all, much less in the head:

The lone attacker, authorities said, plowed his pickup into the church at 10:25 a.m. Sept. 28, and then began shooting at people, before he, too, was shot and killed by police, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints building went up in flames.

By late evening, news outlets were reporting the possibility that more bodies could be found, the latest in a string of violent incidents in Michigan in churches, hospitals, a Walmart, and even a suburban park where children were playing.

I’m not aware of those other violent incidents in Michigan, but they point to the “contagion” effect as well. I doubt the Michigan perp was aware of the NC boat perp, although who knows? The NC murders had occurred Saturday night and the Michigan ones occurred Sunday.

For Sanford, the motive seems to have been hatred of Mormons rather than anything political. He seems to have also had a history of drug use:

Burton City Council candidate Kris Johns said he spoke to Sanford about a week ago.

According to Johns, Sanford was at home and went on a tirade against the church and described Mormons — an informal name for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — as “the antichrist.”

Johns described Sanford as “extremely friendly,” and said their conversation didn’t delve into national party politics or current events — “there was no mention of anything right or left, blue or red” — but Johns did say he spotted a Trump 2024 sign on the suspect’s fence.

Johns also said they talked about their children. Johns said his daughter has special needs; he said Sanford told him his child has a health condition. Sanford asked Johns what he thought about guns.

The city councilmember-hopeful responded that he supports the Second Amendment. Then, Sanford talked about his life story, and the conversation lasted no more than 20 minutes.

Johns said Sanford spoke quickly as he shared about his time in Iraq and his struggles with drug addiction when he returned home. Sanford moved to Utah at one point to plow snow and had a relationship with a woman there whose family was Mormon.

Johns said Sanford asked him if he believed in God. He responded, “yes.” Johns said he’s Christian and a member of Solid Rock Community Church in Burton. And the, from there, Johns said, the conversation took a “a very sharp turn.”

That sharp turn was, apparently, hatred of Mormons. Another hint – perhaps – involves the woman in Utah; perhaps her family disapproved of him? If so, they turn out to have been perceptive.

RIP to the dead in Michigan.

Young people in the US have had little experience of successful political assassination – till now

The New Neo Posted on by

They’ve only read about it. We who were old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s recall the searing and terrible assassinations of huge American figures: JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King. To us, these things are extremely real. But to young people they’re not. They’re ancient history – if they even know the history.

Yes, there have been plenty of assassination attempts since then – including of course the Butler PA shot that hit Trump’s ear. But that experience probably only served to underline what I’m referring to, because Trump’s amazing survival with only a bloody ear probably seemed almost cartoonish: See, he bounces back! And – except for relatively minor political figures that probably escaped most people’s attention, such as the murders of Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband – all other American political assassinations in recent years in the US have been failed attempts.

The young people I’m talking about are even too young to have experienced the shock of 9/11. To them, that’s another semi-distant historical event, long ago and far away in the background.

So young people may not even have quite believed that a successful assassination was possible till now, although obviously it was. This one was different, because they saw the gore of murder with a rifle in full public view up close. And they saw it happen to a young man, speaking to a large crowd of mostly young people on a college campus. They saw right before their eyes the difference between stupid phrases such as “words are violence” and real violence.

In a sense, they entered history, at least a little bit.

Tyler Robinson, who has not been convicted but who is almost certainly the culprit, was an avid gamer who wrote video game phrases on the casings. And many young leftists online acted like this murder was a video game, and whooped it up about the murder. But I bet a not insignificant number were stunned and are now wondering about some of the things they’ve been blithely mouthing before this happened. What percentage? I don’t know; perhaps it’s quite small. But I believe this groups exists. And as for those already in the middle, I doubt that leftism holds much appeal at all for most of them at this point.

Revisiting J6: how many FBI agents were there, and why and when?

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently the news came out that 274 plainclothes FBI agents were at the J6 protests, and that some of them later complained they’d been used as political pawns. Some of the coverage on the right implied that they were embedded from the start – but that’s not what the report actually said. To clear that up, here’s a good summary:

The [FBI] document has proven a bombshell to lawmakers, revealing for the first time that the FBI had a total of 274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns after the violence started but with no clear safety gear of way to be recognized by other law enforcement agencies working in the chaos of the riot.

So they were sent while the brouhaha was already underway. But they were endangered by not being in uniform, and the situation became even more chaotic. Did they even have instructions on what they were supposed to do there?

More:

Wray, Patel’s predecessor, steadfastly refused to tell Congress how many if any agents went to the Capitol that day. And a prior DOJ Inspector General Report did not divulge the number, referring only to a SWAT team the bureau sent into the Capitol and having more than two dozen informants in the crowd.

The existence of mass FBI agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6 could also be a problem in many of the cases that were subsequently brought in court. If agents were witnesses at the Capitol and did not disclose it in the subsequent affidavits during prosecutions it could create grounds for defendants to appeal.

The document also reveals for the first time that there were widespread concerns for years inside the bureau – sentiments that boiled over after the FBI began sending SWAT teams to arrest Jan. 6 participants on misdemeanor charges – that the FBI had become biased in favor of liberals and against conservatives.

Over the years, I’ve written a great many posts about J6. But one of the things that struck me from the beginning and all along is how many unanswered questions there are – questions to which I strongly believe the authorities actually know the answers. You can see some of my earlier and later questions in the following posts: this written the day after, this written about five months after, this from September of 2021, and this from March of 2023.

Will we ever know the answers? I think not.

NOTE: About a week ago, before this report came out, I was thinking about J6 and one question I’ve wondered about for a long long time. I even wrote a short draft for a post, and this seems as good a time as any to ask the question: who were the people convicted for scaling the Capitol wall, or whose convictions mentioned that they had scaled the wall? After all, those men – I believe they were all men – were among the most visible and alarming participants that day. I figured they’d probably be fairly easy to spotlight, identify, and charge with something. But oddly enough, so far I’ve only found one person whose conviction mentions that he scaled the wall. The description is in this article datelined October 21, 2022, and it says [emphasis mine]:

On Jan. 6, 2021, [Matthew Bledsoe, 38] attended a rally near the Ellipse. Bledsoe then headed to the Capitol, and illegally entered the Capitol grounds shortly after 2:13 p.m. He then moved to the Capitol Building itself. He scaled a wall at the Upper Northwest Terrace and entered through a fire door at the Senate Wing. Among other things, he yelled, “In the Capitol. This is our house. We pay for this s—. Where’s those pieces of s—at?” He climbed a statue and was outside the corridor to the House Chamber and hallways near the Speaker’s Lobby. He left the building about 2:47 p.m., after approximately 22 minutes inside.

Within two hours, however, Bledsoe returned, lingering outside the East Rotunda Doors as law enforcement officers worked to secure the building and grounds.

He got a sentence of four years in prison. It appears those four years were for trespassing, climbing a statue, and yelling a few curses. No one even seems to have alleged that he was violent towards anyone. I’ve read another article about Bledsoe, which mentions that prosecutors asked for a sentence of nearly six years.

But we’re already quite familiar with the overreach of the prosecutors and the judges who applied that sort of penalty for a non-violent demonstrator. My question remains: who were the other people scaling the wall? Maybe they were all demonstrators much like Bledsoe. But I’d like to know. I realize there are many more important things about J6 that we still don’t know. But that particular one bugs me. If you can find more information on the people who climbed the wall, please put in in the comments.

Dennis Prager’s first interview on video since his accident

The New Neo Posted on by

You may be aware that last November Dennis Prager was severely injured in a fall and became a quadriplegic. At first, and for quite a while, he was unable to talk, although his mind was clear. I’ve been following his progress and yesterday I saw this video, which was the first time (as far as I know) that he’s been on camera since his accident.

It’s somewhat shocking at first, if you’re familiar with Prager. It’s not just that he’s lying down and immobile except for his head, but it’s also that even he face looks different – he’s lost weight, for example. His voice is similar to before but somewhat different as well; it now sounds like it’s coming from the depths of the ocean. But he does seem very sharp, and his usually ebullient spirits seem to remain intact.

I haven’t watched the whole thing; it’s long. But I suggest you watch at least the first eight minutes or so to hear the part that’s the reason I put it up here (as usual, when I watched it I increased the speed setting quite a bit):

Dragon stones and lighthouse blocks

The New Neo Posted on by

This sort of report reinforces my sense that human beings were more advanced earlier in the past than we used to give them credit for. I’d never heard of dragon stones before, but here’s the story:

A new study has illuminated the mysterious “dragon stones” of Armenia—the giant prehistoric monuments called vishaps locally—finally answering a question that has been intriguing researchers for over a century. Standing up to 18 feet high and weighing several tonnes, these carved stones, frequently fish-like or cowhide-shaped, are found irregularly scattered throughout the Armenian Highlands. Long thought to have been part of a forgotten cult, new evidence now suggests that they were used in ancient water-linked rituals and early irrigation practices. …

… [T]he study is the first statistical examination of the monuments, utilizing radiocarbon dating, spatial analysis, and precise measurements. The findings reveal that the stones were deliberately placed near springs, lakes, and prehistoric irrigation channels, suggesting that they were employed as sacred markers in a complex system of water management.

Dating to between 4200 and 4000 BCE, the dragon stones belong to the Chalcolithic era and are comparable to the earliest construction phases of other mega-sites such as Stonehenge. The researchers determined that the stones fall into two different groups. Fish-shaped stones are at higher elevations—at one point over 9,000 feet above sea level—close to natural water sources, while cowhide-shaped examples are more common at mid-altitudes in valleys where water was being used for agriculture. This distribution pattern aligns closely with ancient irrigation zones, supporting theories proposed nearly a century ago.

The process of sourcing, carving, and transporting the stones was enormous.

You can say that again.

Who knows whether this theory about the stones is correct; I certainly don’t, but I find such things fascinating. It’s intriguing to wonder about humans and how they operated back then, because they certainly went to a lot of trouble in a lot of places to haul huge pieces of stone around to no obvious purpose we can discern.

And speaking of huge pieces of stone, I missed this other intriguing news at the time it was announced, which was in July of 2025 [emphasis mine]:

After centuries underwater, 22 huge stone blocks of the ancient Lighthouse of Alexandria, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, have been recovered from the Mediterranean seabed, a breakthrough in an ambitious digital reconstruction effort.

Restoration is part of the ongoing “PHAROS” project … [which] aims to virtually reassemble the structure using advanced technology.

Among the recently excavated finds are the massive lintels and uprights of the monumental entrance to the lighthouse, its threshold stones, foundation paving slabs, and fragmentary remains of a previously unrecorded pylon. The doorway of the pylon intriguingly blends Egyptian stylistic elements with Greek construction techniques, evidencing the multicultural diversity of Hellenistic Alexandria. …

Each of these blocks, weighing up to 80 tons, will be scanned using detailed photogrammetry and then passed on to volunteer engineers from the Dassault Systèmes Foundation. These specialists will digitally analyze and virtually reposition the blocks as if the fragments were pieces of a vast archaeological puzzle. Their efforts will ultimately result in a virtual twin of the Lighthouse of Alexandria so that researchers and the public will be able to view it in its original glory and understand why it collapsed.

Exciting. I’ve been fascinated by the lighthouse since I first heard about it many many years ago.

“Some men just want to watch the world burn”

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s a famous line from the movie The Dark Knight:

It’s a description of the pure chaotic nihilistic impulse. I think that tells us something about Antifa, and also certain murderers whose motives we know little about such as the Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock. Here’s an excerpt from a post I wrote about him not long after his crime in 2017:

In other words, I believe that Paddock’s basic motive was to kill a lot of people and then kill himself (something I wrote about yesterday). It almost didn’t matter to him who those people would be, as long as there were a lot of them. …

As for why Paddock wanted to become a mass murderer in the first place, I believe that (unless an autopsy locates some organic cause such as a brain tumor in an area that deals with aggression and/or judgment) he was a psychopath like his father before him, and ultimately became an even more violent one. His father was a psychopath of the con man variety; he’s usually been described as a bank robber but that was just one of his many modi operandi … Not all psychopaths are violent by any means, and I think Paddock was a relatively law-abiding one—until he wasn’t.

I then quoted from this comment by “FunkyPhD”:

I suspect that the more we learn about Paddock, the more we’ll find out that he was just a sociopathic, black-hearted nihilist, who wanted his suicide to be spectacular. He served no ideology, was checked by no transcendental beliefs, and had no children or parents or friends or family to shame. He was tired of life, which was easy for him, and – like Oswald – bitter that the world failed to exalt him for his genius, and was therefore determined to punish his fellow human creatures for their indifference. He wasn’t in pain, or in despair, or even lashing out for some unforgivable injury or slight. As Dostoyevski so brilliantly showed, when there is no meaning or purpose or duty or responsibility, destruction of the human community is not only permissible, it is also the ultimate act of freedom. Paddock wasn’t sick (if he were sick, he couldn’t have planned this as meticulously as he did), he was, as you say, just evil. But this kind of evil isn’t a symptom of our times. It has always existed …

And yet certain times foster more of it than usual, and we may be living in such times. I’m not saying that all the recent political assassins follow that playbook; in fact, many of them seem to have political motives and complaints, however twisted. But I wonder how much that’s really operating, and how much is just a screen for nihilistic psychopathy – otherwise known as evil.

Dostoevsky was the master of the subject in his book Demons, published in 1871. A summary of its themes can be found here:

According to Ronald Hingley, [the novel Demons] is Dostoevsky’s “greatest onslaught on Nihilism”, and “one of humanity’s most impressive achievements — perhaps even its supreme achievement — in the art of prose fiction.”

Demons is an allegory of the potentially catastrophic consequences of the political and moral nihilism that were becoming prevalent in Russia in the 1860s. A fictional town descends into chaos as it becomes the focal point of an attempted revolution, orchestrated by master conspirator Pyotr Verkhovensky. The mysterious aristocratic figure of Nikolai Stavrogin — Verkhovensky’s counterpart in the moral sphere — dominates the book, exercising an extraordinary influence over the hearts and minds of almost all the other characters. The idealistic, Western-influenced intellectuals of the 1840s, epitomized in the character of Stepan Verkhovensky (who is both Pyotr Verkhovensky’s father and Nikolai Stavrogin’s childhood teacher), are presented as the unconscious progenitors and helpless accomplices of the “demonic” forces that take possession of the town.

In other words, Verkhovensky is a “useful idiot.”

I read the book in the year 1968 – which, as you can imagine, is one of the reasons it made a big impression on me.

Sorting out the Comey story

The New Neo Posted on by

How can you tell who’s telling the truth about Comey and who’s lying? In this case, maybe all of them are lying. But Comey is probably telling even less of the truth about the matter than the others:

While [Horowitz] did not find that he disclosed the classified information, Horowitz found that Comey took “the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

He further added that Comey “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees …

Comey later admitted that he asked his friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, to leak information from the documents to the New York Times.

Comey’s close associate, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stated that Comey instructed him to leak information to the media. Comey denied that repeatedly under oath.

James Baker, FBI general counsel and a close adviser to Comey, also told investigators that he was “under the belief” that he was “ultimately instructed and authorized to [provide information to the Times] by then FBI Director James Comey.”

That sets up a straightforward question: Who is lying?

That’s written by Jonathan Turley, who goes on to add what Comey says about how he trapped General Flynn and had him prosecuted for lying to the FBI. I wrote many posts about that sorry episode, and this prosecution of Comey is poetic justice. Whether actual justice will come of it is another story; I have my doubts, since the trial will be in Virginia. I certainly hope the case against Comey is an extremely strong one, because otherwise the cries of “Revenge lawfare!” will grow even stronger – if such a thing be possible.