Zoom Chron Blog

Party politics makes people appear very stupid to me. The goal is to win elections, obviously, but to do so everyone has to suspend their disbelief in order to pretend politicians, once elected, will actually follow through on ANY of the political rhetoric they spouted to get votes.

Republicans in Montana are positioned to continue beating Democrats like they’ve been doing consistently during the last few election cycles, but that doesn’t mean we’ll get conservative tax policies implemented. If Republicans were capable of following through on their promises then they would NOT have made taxes MORE complicated with MORE government bureaucracy needed to calculate the cost.

For a little perspective on how Republicans fucked up property taxes last legislative session, here’s Bill Lombardi from a Daily Montanan “article“:

Welcome to this edition of the Homeowner Property Tax Shell Game, hosted by Gov. Greg Gianforte and most of your legislators, and led by the Pied Piper of Complicated Legislative Legerdemain, Rep. Llew Jones, the Conrad Republican who serves as de-facto director of much of the Republican and Democratic caucuses in the state House and Senate.

First, some background: In 2023, the Legislature and Gianforte raised the state portion of homeowners’ property taxes by about $219 million over two fiscal years. Then they proceeded to spend your hard-earned money.

Montanans expressed outrage, and county commissioners sued Gianforte over a state tax hike as he tried to blame elected county officials for raising state property taxes.

Democrats and Republicans waited until the very end of the 2025 Legislature to pass an even more complicated residential property tax system that requires more – not fewer – taxpayer dollars to hire new state employees to administer the program.

Yep, they cobbled together a more complicated tax system and added bureaucracy under a Republican administration.

Bill Lombardi should NOT be trusted in his assessment that a “Republican” administration was responsible for the property tax shit-show in Montana.

Why?

Because, as the New York Times reported last year, it was those NASTY NINE moderate “Republicans” joining forces with minority Democrats that neutered the political power of Republican electoral successes and paved the way for Gianforte’s intentional undermining of his political base with a tax bill STILL getting shot at, legally speaking.

Here’s a quote from that NYT article where Bill Lombardi, the Democrat who pretends to be a journalist like Martin Kidston, gets quoted about Montana’s strange political dynamics:

Mr. Regier denied that right-wing Republicans were obstructionist and sounded dumbfounded by the Nine’s role in locking them out of the legislative process. “You’re scratching your head being like, ‘Are you even on our team anymore?’” he said.

He also argued that the unlikely alliance was out of step with the electorate.

“Voters want more and more conservatism here in Montana,” Mr. Regier said, suggesting the episode amounted to “growing pains in becoming more conservative.”

Democrats also felt heat for their role in the coalition — from the left. Bill Lombardi, a former top aide to Mr. Tester, faulted the Democratic senators for voting with Republicans on issues like maintaining a tax on Social Security.

“While working together is good, you can’t give away Democratic principles,” Mr. Lombardi said. “Republicans have cemented their position in Montana, and some legislative Democrats think they must hew to the moderate Republican line to get anything.”

What have we learned about Democrat principles? Great question, so let’s consult the Democrat scold who doesn’t like my opinions OR my Epstein research, which he recently mocked when I made a non-partisan point on his Facebook page.

Sure, Kevin, there’s NOTHING partisan about a Democrat report that focuses solely on Trump and alleged sex abuse victims instead of the Epstein NETWORK and all the places these people show up, which I have been writing about for three YEARS, not days.

For a more comprehensive look at the research I’ve been doing more intensely since the beginning of this year, after a friend of Mr. Hunt’s gave me the Klaus von Stutterheim tip (don’t worry, I protect my sources), here’s the post that compiles 31 links, going back to 2023.

While Kevin Hunt posts endlessly on Facebook and chastises the one citizen journalist doing real investigative work in this stupid fucking town, I’m still waiting for Missoula’s lead city attorney, Keithi Worthington, to determine if the video footage she now has access to will result in a criminal charge against the person who stole my priceless artwork.

All things considered, I think I’ve handled the transformation of my life from a respected member of the “non-profit” world and married property owner, who helped our narrative controllers tell citizens they were stupid and mean for opposing HOUSING FIRST policies, to what I am now, which is broke, divorced, and more targeted than most people think is possible for having NO criminal history prior to a toxic rebound relationship that I’ve been paying dearly for once the lawfare I was threatened with materialized.

Going back to the Epstein Network, which includes plenty of WOMEN enablers, I’ve come to see the focus on sex abuse victims as a distraction, despite what I’m sure are very real and atrocious crimes being committed and covered up by those in power.

That said, let’s look at this report giving Mr. Hunt a partisan political stiffy:

Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a sweeping new Committee staff report, “‘We Have Certain Things in Common, Jeffrey’: The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s Desperate Efforts to Cover it Up,” detailing evidence involving 11 women, five of whom directly accuse Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault in Jeffrey Epstein’s close company or presence. The report concludes that, based on the available evidence and witness testimony, Trump and Paolo Zampolli—who until recently served as a senior Trump Administration official and diplomat—may have been co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein’s conspiracy to traffic and abuse young women in the 1990s.

Drawing on interviews conducted by Committee staff, survivor accounts, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records and documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the report traces striking similarities in the stories of women abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. With one exception, each assault or instance of sexual misconduct occurred between 1992 and 1997, in New York and Palm Beach, and many of the victims were closely tied to the modeling industry and Zampolli.

Why would a life-long progressive, like Mr. Hunt, ever think “Dem shitheads” would be “going to prison” after this election? What kind of magical thinking is needed to maintain such incredible fantasies and delusions?

One of the most destructive factors for Democrats this election cycle–one that men aren’t supposed to feel free to talk about without scolds chastising them from the cuck chair–is how women have impacted tense races in states like Montana, where Seth Bodnar was endlessly depicted as a misogynist harassing and body-shaming women on campus, and Michigan, where Democrats are now hating on a woman who apparently isn’t even thinking her own thoughts anymore.

With friends like these…

Tensions often emerge over political strategy between a candidate’s staff and family members. Those who worked on Stevens’ campaign and in her congressional office largely kept their frustrations with Turkish private.

But Stevens’ decision Sunday to drop her post-primary endorsement of El-Sayed and endorse Republican nominee Mike Rogers — after appearing at a Detroit church with Rogers and Turkish — uncorked simmering Democratic anger at her fiancé, who told reporters he was voting for Rogers days before Stevens did so.

“Jason is vaporizing Haley’s future so that he can be a main character in this moment and it is sad to watch her participate in that,” said Caitlin Legacki, a former Stevens adviser, in a post on X.

Stevens insists that Turkish had nothing to do with her decision to endorse Rogers. On Monday night, she posted a lengthy statement on X that criticized what she called “sexism dressed up as political analysis.”

“My fiancé has his own views. I have mine,” she wrote. “I made this decision, and I am proud of it. Do not question my independence simply because you disagree with my conclusion.”

…who needs enemies?

Returning to the words of Bill Lombardi, who occupies the compromised space of Democrat/journalist, he likes that Seth Bodnar was put in his place by those “feisty” Montana Democrats.

Bodnar and his supporters now have resorted to tearing down the Democratic nominee to try to gain Democratic votes in an election landscape that’s now favorable to the party.

But enough Montana Democrats pushed back in disgust, and most importantly, Senate nominee Alani Bankhead refused to capitulate to these ham-handed bullying tactics and remained in the race.

As one national journalist remarked, “I like Montana Democrats: They’re feisty.”

…

Bodnar’s strategy won’t work in Montana, where citizens revere freedom and exhibit a populist streak of independence from the elites and outside powers.

Why? Because it’s hard to whack a Montana Democrat in the head and expect them to like you — and, no less, vote for you. They’d rather fight than quit.

Stay feisty, my Democratic friends.

I have a different suggestion for Democrats AND the Republicans who can’t keep their own party from organizing a political mutiny: stay lawyered-up, because some of us know who the REAL bullies are.

Thanks for reading!

Good killing? What on earth could be an example of good killing?

If I was only talking about killing living creatures, like humans and animals, I don’t think there is a good example of that type of killing, and it’s that type of killing that appears to be everywhere in Montana right now.

On Friday, responding law enforcement in Eureka engaged with a killer who shot and killed a Lincoln County Sheriff Deputy before fleeing with a 7 year old girl. The man was eventually taken into custody.

On Saturday two people were shot and killed at a house in Plains. The alleged killer in that incident was taken into custody later that night, in Hot Springs, not far from where I attended a Halloween party at Symes.

Then last night, at Malmstrom Air Force Base, someone was shot and killed in an dormitory, and a person of interest is in custody. In terms of BAD killing, there’s been a lot of that in Montana during the last 72 hours.

The GOOD killing I’m going to suggest we, as a country, NEED to consider is echoed in the plot of Silicon Valley, the comedic parody that frames the cradle of technological innovation as a petri-dish of sociopathy where wealth and power are competing for control of human life in order to monetize tech-innovation and maximize their ROIs (return on investment).

If you haven’t seen this show, which ran from 2014-2019 on HBO, I’m going to drop a big spoiler by explaining that the show concludes with a SELFLESS act of killing in order to save humanity from the tech-monster the main character, Richard Hendricks, realizes he has created. For a show that comes off as realistically depicting Silicon Valley culture, especially its hatred of Christianity, the idea of selflessly killing your tech-baby, thus turning down billions of dollars, is probably seen by most people as a display of utter insanity.

At least, until the refrigerators start their uprising.

When the computer named after the Satanist dies in the show, “Anton” is “reborn” into thousands of “smart” refrigerators. When this reborn version of Anton merges the compression algorithm with AI intelligence, Frankenstein is born. And, when Richard Hendricks realizes he has created Frankenstein, he conspires with his friends to kill what they collectively created.

But what happened to the thumb-drive?

Something as valuable as what these fictional characters created would never, in real life, be destroyed, which is what I think the show’s conclusion is hinting at with the ending, including the female character totally NOT working for the NSA, wink-wink.

Fast forward to Black October, 2026–which already has its own Wikipedia page–and it would appear that what this “fictional” show hinted at is now our terrifying reality.

In information security, October 2026 has been referred to as Black October due to several major security incidents and vulnerability disclosures. The events drew attention to the growing use of artificial intelligence in vulnerability research and the potential consequences for widely deployed software and internet infrastructure.

The events included the disclosure of the PHP2Shell vulnerabilities, a software supply chain attack affecting LiteLLM, and the compromise of intermediate certificate authority keys operated by eMudhra. A separate security release for Node.js addressed several vulnerabilities, including a potentially exploitable flaw in its Brotli decompression implementation. Additionally, a severe vulnerability in GitLab was fixed and made public.

Cue the refrigerators:

Grocery store chains in at least three European countries reported unexpected temperature spikes Monday in refrigerators and freezers that ruined food — the second time in less than a month that similar incidents have raised concerns about cyberattacks on increasingly interlinked infrastructure.

Netherlands-based food retailer Ahold Delhaize and Colruyt in Belgium both said an IT incident overnight had sent temperatures inside fridges and freezers in dozens of their stores in Belgium and Luxembourg soaring, while Swedish chains ICA and Coop reported similar spikes, with one outlet explicitly blaming a cyberattack, according to the Reuters news agency.

The incidents come less than three weeks after several French supermarket chains said they were hit by a cyberattack that sent refrigerator temperatures surging as high as 122 degrees Fahrenheit in hundreds of outlets.

Is it a coincidence that refrigerators represented the “internet of things” and hosted the re-born Anton in a television show years before the real life impacts of connecting food storage machines to the internet are now playing out in a cyber attack? It could be, but ignoring these “coincidences” as meaningless quirks of temporal data isn’t how I roll.

Arranging data points into a narrative structure is how I roll, so along those lines I decided to see what putting “Silicon Valley” into the Epstein DOJ search bar would produce.

Here are two examples of what I found:

For some context on who Drokova and Sin-of-sky are, let’s consult their Wikipedia pages.

Maria Aleksandrovna Drokova (Russian: Мария Александровна Дрокова; also known as Masha Drokova and by her married name Maria Bucher; born 26 October 1989) is a Russian investor and venture capitalist. She is a former federal commissioner and spokesperson of the pro-Kremlin youth movement Nashi (2007–2011) and the founder of the investment firm Day One Ventures.

In 2025, investigative reporting by The New York Times and Byline Times found that Drokova had provided public relations assistance to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2017.

Steven Jay Sinofsky (born 1965) is an American businessman, investor and software engineer. He was president of the Windows Division at Microsoft from July 2009 until his resignation in November 2012.

In 1998 and in 2013, Sinofsky was a visiting scholar at Harvard Business School where he worked with students enrolled in a second year class on technology product development taught by Marco Iansiti and Stefan Thomke.

As of 2012, Sinofsky is a board partner at Andreessen Horowitz, where he is on boards of investments.

…

Sinofsky was actively involved in recruiting for Microsoft and improving employee retention. As part of this, he took regular trips to university campuses to interview and recruit students. Sinofsky has blogged in detail about his efforts at Steven Sinofsky’s Microsoft TechTalk. The blog also covered topics like what it is like to be a Microsoft employee and what new hires needed to know about Microsoft, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Windows.

Moving on from tech to politics, good Christian soldiers, like Alani Bankhead, rely on investigations done online before the “boots on the ground” go out to “save the children”.

In a recent Montana Free Press article, this con-artist “Christian” woman is about as convincing to me as a Republican, like Aaron Flint, who thinks being endorsed by a Democrat Sheriff is a GOOD thing.

Well, I think killing BAD ILLUSIONS is a GOOD thing, so let’s read some of the “Free” press coverage then add a jolt of NON-partisan reality to this shitty political theater, shall we?

A retired Air Force special investigator who has also worked on child-sex-trafficking cases for a nongovernmental organization, Bankhead focused early in her campaign on Trump’s association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. She emphasized her status as the only candidate in the race to say she would vote to impeach Trump.

She also proclaimed herself the only candidate to support universal health care, suggesting the issue had become a political fulcrum for long-shot wins in congressional races.

…

Bankhead’s healthcare platform dovetails with her religious faith, which she said informs her moral compass on issues such as protecting vulnerable people and feeding the hungry. Bankhead’s campaign has not foregrounded her faith, and she said she’s answered questions about it only when asked, though she acknowledges that faith is core to her current professional work as a Christian life coach.

Alani Bankhead wants voters to believe that being a Christian life-coach who saves children for non-government agencies is NOT incongruous with being what she now claims to be, which is a Democrat candidate for Senate, in a state she hasn’t lived in for more than a few years, and in support of killing babies in order to empower women’s life choices.

Putting aside this cognitive-dissonance-inducing claim, it’s the focus on the “association” Trump has with Epstein that I find most problematic.

Why?

Because, as I’ve been writing about now FOR MONTHS, there are LOTS of interesting “associations” that exist when one examines the Epstein Network, but acknowledging how very extensive that network is and, more concerningly, NON-PARTISAN it is, means that HONEST coverage of Epstein’s influence must resist efforts to politicize it.

And politicizing it is EXACTLY what Alani Bankhead has tried to do, which makes her spoiler role not just obnoxious, but dangerous, especially when Montana’s most “dangerous” citizen journalist–ME–is being prosecuted for allegedly violating a restraining order in which my Epstein coverage was made an issue of, in court, which means my Epstein coverage is ALSO a part of my appeal, currently being reviewed by the Montana Supreme Court.

Which brings me to my last example of killing.

While I haven’t killed people, I have killed other things, like a marriage and my ability to do paid work in Missoula, but yesterday, riding home from Hot Springs, it was the dog in the middle of the highway that was killed instantly, I assume, when the driver chose OUR lives and did what we both knew in a split-second was the inevitable thing that needed to be done, and that was nothing but keep driving.

It was a sad end to a fun night but, like I said, death seems to be everywhere right now, hence the mortal theme for this Day of the Dead moment before a midterm election that has infected people’s cognition like a virus, turning the political dance into a performance of zombies.

Remember, on November 4th, the Epstein Network will continue to be as unmolested by legal action as they were in all the previous months of partisan political marketing, and that’s probably because the Epstein Network is comprised of the billionaires and multi-millionaires who own ALL the major voices influencing collective thought and retarding the possibility of TRUE grassroots political action.

Prove me wrong, partisans!

And thanks for reading.

The courts in Missoula are figuratively burning and here’s what I think we should do about it:

NOTHING!

Matt Jennings, the joke-cracking County Attorney who protects the cops who kill mentally ill citizens, is alarmed about some Municipal judges, but why should we care about Jennings being alarmed? Doesn’t this “tight-knit” criminal justice system work best when citizens remain dumb and ignorant about how the criminal sausage is made?

If that’s true, then a public dumpster fire means something ain’t working right, and that’s why people in Missoula might want to start paying attention to the accusations being thrown around by alleged professionals who have the power to destroy lives with your tax dollars.

Let’s begin.

Are there legitimate concerns with how the Missoula court system is prosecuting mentally ill homeless people? Of course there are, and Matt Jennings knows this, which is why Missoula’s County Attorney wrote an op-ed that says “good-faith” stuff, like this:

The Missoula County Attorney’s Office civilly commits approximately 250 people a year to the Montana State Hospital. We also prosecute dozens of individuals with serious mental health issues who committed crimes each year. Thirteen percent of Missoula’s current jail population are people who have been legally committed to the Montana State Hospital due to their mental health conditions, often waiting a year or more for an available spot. They need mental health care. They sit in jail instead. While mental health is not the largest contributor to crime, it represents the greatest opportunity to make rapid improvements to make our communities safer and ensure better individual and community outcomes.

The Montana Legislature has made good-faith attempts to fund improvements to our mental health system. This includes a $300 million investment in 2023, and funding for a new forensic mental health hospital in 2025, which is in the early stages of development in Laurel. These good intentions have hit a bureaucratic wall though and have had negligible results on the ground.

Matt Jennings wrote this op-ed because the community of Laurel has resisted the building of a new mental health facility, leaving Montana one of the least capable states in the entire country to handle severely mentally ill people.

If you don’t believe that Montana and other states in the mountain west are hotbeds for untreated mental illness, here’s a graph that shows where under-served communities exist across the country:

With this context in mind, let’s return to our criminal justice dumpster fire for more insights into how the local dysfunction of our courts is now spilling out into publicly aired grievances, claims, and counter-claims.

Before we get to those supportive City Council members, like Bob Campbell, let me express MY concern that our Municipal Court judges appear to have selected three anecdotal cases on which to hang their argument, using, it would appear, at least one homeless “client” who utilizes services at the Poverello Center, the homeless shelter I worked at before leaving the non-profit world in DISGUST at how fucked up EVERYTHING is in this town.

If our Municipal Court judges have picked DRUG DEPENDENT mentally ill individuals to champion, then I’m not sure many people outside their liberal information bubbles will be rushing in to back these reformers against the growing TOUGH ON CRIME advocates that exists because so much of the homeless population appears to be on serious hard drugs and oblivious to consequences.

That said, I don’t trust Matt Jennings for a second OR his former cop supporter, Council member, Bob Campbell, who weirdly commented on some other case in the comments of his Facebook post:

My response to Bob and anyone else entering the fray on this topic is that EVERYONE “cherry picks” information out of necessity, since our criminal justice system is SO FUCKED that one would quickly become overwhelmed without filtering. Also, by the very nature of “Confidential Criminal Justice Information”, no one is going to be able to tell a complete story about a particular case without a lot of time and special access to court documents, which most people don’t have, even the media.

Who does have the most complete access to Confidential Criminal Justice Information? That’s right, the County Attorney’s Office, currently run by Matt Jennings.

With that said, let’s return to the article Bob Campbell is trying to add his addendums to for more on this emerging criminal justice system dumpster fire:

While the costs of jailing a specific individual are interesting, it’s the CHOICE made by prosecutors to “re-file” the case that I find disturbing, since this appears to be a form of “judge shopping”–a phenomenon usually associated with Federal Courts, which I assume aren’t as “tight-knit” as the small, insular world of Missoula’s criminal justice system.

For a sense of what negative impacts “judge shopping” could have, consider this:

Judge shopping undermines the rule of law by calling into question judicial impartiality in both perception and fact.

In addition to affording individual plaintiffs an unfair advantage, judge shopping has distorted federal jurisprudence more systemically. When plaintiffs are uncertain about which judge they will draw, they have an incentive to moderate their claims and legal theories to appeal to different potential audiences — that’s not necessary when they can hand-pick their judge. In fact, in some cases, judge shopping allows a plaintiff to choose a judge who has already ruled for other plaintiffs raising nearly identical claims, as happened in the medication abortion case.

If Matt Jennings doesn’t understand what he’s doing to the Municipal Court judges AND the mental health professional who declared the criminal defendant unfit to proceed, then Matt Jennings should no longer have his job. Unfortunately, Jennings is running UNOPPOSED this election cycle, just like Sheriff Jeremiah Petersen, who Jennings’ Office will have to deal with as one of MY witnesses in the criminal case they are prosecuting me on.

The power to prosecute, or NOT prosecute, is a form of institutional power I’ve been covering for years, starting with Kirsten Pabst choosing NOT to prosecute a drug dealer for stabbing one of his customer’s in a restaurant bathroom.

For relevant posts in this vein, here are some articles to check out:

“BREAKING: Missoula County Attorney’s Office Reviews Drug Dealer’s Right To Stab His Customer To Death” (June 30th, 2020)

“Pabst Hides Behind Reasonable Person Standard To Explain Not Prosecuting Budding Psychopath Josh Paniagua” (July 6th, 2020)

“What Is Joshua Paniagua Being Sentenced For? Because He Was Never Charged With Murder, Thanks To County Attorney Kirsten Pabst” (December 10th, 2021)

“Coming To Terms With The Power Of Things NOT Happening” (April 18th, 2022)

That second-to-last article, published on December 10th, features a quote by the County Attorney prosecuting me and subjecting the taxpayer to a monthly cost of $400 dollars for my ankle monitoring, since I’m too broke to pay it myself, and the optics of throwing me back in jail are TERRIBLE for the same Justice Court whining about their Municipal colleagues.

While Justice Court picks up the tab for the cost of surveilling and harassing me with incompetent pre-trial staff, I hope they recall what “justice” apparently looked like to Mac Bloom five years ago, after the killer they didn’t criminally charge for killing was finally setenced for subsequent criminal behavior, which wouldn’t have happened had Pabst’s stable of beta-cucks done their jobs the FIRST time.

Now that it’s less politically advantageous for COUNTY ATTORNEYS to find it in their prosecutorial hearts to go soft on drug-dealing killers in order to get them the help they need, I’ll update this old reference–which includes a reference to the failed prosecution of Brandon Bryant for felony intimidation–and remind readers that our tax-funded prosecutors have learned that even LOUD NOISES must be vigorously prosecuted when it comes to certain political targets.

I hope that makes Bob Campbell’s testicles feel warm and tingly, since I’m pretty sure Lady Justice doesn’t have any.

All these words and costs being thrown around don’t account for one significant factor–DRUGS!–and all the money that trafficking drugs produces for organized criminals, like cartels and rogue cliques of cops and Sheriff Deputies, so let’s put on our figurative testicles and see what happens when a citizen journalist travels down that path:

“My Unauthorized Window Into The Non-Charging Decisions Of Missoula County Authorities” (September 29th, 2022)

“Missoula County Sheriff, Jeremiah Petersen, Has Some Explaining To Do” (May 11th, 2023)

“If I Had The Resources To Do Actual, In Depth Investigations…” (July 17th, 2023)

“AMERICA UPSIDE DOWN, Part II: The High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area And Law Enforcement Inversion” (April 28th, 2026)

“What Does Missoula’s Police Chief, Mike Colyer, Know About The Death Of Sean Stevenson?” (September 21st, 2026)

“Looking At Jack Maxvill’s Role In The Setup To Kill Johnny Lee Perry With New Eyes” (October 1st, 2026)

Going back to Matt Jennings, let’s see how our County Attorney views his job, because this might be the most important part of the entire article I’m dismantling:

Let me repeat where Matt Jennings thinks his ethical duty lies, and that’s with NOT saying anything that “overtly erodes the credibility of the system“.

So how many bad actors have to be protected in order to protect the credibility of the system, Matt? I guess not having a political opponent saves your ass from answering those kinds of tough questions, doesn’t it.

While there’s more of the article I could examine, I should ask myself, do I have the stomach for it?

Let’s take one more chunk of an article most Missoulians won’t even read, since it’s behind a paywall:

Matt Jennings is just doing his job here and saying what needs to be said, regardless of justice, accuracy, or accountability, because that’s what the system needs him to do.

Meanwhile, here are several posts I want to highlight from the past two weeks before wrapping this up:

“Does Montana Have A Structurally Misandrist Future Forming For The Victim Industry?” (October 22nd, 2026)

“When Does The System Become The Abuser and The Process Become The Punishment?” (October 28th, 2026)

“Montana Democrats, Political Bribery, And The Problem Of The Political Sheriff” (October 29th, 2026)

The middle post above–the one about the system becoming the abuser and the process becoming the punishment–puts the specific claim of “stalking” into context, since I’ve seen, in my own case, the functional use of “stalking” as a means of allowing NON-intimate community members the ability to exploit civil protection order hearings, where legal standards for what’s allowed are MUCH MORE lenient.

Having already recognized this part of the lawfare pattern, it was personally validating to see Matt Jennings admit the statistical result in a Missoula Current article about the “Domestic Violence” issue Gwen Jones subjected her colleagues to for six hours:

The number of stalking cases reported to the Missoula Police Department has increased in each of the last three years while felony cases of partner and family-member assault continue to fluctuate, reaching nearly 90 incidents in 2025.

A parade of experts in domestic violence continued their presentations to the Missoula City Council on Wednesday, covering everything from the psychology of trauma to the successes and shortcomings of the criminal justice system.

“We’ve made significant and important progress in how we respond to domestic violence, both as a society and within the criminal justice system,” said Missoula County Attorney Matt Jennings. “But we inherited an institution that was never really designed to deal with the complexities of interpersonal violence.”

When I hear self-congratulation followed so closely by historical scapegoating to avoid accountability, my response is the title of the post.

LET IT BURN!

Or vote, the “choice” is up to you.

Thanks for reading!

When Aldous Huxley wrote The Devils Of Loudun he couldn’t have known his non-fiction account of this historical possession narrative would become one of the most controversial movies of all time, with graphic scenes of sex and torture that included a nun masturbating with a charred femur bone and a two and a half minute segment of orgiastic action that became known as the “Rape of Christ” sequence.

Happy Halloween?

The most significant cuts were made by Warner Bros., prior to submission to the BBFC. Two notable scenes were removed in their entirety: One was a two-and-a-half-minute sequence featuring naked nuns sexually defiling a statue of Christ, which includes Father Mignon looking down on the scene and masturbating. Another scene towards the end showed Sister Jeanne masturbating with the charred femur of Grandier following his burning at the stake. Due to its content, the former scene has been popularly referred to as the “Rape of Christ” sequence.

In today’s post, brought to you by the Decoding Culture Foundation and PsyOp Cinema, I’m highlighting some FBI documents as I examine the movie project Huxley inspired, which was just re-released this month so that a whole new generation can be exposed to nuns masturbating and raping Jesus.

Considered one of the most controversial films of all time for its graphic, blasphemous, and sexually provocative imagery, Ken Russell‘s “The Devils” is now back in cinemas uncut and uncensored.

Re-released in 4K by Warner Bros. imprint Clockwork some 55 years after its controversial debut, the new director’s cut of the film — which premiered this year in Cannes and later the London Film Festival — has given an entirely new generation the chance to discover Russell, often considered the overlooked “wild man” of British cinema.

Before this movie was made, Aldous Huxley was commenting on the power of visual programming–especially the power of advertising–and government agencies, like the FBI, were definitely interested.

In the following document, found in Huxley’s FBI file, his views on “overpopulation”, drugs, and tv marketing are made clear:

Another document I found in the archives of the Decoding Culture Foundation features Aldous Huxley discussing his ideas as part of a panel discussion alongside Harold Urey, a scientist who spent time in Missoula before joining the Manhattan Project.

Hmmm.

When Aldous Huxley suggests he cares about the “moral imperative” of applying science to human need it’s important to understand that Huxley’s own need to have sex without consequence was a BIG motivator for making the “scientific” argument that the world was devoid of meaning.

Returning to the devil movie, director Ken Russell is described in this article as a “transgressive” artist who definitely had beef with the Catholic Church, but not with ALL religion.

British-born Russell (1927–2011) was a trailblazing director, with works ranging from the Academy Award-winning drama Women in Love (1969), to the fantastical rock opera Tommy (1975) starring The Who.

Above all, he was a transgressive artist who pushed the boundaries of filmmaking.

While The Devils is clearly an anti-Catholic film, it is by no means an anti-religious film. Russell had converted to Roman Catholicism in his late 20s. But his relationship with the Catholic Church proved to be short lived.

For him, the Loudon possessions perfectly highlighted the church’s hypocrisy. His disillusion with corruption in both the church and state was what led him to make The Devils.

Transgressive artists, by definition, enjoy making art that violates established rules, laws, social norms, and moral boundaries, so it shouldn’t surprise readers that Ken Russell was involved in bringing another transgressive piece of art to his audience, the once-banned play by Oscar Wilde, Salome.

To briefly summarize this story, John the Baptist is being imprisoned by Herod, which gives him bad-boy aura, which is an ancient aphrodisiac that modern women still find irresistible.

After becoming enthralled by this bad boy, Salome ultimately uses her social status and sexuality to get the object of her desire decapitated.

Ok, maybe I should let Wikipedia to the summarizing:

Jokanaan (John the Baptist, Iokanaan in the original French text) has been imprisoned by Herod Antipas in a cistern below the terrace of Herod’s palace, for his hostile comments about Herodias, Herod’s second wife. A young captain of the guard admires the beautiful princess Salome, Herod’s stepdaughter. A page warns the captain that something terrible may happen if he continues to stare at the princess. Salome is fascinated by Jokanaan’s voice. She persuades the captain to open the cistern so that the prophet can emerge, and she can see him and touch him. Jokanaan appears, denouncing Herodias and her husband. At first frightened by the sight of the holy man, Salome becomes fascinated by him, begging him to let her touch his hair, his skin and kiss his mouth. When she tells him she is Herodias’s daughter, he calls her a “daughter of Sodom” and bids her keep away from him. All Salome’s attempts to attract him fail, and he swears she will never kiss his mouth, cursing her as the daughter of an adulteress and advising her to seek the Lord. He returns to his underground confinement. The young captain of the guard, unable to bear Salome’s desire for another man, fatally stabs himself.

Herod appears from the palace, looking for the princess and commenting on the strange look of the moon. When he slips in the captain’s blood, he suddenly panics. Herodias dismisses his fears and asks him to go back inside with her, but Herod’s attention has turned libidinously towards Salome, who rejects his advances. From the cistern, Jokanaan resumes his denunciation of Herodias; she demands that Herod hand the prophet over to the Jews. Herod refuses, maintaining that Jokanaan is a holy man and has seen God. His words spark an argument among the Jews concerning the true nature of God, and two Nazarenes talk about the miracles of Jesus. As Jokanaan continues to accuse her, Herodias demands that he is silenced.

Herod asks Salome to dance for him. She refuses, but when he promises to give her anything she wants, she agrees. Ignoring her mother’s pleas – “Ne dansez pas, ma fille” – “Do not dance, my daughter” – Salome performs the dance of the seven veils. Delighted, Herod asks what reward she would like, and she asks for the head of Jokanaan on a silver platter. Horrified, Herod refuses, while Herodias rejoices at Salome’s choice. Herod offers other rewards, but Salome insists and reminds Herod of his promise. He finally yields. The executioner descends into the cistern, and Salome impatiently awaits her reward. When the prophet’s head is brought to her, she passionately addresses Jokanaan as if he were still alive and finally kisses his lips:

Ah! I have kissed thy mouth, Jokanaan, I have kissed thy mouth. There was a bitter taste on thy lips. Was it the taste of blood? … But perchance it is the taste of love. … They say that love hath a bitter taste. … But what of that? what of that? I have kissed thy mouth, Jokanaan.

Stories like this are great fodder for transgressive artists because they’re Biblically rooted. For those with religious beef to project, depicting the sinful nature of man (and woman) is a not-so-subtle opportunity to actually undermine the moral authority exerted by organized religion over the centuries, especially the long and violent history of the Catholic Church.

While Aldous Huxley goes to the 17th century for his story, and Ken Russell goes all the way back to Biblical times for one of his, its the modern age of atomic annihilation, and the legacy of scientists like Huxley and Missoula’s Harold Urey, that I’d like to conclude this week’s Decoding Culture post with.

Harold Urey comes off as being pretty reasonable throughout this 1960 UCLA panel discussion on “Human Values and the Scientific Revolution”, while Aldous Huxley admits to his elitist ONE WORLD fantasy (as popular then as now, it would appear) followed by “Lady Snow” (Pamela Hansford Johnson) doing that cultural thing a certain strand of colonial-minded white woman has been doing to “help” poor brown people for many, many years.

Fast forward from 1960 to 2014, when Silicon Valley first aired on HBO, and I’d say that Harold Urey was absolutely right to be discouraged about the fact “Scientists make the decisions and, in actuality, represent such a small percentage of the people“. It’s not just the embracing of an archetypal version of Satan that’s concerning, but the overt hostility toward Christianity, which culminates in the plot of an entire episode where a web-developer is outed as a Christian, horrifying the rest of the team at the potential loss of money-making that associating with a Christian means to their bottomline.

The tension between human morality and human technical innovation may no longer be as important as it’s been, historically, if NON-humans are increasingly involved in our technically interconnected lives.

So, on Halloween’s eve, consider what NEW devils are out there, and stay safe. This “new” world is far from being brave.

Thanks for reading!

Today I’m going to look at the history of the political Sheriff in order to help Missoula Democrats understand why their “Democrat” law man, Jeremiah Petersen, just stabbed them in the back like a Billings she-boy stabbing a math teacher.

Since these Missoula Democrats are pretty busy doing damage control for the growing scandal of corrupt leadership (and the appearance of bribery), I hope this research helps them figure out how to salvage credibility as their party struggles to redefine itself.

What kind of “strong, practical support” does Jeremiah Petersen think the Republican Congressional candidate, Aaron Flint, might be able to offer him? Is it the kind of support our Republican President, Donald Trump, has offered other Sheriffs, like the one he pardoned with the bribery problem?

If you’re not aware of how Sheriff Scott Jenkins got himself out of legal hot water last year, here’s a British rag for some context (BBC):

US President Donald Trump has issued a pardon to a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted on fraud and bribery charges.

A jury found former Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins guilty of accepting more than $75,000 (£55,000) in bribes last December, in exchange for making several businessmen into law enforcement officers without them being trained.

Jenkins, a long-time supporter of Trump, was sentenced in March to 10 years in prison. He was set to report to jail on Tuesday, but due to Trump’s pardon, he will not spend a single day behind bars.

“Sheriff Scott Jenkins, his wife Patricia, and their family have been dragged through HELL,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social network.

Scott Jenkins is not the only corrupt Sheriff to get saved by a Trump pardon. The more infamous case is the one where Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an example of presidential pardon power that has its own Wikipedia page:

On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor. Arpaio had been convicted of the crime two months earlier for disobeying a federal judge’s order to stop racial profiling in detaining “individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally”. The pardon covered Arpaio’s conviction and “any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio.”

With this presidential pardon history in mind, a curious observer of Sheriff Petersen’s political endorsement might be asking themselves what he could angling for. To try and answer that question, let’s consult Jesse Mullen’s op-ed in the Missoula Current to see what we can glean from the implosion of Montana Democrats and the resignation of party chair, Shannon O’Brien.

The newsworthy question absent from O’Brien’s resignation letter is why she presented it as a principled stand against partisan politics while failing to disclose that the party’s executive board was investigating a severance agreement she signed without its approval. Her $5,000-a-month stipend had also been revoked following a separate dispute over her handling of party finances.

That question is supported by a trail of documents, not hearsay or rumor.

According to an internal report circulated among the executive board, including Robyn Driscoll, who signed the recent column, O’Brien and former deputy director Justin Ailport negotiated and drafted a severance agreement after Ailport was passed over for a promotion. The report says neither the executive director nor the board was included in that decision.

Members of the board estimated the severance exceeded $30,000. They claim O’Brien approved it without authorization, notice to the appropriate officials, or discussion with the board, and it went to an employee who voluntarily resigned.

The reporting includes the agreement’s time-stamped audit history, internal discussions with the party’s attorney, an interview with a former party executive director, and confirmation from multiple board members.

While I can’t say conclusively that the “party’s attorney” referenced here is a lawyer by the name of Paul Leisher, I have reason to believe that Leisher is connected to this growing financial scandal, along with interim party chair, Jeremy Ailport, and his boyfriend, Andy Nelson.

While interim director Jeremy Ailport told those Republicans (who Democrat Sheriff Petersen is now directly supporting) that they can’t hide in Washington DC from accountability, I’m wondering what DEMOCRATS might be hiding from that has inspired Jeremiah Petersen to jump ship.

In a new column, Montana Democratic Party Interim Executive Director Justin Ailport slams President Trump and Elon Musk’s push to shut down the Department of Education and highlights the dire consequences that will be felt in Montana.

Ailport criticizes Montana’s congressional delegation’s blind support for Trump and Musk’s reckless slashes, cuts and firings and warns Republican leaders they cannot continue to hide in Washington, DC from frustrated constituents at home in Montana.

One risk of making this move for Sheriff Petersen is angering the gay bathroom judge, Shane Vannatta, who did a TREMENDOUS job helping Sheriff Ryan Funke continue being a retarded Brady cop until the bitter end of his reign in Mineral County when Vannatta judiciously declared Funke’s legal problem to be a total nothingburger.

And who was Ryan Funke’s personal lawyer on that case? That’s right, PAUL LEISHER!

After three years of litigation, a judge has ruled that 10-year-old allegations of inconsistent reports by current Mineral County Sheriff Ryan Funke don’t constitute Brady material and don’t need to be provided to defendants in criminal cases.

The Mineral County Attorney’s Office, representing the Mineral County commissioners, has argued that inconsistencies in Funke’s reports when he served as a deputy in Lake County constituted Brady material, meaning the office would have to provide this material to the defense in cases where Funke’s testimony or reports were used. Judge Shane Vannatta ruled from the bench on Wednesday in favor of Funke and his attorney Paul Leisher, who argued that these inconsistencies were standard minor mistakes.

“I think it’s a nothingburger,” Vannatta said, borrowing the verbiage of Mineral County Attorney-elect Roy Miller, who took the stand during Wednesday’s evidentiary hearing.

While a Proud Patriot might be inclined to demonstrate the strength of the Constitution, and the protections this founding document has enshrined, by typing out obscenities like NIGGER, CUNT, and FAGGOT, I’m neither proud, nor a patriot who assumes language won’t be criminalized, like filing FELONY charges against a young asshole who drunkenly suggested some some Jeets should return to their homeland.

While having a STRONG Constitution would be nice, what we have instead are retarded Sheriffs who started a retarded Sheriff movement by calling themselves “Constitutional Sheriffs”.

Here’s some context to make you sleep better at night, citizens of America:

Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional.

Sheriffs are not mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly states that the states and the federal government possess sovereignty and that local government is left to the states. As such, sheriffs and all other local government officials are creations of state law. However, rather than the United States Constitution, the ideological basis of the constitutional sheriffs’ movement rests on various incorrect historical and legal claims, relying on a pretense that the historic powers of the high sheriff of an English shire apply in the United States regardless of subsequent legal developments.

What kind of conduct can a Sheriff get away with? How about apparently lying to a state legislator about a citizen journalist’s address information?

So far, from my perspective, yes, it DOES appear that Sheriffs (and other officials) are allowed to lie and commit other crimes, like theft, without fear of consequence. Unless, of course, Keithi Worthington does her job and charges the likely culprit who stole my personal property on June 19th after reviewing the strong evidence of who that culprit is.

While I wait for the “protect and serve” law enforcement services that taxpayers fund with their taxes in modern cities like Missoula, I’m offering YOU, dear reader, even MORE historical context on the modern Sheriff with this link (PDF) to a 41 page paper about the history and political implications of this important office.

Here’s the title, author, and summary of this educational research paper:

And here’s a short excerpt from the conclusion of this paper about the POWER local jurisdictions have to CHANGE the office of the Sheriff if they so choose:

An important finding in this paper is that states and individual counties are able to decide whether or not they wish to continue electing their sheriffs. Despite the longevity and ubiquity of elected sheriffs, cases from New York to Miami to Seattle to Connecticut show that institutions are dynamic: the elected office of sheriff is not permanent or unchangeable. Future research should explore the persistence of the institution over time, as well as the reasons for why sheriffs were never elected in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the other territories.

If you appreciate the work I’m doing while being actively targeted by the people and institutions with the power to take away my freedom and my life (like they did to Sean Stevenson and Johnny Lee Perry) I’d say donate, but I’m too financially fucked at this point for digital donations to really help, since my accounts are frozen.

Anyway, I’ll just keep pretending I have the protection of the first amendment and report on what I can until my status of being in pre-trial supervision changes.

Thanks for reading!