Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
When Both Sides Go Quiet
There is a political instinct that I’ve developed over the last few decade or so: when both parties are shouting, it’s business as usual. When both parties go quiet, pay attention, because something ugly is probably getting passed or covered up, and the American taxpayer is likely footing the bill of consequences.
Few public controversies in recent memory have generated as much bipartisan distrust as the handling of the Epstein files. Republicans accused Democrats of failing to pursue full transparency while President Biden was in office. Now Democrats accuse Republicans of withholding or slow-walking the release of the complete records. The blame shifts with political control, but the underlying fact pattern remains the same: both parties have figures of influence whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein’s orbit.
That reality complicates the politics of accountability and fuels public suspicion that neither side is entirely comfortable with full disclosure.
What should have been a straightforward matter of transparency, identifying networks of power, influence, and possible criminal complicity, has instead unfolded as a slow humiliating drip of redactions, procedural delays, partial disclosures and cagey congressional testimony. Each release seems to raise more questions than it resolves. These questions revolve around sex trafficking, exploitation, abuse of minors, coercion and manipulation, elite complicity, obstruction of justice, etc.
But the deeper damage taking place now is not only about the crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is about institutional response. If only one political party had meaningful exposure to the scandal, the other would likely have been far more relentless in demanding transparency. But this is different. Despite Democrats harping on the files now, they were quiet in the years prior to Trump’s second term and, because Epstein’s connections span media, finance, academia, and politics, the discomfort still appears bipartisan.
And that is precisely what unsettles me.
When both political parties fail to press aggressively on something meaningful, especially something morally explosive, it often suggests that the issue cuts deeper than surface narratives allow. Bipartisan hesitation can signal overlapping vulnerability. Silence across the aisle is rarely accidental.
The horror here is not just what may have occurred in private circles of power, but the perception that the institutions tasked with accountability are reluctant to fully illuminate it. Justice delayed in cases involving elites feels less like procedural caution and more like reputational risk management. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is corrosive.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation after new emails with Epstein came to light, prompting internal pressure at the firm. British political figure Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into his ties with Epstein. In Norway, parliament has launched an external inquiry into prominent diplomats for their connections to Epstein, and police are investigating corruption allegations against former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and others.
🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever
Across Europe, these disclosures have triggered formal probes, resignations, and institutional reviews that contrast sharply with the relative lack of accountability for high-profile figures in the United States, where calls for investigations and resignations have largely stalled. I mean, is Les Wexner really allowed to just walk around free at this point? How can that be possible? How are Kimbal Musk and Elon Musk allowed to remain on Tesla’s board? Why isn’t Bill Gates being hauled in front of congress?
I have long argued that Americans should apply the same “when both parties agree, the American public is getting screwed” scrutiny to monetary policy for a similar reason. It is one of the few areas where both major political parties display remarkable convergence. While they wage visible battles over cultural issues and tax rates, they tend to align on central banking frameworks, large scale liquidity interventions, and deficit tolerance. Like other cover-ups, that alignment deserves examination.
Monetary policy operates largely outside daily partisan warfare, yet it shapes purchasing power, asset prices, debt burdens, and wealth distribution. When balance sheets expand aggressively and markets are repeatedly stabilized during downturns, the effects are uneven. Asset holders often benefit first and most. Meanwhile, wage earners experience the lagging side effects such as inflationary pressure, higher living costs, and diminished purchasing power.
Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory argue that sovereign currency systems provide more fiscal flexibility than traditionally assumed. Critics counter that, in practice, repeated interventions risk entrenching a cycle in which gains are privatized and losses are socialized. When markets rise, the wealth effect accrues to those with substantial exposure. When markets falter, public backstops prevent collapse. The middle class absorbs the inflationary residue. And the wealth gap widens:
The structural similarity matters. When both parties avoid aggressive debate on a policy that materially burdens the average American, it raises the same instinctive question of what incentives are being protected. Monetary policy may not carry the visceral grotesqueness of the Epstein scandal, but it carries long term economic consequences that most Americans don’t know they are bearing, and don’t understand that they are being lied to about.
The comparison is not moral equivalence. It is structural parallel. In one case, alleged networks of power may be shielded by mutual hesitation. In the other, a financial architecture persists with limited democratic scrutiny because challenging it would destabilize shared political comfort. In both cases, bipartisan alignment dampens confrontation. Two forms of silence. Two different domains. Both revealing.
Foreign policy, particularly the authorization and funding of wars, has often followed a similar pattern. While domestic issues produce loud partisan divides, military interventions abroad frequently pass with overwhelming support from leadership in both parties. Public debate may flare at the margins, but institutional consensus tends to solidify quickly once action begins.
History shows that major military engagements, from post 9/11 authorizations to prolonged overseas conflicts, have often been backed by broad congressional majorities. The initial votes are decisive. The funding continues year after year. Only later, when costs mount and public opinion shifts, does meaningful dissent emerge. By then, strategic commitments and financial obligations are deeply entrenched.
Again, the pattern is not about moral equivalence between policy domains. It is about incentives. When both political parties converge quickly on matters involving immense money, immense power, or immense liability, scrutiny tends to narrow rather than widen. And when scrutiny narrows at the highest levels, the public’s role shifts from participant to spectator.
When both political parties fail to address something meaningful, when they close ranks instead of competing for exposure, the public should not assume the issue is trivial. More often, it suggests the truth behind the surface may be larger and more consequential than advertised.
Democracies depend not just on disagreement, but on adversarial pressure. When that pressure disappears, citizens are right to lean in, not tune out. When both sides go quiet, the story is rarely over. As the Epstein files are showing, it may simply run far deeper than we are being shown.
Now read:
- Today's Epstein’s Records Destroy Official Narratives
- Our Liquidity Addiction Continues
- Do DOJ Docs Show Epstein Death Notice A Day Early?
- The Hijacking Of Bitcoin: Epstein’s Hidden Network
- Why America’s Two-Party System Will Never Threaten the True Political Elites
Monday, February 16, 2026
Mega-Rich Building Fortresses
"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
"And said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb':" Revelation 6:15-16.
America’s richest citizens are quietly transforming their estates into military-grade compounds equipped with underground bunkers, biometric security systems, moats, and private armed forces. The scale and urgency of this shift raises a question the mainstream press seems reluctant to ask: What exactly are they preparing for?
A mansion currently listed in Scottsdale for $15 million features 32 AI-powered cameras, a 100-foot moat surrounded by sour orange trees bearing four-inch spikes, and a safe room sealed by a 2,000-pound door. The property’s front door alone has 13 deadbolts. This is not an isolated example. According to data from Coldwell Banker Realty, roughly 45% of luxury homes sold in 2025 referenced privacy or security features, up from 38% in 2024.
The wealthy are spending between $100,000 and $1.5 million on security installations that include underground bunkers, laser-powered perimeter defense systems, and biometric access controls. Some are purchasing specially trained protection dogs for as much as $175,000. The message is unmistakable: traditional security measures no longer feel adequate, even for those living in America’s most exclusive neighborhoods.
What changed? The official narrative points to high-profile incidents like the 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and celebrity home robberies. But this explanation feels insufficient when you consider the magnitude of the response. Los Angeles music producer Alex Grant added retina scanners, a guard house, and towering gates to his 24,000-square-foot mansion after confronting an armed intruder. Entrepreneur David Widerhorn constructed his Arizona compound with bullet-resistant glass, a hidden safe room featuring military-grade air filtration, and a cryptocurrency vault.
These are not simple home improvements. They represent a fundamental loss of faith in America’s civil institutions and public safety infrastructure. As one Wall Street Journal report noted, the shift reflects a belief among the affluent that traditional policing and communal safety mechanisms have failed, driving them toward privatized and customized security solutions.
The trend extends far beyond reinforced doors and surveillance cameras. A Virginia-based firm called SAFE (Strategically Armored & Fortified Environments) is currently developing Aerie, a $300 million underground sanctuary near Washington, D.C., scheduled to open this year. The facility features residences ranging from 2,000 to more than 20,000 square feet, all surrounded by fortified rock and protected by multiple layers of biometric security. Interactive walls and sophisticated lighting systems create the illusion of panoramic city views from deep underground. AI-powered medical suites provide intensive care capabilities and connect residents to specialists around the clock.
Naomi Corbi, who works with SAFE on ultra-secure residential design, offered a revealing explanation for the surge in demand. World events, she said, have moved beyond political theater to genuine geopolitical crisis. For those with access to elite-level intelligence, the existential implications are undeniable, and they’re acting accordingly.
That statement deserves careful attention. These are not paranoid conspiracy theorists hoarding canned goods in rural basements. These are people with unprecedented access to information, financial resources, and connections at the highest levels of government and industry. When Mark Zuckerberg spends an estimated $70 million on a Hawaiian compound featuring a 5,000-square-foot underground bunker, or purchases property for $150 to $200 million on Miami’s ultra-exclusive Indian Creek Island alongside Jeff Bezos and Carl Icahn, what information is driving those decisions?
The migration patterns themselves tell a story. Tech billionaires are fleeing California’s proposed 5% wealth tax for Florida’s zero-income-tax environment, but they’re not simply seeking favorable tax treatment. They’re selecting locations that offer strategic advantages: private docks, isolation from urban centers, and the ability to create self-sufficient compounds insulated from civil unrest.
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have been acquiring multimillion-dollar properties in South Florida, with Page alone spending $188 million on Coconut Grove mansions.
Florida’s Stone Creek Ranch in Delray Beach has emerged as one of the most sought-after addresses for the wealthy, not because of beaches or shopping, but because it provides 24/7 armed protection by ex-military professionals. Every prospective buyer undergoes rigorous background checks before being permitted to purchase. Actor Mark Wahlberg recently spent $37 million there. The compound resembles a private military installation more than a luxury residential community.
Meanwhile, Ron Hubbard, founder and CEO of Atlas Survival Shelters, who has built underground hideouts for Kim Kardashian, the Tate brothers, and other high-profile figures, believes civil unrest will be the primary driver of demand for these facilities. He predicts that underground construction will become the standard model for housing in the coming years.
The amenities inside these bunkers reveal just how seriously the elite are taking potential long-term scenarios. SAFE president Al Corbi, who helped secure the 27-floor private residence in Mumbai for billionaire industrialist Mukesh Ambani, emphasizes that clients now demand entertainment features like bowling alleys, home theaters, and wine cellars underground. Some bunkers include escape tunnels that double as go-kart tracks. The philosophy, as Corbi explains it, is that if you’re going to survive underground, you should be comfortable while doing so.
These facilities are designed for extended occupation, not temporary shelter. They feature independent food production through vertical farming technology, advanced water purification systems, backup power generation, and air filtration capable of protecting against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Some include full medical operating theaters. The European project known as The Oppidum, with prices starting at $60 million, continuously upgrades its technology to harness the latest advancements in energy storage, building management systems, and security elements.
The broader implications are profound. When the people with the most resources, the best information, and the deepest institutional connections begin building fortified compounds designed for long-term survival scenarios, it suggests they see threats the general public has not been adequately warned about. This could include anything from economic collapse and social breakdown to more catastrophic scenarios involving warfare, pandemics, or infrastructure failure.
The timeline matters too. These projects are accelerating now, in early 2026, with facilities like Aerie preparing to open demonstration experiences this year. The urgency is palpable. These are not five-year plans being casually developed. These are crash programs being implemented with significant capital and serious intent.
For ordinary Americans facing inflation, supply chain disruptions, and increasing social disorder, the message from the elite is clear through their actions: the systems we’ve been told to trust are not systems they trust for their own families. They are building parallel infrastructure designed to function independently when public institutions fail. They are hiring private security forces when public law enforcement proves inadequate. They are creating self-sufficient compounds when supply chains become unreliable.
The question remains: What do they know that the rest of us don’t? The answer may be simpler than elaborate conspiracy theories would suggest. They know that complex systems are fragile. They know that social order can deteriorate quickly. They know that wealth makes you a target when resources become scarce. And they know that when crisis comes, government protection will be stretched thin or entirely absent for all but the most essential personnel.
The wealthy are not hoping for catastrophe. They are simply refusing to be vulnerable to it. The rest of us would be wise to pay attention to what their actions reveal about the future they see coming. When those with the most to lose start building moats and bunkers, it might be time to ask what we should be doing to protect our own families from whatever storm they’re preparing for.
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)