Sam's Club is a popular wholesale club, and it stays popular by constantly adding new, exciting items worth trying. In February 2026, these are the best.

Nancy Guthrie believed kidnapped, as authorities worry she could die without life-saving medication.

Bombshell email reveals disgraced UK politician gave Jeffrey Epstein advance notice of a €500bn bailout to save the Euro!

Epstein: “Goyim were born only to serve us, without that, they have no place in the world, only to serve the people of Israel.” pic.twitter.com/9ZBSIHBxnt — AutisticClips (@AutisticClip) February 1, 2026

by Stuart Englert, Stuart Englert’s Substack: Price Volatility Separates Golden Wheat from Expendable Chaff Major price drops in gold and silver, like the massive smash down last Friday, reveal a lot about buyers and holders of the monetary metals. Newcomers and momentum traders panicked on Friday, fearing the sky had fallen on their jackpot hopes […]

by Jon Fleetwood, Jon Fleetwood: 94% had H5 antibodies, 100% showed neutralization despite no exposure to virus. A new peer-reviewed study published last week in the journal Immunity reports that the vast majority of people already carry antibodies capable of neutralizing the cattle-linked purported H5N1 bird flu virus, despite having no known exposure to H5N1 and being […]

from Bannons War Room: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Everything is better on a Hawaiian roll. READ MORE...

  The Minoans were a rich and relatively advanced sea-faring nation who primarily lived on Bronze Age Crete. They had colonies on several of the Aegean Islands and even parts of the continent, such as in Anatolia. Their apparently sudden and mysterious disappearance has been the source of debate for many decades. One popular theory connects their downfall to the eruption of the volcano on Thera, also known as Santorini. This supposedly weakened the Minoans so much that the Mycenaean Greeks attacked and conquered them. What does the evidence really show?   Why Is the Minoan Disappearance a Mystery? Part of a fresco found at the Minoan settlement of Akrotiri, Santorini, c. 16th century BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Why are historians fascinated about the disappearance of the Minoans? Aside from being a rich and advanced civilization, they were spread out over a substantial area, inhabiting Crete, several other islands, and parts of the nearby mainland. Yet, by the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1150 BCE), they all but disappeared from history.   All across the island of Crete, in c. 1450 BCE, important settlements were destroyed. Did a major civil war occur, causing the collapse of their society? Or, rather, did they get invaded by an outside nation, such as the Mycenaean Greeks? If so, what led to this invasion and subjugation of the Minoans? These questions have confounded archaeologists ever since they first came to appreciate the existence of the Bronze Age Minoan civilization.   The Minoan Eruption Volcanic material on Nea Kameni, Santorini. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During the 1960s, investigations on and around the island of Santorini helped to reveal the true scale of what is known as the Minoan eruption. This eruption brought a cataclysmic end to the Minoan settlement on that island. It is now recognized as one of the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded history. It was initially dated to approximately 1500 BCE, which nearly corresponds to the time in which the Mycenaeans appear to have invaded Greece.   This very quickly led to the theory that the Minoan eruption is what caused the downfall and disappearance of the broader Minoans civilization. Logically, a massive volcanic eruption on an island in the Aegean Sea would have caused massive tsunamis. Research has shown that a tsunami did indeed strike the northern coast of Crete. This, according to the theory, must have significantly weakened, even crippled, the home of the Minoans. The Mycenaeans then evidently took advantage of that, using it as an opportunity to invade and conquer the island of Crete.   Problems With the Eruption Theory A terracotta vase in the form of a bull’s head, Minoan style, found in Attica, Greece, c. 1450-1400 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   One of the major problems with this explanation is that it ostensibly relies on the Minoan eruption being closely followed by the Mycenaean conquest of Greece. The latter, if we accept that such an attack really did occur, is firmly dated to c. 1450 BCE on the basis of the destruction layers found on Crete. On the other hand, the Minoan eruption has been dated to the 17th century BCE by many modern studies, primarily those using ice core dating techniques. These techniques involve examining ice core samples from the Bronze Age and looking for traces of a major volcanic eruption in the general era. This enables scientists to more precisely pinpoint the date of the Minoan eruption.   This suggests that there was an enormous length of time between the Minoan eruption and the Mycenaean conquest of Crete. Hence, it would appear that the two events cannot have been connected. In other words, scientific evidence appeared to disprove this explanation for the disappearance of the Minoans.   When Did the Minoan Eruption Occur? Head of Ahmose I, c. 1550-1525 BCE, the Egyptian Pharaoh in whose reign the Minoan eruption almost certainly occurred. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   However, despite the accepted 17th century BCE date for the Minoan eruption continuing to be popular, it is not actually supported by the most recent studies. As a matter of fact, the most recent studies place the eruption decidedly within the 16th century BCE. One of these studies by Şahoğlu et al (2021) places the eruption in 1565-1501 BCE with a probability of 76.1%. In a study from the following year, Manning placed it in 1609-1560 with a probability of 95.4%. Finally, Pearson et al (2023) placed it either between 1610-1510 or 1602-1502 BCE, with a probability of 95.4%.   Archaeological evidence, consistent with this, firmly associates the Minoan eruption with the very start of the New Kingdom of Egypt. This is generally dated by historians to c. 1550 BCE. Therefore, the weight of evidence firmly supports a 16th century BCE date for the Minoan eruption. Does this place the eruption close enough to the apparent Mycenaean conquest of the Minoans to potentially connect the two events?   Minoans vs Mycenaeans Minoan ruins (partially reconstructed) of the Palace of Knossos. Source: Warren LeMay via Flickr   Although the more recent dating evidence definitely places the Minoan eruption in the 16th century BCE, this is still problematic for the issue of the disappearance of the Minoans. Even if we were to put the eruption right at the end of that century, that would still leave about 50 years between that event and the apparent Mycenaean invasion of Crete. Critics point out that this would be akin to saying that a natural disaster in 1950 could have led to the downfall of a nation in 2000.   When put like this, such a scenario does seem very unlikely. However, when analyzing the mysterious disappearance of the Minoans, we need to take into account all the facts. As it happens, archaeology shows that the destruction events on Crete in c. 1450 BCE did not happen suddenly. Rather, they appear to be the climax of a long sequence of events going right back to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.   Mycenaean kantharos, or drinking cup, c. 1550-1500 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   On an archaeological basis, the eruption of Thera came right at the start of the Late Bronze Age, assigned in a more localised chronology to the end of Late Minoan IA. This corresponds to the start of the New Kingdom of Egypt, marked by the accession of King Ahmose I. What archaeology also shows is that the Minoan settlement on Kythera, an island just next to southern Greece, was destroyed shortly after that, in Late Minoan IB. Unlike the destruction layers on Crete in c. 1450 BCE, this occurred very soon after the Minoan eruption. Purely on a geographical basis, the Mycenaean Greeks are the most obvious candidates for the attackers. Did the apparent Mycenaean attack against the Minoan settlement on their doorstep really have nothing to do with the devastating eruption and consequent tsunami that the Minoans had just faced? This seems unlikely.   After or at about the same time as the attack on Kythera, we find evidence that other Minoan settlements in the Aegean Sea began preparing for potential attacks. The settlements on Rhodes and Milos, for example, constructed defensive walls.   View of Chora, Kythera. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Over the course of the first part of the Late Bronze Age, we see a very clear trend among the Minoans. They engaged in construction projects that seemed specifically designed to prepare for war. As well as constructing defensive walls and towers at many of their settlements, they dug new wells and converted living areas into storage areas. What explains this sudden change in behavior? This evidence suggests that the Mycenaean Greeks did start to attack the Minoans immediately after the eruption of Thera. Evidently most of these attacks were at sea, hence why there is no direct archaeological evidence of most of them, the attack against Kythera being a rare exception.   The evidence from Minoan behavior strongly indicates that conflict became common with the Mycenaeans very soon after the Minoan eruption. Notably, the settlement of Kythera was attacked for a second time in c. 1450 BCE. This was the same time as when all the major administrative sites on Crete were destroyed.   Unravelling the Minoan Mystery A fresco from the Central Court of Knossos, the largest Minoan centre on Crete. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The evidence from archaeology strongly suggests that the Mycenaean Greeks really did invade and conquer Minoan Crete in c. 1450 BCE. This explains why all the major administrative centres on Crete were destroyed at that time. These destruction layers are immediately followed by the appearance of Linear B, the script of the Mycenean Greeks, on Crete, along with Mycenaean material culture. These events were the culmination of what appears to have been a trend of conflict shortly following the Minoan eruption. This theory is borne out by the evidence of the destruction of the Minoan settlement on Kythera soon after the Minoan eruption, accompanied by a sudden pivot towards warfare preparations across the Minoan world.   Everything indicates that the eruption of the island of Thera, which was certainly a 16th century BCE event, emboldened the Mycenaean Greeks to attack the Minoans. This ultimately led to the downfall and eventual disappearance of the Minoans when the Mycenaeans finally invaded and conquered Crete itself.

  Without doubt, William the Conqueror is best known for his conquest of England in 1066. His decisive victory at the Battle of Hastings led to the Norman invasion and profoundly changed the face of England forever. But how did William become the Duke of Normandy, and what led to the decision to set his sights on England, and what factors ensured his success?   Early Life of the Duke of Normandy Statue of William the Conqueror in Calvados, France. Source: Bernard Dupont via Flickr   Young William hailed from Normandy, a region in northwest France. He was born a noble, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy (ruled 1027-1035). Like many of the Normans, Robert and his son were descended from Vikings who had raided the region since the 8th century, also serving as mercenaries for local rulers.   With their power and territory expanding, a Viking named Rollo established the Duchy of Normandy in 911. He had seized the region of Rouen in the late 9th century and then expanded into Bayeux. In 911, he helped the King of West Francia, Charles the Simple, defeat another Viking band. This led to a new alliance, which saw Rollo baptized and his territorial claims recognized as Normandy. He married Charles’s daughter, Gisela, to seal the deal.   State of Rollo, founder of Normandy, in Calvados, France. Source: Wikimedia Commons   William was a direct descendant of Rollo, six generations on, representing a surprisingly stable dynasty, with father succeeding son until William’s father, Robert, who succeeded his elder brother Richard III.   Nevertheless, there was some controversy surrounding William’s succession due to his mother, Herleva, who was not married to Robert. Consequently, William, who was born in 1028, was often known as William the Bastard in unfriendly sources. Some sources suggest that she was the daughter of a tanner or undertaker from the Norman town of Falaise, while others suggest she was of a more aristocratic background. Her aristocratic status is supported by the fact that she later married the Viscount of Conteville, and her brothers were reportedly influential during her son’s minority.   In 1035, his father died, and William inherited the throne of Normandy. Despite his status as a bastard and being just seven or eight years old, he was readily accepted as his father’s successor. Nevertheless, his lack of personal authority undermined ducal authority. Lesser nobles erected private castles, usurped important powers, and fought their own private wars. There were also attacks on William’s inner circle, with three of his guardians and his tutor dying violent deaths.   William the Conqueror on the Bayeux Tapestry, 1070s. Source: Bayeux Museum   In 1042, when William was just 15 years old, he was knighted and finally considered the independent Duke of Normandy. He immediately set to work recovering the power that he had lost and brought the vassals of Normandy back under his control. He managed this with the assistance of his overlord, King Henry III of France, but during this time, William learned much and proved himself a strong warrior and ruler. He became known for simple and direct plans that ruthlessly exploited any opportunity. He also withdrew at the first sign of any disadvantage.   While Normandy was never fully secure, and William would fight rebellions and territory infringements for the rest of his life, after 1047 William was secure enough in Normandy that he could assist his king with battles in other areas, such as the king’s attempts to strengthen the France’s southern frontier and campaigns in the west against Geoffrey Martel, the Count of Anjou.   Political Alliances Statue of Matilda of Flanders, Paris. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During the early part of William’s reign, Edward the Confessor, a prince of England, was exiled to the continent by Viking usurpers. William established a good relationship with Edward during his exile, and he supported him when he was recalled to England as king in 1041. In the 1050s, during a difficult period in William’s reign, he conducted important negotiations with Edward, strengthening their alliance.   In 1049, William established an alliance with Count Baldwin V of Flanders, and in 1053, he married the count’s daughter, Matilda. This was despite the union being condemned by the Pope, showing William’s eagerness to seal the alliance with Baldwin.   William and Harold Godwinson on the Bayeux Tapestry, 1070s. Source: Bayeux Museum   In 1054, King Henry II and Geoffrey Martel formed an alliance against William, while he was also dealing with a new rebellion at home. William defeated the alliance at the Battle of Mortimer the same year. The issue was brought to a final conclusion when both Henry and Geoffrey died in 1060 and were replaced by weak rulers. This left Williams the most powerful leader in northern France.   In 1064, Edward sent Harold Godwinson, his brother-in-law, to William as an ambassador. The two men seemed to have formed an alliance and went on a campaign together into Brittany.   William and his half-brothers Odo and Robert on the Bayeux Tapestry, 1070s. Source: Bayeux Museum   While all this was happening, William also implemented significant religious reforms. William made his half-brother Odo the Bishop of Bayeux, and worked with him and the other bishops to pass laws against simony (the selling of Church offices) and clerical marriages. He also endowed several monasteries and made several important monastic reforms with the support of Lanfranc of Pavia, a famous master of the liberal arts whom William welcomed into his territory.   William’s Disputed Claim to the English Crown Statue of Edward the Confessor, Lichfield Cathedral. Source: Elliot Scott via Flickr   Eventually, William turned his attention to England. This was not a sudden and baseless attempt to conquer more land for himself. William asserted that he had a legitimate claim to the throne of England. Hence, his invasion in 1066 was merely a case of him taking by force what was rightfully his, at least as far as he was concerned.   William’s claim to the throne of England was partially based on his lineage. Edward the Confessor died childless in January 1066, and he was the son of King Aethelred the Unready and Emma of Normandy. This made William Edward’s first cousin once removed, giving him a familial claim to the English throne, even though he was not the closest claimant.   Depiction of Harold swearing an oath to William on the Bayeux Tapestry, 1070s. Source: Bayeux Museum   More important to William’s claim was his assertion that Edward had actually sworn to give the kingdom of England to William after his death. Some medieval sources claim that Edward had promised William the throne during the latter’s visit to England in 1051. Whether William actually visited England in that year or not, the promise is generally accepted as historical. Furthermore, in 1064, the powerful Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, had sworn that William could succeed Edward while in Normandy.   Nevertheless, when Edward died, Harold immediately succeeded him. This was only logical, since he was from the most powerful family in Britain and had already done much of the ruling during the latter part of Edward’s reign. Furthermore, Harold claimed that Edward had specifically chosen him as his heir when he was on his deathbed.   Another claimant to the throne was Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, who had the support of Tostig, Harold Godwinson’s brother.   The Battle of Hastings in 1066 A modern re-enactment of the Battle of Hastings outside Battle Abbey. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1066, when it became clear that Harold Godwinson had no intention of fulfilling Edward’s supposed promise, William decided to take England by force. According to William of Poitiers, a contemporary priest and chronicler, the Duke of Normandy’s planned invasion of England had the approval of Pope Alexander II.   A single organized invasion of England would not be easy, so William spent the summer making preparations. He used this time to construct an enormous fleet of ships. One contemporary source, William of Jumièges, claimed that he constructed 3,000 ships to use in the invasion. While this is widely understood as an exaggeration, it nonetheless testifies to the evident enormity of William’s preparation. He also assembled a large army from all over his own territory and various allied territories, including Flanders and Brittany.   An enormous and powerful army would be needed not only because of Harold’s strength, but also because Harold knew that William would likely try to invade.   Cavalry at the Battle of Hastings depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, 1070s. Source: Bayeux Museum   Throughout the summer, Harold positioned his forces on the coast of England. However, at the summer’s end, he sent his troops home, thinking that William would not invade in the autumn. In reality, William would have invaded in August, but unfavourable winds made this unadvisable. Then, in September, he launched his ships.   William had a grand strategy and was also lucky. Harold had been forced to march north to deal with the invasion of Harald Hardrada, successfully defeating and killing him. Harold Godwinson then quickly marched south, by which time William had arrived. The Normans decided to hold position at Hastings, just next to the coast, rather than attempt to travel north to meet Harold.   Finally, on October 14, the two armies clashed. Though Harold had some initial successes, William was the superior tactician, employing fake retreats to draw out the enemy soldiers and then attack them with cavalry. By the end of the day, William had won the Battle of Hastings and Harold was dead. The Duke of Normandy was now William the Conqueror, King of England.   How William the Conqueror Came to Rule England The tomb of William the Conqueror at the Church of Saint-Étienne, Caen, France. Source: Wikimedia Commons   William of Normandy, despite being born out of wedlock, succeeded his father as Duke of Normandy. Initially being a fragile child leader, through alliances and military conquests, William established himself as the most powerful king in northern France.   When Edward the Confessor, the King of England, died in early 1066, William thought he had a good claim to the throne due to his family connection to Edward and promises reportedly made by Edward and his brother-in-law, Harold Godwinson. But when Harold went back on those promises and made himself king, William decided to take what he considered his by force. After months of preparation, William set sail for England with a huge army in September 1066 and won a decisive victory at the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. He was now William the Conqueror, King of England and Normandy. The presence of the Normans in England would forever change the country.