Leaked files tie Epstein to Israel-UAE backchannel and possible kompromat
MEMO | January 15, 2026
The notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, widely believed to be an Israeli intelligence asset, played a behind-the-scenes role in nurturing the secret relationship between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) years before the 2020 Abraham Accords, newly leaked communications reveal.
The revelations emerge from newly obtained material published by Drop Site News as part of an ongoing investigation into Epstein’s political and intelligence connections. The documents, spanning more than a decade, shed light on Epstein’s long-standing friendship with Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the powerful head of the UAE’s DP World, and suggest that Epstein used his connections to promote Israeli commercial, military and surveillance technology in Emirati‑controlled logistics hubs.
Leaked emails show that Epstein not only facilitated strategic ties between Israel and the UAE, but also operated in a context ripe for the gathering or circulation of compromising material—so-called kompromat—on powerful elites. In one exchange, Sulayem joked about wanting “some PUSSYNESS” rather than “BUSINESS” in reference to a mutual female contact. Epstein responded approvingly: “praise Allah, there are still people like you.”
Epstein, who was later found to have registered a neighbouring private island in Sulayem’s name, also forwarded sexually explicit material from a separate scandal involving a Liberian official to JPMorgan executive Jes Staley—further showing his role in distributing content of a compromising nature among political and financial elites.
These instances, coupled with Epstein’s facilitation of meetings and shared travel among Israeli, Emirati and Western intelligence-linked figures, have raised serious questions about whether personal vulnerabilities were exploited to advance geopolitical objectives.
The leaks show Epstein’s efforts to insert Israeli strategic interests into UAE-led economic expansion across the Red Sea and Horn of Africa, including in Somaliland and Djibouti. These moves are thought to be essential in laying the groundwork for the UAE’s more recent push to recognise Somaliland as an independent state, a move formally backed by Israel last month.
The emails further reveal Epstein’s attempt to broker investment from Emirati elites in Israeli cybersecurity firm Carbyne, which later received backing from the UAE following the Abraham Accords. The company was founded by a former officer of Israel’s Unit 8200, the military’s elite signals intelligence division responsible for electronic surveillance, cyber operations and mass data collection on Palestinians and other regional targets.
Carbyne has since received millions of dollars in investment from Emirati‑linked entities, raising concerns that surveillance and data‑gathering technologies closely associated with Israeli military intelligence are being embedded within port operations and security infrastructure under UAE control.
Evidence of Epstein arranging high-level meetings between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Sulayem further demonstrates his role in establishing personal connections that would later underpin formal diplomatic ties.
In one such exchange, Epstein emailed Barak suggesting, “He is the right hand of Maktoum. I think you should meet,” referring to Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai and the UAE’s vice president and prime minister. Barak would later go on to serve as chairman of Carbyne.
Drop Site reports also highlight Epstein’s apparent efforts to provide Emirati elites with access to elite Israeli medical care, using personal contacts to connect Sulayem’s family with neurologists in Israel. This level of trust, the investigation notes, served as a platform for deeper strategic cooperation.
The timing of Epstein’s involvement is significant. Following his 2009 conviction, he re-emerged into elite circles and intensified efforts to build influence across political, financial and intelligence networks. One of Epstein’s key associates, Sulayem, would go on to become a vocal proponent of normalising ties with Israel, including publicly backing the recognition of Somaliland.
This revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of how the Abraham Accords were shaped not just by public diplomacy but by decades of covert networking, influence operations and shared intelligence priorities between Israel and Abu Dhabi. The UAE has long sought regional dominance through military and commercial control of key sea lanes, a vision increasingly aligned with Israel’s own strategic ambitions.
Drop Site hints at the possible use of kompromat and coercion as tools of statecraft by Israeli agencies operating through proxies like Epstein. While no direct evidence of blackmail has yet emerged, the deeply personal nature of Epstein’s relationships and the sensitive political contexts involved raise serious concerns.
As Israel continues to entrench its military presence in Somaliland, with UAE support, the long-term consequences of these covert partnerships are becoming ever more apparent, not just for Palestinians but for the future of the Horn of Africa.
Kiev awards major mining project to Trump-linked investors
RT | January 13, 2026
Ukraine has awarded a major state-owned lithium project to American investors linked to US President Donald Trump. Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko pitched it as the pilot project under last year’s minerals deal between the US and Ukraine.
The agreement, which was signed in April, grants the US access to developing Ukraine’s natural resources in exchange for splitting output under a production-sharing contract. Half of the revenue will go into the joint US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund (URIF), with profits reinvested in new projects and national reconstruction.
Trump pitched the deal as a mechanism for Kiev to repay billions in US aid provided under his predecessor, Joe Biden.
The New York Times first reported that development rights for the Dobra deposit in Kirovograd Region – one of Ukraine’s largest lithium reserves – were awarded to a US-linked consortium last week. Sviridenko confirmed the decision in a Telegram post on Monday.
“For the first time in Ukraine, a winner for lithium development under the production-sharing mechanism has been selected,” she wrote, saying it was awarded to Dobra Lithium Holdings JV, a US consortium whose shareholders include critical-minerals company TechMet.
Sviridenko said the consortium will invest at least $179 million in the project, including $12 million for geological exploration and reserve audits, and $167 million for extraction and processing facilities if commercial viability is confirmed.
Ukrainian officials told the WSJ that the deal raises potential conflicts of interest, noting that TechMet’s largest shareholder is the US International Development Finance Corporation, the agency overseeing the URIF. The WSJ also reported that Ronald Lauder, a longtime Trump ally and Republican donor, is part of the consortium, though Sviridenko did not confirm his participation.
She insisted, however, that the consortium was selected through a competitive tender open to both domestic and foreign bidders, describing the project as a catalyst for further Western investment.
Russia has condemned the minerals deal. Former Russian President and deputy chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev mocked it as the forced extraction of a “disappearing country’s” wealth. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it a “commercial scheme” to sell aid, arguing against further support for Kiev’s war effort as it only serves to prolongs the conflict.
Russian officials and experts have noted that much of Ukraine’s mineral wealth lies in regions that joined Russia following referendums in 2022 or near the front lines.
The 15 Most Devastating Truths About the PSA Screening Disaster
Lies are Unbekoming | October 26, 2025
The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test has screened 30 million American men annually for over three decades. The man who discovered PSA in 1970, Richard Ablin, now calls mass screening “a public health disaster.” Two landmark 2012 studies found no survival benefit from radical surgery compared to watchful waiting. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded PSA screening does more harm than good. Yet the $3 billion annual industry continues largely unabated.
These revelations emerge from three insider accounts: Ablin’s The Great Prostate Hoax, urologist Anthony Horan’s The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam, and oncologist Mark Scholz’s Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers. Together they document how a test meant to monitor existing cancer patients became a screening juggernaut that has left millions of men incontinent, impotent, or dead from unnecessary treatment.
The numbers are staggering. Since 1987, when PSA screening exploded nationwide, over one million American men have undergone radical prostatectomies. Studies show 40 to 50 men must be diagnosed and treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The other 39 to 49 men receive no benefit but face permanent side effects. Medicare and the Veterans Administration fund most of this treatment, pouring billions into a system that prominent urologists privately acknowledge has failed.
What follows are the most damaging truths about how PSA screening became entrenched despite overwhelming evidence of harm, why it persists against scientific consensus, and what this reveals about American medicine’s inability to abandon lucrative practices even when they damage patients.
1. The Test’s Creator Calls It a “Public Health Disaster”
Richard Ablin discovered prostate-specific antigen in 1970 while researching cryosurgery’s effects on prostate tissue. He never intended PSA as a screening test for healthy men. The test cannot distinguish between the cancers that kill and those that remain harmless. Ablin has spent decades publicly denouncing mass screening, including a 2010 New York Times op-ed titled “The Great Prostate Mistake.”
Ablin compares PSA screening’s specificity to “a coin toss” – hardly the precision expected from a medical test that determines whether men undergo surgery or radiation. He testified before Congress, published papers, and gave countless lectures warning against screening’s misuse. The medical establishment ignored him. In his book, he writes that watching his discovery become “a hugely expensive public health disaster” has been “painful.” The man who found PSA receives angry emails from men whose lives were destroyed by unnecessary treatment triggered by elevated PSA levels.
2. 75% of Men with Elevated PSA Don’t Have Cancer
A PSA level above 4.0 triggers the treatment cascade, yet three-quarters of these men have no cancer. Infections, enlarged prostates, bicycle riding, and recent ejaculation all elevate PSA. The test measures inflammation as readily as malignancy. This 75% false positive rate means millions undergo invasive biopsies needlessly.
The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial found that 15% of men with PSA under 4.0 – the “normal” range – actually had prostate cancer, including aggressive forms. Meanwhile, only 25% with elevated PSA had cancer at all. No blood test with such poor specificity would gain approval today. Yet once PSA became standard practice, removing it from clinical use proved impossible despite its fundamental unreliability.
3. The $3 Billion Annual PSA Gold Rush
PSA screening generates at least $3 billion annually, with Medicare and the Veterans Administration covering most costs. Each abnormal PSA triggers a cascade: repeat tests, biopsies, imaging, surgery or radiation, plus years of follow-up. A single radical prostatectomy bills $15,000 to $30,000. Radiation therapy can exceed $50,000. These procedures require expensive equipment, specialized facilities, and teams of providers.
Hospital systems depend on this revenue stream. Urology practices built business models around screening and treatment. Medical device companies profit from surgical robots, radiation equipment, and biopsy tools. This economic ecosystem resists evidence showing most treatment is unnecessary. When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine screening in 2012, medical associations mobilized massive lobbying efforts to preserve the status quo. Money, not medicine, drives the screening machine.
4. 30 Million Tests, 1 Million Unnecessary Biopsies Per Year
Annual PSA screening of 30 million American men triggers approximately one million prostate biopsies. Since most elevated PSAs are false positives, at least 750,000 of these biopsies find no cancer. Each biopsy involves 12 to 18 needle cores punched through the rectal wall into the prostate. Serious infections requiring hospitalization occur in 1-4% of cases. Sepsis can be fatal.
Even negative biopsies don’t end the cascade. Urologists often recommend repeat biopsies for persistently elevated PSA, subjecting men to multiple rounds of needles, infection risk, and anxiety. Some undergo four, five, even six biopsies chasing ghost cancers that either don’t exist or would never threaten their lives. The psychological toll – months of fear between tests, the dread of results, the pressure to “do something” – devastates men and families. This suffering serves no medical purpose for the vast majority subjected to it.
5. The “Arbitrary” 4.0 Cutoff That Changed Everything
The PSA threshold of 4.0 ng/mL that triggers intervention was, according to New York Times reporting, chosen “just sort of arbitrarily.” William Catalona’s influential 1991 New England Journal of Medicine article established this cutoff without reporting false positive rates – a basic requirement for screening tests. The entire world adopted this number uncritically.
No scientific process determined that 4.0 represented a meaningful boundary between health and disease. The number could have been 3.0 or 5.0 or 6.5. Each choice would have swept millions more or fewer men into the treatment vortex. This arbitrary threshold, selected without rigorous validation, has determined the fate of millions. Men with 4.1 undergo biopsies while those with 3.9 are deemed safe, though this 0.2 difference has no biological significance. A random number became medical dogma, and challenging it meant confronting an entire industry built on its foundation.
6. 2,600 Post-Surgery Deaths at the 1992 Peak
Radical prostatectomy deaths peaked at 2,600 in 1992, five years after PSA screening exploded nationally. These men died from surgical complications – bleeding, infections, blood clots, anesthesia reactions. They underwent surgery for cancers that, in most cases, would never have threatened their lives. The operation killed them before their cancer could.
Anthony Horan documents how radical surgery was “revived without new evidence” in the 1980s after being largely abandoned. The combination of PSA screening and renewed surgical enthusiasm created a perfect storm. Thousands died on operating tables for a disease that grows so slowly most men die with it, not from it. These deaths represent only immediate surgical mortality – not the men who died months later from complications, or whose lives were shortened by surgical trauma. Each death was preventable had screening not detected their harmless cancers.
7. Radical Surgery Shows No Survival Benefit Over Watchful Waiting
Two randomized controlled trials reported in 2012 found no difference in cancer-specific mortality between radical surgery and watchful waiting. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) followed 731 men for up to 15 years. The Scandinavian trial tracked men for over 20 years. Both reached the same conclusion: surgery doesn’t save lives compared to monitoring.
These studies destroyed the rationale for early detection. If removing the entire prostate doesn’t extend life compared to doing nothing, then finding cancer early serves no purpose except to subject men to treatment side effects. The medical establishment largely ignored these findings. Surgery rates declined modestly but remained far higher than evidence justified. Mark Scholz writes that these studies should have “removed the rationale for early diagnosis with PSA” entirely. Instead, the industry adapted its messaging while continuing essentially unchanged.
8. The FDA Approval Based on 3.8% Detection Rate
The FDA approved PSA for screening in 1994 based primarily on a study showing it could detect 3.8% more cancers than digital rectal examination. This marginal improvement became justification for testing millions annually. The agency relied heavily on this single statistic while downplaying false positive rates and overdiagnosis risks.
Alexander Baumgarten, one of FDA’s own expert advisers, warned officials: “Like Pontius Pilate, you cannot wash the guilt off your hands.” Susan Alpert, who directed FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation during approval, later acknowledged the decision’s problems. The agency never required studies showing screening actually saved lives or improved quality of life. This regulatory failure, approving a test based on detection rates rather than patient outcomes, enabled the disaster that followed. The FDA has never revisited its decision despite overwhelming evidence of harm.
9. Prostate Cancer Grows So Slowly Most Men Die WITH It, Not FROM It
Autopsy studies reveal that 30% of men in their 40s and 70% in their 70s have prostate cancer cells. Most never knew and were never affected. The cancer’s typical growth rate means decades pass between initial cellular changes and potential lethality. A 65-year-old diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer has less than 3% chance of dying from it within 15 years if left untreated.
Men diagnosed at 75 almost certainly will die of something else first – heart disease, stroke, other cancers. Yet screening doesn’t discriminate by age or life expectancy. Elderly men in nursing homes receive PSA tests and undergo biopsies. Some receive radiation or surgery in their 80s for cancers that could never outlive them. This fundamental biological reality – that most prostate cancers are clinically insignificant – undermines screening’s entire premise. Finding these cancers serves only to transform healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily.
10. The Biopsy Train: 18-Gauge Needles and Serious Infections
Modern prostate biopsy involves 12 to 18 hollow-bore needles, each 18-gauge in diameter, fired through the rectal wall. The needles extract tissue cores while potentially spreading bacteria from the bowel into the prostate and bloodstream. Fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria have made infections increasingly dangerous. Some men develop sepsis requiring intensive care.
Richard Ablin receives emails from men describing their biopsy experiences as “spinning out of control,” having “panic attacks,” and living in a “nightmare.” The procedure’s violence – needles punching through tissue, the sound of the spring-loaded gun, blood in urine and semen for weeks – traumatizes men regardless of results. Those with negative biopsies face pressure to repeat the procedure if PSA remains elevated. Some endure annual biopsies for years, each carrying infection risk, each failing to find cancer that likely isn’t there or doesn’t matter. The biopsy itself becomes a recurring assault that serves no medical purpose.
11. Incontinence and Impotence: The “Acceptable” Side Effects
Radical prostatectomy leaves 20-30% of men with permanent urinary incontinence requiring pads or diapers. Erectile dysfunction affects 60-80%, depending on age and surgical technique. These rates come from centers of excellence; community hospitals report worse outcomes. Surgeons routinely minimize these risks, calling them “acceptable” trade-offs for cancer treatment.
For men whose cancers would never have threatened them – the majority who undergo surgery – these side effects represent pure harm. They lose sexual function and bladder control to treat a disease that required no treatment. Their marriages suffer. Depression is common. Some become recluses, afraid to leave home without knowing bathroom locations. The medical profession’s casual acceptance of these devastating outcomes reflects a stunning disregard for quality of life. No other medical specialty would tolerate routinely destroying normal function to treat non-threatening conditions.
12. PSA Isn’t Even Prostate-Specific
Despite its name, prostate-specific antigen isn’t specific to the prostate. Breast tissue produces PSA – it’s a normal component of breast milk. Salivary glands make it. Some lymphomas produce PSA. Women have measurable PSA levels. This basic biological fact undermines the test’s fundamental premise.
Anthony Horan notes he personally reported PSA production in B-cell lymphomas. The protein’s presence throughout the body means elevated levels can reflect numerous non-prostatic processes. Yet the medical establishment treats PSA as if it were a precise prostate cancer marker. This scientific sloppiness – naming and using a test based on false assumptions about specificity – exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy underlying mass screening. If PSA were discovered today with current knowledge, it would never be approved for screening healthy men.
13. The Veterans Administration’s Role in the Screening Epidemic
The Veterans Administration extensively promoted and funded PSA screening, making it routine for millions of veterans. The VA’s electronic medical records prompted doctors to order PSA tests, created quality metrics based on screening rates, and facilitated the treatment cascade. Veterans, trusting their government healthcare, underwent screening at higher rates than the general population.
The VA spent billions on screening, biopsies, and treatment. Veterans suffered disproportionately from overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Many underwent surgery or radiation at VA hospitals with limited experience in these procedures, likely experiencing higher complication rates. The government that sent these men to war later subjected them to medical harm through systematic overscreening. Only after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation did the VA begin moderating its approach, too late for hundreds of thousands of veterans already harmed.
14. Why Urologists Can’t Stop Screening Despite the Evidence
Urologists understand the evidence against screening yet continue promoting it. Professional self-interest explains this cognitive dissonance. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment represent major revenue sources for urology practices. Academic urologists depend on prostate cancer research grants. Professional status derives from surgical volume and technical expertise in procedures that shouldn’t be performed.
Mark Scholz describes the “surgeon personality” that sees every problem as requiring surgical solution. Urologists train for years to perform radical prostatectomies. Abandoning these procedures means acknowledging that much of their training and practice caused unnecessary harm. The psychological and economic barriers to accepting screening’s failure prove insurmountable. Even urologists who privately acknowledge the problem continue participating in the system. Professional conferences feature token debates about screening while exhibit halls showcase million-dollar surgical robots. The specialty cannot reform itself when its economic survival depends on perpetuating harm.
15. Active Surveillance Works for 99% of Low-Risk Cases
Multiple studies demonstrate that active surveillance – monitoring without immediate treatment – works for virtually all low-risk prostate cancers. Memorial Sloan Kettering reported that fewer than 1% of men on surveillance die from prostate cancer over 15 years. Johns Hopkins found similar results. These men avoid treatment side effects while maintaining the option to treat if their cancer progresses.
Despite this evidence, most men with low-risk disease still receive immediate treatment. Doctors present surveillance as “doing nothing” rather than an active management strategy. Patients fear leaving cancer untreated, not understanding their cancer’s indolent nature. The medical system’s financial incentives favor treatment over monitoring. Each patient choosing surveillance represents lost revenue. This proven alternative that could spare hundreds of thousands from unnecessary treatment remains underutilized because it threatens the economic foundation of prostate cancer care.
Conclusion
The PSA screening disaster exposes American medicine’s darkest impulses: the primacy of profit over patient welfare, the persistence of harmful practices despite overwhelming evidence, and the medical establishment’s inability to acknowledge error. Thirty years of mass screening has transformed millions of healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily, subjecting them to treatments that left many incontinent, impotent, or dead.
The men who exposed this scandal from within – Richard Ablin who discovered PSA, Anthony Horan who practiced urology during screening’s rise, Mark Scholz who treats screening’s victims – deserve recognition for their courage in challenging their profession’s orthodoxy. Their accounts reveal not isolated mistakes but systematic failure: arbitrary thresholds adopted without validation, regulatory approval based on minimal evidence, and an entire medical specialty economically dependent on perpetuating harm. Until American medicine can abandon lucrative practices that damage patients, the PSA disaster will repeat in other forms, with other tests, harming other victims who trusted their doctors to first do no harm.
References
Ablin, Richard J., with Ronald Piana. The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Horan, Anthony H. The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam. 3rd ed. Broomfield, CO: On the Write Path Publishing, 2019.
Scholz, Mark, and Ralph H. Blum. Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: An Essential Guide to Managing Prostate Cancer for Patients and Their Families. Revised ed. New York: Other Press, 2021.
Is the Psychiatric Drugging of Children a Form of Child Abuse?
A case that becomes harder to dismiss the longer you look
By Dr. Roger McFillin | Radically Genuine | December 18, 2025
Let me be direct about something before we go any further.
We call them psychiatric “medications.” We say children are being “medicated” for their “conditions.” This language is a lie.
These are drugs. Chemical compounds made in a factory. They do not correct any known abnormality. They do not heal anything. They are not medicinal in any meaningful sense of the word. They are chemicals that alter brain function that numb, restrict, and sedate.
We need to stop hiding behind medical language that implies these interventions are “therapeutic” and healing. They are not. They are chemical management of behavior with the potential for severe health consequences. Once we are honest about what we are actually doing to children, the ethical questions become unavoidable.
The Question We Must Answer
I have spent fifteen years in private practice as a clinical psychologist. Before that, I worked in psychiatric hospitals, community mental health, public schools and the juvenile justice system. I have watched what we do to young people in the name of treatment, and it’s a moral and ethical failure.
Federal law defines child abuse as “any act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm” or “an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
The question I want to pose is straightforward: Does the prescription of mind-altering and mood-altering drugs, which carry significant potential for harm and frequently cause it, meet this legal definition?
I believe it does. Here is why.
Rationale #1: No Identifiable or Measurable Biological Foundation for Mental Disorders Exists
If we could identify a biological abnormality that a drug effectively corrects, we would have reasonable justification for the risks involved. We could measure responses empirically and adjust treatment accordingly.
But no such abnormality has been identified. Not for ADHD. Not for depression. Not for anxiety. Not for any psychiatric diagnosis given to children.
Psychiatric diagnoses fail the most basic standards of scientific measurement. They lack both reliability and validity.
Reliability means consistency. If a diagnostic system is reliable, different clinicians evaluating the same child should arrive at the same diagnosis. This does not happen in psychiatry. Studies repeatedly demonstrate that clinicians disagree at alarming rates. One psychiatrist sees ADHD. Another sees anxiety. A third sees oppositional defiant disorder. The same child, the same behaviors, wildly different labels depending on who is in the room. Field trials for the DSM-5 found that many diagnoses failed to reach acceptable reliability thresholds. The system cannot even produce consistent results.
Validity means the diagnosis corresponds to something real and distinct in the world. A valid diagnosis identifies a specific condition with a known cause, predictable course, and targeted treatment. Psychiatric diagnoses meet none of these criteria. There are no biomarkers. No lab tests. No imaging findings. No way to confirm or disconfirm the diagnosis through objective measurement. These categories were created by committees of psychiatrists voting on clusters of behaviors. They are descriptive labels masquerading as medical diagnoses.
The honest history is this: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was developed primarily to facilitate insurance billing within the broader healthcare system. It provided codes so that psychiatrists could be reimbursed like other physicians. The appearance of medical legitimacy was the point. Scientific validity was never established because it was never the priority.
The chemical imbalance theory has been formally abandoned. The former director of the National Institute of Mental Health publicly stated that psychiatric diagnoses lack scientific validity. Yet physicians continue telling parents their children have brain disorders based on no objective test whatsoever.
Consider the psychological impact on a child who begins to identify with a psychiatric label. They internalize the message that something is fundamentally wrong with how they think and feel. They believe they are different from other children. They conclude they need drugs to be normal.
Is this not a form of emotional harm?
Any genuine medical disease underlying psychiatric symptoms would be reclassified as a medical condition. If obsessive-compulsive symptoms stem from a streptococcal infection, we treat the infection with antibiotics. If attention problems result from nutritional deficiencies, we address the deficiencies through diet and supplementation.
When we affix psychiatric labels to children without objective confirmation, we drug them with chemicals that cause significant adverse effects and health concerns.
Rationale #2: No Psychiatric Drug Has Been Proven to Objectively Improve the Assigned Mental Disorder
I have spent fifteen years studying psychiatric drug trials, the FDA approval process, and the mechanisms through which these chemicals reach the market. What I have learned disturbs me deeply.
These trials typically last six to twelve weeks. Researchers measure effectiveness through symptom checklists, quantifying whether reported symptoms decrease. The critical problem is that many of these drugs primarily induce emotional numbing or sedation. A person who feels disconnected from their emotions will report fewer symptoms on a checklist. This is not the same as improvement.
The objective is to create enough of a drug effect to generate a statistical difference compared to placebo. That statistical variance should not be mistaken for evidence that a drug treats depression or stabilizes mood. By the same logic, alcohol could be considered an approved treatment for social anxiety.
Pharmaceutical companies have encountered significant challenges demonstrating that antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs outperform placebos in meaningful ways. The illusion that we possess effective pharmacological treatments for childhood emotional and behavioral challenges must be dispelled.
If we are honest about what happens in clinical practice, the primary approach involves attempting to induce emotional numbness and detachment in developing children. This truth is rarely communicated to families.
I hear the same descriptions from young people in my practice over and over. “I feel like a zombie.” “I feel nothing.” “I cannot cry anymore.” “I do not feel like myself.”
This is not treatment. This is chemical suppression of the full range of human emotion in a developing brain. And we call it medicine.
Rationale #3: Psychiatric Drugs Are Proven to Create Harm
Every psychiatric drug approved for children carries a substantial list of side effects. Many are severe. Some are potentially fatal.
Do you want to know the long term effects? Well so do I! However, if you fail to study the long term problems of a drug you do not have to report on it.
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, the most commonly prescribed class of drugs for childhood anxiety and mood disorders, carry a black box warning. This represents the most stringent cautionary label the FDA can issue. The purpose of black box warnings is to alert the public and healthcare providers to grave side effects, including risks of injury or death.
The FDA requires black box warnings when compelling evidence indicates a drug can trigger severe adverse reactions, when benefits do not outweigh risks, when the drug requires restricted usage to protect public safety, or when the drug poses heightened dangers to specific populations, including children.
The black box warning on SSRIs states that these drugs increase suicidality in children and adolescents.
I need you to fully absorb that statement. The drugs most commonly prescribed to treat depression in young people can increase their desire to end their own lives.
I have witnessed this pattern repeatedly in clinical practice. A teenager who was struggling but stable starts an antidepressant. Within weeks, they are engaging in self-harm. They are making suicide plans. They are hospitalized.
In the hospital, the response is often to adjust the drug or add another. The adverse reaction becomes evidence of how sick they truly were.
Within clinical settings, physicians frequently combine drugs in ways that have never been adequately studied. Polypharmacy in pediatric psychiatry is common practice, not the exception. The combinations given to children have often never been evaluated even in adult populations.
This is experimentation. It is conducted on those least able to advocate for themselves.
Rationale #4: Psychiatric Drug Reactions Are Misinterpreted as Mental Disorders, Leading to More Diagnoses and More Drugs
This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of the current system. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle that transforms episodic struggles into chronic disability.
The pattern begins when a physician attributes emotional or behavioral challenges to a simplistic chemical imbalance. Drugs are prescribed that alter brain chemistry and can create genuine neurological changes. When the child displays adverse reactions, these responses are interpreted as manifestations of mental illness.
The misinterpretation becomes justification for additional drugs, additional diagnoses, and further deterioration.
A child enters the system because her parents are divorcing and she is sad. Understandable. Her world has been disrupted. She is prescribed an antidepressant. It makes her agitated and unable to sleep. A second drug is added for the agitation. That causes weight gain and lethargy. A stimulant is added to counteract the lethargy. The stimulant triggers anxiety. A benzodiazepine is added for the anxiety.
Within a few years, this child is taking five psychiatric drugs. She has accumulated diagnoses of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. She has been hospitalized. She has dropped out of school. She believes she is fundamentally broken and will need psychiatric management for the rest of her life.
She did not have five psychiatric disorders. She had one: an adverse reaction to psychiatric drugs that was misinterpreted at every turn.
This system transforms episodic and even typical variations in behavior into chronic disabilities. It creates the very conditions it claims to treat.
This Is Child Abuse
I use this language deliberately.
When we label children with psychiatric disorders based on no objective biological evidence, we cause emotional harm.
When we prescribe drugs that carry black box warnings for suicidality, that cause neurological changes, sexual dysfunction, metabolic disruption, and emotional blunting, we cause physical harm.
When we interpret adverse drug reactions as evidence of worsening mental illness and respond with additional drugs, we perpetuate harm.
When we transform children experiencing normal human responses to difficult circumstances into lifelong psychiatric patients, we cause profound harm to their identity, their development, and their future.
The fact that this occurs in medical settings does not change what it is.
The fact that it is performed by credentialed professionals does not change what it is.
The fact that insurance covers it does not change what it is.
We are systematically harming children while calling it care. And until we name it clearly, nothing will change.
AWAKEN
I would not have dedicated my career to exposing these problems if I did not believe alternatives exist.
Children do not need to be diagnosed and drugged. They need to be understood.
Anxiety is not a disorder. It is information. A child’s nervous system communicates that something requires attention in their environment, their relationships, their nutrition, their sleep, their sense of safety and belonging. Many need to LEARN how to face and tolerate fear, uncertainty and anxiety provoking situations. It’s part of the journey.
Address the root causes. Create genuine safety. Build authentic connection. Teach skills for understanding and navigating difficult emotions. Support the family system. Examine what the child is eating, how they are sleeping, whether they are moving their bodies, whether they have purpose and meaning. If you are on your phone for 8 plus hours a day I guarantee you are going to be miserable. You do not have a genetic condition called “Major Depressive Disorder” and “ADHD”.
We have collectively lost our minds.
I have watched children labeled treatment-resistant transform when we stopped drugging their symptoms and started addressing their lives. Not occasionally. Repeatedly. Consistently.
The psychiatric system does not want families to know this is possible. Healthy children do not generate recurring revenue.
But it is possible. And families deserve to know.
A Challenge
If you are a prescriber who puts developing children on psychiatric drugs without exhausting other options, without providing genuine informed consent about the risks, without a clear plan for eventual discontinuation, I ask you to reconsider what you are participating in.
If you are a parent who was told your child has a brain disease requiring lifelong medication, please know that you were not given accurate information. Seek other opinions. Explore other approaches. Your child’s future may depend on it.
If you are a young person who was drugged into compliance and told there was something fundamentally wrong with you, I want you to hear this: There was not. There is not. You were a human being having a human experience within a system that profits from your suffering.
The psychiatric drugging of children is one of the defining moral failures of our era. I will continue saying so until something changes.
An Israeli role in the Trump-Epstein files controversy?
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 2, 2026
Given the gravity of the newly emerging evidence about US President Donald Trump’s connections to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, many questions are now being posed about the implications of this case on the American leader’s conduct. Of specific concern is whether the Israelis have any hand in influencing Washington in this matter.
Although the recent groundbreaking revelations, proving Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with the Israeli regime, have been completely ignored by the Western corporate media, the facts are the facts. Long branded nothing more than “conspiracy theories”, leaked documents, first obtained by the Handala hacker group, prove that amongst other affiliations, the infamous child sex trafficker and financer had made efforts to help former Israeli Premier, Ehud Barak, to overthrow the then Syrian government.
These documents, reported upon only in the independent media, should raise alarm bells about just how far the Israeli rabbit hole goes. It is clear by now that Epstein himself was a staunch supporter of the Israeli regime, maintained close ties to it and its officials, even going as far as helping to draft op-eds for a former Israeli Prime Minister.
On the other hand, as more information emerges about Donald Trump’s relationship with the infamous pedophile financier, the potential implications for his role grow increasingly serious. Trump, for his part, has throughout this year decided to shrug off the Epstein Files issue, arguing that it is a “hoax” and snapping at reporters when the issue is brought up. The American President has also claimed that it is mainly Democrats who were guilty in this case, an allegation he makes when he isn’t labelling it a “Democrat hoax”.
Trump’s usual antics of pivoting to blame “the Democrats” aren’t paying off for him in this instance however, as his base quarrel with the facts that continue to emerge. For example, back in 2024, Trump had claimed that “I was never on Epstein’s plane”, only for this to be disproven later. More recently, it was revealed that he had been on board the child sex trafficker’s plane far more times than previously believed.
Evidently, there is not enough evidence to deem the US President actually guilty and lock him in jail, but the documents do indeed beg further questions to say the least. For example, a letter was recently released, handwritten by Epstein and addressed to convicted child molester Larry Nassar, in which he wrote of Trump that he ‘shares our love for young, nubile girls’.
There was even a document alleging that Trump and Epstein had raped a girl. Although the Department Of Justice (DOJ) has downplayed the claim, said to date back decades, the allegation is made more disturbing by reports that the alleged victim was later found dead. While there is no way to substantiate this accusation, it doesn’t exactly look good for the President.
There are currently countless theories being spread about the Trump-Epstein case, one of the most popular is that the US President was caught up in a blackmail scheme. For this specific allegation, there is no documented evidence. Yet, it is certainly a natural conclusion to come to.
At the very least, it would certainly suit Israeli interests to leverage the negative press surrounding the Epstein Files to push the President into conceding to further demands, or even use the issue as media coverage for their own aggressive actions.
Although this theory is currently unproven, if the Israeli intelligence or even US intelligence, had any knowledge of the Epstein Files, or had managed to collect incriminating material from the pro-Israeli child sex trafficker, they could certainly be willing to use that information to their benefit. The worst-case scenario here would be that the theories regarding Epstein being a Mossad agent, used to secure blackmail on power people, is true, then that would certainly mean that the US is in for a world of trouble.
Unproven theories aside, the evidence is certainly shocking and it is clear that Epstein did indeed have ties to Israelis, while Trump’s campaign was bankrolled by a who’s who of Zionist Billionaire’s, including the infamous Miriam Adelson. In less than a year, Trump had already bombed Iran, fought a small war against Yemen, cracked down on his own people’s First Amendment rights, while implementing a vision for Gaza that makes him the de facto dictator there and uses US forces to do the dirty work of the Israelis.
If anything, Donald Trump has shown himself to be an extremely weak President, one that is easily bullied into submission, so even without the Epstein Files, he has been willing to toss the American Constitution and International Law in the bin. All of this does beg the question as to whether the Israelis will be able to effectively weaponize the Epstein debacle to their favor and extract their demands.
The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
By Alan Mosley |The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025
Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?
The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.
A law that leaves little wiggle room
In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.
The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.
Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance
By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.
Congress’ options, and why they seldom work
Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.
Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.
What accountability looks like
Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.
Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.
Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 30, 2025
Epstein’s connections with British and Israeli intelligence were facilitated by a key figure known as Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine, Jeffrey’s wife.
Robert Maxwell was one of the most controversial media moguls of the 20th century: a Holocaust survivor who enlisted in the British army, he became a publishing tycoon, a Labour MP, and a figure at the center of financial scandals and alleged links to various secret services, including MI6 and Mossad. His biography intertwines his very poor origins, his meteoric rise, his relationships with heads of state, and, after his death at sea in 1991, the discovery of enormous fraud involving his companies’ pension funds.
Born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch in 1923 in Slatinské Doly (now Solotvyno, Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia, into an Orthodox Yiddish-speaking Jewish family, he emigrated to Great Britain during World War II and fought in the British army.
After the war, he entered scientific publishing and founded Pergamon Press, transforming it into a major publisher of technical and academic texts, the basis of his future media empire.
By the 1980s, he controlled a vast empire: Maxwell Communication Corp, Pergamon, Macmillan, the Daily Mirror tabloid, and other publications in the UK and abroad, in direct competition with Rupert Murdoch.
He died on November 5, 1991, after falling from his yacht Lady Ghislaine off the coast of the Canary Islands. After his death, it emerged that he had diverted hundreds of millions of pounds from the Mirror Group’s pension funds to cover financial shortfalls.
So… He sold textbooks to American schools. He rubbed shoulders with kings, queens, presidents, and popes. And, away from the spotlight, he may have contributed to the activities of one of the world’s most secretive intelligence agencies, engaged in surveilling half the planet. To some, he was a brilliant innovator; to others, an unscrupulous impostor.
For his daughter Ghislaine—whose later life would become intertwined with that of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein—he was the man who opened the doors to high society and perhaps, unwittingly, to future ruin. Maxwell rose to the top to become a powerful media entrepreneur in the UK, building an empire comparable to that of Rupert Murdoch.
When he founded Pergamon Press, an academic publishing house specializing in history and science textbooks distributed in US schools, often criticized for a pro-Israel stance consistent with Maxwell’s strong Zionism, his competitors would not have expected such success.
In 1984, he bought the Daily Mirror, transforming it into a giant of popular journalism. At the height of his expansion, he controlled Maxwell Communication Corporation, Macmillan, Pergamon, and numerous international newspapers. Ghislaine, his favorite daughter, was educated at Oxford, prepared for the salons of the elite, and often at his side at social events in London and New York. Maxwell was photographed in the company of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher, and even Mother Teresa. Other images show him alongside US Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Several sources indicate that the British Foreign Office suspected Maxwell of being a double or triple agent, with links to MI6, the Soviet KGB, and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad… My source, whom I consulted while writing this text, confirms his membership in the British services, with a key role in relations with companies and other agencies, particularly with regard to activities involving politicians (American but not only).
Maxwell moved with ease between the White House, the Kremlin, Downing Street, and the political leaders of France, Germany, and Israel, something that is not at all easy, nor “comfortable” to maintain.
In the 1960s, he served two terms as a Labour MP for Buckingham, while leading an extremely luxurious lifestyle. At his residence in Headington Hill, near Oxford, he organized lavish parties which, according to persistent rumors, were used as seductive traps to gather compromising information on influential figures.
The most serious allegations link him to the PROMIS software scandal, which we discussed in Chapter 3 of our Saga.
Originally a program of the U.S. Department of Justice, PROMIS was allegedly stolen, modified with an Israeli “back door,” and then distributed to numerous intelligence agencies, armed forces, and companies around the world, allowing Israel to monitor virtually every country that used it. According to various whistleblowers, including former Israeli agent Ari Ben-Menashe, Robert Maxwell allegedly served as the main global promoter of this digital Trojan horse. These allegations are partly corroborated by circumstantial evidence: strong support for Israel, business in sensitive sectors, close ties to Israeli leadership, and a state funeral in Israel in 1991, attended by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, President Chaim Herzog, and senior intelligence officials, with public praise that Maxwell “did more for Israel than can be said.”
The last years of his life were marked by financial collapse. After his death, investigators discovered a £460 million hole in the Mirror Group’s pension fund. Maxwell had stolen his own employees’ pension savings to support an empire now submerged in debt. His sons Ian and Kevin Maxwell were arrested and charged with fraud (and later acquitted), while the British public exploded with anger at the betrayal of thousands of pensioners.
Overnight, Maxwell went from being a respected tycoon to a hated figure. Protesters renamed him “Robber Bob.”
On November 5, 1991, he disappeared from his 180-foot yacht off the Canary Islands. He was found dead a few hours later, face up in the ocean. The official version spoke of a heart attack followed by accidental drowning. His daughter, however, believed he had been murdered.
The autopsy revealed that Maxwell already suffered from serious heart and lung conditions.
He was given a state funeral in Israel, attended by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and numerous intelligence officials.
Epstein met Ghislaine Maxwell in the 1990s, and their relationship began as a brief romantic affair before turning into a very intense professional and personal alliance. Ghislaine became Epstein’s chief assistant, managing his properties, organizing his staff, and playing a central role in recruiting victims for sexual abuse.
The ties with his father, Robert, were important from the outset, although perhaps even more so after his death: Epstein was introduced to Mr. Maxwell’s circle thanks to the family’s contacts and networks. A reconstruction reported by the Telegraph in 2022 claims that Epstein may have helped Robert Maxwell hide some of the money stolen from the Mirror Group’s pension funds using offshore channels.
Robert was instrumental in introducing Epstein to the world of Israeli intelligence, where he was also able to make his own way.
The source consulted, who comes from the world of intelligence, revealed to me that Ghislaine is also central to this story: following in her father’s footsteps, she made her way into British and Israeli intelligence, weaving relationships, cover stories, and favors for her beloved Jeffrey.
After all, what could be better than marrying the daughter of a “spy” with the guarantee of inheriting his “legacy”? Without Ghislaine, Epstein would not have had access to many of the VIPs with whom he established regular relationships, and above all, he would not have had the cover necessary to operate undisturbed for many years.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 3, Those friends in the Secret Service
Someone has to do the dirty work
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 28, 2025
One piece of information that emerged from the declassified material is seemingly marginal, but nonetheless colorful: a T-shirt from Mossad, one of Israel’s secret services. The press immediately began to label dear Jeffrey a secret agent, without further exploring the reasons for a T-shirt in the closet. While waiting for the next documents to be made public, we will now outline some interpretations regarding that ambiguous T-shirt.
Let’s start with some historical context. The idea that Epstein was connected to Mossad first arose in the 2000s in investigative and alternative circles, but it gained strength after his arrest in 2019 and, above all, after his death in prison, when the public struggled to explain how he had been able to operate almost undisturbed for decades. Commentators and journalists note that, historically, Israeli intelligence has used economic and political networks of influence, creating a context in which Epstein—rich, with access to global elites and involved in sexual blackmail—appears plausible as an “asset.”
Towards the end of 2025, several investigations based on the analysis of leaked or recently released documents—including House Oversight Committee materials and email archives—were revisited and discussed as evidence of repeated contacts between Epstein and Israeli circles, as well as travel patterns and financial flows considered atypical. CNN reported that journalists sifted through more than 23,000 pages of documents and thousands of email threads as part of this broader examination. According to commentators and newspapers that have republished these materials, they reveal “extensive collaboration with Israeli intelligence” or, at the very least, frequent interactions with figures linked to intelligence circles.
Numerous articles refer to personal and financial ties—meetings, communications, and alleged references to money transfers—between Epstein and high-level Israeli figures, particularly former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as entries in diaries and emails that investigators say warrant attention. Common Dreams and some investigative series have highlighted recurring patterns of interaction between Epstein and Barak and have claimed that Israeli operatives or collaborators were long-time visitors to Epstein’s properties; however, the exact origin and interpretation of these documents remain disputed.
Proponents of the Mossad connection hypothesis describe Epstein as a recruited asset or honey trap operative tasked with gathering compromising material for leverage. This narrative, long present in various articles, has been further amplified by partisan commentators and media outlets. Some websites and opinion makers explicitly claim a connection to Mossad, arguing that Epstein’s network of relationships and the alleged presence of Israeli operatives in his residences are typical of intelligence practices.
Prominent Israeli figures have strongly rejected these claims. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—who has stated that he had the Mossad under his direct command during his term—has called the idea that Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad” “categorically and totally false.” Mainstream publications such as Newsweek and Times of Israel have highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence indicating that Epstein was a formal Mossad agent and have warned against conspiracy theories, which are sometimes intertwined with anti-Semitic stereotypes.
The resonance of the issue has been uneven and often linked to different political orientations: some progressive investigative outlets have insisted on pursuing the story, while conservative figures and commentators have sometimes exploited the accusation for political purposes. Critics warn that this encourages conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic narratives to be used opportunistically. It should also be noted that Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have on some occasions emphasized media coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel for domestic political messages, making it more difficult to analyze the motivations.
But that’s not all.
Funds for all
On September 2, 2025, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna shook public opinion with explosive statements made after meeting with some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors during a press conference in Congress: “After speaking with Epstein’s victims today, it is clear that this story is much bigger than anyone could have imagined: rich and powerful people must go to prison. It is possible that Epstein was an asset of a foreign intelligence service.” Her words, captured on video, sparked a media storm: Was Epstein just a predator or something more? Was he perhaps an agent of the Israeli Mossad, tasked with ensnaring global elites for Zionist political purposes? The clues are disturbing and form a picture too coherent to be ignored. In 2025, amid leaks, transcripts, and denials, the time has come to address the issue openly.
The apparatus built by Epstein may still exercise influence on the upper echelons of power today. Steven Hoffenberg, his partner in the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, went even further. Before his death in 2022, he told reporters that Epstein had confided in him about direct links to Mossad, attributing his wealth and access to high society circles to these contacts. Hoffenberg, who ended up in prison while Epstein remained free, had nothing to gain by lying, if anything, a score to settle.
Then there is the testimony of Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s first victims (identified as Jane Doe 200 in court documents). Farmer described Epstein’s network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail scheme linked to the Mega Group, a private circle of pro-Israel billionaires. She also recounted episodes of racial abuse, pointing to Les Wexner as a central figure. Three independent voices—Ben-Menashe, Hoffenberg, and Farmer—all converge on the Mossad. Coincidence or hidden agenda?
The source of Epstein’s fortune remains unclear. How can a former college student become a billionaire with only one known client? Following the financial flows, the connection to Israel appears clear. Les Wexner, magnate of Victoria’s Secret and co-founder of the Mega Group, gave Epstein a $77 million New York mansion — equipped with a sophisticated surveillance system — as well as large sums of money. The Mega Group, created by Wexner and Charles Bronfman, is known for financing pro-Israel causes. Epstein’s financial career began in 1976 at Bear Stearns, thanks to Alan Greenberg, also a member of the Mega Group, despite Epstein having no credentials other than a background as a physics teacher. We are talking about $77 million.
Court documents indicate that Epstein received over 7,000 wire transfers, some linked to arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who in turn was associated with Mossad networks. Ben-Menashe claims that Epstein was involved in Israeli arms trafficking. A 2025 private investigation, conducted by hedge funds linked to the Epstein case, speculates that a substantial portion of his wealth came from Israeli funding. Not charity, but the financing of an intelligence operation.
Epstein’s circle looks like a list of intelligence targets. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak visited Epstein’s residence dozens of times between 2013 and 2017, as records and photographs show. The two were also involved in founding Carbyne, a technology company with numerous former members of Israeli intelligence. Leaked emails show Epstein connecting Barak with Russian and Israeli figures. In 2004, Barak received $2 million from the Wexner Foundation for unspecified “research” activities. Barak denies any wrongdoing but admits that it was Shimon Peres who introduced him to Epstein.
Epstein possessed multiple passports—a typical feature of clandestine operations—and took refuge in Israel after the 2008 charges, before obtaining an extremely favorable plea bargain. In 2025, Tucker Carlson, during a very harsh speech, openly accused him of being a Mossad agent. Why would so many Israeli officials associate with a sex offender if he were not a strategic asset?
The 2008 plea bargain, which secured Epstein a lenient sentence, is perhaps the most revealing element. Former prosecutor Alexander Acosta later stated, “I was told that Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and that I should drop it.” The agreement also protected accomplices in several states, safeguarding a network that victims, such as Virginia Giuffre, have described as a kompromat factory, with hidden cameras ready to record politicians and powerful figures in compromising situations. This practice is reminiscent of techniques attributed to Mossad, as in the Robert Maxwell operations (which we will discuss in the next “chapter” of our Epstein Saga).
Epstein’s death in 2019, officially classified as suicide, appears to many to be a cover-up, with speculation of unofficial involvement by Israeli intelligence services. In 2025, the DOJ and FBI’s statement on the absence of a “client list” under the Trump administration — which had promised revelations that never came — only reinforced suspicions.
The pieces fit together: Epstein, introduced through Zionist networks, built a blackmail system aimed at influencing political and media decision-makers in a pro-Israel direction. Alleged links to PROMIS software (according to some sources modified by the NSA and Mossad for monitoring) and Palantir, an advanced surveillance company, add further layers of unease. Journalist Whitney Webb speaks openly of a “joint CIA-Mossad operation.” Ian Carroll goes even further, linking this network to events such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, identifying a common thread in the Israeli services.
It is true: Epstein’s network also involved Russia and Saudi Arabia. However, the Israeli connections—Wexner, Barak, Maxwell, Mega Group—appear predominant. Is there a lack of definitive evidence? Perhaps. But the smoke is so thick that it is difficult to ignore the fire.
Epstein’s survivors have just announced their intention to publish their own list of names: “We know who abused us. We saw who came and went. This list will be led by survivors, for survivors.”
The state hesitated. The victims did not.
Of course, Israeli authorities reject all accusations. Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer and a well-known supporter of Zionism, claims that Epstein would have laughed off the espionage allegations, arguing that he would have used such connections to get an even better deal. But these denials appear fragile in the face of testimony, financial flows, and political connections that all lead to the same conclusion: the Epstein operation has the flavor of an intelligence operation, and the trail leads straight to Tel Aviv.
The most damning evidence comes from those who knew Epstein from the inside, people who risked everything to speak out. Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence officer, claims that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a Mossad “honey trap” aimed at blackmailing the world’s elite. He claims to have met them in the 1980s while they were working in arms trafficking under the supervision of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father and a known Mossad collaborator who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Several Israeli prime ministers attended his funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy. A mere coincidence? Hard to believe.
Zelensky demands more money from Western backers
RT | December 28, 2025
The West is not providing Ukraine with sufficient financial and military support, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has complained, despite Kiev’s backers having already approved massive aid packages and loans.
In a post on Telegram on Friday, Zelensky lamented that “air defense is not enough now, weapons are not enough now,” adding that “frankly, there is a constant shortage of money, in particular, for the production of weapons and, most importantly, drones,” even despite a recent decision by the EU to provide Kiev with a huge loan.
“We need to be strong at the negotiating table. To be strong, we need the support of the world – Europe and the United States of America,” Zelensky added.
The appeal for additional funding comes as the EU approved this month a loan of €90 billion ($105 billion) to Kiev for 2026-2027, which will cost European taxpayers €3 billion ($3.5 billion) annually in borrowing costs. In addition, the bloc failed to agree on using frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine due to staunch opposition over overwhelming legal risks from several EU members, most notably Belgium, which holds most of the funds.
The loan is aimed at propping up the struggling Ukrainian economy, with the International Monetary Fund estimating that Ukraine will need approximately $160 billion for 2026 and 2027 combined. For 2026 alone, Ukraine’s parliament adopted a budget with a deficit of around $45 billion, or 18.5% of GDP. The financial conundrum has also been exacerbated by Ukraine’s endemic corruption.
On top of that, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior adviser to Zelensky, said this week that Ukraine cannot finance potential elections due to the budget deficit, stressing that Kiev should prioritize “militarization” efforts instead. Earlier this month, he also indicated that a vote could only take place provided the West steps in to cover the costs.
Commenting on Podoliak’s remarks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Kiev “resorts to all sorts of tricks” to obtain Western funding. Moscow has also warned the EU that any assistance for Kiev would be essentially covered by ordinary taxpayers.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 1, Mr. Clinton
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
A necessary introduction
I don’t usually write about these topics, but this time the matter is becoming interesting. The Epstein case is a Pandora’s box that reveals many power intrigues and the workings of certain geopolitical mechanisms currently in operation. For this reason, I will devote a series of articles – the Epstein Saga – to exploring some relevant aspects of this complicated affair.
First of all, it should be noted that the sources have been flawed, at least in part, from the outset. The files officially released by the US Department of Justice are mostly insignificant photographs, a large amount of .pdf files of what was found in Epstein’s residence; most of the files are obscured, with black stripes or squares concealing the identities and significant details of the material. This makes it very difficult to interpret the available material correctly and comprehensively.
The intent, however, is not to provide an exhaustive report on the entire affair—a task we gladly leave to investigative journalists—but rather to provoke reflection on the short- and long-term strategy behind this case.
The release of these files is part of a plan whose importance we still do not understand. It is a transformation taking place throughout the West, a transition from an old world of politics to a new one, through the fall of many masks.
The biggest problem, however, remains what will come next.
The context: what is happening these days
The most recent documents published on the Epstein case, in December 2025, include thousands of new records, photos, and investigative files from the Department of Justice and the House Oversight Committee. These documents contain images of prominent figures linked to Epstein, details of his travels and properties, grand jury transcripts, and investigative reports, including a 1996 FBI complaint about alleged child pornography and harassment. Many of the files have been heavily redacted to protect victims, but some pages have been completely blacked out, drawing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for the lack of transparency.
Among the new revelations are photos of Epstein’s Little St. James Island, emails from his estate referring to high-profile figures, and a previously missing minute of video from his cell block before his death. The release also includes a transcript and audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as additional court documents and flight logs. The Department of Justice has stated that several hundred thousand documents will be released in batches, with more expected in the coming weeks.
Some documents, including a photo associated with President Trump, were reportedly removed from the initial release, sparking further controversy and calls for full transparency. The latest batch of documents continues to fuel public and political debate about the responsibility and scope of Epstein’s network.
Hey, Bill!
The first person worth mentioning is former US President Bill Clinton.
In one photograph, he is sitting on a private jet, smiling relaxed and his face slightly flushed, while a young blonde woman is reclining on the armrest of his chair. In another shot, he appears reclining, shirtless, in a hot tub, his hands clasped behind his head; the face of the person next to him is covered by a black box. In other images, he is seen smiling next to Mick Jagger, wearing a shirt and elegant jacket. In yet another, he is swimming in a luxurious marble-lined indoor pool with Ghislaine Maxwell, a key figure in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization. And then, smiling again, he is wearing a decorated silk shirt and standing side by side with Epstein himself.
The powerful American Democratic leader is undoubtedly one of the most mentioned VIPs in the Epstein documents. In the quarter-century since leaving office, Clinton has worked carefully to put the personal scandals that marked his presidency behind him. Today, at 79, he leads the typical life of a former statesman: traveling the world for conferences and commemorations, writing memoirs and political novels, and continuing the work of his philanthropic foundation. But that is not enough to escape the serious allegations that Epstein’s files quietly reveal, namely less institutional aspects of Clinton’s personality, such as his penchant for extramarital affairs, rash decisions, and a certain impulsiveness.
Already in 2017, Clinton had been at the center of numerous allegations, from sexual harassment to non-consensual exhibitionism to rape, allegations that Clinton has always denied. But what about now, with the files of the Epstein case?
In his memoir published in 2024, Clinton wrote that he had only two “brief encounters” with Epstein: one in his Harlem office and one at the financier’s New York residence. Between 2002 and 2003, Clinton admitted to flying several times on Epstein’s jet with his staff and Secret Service escort to support his foundation’s activities. In exchange for the flight, he explained, he devoted “an hour or two” to conversations about politics and economics.
“That was the content of our conversations,” he wrote. “Although those trips allowed me to visit foundation projects, getting on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questions that followed.”
The section closes with a sentence that is perhaps more revealing than the images themselves:
“I wish I had never met him.”
The Department of Justice has announced that additional documents will be made public in the coming weeks. The political aims of the first tranche of disclosures, however, appear clear: to shift attention away from Trump’s possible involvement in the scandal and focus the spotlight on Clinton instead.
The release of the images is unlikely to end Clinton’s political difficulties related to her relationship with Epstein. For months, the Clintons have tried to avoid appearing directly before the House Oversight Committee as part of the Epstein investigation. Such a hearing would be exceptional: no former president has testified before Congress since 1983, when Gerald Ford did so during the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution.
The publication of the photos could increase public pressure for the couple to participate openly in the investigation and reignite questions about Clinton’s version of events, according to which he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes and severed all ties after the first reports of the investigation emerged in 2005.
On several occasions, not only the allegations but also the accusers themselves have been brought to the forefront of the political scene: in 2016, less than two hours before the second presidential debate, Trump and his campaign manager, Stephen K. Bannon, organized an impromptu press conference with three women who claimed to have been discredited or ignored by the Clintons after reporting sexual harassment. In 2019, a few hours after Epstein’s death in his cell, Trump relaunched an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on social media linking Clinton to the financier’s death. Since then, Trump has continued to claim that Clinton spent a lot of time on Epstein’s private island, an accusation that the former president has always denied and that has also been refuted by Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, and Ghislaine Maxwell herself.
Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by several high-profile scandals, the most notable of which was the Monica Lewinsky affair. In the late 1990s, Clinton, then president of the United States, was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. After months of denials, Clinton finally admitted to having had “inappropriate intimate contact” with Lewinsky, calling it a personal failure and an error in judgment. His initial denials under oath led to accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate but remained deeply compromised by the scandal.
In addition to the Lewinsky affair, Clinton faced other controversies. The Whitewater scandal involved allegations of financial impropriety related to a failed real estate venture in Arkansas in which Clinton and his wife Hillary were investors. Although the investigation did not lead to criminal charges against the Clintons, it consumed much of Clinton’s second term and contributed to a climate of suspicion surrounding his administration.
Among Clinton’s accusers was Paula Jones, who filed a lawsuit against him in 1994 for sexual harassment. The former president settled the case out of court for $850,000 without admitting guilt. Other women, such as Kathleen Willey, have made similar allegations, although Clinton has always denied any wrongdoing.
However, it is not only Republicans who consider the allegations of sexual assault and harassment to be a political burden for Clinton. Even within the Democratic Party, although there has been no dramatic distancing, there has been a gradual attempt to relegate the former president to the background. His presence in election campaigns has been reduced compared to the past, with some candidates preferring to avoid him altogether. At the 2020 Democratic convention, Clinton appeared for less than five minutes in a pre-recorded speech broadcast before prime time. Four years later, he returned to the stage, speaking for 27 minutes, far exceeding the allotted time.
With the recent publication of the photographs, Clinton’s critics seem to have found a new foothold to reopen a chapter that the former president has long tried to close. And this is only the beginning of the uncovering of the rot present in the American Democratic world… as well as in the Republican one.
Bill Clinton is in the frame again, but this time it’s Trump who put him there
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
“The photos depict a web of unsavoury relationships and associations that complicate both Democratic efforts to keep the focus on Trump and the incumbent president’s desire to move on from the issue entirely,” reported the AP when the first major tranche of photos from the so-called Epstein files was released in mid-December.
Bill Clinton’s prominent appearance in the photos at least sheds some light on why Democrats, when in power, refused to lift the lid on the stinking Epstein affair—doing so would have been akin to shooting themselves in the foot, and Joe Biden obviously didn’t want to drop the Clintons in it.
Many might argue we shouldn’t be shocked to see Bill feature in this tawdry affair, given his reputation for an inability to control his carnal needs. The list of women he has been accused of assaulting is extensive, as are the lengths to which Hillary has gone to protect him.
Two things emerge from this latest batch of photos, which show Bill Clinton in close proximity to very young girls while spending time with Epstein. First, the Trump administration has decided that if the scandal is going to erupt, they might as well land the first political blow—and so they have reached for the lowest-hanging fruit: Bill. Second, the Clintons themselves will likely make a mockery of the entire corrupt U.S. political system by bypassing its legal institutions. They have already started this by ignoring congressional committee requests to appear and testify.
But in any case, the gloves are off. This is now outright war between Republicans and Democrats—and the latter will do everything in its power, using its deep contacts within institutions like the FBI, to get its hands on the Trump photos, which have, of course, been removed from the official release.
However, it is fair to say Clinton appears to have been even closer to Epstein than Trump was.
When Clinton was president, records show Epstein visited the White House multiple times. Later, after Clinton left office, Epstein assisted with some of the former president’s philanthropic efforts. Clinton flew multiple times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” including on a humanitarian trip to Africa in 2002 with disgraced actor Kevin Spacey and comedian Chris Tucker.
Even Democratic-leaning journalists in the U.S. note that Clinton’s personal weaknesses have always clashed with his public moralizing—and his association with Epstein serves as a stark reminder of that. This goes far beyond receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. It stretches back decades.
His 1992 campaign was rocked by rumours of an affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he denied at the time. His presidency was hit even harder when he was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice after denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He ultimately acknowledged an “inappropriate” affair with her.
Currently, it seems the pressure from Democrats to release the files—whether genuine or not—has backfired, as the trove of photos reveals numerous images of Clinton and Epstein together. In fact, these pictures of the two hanging out as old friends are arguably more damaging than the ones in which a young girl’s face has been pixelated—supposedly a DOJ initiative to “protect minors or victims.” That framing alone is a clean shot designed to hit its target, and for now, it is Clinton in the frame, facing media wrath even from traditionally Democratic-leaning outlets like CNN. Recently, conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings suggested the files should be renamed the “Clinton Files.”
Of course, simply being photographed next to Epstein is not a crime and could, in certain cases, reflect innocent proximity. A number of famous faces appear in the first batch of files—alongside Clinton and Prince Andrew, there are also shots of musicians Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson.
What’s important to note is that Bill Clinton is known to share the same sexual compulsions as Prince Andrew, whom a royal biographer recently remarked on a podcast “needed to have sex three times a day.” Epstein reportedly referred to Andrew as the only person as depraved as he was when it came to young women. Clinton, like Andrew, has a history that can’t be airbrushed away—and the photos of him with young girls are a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It stinks.
Naturally, that won’t stop Democrats from calling this stunt what it is: a well-timed smear ahead of the midterms, where Trump is expected to likely lose both houses of Congress. Failing quick-fix policies on the economy and foreign policy—which are having a doubly damaging effect—will hit Trump hard at the ballot box, potentially rendering him impotent in the second half of his term. How long he can maintain the farce that the Epstein story is empirically linked to the Democrats is uncertain, though it is worrying that a war in the Middle East against Iran looks increasingly likely to be used as a tool to deflect blame from his lacklustre performance as a populist leader—one struggling to help blue-collar Americans and restore the country’s former global hegemony.
EU country seizes gold and luxury watches from ex-Ukrainian prosecutor general – media
RT | December 23, 2025
The French authorities have seized gold bars, expensive watches, and other valuables from a former Ukrainian prosecutor general living in the country, according to local media.
A villa near Nice owned by Svyatoslav Piskun, who served as Ukraine’s top prosecutor in the 2000s, was reportedly raided in a joint Ukrainian-French operation last week. Details were reported on Monday by Ukraine’s Dzerkalo Tizhna (Weekly Mirror), citing a source familiar with the probe.
According to the outlet, Piskun failed to explain how he acquired 3kg of gold, roughly €90,000 ($106,000) in cash, and 18 luxury wristwatches valued at over $1 million. French authorities suspect him of money laundering, the outlet claimed.
Kiev’s State Investigation Bureau (DBR), which operates under the president’s office, reportedly requested and participated in the raid. Previous Ukrainian press reports suggest the action in France is linked to a case against oligarch Igor Kolomoysky, who has been held in pre-trial detention for over two years on multiple charges, including allegedly ordering a murder in 2003.
The oligarch, who played a key role in Vladimir Zelensky’s rise to power, as recently detailed in a special RT investigation, made widely-covered comments in November on a high-profile corruption scandal. He said Zelensky’s longtime associate, Timur Mindich, who was charged with running an extortion scheme, did not have the aptitude to be a criminal mastermind and was a patsy for the real perpetrators.
Earlier this month, Kolomoysky teased more remarks on the scandal during a court appearance, which was subsequently postponed twice. When proceedings occurred two weeks ago, he claimed Mindich was targeted by assassins in Israel – a claim Israeli authorities have not confirmed – with the hitman allegedly supplied with a weapon at the Ukrainian Embassy.
His lawyer announced that Kolomoysky would make statements on Tuesday – this time regarding the “approaches and methods” of the Western-backed Ukrainian agencies investigating Mindich and his alleged accomplices in the Ukrainian government.
RT published Part 2 of its Kolomoysky special last Thursday. You can read it here.
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guaido’s true colors: “President” to fix Venezuelan relations with Israel
By Jim Carey | Geopolitics Alert | February 13, 2019
Caracas – In an interview over the weekend, “interim President” of Venezuela Juan Guaido promised he would work on restoring relations with Israel.
Despite not actually having a government or being in any type of official position of power within Venezuela Juan Guaido is still somehow making big promises. Last week it was the promise to sell oil he doesn’t control to the US and this week he is setting foreign policy for a state, a military, and a diplomatic core that he doesn’t have.
Regardless of Juan Guaido’s material position, Israel has been more than willing to indulge in the US fantasy in Venezuela and was one of the early states to recognize the fraud as “interim President.” Now it seems Guaido is more than willing to repay the favor should he ever actually hold office.
Guaido made this promise in a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper where he told the interviewer that he was “very happy to announce that the process of stabilizing relations with Israel is in full swing.” While what exactly that means when you’re a President with no power is rather ambiguous, for some reason Guaido has said restoring relations “is very important for us.”
Regardless of all these factors, there are still several reasons the new President has made this a high priority. Even without any actual diplomatic staff recognized by the state, Guaidó has still been in contact with Israel and has even discussed opening a new Venezuelan embassy in Israel, saying it “is one of the subjects we are talking about.”
Another reason Guaidó claims he wants to restore relations with the Zionists is due to the fact that there “are many Venezuelans in Israel and many Jews in Venezuela.”
According to Guaidó, this Venezuelan Jewish community “is very active and prosperous”… continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina…
Aletho News- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
- Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
- Hamas: Netanyahu’s inclusion in ‘peace council’ threatens justice
- Report warns that ‘Jewish terrorism is out of control’ and could lead to major security escalation
- Lebanese Resistance will inevitably triumph: Former President Lahoud
- Iran: The Eurasian Lock
- Russian gas exports to China soar – data
- France seizes tanker ‘coming from Russia’
- European leaders’ shift in their Davos addresses exposes Europe’s strategic anxiety
- If Americans Knew
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- Brutal Beatings, Arson, and Impunity: A Palestinian Plant Nursery Becomes a Target for Settler Pogroms
- On Iran’s protests, Israeli hypocrisy knows no limits
- A Cease-fire for Israelis and a War for Palestinians
- ‘When will Baba come back?’ Gaza’s widows and orphans struggle to survive
- Genocide research institute levels accusations against Germany for denying Israel’s genocide against Palestinians
- Over 1,200 Israeli truce violations in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 102
- Trump has created a monster: Gaza Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 101
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
Aletho News 