FT hit job on Zelensky is a clue as to Trump’s thinking
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 25, 2025
It’s finally happened. After months of pundits wondering when would the moment come when western media would finally take a clear and decisive stand against Ukraine’s venal president, it has finally happened – and by the most ardent pro-EU broadsheet to note. The all-out hit piece on Zelensky recently by the Financial Times should indicate that something is about to happen in Ukraine and it will probably involve the president either having his own Ceausescu moment or simply fleeing the country. How long has he got?
Legacy media always likes to be on the right side of history and for the FT to come out like this with the piece that they’ve written must be ominous. It was published at the same time as the British conservative political chronicle The Spectator did much the same thing. Timing seems to be worth noting given that a few days beforehand unconfirmed ‘reports’ on social media were claiming that Trump had indicated to Zelensky that he needs to step down with even suggestions of who would take his role. It also comes amidst a series of reports which show that Zelensky’s panicking has reached an all-time high with the recent arrest of the of the anti-corruption activist Shabunin. Interestingly, that same day, ex-Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov was also targeted. In both raids at their homes, armed men showed no warrants and blocked lawyers from attending the searches, it is claimed. The arrest of the anti-graft campaigner is significant as is the take of the FT itself: The article says: “A crackdown on the country’s most famous anti-corruption crusader can’t be happening without at least the silent approval from President Zelenskyy, if not active permission,” it explains.
The significance and timing of the FT piece should not be underestimated. It’s not simply that on the battlefield itself that the Russians are advancing and that it becomes more openly accepted that the Ukrainians simply don’t have the men to fight this war, but more about Zelensky himself who is beginning to be portrayed as a dictator now clinging onto power and using all of the vestiges of martial law to crack down on even the faintest trace of dissent. Ukraine is now a totalitarian state with the level of Zelensky’s paranoia now starting to become widely known and discussed. The FT, one of those media giants which largely supported Zelensky and which barely considered elements of his brutal measures worth even reporting, such as the appalling murder of U.S. blogger Gonzalo Lira, is now reporting on even campaigners merely being roughed up by Zelensky’s henchmen – a considerable U-turn and worth noting is the detail it goes into with its zeal. Indeed, it has been the FT which has chosen not to cover a number of stories since the beginning of the war which many would argue created a positive aura around Zelensky which can be noted even as recently as in May when a key opponent of Zelensky was assassinated in broad daylight by a gunman in front of the victim’s children’s school in Madrid. In this case, the murder of Andriy Portnov was covered, but he was portrayed as a criminal “wanted in Kiev for treason”.
The FT’s support of Zelensky is over, we can assume.
It noted that “Shabunin and Kubrakov labelled the recent raids as politically motivated, adding that the SBU had presented no court-issued warrants and would not allow time for their lawyers to be present for the searches”.
Vitaliy Shabunin even is quoted in the article as explaining what the stunt was supposed to achieve. He told the paper, “Zelenskyy is using my case to send a message to two groups that could pose a threat to him. The message is this: if I can go after Shabunin publicly — under the scrutiny of the media and despite public support — then I can go after any one of you”.
The FT goes even further in its analysis of the situation and could even be assessed of being a catalyst to a revolution in the making.
“This is a straight-up, Russian-style scenario of dividing society, which could lead to protests in the streets”, Oleksandra Ustinova MP was quoted in the piece as saying.
The author suggests that the West has little interest any more in keeping up any pretence up that Ukraine is some sort of western democratic country which has had to give up on some of its democratic tenets. This apathy, it claims, is responsible for Zelensky now pushing his authoritarian, brutal control to new levels.
A western diplomat in Kiev who has worked closely with Ukraine’s civil society said the cases of Shabunin and Kubrakov “aren’t isolated events”.
“There’s a sense inside Ukraine’s presidential office that the west and especially the U.S. has shifted its focus,” the diplomat said. “That rule of law and good governance no longer matter as much.” With U.S. attention elsewhere, Zelensky is testing how far he can go, the FT claims, but doesn’t say that this is because he is in his last days and believes he can stay in power if he cracks down even further against those who could potentially pose a threat to him or even question his strategy. The recent dispatch of anti-aircraft missiles from Trump is not expected to do anything as the gesture represents way too little, way too late for it to have any impact. The corner that Trump is backing himself into with this 50-day deadline with Putin is more likely going to result in the man child in the Oval office looking for an easy victim which can distract voters away from the real story of him having to back down from the outlandish threats he has made to Putin.
What Explains Washington’s and Israel’s Opposition to Questioning Ghislaine Maxwell?
By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute for Political Economy | July 24, 2025
Attorney Alan Dershowitz allegedly is on the Epstein client list, but he calls for the release of the Epstein files and for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell under “use immunity,” which compels her to testify. In other words Dershowitz wants to clear his name by getting to the bottom of the Epstein Saga.
The saga is that Epstein was a Mossad spy financed by Israel out of the billions of dollars that Israel extracts from American pocketbooks each year. Epstein’s job was to implicate the American ruling establishment in sex crimes that enabled Israel to blackmail Washington into conforming US Middle East policy with Israel’s policy.
That done, Washington destroyed at the expense of American lives, money and reputation five counties for Israel.
Now Netanyahu wants Americans to destroy Iran for Israel. Can Washington refuse when Netanyahu has the blackmail information accumulated by Epstein for Mossad?
The problem is that neither Washington nor Netanyahu want Ghislaine to testify.
How long will it be before we hear that Ghislaine has committed suicide in her suicide proof prison cell?
US congresswoman labels Zelensky ‘dictator’
RT | July 23, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts.
Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general.
Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava.
“Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”
Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House.
“He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”
Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.
Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.”
Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.
US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February.
Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.
How close was Jeffrey Epstein to Israel’s Mossad?
The Grayzone | July 18, 2025
The Grayzone’s Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal discuss allegations that late financier and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset.
Trump administration ordered to restore funding to US propaganda outlet
RT | July 20, 2025
A federal judge has ordered the administration of US President Donald Trump to restore funding for state-run Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), ruling that the decision to stop the support was “unprecedented” and lacked any basis.
RFE/RL was a key tool for spreading Western propaganda in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and was funded by the CIA. The outlet currently receives nearly all of its funding from Congress.
The Trump administration has sought to cut funding for RFE/RL and several other state-linked outlets. It has denounced the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the body that oversees state-funded media, saying it is “not salvageable,” while indulging in “obscene overspending.” The administration also claimed it is crawling with “spies and terrorist sympathizers.”
Consequently, the USAGM essentially froze funding for RFE/RL and refused to enter into a new contract with the outlet after the previous agreement expired in March. This led to staff furloughs and programming cuts, though the EU stepped in to fill the budgetary gap.
On Friday, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to refuse Congress-approved funding of more than $70 million, arguing that they provided no clear basis for the move.
”It is unprecedented for an agency to demand that entirely new terms govern its decades-old working relationship with a grantee entity,” he wrote. He went on to rebuke the USAGM for a lack of responses to RFE/RL to negotiate a new agreement, describing it as “stonewalling” and adding that the agency went dark for days or even weeks.
The “USAGM’s flagrant disregard for its funding responsibilities” caused RFE/RL to suffer “mass furloughs, cancelation of programming, and inevitable damage to the global influence that RFE/RL has built over decades,” the ruling said.
RFE/RL President and CEO Stephen Capus welcomed the court’s decision. “This victory provides our journalists with the momentum necessary to continue reaching the nearly 47 million people each week… With this ruling, RFE/RL can continue to advance US national security interests.”
Just Six US House Members Vote Against Sending Israel Another Half Billion Dollars in Military Aid
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | July 18, 2025
Special interests are continually finagling to gain more support from the United States government that oversees a vast trove of money and power. A vote just after midnight Friday morning in the US House of Representatives suggests that the government of Israel is at the top of the heap of special interests when it comes to being able to extract benefits from the US with very widespread support from American legislators.
The vote was on an amendment Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) offered to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (HR 4016) that was being considered on the House floor. Greene’s amendment would have removed the bill’s providing of 500 million dollars in military aid to the Israel government.
As Greene explained in her House floor speech introducing the amendment, this money would be doled out by the 37 trillion dollars in debt US government to the government of “nuclear armed Israel” that provides universal health care and college education subsides to Israelis while receiving US handouts. Further explained Greene, the half billion dollars in the bill is not a one-off payment. Rather, Greene explained that “the US already provides Israel with 3.8 billion annually in foreign aid” and provided an additional 8.7 billion dollars via just one other bill last year. Further, noted Greene, the US has spent enormous sums recently on taking military actions of its own in support of Israel. She provided as an example the US having spent over 800 million dollars shooting off “15 to 20 percent of our Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles stockpiles” in aid of Israel in the “twelve-day war” against Iran earlier this year.
Gather a random group of 435 Americans — the same number as there are voting members in the House — to vote on this matter, and Greene’s amendment would be sure not to lose in a landslide. But, the US House of Representatives, despite on occasion being referred to as the people’s house, has a membership whose views in regard to the US giving more and more to the Israel government are far askew from public opinion.
Just 1.4 percent of House members voted for Greene’s amendment. Here is the list of the six House members who voted in opposition to providing another half billion dollars in military aid to what is looking like the most successful special interest in America:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
Rep. Al Green (D-TX)
Rep. Summer Lee (D -PA)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025
A change in perception
The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.
In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).
These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.
Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.
Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.
Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.
The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.
This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.
European elections lose political weight
Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.
The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.
A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”
In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.
Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.
The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.
Controlling public discourse
In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.
The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.
A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.
Among the main points of the EUDS are:
- Forced removal of so-called fake news;
- Greater transparency in political propaganda;
- Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”
In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.
Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy
Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.
During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.
Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.
Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.
Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”
Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.
Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.
If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.
The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.
Tucker Carlson at Turning Point USA: Epstein Was a Mossad Agent and IDF Soldiers Should Lose U.S. Citizenship
By Kevin MacDonald | The Occidental Observer | July 15, 2025
Things are looking up for being able to be honest about Jewish issues in mainstream forums. I couldn’t be happier that this is coming out from a mainstream conservative at a major mainstream conservative conference. It’s been a long time coming, and we are still not there. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Carlson is much hated by the ADL which oddly has not commented on this latest faux pas. But they have lots to say about Turker’s endorsement of the great replacement “conspiracy theory.”
Carlson claimed that Epstein had “connections to a foreign government”:
“It’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.” “Now no one’s allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that’s naughty.”
Lots of Jewish angst about this — and about Carlson’s statement that Jews who served in the IDF should lose their U.S. citizenship. Common sense, but since when has common sense been relevant to anything related to Jewish power. Any accusation of dual loyalty is considered anti-Semitism according to the official definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so I guess Carlson is now officially an anti-Semite, along with Charlie Kirk and a whole lot of people who attended the conference.
From the Forward:
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a leader in the Republican Party’s isolationist wing, said that Americans who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces should have their U.S. citizenship revoked over concerns of dual loyalty. At the same time, he also criticized the Trump administration for trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who engaged in anti-Israel activity on campus.are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF — they should lose their citizenship,” Carlson said in a 45-minute speech on Saturday at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida. “You can’t fight for another country and remain an American, period.”
Carlson, who has promoted antisemitic tropes [simply for saying Zelenskyy is a dictator who has suppressed Christianity] and has been associated with white nationalists [i.e., Darryl Cooper!!], explained that his position is an “obvious recognition of the truth” and applies to all countries. He mocked his critics — “they just write you off as some sort of internet freak, hater, Nazi” — and said it is “fair to demand that the people running my country love it every bit as much as I do.”
The founder of the organization Carlson spoke to is Charlie Kirk, a conservative podcaster who has accused Jews of financing “anti-white causes.” Several Trump cabinet members and Republican officials attended and spoke at the three-day conference.
And of course, Jews in high places deny Epstein had any connections to Mossad.
From the JTA comment on Naftali Bennet’s tweet:
Carlson has long faced allegations of antisemitism, including over his promotion of white supremacist ideas while on Fox News and his hosting of a Holocaust denier on his X stream last year.
More recently, he has been at the vanguard of a different divide within the MAGA movement over foreign policy, centering on Israel. Carlson and others heavily criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military offensive against Iran’s nuclear program, with Carlson accusing Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s “act of war.”
Carlson sends out a daily email to subscribers. This is from the July 14th email and basically summarizes his points at his talk. Notice he highlights Jewish activist Ben Shapiro as wanting to move on.
It seems likely that Jeffrey Epstein worked on behalf of an intelligence service. Probably not an American one.
So which country was it? The fact that so few reporters have bothered to dig into that question could prove to be this century’s most egregious example of journalistic malpractice. How did the notorious pedophile go from being a high school math teacher with no college degree to having a private island and one of the most luxurious residences in Manhattan? Doesn’t that seem weird? What was the source of his money? Why has nobody ever really looked into it?
To anyone paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government. To the Israeli government. That is true even though saying it out loud is forbidden in mainstream political discourse, but there’s nothing wrong with having the gall to do just that. It doesn’t matter what screeching shills like Mark Levin say. Telling the truth is not hateful, nor is it anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel.
Criticizing the behavior of a government agency, any government agency, does not make you a bigot. It makes you a free person. You are allowed to hold them to account because you’re not a slave; you are a citizen. That means you have the right to expect your government to act in your interest and to demand that foreign governments that suck up your tax dollars do the same. Israel using America’s most famous serial sex criminal as an intelligence asset would not fit that description.
So did it happen? A few people have asked the Israeli government that question, but they’ve received no real answers. That is unacceptable. As long as America keeps cutting generous checks to that foreign power, it should have to report to us. If it refuses, no more payments. The rules are simple.
In the meantime, we can’t help but notice a strange new talking point emerging on the Right.
“The Epstein story doesn’t even matter!” the Ben Shapiros of the world now claim. “So shut up about it already!”
That is obvious nonsense. The truth behind Epstein, his death, his connections, and how he got so rich matters a lot. The pedophile wasn’t killed during a walk down the street or even in his own home. He died in a high-security prison in the heart of America’s largest city. It was supposed to be among the most secure places in the world. That means whatever force is responsible for Epstein’s demise orchestrated the killing in among the most difficult conditions possible, and they did it while hardly breaking a sweat. Whoever pulled that off really runs our country. If they could do it to him, they could definitely do it to you, too.
Why would the Shapiro caucus not want to get to the bottom of that? You know the answer. It’s because they have something to hide
The refrain on the right is that Epstein matters because he is a window into who rules the U.S. And one would be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the cover-up is to hide the involvement of Mossad in an elaborate blackmail scheme. We also deserve to know what the deep state is hiding about the JFK assassination—another phenomenally important event in which there is good reason to think that Israel and the CIA were involved, and another incident where Trump said he would be completely transparent.
War With Russia? Macron Wants Cash and Clout
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.07.2025
France’s Strategic National Review predicts a large-scale military conflict with Russia in Europe by 2030, despite Russia repeatedly rubbishing the scenario.
Why It’s a Non-Starter
“When talking about war in Europe, the key question is: war between Russia and whom? NATO countries? France directly?” Alexander Mikhailov, head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis, tells Sputnik.
Both scenarios don’t hold water:
- Russia won’t unleash a war on NATO—it would mean nuclear war
- France is currently a major buyer of Russian gas in Europe
What’s Really Behind the Claim?
“This is a completely false and deliberately crafted narrative, aimed specifically at justifying the expansion of France’s military budget,” explains the pundit.
- French President Emmanuel Macron needs a pretext to ramp up military spending
- He acts as a lobbyist for the French defense industry: doubling the military budget could benefit both defense contractors and the French president. Kickbacks, anyone?
- Macron also wants to be the top European power broker and have direct influence over NATO’s multibillion-dollar cash flows
- “The Americans will take the biggest share of that NATO budget for themselves. But France wants to be, at the very least, the second country spending not just its own money—but NATO’s as well,” the pundit explains.
- Macron’s presidential term ends in 2027. He’s eyeing a top post — either NATO Secretary General or a new EU power seat — to keep his geopolitical clout.
US pundit challenges ex-Israeli PM over Epstein files
Press TV – July 15, 2025
US commentator Tucker Carlson has called out former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, urging him to address claims linking disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to the Israeli regime in a formal interview, rather than dismissing them as conspiracy theories.
In a post on X on Thursday, Carlson invited Bennett to discuss Epstein’s ties to Israel, promising to contact his office to arrange the interview.
This followed Bennett’s Monday statement on X, where he denied accusations, including from Carlson, that Epstein was an intelligence asset for Israel’s Mossad.
“As a former Israeli Prime Minister, with the Mossad having reported directly to me, I say to you with 100% certainty: The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false,” Bennett wrote, addressing persistent reports that Epstein worked for the Israeli regime.
Epstein’s 2020 death in US federal custody, recently ruled a suicide by the Trump administration, has reignited speculation of a cover-up.
Reports have long suggested Epstein, a wealthy New York socialite, operated a blackmail ring targeting influential figures and was murdered in jail, with many saying he acted on Israel’s behalf.
Bennett dismissed these claims, stating, “Epstein’s criminal and despicable actions had no connection to the Mossad or Israel.”
He accused high-profile figures like Carlson of spreading falsehoods, adding, “There’s a vicious wave of slander against [Israel], and we won’t stand for it.”
Carlson fired back on X, challenging Bennett’s response: “Instead of issuing threats on social media, why not sit for a rational interview about Epstein’s ties to the Israeli government? We’ll reach out to your office today.”
On Friday, speaking at the Turning Point USA conference, Carlson doubled down, asserting it was “obvious” Epstein had ties to a foreign regime, implying Israel.
His remarks were met with enthusiasm from the pro-Trump audience.
Who profits when nations bleed: Pentagon, Trump or the arms lobby?
By Nazmelis Zengin | Daily Sabah | July 3, 2025
In recent months, the drums of war have started beating once again in Washington. This time, however, the noise comes not from the front lines, but from boardrooms, lobbying corridors and the heart of an invisible yet relentless power struggle.
A critical conflict is unfolding not between the U.S. and Iran, but between two rival power blocs within the U.S. itself. On one side stands the Pentagon, advocating strategic caution and increasingly aligning with President Donald Trump. On the other side is a powerful alliance of defense industry lobbies, pro-Israel actors and rising private sector forces.
The arms lobby and private capital feed not only on increased defense spending but also on the economic opportunities that war presents. Senator Lindsey Graham has long been one of the most loyal champions of this lobby. Since the Iraq War, he has served as a political emissary for defense giants like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. His rhetoric today mirrors the past: “U.S. deterrence is only possible through resolve.” But behind this call for resolve lies a multi-billion-dollar procurement pipeline.
Following the U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities on June 22, 2025, the Pentagon attempted to frame the narrative. Department of Defense spokesperson Pete Hegseth stated, “This mission is not about regime change … It was a precision strike aimed at the nuclear program.” Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs, added, “Our B2 mission inflicted severe damage, but it is too early to fully assess the impact.” These statements reflect the Pentagon’s cautious public posture, even as more aggressive steps unfold behind the scenes. The repeated emphasis on “retaliation risk” signals that the military is reluctant to be drawn into full-scale war.
Trump, in contrast, portrayed the strike as a victory: “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been destroyed.” He soon posted on social media: “If the current Iranian regime can’t ‘Make Iran Great Again,’ why not consider regime change?” This starkly contradicted Pentagon messaging and suggested Trump was leveraging the war narrative for domestic political gain ahead of the elections. Early June 2025 polls showed Trump’s approval among Republican voters rose slightly post-strike, while independents remained skeptical.
Iran responded swiftly with missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq and cyber operations targeting American infrastructure, signaling it would not remain passive. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session, where European and Chinese representatives warned that escalation could destabilize the entire region. Meanwhile, oil prices surged 18% in the week following the strikes, adding global economic pressure.
Trump’s decision won enthusiastic support from Senator Graham and Tom Cotton. However, Democrats responded sharply. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “This strike was carried out without Congressional approval and is unconstitutional,” reviving impeachment discussions. Within the Republican Party, Vice President JD Vance and commentator Tucker Carlson distanced themselves from Trump’s hawkish faction, while the arms lobby viewed the intervention as a strategic opportunity. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies shares rose by 11% and 9% respectively in the week after the strikes.
Washington Post columnist Jason Willick warned, “Trump’s actions risk repeating the mistakes made in Iraq, this time in Iran.” The Guardian’s Stephen Wertheim echoed this concern: “The U.S. is on the verge of repeating its Iraq error in Iran.” A RAND Corporation report noted that regime change efforts typically produce protracted conflicts with unforeseen consequences.
Private sector actors in the U.S. no longer settle for market share; they now seek to shape strategic direction. Companies like Starlink and SpaceX are embedded within the Pentagon, gaining technological footholds and influence over decision-making. SpaceX’s new 2.1 billion contract for missile tracking satellites exemplifies how tech giants are reshaping national security priorities. The alliance between defense contractors and tech giants is redefining the very notion of national interest.
This evolution weakens traditional state institutions and circumvents democratic oversight, not just a shift in strategy, but what could be described as a modern civilian cloaked coup. This recalls political scientist C. Wright Mills’ 1956 concept of the “power elite.” Mills warned that when state, military, and economic actors form a mutually reinforcing triangle, democratic accountability gives way to elite consensus. Similarly, Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens’ Democracy in America? demonstrated that economic elites and large corporations exert more influence on U.S. policy than average voters. RAND and Stockholm International Peace Research Institution (SIPRI) data confirm that this nexus intensifies during military interventions. For example, RAND’s 2024 report found that military spending increased by up to 30% directly due to private sector lobbying, while SIPRI’s 2023 data showed that 65% of major defense contracts during crises were awarded without competitive bidding. These findings illustrate how ties between lobbyist capital and the state tighten during war and crisis periods.
In this context, the boundaries of free market intervention in public policy are no longer theoretical; they are existential. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has emphasized, “Market failures produce not only economic consequences but political ones as well.” When inequality concentrates not just wealth but decision-making power, democracy begins to erode. Public authority must retain its regulatory and directional role for markets to function properly.
Moreover, economist Mariana Mazzucato’s theory of the “entrepreneurial state” offers a necessary counterpoint. She argues that the public sector should not merely correct market failures but also take on a proactive investment role. Yet today we witness the opposite: public policy is shaped by private sector logic, endangering the state’s protective and innovative capacities. The transformation of the state from a guiding force into one that is guided reflects a sacrifice of long-term public good for short-term private profit.
Protests have erupted across major U.S. cities, with demonstrators denouncing the war as “a war for corporate gain.” Brookings public opinion research shows a sharp rise in distrust of the government’s motives behind foreign interventions.
Today, private actors born under the guise of the free market no longer settle for profit alone; they seek to steer foreign policy. As the U.S. returns to the Middle East after two decades, it does so not out of moral necessity or strategic urgency but under the pressure of corporatist interests eager for enrichment.
The real question is: Who inside the United States wants this war most, and perhaps more crucially, who has the power to stop it?
Epstein Justice: What’s Next? with Nick Bryant
Corbett | July 12, 2025
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
So, the verdict is in from Trump’s Department of Justice: Epstein killed himself and no perpetrators need to be charged. Joining us today to discuss this sadly unsurprising cover-up and what people can do about it is author and activist Nick Bryant of EpsteinJustice.com.
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Nick Bryant on The Corbett Report
Are You STILL Talking About Epstein? (NWNW #596)
“I’ve Seen ALL the EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS” | Alan Dershowitz
Epstein Justice petition to release Epstein files
Epstein Justice live webinar pressure campaign training sessions
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
China and India have ‘low intellectual potential’ – top Zelensky aide
RT | September 13, 2023
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.
Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
“The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said.
Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia.
“Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run.
“China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
Aletho News- The new German totalitarianism
- Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
- Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
- Netanyahu Aligned Think Tanker: Somaliland Offered To ‘Absorb’ One Million Palestinians
- The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
- The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
- If Americans Knew
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Gaza health official says miscarriages surge as births fall by 40%
- Leahy Law Requires Ban on Aid to Israeli Police Unit for Killing Two Palestinians Who Surrendered
- Israel blocks entry of eye drops for blind people in Gaza
- I did not understand I grew up in a concentration camp until I left Gaza
- One excavator, 10,000 bodies, a sea of rubble: inside Gaza’s effort to retrieve and bury its dead
- Rights Group Warns Israel’s Genocide Isn’t Over in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
Aletho News 