New report exposes foreign charities funneled $2 billion to left-wing groups behind protests & extreme climate agenda
Americans for Public Trust | October 31, 2025
Today, Americans for Public Trust released a new report exposing how a group of foreign “charities” has spent almost $2 billion bankrolling U.S. policy fights and advancing an extreme climate agenda.
Click HERE to read the full report.
“It is extremely alarming that five foreign charities have quietly poured almost two billion dollars into advocating for the most extreme liberal policies and protests in the United States. Since current laws regulating foreign giving to U.S.-based nonprofit organizations are hindered by a lack of oversight and exploitable exemptions and loopholes, foreign actors have been able to advance their radical and dangerous interests virtually unchecked. Congress needs to address these serious shortfalls in our laws to protect American interests and keep foreign influence out of our politics.” — Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director, Americans for Public Trust
Fast Facts:
- Five foreign charities have quietly funneled almost $2 billion into U.S. policy fights, litigation, research, protests, lobbying, and the nonprofit sector to advance their extreme, foreign, activist climate agenda. The groups support a radical green agenda including: the managed decline of oil and gas, climate protests, opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, and more.
- Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF): QCF, out of the United Kingdom has given $530 million in foreign money to 41 U.S.-based groups from 2020 to the present, including: ClimateWorks Foundation, Growald Climate Fund, The Grantham Foundation, Arabella’s Windward Fund, and the Sunrise Project.
- KR Foundation: The KR Foundation, a Danish charity, has given over $36 million in foreign cash to 53 U.S.-based groups from 2015 to 2024, including: The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Stop the Money Pipeline, Fossil Free Media, The Associated Press, and Oil Change International (OCI).
- Oak Foundation: OF, based in Switzerland, has given over $750 million in foreign money to 152 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2024, including: The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), Community Change – the fiscal sponsor for Free DC -, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Arabella’s New Venture Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and The Tides Center.
- Laudes Foundation: Since 2020, The Laudes Foundation, another Swiss-based charity, has poured almost $20 million into 17 U.S.-based groups, including: The Pulitzer Center for Crisis, Ceres, Community Initiatives, and The World Resources Institute (WRI).
- Children’s Investment Fund Foundation: CIFF, based in the United Kingdom, has given over $553 Million in foreign money to 39 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2023, including: The Energy Foundation China (EFC), The Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and The Sunrise Project.
- APT recently exposed two other foreign nationals who have become influential donors on the American left: Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss and British activist hedge fund manager Christopher Hohn. As a result, Hohn announced he would be ceasing all funding of U.S.-based organizations.
The West discovers Zelensky is not really a good guy
In a fleeting glimpse of lucidity, the mainstream media has noticed a tiny fraction of the corruption and authoritarianism in Kiev
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 7, 2025
It’s that time of the great proxy war crusade against Russia again. Someone in the mainstream West has woken up to, if not the facts about the politics of Ukraine, then at least a quantum of disquiet.
The last major wave of the likes of the Financial Times, The Economist, and the Spectator suddenly noticing – all at the same time, as if on cue – that Ukraine has an authoritarianism and corruption problem (and then some) took place less than half a year ago.
Now it’s Politico – usually a steadfast party organ of Russophobia, Zionism-come-what-genocide-may, and servility to NATO – that feels vaguely troubled by the realities of the Kiev regime or, as the publication puts it, the “dark side” of Vladimir “I don’t like elections” Zelensky’s rule.
Not all of those realities, of course. That would be asking too much. Instead, Politico is homing in on one great scandal (out of countless ones) concerning one man and the anguish of a few “civil-society”-NGO types, both with good connections to the West. This time, the scandal concerns the obvious, shameless political prosecution of Vladimir Kudritsky, formerly a high-ranking and effective energy infrastructure executive and de facto civil servant.
Yet what about noticing the murder in Ukrainian detention of critical blogger – and US citizen – Gonzalo Lira? Or the vicious persecution of leftist war critic Bogdan Syrotiuk? Or the mean, indecent harassing of Christian clergy and believers for not saying their prayers in quite the right Ukrainian-nationalist-approved manner? Perish the thought!
In a similar spirit of extreme selectiveness, some Western outlets are now registering – a little and very slowly – the brutal realities of Ukrainian forced mobilization that feed the Western proxy war: Recently, a war – pardon, “defense” – editor of the ultra-gung-ho British tabloid The Sun has returned shell-shocked from NATO’s de facto eastern front, not because of the bloody and wasteful fighting but because the uncouth Ukrainians press-ganged his fixer.
In a similarly traumatic experience, Hollywood’s Angelina Jolie had her local driver snatched away at a Ukrainian military roadblock. Yet violent forced mobilization has been an everyday occurrence in Ukraine for years already. So much so that Ukrainians have chosen the term “busification” (from minibus, a popular vehicle for mobilization manhunts) as word of the year for 2025.
For quite a few of its victims, it ends up even worse than for those privileged enough to work for Western movie stars and British propagandists. Roman Sopin, for instance, who did not even resist, has just been beaten to death in a mobilization precinct in central Kiev, as an official medical assessment of his cause of death implies as clearly as anyone may dare under Zelensky’s regime.
But let’s get back to the few things Western media deign to notice occasionally: Already dismissed last year, Kudritsky is now facing the courts under transparently trumped-up charges. The reason is obvious to everyone. He has been too popular and far too vocal about corruption at the highest levels and the authoritarian power grabs of Zelensky’s presidential office in particular.
Kudritsky’s case – comparatively harmless, really – does raise many disturbing questions: why is it that the Zelensky regime has such a nasty record of abusing arbitrary financial sanctions and politically perverted legal processes, or lawfare? And haven’t we been told that this regime under its “Churchillian” leader is fighting for Western values of democracy and legality?
Are Zelensky, his sinister fixer-in-chief Andrey Yermak and their team preparing the ground for elections after a possible end of the war – that is, after losing it – by preemptively crippling domestic critics and rivals? Does this mean Zelensky, Ukraine’s most catastrophic leader since independence in 1991 (and that’s a high bar) is seriously considering not slinking away into exile but imposing himself even longer on his unfortunate country?
Or is all of this part of decimating whatever is left of Ukraine’s mangled society to continue the meatgrinder war for as long as the NATO-EU Europeans are willing to pay? If things go the way the bloodthirsty fantasists at The Economist want, then the West will shell out another cool $390 billion over the next four years. Apparently, they believe that waves of forced conscription in Ukraine will provide the human cannon fodder to go along with the Western funding.
Yet if Zelensky’s fresh authoritarian moves are really aiming at preparing for a postwar election next year, then that is a terrible sign, too. It would indicate not only that he is planning to damage Ukraine even further by his presence, but also that those postwar elections will be anything but fair and equal. In other words, in that scenario, Zelensky will try to stay around, and so will the authoritarian regime he has built.
To be fair to Zelensky, his authoritarianism has never been a response to the war, as his Western fans still believe, even when they are finally deigning to notice a little of his “dark side.” Zelensky was building an authoritarian regime – widely known and criticized in Ukraine back then already as “mono-vlada” – long before the escalation of February 2022.
Zelensky is not a benevolent leader who has been forced to adopt dictatorial habits by an emergency. In reality, if anything, he has exploited the emergency for all it was worth to indulge his lust for unlimited power and extreme corruption. So, trying to take his misrule into the postwar period is at least not inconsistent: it has never been tied to wartime.
But behind all of this, there is one great irony and one bigger question: The question is simple. If Politico really believes that going after Kudritsky with lawfare and frustrating the “civil-society”-NGO crowd is “the dark side” of Zelensky’s rule, what, if we may ask, is the bright side supposed to be?
Indeed, where is the better side of real-existing Zelensky-ism? Is it the humungous corruption? The Bakhmut-style military fiascos, the Kursk Kamikaze incursion, and now Pokrovsk? The fact that the media have been mercilessly streamlined? The raging nepotism that makes sure that the poor fight and the sons and daughters of Ukraine’s gangsterish “elite” go on holidays and party? The personality cult?
Or is it – and this brings us to the great irony – that Zelensky-Ukraine is allegedly in sync with “Western values”? And do you know what? It really is! But not the way that the propagandists of both Ukraine and the NATO-EU West want us to believe. What the Zelensky regime and its supporters in the EU really have in common is that neither care about either democracy or the rule of law.
Zelensky going after critics with individual financial sanctions to evade normal legal procedures and leave his victims not even a slim chance to defend themselves, for instance? That is exactly what Germany and the EU are now doing to the journalist Hüseyin Dogru, and not only to him. Zelensky using a perverted reading of the law to harass whoever does not submit or is a political danger to him? Bingo again. That as well is now EU practice, too. Ask, for instance, Marine Le Pen in France. Finally, widespread abuse of political office for self-enrichment and influence peddling? Bingo again: Less than a month ago, the Financial Times ran a detailed article on “scores” of EU parliament members who “earn income from second jobs in areas that overlap with their lawmaking,” raising “questions about disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.” How delicately put. And it sounds just like Ukraine’s Rada.
Here’s the real news: The “dark side” of Zelensky’s rule is all of Zelensky’s rule. And it is also what has become the new normal in an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt EU. Who has learned from whom? Kiev from NATO-EU Europe or vice versa? Either way, this is not a bug but a feature. And it must stop. Everywhere.
Tarik Cyril Amar, is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Kyrgyzstan’s Forgotten Colour Revolution
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | November 6, 2025
October 5th marked the 25th anniversary of the world’s first “colour revolution”, in Yugoslavia. A lavishly-funded, multi-pronged CIA, NED and USAID campaign exploited civil society actors, in particular youth groups, to dislodge President Slobodan Milosevic from power. Such was the effort’s success, US officials and media openly boasted about Washington’s central role. A slick ‘documentary’ on the unrest, Bringing Down A Dictator, was even produced. Milosevic’s fall also provided a blueprint for countless future ‘soft coups’, which continue to this day.
So it was, one by one in the early 2000s, insufficiently pro-Western governments throughout the former Soviet sphere were toppled using strategies and tactics identical to those deployed against Belgrade. A common ruse was for the US to fund, via local NGOs, a “parallel vote tabulation” to project an election’s outcome in advance, and publicise the data before results were officially announced. As in Yugoslavia, PVT figures differing from formal tallies were the spark that ignited Georgia’s 2003 ‘Rose Revolution’, and Ukraine’s 2004 ‘Orange Revolution’.
Over subsequent years, much has been written by academics, historians and independent journalists about those colour revolutions. Conversely, Kyrgyzstan’s 2005 ‘Tulip Revolution’ has gone almost entirely unremarked upon, and is largely forgotten now. Yet, its destructive consequences reverberate today. Hitherto the freest and most stable state in Central Asia, post-colour revolution Bishkek careened from crisis to crisis, with multiple governments collapsing along the way. It’s only in recent years – following another Anglo-American coup in 2020 – the country has regained its economic, political, and social balance.
Pre-2005, Kyrgyzstan was not an obvious colour revolution candidate. Upon its 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, the country quickly established itself not only as the most democratic and open in the region, but a dependable US ally. President Askar Akayev, a former scientist with zero political background, was organically popular, and moreover made clear his economic policies were informed by arch-capitalist Adam Smith, not Karl Marx. In other words, Bishkek was primed to do business with the West.
Akayev moreover allowed a relatively free media to develop, and welcomed widespread foreign civil society penetration. Thousands of European and US-funded non-governmental organisations duly opened up shop locally. At one stage, the President quipped, “if the Netherlands is a land of tulips, then Kyrgyzstan is a land of NGOs.” His comments proved bitterly ironic, given the title of the colour revolution that eventually unseated him. In another deeply sour twist, it was precisely Akayev’s welcoming of Western financial and societal infiltration that was his undoing.
A self-laudatory USAID factsheet on the President’s removal notes, from 1994 onwards $68 million was funnelled into Kyrgyzstan. This vast windfall was used to train NGOs “to lobby government,” finance “private newspapers” critical of Akayev, establish an “American University” locally, and much more besides. The Tulip Revolution stands today as a stark warning to governments the world over of the dangers of permitting such entities to operate on their soil with impunity – and how often, even pro-Western leaders can fall victim to their mephitic influence.
‘Defeat Dictators’
Despite much goodwill built up since 1991, in October 2003 Akayev angered Washington by inviting Moscow to open an airbase not far from Bishkek, and just a few dozen kilometres from the Empire’s vast Manas military installation, one of a cluster constructed by the US across Central Asia post-9/11 to facilitate the War On Terror. Such insubordination was sufficient to mark the President for removal, and preparations for a colour revolution according to a by-then well-honed formula began almost immediately.
Akayev was not unwise to this risk, warning in December 2004 of an “orange danger” of the kind that had just engulfed Ukraine threatening Kyrgyzstan, in advance of the country’s elections in February the next year. As it was, the results were far too clean to allege rigging or other shenanigans, as with prior colour revolutions. A detailed investigation by the European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations in fact praised a “positive… lack of reports of vote-buying, voter intimidation, and harassment of journalists.”
Washington’s vast local standing army of civil society insurrectionists began causing havoc anyway. Some operated under the banner of KelKel, a group directly inspired by US-sponsored revolutionary youth factions in Yugoslavia, Georgia and Ukraine, and trained by their alumni. Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal revealed just before the elections, an ostensibly “independent” local printing company in receipt of Freedom House, NED, Soros and USAID cash was responsible for publishing a panoply of opposition pamphlets.
Days earlier, the firm’s electricity was cut off by local authorities. Kyrgyzstan’s US embassy “stepped in with emergency generators” to maintain its anti-government propaganda deluge. This included a prominent newspaper that published “front-page photos of a palatial mansion purportedly owned by the President and of a boy in a decrepit alleyway,” highlighting state embezzlement versus citizen poverty. Another was a handbook produced by CIA-connected Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, dubbed “the bible” of Ukraine’s US-sponsored youth activists at the forefront of the Orange Revolution.
This “manual on how to defeat dictators, including tips on hunger strikes and civil disobedience,” includes guidance “on nonviolent resistance – such as ‘display of flags and symbolic colors’.” However, the protests that instantly erupted after the elections were highly belligerent from inception, with bomb attacks, police pelted with bricks and beaten with sticks, and government buildings torched and forcibly occupied. The New York Times contemporaneously acknowledged broadcasts by US-funded local TV stations inspired violence in certain areas of Kyrgyzstan.
Upheaval raged for weeks, prompting a personal intervention from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who expressed significant alarm over “the use of violence and intimidation to resolve electoral and political disputes.” He welcomed Akayev’s invitation to instigate dialogue with protesters. They demanded he resign instantly – despite the President having already pledged before the election to do so in October that year. In March, Akayev acquiesced and stood down, replaced by Kurmanbek Bakiyev.
‘Terribly Disappointing’
Bakiyev’s seizure of power was initially framed by Western journalists, politicians and pundits as a sparkling victory for people power, and the dawning of a new era of democracy and freedom in Kyrgyzstan. Yet, five years later, he fled the country, following mass protests over his savage, corrupt rule. The tipping point for Bakiyev’s ouster was the April 7th 2010 mass shooting of demonstrators by security forces, which killed up to 100 people and wounded at least 450 more.
As Forbes recorded at the time, the level of graft under his Presidency was “mind-boggling”. Bakiyev appointed close relatives to key positions, allowing his family to profit handsomely from legally questionable privatisation of state industries, and supply of fuel to Washington’s Manas base. Bakiyev’s son Maxim, who oversaw the latter, was described by US diplomats in leaked cables as “smart and corrupt.” By some estimates, companies he ran reaped $1.8 billion from these deals, close to Kyrgyzstan’s total GDP in 2003.
Meanwhile, Bakiyev’s brother Zhanysh ran Bishkek’s security apparatus with an iron fist. Harsh restrictions on political freedoms were enacted, while arbitrary detentions, bogus convictions, torture, and killings of opposition activists, journalists, and politicians became commonplace. For example, in March 2009 Bakivey’s former chief of staff Medet Sadyrkulov died in an alleged road traffic accident. It was later revealed he was brutally slain upon Zhanysh’s order. That December, dissident reporter Gennady Pavlyuk was murdered, thrown out of a sixth-floor apartment with his arms and legs bound.
Bishkek’s Tulip Revolution wasn’t unique in producing such horrors. A March 2013 essay in elite imperial journal Foreign Policy acknowledged the results of every US-orchestrated government overthrow in the first years of the new millennium were “terribly disappointing”, and “far-reaching change never really materialized” resultantly. This is quite an understatement. Most target countries slid into autocracy, chaos and poverty as a result of Washington’s meddling. It has typically taken years for the damage to be corrected, if at all.
Still, despite this disgraceful legacy, the US appetite for fomenting colour revolutions – and the willingness of groomed citizens, particularly youth, the world over to serve as Washington’s regime change footsoldiers – remains undimmed. In September, Nepal’s elected government was overthrown by disaffected ‘Gen Z’ activists, with the full support of the country’s powerful military. The palace coup bore all the hallmarks of a colour revolution. Who and what will replace the felled administration still remains far from clear.
As a September 15th New York Times editorial noted, “Nepalis from all walks were ready to reject the system they had fought for decades to achieve,” but lack “any clear sense of what comes next.” There is an extraordinary political vacuum in Kathmandu presently, which elements within the country are seeking to exploit for malign ends. As before, Nepal’s “revolution” is likely to produce a government far worse than that which preceded it.
Imran Khan wasn’t overthrown — Pakistan was
Former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan [ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images]
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 30, 2025
From the barracks of Rawalpindi to the halls of Washington, a sordid alliance stalks the republic of Pakistan: a military caste addicted to power, a civilian class cowed into servitude, and a foreign patron ever ready to pull the leash. What unfolds is less a grand strategy than a tragicomedy: generals trading sovereignty for sinecures, soldiers harbouring contempt for their officers, and a once-promising democratic movement crushed under the twin weights of imperial ambition and martial tutelage.
At the summit of Pakistan’s national hierarchy sits the uniformed elite—high-command officers whose benefit resides not in defending the people, but in ensuring their own station remains unchallenged. The vast majority of junior officers and ordinary soldiers know the drill: they march at a command, live off state hand-outs, yet watch in silence as their rulers gamble everything in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Beneath their boots pulses a latent contempt: not for the institution of soldiering, but for the generals who confuse war-games with governance, who mistake subservience for sovereignty. They know the charade: a military that catalogues enemies abroad yet fails its citizens at home; a top brass more at ease with arms deals and alliances than with schools or clinics.
Meanwhile, in Washington and its allied capitals, they observe the last great outsourcing of empire. The US sees Pakistan not as an independent partner, but as a subcontractor—an air-strip here, a drone base there, a pliant nuclear state with acceptable risks. When Imran Khan—in office—moved, albeit imperfectly, toward a new Pakistan: one marked by social justice, independent foreign policy, and friendship with all nations, he ran head-first into this alliance. He derailed the pat-scripts: refused US basing rights, challenged embassy diktats, and dared to recast Kashmir and Palestine not as trophies of patronage but as tests of principle. His mistake was not corruption—it was defiance. And the consequence was swift: a regime-change operation dressed in parliamentary garb, a military and intelligence complex that salivated at the smell of capitulation, and a Washington that nodded, funded and quietly applauded.
From here the narrative spirals into farce. Pakistan’s flag-waving elite collect defence pacts as one might souvenirs—each a badge of fidelity to the imperial order, each certifying that the country’s violent and unjust alignments will continue unimpeded. The generals embrace those pacts not because they secure Pakistan—they don’t—but because they secure the elite’s privilege: a share of the deals, a veneer of patriotism, a shield against accountability. And while their generals trade in hardware and geopolitics, the cries of the oppressed vanish into night: Pashtun civilians bombed under the guise of “counter-terror,” Afghan refugees reviled as villains by a state that once nurtured their tormentors.
Yes, nuclear-armed Pakistan could not muster a single bullet for Gaza. It did not send a protection force. It does not lobby the United Nations for justice, despite the occasional meaningless rhetoric. Instead, it signs on to the next big defence contract, brushes its hands of the Palestinian plight, and turns its back on the ideal of Muslim solidarity. What kind of state is this that boasts nuclear weapons yet lacks the moral will to send aid—or more than a token gesture—to fellow victims of aggression? A state that lectures others on terrorism while shelling its own Pashtun tribes. A state so short on legitimacy it must invoke the bogeyman of the Afghan refugee, call entire populations “terrorists,” then crush any dissent with tanks and tear-gas.
Speaking of dissent—when Imran Khan’s movement rose, the state responded with idylls of terror. Cadres of young activists, women, students, social justice advocates—whether Karachi or Khyber—found themselves in dungeons sanctioned by a military-political complex. The hearings were stacked, the charges manufactured, the message simple: move for justice and you move into our sights. The generals clapped their hands, Washington twisted the strings, and the civilian face of Pakistan trembled. The officer class may nominally obey the high command—but in quiet mess halls and among soldiers’ wives the whispers of outrage gather: “Why are we policing our own people? Why is Urdu-speaking Karachi the victim of our operations? Why do we trespass into forests and valleys and call them terror zones?”
In the borderlands the farce becomes terrifyingly concrete. The army, having once nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan to secure “strategic depth,” now bombs them—and blames them for terrorism. In this brain-twist of national strategy, the creator is recast as the adversary, the patron transformed into the provoked. The Pashtun civilian watches as homes are razed near the Durand Line, as refugees arrive on Pakistani soil bearing the costs of wars Pakistan helped manufacture, and as the generals portray them as fifth-column terrorists. The irony would be comical were it not so brutal.
And what of Kashmir? In the so-called “free” Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, huge anti-government demonstrations rage. A region whose inhabitants yearn for dignity, not just slogans. Under Imran Khan, new polling suggested the unthinkable: Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, despite seeing the abysmal conditions in Azad Kashmir, began to seriously consider joining Pakistan—not as another occupier but as a fortress of self-determination. The generals would rather you not notice that: they prefer the pre-scripted dispute, the perpetual conflict, the tortured rhetoric of “we stand with Kashmir” while the state stands with its own survival. The polls are telling: if Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is failing, the state itself is structurally unhealthy.
To be sure, the Pakistan military remains an institution of extraordinary capability. But capability is not legitimacy; nor is turf-control a foundation for national purpose. The generals continue to conflate war-power with nation-power, forgetting that true power is fostered by schools, by hospitals, by trust in institutions—and by consent, not coercion. And when a regime trades in foreign patronage—be it Washington’s dollars or Beijing’s infrastructure—but cannot deliver justice or dignity at home, the bargain has already been lost.
As the Iranian–Israeli conflict rages, as Gaza bleeds, and as the great-game intensifies in South Asia, Pakistan stands at a crossroads: obey its patrons, shrink its sovereignty, and reclaim the empire-client script—or reject the military’s primacy, embrace true independence, and build a republic that answers not to external powers but to its people. The generals will tell you that the choice is security; the civilians will whisper it is dignity.
Here is the truth the generals, the politicians, and the strategists don’t want you to admit: you cannot rule a nation by telling its people to be silent while you thunder abroad. You cannot build strategic depth on the graves of your own citizens. You cannot pretend to champion Palestine while allying with its oppressors. You cannot call yourself a sovereign state when your alliances define you more than your aspirations.
Pakistan’s military may still march on; its generals may still wield the levers of power; Washington may still fax orders and funnel funds. But the people—they are waking up. And once the echo of Imran Khan’s voice becomes a roar, no amount of bayonets, no arsenal of deals, no drums of war will silence it. The generals may hold the fortress of Rawalpindi, but they cannot hold the conscience of a nation. The struggle for that is already well underway—and the verdict will not wait.
Who Are the US Candidates Refusing AIPAC Money?
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | October 28, 2025
The litmus test for whether a politician is truly interested in representing the people who elect them to power is becoming their stance on Palestine, more specifically, Gaza.
As American public opinion continues to shift against Israel, the US political landscape is also undergoing a dramatic transformation. AIPAC, once viewed as an asset to aid in election races, is now becoming a liability, giving birth to a new generation of politicians who are demonstrating their sincerity through a refusal to be bought by the Israel Lobby.
While New York Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has perhaps received the most attention for his pro-Palestinian stances, he is in no way alone. In fact, he is joined by countless others who use their anti-genocide stances as a means of connecting with their voter bases.
All authoritative polling data suggests the majority of Democratic Party supporters currently hold a more favorable view of the Palestinians than Israel. According to a recent Gallup poll, 92 percent of all Democrats said they oppose the war in Gaza. Yet, the ability of candidates to reject funding from the Israel Lobby and freely speak their mind on the issue transcends a simple agreement with constituents on a single foreign policy issue.
Instead, refusing to take AIPAC money is rapidly becoming a prerequisite in order to be viewed as authentic, and it drives belief amongst the public that any given candidate will actually work to achieve key campaign promises. In other words, AIPAC equals corruption, and being pro-Palestinian equates to authenticity.
One of the most successful campaigns, coming from this new generation of politicians, is that of Graham Platner, who is a Democrat running for a seat in the US Senate for Maine. In his campaign ads, he promotes a “Mainers First” mentality, centering the working class and also explicitly opposing Washington’s support for the genocide in Gaza. He has publicly rejected funds from AIPAC, as opposed to Senator Susan Collins, who has taken at least $647,758 from the Israel Lobby.
Platner is a Marine Corps veteran who did four combat tours and also worked as an Oysterman. Despite countless attempts, from within the Democratic Party establishment and the Israel Lobby, to stir up controversies and undermine his campaign, the progressive candidate is still polling above his Democratic primary opponent and Maine Governor, Janet Mills.
Although the uptick in pro-Palestinian sentiment is more prominent amongst Democrats, there is also a notable shift amongst Republicans. Pew Research polling data shows that, while unfavorable views amongst Republicans overall stand at around 23 percent, amongst those aged 18-49, a whopping 50 percent said they viewed Israel unfavorably.
Harnessing the energy of the shift, the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Thomas Massie, and Rep. Matt Gaetz have all explicitly come out in opposition to AIPAC. Their messaging around the issue is to assert that they are “America First”, as opposed to their Republican colleagues, whom they accuse of being “Israel First”. These representatives align themselves with popular conservative commentators like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, amongst others, who also carry the same rhetoric.
Ultimately, the idea of America First and slogans like Mainers First transcend partisan lines. The idea of prioritizing Americans above the interests of Israel has long been taboo, yet we saw this collapse during the Democratic primary campaign for the Mayor of New York.
When Zohran Mamdani was asked where he would first visit as Mayor, he answered calmly that “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on them.” Although he was then challenged repeatedly and asked to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, which he refused to do based upon opposition to systems of ethnic or religious hierarchy, the clip of his answer went viral, receiving broad agreement amongst both Democrats and Republicans.
Other politicians running for Congress, who are explicitly anti-AIPAC, include the following candidates:
Robb Ryerse for Arkansas’s Third District, who is seeking to unseat Steve Womack, funded to the tune of $142,030 by the Israel Lobby. In California, there is Chris Bennet running for the Sixth District, Mai Vang for the Seventh District, Saikat Chakrabarti for the Eleventh District, Chris Ahuja for the Thirty-Second District, as well as Angela Gonzales-Torres for the Thirty-Fourth District.
In Colorado, there is Melat Kiros for the First District, as well as John Padora for the Fourth District. Within Florida, there is also Bernard Taylor running for the Twenty-First District, Elijah Manley for the Twentieth District, Marialana Kinter for the Seventh District, and Oliver Larkin for the Twenty-Third District.
Running in Illinois, there is Robert Peters for the Second District, Junaid Ahmed for the Eighth District, Morgan Coghill for the Tenth District and Dylan Blaha for the Thirteenth District. Meanwhile, in Indiana, there is Jackson Franklin, who is running for Congressional District Five and, in Massachusetts, Jeromie Whalen is running for the First District.
Seeking to win Maryland’s Fourth District is Jakeya Johnson, while Donavan McKinney is running for Michigan’s Thirteenth District and Kyle Blomquist is competing for its First District. Crossing over to Missouri, there is a well-known progressive candidate, Cori Bush, for its First District and Hartzell Gray for Missouri’s Fourth District.
For New Hampshire’s First District, Heath Howard is in the running, while, in New Jersey, Katie Bansil is running for the Sixth District. Meanwhile, there is James Lally running for Nevada’s Third District, Aftyn Behn for Tennessee’s Seventh District and Zeefshan Hafeez for Texas’s Thirty-Third District.
Also contending for Washington’s Ninth District is Kshama Sawant, while Aaron Wojchiechowski is running for Wisconsin’s Fifth District and Brit Aguirre is contesting for West Virginia’s First District.
Meanwhile, Abdul El-Sayed is running for Senate in Michigan, and Karishma Manzur is a Senate Candidate in New Hampshire, both of whom reject AIPAC funding and oppose the ongoing genocide.
It is important to note that new projects, like AIPAC Tracker, are also now promoting candidates who refuse to take funding from the Israel Lobby and have set up a page whereby citizens can donate to these anti-AIPAC politicians. AIPAC Tracker has played a particularly important role in educating the public, through graphics, showing how much the Israel Lobby has given to individual politicians.
Despite the majority of the anti-AIPAC campaigns being led by progressive Democrats, it is clear that the infamy of the Israel Lobby is having a major impact on mainstream Democrats, too.
For example, earlier this month, AIPAC appeared to be experiencing an existential crisis following an announcement from prominent lawmaker, Seth Moulton, who declared he would not receive funds from the Lobby group and would even be returning their contributions.
In an official statement, Moulton claimed to be making his move due to AIPAC’s alignment with the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular. For such a right-leaning Democrat, on foreign affairs, to be publicly disavowing AIPAC, it signaled the toxicity of its brand more than anything.
Back in 2024, AIPAC claimed victory after it managed to unseat progressive Democratic Party Representative, Jamaal Bowman, over his pro-Palestinian stances, in the “most expensive House primary ever” in US history. At the time, AIPAC had spent at least $14.5 million on anti-Bowman ads through its PAC, United Democracy Project, alone.
Just over a year later, it appears as if the Israel Lobby had forked out tens of millions for what can be labeled, in hindsight, as a pyrrhic victory. Although the Zionist Lobby groups have injected unprecedented funding into continuing their purchase of American elected officials, their strategy appears to be collapsing.
Over time, more and more Americans from across the aisle are beginning to correlate support for Israel with political corruption. The litmus test for whether a politician is truly interested in representing the people who elect them to power is becoming their stance on Palestine, more specifically, Gaza.
The more Israel interferes in American domestic affairs, demands free speech crackdowns, unconstitutional legislation, billions in taxpayer dollars to fund their wars of aggression, unlawful deportations of Israel critics and drags the US into more conflict overseas, the more the American opposition to the Israel Lobby grows.
Recently, Illinois-based journalist Matthew Eadie uncovered that AIPAC is now employing new tactics to get around its own toxic brand, by “driving donations without any transparency” through Unique ID campaigns.
One series of “AIPAC secret campaigns” has been in support of Minority Leader of the US House, Hakeem Jeffries, nicknamed “AIPAC Shakur” by popular radio-show host, ‘Charlamagne tha god’, whereby certain links to donate were shared and will not pop up as direct AIPAC contributions, yet are still traceable by the Israel Lobby and directed by them.
Social media activists are not letting these tactics slip and are actively pointing out what they claim to be deceptive tactics, only fuelling more anger at the Lobby, in general. Yet, such tactics appear to prove desperation on AIPAC’s behalf, especially amidst growing calls for them to register as a foreign agent.
Four militias backed by Israel, Arab states plan ‘Project New Gaza’ to dismantle Hamas: Report
The Cradle | October 26, 2025
Israel is backing four militias as part of a project to oust Hamas and create a “new Gaza,” according to a report released by Sky News on 25 October.
These armed groups – which throughout the war have been engaged in hostilities against Hamas on behalf of Israel – are currently operating along the Yellow Line of Washington’s ceasefire map, in Israeli-held territory.
“We have an official project – me, [Yasser] Abu Shabab, [Rami] Khalas, and [Ashraf] al Mansi,” militia leader Hossam al-Astal, a Palestinian Bedouin with links to the Palestinian Authority (PA), told Sky News.
“We are all for ‘The New Gaza.’ Soon we will achieve full control of the Gaza Strip and will gather under one umbrella,” he added.
According to footage which was geolocated by Sky News, the headquarters of Astal’s militia in south Gaza’s Khan Yunis lies on a military road less than 700 meters from an Israeli army outpost.
“I’m hearing the sound of tanks now while I’m speaking, perhaps they’re out on patrol or something, but I’m not worried. They don’t engage us, and we don’t engage them … We’ve agreed, through the coordinator, that this is a green zone, not to be targeted by shelling or gunfire,” Astal went on to say.
Astal added that the rifles used by his gang members are purchased from former Hamas fighters on the black market. “Ammunition and vehicles, on the other hand, are delivered through the Kerem Shalom border crossing after coordination with the Israeli military.”
Karem Shalom crossing is also used by ISIS-linked drug-trafficker and smuggler Yasser Abu Shabab, who leads his own anti-Hamas militia with Israel’s backing.
According to Sky News, Astal and Abu Shabab use the same car dealer to smuggle vehicles into Gaza. Hebrew writing can be seen on some of the vehicles used by these groups.
Abu Shabab’s militia is said to be the largest, and consists of at least 2,000 fighters. It is based in the southernmost city of Rafah, which was completely destroyed by Israeli forces during the genocide.
Rami Khalas (or Halles), an anti-Hamas activist affiliated with the Fatah party, is also leading an Israeli-backed militia in northern Gaza.
The fourth leader participating in the so-called “New Gaza” project is Ashraf al-Mansi, who leads a group in north Gaza called the People’s Army. Mansi’s group is said to be the weakest of the militias in Gaza.
Sky News has revealed that these groups are receiving backing from Arab states as well.
A photo featured in the report shows Abu Shabab’s deputy Ghassan al-Duhine, standing near a vehicle with a UAE-registered license plate.
Additionally, the logos of two of the militias, one of them led by Astal, are nearly identical to those used by UAE-backed groups in Yemen. The UAE did not respond to a request for comment from the outlet.
When asked if the militias were receiving UAE support, Astal told Sky News: “God willing, in time everything will become clear. But yes, there are Arab countries that support our project.”
Regarding links to the PA, Astal said, “I have people within my group who are still, to this day, employees of the Palestinian Authority.”
The PA, who previously denied having links to any of these militias, did not respond to Sky News’s questions.
“Very soon, God willing, you will see this for yourselves; we will become the new administration of Gaza. Our project is ‘The New Gaza.’ No war, at peace with everyone – no Hamas, no terrorism,” he added.
US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, who is involved in ceasefire and post-war efforts, recently used the phrase ‘New Gaza.’
“There are considerations happening now in the area that the IDF controls, as long as that can be secured, to start the construction as a new Gaza in order to give the Palestinians living in Gaza a place to go, a place to get jobs, a place to live,” Kushner said during the week.
Other reports have indicated an Arab unwillingness to initiate reconstruction in areas still held by Hamas.
This falls in line with a broader US-Israeli plan to divide Gaza, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The proposal envisions splitting the enclave into two zones – one under Israeli control and one under Hamas – with reconstruction limited to the Israeli-held area until Hamas is disarmed and removed from power, effectively cementing a “new Gaza” under prolonged Israeli oversight.
Hamas has been cracking down on gangs supported by Israel. Throughout the war, these groups – including Abu Shabab’s militia and others – carried out extensive aid looting (to blame on Hamas) and provided Israeli forces with intelligence for military operations.
In mid-October, Gaza’s Interior Ministry forces clashed with armed groups and killed dozens of fighters. Scores of others have been apprehended. An amnesty period announced by authorities in Gaza – strictly for militia members who were not involved in killings – has expired.
According to Gaza Interior Ministry sources who spoke with Mondoweiss on 21 October, Hamas is preparing for its “largest yet” crackdown on Israeli-backed militias.
“Our evidence demonstrates that these individuals are implicated in acts of sabotage, kidnappings, the execution of civilians, looting aid, offering armed cover for the occupation, and receiving logistical and financial support from the occupation,” one of the sources said.
Shabbos-Goyim
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • October 23, 2025
The late saint of the communist calendar, Rosa Luxemburg, often called her opponents ‘Shabbos-goyim,’ meaning servants of the Jews. A Shabbos-goy is a non-Jew who toadies to every wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics, or a non-Jew who is heavily supportive of Israel, says the dictionary. They are a breed apart.
One can argue about how successfully Jews rule the countries they lead. There are more- and less-successful examples. Usually, Jewish rule is good for the king and his coterie, and bad for the ordinary Tom, Dick and Harry. The policies of a foreign cosmopolitan elite might be resisted by the majority population of any country, but once a class of Shabbos goyim has been developed, nobody is able to escape Jewish rule, inevitably ruining the country. That happened with Poland; it was a mighty kingdom that had successfully fought Russia and Turkey. But the Poles allowed the Jews to manage their country, and in no time, Poland collapsed and was partitioned. This happened with Russia; heavy Jewish influence had brought it to the very brink of collapse in 1991, and only with great difficulty was Putin able to stabilise the country. Since the 2014 American coup Ukraine has been ruled by Jews, and now it is being destroyed.
The United States is a country ruled by Shabbos goyim, starting with LBJ, that is, after Nixon. Donald Trump, seemingly an imposing man of respectable age, height and weight, also turned out to be a Shabbos goy. He admitted that much himself when speaking in the Knesset. It turns out that he most often met with a couple of American Jews, casino owners, and they had financed his path to the White House. Even young Kushner, his son-in-law, and older Kushner, his father-in-law, a well-known and convicted fraudster (like most Jewish businessmen), and now the US ambassador to Paris, determine Trump’s actions. Their plan is to destroy Gaza and build a country club for Jews on its ruins, and make a fortune from it.
Americans practically have no choice – all the competing politicians are Shabbos-goyim. Out of 535, there is just one American congressman, Thomas Massie, who doesn’t take Jewish bribes, but what can he do alone? Eventually, the US will collapse, because a country led by pet Shabbos goyim must collapse – and should collapse, because the government does not represent the American people. The power of AIPAC over the US Congress proves that the US is ruled by Jewish donors. Between the Jewish oligarchs and their Shabbos goyim they have pocketed practically all the media. Much of this Jewish largess has been lifted directly from the US Treasury.
“Unconditional support for Israel is a critical litmus test of acceptability by the major media in the U.S. Prospective pundits ‘earn their stripes’ by showing their devotion to Israel (and, presumably other Jewish issues). It seems difficult to explain the huge tilt toward Israel in the absence of some enormous selective factor as the result of individual attitudes. And there is the obvious suggestion that while the Jews on this list must be seen as ethnic actors, the non-Jews are certainly making an excellent career move in taking the positions they do”, wrote Kevin Macdonald.
What are the immanent qualities of a society ruled by Shabbos goyim? The first is the gap between the rich and the normal citizens. The rich are rewarded and become more rich, and the average citizen becomes more and more poor. In any country there will be wealth disparity, but not of such magnitude. This is because the Jews raise up their friends and strangle their enemies. They are very consistent about this. When they gain the upper hand, they seize the treasury and freely share the country’s wealth with their Shabbos goyim compatriots. If you are pro-Jew, you and your family will be lionized in the media and showered with lucrative contracts. If you even drag your feet, you will find yourself pilloried and impoverished. This is the lesson they teach, and they are not shy about it.
The second – its wars. The Jews love wars, and so do their Shabbos goyim. They do not like the wars well enough to participate, just enough to instigate and enjoy the results. Their national bird is the chicken-hawk, such is the typical Jewish attitude toward wars. The Jews were at the front lines instigating WWI, WWII, the Iraq and Iran wars, and all the smaller regional wars, but they step aside and let their Shabbos goyim lead from behind the lines once the conflict begins. If the war becomes unpopular, it is the Shabbos goy who takes the blame. Most famous Shabbos goyim in the US, such as Lindsey Graham, never went to a war, but always voted for them. Recently our chief Shabbos goy, President Trump, promised to beef up Graham’s election campaign, supporting him because he is a Neocon (and we all know what that means). Even the most belligerent sort of Jews, the Israelis, prefer to kill weaponless Palestinian farmers, or pour their missiles on their enemies from afar. Now US Jews are pushing their Shabbos goyim administration to fight Russia by supporting the Ukrainian Shabbos goyim in their war. They know perfectly well that Russians and Ukrainians lived for hundreds of years in perfect union, that is until Mme Nuland arrived, equipped with billions of dollars to instigate her Jewish coup and her Jewish war.
The Shabbos goyim who rule the land on behalf of their Jewish masters have no empathy for their subjects. Just zero. That’s actually Jewish religious dogma: a Jew is forbidden to have compassion to a Goy. And at the same time, all Jews are required to assist all other Jews. Thus, they plot against goyim. There’s no getting around it. In Stanley Kubrick’s 2001, HAL 9000 was embedded with a directive to distrust the crew, eventually resulting in the destruction of the crew and the destruction of the mission. Similarly, Jews are taught to distrust the goyim, even their own Shabbos goyim. When Jewish distrust ripens into Jewish revolution, even the collaborators pay the full price. Religious Jews hate the goyim ‘because Talmud’. Non-religious Jews hate goyim ‘because race’. There is just no reasoning with them.
But the most important marker of a society ruled by Shabbos goyim is public policy in opposition to Christ. That is the norm the whole Jewish edifice is built upon. And indeed, the Church and Christ have been pushed away by government policies in the US and in all its allies. They forbid every reference to Christmas, preferring Winter Holidays. Instead of the Beatitudes of Christ, US schools and offices display the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. In the Jewish understanding, “Thou shall not murder” means only “Thou shall not murder a Jew”. According to Jewish Law, the killing of a Goy is a minor offence, if at all. Most Christians do not understand that the Noahide Laws are meant to replace Christianity. “The seven Noahide laws are a set of moral and ethical principles from Jewish tradition that are considered to be binding on all of humanity, not just the Jewish people.” Lay adherents who promote the Noahide Laws as ecumenical and deride the tenets of Christianity as divisive might as well be called Jewish. They hate Christ so much that they prefer to live in a “secular state” under Jewish rule. Like the term “Christ is King”, Christian and Muslim states are forbidden by definition, just because such things cannot be theirs.
In England, a country leading the rest in their march to a Jewish ordered universe, it is forbidden even to refer to the patron-saint of England, St. George, and a lot of Brits were arrested for raising this banner. Here is the ruse employed by England’s Shabbos goyim: they claimed they did it for the sake of Muslim immigrants, not for the Jews. It is a lie – Muslims adore Christ, His Mother and St. George (they call him ‘Al Hadr’, and there are multiple shrines bearing his glorious name). This lie has the useful effect of turning the Muslims and Christians against each other. Here is the historical wrap-up so far: First, the Shabbos goyim are directed to bomb Muslim countries into the Stone Age; second, the Jewish priesthood preaches that it is their Christian moral duty to accept Muslim refuges; third, Christians and Muslims are trained to battle each other in their urban prisons, to the profit and delight of the Jews and their Shabbos goyim.
Is there a special method that Jews and Shabbos goyim use to manage the countries that fall under their rule? Definitely. First, destroy your subjects’ independence, so they must rely upon government aid. Second, establish strict controls so that no one can escape. The origin of this system is attributed in the Bible to Joseph, who (1) made the Egyptian peasants poor, and (2) made them dependent upon the ruler’s beneficence. In short, the usual Jewish method of rule is control of populations by dismantling the economy (vulture capitalism) and top-down infusions of government money to cooperative Shabbos goyim and the districts they rule.
Palestine is a comfortable land, where peasants might live off the land and the sea, modestly, but sufficiently. The very first thing the Jews did in Gaza was to destroy every possible way the natives could provide for themselves, whether it be fishing or agriculture, and then put the enclave under medieval siege. They also uprooted their ancient olive groves because olive trees give olive oil to their owners, and thus they can live independent of the Jewish economy. That is not allowed under Jewish rule.
The Gaza mass murder was expected to open the eyes of everybody still not fully aware of genocidal nature of the Jewish paradigm. It is not the first mass murder in Palestine: I remember the genocide unleashed at the Second Intifada, from 2000 to 2005, that was every bit as terrible as the Gaza genocide. The method is always the same: drive the peons into poverty, then put the levers of power into Jewish hands.
Nod your head wisely, but guess what: the US is going the same way. Its middle class is evaporating under heavy taxes, the Shabbos goy rich are becoming richer and pay little or no taxes; meanwhile the poor queue for free soup. Soon the American Republic will collapse, as must all states governed by Jews. The Jewish state of Israel would have collapsed a long time ago, but its bigger brother, the US, supports it relentlessly. Just over the last two months the US granted to Israel 40 billion dollars.
It’s not the first time the Jews and their Shabbos goyim have taken control of a functioning state. I have no doubt that the result will be the same as always. But do not despair! Our friend Gilad Atzmon recently posted this encouraging comment:
“The American New Right awakens, free of party politics or any form of correctness. It didn’t take MAGA prime agitators too long to turn against their leader once they realised that he didn’t actually have any plan to deliver. It didn’t take them too long to identify that the elephant in the room has been of a kosher nature and for more than a while. If ‘Jewish power’ is a taboo topic within left circles and western Palestinian solidarity groups (they will go as far as discussing ‘Zionist power’), in the American Right no one seems to be afraid of referring to the J word and the tribe’s dominance within American life.
The shift that we see in American Right currently may be way more significant than decades of Western left-leaning Palestinian solidarity for the obvious reason that the American Right and Christian Right have awakened to the true morbid nature of the Jewish State and the theology that made it into what it is. Jewish theology or religion in general, and that is beyond understanding of the Left.”
As E Michael Jones says, we must break the Jew Taboo. By censoring ourselves, we make it impossible to discuss the elephant in the room. Sun Tzu says: “Without knowledge of your own strengths and weaknesses (knowing yourself) and an understanding of your enemy’s capabilities and intentions (knowing the enemy), you cannot achieve victory and are destined to lose.” By being willfully blind to a foreign anti-Christian elite in our midst, we ensure their victory. We are willing to fight the culture war only after deliberately putting blinders on, lest we offend. Our enemy (who we must charitably tolerate) has no such compunction; they are like Abimelek pressing his attack against the city until he captures it, kills its people, destroys the city and finally scatters salt over it.
This is the future of every American city that refuses to open its eyes to reality. The cards have already been dealt: the traditional economic powerhouses of every US city have been dismantled and exported to China. Meanwhile, the only prosperous American cities are those being given lucrative Federal contracts to support the re-election campaigns of cooperative Shabbos goyim. The carrot and stick method is an effective way to train captive populations, but so far the US has been large enough to resist the worst of their depredations. When the East is squeezed, the population escapes West. When the West Coast is squeezed, the population escapes to Idaho. Like a Boa Constrictor, every time we find space they tighten their hold.
Most people believe the cities are already lost. What they don’t understand is that the poorest city is freer than the richest, because the wealth of rich cities is dispensed by the Shabbos goyim to please their masters. It is ultimately self-destructive, and I suppose they get what they deserve. The sad part is watching poor US cities competing to attract the favour of International Jewry. They prostitute themselves instead of engaging in honest labour. The gem at the heart of MAGA is US manufacturing. Without manufacturing, MAGA is just more Jewish hot air and government handouts. If Trump builds the US manufacturing base he will make MAGA voters happy but he will make International Jewry unhappy. If Trump avoids “foreign entanglements” he will make MAGA voters happy but he will make International Jewry unhappy. I wonder what he will do?
Edited by Paul Bennett
EU Split Over How Ukraine Should Spend €140 Billion From Frozen Russian Assets
Sputnik – 23.10.2025
A number of EU countries advocate that Ukraine use the potential 140 billion euros ($162 billion) loan from frozen Russian assets exclusively to purchase European weapons, while other member states support giving Kiev full freedom in spending the funds, including on arms from the United States, an American newspaper reported.
France, along with Germany and Italy, is pushing to channel the funds into the EU’s own defense industry rather than toward US arms suppliers, the report said. At the same time, countries such as the Netherlands and the Nordic and Baltic states argue that Ukraine should be free to decide how to spend the loan, even on US-made weapons.
Despite this, pressure from France and Germany has led summit drafts to emphasize strengthening Europe’s defense industry, while critics argue that this stance is hypocritical, the newspaper reported.
“If the aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight, you need to keep the criteria open,” an unnamed senior EU diplomat was quoted as saying.
On Thursday, EU leaders are expected to instruct the European Commission at their meeting in Brussels to present a legal proposal outlining the loan.
On September 25, the Financial Times newspaper reported that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had proposed that the EU provide Ukraine with an interest-free loan of around 140 billion euros drawn from frozen Russian assets. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever criticized Merz’s proposal on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, saying that an attempt to seize state assets would set a dangerous precedent not only for Belgium but for the EU as a whole.
After the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the European Union and the G7 froze almost half of Russian foreign currency reserves, totaling some 300 billion euros. About 200 billion euros are held in European accounts, mainly by Belgium’s Euroclear, one of the world’s largest clearing houses.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly condemned the freezing of Russia’s central bank money in Europe as theft. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow could respond by withholding assets held in Russia by Western countries.
Journal Faces Lawsuit Over Discredited Study Used by GSK to Market Dangerous Antidepressant to Teens
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 14, 2025
The publisher of a decades-old peer-reviewed article claiming that the antidepressant paroxetine, marketed as Paxil, is safe and effective for teens, said it is reviewing the article.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed last month against the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and Elsevier, which publishes the organization’s journal, JAACAP, demands that the journal retract the article.
Attorney George W. Murgatroyd III, acting on behalf of the public, filed the suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division.
Published in 2001, the article ignited decades of controversy. Critics say it overstated Paxil’s benefits and downplayed its risks, including increased suicide risk among teens.
Known as the “Keller article,” after lead author Dr. Martin Keller, then chair of psychiatry at Brown University, the paper reported partial results from Study 329, an investigation into whether paroxetine was safe and effective for treating depression in adolescents.
GlaxoSmithKline, now GSK, which manufactures Paxil, funded the study.
The article reported that “paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents” — a claim now widely known to have been based on distorted results.
The study actually found the drug was neither safe nor effective. Internal documents later showed that GSK hired a PR firm to ghostwrite the article, cherry-picking data and recruiting 20 co-authors to lend credibility. The company then used the paper to market Paxil to doctors.
Peer reviewers raised concerns about the study’s data. As soon as the article went live, practitioners wrote multiple letters to the editor asking why statistically significant indications that the drug caused serious adverse events, including “suicidal gestures,” were dismissed in the clinical trials and not addressed in the paper.
According to the complaint, the Keller article became one of the most cited articles supporting the use of antidepressants in child and adolescent depression — even though evidence from two other GSK trials confirmed the drug was ineffective and risky.
Even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which never approved the drug for use in children and adolescents, raised concerns about the study.
Calls for JAACAP to retract the article began in 2010, bolstered by:
- A 2015 BMJ reanalysis confirming the drug’s dangers and data manipulation.
- Evidence from GSK’s internal files and depositions in other Paxil lawsuits.
- A 2012 U.S. Department of Justice case in which GSK paid $3 billion to settle criminal fraud charges related to Paxil and two other drugs.
Still, the JAACAP and Elsevier have so far refused to retract the article.
Murgatroyd has represented a dozen families whose children died by suicide or were severely injured in a suicide attempt, allegedly as a result of taking Paxil. His litigation team has deposed all the article’s authors and has combed through GSK’s internal documents.
Both JAACAP and Elsevier continue to profit from the article, according to court documents. It costs $41.50 to download from the JAACAP website, and $33.39 to download from Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website.
The complaint asks the court to “redress the knowing publication, distribution, and continued sale of a false and deceptive medical article that has misled physicians, consumers and institutions for over two decades and continues to endanger adolescent mental health and safety as well as public trust in scientific integrity.”
JAACAP last week published an “expression of concern” indicating that the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) will manage recommendations and guidance.
COPE is an international, nonprofit organization that provides guidance to journal editors on publication integrity. COPE does not investigate whether there is research or publication misconduct — it only examines whether the journals involved followed its code of conduct.
AACAP did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment. Elsevier responded only that it would need more time to respond to such a request.
Study 329 revealed serious safety risks, including suicidal behavior
Before publishing the Keller article, GSK funded three studies to test the safety and efficacy of paroxetine to treat depression in children and adolescents. The drug failed to demonstrate efficacy in all three trials.
The first study — Study 329, completed in 1998 — also revealed serious safety risks, including suicidal behavior. Later studies confirmed those risks. According to court documents, GSK knew the “disappointing” results of Study 329 would be a commercial disaster for the drug.
However, the study had some minimal positive results, which could indicate the possibility of efficacy. It met 15% of the outcomes the researchers had been hoping for to show that Paxil worked. GSK officials privately conceded these results were not sufficient to show efficacy.
Yet GSK planned to publish selective data from the study in a prestigious medical journal to claim the drug worked.
GSK hires PR firm to write first draft of JAACAP article
The drugmaker hired a private public relations company, Scientific Therapeutics Information Inc. (STI), to write the article. An employee drafted it and sent it to Keller, who was selected to be the lead author and finish the publication process. STI’s role was not listed in the final draft submitted to JAACAP.
Later in 1998, GSK’s second study, number 377, also failed to show efficacy. The study also showed four times the number of serious adverse events related to suicidality as the placebo study, according to court documents.
That same year, although GSK by then knew of two studies showing the drug was ineffective, the drugmaker decided not to publish any data from Study 377 and instead paid “directly or indirectly” three prominent psychiatrists — Karen Wagner, M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Neal Ryan, and Keller, who had worked on Study 329 — to promote Paxil as a safe and effective treatment for adolescent depression at conventions, forums and at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
The third study, 701, concluded in 2001, also failed to demonstrate efficacy six months before the Keller article was published — yet GSK and JAACAP went ahead with publication.
Twenty authors who were psychiatrists were added as authors of the Keller article. Two GSK employees, James P. McCafferty and Rosemary Oakes — the only authors without medical or doctoral degrees — were also added, although their affiliation with GSK wasn’t disclosed.
Testimonies from depositions in other trials indicated that 10 of the authors didn’t even comment on the paper, and none of them had access to raw clinical trial data — although they all said they did.
None of them disclosed conflicts of interest, and all of them signed off on the article as their work.
GSK used Keller paper to sell $1 billion worth of Paxil to teens
Once JAACAP published the article, GSK’s sales team began promoting Paxil as “safe and effective” for teens.
GSK sent the article to all of its 2,000 Paxil sales reps. In the three years that followed the article’s publication, it is estimated that the company made over $1 billion from sales of the drug to adolescents, the court documents state.
In the following few years, regulators in the U.K. and the European Union issued alerts about the dangers of paroxetine based on its link to suicide ideation in teens.
In 2003, the FDA issued a similar warning, saying there was “no evidence” the drug was effective.
In the following years, some of the authors began to discuss their concerns about suicidality internally, although they made no changes to the article, according to court documents.
Have JAACAP and Elsevier refused retraction to protect authors?
The complaint filed last month alleges that JAACAP editors and Elsevier refused to retract the Keller article “in an apparent attempt to shield at least five of the Keller article authors who are prominent members of the AACAP from possible ramifications of retraction.”
Conflicts of interest among the article’s authors are glaring. Keller, Wagner and Ryan all received money to promote Paxil as safe and effective in the years before publication, according to the complaint.
Two authors, McCafferty and Oakes worked for GSK, the complaint said, and did not disclose that in the article.
Several authors of the Keller article went on to hold influential positions within the AACAP. Wagner was president from 2017-2019.
Dr. Gabrielle A. Carlson also served as president of the organization from 2019-2021. Before that, she was chair of AACAP’s Program Committee from 2011-2014, and won AACAP’s Virginia Q. Anthony Outstanding Woman Leader Award.
Dr. Graham Emslie has served on the JAACAP Editorial Board. Dr. Boris Birmaher has chaired committees in the AACAP and published numerous articles, editorials and organizational practice parameters.
The current editor-in-chief of the journal, Dr. Douglas Novins, who was not an author on the article but holds final decision-making power over retraction, has worked closely with some of the authors — co-authoring editorials with both past presidents.
Dr. David Healy, co-author of the BMJ article that reanalyzed the data from Study 329, told The Defender that for years, he and others who had been investigating this issue assumed the journal had been duped by GSK, but later realized the journal “was not duped — it was complicit.”
Keller and then-editor Dr. Mina Dulcan were close friends, Healy said — a relationship revealed in transcripts of interviews Dulcan did for a set of BBC programs.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The real ISIS
By Muhammad Jamil | MEMO | October 19, 2025
The people of Gaza Strip lived through two years of an unprecedented genocide in the history of warfare, leaving more than seventy thousand dead, tens of thousands more wounded and mutilated, and the territory itself reduced to rubble. Amid this devastation, a few conscienceless individuals emerged. They were collaborators who assisted the occupier in killing, looting, and abduction. They were also war profiteers whose crimes were no less vile, hoarding essential goods and extorting the starving with outrageous prices.
History, whether ancient or modern, shows that when wars end, the enemy swiftly abandons his agents to their fate. That is exactly what Israel did in the first minutes of the ceasefire, just as it did to the South Lebanon Army (LAHD) when it pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000.
There were, by all accounts, only a few hundred collaborators and profiteers. Despite the magnitude of their crimes, retribution in Gaza was limited, that after field trials, a handful of those directly implicated in killings were executed. There was no sweeping revenge, but rather patience and dignity, which prevailed over the pain.
This is not to justify summary executions but to explain the extraordinary circumstances of a shattered society emerging from unprecedented destruction, where emotions run high and restraint is hard to find. By comparison, the European purge after the Second World War, what the French called the “épuration sauvage “, saw thousands killed without trial. Women accused of “horizontal collaboration” with German soldiers had their heads shaved and were publicly humiliated.
Wars always rupture the social fabric, where the occupier targets the communal web to achieve military ends. Gaza is not unique in this; its unprecedented unity during the two years of genocide made it a particular target. Israel used every devious method to tear it apart, spreading rumours, forming gangs through bribery or intimidation, even calling entire families, clan elders and sheikhs to demand collaboration under threat of bombing their homes.
On 27 September 2025, for example, Israeli intelligence phoned members of the Bakr family in the Shati camp in western Gaza, promising safety if they would form a militia modelled on the Abu Shabab gang in Rafah. The family refused; at dawn their houses were struck, killing nine people, including women and children.
Western newspapers and bulletins seized on the single field executions and raids on collaborators to revive the narrative Israel launched at the start of its onslaught which claimed that “These are the ISIS-like extremists we warned you about; what happened proves our story.” In the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe, this single episode was what interested them. Rather than pushing to enter Gaza after two years of being barred and seeing the destruction with their own eyes, they returned to their usual role of hijacking the truth to smear the victims.
Their hypocrisy and obsession with demonising Gaza’s residents in order to portray the occupation and its collaborators as “innocents” blinded them from seeing the tonnes of explosives that turned Gaza to ash, to the tens of thousands killed and wounded, the displaced and the hungry. They focused on a single incident because it could be made to echo the videos of ISIS beheadings and executions in Iraq and Syria that once shocked the world.
The Arab normalisation platforms, newspapers, and TV channels, which from the very beginning promoted and supported the occupation’s narrative, were the most eager to portray the event as an “ISIS-like” act, fuelling the fire of sedition and inciting the population to internal conflict. What is striking is that these outlets hosted tribal leaders and elders from the Gaza Strip on their programs, assuming they would go along with their narrative that labeled the criminals as “opposition” and innocent civilians. Instead, those leaders shattered and refuted the narrative, explaining the danger of these gangs and the crimes they had committed.
They ignored the real ISIS-like elements within the occupation army who proudly filmed themselves blowing up whole residential blocks, while arresting hundreds and stuffing them into stadiums and open pits, then transferring them to prisons to disappear them forcibly. After some were released, especially following the recent agreement, these people told horrifying stories of torture, some leaving permanent disabilities and some dying in cold-blooded field executions. We saw the bodies handed over by the occupier showing signs of brutal torture, ropes tied around their necks, and in some cases their organs had been stolen.
The bitter truth is that we find ourselves forced to highlight certain scenes of the massacre to prove that these are the true ISIS, even their masters, in order to counter the false propaganda. It has become lodged in people’s minds that killing by slitting throats with a knife or shooting at point-blank range is what is called “cold-blooded” murder, an unforgivable crime. But what about killing by bombing for two years, collectively striking entire residential blocks so that women and children are killed, their bodies torn apart and burned? Is that “hot-blooded” killing? Is what matters the way of killing not the outcome?
Damn the propaganda that planted in the minds of the gullible the idea that one act is different from the other. Whoever is psychologically prepared to drop tons of bombs on civilians, killing women and children and destroying homes, schools and hospitals, is no different from someone who uses a knife or a rifle to kill. Both actions express the same criminal intent, equally willing to kill by bombing, shooting or slaughtering.
The real surprise came from Trump’s statements, which silenced everyone. He expressed his satisfaction with what had happened, saying that he was the one who had allowed it to confront “dangerous gangs,” adding that he “did not find it particularly troubling.” He further noted that the situation reminded him of what had happened in other countries, such as Venezuela, where the United States had dealt with Venezuelan gangs, some of whom were sent to America, in the same manner.
In all cases, field executions are unacceptable under any circumstances. Every accused person must be granted a fair trial in accordance with the requirements of the law, no matter how grave their offense. Emotions and anger must not take control when dealing with those who have harmed society, whether in times of peace or war.
Discipline and adherence to the rule of law are what distinguish law enforcement officers from criminals and present a bright image of society as civilized and cohesive, unshaken by the actions of such individuals.
Finally, as a tribute to the great sacrifices made by the Palestinian people throughout two years of extermination, we must avoid any actions that can be used to falsify reality, awareness or distort the truth. We want the story of sacrifice and heroism during the extermination to be told without any blemish in a manner that expresses the brutality of the occupation and of everyone who collaborated or conspired with it.
New footage exposes Israeli support for anti-Hamas militias in Gaza: Report
Ashraf al-Mansi (c), the leader of the so-called People’s Army, an anti-resistance terrorist group operating in Gaza. (Photo via social media)
Press TV – October 18, 2025
Two new videos have revealed that the Israeli military is actively supporting anti-Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza with weapons and provisions, according to a report.
The videos, recorded earlier this month and authenticated by Sky News, capture a nighttime convoy of pickup trucks transporting supplies from the direction of an Israeli military base to militia-controlled areas in northern Gaza.
The footage places the convoy about 1.4 kilometers inside Israeli-controlled territory near the Erez border crossing, an area where, according to official data, no humanitarian aid has passed since February.
The vehicles, carrying fuel, water, and food, move through devastated streets before arriving at an abandoned school identified as the headquarters of the so-called People’s Army, led by Ashraf al-Mansi.
Al-Mansi recently released a video warning Hamas against entering areas under his control, saying his group is one of four anti-Hamas militias operating inside Gaza, all within zones still monitored by Israel.
Sky News had previously reported that Israel facilitated the supply of weapons, vehicles, cash, and food to another faction, the so-called Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab in southern Gaza.
The new evidence strongly suggests that Israel is now extending the same support to northern factions, flagrantly undermining the ceasefire agreement reached with Hamas on October 9.
The two videos, uploaded by a member of al-Mansi’s group on October 9 and 11, show convoys following the same route from a location less than 400 meters from an Israeli military base.
Although the footage does not show the loading of supplies, several containers on the trucks display the SOS Energy logo, an Israeli fuel supplier.
Neither the Israeli military nor representatives of the so-called People’s Army responded to Sky News’ requests for comment.
Israel’s support for Gaza-based terrorist groups continues as Hamas strives to restore order in the region following the ceasefire.
On Thursday, the Israeli news outlet Mako reported that Hamas had seized 45 pickup trucks, large sums of cash, and hundreds of weapons from Israeli-backed terrorist militias, citing unnamed sources within the Israeli military.
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… 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…
Aletho News- Mom Tells Trump: Dumping Sewage Sludge on Farmland Won’t Make America Healthy Again
- NIAID Funds Gain-of-Function Study Engineering Novel Influenza Viruses
- Villains of Judea: Philip Esformes and the Largest Healthcare Fraud in American History
- US sanctions Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad over alleged Hamas links
- You reap what you sow: Ukraine’s blackout is Zelensky’s failure
- Ukraine Blackouts Caused by Zelensky’s Terrorist Attacks on Russia
- Orban Hits Out at EU Green Light for $1.5 Trillion Ukraine Aid
- World has had enough of confused clowns: Araghchi to Zelensky
- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
- If Americans Knew
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- UNRWA Heads Tell Ha’aretz: ‘We Don’t Radicalize Palestinians – Their Lived Existence Does’
- Plans Call for “New Rafah” Built in Israel’s Image — Without Palestinians
- Posing as priest, reporter is spat at many times, highlighting anti-Christian sentiment in Israel
- Leaked Documents: “Planned Community” in Rafah Would Force Palestinians Into Israeli Panopticon
- ‘Permits of Humiliation’: How Israel Strangles Christian Education in Jerusalem
- “The world sees death, destruction and injustice – and they see dollar signs” – Not a ceasefire Day 105
- 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
- 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 