Welcome to the Peace IPO: Gaza, Rebranded as a Prospectus
In a February 2024 bull-session at Harvard, Kushner gazed at Gaza and saw—not a besieged enclave packed with families and memory – but “very valuable” waterfront property, and he floated the idea of moving civilians out so Israel could “clean it up.” As you do.
21 January 2026 David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/welcome-to-the-peace-ipo-gaza-rebranded-as-a-prospectus/
Trump’s so‑called “Board of Peace” looks less like a new deal than Jared Kushner’s “Peace to Prosperity” 2019 plan re-branded. It’s as flash as a rat with a gold tooth in a new suit and a limited‑edition Speedmaster, but woefully vapid. It’s a real‑estate pitch pimped as an opportunity to the canny. Palestinians appear merely as background labour: extras, porters, shoeshine boys and waiters in a production where they’re expected to serve, not share.
While Israel’s Likud‑led far‑right coalition continues its military actions, attacks and land grabs that UN experts and human‑rights organisations describe as genocidal in effect.
The difference is not the logic. The difference is the volume. And a crass vulgarity meter off the scale. But nothing can distract from the monumental inhumanity and asinine stupidity of the whole project.
Not to mention calculated cruelty. In 2019, the sales pitch was polite. It spoke in the soothing language of workshops and investment frameworks; a $50 billion vision to “unlock” Palestinian potential, as if the West Bank and Gaza were a start-up stuck in beta because it hadn’t embraced enough deregulation. Palestinians boycotted it because the plan put money in the driver’s seat and rights in the boot.
In 2026, the pitch is blunt: join the Board, bring capital, buy a seat at the table, said to be a US$1 billion buy-in for “permanent” membership, while the souls whose land is now an upscale reno, get “technocratic committees,” “transition governance,” and the home comforts of Israeli management.
Peace, in other words, has gone subscription-tier.
How we got this Frankenstein
The Frankenstein story begins with another colour-coded Excel spreadsheet. As so many other, modern horrors do.
Kushner’s original “Peace to Prosperity” treated Palestine as an underperforming asset. The cure was foreign capital, investment corridors, industrial parks, tax-free zones, economic carrots without a match-stick of political liberation. The occupation, the siege, the “asymmetry” or inequality of power was left intact, politely ignored, like rust and dried blood, under a quick new paint-job.
Of course, the plan didn’t just sideline Palestinians’ political agency, the elephant in the room. It shut them out. Local and global fat cats would use Palestinians as a labour pool and a “stability problem,” while sovereignty, restitution and justice sat outside, like poor, uninvited relatives at a wedding.
Then came the moment where the whole philosophy slipped its tie and revealed the raw instinct underneath it.
In a February 2024 bull-session at Harvard, Kushner gazed at Gaza and saw—not a besieged enclave packed with families and memory – but “very valuable” waterfront property, and he floated the idea of moving civilians out so Israel could “clean it up.” As you do. That is not a diplomatic remark. It is a hard-nosed developer’s call. It is the real-estate gaze: people only get in the way, land is your opportunity.
Fast-forward to Trump’s “Board of Peace,” and you can see the same gaze. Formulated.
The language is a sales brochure parody. The White House frames the Board as part of a “Comprehensive Plan” and celebrates the creation of a Gaza administrative committee as a “vital step” in a multi-phase roadmap for “peace, stability, reconstruction, and prosperity.” Al Jazeera notes a three-tier structure that puts Trump and pro-Israel officials at the top while Palestinians get to take out the garbage. The landowners are relegated to municipal duties. ABC says invitation mail-outs are thick and fast. It worries that Trump is setting up as an alternative, $uperior, model to UN mechanisms.
Satire is writing itself by the time we get to the seat price. Bloomberg reports Trump wants nations to pay $1 billion for permanent membership, with renewable term options for non-paying participants.
This is not diplomacy. This is a club. It is peace by buy-in. A moral authority with an admission fee?
Why it could be proposed at all
Something this offensive to Gaza’s actual inhabitants only makes sense once Palestine is reclassified, from homeland to high-yield opportunity zone.
That reclassification didn’t happen overnight. It took decades of a broader architecture of policy and language to reduce Palestinian rights to “final status issues”; treat their political claims as a negotiating inconvenience, and normalise de facto control on the ground as an unchangeable reality.
Once you perform that trick; once you turn rights into “issues,” and a people into an “administrative challenge”, then the next step becomes conceivable: the coastline becomes an asset; the survivors become “human resources”; and peace becomes a portfolio strategy.
Trump’s political brand fits perfectly. He fuses branding with foreign policy. He doesn’t ask, “What is just?” He asks, “What sells?” He doesn’t ask, “What do people consent to?” He asks, “Who’s paying?”
CounterPunch repeatedly frames the Trump approach to “peace” as chaotic, self-interested statecraft where the prize is not justice but leverage, contracts, and strategic positioning; the kind of diplomacy that behaves like a market raid.
So the Board of Peace is not an aberration. It is the system, finally saying the quiet part out loud.
Satire interlude: Peace, now with equity options
There is, apparently, a new path to peace in Gaza: an Initial Public Offering.
The prospectus is glossy. The board is illustrious. Only one thing missing from the term sheet is the consent of the people who actually live there.
Trump, now moonlighting as Chair of Global Serenity LLC, has got up a committee that includes himself, Kushner, and Tony Blair: a trio whose track record is a museum of modern hubris. It’s less a diplomatic team than a support group for men who believe history is a distressed asset they were born to privatise.
The sales pitch is an elegantly simple Levantine Walz:
One. Label Gaza “valuable waterfront property”; a phrase typically intoned just before someone proposes a golf course over a mass grave.
Two. Announce that peace comes with tiers. A “permanent seat”? $1 billion, thank you. Peace, but make it premium.
Three. Invite governments and investors to bid for moral authority while Palestinians are quietly sidelined into the business plan as “local capacity.”
Kushner, once tasked with making peace by people who confused “son-in-law” with “diplomat,” returns as the visionary architect. The same man who dismissed political claims as obstacles and mused that Gazans could be moved out so someone could finally do something tasteful with the shoreline.
Having failed at “Peace to Prosperity,” he has now moved on to “Peace to Portfolio Diversification.”
What it really represents
Strip away the PR turd-polish and the Board of Peace represents three deeper trends:
Neoliberal occupation
Economic-first “solutions” that treat Palestinians as an economic population to be “developed” rather than a political people to be free. This was the Bahrain model: investment theatre without dismantling the structures that make normal economic life impossible.
Financialisation of justice
A $1 billion buy-in doesn’t just raise governance questions; it changes the moral architecture. It says legitimacy can be bought. It says peace is an asset class. It says the right to influence the future of Gaza belongs to whoever can wire the funds.
Erasure by technocracy
National claims, refugees, restitution, the right of return are all swept aside and replaced with “governance development,” “capacity building,” “administrative transition.” The jargon fog in which an occupied people are recoded as an admin problem consultants can solve.
The real genius is euphemism density. Layer upon layer. Occupation becomes “security architecture.” Siege becomes “border management.” External control becomes “oversight.” And the bombed-out landscape becomes “an opportunity corridor.”
What’s likely to happen next
Here the satire ends and the stakes bite. Legitimacy will be radioactive so long as Palestinians remain excluded from real sovereignty while the conditions of coercion persist. A structure unveiled about them, without them, is not peace, it’s administration.
Those positioned to profit will circle early. Reconstruction is always where politics, contracts, and influence meet. A pay-to-play architecture is an engraved invitation to opportunists and aligned states seeking leverage.
Civil society backlash will grow precisely because the moral inversion is so blatant: catastrophe monetised; rights treated as optional add-ons.
And the core problem, the one no amount of branding can fix, remains brutally simple:
If you build “peace” on the denial of self-determination, on the absence of accountability, and on the conversion of a people’s catastrophe into a capital project, you won’t get peace.
You’ll get a prospectus. You’ll get a boardroom. You’ll get a beachfront brochure printed on the ashes.
The Debt That Cannot Be Traded
The “Board of Peace” is a gamble that history can be treated as a distressed asset, and that a people’s identity can be diluted into a dividend. It assumes that if you make the brochure glossy enough, the ghosts of the past and the demands of the present will simply vanish into the “transition committees.”
But there is a flaw in the real-estate gaze: it mistakes silence for consent and rubble for a blank slate.
True peace is not a subscription service, and it certainly isn’t a premium tier accessible only to those with a billion dollars to burn. If we have learned anything from the century that birthed this Frankenstein, it is that human dignity is the one currency that cannot be devalued by an Excel spreadsheet. The “Board” may try to privatise the future, but they cannot buy the air, the memory, or the sheer, stubborn persistence of fifteen million people who refuse to be “extras” in their own story.
The old truth remains: you can build a boardroom on a shoreline, and you can print a prospectus on the ashes, but you cannot govern a people who haven’t been seen, only managed. In the end, the most “valuable property” in Gaza isn’t the waterfront; it is the unyielding agency of those who live there.
That is the debt that eventually comes due, and it is the only one that can’t be settled at a discount and the only one we keep turning away from at incalculable cost to our collective humanity.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
60 years since the Palomares incident “The residents were constantly misinformed”.
On the Palomares nuclear accident, symbolic decontamination actions, and the lasting damage to people and the environment. A conversation with José Herrera Plaza.Interview: Norbert Suchanek
Sixty years ago, on January 17, 1966, one of the most serious nuclear accidents of the Cold War occurred over southern Spain. A US Air Force tanker collided with a B-52 bomber carrying four hydrogen bombs. Both aircraft exploded; the debris and the dangerous cargo fell from the sky over the small coastal village of Palomares in Andalusia. The parachutes on two of the four bombs failed to deploy. They shattered on impact, contaminating the air and soil around Palomares with plutonium and uranium. The fourth bomb fell into the Mediterranean Sea and was not recovered for 80 days. Where were you in January 1966 when the hydrogen bombs fell from the sky?
I was just starting school in Almería at the time. That’s about 90 kilometers from Palomares. Like most people in Andalusia, I had no idea about the hydrogen bombs hanging over our heads.
When and why did you begin your research on the Palomares accident and make it your main topic?
On January 13, 1986, I attended a meeting of the residents of Palomares. It was three days before the 20th anniversary of the accident, and their claims for compensation for health damages were about to expire. I wanted to make a documentary about this little-known, almost unbelievable story, but at the time, the source material relevant for a documentary was classified. I waited 21 years, gathering all available documents, until I was finally able to complete the documentary “Operation Broken Arrow: The Palomares Nuclear Accident.”
What does “Operation Broken Arrow” stand for?
“Broken arrow” is a code word used by the US military. It refers to an incident involving nuclear weapons, such as an accidental or unexplained nuclear explosion, or the loss or theft of nuclear weapons.
How did the local Spanish authorities react in January 1966? Were they aware of the plutonium danger?
The local authorities reacted according to the standard protocol for an aircraft accident and were without information for several days regarding the involvement of nuclear weapons and consequently also regarding the widespread contamination.
How and when did the Madrid government react?
Spanish authorities learned of the crash almost immediately, thanks to warnings transmitted by a Spanish Navy helicopter via emergency channels. Also on the same day, they learned from the US ambassador that the aircraft was carrying four hydrogen bombs. However, both governments remained silent until the media informed the public three days later.
How was it possible that the media reported on it so quickly during the Franco dictatorship?
Two days after the accident, the Spanish-American journalist André del Amo, working for United Press, was in Palomares and confirmed the involvement of nuclear weapons as well as the ground measurements taken with Geiger counters. His report appeared in major media outlets worldwide the following day. The dictatorship reacted in its usual manner: it confiscated newspapers from kiosks and at the airports in Madrid and Barcelona as soon as international flights landed.
What were the direct consequences of the hydrogen bombs bursting? Was there a risk of a nuclear explosion?
The two Mk-28-FI bombs had 68 times the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Upon impact in Palomares, the bombs exploded because the conventional explosive charge detonated in the fuse. An area of 635 hectares was subsequently contaminated with fissile fuel: approximately ten kilograms of plutonium-239 and -241, as well as slightly more than ten kilograms of uranium-235 and depleted uranium-238. While the risk of an accidental nuclear detonation was very low, it did exist. These hydrogen bombs were among the most technologically advanced in the US arsenal at the time. Their safety systems were quite good—with the exception of the conventional explosive, which was sensitive to shocks. Due to this accident and a similar one two years later in Greenland, the US military replaced this explosive with a shock- and fire-resistant alternative.
Was the population warned about the plutonium contamination and the consumption of potentially contaminated food such as tomatoes?
The inhabitants of Palomares were continually and insidiously misinformed for fifty years, both under the Franco dictatorship and in democratic Spain. They learned about their precarious situation largely through banned shortwave radio stations such as the communist Radio España Independiente , as well as through the BBC and Radio Paris with their nightly Spanish-language programs. A prominent member of the Spanish nobility, the Duchess of Medina Sidonia, also contributed to informing the local population about their situation and their rights, for which she was imprisoned by the fascist dictatorship.
Are there any data or estimates on the number of people who became ill or died as a result of the radioactive contamination?
No, because a comprehensive epidemiological study was never permitted. Independent attempts failed miserably. At the same time, the governments in Madrid and Washington maintain the official narrative that there has never been a single case of cancer caused by plutonium. In reality, however, Palomares is an environmental disaster zone with significant health risks for its inhabitants. Yet Palomares is not an exception compared to similar incidents elsewhere in the world: an invisible minority, invisible consequences.
Did the nuclear incident have any impact on tourism in southern Spain, which was then becoming an important economic factor?
In 1966, tourists visited other parts of Spain, but not this region. The province of Almería was very poor at the time and virtually isolated due to its poor transport infrastructure. However, there were fears that the accident could negatively impact tourism in the rest of the country, as the international press—especially the British and Italian press in Europe—reported on it. In Australia, a newspaper owned by the young Rupert Murdoch claimed there had been a nuclear explosion, that thousands of people were fleeing, and that the entire Spanish Mediterranean coast was contaminated. This led to the Spanish Minister of Information and the American ambassador swimming in the sea at Palomares beach in front of the media.
The US military conducted a large-scale search and cleanup operation after the crash in Palomares. How did the local population react?
The main priority of the extensive military operation was the search for the missing bomb on land and underwater. The search on land lasted over 45 days, the search at sea 80 days. Second priority was the recovery of the flight recorder and the classified B-52 components, primarily the radio equipment used for the combat log. Thirdly, over 125 tons of wreckage from the bomber and the tanker aircraft were to be recovered and sunk off the coast in the Mediterranean Sea. Finally, a symbolic decontamination operation was carried out for the international community. After the disaster, some people likely suffered from a kind of post-traumatic stress. Subsequently, a collective paranoia gripped the city, exacerbated by the contradictions between the statements of the authorities of both countries. The population was suddenly catapulted into the nuclear age and had to grapple with a new concept: radioactivity.
Was the military able to remove all the plutonium from the region?
After lengthy and asymmetrical negotiations between the hegemonic power, the USA, and the Franco dictatorship, they agreed to remove the plutonium, which had been scattered to the winds, and return it to the USA. However, they transported only 650 cubic meters of contaminated soil and 350 cubic meters of contaminated crop residue to the USA. The agreement was not honored because the excavated soil, stored in metal drums, was not the most heavily contaminated. It is estimated that less than one percent of the plutonium, just under 100 grams, returned to the USA in the 4,810 metal drums, each holding 208 liters. The remaining contaminated fields were plowed to inject the plutonium 30 centimeters into the soil. Forty years later, two secretly constructed pits containing approximately 4,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste were discovered in the region.
What happened to the contaminated material from Palomares in the USA?
Two metal drums were sent to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for plant experiments. 4,808 metal drums were transported to Aiken, South Carolina, to the Savannah River Nuclear Complex of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and buried at a depth of six meters. This was accompanied by a comprehensive, worldwide propaganda campaign. The fact that 99 percent of the plutonium and uranium remained in the soil of Palomares was kept secret from the public, and especially from the residents and farmers who cultivated these radioactively contaminated areas. The U.S. Air Force and the Spanish government assured them that the land was completely decontaminated and that there was no danger. Meanwhile, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the Junta de Energía Nuclear in Spain used the situation to conduct a secret experiment program on the local population. The aim was to investigate the uptake and storage of plutonium and uranium in the human body by a representative number of individuals from a population potentially exposed to inhaling plutonium oxide aerosol. This was the secret program codenamed “Indalo Project,” which was carried out without the informed consent of the local population.
What is the current situation in Palomares? Are there still contaminated areas and radioactive hazards in the region?
Despite assurances from Spain and the US that there was no longer any danger to farmers and their families, the plowing of the soil with plutonium in 1966 led to the stirring up and release of numerous aerosols containing radioactive elements. For forty years, the residents of Palomares were exposed to radioactive nuclides. It wasn’t until 2006 that the first radiation protection measures were implemented for the population, restricting access to and agricultural use of a 40-hectare area through fencing and marking. Now, sixty years later, we are still waiting for the central government in Madrid to carry out the decontamination. It has never prioritized the issue, even though it is documented that more than 210 residents exhibited symptoms of internal lung contamination. The actual number of those affected, however, remains unknown. After all, the political elites of the central government live over 520 kilometers away in Madrid.
Why did the B-52 bomber fly over southern Spain with nuclear weapons back then?
This occurred as part of Operation Chrome Dome, which began on January 18, 1961. From then on, four to six strategic bombers flew round-trip missions over Spain every day, year after year. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, 42 bombers were in the air daily. They came from the East Coast of the United States, crossed Spanish airspace, approached southern Italy, and returned to their bases over Spain. Each B-52 carried four thermonuclear bombs. In an attack scenario, they could reach and attack their targets within one to two hours, depending on whether the target was in the USSR or another Warsaw Pact state. For five years, more than 17,000 bombers flew over Spain and were refueled 26,000 times. No other country in Europe permitted such dangerous maneuvers in its airspace. Almost 35,000 hydrogen bombs flew over our heads. The collisions over Palomares and two years later over Thule in Greenland occurred because the law of probability came into play.
How will you commemorate the 60th anniversary of this never-ending Palomares disaster?
I am planning a photo exhibition and a panel discussion at the Villaespesa Library in Almería entitled “Palomares – 60 Years of Government Failure.” I also expect to present my new book at the end of January. It is titled “The Year of the Bombs: Stories from Palomares.” The book brings together the testimonies of 27 Spaniards and Americans who were involuntarily involved in the Palomares disaster. It is written in the style of a documentary narrative, similar to Svetlan Alexievich’s “Voices from Chernobyl,” a work to which it thus pays homage. It is about counteracting oblivion. The story of Palomares is not yet over. It continues to be written.
The Mirage of the Enemy: Deconstructing Contemporary Media Bias
Following the “12-Day War” strikes in June 2025, which targeted Iranian facilities at Natanz and Fordow, the narrative shifted from “containment” to “inevitable conflict.” By painting the Iranian leadership as “Mad Mullahs” who cannot be deterred, the West creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where diplomacy is framed as cowardice and bombardment as “safety.”
20 January 2026 David Tyler , Australian Independent Media
In the opening weeks of 2026, the Western media’s portrait of Iran has reached a fever pitch of distortion. We are told, with the practised urgency of a countdown, that we are witnessing the final days of a “mad” regime, a nuclear-armed chaos factory that must be dismantled for the safety of the world. Yet, if we pull back the curtain on this narrative, we find a much more complex and tragic story, one where Iran is not merely a rogue actor, but a civilisation trapped between the hammer of domestic repression, and the anvil of imperial design whilst being wickedly misreported by a mainstream media, at the service of a power elite.
To understand Iran today, we must first dismantle two colliding fictions that monopolise our screens: the myth of the “irrational” religious state and the “imminent” nuclear menace. Blend in blame the victim in the guise of Coalition Islamophobia such Tony Abbott’s jibe that Islam “has a massive problem”.
The Original Sin: A Democracy Interrupted
The “anti-Western” sentiment so often cited by CNN or the ABC as proof of Iranian fanaticism did not emerge from a theological vacuum. It was set up in 1953. When Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a secular nationalist, dared to nationalise Iran’s oil to benefit his own people, the CIA and MI6 responded with Operation Ajax. By toppling a democratically elected leader to reinstate the Shah, the West sent a clear message: Iranian sovereignty is secondary to the flow of crude.
Historical amnesia is the bedrock of modern disinformation. We are taught to see the 1979 Revolution as a sudden burst of “madness,” ignoring a quarter-century of torture by the Shah’s SAVAK secret police that preceded it. The West did not lose a “friend” in 1979; it lost a compliant oil warden, and it has never forgiven the Iranian people for the replacement.
The Nuclear Paradox: A Richly Hypocritical Charge
The most potent weapon in the media’s arsenal is the “Nuclear Menace.” For over two decades, we have been told Iran is “months away” from a bomb. It’s a claim that persists despite IAEA confirmations of compliance and US intelligence assessments that Tehran has not, in fact, decided to weaponise.
There is a profound irony in watching nuclear-armed powers; including Israel, with its uninspected arsenal of hundreds of warheads; lecture a nation under total siege about the “danger of annihilation.” This is the collision of the Whipping Boy and the Existential Threat: Iran must be small enough to be bullied by sanctions, yet large enough to justify the $100 billion arms deals the U.S. signs with its regional rivals.
Following the “12-Day War” strikes in June 2025, which targeted Iranian facilities at Natanz and Fordow, the narrative shifted from “containment” to “inevitable conflict.” By painting the Iranian leadership as “Mad Mullahs” who cannot be deterred, the West creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where diplomacy is framed as cowardice and bombardment as “safety.”
The Starlink Catastrophe: A Digital Trojan Horse
Nowhere is the gap between Western “solidarity” and tactical reality more glaring than in the recent Starlink disaster. Throughout late 2025, Western pundits celebrated a “digital liberation” as thousands of Starlink internet terminals were reportedly smuggled into Iran to bypass government blackouts. It was framed as a gift from the tech elite “billionaire-Bros” to the brave dissidents in the streets of Tehran.
Were the dissidents ranks swollen by foreign agents? Certainly. It was Israel who prevailed upon “Help is on its way” Trump not to proceed because so many “assets” had been lost. We will never know the true figures. But we do know that rebels were trapped. In reality, it was a digital Trojan Horse. By January 2026, it was clear that the “liberation” had been turned into a mass-surveillance dragnet. The Iranian Cyber Police (FATA) and the IRGC’s intelligence wing had not been outsmarted; they had been waiting.
The Trap: Because Starlink terminals require a clear line of sight to the sky, activists were forced to place them on rooftops and in open squares.
The Triangulation: Using signal-intercept technology and GPS-tracking beacons embedded in intercepted shipments, the Iranian police were able to map the exact coordinates of every active terminal.
The Fallout: In a series of ruthless raids across Tehran, Isfahan, and Mashhad, thousands of individuals, believing they were using “secure” Western tech, unwittingly broadcast their locations to the state.
This catastrophe reveals a dark truth: Western “help” often functions more as a tool for intelligence gathering than for any liberation. The thousands of young Iranians and “helpers” now in custody are the human cost of a “regime change” fantasy that prioritises high-tech optics over the safety of the people on the ground.
Sanctions as Slow-Motion War
We are told that sanctions target “the regime,” (never the government) but the reality is collective punishment. By severing Iran from the SWIFT banking system, the West has triggered 70% food inflation and chronic shortages of life-saving medicines. This is the Shock Doctrine in action: hollow out the middle class, starve the vulnerable, and wait for the “inevitable” uprising.
As the 2026 protests continue, fuelled by both genuine grievance and economic desperation, we must be wary of “selective outrage.” The same outlets that decry Iranian repression remain silent on Saudi beheadings or the UAE’s labour- camps. This hypocrisy suggests that the West is not interested in Iranian freedom, but in Iranian subservience.
Myths vs. Realities of 2026
| The Myth | The Ground Reality | The Strategic Goal |
| “Irrational Actors” | Iran’s strategy is a defensive response to 70 years of encirclement. | Justify pre-emptive strikes. |
| “Tech Liberation” | Tools like Starlink were compromised, leading to 2,400+ arrests. | Co-opt domestic dissent for foreign Intel. |
| “Targeted Sanctions” | 85 million people are suffering from medicine and food shortages. | Destabilise for regime change. |
This guide deconstructs the mechanisms of “perception management” used by mainstream Western media as we navigate the crises of 2026. It highlights the stark contrast between the breathless coverage of Iran’s internal strife and the calculated silence or obfuscation regarding the “old news” of a post-Assad Syria and the enduring genocide in Gaza.
1. Selective Credibility: The Death Toll Gap
One of the most potent tools of manipulation is the Hierarchy of Proof. In 2026, we see a radical divergence in how Western outlets verify human loss.
In Iran: Media outlets like CBS and the ABC frequently lead with headlines such as “Over 12,000 feared dead,” citing “anonymous sources” or single activists with a VPN. These figures are treated as objective truth to manufacture a sense of immediate, catastrophic urgency that demands foreign intervention.
In Gaza: Despite the “first live-streamed genocide” producing mountains of forensic video evidence, Western media continues to use the “Gaza Health Ministry” caveat to cast doubt on Palestinian death tolls. Even as the count surpassed 70,000 in late 2025, it was framed as “disputed” or “unverifiable,” a technique designed to stall public empathy and political action.
2. The Starlink Catastrophe: A Case Study in Techno-Orientalism
The recent tragedy involving Starlink terminals in Iran serves as a masterclass in how Western media markets “liberation” while obscuring tactical reality. In late 2025, a narrative was sold to the Western public: Silicon Valley would “break the mullahs’ internet” by smuggling thousands of terminals into the country.
The catastrophe unfolded in three distinct phases of media manipulation:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://theaimn.net/the-mirage-of-the-enemy-deconstructing-contemporary-media-bias/
Iran & Israel Secretly Agreed Not To Attack Each Other Through Russian Backchannel
by Tyler Durden, Jan 15, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iran-israel-secretly-agreed-not-attack-each-other-through-russian-backchannel-wapo
There may have been some back-channel dealmaking and a ‘mutual understanding’ reached between Iran and Israel far behind the scenes as protests unfolded on Iran’s streets, and as President Trump began to make threats about striking Tehran.
At a moment Trump seems to have climbed down (at least for now) from the threatened drive to intervene militarily, The Washington Post has issued a Wednesday report saying Israel and Iran have been in indirect diplomatic contact via Russia as a mediator.
“Days before protests erupted in Iran in late December, Israeli officials notified the Iranian leadership via Russia that they would not launch strikes against Iran if Israel were not attacked first,” WaPo writes. “Iran responded through the Russian channel that it would also refrain from a preemptive attack, diplomats and regional officials with knowledge of the exchange said.”
Could this be because of the Iranian missiles that rained down on Tel Aviv back in June? If so, it seems the Islamic Republic has finally established deterrence.
The timeline of what was communicated when remains unclear. But this backchannel had already been revealed in Middle East media reports, for example in the following prior reporting:
Israel and Iran have recently exchanged secret, indirect messages through Russia in the midst of heightened regional tensions, according to a new report by Amwaj.media today. The exchanges were described as an effort to prevent further military escalation rather than to establish any form of ceasefire or diplomatic framework.
According to the report, the messages were conveyed through Russian President Vladimir Putin after Israel sought to pass along a signal that it was not interested in escalating military conflict at this stage. Iranian officials acknowledged the message but emphasized that their reply carried no commitment, no coordination, and no obligation on Iran’s part. An Iranian political source quoted in the report said bluntly that “there is no commitment, no coordination, and no ceasefire agreement.” The source emphasized that the contact should not be interpreted as a step toward broader understandings between the two countries, which remain bitter adversaries with no direct diplomatic ties.
The exchanges were reportedly limited in scope and intent. No guarantees were offered, no timelines were discussed, and no monitoring or enforcement mechanisms were established. One source described the communication as “a mutual announcement to a mutual friend on no new strikes,” meaning that the goal was simply to manage tensions at a specific moment rather than to lock in any lasting arrangement.
A senior Iranian political source confirmed that indirect communication with Israel had indeed taken place, identifying Russia, and specifically Putin, as the intermediary. The source reiterated that there was “no ceasefire agreement” and that the messages amounted only to parallel notifications of intent, rather than a shared understanding or deal.
The report says the Iranian side of the exchanges was handled not by the foreign ministry but by Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
It’s possible that this served as important background to Trump’s apparent decision to not strike Iran at this point. Israel is usually the country yelling loudest to hit Iran, but this time the Netanyahu government was somewhat muted.
By all accounts, Iran’s streets have pretty much gone quiet by now, after a crescendo of violence this week left hundreds dead, including many police and security personnel.
Revealed: The CIA-Backed Think Tanks Fueling The Iran Protests
Reading between the lines, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is attempting to build up a widespread network of media outlets, NGOs, activists, intellectuals, student leaders and politicians who will all sing from the same hymn sheet, that of “transitioning” from “authoritarianism” (i.e., the current system of government” to “democracy,” (i.e., a U.S.-picked government). In other words: regime change.
Mint Press News, January 15th, 2026. Alan Macleod
As waves of deadly demonstrations and counter-demonstrations hit Iran, MintPress examines the CIA-backed NGOs helping to stir the outrage and foment more violence.
One of these groups is Human Rights Activists In Iran, frequently referred to as HRA or HRAI in the media. The group, and its media arm, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) have become the go-to group of experts for Western media, and are the source of many of the most inflammatory claims and shockingly high casualty figures reported in the press. In the past week alone, their assertions have provided much of the basis for stories in CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, ABC News, Sky News, and The New York Post, among others. And in a passionate plea for leftists to support the protests, Owen Jones wrote in The Guardian Tuesday that HRAI are a “respected” group whose death toll proclamations are “probably significant underestimates.”
Yet what none of these reports mention is that Human Rights Activists In Iran is bankrolled by the Central Intelligence Agency, through its cutout organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
“Independent” NGOs, Brought to You By the CIA
Established in 2006, Human Rights Activists in Iran is based in Fairfax, Virginia, just a stone’s throw away from CIA headquarters in Langley. It describes itself as a “non-political” association of activists dedicated to advancing freedom and rights in Iran. On its website, it notes that, “because the organization seeks to remain independent, it doesn’t accept financial aid from neither political groups nor governments.” Yet, in the same paragraph, it notes that “HRAI has also been accepting donations from National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit, non-governmental organization in the United States of America.” The level of NED investment into HRAI has been substantial, to say the least; journalist Michael Tracey found that, in 2024 alone, the NED had apportioned well over $900,000 towards the organization.
Another NGO widely cited in recent media reports on the protests is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI). The group has been quoted widely, including by The Washington Post, PBS, and ABC News. Like with the HRAI, these reports also fail to disclose the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center’s proximity to the U.S. national security state.
Although it does not mention it in its funding disclaimer, the center is supported by the NED. Last year, the NED described the center as a “partner” organization, and awarded its director, Roya Boroumand, their 2024 Goler T. Butcher medal for democracy promotion.
“Roya and her organization have worked rigorously and objectively to document human rights violations committed by the regime in Iran,” said Amira Maaty, senior director for NED’s Middle East and North Africa programs. “The work of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center is an indispensable resource for victims to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable under international law. NED is proud to support Roya and the center in their advocacy for human rights and tireless pursuit of a democratic future for Iran.”
In addition to this, sitting on the center’s board of directors is controversial academic, Francis Fukuyama, a former NED board member and an editor of its “Journal of Democracy” publication.
If anything, the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) has gone further than HRAI or the ABCHRI. Widely cited across Western media (e.g., The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today), the CHRI has been the source of many of the goriest and most lurid stories coming out of Iran. A Monday article in The Washington Post, for example, leaned on the CHRI’s expertise to report that Iranian hospitals were being overwhelmed and had even run out of blood to treat the victims of government repression. “A massacre is unfolding. The world must act now to prevent further loss of life,” a CHRI spokesperson said. Given President Trump’s recent threats about U.S. military attacks on Iran, the implications of the statement were clear.
And yet, like with the other NGOs profiled, none of the corporate media outlets citing the Center for Human Rights in Iran noted its close connections to the U.S. national security state. The CHRI – an Iranian human rights group based in New York City and Washington, D.C. – was identified by the government of China as directly funded by the NED.
The claim is far from outlandish, given that CHRI board member, Mehrangiz Kar, is a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the NED. And in 2002 at a star-studded gala on Capitol Hill, First Lady Laura Bush and future president Joe Biden presented Kar with the NED’s annual Democracy Award.
A History of Regime Change Ops
The National Endowment for Democracy was created in 1983 by the Reagan administration, after a series of scandals had seriously damaged the image and reputation of the CIA. The Church Committee – a 1975 U.S. Senate investigation into CIA activities – found that the agency had masterminded the assassination of several foreign heads of state, was involved in a massive domestic surveillance campaign against progressive groups, had infiltrated and placed agents in hundreds of U.S. media outlets, and was carrying out shocking mind control experiments on unwilling American participants.
Technically a private entity, although receiving virtually all its funding from the federal government and being staffed by ex-spooks, the NED was created as a way to outsource many of the agency’s most controversial activities, especially overseas regime change operations. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, the NED’s longtime president, said in 1986. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.
Part of the CIA’s mission was to create a worldwide network of media outlets and NGOs that would parrot CIA talking points, passing it off as credible news. As former CIA taskforce leader John Stockwell admitted, “I had propagandists all over the world.” Stockwell went on to describe how he helped flood the world with fake news demonizing Cuba:
We pumped dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists [to the media]… We ran [faked] photographs that made almost every newspaper in the country… We didn’t know of one single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw, false propaganda to create an illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast.”
Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, alluded this being active CIA policy. At a 2019 talk at Texas A&M University, he said, “When I was a cadet, what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses [on] it!”
One of the NED’s greatest successes came in 1996, when it successfully swung elections in Russia, spending vast amounts of money to ensure U.S. puppet ruler Boris Yeltsin would remain in power. Yeltsin, who came to power in a 1993 coup that dissolved parliament, was deeply unpopular, and it appeared that the Russian public were ready to vote for a return to Communism. The NED and other American agencies flooded Russia with money and propaganda, ensuring their man remained in power. The story was cataloged in a famous edition of Time magazine, whose title page was emblazoned with the words, “Yanks To The Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win.”
Six years later, the NED provided both the finances and the brains for a briefly successful coup d’état against Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. The NED spent hundreds of thousands of dollars flying coup leaders (such as Marina Corina Machado) back and forth to Washington, D.C. After the coup was overturned and the plot was exposed, NED funding to Machado and her allies actually increased, and the organization has continued to fund her and her political organizations.
The NED would have more luck in Ukraine, playing a key role in the successful 2014 Maidan Revolution that toppled President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with a pro-U.S. successor. The Maidan affair followed a tried-and-tested formula, with large numbers of people coming out to protest, and a hardcore of trained paramilitaries carrying out acts of violence aimed at destabilizing the government and provoking a military response.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (and future NED board member) Victoria Nuland flew to Kiev to signal the U.S. government’s full support of the movement to oust Yanukovych, even handing out cookies to protestors in the city’s main square. A leaked telephone call showed that the new Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was directly chosen by Nuland. “Yats is the guy,” she can be heard telling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, citing his experience and friendliness with Washington as key factors. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and its aftermath would lead to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine eight years later.
Just across the border in Belarus, the NED planned similar actions to overthrow President Alexander Lukashenko. At the time of the attempt (2020-2021), the NED was pursuing 40 active projects inside the country.
On a Zoom call infiltrated and covertly recorded by activists, the NED’s senior Europe Program officer, Nina Ognianova, boasted that the groups leading the nationwide demonstrations against Lukashenko were trained by her organization. “We don’t think that this movement that is so impressive and so inspiring came out of nowhere — that it just happened overnight,” she said, noting that the NED had made a “significant contribution” to the protests.
On the same call, NED President Gershman noted that “we support many, many groups, and we have a very, very active program throughout the country, and many of the groups obviously have their partners in exile,” boasting that the Belarusian government was powerless to stop them. “We’re not like Freedom House or NDI [the National Democratic Institute] and the IRI [International Republican Institute]; we don’t have offices. So if we’re not there, they can’t kick us out,” he said, comparing the NED to other U.S. regime change organizations.
The attempted Color Revolution did not succeed, however, as demonstrators were met with large counter-demonstrations, and Lukashenko remains in power to this day. The NED’s actions were a key factor in Lukashenko’s decision to abandon his relationship with the West, and ally Belarus with Russia.
Just months after their failure in Belarus, the NED fomented another regime change attempt, this time in Cuba. The agency spent millions of dollars infiltrating and buying off pliant musical artists, especially in the hip hop community, in an attempt to turn local popular culture against its revolution. Led by Cuban rappers, the U.S. attempted to rally the people into the streets, flooding social media with calls from celebrities and politicians alike to topple the government. This did not translate into boots on the ground, however, and the fiasco was written off sarcastically as the U.S.’ “Bay of Tweets.”
So many of the most visible protest movements the world over have been quietly masterminded by the NED. This includes the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests, wherein the agency funnelled millions to the movement’s leaders to keep people in the streets as long as possible. The NED continues to work with Uyghur and Tibetan separatist groups, in the hope of destabilizing China. Other known NED meddling projects include interfering with elections in France, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Poland.
It is precisely for these reasons, therefore, that accepting funding from the NED should be unthinkable for any serious NGO or human rights organization, as so many that do have been front groups for American power and clandestine regime change operations. It is also why the public should be extremely wary about any claims made by organizations on the payroll of a CIA cutout organization, especially those that attempt to hide the fact. Journalists, too, have a duty to scrutinize any statements made by these groups, and inform their readers and viewers about their inherent conflicts of interests.
Targeting Iran
Apart from funding the three U.S.-based human rights NGOs profiled here, the NED is spearheading a myriad of operations targeting the Islamic Republic. According to its 2025 grant listings, there are currently 18 active NED projects for Iran, although the agency does not divulge any of the groups they are working with.
It also refuses to divulge any hard details about these projects, beyond rather bland descriptions that include:
Empowering” a network of “frontline and exiled activists” inside Iran;
“Promoting independent journalism,” and “Establishing media platforms to influence the public;”
“Monitoring and promoting human rights;”
“Training student leaders inside Iran;”
“Advancing policy analysis, debate, and collective actions on democracy,” and;
“Foster[ing] collaboration between Iranian civil society and political activists on a democratic vision and raise awareness on civic rights within the legal community, the organization will facilitate debate on transition models from authoritarianism to democracy.”
Reading between the lines, the NED is attempting to build up a widespread network of media outlets, NGOs, activists, intellectuals, student leaders and politicians who will all sing from the same hymn sheet, that of “transitioning” from “authoritarianism” (i.e., the current system of government” to “democracy,” (i.e., a U.S.-picked government). In other words: regime change.
Iran, of course, has been in American crosshairs ever since the removal of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi during the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79. Pahlavi himself had been kept in place by the CIA, who engineered a coup against the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh (1952-53). Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Washington by nationalizing the country’s oil industry, carrying out land reform, and refusing to crush the communist Tudeh Party.
The CIA (the NED’s parent organization), infiltrated Iranian media, paying them to run hysterical anti-Mossadegh content, carried out terror attacks inside Iran, bribed officials to turn against the president, cultivated ties with reactionary elements within the military, and paid protestors to flood the streets at anti-Mossadegh rallies.
The shah reigned for 26 bloody years between 1953 and 1979, until he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution.
The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who almost immediately invaded Iran, leading to a bitter, eight-year long conflict that killed at least half a million people. Washington supplied Hussein with a wide range of weapons, including components for chemical weapons used on Iranians, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.
Since 1979, Iran has also been under restrictive American economic sanctions, measures that have severely hindered the country’s development. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and turned up the economic pressure. The result was a collapse in the value of the Iranian rial, mass unemployment, soaring rents and a doubling of the price of food. Ordinary people lost both their savings and their long-term security.
Throughout this, Trump has constantly threatened Iran with attack, finally following through in June, bombing a host of infrastructure projects inside the country.
A Legitimate Protest
The current demonstrations began on December 28 as a protest against rising prices. Yet they quickly ballooned into something much bigger, with thousands calling for an overthrow of the government, and even the reinstatement of the monarchy under the son of the shah, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
They were quickly supported and signal boosted by the U.S. and Israeli national security states. “The Iranian regime is in trouble,” Pompeo announced. “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them…” he added. Israeli media are openly reporting that “foreign elements” (i.e., Israeli) are “arming the protesters in Iran with live weapons, and this is the reason for the hundreds of dead among the regime’s people.”
The Israeli intelligence services confirmed Pompeo’s not-so-cryptic assertion. “Go out together into the streets. The time has come,” the spying agency’s official social media accounts instructed Iranians: “We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.”
Trump echoed those words. “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” he roared, adding that American “help is on the way.”
Any debate about what Trump meant by “American help” was ended on Monday, when he stated that “If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue… We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” He also attempted to place an all-out economic blockade, announcing that any country trading with Tehran would face an additional 25% tariff.
All of this, added to the increasing violence of the protests, makes it much harder for Iranians to express themselves politically. What started as a demonstration about the cost of living has spiralled into a huge, openly insurrectionist movement, backed and fomented by the U.S. and Israel. Iranians, of course, have every right to protest, but a wealth of factors have raised the very real possibility that much of the anti-government movement is an inorganic, U.S.-orchestrated attempt at regime change. While Iranians can argue about how they wish to express themselves and what sort of government they want, what is undebatable is that so many of the think tanks and NGOs called upon to provide supposed expert evidence and commentary about these protests are tools of the National Endowment for Democracy.
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary:
The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd.
Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 17, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-war-on-free-speech-in-australia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=184831756&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A mentally disabled Australian woman is being prosecuted for antisemitic hate crimes after accidentally pocket-dialing a Jewish nutritionist, resulting in a blank voicemail which caused the nutritionist “immediate fear and nervousness” because she thought some of the background noises in the recording sounded a bit like gunshots.
We’re being told we need more of this. There’s “hate speech” legislation presently in the works to make this worse. Australia’s controversial Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill appears to be explicitly crafted to dramatically increase the scale, frequency and consequences of the exact sort of dynamics we’re seeing in this case, and to eradicate opposition to Israel throughout the nation.
This is how overextended Australia’s freakout over “antisemitism” already is. You can literally just be sitting there not saying or doing anything and still find yourself getting arrested and prosecuted for an antisemitic hate crime. They have the authority to do this presently, under the laws that already exist. The argument for this bill is that our present horrifyingly tyrannical and abusive system is insufficiently authoritarian and tyrannical, and that prosecutors need more power to police speech far more forcefully.
Australians are being asked to trust a system that would take a woman with an intellectual disability to prosecution in a court of law over an accidental butt-dial to a person of Jewish faith with the authority to send people to prison for years over their political speech. And this is happening after we just spent years watching Australian authorities roll out authoritarian measures to stomp out criticism of Israel and quash protests against an active genocide.
This is madness, and it needs to be brought to a screeching halt. Immediately. This entire country has lost its damn mind.
The Bondi attack isn’t the reason, it’s the excuse. All these laws being rolled out to stomp out criticism of Israel in Australia were sought for years before the shooting occurred.
Immediately after the attack last month I tweeted, “Not a lot of info about the Bondi shooting yet but it’s safe to assume it will be used as an excuse to target pro-Palestine activists and further outlaw criticism of Israel in Australia, as has been happening to a greater and greater extent in this country for the last two years.”
They could have proved me wrong, but instead they’ve spent this entire time proving me one hundred percent correct. The frenzied efforts to crush anti-genocide protests and silence speech that is critical of Israel and Zionism in these subsequent weeks has plainly established this.
There is no connection between pro-Palestine demonstrations and the Bondi attack. None. It had nothing to do with Palestinians, and it had nothing to do with anti-genocide demonstrations. It’s a completely made-up claim that Israel’s supporters have been circulating in Australian consciousness through sheer repetition. They’re just pretending to believe it’s true in order to promote the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.
Israel’s supporters need to use propaganda, deception, censorship and oppression to promote their agendas, because it’s all they have. They don’t have truth. They don’t have arguments. They don’t have morality. All they have is brute force. They are shoving support for Israel and its atrocities down our throats whether we like it or not, and if we refuse what we’re being force-fed they will punish us. That’s the only tool in their toolbox.
This needs to be ferociously opposed. The more Israel and its supporters work to assault our right to oppose their abuses, the more aggressively we need to oppose them. We are no longer fighting against war and genocide in the middle east, we are fighting against an assault on our own civil rights. It’s personal now. They’re coming for us directly.
The Nobel Peace Prize, Re-Gifted (Peace Through Strength™ Edition)
17 January 2026 Roswell, https://theaimn.net/the-nobel-peace-prize-re-gifted-peace-through-strength-edition/
Donald Trump stands beneath the presidential seal, gripping a gold medal the way a game-show winner clutches an oversized cheque. The cameras whir. The aides clap a little too loudly.
Beside him, María Corina Machado beams, her smile frozen somewhere between gratitude and hostage-negotiation optimism. She has just presented Trump with an 18-karat validation token for what she calls his “extraordinary leadership,” otherwise known as the special-forces operation that removed Nicolás Maduro with the urgency of a late pizza pickup.
The symbolism is exquisite. A prize historically associated with non-violent resistance, moral courage, and painstaking diplomacy is now being ceremonially re-gifted as a thank-you for a military abduction. Gandhi spins. Martin Luther King Jr. sighs. Alfred Nobel briefly considers haunting someone.
Trump’s Truth Social post hits like a victory lap: “María presented me with her Nobel Peace Prize for the work I have done. Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect. Thank you María!” Meanwhile, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is out there speed-tweeting clarifications like panicked HR reps: “A medal can change owners, but the title of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate cannot. Please return to sender if found in wrong hands.”
It’s the political equivalent of winning Employee of the Month because your coworker felt bad you got passed over last year, then framing the certificate and hanging it in your office anyway. Machado’s inscription? “To President Donald J. Trump in Gratitude for Your Extraordinary Leadership in Promoting Peace through Strength.” Translation: “Thanks for the special forces cameo – here’s some shiny validation. Now maybe back me as interim prez?” (Spoiler: Trump reportedly already lost interest in her leadership bid months ago when she didn’t publicly demand the prize go to him instead. Classic.)
The irony is thicker than the gold plating: A prize meant to honour tireless non-violent struggle against tyranny gets symbolically transferred in gratitude for a military abduction op. Next thing you know, Trump’s melting it down for a limited-edition MAGA coin collection or auctioning it on Truth Social to fund the wall around Mar-a-Lago.
If this doesn’t win Satire of the Year, nothing will. The Nobel just became the ultimate regift – peace prize edition. Your move, universe. What part of this timeline do you want to break next?
Chubu Electric’s data fraud ‘undermines’ Japan’s nuclear energy policy
10 Jan 2026 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/01/10/japan/chubu-electric-data-fraud/
Chubu Electric Power’s data fraud linked to earthquake risks at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant has splashed cold water on the Japanese government’s energy policy of maximizing nuclear power use.
Shinsuke Yamanaka, chief of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, has said that the NRA’s safety screening of the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at the plant in Shizuoka Prefecture is expected to “go back to square one.”
A delay in the restart of Hamaoka reactors will deal a blow to Chubu Electric’s earnings and affect the government’s goal of raising the share of nuclear power in the country’s energy mix.
The new basic energy plan of the government, adopted in February 2025, marked a shift from its policy of reducing dependence on nuclear power as much as possible, which was introduced following the March 2011 triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ tsunami-stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The plan instead calls for fully utilizing nuclear energy to meet surging electricity demand in the country. It specifically seeks to raise the share of nuclear power in the energy mix to about 20% by fiscal 2040 from the current level of slightly less than 10%. For this to be achieved, the number of active nuclear power reactors should be increased from the current 14 to more than 30.
Late last year, the process to obtain local consent was completed for the restart of reactors at Tepco’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station in Niigata Prefecture and Hokkaido Electric Power’s Tomari plant in Hokkaido.
On Jan. 20, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant’s No. 6 reactor is expected to become the first Tepco reactor to be brought back online since the 2011 disaster.
Yamanaka said that the NRA does not plan to investigate nuclear power plants other than the Hamaoka power station for data fraud similar to the irregularities found at the Chubu Electric plant.
If public trust in safety is eroded, however, securing local consent for future reactor restarts would become increasingly difficult.
Chubu Electric’s data fraud case “will greatly undermine public trust in safety,” industry minister Ryosei Akazawa told a news conference Friday. “This should not have happened.” He vowed to “take strict measures” against Chubu Electric based on its upcoming report on preventive steps.
If the safety screening of the Hamaoka reactors restarts from scratch, the power supplier’s earnings will be affected significantly.
The company expects that its profitability will improve by about ¥250 billion a year if the Nos. 3 to 5 reactors at the Hamaoka plant are brought back online. The Nos. 1 and 2 reactors at the plant ended operations in January 2009 and are now being decommissioned.
At a news conference Monday, Chubu Electric President Kingo Hayashi said, “The company’s responsibility for the data fraud is serious.”
On whether he will step down from his post, Hayashi said only that he will consider the matter “comprehensively.”
Hayashi also serves as chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan.
Chubu Electric is also expected to struggle in its decarbonization efforts after the company decided last year to withdraw from a project to construct wind power plants at a total of three locations off the coasts of Akita and Chiba prefectures.
From Musk to TikTok: How AI Fakes Fueled a Disinformation Frenzy Around Maduro
By Joshua Scheer,January 5, 2026 https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/05/from-musk-to-tiktok-how-ai-fakes-fueled-a-disinformation-frenzy-around-maduro/
In the hours following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, social media erupted with images and videos claiming to show Venezuelans “celebrating their liberation” by the United States. The posts went viral, amplified by high-profile accounts—including Elon Musk—but fact-checkers confirm that much of the content was entirely AI-generated, highlighting the deepening crisis of truth in the digital age. Elon has a tendency to amplify fake reports and misleading claims.
A video posted on X (formerly Twitter) by the account Wall Street Apes featured text claiming, “Venezuelans are crying on their knees thanking Trump and America for freeing them from Nicolás Maduro,” and racked up over 5 million views. But close analysis revealed glaring inconsistencies: elderly women appearing and disappearing, flags that change shape, and impossible crowd formations. The earliest version of the clip appeared on TikTok, where the account “curiosmindusa” has a history of AI-generated videos.
Similarly, images purporting to show Maduro in custody with DEA agents were widely circulated. One viral photo, shared by conservative activist Benny Johnson, shows the Venezuelan leader flanked by soldiers in fatigues marked “DEA.” Open source intelligence analysts traced the image to X user Ian Weber, who described himself as an “AI video art enthusiast” and later admitted, “This photo I created with AI went viral worldwide.” Analysis using Google’s Gemini AI model detected a hidden SynthID watermark, confirming the image was digitally generated.
Even more elaborate disinformation spread through fake celebration photos from Caracas and protests in New York. Flags had incorrect colors or star patterns, protest signs were illegible, and images were clearly manufactured by AI rather than capturing real-world events. Fact-checkers at PolitiFact rated the posts “Pants on Fire!”
Ben Norton tweeted this “This is a fake, AI-generated video. But it has more than 5 million views, 35K+ shares, and 118K likes. The US empire’s war propaganda is getting much more sophisticated. You can bet the US government will use AI to try to justify its many more imperialist wars of aggression.”
Another major problem arises when scenes from movies are circulated and presented as real news, blurring the line between fiction and reality.
The flood of misinformation comes amid a broader U.S. political context: Trump announced Maduro’s capture on Truth Social, stating the Venezuelan leader had been “captured and flown out of the country,” while U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced indictments for narco-terrorism, cocaine importation, and possession of machine guns. Within hours, social media was saturated with AI-manipulated content, old footage misrepresented as recent, and misleading images that blurred the line between reality and fiction.
As WIRED and other outlets noted, even AI chatbots—including X’s Grok and ChatGPT—were unable to verify the events in real time, sometimes offering contradictory or false information.
The Maduro case shows a frightening new reality: in the era of AI-generated media, “seeing is no longer believing.” High-profile endorsements of fabricated content—whether by influencers, politicians, or tech executives—can spread disinformation faster than traditional fact-checking can respond. The result is a global information environment in which truth is increasingly unstable, and public perception can be manipulated with unprecedented speed.
In short: what is real anymore? In the digital age, the answer is more complicated—and more dangerous—than ever. The most important thing, whether the story is from yesterday or today, is to check sources and verify facts. If a story sounds unbelievable, it most likely is.
For more here on the latest Breaking Points episode exposes how fake and AI-generated videos are being used to manipulate public perception of Venezuela. Viral clips falsely depicting Venezuelans celebrating the “kidnapping” of President Nicolás Maduro—often recycled footage or entirely fabricated—have been amplified by influencers like Elon Musk and political commentators, spreading unchecked despite being debunked.
The hosts dissect how these videos manufacture consent for U.S.-backed intervention, contrasting the propaganda with reports from Venezuela showing fear, protests, and widespread concern. They highlight the stark divide between Venezuelans inside the country and the diaspora, noting how polling shows far higher support for foreign intervention among those living abroad.
The discussion also critiques the moral bankruptcy of those spreading misinformation, tracing a historical pattern of triumphalism and false narratives in U.S. foreign policy—from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Spanish-American War. Ultimately, the episode underscores the dangers of a media ecosystem where reality can be bent to fit political agendas and the urgent need for accountability in journalism and public discourse.
HOW ONTARIO KEEPS THE TRUE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER OFF YOUR HYDRO BILL
Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTER, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/282007563777540
Electricity prices in Ontario have long proven to be politically toxic.
Rapid increases between 2009 and 2016 contributed to the downfall of the Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne.
Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservatives were elected on a pledge to bring hydro bills down, and the rapid increases have since ended — though it’s not because power is cheaper. The true costs are now invisible to the consumer.
For 15 years, Ontarians saw the cost of nuclear power on their hydro bills each month. Between 2002 and 2017, there was a line item called the “debt retirement charge” that enlisted every ratepayer to chip away at more than $20 billion in debt left over from the splitup of Ontario Hydro — debt largely run up by construction overruns at the Darlington nuclear plant, which was completed in 1993. The nuclear debt was removed from bills in 2018 — but it didn’t disappear. Instead, it was added onto the provincial books, where it is now considered part of the general public debt. As of last year, more than 30 years after Darlington went online, there was still $11.9 billion in debt remaining.
The province also brought in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, which subsidizes power bills with taxpayer dollars. While the rebate was introduced under McGuinty, Ford recently nearly doubled it — with an estimated price tag of $8.5 billion annually — to absorb an almost 30 per cent hike to the price of electricity.
The Ford government has blamed rate increases on the previous Liberal government’s Green Energy Act, which paid a premium for renewable energy in an effort to kickstart a domestic wind and solar industry. The domestic renewables manufacturing sector failed to take off in the face of competition from China, but more than 33,000 renewable projects remain on the grid at inflated prices on 20year contracts. Today, these legacy contracts have pushed the cost of solar power up to the point that it’s the highest among all types of generation in Ontario, when measured by kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced. Wind isn’t far behind.
But what the per kWh figures hide is that renewables make up such a small proportion of the energy production mix that they cannot be responsible for overall rate increases, according to a Star analysis of Ontario Energy Board and Independent Electricity System Operator data. Even though solar costs threeandahalf times more than nuclear per kWh, it only accounted for two per cent of the total cost of electricity in 2024 — too little to drive overall cost increases. Nuclear, by contrast, accounted for 56 per cent of Ontario’s total cost of electricity last year. And while the costs of legacy renewables are inflated, they’re fixed or even going down as their contracts expire and have been renewed at 30 per cent less than they were paid previously.
In contrast, nuclear costs keep going up. The refurbishment of the Pickering plant will cost three times more per kWh than the refurbishments of Darlington and four times more than Bruce. The costs of these refurbishments will start to be added to hydro bills when they return to service.
Because nuclear makes up such a large part of the electricity mix, even a little increase to the cost of nuclear will affect the price Ontarians pay for electricity — either via monthly bills or taxpayer funds.
Candid Imperialism: Trump, Racketeering and Venezuelan Oil
11 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/candid-imperialism-trump-racketeering-and-venezuelan-oil/
It usually takes archival digging, the golden gaffe, an ill-considered remark and occasional spells of candour by those in power, to admit that the United States has, in common with other imperial powers, brutal ambitions. An example of the latter was General Smedley Butler who, at his death in 1940, had become the most decorated Marine in US history. After retiring from active service, he was frank about what his role had been. Professing to being a “racketeer” and “gangster for capitalism,” he went on to explain how: “I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Boys to collect revenues in. I helped the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street.” That was just a selection.
With President Donald Trump in power, we do not need a Butler to give the game away or expose any frightful cabal. The empire is out of the closet, bolshie, bright and more thieving than ever. While the Donroe Doctrine is intended to reprise the Monroe Doctrine, it offers nothing more than imperial rapacity, seizure under pretext. The January 9 meeting with two dozen oil executives at the White House to discuss the fate of the Venezuelan oil market showed Trump to be in full flight as cocky pip and proud procurer of corporate thieving under the cover of government protection.
Representatives from such veteran behemoths as ExxonMobil and Chevron were present to listen to calls from the president that they invest handsomely in modernising and tidying up Venezuela’s tattered oil infrastructure. Problems with the oil itself – heavy, hard to refine and packed with sulphur, not to mention the questionable number of proven reserves – did not blight the conversation. “American companies will have the opportunity to rebuild Venezuela’s rotting energy infrastructure and eventually increase oil production to levels never seen before,” he crowed at the start of the meeting. Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100 billion of their money.” In the course of this merry investment, Venezuela would “be very successful, and the people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries.”
The choice of companies involved in the venture would, however, not be determined by free market wiles or any invisible hand. “We are going to be making the decision as to which oil companies can go in, which we will allow to go in.” They would mostly be American, naturally. Forget the Venezuelans, he insisted. “You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”
Jeffery Hilderbrand of the oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and noted Trump donor, was all salivation and gratitude. He was also pleased with the implausible alibi Trump had offered for controlling and pilfering Venezuelan oil for American interests: finding imagined enemies who might do the same thing. “Thank you for your great, tremendous leadership in protecting the interests in the Western Hemisphere,” he sighed with oleaginous gratitude. “The message that you have sent to China and our enemies to stay out of our backyard is absolutely fantastic… Hilcorp is fully committed and ready to go to rebuilding the infrastructure in Venezuela.”
CEO Bill Armstrong, of the Armstrong Oil and Gas company, also smacked his lips at the plunderous prospects. “We are ready to go to Venezuela,” he declared. “In real estate terms, it is prime real estate. And it’s like West Palm about 50 years ago. Very ripe.” Fracking executive and Trump supporter, Harold Hamm, was tickled by the possibility of adventure, seeing Venezuela as little more than a playground to roam and in and profit from. “It excites me as an explorationist.” The country was “exciting” with its abundant reserves, posing “challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.”
Chevron, which already has a presence in the country in partnership with the state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA accounting for 240,000 barrels per day, expects to bolster its production by 50% over the next 18 to 24 months. Those at Repsol are dreaming of tripling the current daily production of 45,000 barrels over the next few years, provided the conditions are appropriate.
Not all the oil companies expressed the same level of glowing confidence. Naked plunder comes with its challenges and logistical tangles, not least the touchy issue of Venezuelan sovereignty. Exxon CEO Darren Woods was, for instance, concerned that much will have to be done to make Venezuela an appropriate recipient of capital. One way was to ensure that whoever was in control in Caracas would be eternally reliable and amenable to US oil interests. “We have had our assets seized there twice and so you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen and what is currently the state.” As things stood, given “legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place,” Venezuela was “ininvestable.”
That same day, Trump further confirmed the choking of Venezuela by signing an Executive Order to prevent “the seizure of Venezuelan oil revenue that could undermine critical US efforts to ensure economic stability in Venezuela.” The Order prohibits US courts from seizing revenue collected from Venezuelan oil and relevant holds in US Treasury accounts. The customary, absurd justifications follow: to lose control of such funds would “empower malign actors like Iran and Hezbollah while weakening efforts to bring peace, prosperity, and stability to the Venezuelan people and to the Western Hemisphere as a whole.” Were these funds to be tampered with, US objectives to stem “the influx of illegal aliens and disrupting the flood of illicit narcotics” would be compromised.
As for those befuddled figures of the Venezuela opposition thinking that much of their country’s oil revenue will find its way into the coffers of Caracas, they should best think again. “Putting America first,” as the Order makes clear, means just that. The Venezuelan people don’t count, except as props in tawdry oratory.
CIA Played Instrumental Role in Maduro Kidnapping.
In reality, while U.S. and British companies were involved in early oil exploration in Venezuela, Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuela, pursuant to the international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
Venezuela’s socialist government, meanwhile, has used oil revenues to adopt social programs for the poor and to develop Venezuela’s economy, accounting for its electoral successes.
The financial elite the CIA serves is now salivating over the prospects of U.S. corporations retaking control of Venezuela’s oil industry
Jeremy Kuzmarov, Substack, Jan 05, 2026
The Trump administration welcomed the New Year by ordering a brazen Special Forces raid into Venezuela that resulted in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was brought to the U.S. to face charges for alleged drug trafficking.
Called Operation Absolute Resolve, the kidnapping had been preceded by months of terrorist activities that included bombing a Venezuelan oil tanker and fishing vessels, resulting in the deaths of more than 100 civilians.
On January 3, The New York Times reported that a CIA source within the Venezuelan government had monitored Maduro’s location in the days and moments before his capture, tipping off the Special Forces about his whereabouts. The CIA also produced the intelligence that led to Maduro’s capture with a fleet of stealth drones.
According to a person familiar with the agency’s work, the CIA was able to recruit informants in Maduro’s inner circle because of the $50 million bounty placed on Maduro’s head.
Donald Trump watched the Operation Absolute Resolve from Mar-O-Lago with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. [Source: yahoo.com]
Beginning in August, the informants worked clandestinely to provide the CIA with information about Maduro’s “pattern of life” and daily movements.
The CIA had Maduro so precisely monitored that even his pets were known to U.S. intelligence agents, according to General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former CIA associate director for military affairs.
In late December, the CIA used an armed drone to conduct a strike on a dock that U.S. officials claimed was being used by a Venezuelan gang to load drugs onto boats.
These actions fulfilled a promise of CIA Director John Ratcliffe in his confirmation hearing that he would lead a more aggressive CIA willing to conduct large-scale covert operations.
Despite claiming to be doing battle with the “deep state,” President Donald Trump authorized the CIA to take more aggressive action last fall and openly authorized CIA operations in Venezuela when the CIA normally operates covertly.
To the Victor Go the Spoils
The symbiotic relationship between the CIA and the financial elite intent on profiting from regime change are epitomized by the CIA’s former Venezuelan station chief, Enrique de la Torre, who advertised immediately after Maduro’s kidnapping that his lobbying firm, Tower Strategy,[1] was supporting clients intent on “rebuilding Venezuela’s energy sector.”
De la Torre published a blog post in late November entitled “The Case for Ending Maduro’s Rule………………
Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez (1998-2013) and then Maduro (2013-present) had in fact been designed to establish Venezuela’s economic sovereignty, empower the poor and Indigenous people, and revitalize the legacy of Latin America’s great liberator, Simón Bolívar.
It was opposed by the U.S. financial elite precisely because it threatened to inspire other Latin American and Third World countries to take control over their own economies and limit the influence of American corporations.
Donald Trump echoed de la Torre in stating after the announcement of Maduro’s capture that “we’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in and spend billions of dollars and fix the oil infrastructure—the badly broken oil infrastructure—and start making money for the country.”[2]
Similarly, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo told Fox & Friends last week that, in the event of the overthrow of the Maduro government, “American companies can come in and sell their products — Schlumberger, Halliburton, Chevron — all of our big energy companies can go down to Venezuela and build out an economic capitalist model.”
These latter comments combined with de la Torre’s action make clear the agenda behind Operation Absolute Resolve.
Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, openly proclaimed that Venezuela’s oil belongs to Washington, describing the nationalization of Venezuela’s petroleum industry as “theft.”
According to Miller, “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property. These pillaged assets were then used to fund terrorism and flood our streets with killers, mercenaries and drugs.”
In reality, while U.S. and British companies were involved in early oil exploration in Venezuela, Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuela, pursuant to the international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
The Venezuelan government never actually denied the U.S. access to its oil and, as late as 2017, remained the U.S.’s third-largest foreign supplier of energy.[3]
Venezuela’s socialist government, meanwhile, has used oil revenues to adopt social programs for the poor and to develop Venezuela’s economy, accounting for its electoral successes.
During his presidency from 1998 to 2013, Hugo Chávez cut poverty by 20% and extreme poverty by 30%.
Literacy rates in this period also increased, child malnutrition rates declined dramatically, millions of hectares of state-owned land were distributed, and Venezuela’s UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of national income (GDP), access to education, and child mortality—rose from seventh in the region to fourth.[4]
Maduro was continuing the same trajectory as Chávez, though Venezuela’s economy was undermined during his presidency by declining world oil prices, internal corruption typical of South and North American countries and harsh U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama, Trump I and Biden administrations, whose purpose was to set the groundwork for regime change.[5]
Long War Against Venezuela’s Left
In Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation-Building in the American Century, I detail how the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations set the groundwork for today’s foreign policy by providing significant police aid to help prop up centrist governments in Venezuela that carried out a dirty war against left-wing movements.
The latter sought to nationalize Creole Petroleum Company, Venezuela’s largest oil company, which was largely controlled by the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil empire.
Run under the cover of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the CIA-led Office of Public Safety (OPS) provided riot-control gear and other repressive police instruments and assisted Venezuelan police in compiling blacklists of left-wing “subversives.”
The OPS’s support for hard-line police tactics was apparent in its push to eliminate the requirement that a policeman who killed a suspect be arrested, paving the way for death-squad activity.
Showing where their true priorities rested, OPS police advisers met monthly with security officials of Creole Petroleum and the major foreign mining companies in Venezuela to discuss “insurgency problems.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://jeremykuzmarov.substack.com/p/cia-played-instrumental-role-in-maduro?publication_id=2091638&post_id=183483325&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Why Are Pedophiles the Most Successful Capitalists?
COMMENT. There is so much to interest and value in this article. I’m about 90% in agreement with it.
BUT – it’s just that the author seems to conclude pretty much that captalism is so evil that it just about causes pedophilia.
The glaring gap here is whether or not there are just as many greedy pedophile types in positions of power in communist and socialist regimes?
The same psychological traits that enable billionaires to destroy millions of lives for profit also enable them to rape children—and capitalism rewards both forms of predation.
BettBeat Media, Nov 16, 2025, https://bettbeat.substack.com/p/why-are-pedophiles-the-most-successful/comments
The question haunts every honest observer of power: Why do sexual predators rise to the pinnacles of capitalist society with such disturbing regularity? Why does the same system that rewards the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the alleged child molester Woody Allen, the rapist Harvey Weinstein, and countless other monsters also elevate them to positions where they can inflict maximum damage? The answer reveals the most horrifying truth about our economic system—capitalism doesn’t just tolerate sexual predation, it actively selects for it.
The Epstein case exposes a terrifying pattern that extends far beyond one billionaire’s island of horrors. The psychological mechanisms that drive powerful men to sexually abuse children—the ultimate form of exploitation, the need for absolute dominance, the complete dehumanization of others, the divorce from empathy—are precisely the same mechanisms that capitalism rewards in its most successful practitioners. This is not coincidence. This is selection pressure.
Consider the psychological profile of the successful pedophile: They must be master manipulators, capable of identifying and exploiting vulnerability. They must possess an almost supernatural ability to compartmentalize, maintaining public personas while committing unspeakable acts in private. They must be skilled at reading power dynamics, understanding instinctively who can be victimized and who must be courted. They must be comfortable with the complete objectification of other human beings, viewing them as resources to be consumed rather than people deserving dignity.
Now consider the psychological profile of the successful capitalist: They must be master manipulators, capable of identifying and exploiting market vulnerabilities. They must possess an almost supernatural ability to compartmentalize, maintaining public philanthropy while devastating communities in private. They must be skilled at reading power dynamics, understanding instinctively who can be exploited and who must be courted. They must be comfortable with the complete objectification of other human beings, viewing workers as resources to be consumed rather than people deserving dignity.
The overlap is not accidental—it is systemic. Capitalism rewards psychopathy because psychopathy is useful to capital accumulation. The same emotional architecture that allows a man to rape a child also allows him to foreclose on a family’s home, to dump toxic waste in poor communities, to lobby against cancer treatment funding while profiting from carcinogenic products. The capacity for dehumanization is not a bug in the capitalist system—it is the essential feature.
“They were pedophiles who became wealthy precisely because the psychological traits that enable sexual predation also enable economic predation under capitalism. And because economic power enables sexual power over children”
The Epstein Network as Capitalist Laboratory
Jeffrey Epstein’s operation was not an aberration but a perfect expression of capitalist logic. His island served as both a laboratory for sexual domination and a networking hub for economic domination. The same men who raped children on Epstein’s planes were simultaneously pillaging entire economies through their hedge funds and private equity firms. Bill Clinton, who flew on the “Lolita Express” many times, also championed the financial deregulation that enabled the 2008 economic collapse. Donald Trump, who allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion, built his real estate empire through systematic exploitation of contractors and workers.
The connection runs deeper than shared moral bankruptcy. Sexual predation and economic predation require identical psychological tools: the ability to identify the vulnerable, the skill to isolate them from support systems, the capacity to exploit power imbalances, and the willingness to destroy lives for personal gratification. Epstein’s genius was recognizing that men who had perfected these skills in the economic realm would eagerly apply them in the sexual realm.
This explains why Epstein’s client list reads like a who’s who of global capitalism: hedge fund managers, investment bankers, real estate moguls, media executives, and their political enablers. These were not wealthy men who happened to be pedophiles—they were pedophiles who became wealthy precisely because the psychological traits that enable sexual predation also enable economic predation under capitalism. And because economic power enables sexual power over children.
The Israeli Connection: Where Imperialism Meets Sexual Violence
The tentacles of Epstein’s network inevitably lead back to Israel, that laboratory of racist capitalist brutality disguised as ‘democracy’. Multiple sources suggest that Epstein operated as a Mossad asset, using sexual blackmail to control political and economic elites on behalf of Israeli interests. This connection is not surprising—it is inevitable. Israel represents the purest distillation of predatory capitalism combined with colonial violence, a system that requires the complete dehumanization of its Palestinian victims.
The psychological profile of the settler who burns Palestinian children alive in their homes, kidnaps and disappears 8-year-old Palestinian girls, and beats up Palestinian old ladies with laughter is identical to the psychological profile of the billionaire who profits from child labor in his factories: both require the complete severance of empathy, the total objectification of their victims, and the ability to justify any atrocity in service of their desires. The Israeli state that operates the world’s largest open-air prison in Gaza while claiming to be a beacon of civilization operates according to the same logic as the capitalist who imposes starvation wages while lecturing about ‘economic freedom’.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s primary accomplice, was the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a media mogul with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence. The operation’s sophisticated surveillance capabilities, international scope, and protection from prosecution all bear the hallmarks of state-level intelligence operations. But more than operational support, Israel provided the ideological framework that made Epstein’s crimes possible: the belief that some humans are inherently superior to others and therefore entitled to use inferior humans as objects for their pleasure.
Superior Jewish DNA
The same supremacist ideology that allows Israelis to shoot Palestinian children for sport also allows billionaires to destroy the lives of workers’ children through environmental destruction, healthcare denial, and educational defunding. Sexual predation and imperial predation spring from the same poisoned well of human supremacy that capitalism depends upon for its existence.
Surprisingly yet unsurprisingly, Epstein was a devoted believer in eugenics—the pseudoscientific 19th-century racist ideology that his own Jewish ancestors had been victimized by—and harbored grandiose fantasies of seeding the human race with what he considered his “superior Jewish DNA.” The irony was lost on him: a man who embodied every antisemitic stereotype about Jewish financial manipulation and sexual degeneracy had reinvented himself as the master race. Epstein’s eugenics obsession reveals the final psychological piece of the predator-capitalist puzzle—the megalomaniacal belief that wealth proves genetic superiority, that economic domination justifies any form of human breeding program, and that the right to rape and reproduce flows naturally from the right to buy and sell.
His New Mexico ranch was reportedly intended as a breeding facility where he would impregnate multiple women to spread his “superior” genes—the ultimate fusion of sexual predation, capitalist accumulation, and fascist ideology. The man who trafficked children for billionaire rapists saw himself not as a criminal but as an evolutionary benefactor, using his wealth to “improve” the species through forced reproduction. Capitalism had so thoroughly warped his psychology that he genuinely believed his financial success proved his genetic worth.
The Silence for Capital
The most damning evidence of capitalism’s complicity in sexual predation is not what it does but what it refuses to see. Despite overwhelming evidence of systematic child abuse among the global elite, the mainstream media treats each revelation as an isolated scandal rather than a systemic feature. Despite clear patterns linking economic power to sexual violence, academia refuses to examine the connection. Despite obvious signs that pedophile networks operate at the highest levels of government and finance, law enforcement consistently fails to investigate or prosecute.
This silence is not incompetence—it is self-preservation. Capitalism cannot afford to acknowledge that its most successful practitioners are also its most depraved predators because this would expose the moral bankruptcy at the system’s core. The same corporate media that celebrates billionaire “philanthropy” cannot simultaneously expose billionaire child rape, genocide and theft without undermining the entire mythology of virtuous wealth creation.
The legal system that protects corporate criminals from accountability cannot suddenly develop a conscience about sexual criminals without calling attention to its systematic bias in favor of wealth and power. The political establishment that serves corporate interests cannot prosecute the sexual crimes of their financial backers without severing their own sources of funding and support.
The Fascist Trajectory
The same psychological mechanisms that enable the abuse of individual children also enable the abuse of entire populations. The billionaire who can rape a child with no sense of moral conflict can also engineer famines, fund genocides, and destroy democracies with equal emotional detachment.
This is why every fascist movement in history has been funded and supported by capitalist elites: fascism is simply capitalism with its mask removed, the open acknowledgment that some humans exist only to serve the pleasures and profits of others. The concentration camps of Nazi Germany were built by the same corporate executives who built the factories that exploited workers to death. The genocide in Gaza is funded by the same billionaires who profit from the destruction of Palestinian society.
Sexual predation against children represents the ultimate expression of this fascist logic: the complete negation of another human being’s autonomy, dignity, and right to exist as anything other than an object for consumption. Once this psychological barrier has been crossed—once a person becomes capable of sexually abusing a child—no other moral boundary can restrain them. They become capable of any atrocity in service of their desires.
“Jeffrey Epstein was not a monster who happened to be rich—he was rich because he was a monster”
The connection between pedophilia and capitalist success is not a conspiracy theory—it is an observable pattern that demands explanation. That explanation reveals the most uncomfortable truth about our economic system: it does not reward virtue, innovation, or social contribution. It rewards the capacity for predation, the willingness to treat other humans as consumable resources, and the ability to sever all emotional connection to the suffering one causes.
Jeffrey Epstein was not a monster who happened to be rich—he was rich because he was a monster. His wealth came not from productive economic activity but from his willingness to provide other monsters with access to victims they could not obtain through their own efforts. His clients were not wealthy men who happened to be pedophiles—they were pedophiles who became wealthy because capitalism rewards the psychological traits that enable both sexual and economic predation.
The Epstein network reveals capitalism in its purest form: a system where those most willing to inflict suffering rise to positions where they can inflict maximum suffering. The children destroyed on Epstein’s island are not fundamentally different from the children destroyed in sweatshops, the children poisoned by industrial pollution, the children murdered by American bombs purchased with taxpayer money. All are victims of the same system, sacrificed to the same gods of profit and power.
Breaking this system requires more than prosecuting individual predators—it requires acknowledging that predation is not a bug in capitalism but its essential feature. It requires recognizing that the same system that elevates pedophiles to positions of supreme power will never voluntarily reform itself. It requires understanding that the choice before us is not between different types of capitalism but between capitalism and human survival.
The children crying in Epstein’s dungeons and the children dying in Gaza are calling out with the same voice, demanding that we choose between preserving a system that rewards monsters and building a world where human dignity becomes the foundation of economic and political organization. Their cries echo across time and space, asking the same question that haunts every moment of our historical crisis: How long will we tolerate a system that rewards our destroyers and punishes our protectors?
The answer lies not in reforming capitalism but in replacing it with an economic system based on human cooperation rather than human predation, on shared prosperity rather than concentrated wealth, on the protection of the vulnerable rather than their exploitation. Only when we build such a system will the Jeffrey Epsteins of the world lose their power to turn children into commodities and suffering into profit.
Until then, every day we allow this system to continue is another day we choose the predators over their victims, the monsters over the children, the system over our souls. The choice has never been clearer. The time for choosing has never been shorter. The cost of choosing wrong has never been higher.
58 Years of Occupation — And the Shocking Report Israel Doesn’t Want You to Read
December 26, 2025 , By Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/26/58-years-of-occupation-and-the-shocking-report-israel-doesnt-want-you-to-read/
Inspired by a Common Dreams report today about the ATV attack in the West Bank, I looked into Breaking the Silence, a group of Israeli military veterans who speak out against the occupation of Palestine. They’ve described the regional defense units—responsible for numerous attacks on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank—as little more than settler militias dressed in uniform.
I did some digging and found their November report, I’m not sure who else might have missed it, but it’s definitely worth reading. The report is titled: “JOINT SITUATION REPORT: 58 Years of Occupation, The Two-Year War in Gaza.”
The report’s lead writer is Tal Raviv O’Regan, and the steering committee includes Noa Sattath, Ziv Stahl, and Tal Steiner. The translation was done by Maya Johnston, with English editing by Rachel Druck.
They do disclose this, and so will I: the report is the work of thirteen human rights organizations, some of which receive most of their funding from foreign political sources. Even so, they’re proud of the support from those who share our belief that the occupation isn’t just an internal Israeli issue and who are committed to defending human rights.
Some Key Points Noted in the Report Include:
“The occupation, illegal and immoral in itself, has led to widespread human rights abuses, breaches of international humanitarian law, and increasingly entrenched apartheid.”
“Practices Israel employed even before the war have intensified to the point where they have become routine and unprecedented in scale.”
“Most shocking are the creation of mass hunger and a humanitarian crisis, among the worst in the world.”
“Crimes are rarely investigated by military or civilian law enforcement.”
“Settler violence and forced expulsions of Palestinian communities have surged, unchecked by authorities.”
“Israel continued to control many aspects of the residents’ lives… significantly contributing to a chronic humanitarian crisis.”
“To end the war and begin the process of healing… all parties must honor the cease‑fire agreement and fulfill their obligations under international law.”
“Israel must bravely and honestly investigate its actions… acknowledge war crimes and violations of the law, and draw the necessary conclusions.”
“Starving a civilian population is strictly prohibited under international law.”
“Israel has an active duty to ensure regular, uninterrupted flow of food and humanitarian aid.”
about Breaking the Silence from their page: “Founded in March 2004 by a group of soldiers who served in Hebron, Breaking the Silence has since acquired a special standing in the eyes of the Israeli public and in the media because of its unique role in giving voice to the experience of soldiers. To date, the organization has collected testimonies from more than 1,400 soldiers who represent all strata of Israeli society and cover nearly all units that operate in the territories.”
“All the testimonies we publish are meticulously researched, and all facts are cross-checked with additional eyewitnesses and/or the archives of other human rights organizations that are active in the field. Every soldier who gives a testimony to Breaking the Silence is well-aware of the aims of the organization and the interview. Most soldiers choose to remain anonymous, due to various pressures from military officials and society at large. Our first priority is to safeguard the soldiers who choose to testify to the public about their military service.”
Here are some videos [on original] from former soldiers and other contributors from Breaking the Silence. You can find more here
From Democracy Now! interviewing two former Israeli soldiers who are members of Breaking the Silence, a group of Israeli army veterans exposing the realities of the occupation. Tal Sagi, the group’s education director, shares his experience growing up in a settlement and joining the military without understanding what occupation meant: “We’ve been told that this is security and we have to control millions of lives and we don’t have other options… We’re trying to say that there are other options.”
Breaking the Silence deputy director Nadav Weiman explains why the group is touring U.S. colleges and advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza: “We stood in checkpoints. We raided homes. We attacked Gaza from the air. We fought from the ground… When you bring reality, you bring real conversation about the occupation, and you bring real conversation about Gaza.”
This is the kind of issue that Hillary Clinton and others refer to when they talk about the TikTok problem in media and the importance of connecting with people around the world quickly and effectively. She, along with Sarah Hurwitz—who dislikes the democratization of information and longs for the era of Old Media where corporations controlled the flow—laments that people now receive less explanation and more video content, such as live-streamed genocide that can be reduced to statistics. Hurwitz acknowledges she may appear a “monster” to viewers and controversially insists that Holocaust education should primarily serve as antisemitism education rather than a lesson for broader human experience.
Because Hurwitz refuses to see the Holocaust as a broad human experience, because then it’s clear that what is happening in Israel today would not pass that test.
Today, we can become knowledgeable and informed in ways that were not possible before the democratization of information—so we must keep our eyes open, even as many try to silence opposition voices with money and power. While there is no end in sight, there is a hopeful continuum: as more people become informed and reconnect with their humanity, change becomes possible. Those in Breaking the Silence have clearly found theirs.
Here is another report from Democracy Now!, from 10 years ago, documenting another time when Israel was killing civilians and Breaking the Silence was speaking out.
Gun vs Keffiyeh. One kills, the other gets you death threats.
by Member of Jews Against the Occupation | Dec 18, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/gun-vs-keffiyeh-one-kills-the-other-gets-you-death-threats/
A Jewish woman wearing a Keffiyeh as well as the Star of David was escorted off Bondi Beach by police. The resulting social media storm led to death threats to her and to her friend.
I am writing this knowing it will likely result in more death threats.
That is not a metaphor. It is a statement of fact, based on what happened to my friend Michelle and me this week, and what happened next when we sought protection from the state.
On Monday, at the Bondi memorial for the victims of the mass killing the day before, Michelle – a Jewish local and member of Jews against the Occupation ‘48 – was surrounded by a hostile crowd shouting “get her off”. She was escorted off the beach to the sound of applause by approximately forty police officers, whilst trying to explain her position to the surrounding reporters, and taken to Bondi Police Station, where she was told she couldn’t go back to Bondi Beach for 6 hours.
Her “offence”? Wearing a Keffiyeh.
Whether one agrees with her politics or not is beside the point. The memorial was dominated by Israeli flags – the flag of a state currently accused of genocide and whose leaders are wanted for war crimes. Michelle wore the keffiyeh because she objected to a moment of mourning being politicised. But it is not a crime. Nor is it a provocation warranting mob intimidation.
What followed should concern anyone who believes the rule of law applies equally.
After video footage of Michelle circulated on X, under a post by journalist Hugh Riminton, the abuse escalated rapidly.
Facts ignored
What was not mentioned – despite Michelle wearing a visible Star of David and explicitly stating to the press that she is Jewish – was that she is a Jewish local who grew up in Bondi. That omission mattered.
I replied publicly on X to clarify that Michelle is Jewish, that she is my friend, and that she is part of JAO48. While those responses received hundreds of supportive comments, they also unleashed some of the most extreme antisemitic, misogynistic, ageist and Islamophobic abuse I have encountered in years of public advocacy.
I can deal with online abuse on social media. The block button is my friend.
Threats arrived in my email inbox – not via social media, but via my direct contact form and messaging linked to my business. One message stated that Michelle was “now wishing she had stayed home” and warned, “I would not want to be her”.
The individual who contacted me used the name “Brenton Tarrant”, the name of the Christchurch mass murderer, writing that I “deserve a bullet in the head”, and that Michelle would be “hunted down”, and that because her address was doxxed, it would make “putting a claw hammer in her skull even easier.”
This was enough intimidation for me to call 000 and for two members of the Chatswood station to attend my home. The expressions on their faces when they read the messages were of shock and disgust.
No police report
More concerning was that Michelle’s home address had been published online in response to Riminton’s post. On Monday night, she went to Maroubra Police Station to report she’d been doxxed.
And nothing happened. She wasn’t contacted the next day or given a case number. Nothing.
When we returned to Maroubra Police Station two days later to ask what action had been taken regarding the doxxing and threats, the attending constable.
‘could not even find a record of Michelle having gone there on Monday night.’
There was a record of the death threats I received from Chatswood Police Station, but that doesn’t help someone whose life is in danger in Maroubra.
A Jewish woman, escorted by dozens of police officers, detained at a police station under threat of violence, had no record in the system days later. Had something happened to her in the intervening period, there would have been no official trace of her presence or vulnerability.
This is not a paperwork error. This is a systemic failure.
Irony of doxxing laws
The irony is sharp enough to cut. NSW’s doxxing laws were introduced following sustained lobbying about online threats directed at Zionist Jews. Those laws were framed as urgent protections against harm.
Yet here we have a Jewish woman who is anti-Zionist, whose address was published, who received death threats, and whose case appears to have been ignored entirely.
Only after I explicitly raised the double standard to a young constable – only after pointing out how differently this would have been handled had Michelle been a Zionist Jew – was a report finally entered into the system. I also demanded that police investigate the instigator of the doxxing. Whether the individual can ultimately be identified is beside the point. The absence of effort is the issue.
This failure is made even more disturbing by the broader amplification of risk.
Identity matters
The omission of Michelle’s Jewish identity among all the abuse matters. Not because her Judaism should confer protection or legitimacy – it should not have to – but because it fuelled a narrative that made her a target. The implication was clear:
‘she was an outsider, an agitator, someone deserving of removal.‘
It should not matter who she is. It should not matter what she believes. Wearing a keffiyeh is no more illegal than waving the flag of a state accused of mass atrocities.
What should matter is this: no one attending a memorial should be threatened with death, have their home address exposed, or be left unprotected by the police.
If that standard only applies to some Jews, then it is not protection at all. It is political preference enforced by the state.
And if writing this results in more threats, then that fact alone tells you how broken our public discourse – and our institutions – have become.
Tragedy should have united the country
Fifteen people are dead. Around forty are injured. Families and communities are grieving. But within hours, the event was weaponised.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the Albanese government. Jillian Segal linked the massacre with the March for Humanity on the Harbour Bridge.
Josh Frydenberg re-emerged, positioning himself as a future Prime Minister on the back of mass death, although suggesting this is the case is “highly offensive” to him.
I guess to Josh, it’s irrelevant that the father in the father/son terrorist team arrived in ’98 when Howard was PM, he gained his gun license in 2015 when Abbott was PM, and the ASIO investigation into the son was dropped in 2019 when Morrison was PM.And now, as a result of this horrific terrorist attack on Sunday, the calls to ban pro-Palestine protests are louder than ever.
If anybody can possibly think that Palestinians, Muslims, indeed even humanitarians who object to genocide had anything to gain from a mass shooting, “they’ve got rocks in their head”, as we say in Australia. If anything, the events of this week
‘show precisely why dissent must be protected.‘
When anti-Zionist Jews can be threatened with death, doxxed, misrepresented as terrorists, and left without protection by the state, the danger is not protest – it is repression.
If writing this results in further threats, that fact alone will confirm the point.
It is not safety for all that is being prioritised in this country. It’s not even safety for all Jews that is being prioritised. What dark days we are living in.
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 