Beyond the Propaganda: The French Uniqueness and the New Nuclear Dead End.
green report.it By Luigi Moccia, June 11, 2026
Nuclear is better than renewables: have you seen how low emissions are in France compared to those in Germany?”
How many times have you heard this biased and misleading statement, accompanied by a graph comparing emissions per kilowatt-hour produced in those two countries?
In its simplicity, this comparison seems solid, but it masks several misunderstandings that require much more than a single indicator chart to unravel.
Proponents of this argument imply that France and Germany represent polar opposites in decarbonization: nuclear-focused France versus renewables-focused Germany. This framework is flawed because, first, Germany has contributed to decisive progress in renewables, but it is not a monolith and has demonstrated contradictory aspects, as we will see below.
Secondly, a partial relativization also applies to France, which, although it has a nuclear energy policy, has also invested in renewables, thus improving the emissions profile of its electricity production.
It’s true that, yes, in Europe, if you’re looking for a natural experiment in pro-nuclear policy, France is the benchmark, and so it makes sense to include it in a debate on energy policies. But if you want a pro-renewables benchmark in Europe, you need to look not at Germany, but at other countries, such as Denmark.
Are France and Denmark countries of different sizes and therefore not comparable? Indeed, in this case, some context is needed, but, if anything, the differences in size work against the small country, Denmark, as we will see below.
This debate is unknown to the public because pro-nuclear clichés are relentlessly directed against Germany, guilty of recognizing that nuclear power is a non-competitive technology on the market, too risky to invest in, and that decarbonization must be achieved with other means. This has led to a proliferation of distortions about German energy policies, which not only invade social media but also end up in the columns of newspapers deemed authoritative, thus distorting the debate. In this excursus on the energy policies of France and Denmark, I will also develop some considerations regarding Germany, as a contribution to countering misinformation. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
But how much does French nuclear power really cost?
No one knows for sure. In France, the civil nuclear program was developed under a state monopoly, in conjunction with the military program. The two accounts were not separate and were secret. Only in 2000, once the program was completed, was an attempt made to evaluate the costs of the civil program. A special parliamentary commission of inquiry was established by the Jospin government (the Charpin–Dessus–Pellat Commission , named after the three designated commissioners). An analysis of the data made available by this commission is presented in a 2010 scientific article by Arnulf Grubler ( link ). Contrary to expectations, according to which costs should decrease with the increase in installations, French reactors followed the opposite trajectory: costs increased over time.
The trend of rising costs continued even after the early 2000s, when, according to some, a new “Nuclear Renaissance” should have begun.
Are you having déjà vu ? Didn’t you know there was already a period in which a new beginning for the atom was hypothesized? Well, truth be told, the current “Renaissance” isn’t even the second, because even before the one in the early 2000s, there were those, from a very authoritative position, who had predicted another imminent one, in 1985 (see the article by Alvin Weinberg and co-authors ). So today we are at the third announcement of a “Nuclear Renaissance,” after the first two failed. As you can see, these announcements follow a twenty-year cycle, ebb and flow.
Is nuclear overregulated?
According to some, the rising cost of nuclear energy is caused by excessive regulation: this technology is supposedly subject to safety standards that are too stringent compared to the actual risk. This would therefore be a case of overregulation driven by irrational fears. To support this claim, a graph is usually presented comparing various sources based on the mortality rate per unit of electricity produced. In such a comparison, nuclear power appears to be very low. Is this enough to conclude that nuclear power is a safe source? For influencers and Sunday debunkers, evidently yes, because they spend their time on social media posting this single graph. For the rest of the world, who are familiar with risk analysis, however, the answer is no…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
What other energy technology presents a risk on a single site of this size? None. That’s why it’s hyperbole to label a technology “safe” when its risks are manageable, but the costs are enormous……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
So what is the cost of the new French nuclear power?
New nuclear power plant projects using French technology that have been started in the last quarter of a century can be counted on one hand and are four in total: Olkiluoto in Finland, Taishan in China, Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom.
Quickly, because you could write a book about it: four projects, one worse than the other.
Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 reactor not only went 14 years over schedule and three-odd miles over budget, but it also caused the bankruptcy of AREVA , which was bailed out at Paris’ expense. Thus, the Finns, who had the savvy to sign a turnkey contract, saw their exposure to budget overruns reduced (but not eliminated). Keep this in mind when you hear people boast about the low prices on the Finnish electricity market thanks to the new Olkiluoto reactor: French taxpayers largely paid for it!
The two reactors built in China at Taishan, in addition to overruns in construction time (a five-year delay) and budget (more than 60%, see the report by the French Court of Auditors ), have recorded very mediocre performances in these first years of operation: cumulative capacity factors equal to 55% and 76% (source: IAEA PRIS ), following anomalies detected on the first reactor in 2021 and 2022. Note the difference compared to what nuclear proponents usually boast before the start of each project: according to them, it should always be equal to the capacity factor of the best reactors, equal to around 90%.
China has no plans to build further reactors with this French technology. As China is the only country with a significant nuclear program, at least given the declining status of this source, this debacle undermines France’s hopes of playing a leading role as an exporter of this technology. It is no coincidence that India, which has expressed interest in this technology in its diplomatic relations with France for decades, has yet to finalize any contracts, despite periodic announcements, always reiterated with great fanfare, which are then forgotten.
The domestically built Flamanville reactor continues to astound the world with its incredible series of unfortunate events. After twelve years of construction overruns and a budget more than three times the originally planned, the Flamanville-3 reactor powered up on September 3, 2024. The day was celebrated with great fanfare by nuclear proponents, evidently to forget the previous tribulations, because what’s done is done.
It’s a shame that nuclear power is a bit more complex than any other technology. As of June 2026, 21 months after commissioning, the reactor is not yet fully operational (source: IAEA PRIS ). If it is fully operational in the coming months, 2026 will be a short operational phase: further extraordinary maintenance is planned to replace a major component, as well as other repairs. This shutdown phase will begin in September 2026 and last almost a year. Therefore, the actual performance of this reactor will only be determined in 2028, assuming all goes well.
The costs? The French Court of Auditors had estimated the investment cost, including interest, at €23.7 billion, based on 2023 figures (
link ). But in the meantime, there have been further delays, and then the extraordinary maintenance phase will arrive. Each year of inactivity for such a large reactor entails liabilities exceeding €1 billion. A new assessment will be drawn up in a few years, but it’s already safe to say that, in a nation that has never abandoned nuclear power, a new reactor built on a site already equipped with adequate infrastructure (because it already hosts other reactors) will produce at well over €160/MWh (see Fig. 7, page 24 of
this technical report by Australian researchers, considering that the analysis does not include the aforementioned post-construction delays). That’s roughly triple what some dreamers believe possible with nuclear power here in Italy. Of course, they’d be the “rational” ones!
Last but not least , England: here, the nuclear revival was supposed to take place, as decided by Tony Blair’s governments. In the British political system, which is predominantly two-party, nuclear power enjoys almost complete support in both government and opposition. But despite the absence of significant parliamentary opposition, nuclear power has never been revived in the past quarter-century. Delays and budget overruns at the Hinkley Point power plant under construction have significantly dampened expectations. Compensation for the two new reactors at this plant is expected to be based on a guaranteed price for 35 years, fully indexed to inflation. This price, at current values, is equal to €151/MWh (but be careful, it must be updated annually for inflation, and entry into service is scheduled for the early 2030s). It is unlikely that this remuneration, however generous, will be sufficient to guarantee the profitability of the French company EDF. The Court of Auditors of that country has already expressed criticism of the matter; see page 56 of this report . On this project alone, EDF had to absorb losses of 12.9 billion euros in 2024 ( link ), to which further losses of 2.5 billion euros were added in 2026 ( link ).
In short, electricity is expensive for British customers, without even generating value for the French taxpayer. Not exactly a model that, not surprisingly, won’t be replicated in England itself. If the other British nuclear project, the Sizewell C power plant, is built, the remuneration mechanism will be different, not based solely on electricity produced. As we’ve seen, even a generous purchase guarantee isn’t enough to make nuclear power bankable. Starting in December 2025, UK customers will already be paying a contribution to the plant’s construction on their bills, even though it hasn’t even begun! Independent estimates estimate that this electricity will cost €334/MWh ( link ). A bargain, but not for British customers, as explained below.
This brief overview of new French nuclear projects—six reactors out of four power plants—is exhaustive; there are no others. This isn’t a carefully selected subset ; this is the total number of projects underway in what is considered the West’s leading nuclear power plant.
Furthermore, I also commented on the possible two new reactors of the Sizewell project, if they are ever built. But even that figure doesn’t improve the picture; if anything, it worsens it, because, although the cost estimate is the most recent, it is also the highest, confirming that, with nuclear, the most plausible estimate is always the highest and that state involvement in nuclear must be preponderant, users must start paying for at least a decade before receiving their first kilowatt-hour, and, even under these conditions, those who agree to invest demand and receive returns in the form of Argentine bonds (according to the Financial Times ( link ), private investors in Sizewell C will receive a rate of return on capital between 10.8 and 13%).
Based on this evidence, the new French nuclear power is out of the market.
It’s no coincidence that the remaining fortunes of that country’s nuclear industry now depend on a new reactor project, the EPR2. This project, still on paper, has already seen a 58% increase in its budget forecast in just six years. Note that the 58% increase in the budget is adjusted for inflation .
If all goes well, an EPR2 will enter into operation in 2038. Given the track record, who would dare sign a purchase contract for such a reactor before seeing at least one in operation for a reasonable number of years? Whether this project is successful will only be known in the 2040s, not before. Therefore, any hypothesis of decarbonization, which for the electricity sector must occur before that date, cannot reasonably rely on new European nuclear technology, since, in this western part of the continent, French nuclear power is the only active sector.
Active but stranded, even without wanting to add to the picture the difficulties of extraordinary maintenance to extend the useful life of the old reactors, the dismantling and waste management (further budget overruns have already been announced, including for the geological repository,
a budget that has already more than doubled , and, as they say in French,
ce n’est qu’un début ), as well as the geopolitical difficulties of both natural uranium supply (
the upheavals in the former colonial area of Africa ) and the enrichment phase (dependence on Russia, which controls 46% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity,
Szulecki and Overland, 2023 ). Furthermore, regarding the dependence of the French nuclear industry on Russia, it should be remembered that in 2022 approximately half of the turnover of Arabelle turbines (ex-Alstom) depended on orders from Rosatom (source:
WNISR 2024 ). These facts are the reason for Europe’s resistance to sanctioning that important sector of Russia’s military economy, despite the invasion of Ukraine……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.greenreport.it/editoriale/62161-oltre-la-propaganda-lunicum-francese-e-il-vicolo-cieco-del-nuovo-nucleare
Hegseth Compares D-Day Troops to Europe’s Migrants
You could argue that Hegseth was confused in this analogy, and simply misspoke. But he and the administration he is part of have taken over Nazi talking points on racial hierarchies,
Juan Cole, 06/07/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/06/hegseth-compares-migrants.html
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Whiskey Pete Hegseth, speaking 82 years after the Allied storming of the beaches of Nazi-occupied France, appears to have sided with . . . the Nazis. He said, “Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies. Beaches in Spain, in Italy, in Greece and Bulgaria. Boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion?”
He compared the 156,000 US, Canadian and British troops who landed at five beaches on the Normandy coast of Vichy France on June 6, 1944, to the desperate “boat people” coming to today’s Europe in risky voyages on leaky vessels across the Mediterranean. About 150,000 a year make it across alive, to a continent of 743 million Some 30% are summarily deported. I.e., each year’s irregular migrants constitute 0.013% (a little over one hundredth of one percent) of the population.
Now, I’m sure that Operation Overlord, helmed by Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower and Commander of all Allied ground forces British General Bernard “Monty” Montgomery, was viewed by German Field Marshals Erwin Rommel and Gerd von Rundstedt as a landing of tens of thousands of undocumented aliens from barbarian races. After all those who hit the beaches included Jews, Slavs, Hispanics, indigenous Americans, Chinese Americans and 2,000 African Americans, whom the Nazis viewed with the same horror and disdain that Hegseth views today’s migrants to Europe.
But it is more than a little odd that the successor of Department of War head Henry L. Stimson should take the Nazi view of the matter.
You could argue that Hegseth was confused in this analogy, and simply misspoke. But he and the administration he is part of have taken over Nazi talking points on racial hierarchies, as I observed in some detail in my analysis for Tomdispatch.com of the Trump National Security Strategy regarding Europe. I wrote,
‘Trump claims that he’s no longer sure Europeans will even remain European. He supposedly worries that, two decades from now, the continent will be unrecognizable and EU countries no longer capable of being Washington’s “reliable allies.” That barb is, of course, clearly aimed at Muslim immigrants to Europe, even though they are a distinct minority of those arriving there. In an interview about his NSS, Trump snidely remarked, “If you take a look at London, you have a mayor named Khan.” And he then went on to exclaim in horror that immigrants aren’t just coming from the Middle East, “they’re coming in from the Congo, tremendous numbers of people coming from the Congo.” In other words, the only thing that outstrips Trump’s Islamophobia is his horror of Black people.
Of course, he’s completely misinformed about immigration to Europe, which means his NSS is as well. As a start, the largest influx of people into the EU in recent few years has been 4.3 million Ukrainians. The major sources of immigration to Germany in 2024 were Ukraine, Romania, Turkey, Syria, and India. For Spain, it was Colombia, Morocco, Venezuela, Peru, and Argentina. As for Europe’s future reliability, Trump has already said that he “can’t trust” Denmark, no matter that its population is solidly Lutheran and predominantly blond, because that country won’t give him Greenland. And since the president has expressed a willingness to break up the NATO alliance, if necessary, to add 57,000 Greenlanders to his feudal domains, his doubting of European dependability should be considered richly ironic.
Aryan Reliability
The underpinnings of Trump’s reasoning can (or at least should) be described as Nazi in style. After all, he’s assuming that the immigrants he loathes are inherently incapable of becoming Europeans and will make those countries intrinsically untrustworthy as allies of the United States. Of the EU countries, he recently asserted that “they’ll change their ideology, obviously, because the people coming in have a totally different ideology.” Yet British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, born in Southampton to an immigrant Indian-East African family of Hindu faith, was widely viewed as having restored British-U.S. diplomatic relations after years of strain.
In reality, studies show that socio-economic status, not national origin, best predicts how immigrants will vote. In Germany, the better-off Russian-Germans, who far outnumber largely working-class Turkish-Germans, tend to vote for right-of-center parties. Both groups, however, seem happy to participate in European politics in accordance with local norms. If, for Trump, the term “immigrants” in this context is a dog whistle for Muslims, it might be noted that nine of the 22 countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, that have been formally designated by Trump as “major non-NATO allies” are Muslim-majority
His foreign policy reasoning in that NSS eerily mirrors the crackpot logic of Adolf Hitler, who saw France as an enemy of Germany’s because it had allegedly fallen irretrievably under non-Aryan Jewish influence, and who held out hope in the 1920s and early 1930s that Aryan elements would prevail over Jewish ones in Britain, a country he preferred as a strategic partner because of the Germanic ancestry of part of its population. In Trump’s NSS, immigrant Europeans from Africa and the Middle East play the role that Jews did in Hitler’s thinking — that is, non-Aryan underminers of national integrity. Hitler’s conspiratorial racism was, of course, all too grimly insane, and so, too, is that of Trump’s NSS.
“Mongols and Negroes”
Central to the NSS is the Great Replacement. The idea, though not the phrase, goes back to 1900 when the French nationalist parliamentarian and novelist Maurice Barrès wrote, “Today, new French have slipped in among us… who want to impose on us their ways of feeling.” He warned of Jewish, Italian, and other immigrants. “The name of France might well survive,” he commented, but “the special character of our country would nevertheless be destroyed.” Amid a political crisis over the wrongful conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus (of Jewish and Alsatian heritage) for supposed espionage for the German embassy, Barrès denounced the famed French novelist Émile Zola, a supporter of Dreyfus, as “not French” but a rootless cosmopolitan from a Venetian background.
Fifty years later, the French Nazi René Binet (1913-1957) coined the phrase “Great Replacement.” An ex-Communist, he had served as a Nazi collaborator during World War II in the Waffen Grenadier Brigade of the Charlemagne paramilitary Protection Squadron (Schutzstaffel or SS). After the war, in his 1950 book Theory of Racism, he wrote in dismay about how Western Europe had been invaded by “Mongols and Negroes” — that is, by the Soviets and the Americans. He lamented that Jewish-dominated capital also supposedly controlled Europe (it didn’t, of course) and falsely alleged that Jewish CEOs were bringing in immigrants in a deliberate attempt to replace civilized White Europeans.
Sadly enough, Binet’s ideas have been revived in this century by French thinkers and politicians. Renaud Camus published his twenty-first century version of the theory in 2010, entitling his book The Great Replacement. Such falsehoods were echoed in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, when American Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us” (and President Trump called the assembled protestors, as well as those who opposed them, “very fine people”).
Read the rest here.
Israel Could Solve Its PR Problem By Simply Ceasing To Be Evil
Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 06, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-could-solve-its-pr-problem?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=200847621&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Israel’s +972 Magazine reports that the Israeli military establishment has launched a training program designed to “influence public consciousness” around the world, with courses aimed at training hundreds of operatives per year in strategies for “actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences.”
Citing a leaked Defense Ministry tender, +972 reports that lecturers in the program are required to hold “doctorates and/or professorships in the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication,” as well as “at least four years of professional experience in the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.”
“Some of the courses — including those on influence operations, influence intelligence, and online activism — will be in English for ‘foreign partners,’ whose identities are not specified,” +972 reports. “For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of ‘the American approach,’ meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.”
Israel’s +972 Magazine reports that the Israeli military establishment has launched a training program designed to “influence public consciousness” around the world, with courses aimed at training hundreds of operatives per year in strategies for “actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences.”
Citing a leaked Defense Ministry tender, +972 reports that lecturers in the program are required to hold “doctorates and/or professorships in the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication,” as well as “at least four years of professional experience in the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.”
“Some of the courses — including those on influence operations, influence intelligence, and online activism — will be in English for ‘foreign partners,’ whose identities are not specified,” +972 reports. “For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of ‘the American approach,’ meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.”
Israel’s +972 Magazine reports that the Israeli military establishment has launched a training program designed to “influence public consciousness” around the world, with courses aimed at training hundreds of operatives per year in strategies for “actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences.”
Citing a leaked Defense Ministry tender, +972 reports that lecturers in the program are required to hold “doctorates and/or professorships in the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication,” as well as “at least four years of professional experience in the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.”
“Some of the courses — including those on influence operations, influence intelligence, and online activism — will be in English for ‘foreign partners,’ whose identities are not specified,” +972 reports. “For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of ‘the American approach,’ meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.”
Israel’s +972 Magazine reports that the Israeli military establishment has launched a training program designed to “influence public consciousness” around the world, with courses aimed at training hundreds of operatives per year in strategies for “actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences.”
Citing a leaked Defense Ministry tender, +972 reports that lecturers in the program are required to hold “doctorates and/or professorships in the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication,” as well as “at least four years of professional experience in the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.”
“Some of the courses — including those on influence operations, influence intelligence, and online activism — will be in English for ‘foreign partners,’ whose identities are not specified,” +972 reports. “For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of ‘the American approach,’ meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.”
Israel’s +972 Magazine reports that the Israeli military establishment has launched a training program designed to “influence public consciousness” around the world, with courses aimed at training hundreds of operatives per year in strategies for “actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences.”
Citing a leaked Defense Ministry tender, +972 reports that lecturers in the program are required to hold “doctorates and/or professorships in the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication,” as well as “at least four years of professional experience in the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.”
“Some of the courses — including those on influence operations, influence intelligence, and online activism — will be in English for ‘foreign partners,’ whose identities are not specified,” +972 reports. “For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of ‘the American approach,’ meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.”
This revelation comes as Israel quintuples its annual propaganda budget to three-quarters of a billion dollars. So going forward you can expect to be blasted in the face with a whole lot more pro-Israel perception management while you’re minding your own fucking business trying to live your life.
It’s such a trip how Zionists just take it as a given that the only way to improve public perception of Israel is to ramp up efforts to manipulate the thoughts people think about it. They never give serious attention to the possibility that Israel would have a lot more public approval if it stopped fucking murdering innocent civilians all the time and fucking torturing people and raping captives with trained rape dogs. Israel can’t possibly be wrong; only our thoughts about Israel can be wrong.
At an American Jewish Committee event on Tuesday, Santa Clara University’s Maya Ackerman argued that generative AI presents an exciting new opportunity for imposing pro-Israel narratives on public consciousness, because AI companies can be lobbied directly to push pro-Israel narratives since their leaders can control what information people see.
Here’s a transcript of what she said:
“The really cool thing about AI is that while it can become a great ally for our enemies if we act early, it could be exactly the opportunity that we need after missing the boat with social media. AI is now becoming the dominant source of information — the main source of information. People trust AI more than anything else. They trust AI more than social media. They turn to chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini instead of using Google. And young people use these bots instead of Google in very, very very large numbers. So this is becoming the main source of information.
“And so when I say this, I still find Jewish people being discouraged, they say ‘Oh, but Wikipedia is already so antisemitic and social media is so antisemitic — why bother? The AI just learns from all of this data.’ So, you know, whatever, not much we can do.
“But that’s not true, because over the past two years the AI companies have been moving towards alignment. So instead of algorithms sort of honestly representing what’s in the data, we’re finding that these chatbots and the text to image models are increasingly showing us exactly what the companies want us to see.
“Okay, so it’s becoming intentional. Which means that instead of trying to control the whole world and trying to somehow manage what’s happening in this big blob called Wikipedia and social media, we can go directly to the companies with clear technical and advocacy solutions. For the first time, there is a path to correcting the digital world.”
So to be clear, Ackerman is arguing that AI chatbots are useful because instead of “honestly representing what’s in the data” they are saying whatever their owners tell them to say, which means the owners of AI companies can simply be pressured to make the chatbots say pro-Israel things. She is saying this gives “Jewish people” (her words, not mine) an opportunity for “correcting the digital world” (her words, not mine) in a way that is more efficient than “trying to control the whole world” (her words, not mine).
It’s just surreal how people like me are always going to great lengths to draw clear distinctions and avoid coming across as antisemitic in our criticisms of Israel, and then Jewish Zionists go to these events all “Yes we Jews need to be actively manipulating western institutions in order to deceive everyone and control society.”
The other day at a Jerusalem Post conference, World Jewish Congress president Ron Lauder argued that Jewish billionaires should be using their wealth “to attack our enemies”, and advocated for Israeli intelligence agencies Mossad and Shin Bet to track and “counterattack” Israel’s critics online in the “fight” against anti-Israel sentiment.
Speaking at a book launch event in Jerusalem last month, British columnist and broadcaster Melanie Phillips argued that “the Jewish community” should use “psychological warfare” and “psyops” to promote the interests of Israel.
“There are plenty of people in this country who … are experts in what’s called psyops. They should be used. They could be drawn upon. These are reservoirs of talent and skill that could be used and harnessed, to really make a difference,” Phillips said.
If I wanted people to stop hating my favorite country for committing war crimes and genocide, I personally would simply encourage that country to stop committing war crimes and genocide.
I would not try to solve the problem by waging psyops and information warfare.
I would not try to solve the problem by lobbying governments to ban criticism of my favorite country.
I would not try to solve the problem by claiming that anyone who criticizes my favorite country is a Nazi.
I would not try to solve the problem with a dramatic increase to my favorite country’s propaganda budget.
I would not try to solve the problem by swarming the internet with paid trolls who argue in support of my favorite country.
I would not try to solve the problem by buying up news outlets and social media platforms in order to force them to amplify information that is supportive of my favorite country.
I feel like doing these things would only make people hate my favorite country more. I think people would get sick of my favorite country’s supporters constantly trying to manipulate their minds and assaulting their right to free expression.
I would only do these things if I wanted people to hate my favorite country. Like if my favorite country was premised on the idea that everyone already hates its inhabitants, so the only way to stay safe is to remain in a constant state of military combat and mass-scale manipulation. Then I suppose it would make sense to do the things I just described.
But come to think of it, if my favorite country was founded on the premise of nonstop warfare and manipulation and the assumption that it must necessarily always be despised throughout the world, at some point I suspect I’d find myself wondering why my favorite country is my favorite country at all. And I’d begin wondering if perhaps it was a mistake to establish such a country in the first place.
Trump Describes Executions to Kids, While MAGA Bans Lessons Causing “Discomfort”
Trump’s performance of masculine bravado and attacks on transgender athletes were not separate from his broader message — they were central to it. Trump has presented the revival of the Presidential Fitness Test not simply as a health initiative, but as part of rebuilding a “tougher,” more militaristic national character. Within that worldview, rigid masculinity becomes a political ideal associated with aggression, control, and toughness, while vulnerability, peace, or gender nonconformity are treated as signs of weakness and decay.
Trump’s lesson to children was to fear difference, obey power, and treat vulnerable people as threats.
By Jesse Hagopian , Truthout, May 16, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/trump-describes-executions-to-kids-while-maga-bans-lessons-causing-discomfort/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=fcdf48b92f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_05_16_02_57&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-fcdf48b92f-650192793
Seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office in early May, Donald Trump delivered a disturbing lecture to a group of children huddled around him — most of them not yet even teenagers. They had been brought to the White House for what was supposed to be a celebratory event marking the reinstatement of the Presidential Fitness Test, dressed in brightly colored T-shirts bearing the government emblem of the rebooted program.
Flanked by a group including cabinet secretaries Linda McMahon, Pete Hegseth, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump turned the White House into his schoolhouse. Casting himself as a master teacher, he launched into an improvised lesson — part contemporary issues, part history, part geography, and all MAGA mythology.
During his lesson, Trump exposed a central contradiction at the heart of his politics. States and school districts across the country have enacted MAGA education policies — such as the Florida Stop WOKE Act — that prohibit teaching content that might cause students “guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress.” But Trump himself showed no such restraint. During what amounted to an advanced course in authoritarian education, he immersed children in a grotesque curriculum of graphic executions, nuclear annihilation, and the threat of entire societies being wiped out — paired with nationalist triumphalism and the scapegoating of transgender people.
The premise of the event itself rested on the fear that the U.S. has become weak and soft, which could only be remedied by making the country aggressively masculine again. Trump framed the return of the Presidential Fitness Test not merely as a health initiative, but as part of a broader struggle for national strength and power. Warning in a statement to the press that declining youth fitness weakens “our economy, military readiness, academic performance, and national morale,” he cast physical toughness as a prerequisite for a nation prepared for war.
This is not education. It is spectacle, coercion, indoctrination, and the normalization of violence.
Teaching Fear
In one of the most disturbing moments of the event, a reporter asked Trump whether Iranian protesters, with U.S. support, could topple their government. He answered by explaining, in vivid detail, how those protesters might be massacred: “You can have 200,000 people protesting … and when they start shooting them right between the eyes, and you see a guy fall, and another one fall…”
Then Trump raised his hand to his face, pressing his index finger between his brows, marking the place where the bullet would strike. Recalling protests led by Iranian women, he described a demonstrator being shot by snipers as “a woman dropped dead with a bullet right there,” repeatedly pointing between his eyes to show where the bullet struck. He described the panic that could spread through the crowd as “another woman dropped” and protesters began to flee. A boy to his right pursed his lips as Trump narrated the murders. A girl to his left appeared visibly jarred — her eyes widened, her expression tense — as the adults around her stood by silently.
Educators and child psychologists have long warned that exposing children to graphic violence without context or emotional grounding can create anxiety, confusion, and fear. The National Association of School Psychologists advises adults discussing violence with children to keep explanations “developmentally appropriate” and avoid exposing them to “vengeful, hateful, and angry comments.” Trump did the opposite. Rather than helping children process violence with care and understanding, he used graphic imagery to normalize brutality and reinforce the logic of power.
Trump did not stop at describing executions. He escalated from scenes of political murder to warnings of nuclear catastrophe.
He did briefly acknowledge the inappropriateness of his comments, saying, “You might be too young for this,” before warning the children that “you can’t let a bunch of lunatics have a nuclear weapon or the world will be in a lot of trouble.” As Desi Lydic quipped on “The Daily Show”: “No, they’re not too young. I’m sure they’ve already seen the ‘Paw Patrol’ episode where they drop a ballistic missile on Humdinger.”
Organizations focused on child development emphasize that young people need guidance and context when confronting frightening world events. Child advocacy organization Defending the Early Years (DEY) notes that young children “hear headlines and snippets of conversations and are often left to make sense of confusing situations without proper guidance or facilitation.” Rather than ignoring difficult events — or exposing children only to the most disturbing fragments — DEY emphasizes the need for “age-appropriate conversations … so they can understand what is happening.”
A responsible lesson on nuclear weapons, for example, might begin by asking students what they already know and what questions they have. It might include a brief, factual explanation of what nuclear weapons are, paired with age-appropriate historical context — such as the global movements that have worked to limit or eliminate them. Students might examine how ordinary people have organized against nuclear war, or consider what actions communities can take to reduce the risk of these weapons being used.
Rather than helping children process difficult realities, Trump took it even further: “Iran with a nuclear weapon … maybe we wouldn’t all be here right now.”
He amplified the dread by asking the kids to imagine a world in which entire regions are destroyed, and where they themselves would not survive: “I can tell you, the Middle East would have been gone. Israel would have been gone. They would have trained their sights on Europe, first, and then us.”
Counselor Nathaniel N. Ivers notes that fear of nuclear devastation can have a lifelong impact on children. During the Cold War, studies found that children and caregivers often experienced heightened anxiety about nuclear threats — and that when adults expressed more fear, their children tended to become more anxious as well.
Beyond inflicting psychological trauma, Trump’s discussion of nuclear apocalypse also lacked the historical context students would need to understand how the past shapes present conflicts. The United States remains the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war — dropping atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, killing more than 200,000 civilians. Trump, of course, was not interested in allowing students to consider why many around the world fear the U.S. use of nuclear weapons more than any other country.
Nor did Trump mention the long history of U.S. intervention in Iran itself. As historian Stephen Kinzer explains, after World War II, the people of Iran rose up to achieve a brief period of democracy and “They did something that the United States never likes: They chose a leader who wanted to put the interests of his own country ahead of the interests of the United States.” The leader they elected was Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who moved to nationalize the country’s oil industry. In response, the United States and Britain orchestrated the 1953 coup that overthrew him. As Kinzer put it, “this was not just an attack on one person, but an attack on democracy.”
But Trump didn’t teach these truths that could help children understand how those in power have misused it. And just as Trump taught children to fear “enemies” abroad, he also taught them to view transgender people at home as threats to the social order he was trying to defend. Railing against gender-affirming care for trans youth, Trump invoked “transgender mutilization” — mangling the word he was trying to weaponize — in an apparent attempt to frighten the children before abruptly catching himself and saying, “Don’t listen to this, kids.” Then, reversing his decision to have the children disregard him, Trump looked into the eyes of the youth and declared, “I’ve never had one person say it’s important we allow women to be challenged by men in women’s sports…”
Moments later, he resumed the lesson. Turning to one of the boys beside him and slapping him on the arm, Trump said, “I don’t think we are gonna have to worry about you.” He then asked, “Are you a strong person?” When the boy replied yes, Trump followed up: “Do you think you can take me in a fight?”
Again, aggression was the lesson.
Trump’s performance of masculine bravado and attacks on transgender athletes were not separate from his broader message — they were central to it. Trump has presented the revival of the Presidential Fitness Test not simply as a health initiative, but as part of rebuilding a “tougher,” more militaristic national character. Within that worldview, rigid masculinity becomes a political ideal associated with aggression, control, and toughness, while vulnerability, peace, or gender nonconformity are treated as signs of weakness and decay.
Trump’s rhetoric drew on a long bipartisan tradition in U.S. politics in which organized sports and physical fitness were treated not as recreation, but as training grounds for masculine discipline, war, and imperial power. Theodore Roosevelt’s celebration of “The Strenuous Life” warned against national “softness” and argued that athletics cultivated the “virile virtues” needed by a colonizing nation. As sports historian Dave Zirin wrote in A People’s History of Sports in the United States, Roosevelt saw “masculinity and Muscular Christianity as symbiotic with a nation poised to conquer.”
Decades later, Democratic President John F. Kennedy echoed similar fears in his essay “The Soft American,” arguing that the U.S.’s “struggles against aggressors throughout our history have been won on the playgrounds and corner lots and fields of America,” and that military victories “only come from bodies which have been conditioned by a lifetime of participation in sports.” Kennedy’s expansion of the Presidential Fitness program, established under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was explicitly tied to Cold War anxieties about national decline, military readiness, and the U.S.’s ability to compete with global rivals. Trump’s revival of the Presidential Fitness Test tapped directly into that tradition — one that links fears of national decline to nationalism, militarism, and rigid ideas about masculinity.
“Everyone Is Welcome Here” vs. MAGA Hypocrisy
Taken together, Trump’s lesson was about teaching children who and what to fear — foreign enemies overseas and vulnerable communities at home — while deflecting from the real dangers of war, bigotry, and oppression. As Rethinking Schools argues, education should help students “see injustice, imagine possible remedies, and develop the tools to enact them.” Trump’s lesson taught the opposite: fear difference, obey power, and treat vulnerable people as threats.
For years, Trump and his allies — especially writer Christopher Rufo — have argued that schools should avoid teaching material that is “divisive,” “negative,” or emotionally distressing. Trump and his allies have described lessons on racism and slavery as “toxic,” even likening such teaching to “child abuse.”
The hypocrisy is rank.
In Idaho, middle school teacher Sarah Inama was ordered in January 2025 to take down a classroom poster that read, “Everyone is welcome here.” That demand was the result of Idaho’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law, which restricts how teachers can discuss race, identity, and inequality in schools. In that environment, a message affirming the lives of all children was recast as subversive indoctrination meant to sow division. Across the country, teachers have been reprimanded for displaying Pride flags, forced out of their jobs for acknowledging systemic racism, or warned against teaching that slavery was wrong, for fear that it might make students uncomfortable.
But describing people being shot “right between the eyes” is comforting? Imagining nuclear annihilation prevents psychological distress? Celebrating bombing campaigns is reassuring?
In this upside-down moral universe, empathy is dangerous, human dignity is controversial, and truth itself is suspect. What is condemned is not harm, but the effort to understand and end it.
And yet, there is resistance.
At first when Sarah Inama was told to take down her classroom poster, she complied. But after a student asked if taking it down meant that not all students were welcome, the meaning of the order became undeniable — and she put the poster back up.
After rehanging it, she wrote to her principal that the request “goes against everything that we work towards and the type of community that we dream to have at our school.”
“We (help students learn) by making them feel safe,” she continued. “We do that by making sure they have food. We do that by building relationships with them. And, most importantly, we do that by making sure that they know that they are all welcome there and we want them here … With that being said, I have put my sign back up.”
In putting the sign back up in her classroom, Inama posed a challenge to us all: Will we insist that students deserve classrooms that tell the truth, nurture their humanity, and equip them to challenge injustice — or will we allow fear and violence to become the curriculum
Jesse Hagopian is a Seattle educator, the director of the Zinn Education Project’s Teaching for Black Lives Campaign, an editor for Rethinking Schools, and the author of the book, Teach Truth: The Struggle for Antiracist Education. You can follow him at IAmAnEducator.com, Instagram, Bluesky or Substack.
We Can’t Curb Nuclear Proliferation If We Don’t Acknowledge Israel’s Nukes.
This letter is a rare and important challenge to one of the most entrenched taboos in U.S. foreign policy: acknowledging that Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal for decades and that Washington has largely complied with Israel’s desire to maintain silence around it
The goal of nonproliferation cannot be credible if it is selective. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran is.
There is no credible nonproliferation policy that begins by pretending not to see the bombs your ally already has.
Etan Mabourakh , Truthout, May 12, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/we-cant-curb-nuclear-proliferation-if-we-dont-acknowledge-israels-nukes/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=603e7eec49-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_05_12_09_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-603e7eec49-650192793
Thirty House Democrats, led by Rep. Joaquin Castro, publicly asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on May 4 to end the long-standing U.S. policy of ambiguity around Israel’s nuclear capabilities. In a letter, the group asked for answers on detailed questions about Israel’s warheads, delivery systems, fissile material production, and nuclear doctrine. They argue that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to understand the nuclear balance in the Middle East and warn that official silence makes coherent nonproliferation policy impossible.
Lawmakers tied their demand for transparency directly to the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, warning that fighting alongside a state whose nuclear posture remains officially unacknowledged heightens the risks of miscalculation and escalation. It also makes the United States out to be hypocritical — citing the nonexistent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon yet to be built, which Iran had forsworn, while simultaneously ignoring Israel’s secret, unmonitored, undiscussed nuclear weapons arsenal.
If the United States claims to be deeply concerned about nuclear proliferation in the region, the government has a responsibility to stop ignoring facts that make the entirety of U.S. foreign policy on proliferation look completely disingenuous. The U.S. cannot keep sending billions in weapons unconditionally to a nuclear-armed state while treating open discussion of that reality as impermissible.
This letter is a rare and important challenge to one of the most entrenched taboos in U.S. foreign policy: acknowledging that Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal for decades and that Washington has largely complied with Israel’s desire to maintain silence around it. That posture goes all the way back to a secret 1969 understanding that allowed the issue to remain publicly unspoken even as it has shaped regional calculations. For decades, Washington would not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear capability, and Israel would not confirm it. But declassified National Security Archive material suggests that by 1969, U.S. agencies had already accumulated enough sensitive evidence to treat the issue as a serious intelligence matter, while also deciding that political and foreign policy costs outweighed the benefits of pressing it openly. The result was an unofficial understanding that helped lock the subject inside a veil of deniability, even as internal investigations, wiretaps, and intelligence briefings continued behind the scenes.
If the formal public stance of the U.S. is to not support the existence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East — whether in Iran or Israel — then the foreign policy objective should be to advocate for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. This would require acknowledging that war has utterly failed as a strategy to prevent that goal, especially when the fake threat of an active nuclear weapons program is used to justify military action — as has been the case in costly, useless U.S. wars in Iraq and now in Iran.
The goal of nonproliferation cannot be credible if it is selective. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran is. Simply acknowledging that fact does not require putting full trust in Tehran to abide by the treaty — indeed, that’s why Iran has been subjected to countless inspection regimes; it simply means that any honest regional nonproliferation framework has to begin with the facts as they are, not as Washington prefers to describe them.
Those facts and suspicions have been a matter of public record for decades, even if U.S. officials have often refused to address them publicly. As far back as 1965, the U.S. government knew that over 200 pounds of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium had gone missing from the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) plant in Pennsylvania — triggering enduring investigations and allegations by the CIA and other agencies that the material was clandestinely diverted to the Israeli nuclear program.
Decades later, in 1986, former Dimona technician Mordechai Vanunu leaked photographs and data to the Sunday Times that exposed the full scale of Israel’s covert weapons program. These facts have long been known and reported on by countless media outlets and scholars, even if they were officially evaded by the U.S. government.
That is why the Castro letter deserves attention beyond the news cycle. The lawmakers wrote that ambiguity about Israel’s program makes coherent nonproliferation policy impossible not only for Iran, but for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and every other state making decisions based on the capabilities of its neighbors. These 30 Democrats are right to express this concern, and the principle involved is larger than one conflict: There’s no such thing as a rules-based order built on exceptions for allies and punishment for adversaries.
We will not be able to resolve complex issues of nuclear proliferation if we cannot even share a basic reality. The Orwellian “ceasefires” in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran illustrate this clearly. The U.S. government and its allies lie, and then expect the other side to not just accept their terms, but also their version of the truth — a recipe for perpetual conflict.
Ironically, tragic and repeated U.S. failures of diplomacy have strengthened the most conservative forces inside Iran, who benefit most from isolation, siege, and perpetual confrontation. If U.S. officials profess to care about the Iranian people, regional peace, and genuine nonproliferation, they should be building diplomatic pathways that reduce incentives for weaponization, not destroying the possibility of trust altogether.
The United States should state openly what it knows, demand transparency from all regional actors, and return to the hard work of diplomacy. The rest of Congress should insist on answers to the questions raised in the Castro letter, not bury them. And anyone serious about preventing nuclear catastrophe should be willing to say a simple thing out loud: There is no credible nonproliferation policy that begins by pretending not to see the bombs your ally already has.
Sweden generates 99% of electricity from clean sources. So why is wind power under attack?
Sweden generates 99% of electricity from clean sources. So why is wind
power under attack? Thousands of anti-wind social media posts have been
analysed, as researchers warn that Europe’s energy security could be
threatened. Sweden has been hit the hardest by a coordinated attack on wind
power, according to a new analysis.
Euro News 6th May 2026, https://www.euronews.com/2026/05/06/sweden-generates-99-of-electricity-from-clean-sources-so-why-is-wind-power-under-attack
Trump claims his mass murder in the Caribbean saved a million American lives…real number 0
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 6 May 26
President Trump sure loves committing mass murder worldwide. Gaza, Iran, Somalia, Niger, Iraq, Yemen, Venezuela are among nations he’s victimized with violent murder. Add in countries like Cuba where he’s essentially murdering innocents with life suffocating sanctions, he’s racked up tens if not over a hundred thousand deaths in 6 years exercising his presidential License To Kill.
While bombing innocents worldwide was practiced by all presidents since at least Bill Clinton, Trump is unique in ordering mass murder bombing of small boats in the Caribbean. He ghoulishly lunched Operation Southern Spear in the Caribbean last September. In the past 8 months Trump, playing Long John Silver instead of a decent world leader, has blasted 54 little boats to smithereens, sending 185 innocents to Davy Jones Locker.
His justification? ‘Oh they’re certainly running fentanyl and cocaine to the Homeland killing millions of Americans.’ Trump claims the boats were all part of 24 narco terrorist cartels but couldn’t name a single one. When a couple of Trump’s targets survived the bombing, Trump’s military polished them off with another murderous salvo. ‘Can’t let these stinkin’ narco terrorists floating around gathering up the drug packages floating nearby’ was the justification for instant execution.
Trump lies shamelessly about everything. But his Whoppers about the bombings dwarf anything Burger King could cook up. Trump claims “Drugs entering our country by sea are down 97 percent.” More absurd, Trump calculates each boat he obliterates saves 25,000 American lives. Both figures are so preposterous one must ponder where he pulls them from.
Funny, if drugs arrivals are down 97%, one might conclude that border drug seizures would be similarly down. Yet, Customs and Border Protection note that seizures at U.S. borders and along coasts have increased from 38,000 lbs. to 44,000 lbs. (16%) in the 7 months following Trump’s mass murder spree compared to the 7 months before it began. In drug crazed America, usage is up, prices are stable and supply is plentiful.
But with Trump steering the Ship of State, state sponsored murder is up, prices of everything legal are escalating, and display of decency, morality and common sense nowhere to be found.
The UK Descends Into Confected Antisemitism Hysteria
Nate Bear, Do Not Panic May 05, 2026
The UK has descended into confected hysteria over antisemitism to protect Keir Starmer and Labour from being wiped out by the Greens in local elections this week.
The British establishment is well-practiced in manufacturing antisemitism hysteria, of course, having used it to destroy Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party when it got too close to power.
Now the UK’s political and media establishment is trying to pull the same trick, but this time on the Green Party and its Jewish leader, Zack Polanski.
This fresh round of hysteria really ramped up after a man with a history of mental illness (and of stabbings) stabbed two Jews in north London last week. Neither died and both will live. Omitted from almost all state-corporate media coverage was the fact that he also stabbed a third man, a Muslim. Also omitted was his history of stabbings (he previously stabbed his own dog, a Somali man, and two police officers), and his history of psychotic breaks.
Despite the circumstances clearly pointing to random attacks by a person suffering an acute mental episode, the police treated it not just as a planned antisemitic attack, but as terrorism.
The terrorism threat level in the UK was raised to severe.
I remember when terrorism used to mean car bombs, political goals, manifestos and scores of dead people, not a mentally disabled man with a butter knife scratching a few people.
But the attack was perfect fodder for the British media and political establishment, who blamed support for Palestine and opposition to genocide for enabling antisemitism, and instantly began demanding pro-Palestine protests were fully outlawed.
The environment of hysteria that ensued is hard to describe if you don’t follow British media or politics closely, but it has been extraordinary.
Keir Starmer gave a primetime televised address to the nation.
His speech was a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the case, completely omitting the Muslim victim, completely omitting the man’s history of illness and random stabbing attacks. But they were deliberate lies of omission critical to constructing an antisemitism narrative.
And it worked.
Every headline, every news broadcast for a week led with the story about ‘the antisemitism crisis in Britain.’
I remember when terrorism used to mean something. I also remember when antisemitism used to mean something. And implying all Jews support the actions of Israel used to be considered antisemitic.
But now that’s all anyone with political or media power does.
Starmer said that anti-genocide, pro-Palestine protests have created the environment for antisemitic attacks. The Green Party’s opposition to Israel’s genocide, the media said, has fuelled antisemitism. The Guardian had a story on the Green Party’s ‘struggle against antisemitism,’ a story which presumably included how just eight months ago the entire Green Party membership antisemitically elected a Jewish leader.
And when you deconstruct the logical conclusions behind the implication that Jews are being attacked because of what Israel has done, it will break your brain.
Firstly the implication that Jews are attacked because of Israel, not because of their religion, means Israel represents all Jewish sentiment……………………………….
We’ve reached the point where everything is antisemitism apart from the thing that is actually antisemitism.
And this is because the Zionists have lost the propaganda war. Genocide is not going back in the bottle. Everyone sees what Israel has done. Everyone can now see what Israel is: a genocidal settler-colony apartheid state run by ethno-supremacists.
The deliberate conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism then is intended to silence criticism of Israel, and erase the truth about what Israel is and has done.
It’s also intended to stop the Green Party inflicting a humiliating defeat on Keir Starmer and his Labour Party in local elections this week.
The establishment calculation is that if you can establish in the mind of progressives the idea that a vote for the Greens is actually a vote for hate, not a vote against genocide or apartheid, you can stop Labour bleeding leftist votes to the Greens.
If the Zionist establishment can reestablish that black is white, they think they have a chance.
But it goes even deeper than that.
The UK establishment aren’t just using the attack for rhetorical purposes, they are using it to actually get Green Party election candidates arrested.
Andrew Gilligan, a former adviser to Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, and now a right-wing journalist, wrote a story about two Green Party candidates Saiqa Ali and Sabine Mairey who he said had made ‘antisemitic’ posts. Last week, he gloated that following his stories, they’d both been arrested…………………………………………………
Three people are stabbed every day in London. Over one thousand people a year, of all religions and none.
None of these ever warrant a national prime ministerial TV address.
Twenty-seven mosques in the UK were attacked between July and October last year.
No extra security funding (Starmer has promised an extra £25 million for Jewish areas). No discourse about Islamophobia. Just tumbleweed.
But a random attack on two Jews gets the full national psychodrama treatment because it can be so usefully weaponised to serve the interests of Zionism.
Are people going to fall for this?
I don’t think so.
Is Zack Polanski going to fall for this after seeing what happened to Corbyn?
Hopefully not.
We have more than enough evidence by now to know that you can never appease Zionists.
There is no middle-ground, no strategy of accommodation.
Any concession is interpreted as a sign of weakness. As Corbyn showed us, once they’ve drawn blood, they’ll bleed you dry.
The only anti-Zionist strategy that makes any sense is one of full confrontation.
The only route to victory is their full defeat. https://www.donotpanic.news/p/the-uk-descends-into-confected-antisemitism
Dissecting An “Antisemitism” Psyop
Caitlin Johnstone, May 03, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/dissecting-an-antisemitism-psyop?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=196309636&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I recently watched a Sky News segment on the need to ban pro-Palestine marches which nicely illustrates the way the mass media have been working to manipulate the public into believing these demonstrations are causing antisemitic attacks.
Reporting on British prime minister Keir Starmer’s recent assertion that the “repeat nature” and “cumulative effect” of pro-Palestine marches may necessitate a ban on some protests following the Golders Green stabbing, reporter Mollie Malone repeatedly told the audience of Sky News that the marches are happening in the “context” of antisemitic incidents and “against the backdrop” of attacks on Jewish people.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that pro-Palestine marches have anything at all to do with antisemitic attacks. But watch how this Sky News propagandist marries the two in the minds of her viewers by repeatedly mentioning them in the same breath and connecting them with words like “context” and “backdrop”.
“The prime minister has gone somewhat further than he has previously in discussing and commenting on how to approach and manage these protests which we’ve seen for a long time now, but clearly they now come against the backdrop of increased attacks on our Jewish communities, most recently of course on Wednesday where two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green,” Malone said.
Malone made the obligatory appeal to emotion by talking about the feelings of British Jews by saying that antisemitic attacks are “adding to fears among Jewish people,” and then said “it’s in that context that these pro-Palestine marches are being discussed.”
I could make the exact same type of argument to suggest that the faint humming sound from my refrigerator is causing the pain in my ankle. I could say I’m experiencing ankle soreness and the soreness is making my feelings feel very upset, and it is in this context and against this backdrop that the buzzing from the refrigerator is happening. At no point am I actually presenting evidence that the soreness in my ankle has anything to do with the faint buzzing sound; I’m just using fallacious associations and appeals to emotion to get you to think of them as having a causal relationship.
Malone uncritically quoted the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Jonathan Hall asserting on no basis whatsoever that pro-Palestine marches “incubate antisemitism,” then repeated the bogus hasbara talking point that the phrase “globalise the intifada” is “seen to incite violence towards Jewish people.”
“The context here is everything,” Malone concluded after a few moments of pro-Palestine activist rebuttals to provide the illusion of impartiality.
As the British political/media class have been doing for days when discussing the Golders Green stabbings, Malone neglects to mention that a third man who was not Jewish was also attacked in the same incident, and that the assailant had recently emerged from the care of a psychiatric hospital. You might think the perpetrator’s extensive history of mental health struggles combined with the fact that he did not solely target Jewish people would dissuade serious news reporters from framing this as an act motivated by hateful ideology, but British news media employees are not serious news reporters. They are propagandists.
This frenzied propaganda push to stomp out pro-Palestine protests across the western world has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people from antisemitic attacks. It’s about protecting the interests of Israel and the murderous western governments with whom it is aligned, and nothing else.
The West’s bubble of illusion about Israel – and about itself – is finally being burst
The anti-racist left are demonised as Jew-hating bigots for trying to burst the West’s long-established bubble of illusion by noisily flagging both the atrocities committed by Israel, supposedly in the name of Jews, and the complicity of their own governments in those atrocities.
Jonathan Cook, May 2026, https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/west-bubble-illusion-israel-about-itself-finally-being-burst
The genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon exhausted the West’s moral legitimacy. Now Iran is slowly exhausting the West’s military primacy
or decades, two irreconciliable narratives about Israel and its motivations have existed in parallel.
On the one side, an official western narrative portrays a plucky, besieged “Jewish” state of Israel, desperate to make peace with its hostile Arab neighbours. Even to this day, that story dominates the political, media and academic landscape.
Time and again, or so we are told, Israel has held out an olive branch to “the Arabs”, seeking acceptance, but is always rebuffed.
A largely unspoken subtext suggests that supposedly irrational, bloodthirsty, Jew-hating regimes across the region would have completed the Nazis’ exterminationist agenda but for the West’s humane protection of a vulnerable minority.
A Palestinian counter-narrative, accepted across much of the rest of the world, is choked into silence in the West as an antisemitic “blood libel”.
It presents Israel as an ethnic supremacist, highly militaristic state – armed by the US and Europe – bent on expansion, mass expulsions and land theft.
On this view, the West implanted Israel as a colonial military outpost, there to subdue the native Palestinian population, and terrorise neighbouring states into submission through relentless and overwhelming displays of force.
Palestinians cannot make peace, or reach any kind of accommodation, because Israel pursues only conquest, domination and erasure. No middle ground is possible.
The proof, note Palestinians, is Israel’s long-standing refusal to define its borders. As its military power has grown decade after decade, ever more extreme political agendas have surfaced, demanding not just Israel’s takeover of the last remnants of the Palestinian territories it illegally occupies but expansion into neighbouring states like Lebanon and Syria.
Drunk on power
Here are two conflicting narratives in which each side presents itself as the victim of the other.
Two and a half years into a series of Israeli wars against the peoples of Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, how are these two perspectives holding up?
Does Israel look like the frustrated peacemaker facing off with barbaric opponents, or a rogue state whose decades-long aggression has provoked the very retaliatory violence exploited to excuse its constant war-making?
Is Israel a small, reluctant fortress state defending itself, or a western military client so drunk on its own power that it can no more limit its territorial ambitions than a great white shark can stop swimming?
The truth is that the past 30 months have graphically exposed not only what Israel always was but, by extension, what our own western states aspired to achieve through their most favoured Middle East client.
In a moment of imprudence last month, Christian Turner, Peter Mandelson’s replacement as British ambassador to the US, said the quiet part out loud. Washington, the West’s imperial hub, he said, had no deep loyalty to its allies – apart from one.
Unaware his words were being recorded, he told a group of visiting students: “I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the United States, and that is probably Israel.”
That special relationship requires the political and media class in Washington’s other client states, such as Britain, to shield the West’s Sparta in the Middle East from critical scrutiny.
So glaring have Israel’s atrocities become that the British government announced last month that it was shuttering its Foreign Office unit tracking war crimes – citing the need for cuts – rather than face further exposure of its collusion in those crimes.
If the British government refuses to monitor Israel’s war crimes, don’t expect more from the establishment media.
For months, Israel has been blowing up village after village in south Lebanon, driving millions of inhabitants from lands lived on for millennia by their ancestors, and it barely registers with our politicians and media.
Israel is destroying Gaza’s water supplies, as it earlier did the tiny enclave’s hospitals and health system, ensuring the further spread of disease, and our politicians and media have barely a word to say about it.
Israel kills journalists and emergency crews in Gaza and Lebanon week after week, month after month, and it raises barely an eyebrow from the political and media class.
Israel declares “yellow lines” in Gaza and Lebanon, demarcating expanded borders that formalise its theft of other peoples’ lands, and this instantly becomes the new normal.
Israel continuously violates ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, spreading misery and inflaming yet more anger and bitterness, and once again, our politicians and media turn a blind eye.
Which western media outlets are pointing out a starkly revealing fact: that Israel now occupies more of Lebanon than Russia does of Ukraine?
Media bias
An analysis by the Newscord media monitoring group last month confirmed earlier research: that the British media studiously avoid naming ethnic cleansing and genocide when it is Israel – rather than Russia – carrying them out.
Comparing the coverage of the most “serious” establishment British news outlets – the BBC, the Guardian and Sky – with that of Al Jazeera, the study found that UK media consistently choose to obscure Israel’s responsibility for its crimes.
Israel was identified as conducting attacks in Gaza in only around half of British news reports, in contrast to nearly 90 percent of Al Jazeera’s. As Newscord noted: “Half the time, BBC readers aren’t told who killed the person in the story.”
That was graphically illustrated in a notorious BBC headline: “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help”.
In fact, an Israeli tank had sprayed a stationary car with gunfire even though the Israeli military had known for hours that it contained a Palestinian girl – the sole survivor of an earlier attack – who emergency crews were desperately trying to reach. Israel killed the rescue team, too.
In another revealing finding, Newscord notes that four out of every five BBC reports on casualties caused by Israel’s attacks used the convoluted passive – rather than active – voice, clearly with the intent to downplay Israel’s culpability and savagery.
The British media also actively undermined the enormity of the Palestinian death toll in Gaza by regularly attributing the figures to a “Hamas-affiliated” health ministry – even though the numbers, currently at well over 70,000 Palestinians, are almost certainly a massive undercount, given Israel’s early destruction of the enclave’s government and its capacity to count the dead.
The fact that the United Nations has found the Gaza figures to be credible was mentioned in only 0.6 percent of reports.
Genocidal intent
Similarly, the BBC and the Guardian made the decision to humanise Israeli captives of Hamas twice as often as they did Palestinian captives of the Israeli state.
The inappropriateness of that double standard is underscored by continuing insinuations from politicians and the media that Hamas “beheaded babies” and carried out systematic rapes on 7 October 2023 – more than two years after those claims were utterly discredited.
Contrast that with the media’s effective burial of Euro Med Monitor’s report last month on the sickening practice by the Israeli military of raping Palestinian prisoners with dogs trained for that very purpose.
There has been a flood of accounts from Palestinians held captive by Israel of their systematic rape and sexual abuse, confirmed by human rights groups and by the testimonies of whistleblowing Israeli soldiers and medics. Little of this is making headway in the western media.
Newscord points to a further, veiled problem that skews western coverage: the omission of established but inconvenient facts that would present Israel in a depraved – that is, an accurate – light.
For example, observes Newscord, the BBC has entirely failed to report all but one of the hundreds of clearly genocidal statements made by Israeli officials, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down.
It is easy to understand why. Legal authorities usually struggle to make a conclusive determination of genocide because, crucially, it depends on divining intent, which is typically hidden by those committing atrocities.
Starkly, in Israel’s case, not only do its actions in Gaza look like genocide, but its leaders have been crystal clear that those actions are intended to be genocidal. That is behaviour only seen in those intoxicated by a sense of their own impunity.
Once again, the British media have obligingly taken it upon themselves to shield Israel from any legal jeopardy – all in the interests of objective reporting, you understand.
An old story
This is nothing new. It has been the same story since before Israel’s violent creation on the Palestinians’ homeland in 1948, when 80 percent of the native population were ethnically cleansed by Israel from the new, self-declared “Jewish” state. Or when, in the continuing language of deceit employed by western political, media and academic elites, some 750,000 Palestinians “fled”.
The aim has been to manufacture and maintain a bubble of illusion for western publics, one where our own crimes – and those of our allies – remain invisible to us.
Note in this regard the UK government’s determined exclusion of Israel from a recent “independent” inquiry, under former Whitehall bureaucrat Philip Rycroft, into malign foreignfinancial influence on British politics. It was, of course, Russia that was put chiefly under the spotlight.
Predictably, Keir Starmer’s government rejected in April a petition signed by more than 114,000 people calling for a similar public inquiry into the influence of the powerful Israel lobby.
That came as no surprise, given that any such investigation would have risked foregrounding the many hundreds of thousands of pounds known to have been received by Starmer and his ministers from pro-Israel lobbyists.
The same British political and media class so averse to investigating the malign influence of the pro-Israel lobby is also ignoring Israel’s current, systematic destruction of villages and infrastructure across south Lebanon – in flagrant violation of a supposed ceasefire.
Israeli soldiers have told local media that their job is to target all structures indiscriminately, whether civilian or “terrorist”, with the goal of preventing the Lebanese inhabitants from returning to their villages.
That fits with Israel’s announcement that it does not intend to withdraw after the fighting ends, and widespread plans to colonise the occupied lands in Lebanon with Jewish settlers.
Were it not for videos of Israel blowing up Lebanese communities breaking through on social media, despite algorithmic suppression, we might not know about Israel’s wholesale efforts to ethnically cleanse south Lebanon.
Responding to these videos with a rare “mainstream” report on the campaign of destruction, the Guardian sugar-coated the horror faced by Lebanese families discovering their homes gone, along with priceless memories and heirlooms. This experience was described – absurdly – by the paper as “bittersweet”.
Critics note a consistent pattern. Israel is not only levelling south Lebanon; over the past 30 months, it has levelled almost every building in Gaza, too.
But the template for both is of much earlier origin, as every Palestinian learns from a tender age.
Having expelled most Palestinians from their homes in 1948, Israel spent years blowing up some 500 villages one after another – even as Israeli leaders publicly claimed to be begging the refugees to return and western leaders were extolling Israel as the “only democracy” in the Middle East.
Expulsions that the West still pretends did not take place eight decades ago are now being livestreamed. This time, they are impossible to deny, as well as the colonial, supremacist agenda behind them.
Vilify the messenger
If the message inhering in Israel’s atrocities can no longer be disappeared, laundered or normalised – as it was in an age before 24-hour rolling news and social media – then a different strategy is required: villify the messenger.
This is the political task of our times.
The anti-racist left are demonised as Jew-hating bigots for trying to burst the West’s long-established bubble of illusion by noisily flagging both the atrocities committed by Israel, supposedly in the name of Jews, and the complicity of their own governments in those atrocities.
Last month, Starmer’s government forced through the Commons a law allowing the police to outlaw protests causing “cumulative disruption” – that is, repeat protests like those against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The media barely blinked.
This week’s attack on two Jewish men in Golders Green, allegedly by a mentally ill man with a long history of violence, is being quickly exploited by the main parties to prepare for even tighter restrictions on the right to protest.
Britons who try to stop Israeli war crimes, whether by targeting Israel’s factories of death located in the UK or by holding placards in support of this kind of direct action, continue to be treated as “terrorists”, even after a court ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action is unlawful.
With juries often proving reluctant to convict, the British state is openly trying to sway verdicts in its favour. Juries are blocked from learning about the reasons for the targeting of Israeli weapons factories – the accused’s main defence. Judges instruct juries to convict.
Members of the public who silently hold signs outside court are arrested for reminding juries of a long-established right in law to defy such instructions, follow their consciences and acquit – a police abuse contravening hundreds of years of legal precedent, and one the courts appear increasingly ready to condone.
There are gags, being dutifully obeyed by the media, on other secret malpractices designed to help the British government secure the verdicts it needs to stop activism against the genocide. We only know because Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has used parliamentary privilege to draw attention to them.
It was telling this week that, in the current repeat trial of six Palestine Action defendants, five of them dispensed with their barristers for the closing speeches. They noted, darkly, that their legal representatives could not properly represent them due to “decisions made by the court”.
Meanwhile, the Starmer government is pressing ahead with plans to finally rid itself of troublesome juries and let more reliable judges decide these political show trials alone.
Welcome to the rapid unravelling of Britain’s most cherished constitutional rights – needed chiefly, it seems, to protect a far-off country that, according to the International Court of Justice, commits the crime of apartheid against Palestinians and may plausibly be committing genocide in Gaza.
Painful lesson
But, of course, the British government – like the US, German and French governments – isn’t hollowing out its liberal democracy just to protect Israel. It is being forced to such extremes out of desperation.
The West can no longer sustain the bubble of illusion – about its moral or civilisational superiority – in a world of diminishing resources, a world where western elites are willing to cause planetary immolation to protect the fossil-fuel profits on which they have grown obese.
The agenda of the Epstein class is ever more transparent at home, and ever more under challenge abroad. The genocide in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, have exhausted the West’s moral legitimacy. Now Iran is slowly exhausting the West’s military primacy.
It is no surprise that a US empire on its last legs – an empire built on the control of fossil fuels – has chosen as the hill to die on the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s largest oil spigot.
Israel was, indeed, implanted in the region eight decades ago as a highly militarised client state whose primary job was to project western – that is, US – power into the oil-rich Middle East.
The US shielded Israel from scrutiny over its oppression of the Palestinians and the theft of their homeland.
In return, “plucky” Israel helped the US construct a self-serving narrative that required the containment and overthrow of secular nationalist governments in the Middle East while protecting backward-looking monarchies that cosplayed opposition to Israel as they secretly colluded with it.
The region’s resulting states, embattled and divided, were ripe for control. They lacked the kind of accountable governments that would need to be responsive to their publics and might ally to protect the region’s interests from western colonial interference.
Now, Iran is stress-testing this decades-old system to destruction. It is forcing the Gulf states to choose: will they continue to serve the US, even though it has shown it cannot protect them, or ally with Iran as it emerges as a new great power, levying fees to pass through the strait?
The West is quickly learning that cheap drones can elude even its most sophisticated detection systems, and that a few mines and gunboats can choke off much of the fuel the global economy depends on.
The bubble of illusion has finally burst. The West is getting its long-overdue comeuppance. The lesson will be painful indeed.
“The myths of ‘Russian aggression.’”
RAND was as Cold War-ish as any think tank serving the U.S. government was bound to be during those decades, and this makes its conclusions here all the weightier. The Russians are not coming, to turn the title of the old Alan Arkin comedy upside down. They pose no military threat either to Europe or the United States and do not intend to do so. As history shows, it is essentially reactive and acts defensively. We have had this from RAND for six years.
A RAND study explodes the West’s ‘Irrussianality.’
29 APRIL—’Arte, ‘the’ Franco–German television channel, broadcast a documentary earlier this month titled L’Europe dans la main de Poutine? “Europe in Putin’s grip?” opens with a scene in the Kremlin on 18 March 2014, when President Putin announced the formal annexation of Crimea after a referendum concluded two days earlier. This film is available simultaneously with a two-part doc’y entitled “Putin’s Secret Weapons,” which purports to review the Russian Federation’s “state-directed terror,” its routine theft of Western technology, its “opaque network of spies,” its stockpiles of hypersonic missiles, and so on. “The country could strike Europe within minutes,” the film advises viewers.
Russophobic paranoia of this sort is nothing new, of course. You can go back to Czarist Russia’s 19th century modernizations and find evidence of it, and then on to the British defeat in Crimea (1853–56), the Red Scare that followed the Bolshevik Revolution, the second Red Scare of the Cold War decades. I trace the current wave to Putin’s 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he assailed the United States’ pretensions to global preeminence. Then came the cynically manipulated Russophobia Donald Trump provoked when, as he rose to political prominence in 2016, he advocated a new détente with Moscow.
What we have seen since the Biden regime intentionally provoked Russia’s February 2022 intervention in Ukraine ranks with any of these previous occasions as measured by the fear-mongering, the war-mongering, and the manufactured delusions that are now woven into daily life, as the just-noted documentaries suggest. This is especially evident in Europe, where unimaginative “centrists”—incompetent to a one, in my view—have been as deer in headlights since Trump II stepped back from Washington’s profligate support of the bottomlessly corrupt regime in Kiev during the Biden years.
French, Belgian, and British troops are just now completing three-months of “war-gaming” in the field—ground forces, armored vehicles, paratroops, underwater divers—in the most extensive such exercises since the Cold War. The three Baltic states are provocatively permitting the Ukrainians to launch drone attacks from their territory into northern Russia. Johann Wadephul has made the certainty of a Russian attack within five years—four at this point—a standard warning in his public pronouncements since Chancellor Merz named him foreign minister last year. Berlin and Paris are in talks to extend France’s nuclear deterrent to the rest of Europe. With the Merz regime in the lead, the Continent has begun dismantling its once-admirable welfare systems in favor of a cross-border military-industrial complex of its own.
Anyone paying attention can discern without much effort that the threat of “Russian aggression” in Europe is a construction with no basis whatsoever in fact. Christian Müller, a Swiss journalist with a long record as an editor and commentator, has chosen this moment to push this reality into the faces of those—including every “centrist” now in power across Europe—who cynically conjure a threat from the East that simply does not exist.
Müller now publishes and edits Global Bridge, an online journal with many distinguished contributors. (Distinguished or otherwise, I am among them.) This week he republished a piece that first appeared in 2021. It is based on a RAND Corporation study that had recently appeared under the title Russia’s Military Interventions: Patterns, Drivers, and Signposts. The full, 186–page research report is here. It is replete with graphs and tables that put Moscow’s security policies in an historical context that goes back to 1946, when the Soviets were rebuilding after the extensive sacrifices the defeat of the Reich required of them. It analyzes all the interventions with which readers may be familiar: There is Afghanistan in the 1980s, Georgia in 2008, Syria in 2015. (The Ukraine intervention, of course, was still to come.)
RAND was as Cold War-ish as any think tank serving the U.S. government was bound to be during those decades, and this makes its conclusions here all the weightier. The Russians are not coming, to turn the title of the old Alan Arkin comedy upside down. They pose no military threat either to Europe or the United States and do not intend to do so. As history shows, it is essentially reactive and acts defensively. We have had this from RAND for six years.
In the RAND report’s language:
Russia engaged in combat only when it felt the necessity to respond to a development on the ground that posed a pressing threat. Moscow sought to achieve its objectives using coercive measures short of military intervention: It undertook combat missions, judging from the two case studies, only when it felt forced by circumstances…. In short, although Russia generally seems more reactive in its decision-making about combat interventions unless its vital interests are directly threatened, Moscow might decide to be proactive in special circumstances (particularly relating to events in its neighborhood).
Given the mounting intensity of the purposely, dangerously cultivated Russophobia now spreading across Europe, Christian Müller could scarcely have chosen a more propitious moment to call our attention once again to the RAND study. Not only does the research discredit all suggestions of “Russian aggression.” The analysis also explodes the notion of “Putin’s Russia”—an egregious trope in the press coverage for many years now—as sheer (please excuse us) bullshit.
The Floutist is pleased to join Global Bridge in republishing this important piece. We are also pleased to feature the acute observations of Paul Robinson, a noted Russianist at the University of Ottawa. The piece first appeared on 6 October 2021—three months before Moscow sent draft treaties to Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels as the proposed basis of negotiations, four months before Russian forces entered Ukraine on precisely the basis the RAND report describes.
Christian Müller.
The RAND Corporation, a world-renowned U.S. research and consulting firm, boasts 1,800 employees in more than 50 countries, who collectively conduct research and communicate in more than 75 languages, and of whom over a thousand—more than half—hold doctorates or even multiple doctorates. RAND is therefore not simply one of countless so-called think tanks. And what is particularly important to note: RAND’s largest clients are the U.S. State Department and the U.S. military: the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. These government clients account for more than half of all RAND revenue.
RAND, this truly gigantic research and consulting firm, has now examined the military behavior of the Soviet Union and Russia since World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War in 1991. The result is remarkable. RAND demonstrates that Russia’s military interventions are now marginal compared with those of the Soviet Union, and, above all, that these interventions were always linked to an imminent loss and never aimed at gaining additional territory or influence—that is, they were always used to defend the status quo.
RAND’s comparison between the Soviet Union and Russia: The military operations of present-day Russia (red) are no longer comparable to those of the Soviet Union before 1991 (blue) – Figure 3.2 on original
Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa specializing in geopolitical relations and well-known in Canada and the U.S., has closely studied the 186-page RAND report on the Russian military and reviewed and commented on its content on his web portal, Irrussianality. A few of his findings are quoted below as a summary:
A few years ago, I discussed the potential relevance of prospect theory to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Prospect theory states that people are more willing to take risks to avoid loss than to gain. This corresponds to the well-known psychological tendency toward loss aversion. Losing something bothers us much more than not gaining something. In the world of international relations, this means that states are more likely to use military force when threatened with loss than when seeking to acquire something they do not yet possess. It is therefore interesting to see this confirmed in a new study by the RAND Corporation entitled Russia’s Military Interventions: Patterns, Drivers, and Signposts, which analyzes instances of Russian military intervention in the post–Soviet era. The conclusion: One of the main motivations is the prevention of loss.
Elsewhere in Robinson’s work: “In any case, according to the study, it is wrong to see Putin as primarily responsible for Russian military interventions.”
As quoted by Robinson from the RAND study:
If we examine all of Russia’s interventions that meet the threshold described in this report, it becomes clear that most took place before (!) Putin came to power…. Most importantly, there is now a broad consensus among Russian elites on foreign policy issues. There is little firsthand evidence to suggest that Putin’s personal preferences are a major driving force behind Russia’s interventions.
Paul Robinson:
Russia intervenes when it feels threatened by a loss of status, stability, or security in its immediate neighborhood. It does not intervene to pursue “aggressive” or “imperialist” goals or to distract from domestic problems. And it is not a question of Vladimir Putin. Russia will have the same interests and preferences regardless of who is in power.
And once again, Paul Robinson:
In short, all claims that Russia wants to export its authoritarian ideology, destabilize democracy, support the “Putin regime,” or that Russia’s military interventions are driven solely by Putin’s aggressive personality are false.
This graphic from the RAND study shows that military interventions were even more numerous during the time of Putin’s predecessor Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) than since under Vladimir Putin’s presidency. (As a reminder, Yeltsin’s second term was only possible thanks to financial support from the US under Bill Clinton .)
Paul Robinson’s final paragraph:
The RAND report ends with a short series of recommendations for U.S. policy. Primarily, the U.S. should avoid putting Moscow in a position where it feels it is about to suffer a major loss in its near abroad. As a think tank report, this is a remarkably sober and sensible recommendation,… which I don’t have much to criticize. Essentially, it boils down to not cornering the bear. In this case, it’s clear. The RAND report contradicts the currently prevailing narrative that Russia is bent on aggression and must be reined in by any means necessary, including incursions into its near abroad. If this RAND report is correct, then the [current NATO incursion to Russia’s borders] is just about the worst thing you can do. But I doubt anyone is listening.
Is nobody listening?
Anyone closely observing current events in the EU, and especially in Germany, must conclude that it seems no one among current or future top politicians is actually listening…. A new project has just been announced: The E.U. intends to provide additional training for Ukrainian officers. Training for military deployment against which adversary? Against Russia, of course. To paraphrase Paul Robinson: Everyone—the U.S., NATO, the E.U., and Germany—is trying to corner the Russian bear, knowing that this is precisely when it will begin to fight back. And this cornering is always justified by the same argument: Russia is aggressive, Putin is an aggressor.
Let’s see if at least RAND’s best clients, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. military, read RAND’s latest comprehensive study—and perhaps even take it to heart.
Nuclear in New Mexico conference in Bernalillo continued the myth that nuclear power is clean and safe.
Remembering Chornobyl at 40; The Harm Continues
Last week’s Nuclear in New Mexico conference in Bernalillo continued the myth that expansion of the nuclear cycle in New Mexico would be welcomed here. Activities such as expanded uranium mining and milling, generating plutonium-contaminated waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and transporting that waste through our communities would be good.
While New Mexico does not have a nuclear power plant, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, or PNM, is invested in and receives energy from the second largest nuclear power plant in the United States – the Palo Verde Generating Station, located west of Phoenix, Arizona. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station
On the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear reactor accident, Linda Pentz Gunter, Executive Director of Beyond Nuclear and an author of No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress And Provokes War, wrote an article about Remembering Chornobyl. The entire article is available at https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/04/19/remembering-chornobyl/. 40 years on we are still asking the wrong questions and getting a lot of wrong answers, writes Linda Pentz Gunter.
Greg Jackson brands new nuclear a ‘fantasy future’
Greg Jackson brands new nuclear a ‘fantasy future’ due to the high
costs and impracticality of using hydrogen for heating. He believes that
renewable energy forecasts have been revised upwards, indicating a more
optimistic outlook for the future. Jackson’s perspective on nuclear energy
reflects a broader skepticism towards its role in the energy transition,
emphasizing the need for more affordable and efficient renewable energy
solutions.
Utility Week 27th April 2026,
https://utilityweek.co.uk/greg-jackson-brands-new-nuclear-as-fantasy-future/
Defiling Statues of Jesus: Israel’s Counterfeit Outrage at Cultural Vandalism
24 April 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/defiling-statues-of-jesus-israels-counterfeit-outrage-at-cultural-vandalism/
They have kept their strategy of cultural and institutional vandalism generously broad in recent campaigns against their adversaries. It therefore came as something of a surprise that much febrile fuss was made about this month’s antics of an IDF soldier photographed attacking a statue of Jesus in southern Lebanon on the edge of Debel with a sledgehammer. Instead of its usual qualifications, haughty denials and coarse justifications, the Israel military accepted the veracity of the image and viewed the act “with great severity and emphasises that the soldier’s conduct is wholly inconsistent with the values expected of its troops.”
The act even exercised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He felt wounded at the deviancy of it all, claiming that “Israel cherishes and upholds the Jewish values of tolerance and mutual respect between Jews and worshippers of all faiths.” Along with “the overwhelming majority of Israelis, I was stunned and saddened to learn that an IDF soldier damaged a Catholic religious icon in southern Lebanon.” Such conduct was condemned “in the strongest terms” and military authorities had commenced “a criminal probe of the matter,” with the intention of taking “appropriately harsh disciplinary action against the offender.”
The statement then veers sharply, if revealingly: this act of vandalism had to be condemned since an Israeli soldier had attacked a Christian relic. The same could hardly be said about conduct against the artefacts or symbols sacred to the followers of Islam, though the Israeli PM was careful not to be so explicit. “While Christians are being slaughtered in Syria and Lebanon by Muslims, the Christian population in Israel thrives unlike elsewhere in the Middle East.” Israel was the only state in the region where the Christian population was not only thriving with a rising living standard. Feeling obligated to claim some form of ecumenical tolerance, Netanyahu then recapitulated the strained notion that Israel was unique in permitting “freedom of worship for all.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar also blustered on the social media platforms to express stern disapproval. “The damaging of a Christian religious symbol by an IDF soldier in southern Lebanon is grave and disgraceful.” He commended the IDF on its statement condemning the incident and seeking to take “the necessary strict measures” against the alleged perpetrator. “This shameful action is completely contrary to our values. Israel is a country that respects the different religions and their sacred symbols, and upholds tolerance and respect among faiths.”
Such views also received the firm approbation of one of Washington’s most ardent Christian Zionists, US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. The same figure has been an outed enthusiast of the Greater Israel idea, one that does not necessarily bode well for the spirit of tolerance. For the former Governor of Arkansas, it was entirely appropriate that “a strong stand” be taken in condemning “this outrageous act by an IDF soldier.” Such conduct did not “properly represent the IDF, Israel, or the Israeli [government].”
On April 22, the IDF revealed that an inquiry had “determined [how unusually swift that was] that the soldiers’ conduct completely deviated from IDF orders and values,” expressing “deep regret over the incident.” It also announced that the statue had been replaced “in full coordination with the local community.” Both the soldier responsible for smashing the statue of Jesus, and his colluding photographer, were dismissed from combat duty and sentenced to 30 days in military prison by order of Brig. Gen. Sagiv Dahan of the 162nd Division. Six other soldiers present at the scene “have been summoned for clarification discussions that will be held later, after which further command-level measures will be determined.”
Given the biblical destruction meted out by the IDF on sites in Gaza and, more recently, Lebanon, the jailing of two offenders for cultural vandalism was meretricious, an act of kitschy public relations and counterfeit moral outrage. These figures have every reason to be aggrieved by their selective treatment, given the latitude afforded their peers in carrying out tasks of latitudinous destruction, notably after the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. In January 2024, the BBC claimed that among 117 religious sites in Gaza reportedly damaged or destroyed between October 7, 2023 and December 31, 2023, 74 cases could be verified. Mosques featured prominently, and two Churches. The ancient religious sanctuary of St Porphyrius, bearing the name of the bishop whose tomb lies beneath the church, was bombed on October 19 that year, leaving 18 dead.
Israeli soldiers, in gloating about their gory exploits, have been indiscrete in posting images featuring their feats of annihilation. On July 31, 2024, soldiers from the Givati brigade uploaded a video to YouTube entitled, in Hebrew, “Israeli army forces detonate a mosque with 11 tons of explosives.” The videographer lets the audience know that the detonation took place a day prior in Khuza’a, east of Khan Younis to the southern part of the Gaza Strip. One voice exults: “Long live the State of Israel!”
In June 2025, the UN International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, published a report finding that “Israeli security forces knew or should have known the locations and significance of prominent cultural sites in Gaza and should have planned their military operations with the aim of avoiding harm.” There had been a conspicuous failure of care in avoiding damage to cultural sites and their contents. In a majority of cases, the Commission concluded that Israeli forces, in using demolishing explosives and bulldozers, had committed war crimes pertaining to the unjustified destruction of “civilian objects” and property, including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion and historic monuments.”
Among the religious sites damaged, three also provided sanctuary for prayer and refuge for internally displaced individuals: the Church of Porphyrius, the Ihya al-Sunna Mosque and the Saad al-Ghafari Mosque. “Together these attacks resulted in more than 200 fatalities, including many women and children.” No jail sentences have been reported for the perpetrators of these offences.
The smashed statue of Jesus has received a worthy replacement, though not in the form of the IDF offering, which proved smaller and less proximate in appearance to the original. A donation from the Italian contingent from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was deemed superior. As reported in the Times of Israel, “Lebanese media published photos showing that the statue donated by UN peacekeepers more closely resembles the original statue.” On this occasion, the UN proved most constructive.
Manipulators Understand That Narrative Control Is Everything
Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 22, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/manipulators-understand-that-narrative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=195035259&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Former Israeli intelligence officer Ella Kenan was seen at a recent pro-Israel conference saying she runs an online influence operation that works with “communities of over sixty thousand people around the world that make our content viral” to manipulate public discourse and “serve the narrative” of Israel.
I’ve been assured that this never happens and that it’s antisemitic to say it does, but okay sure. Let’s move on.
“We also create content for non-Jewish influencers that collaborate with us,” Kenan says in a clip I first saw circulated by Information Liberation’s Chris Menahan. She then boasted of coining the slogan “Hamas is ISIS” and circulating it with such success that Joe Biden eventually parroted it in a speech.
“I offered ‘Hamas is ISIS,’ and I offered why, and I gave a short 101 on how we can garner attention and traction around that narrative, and that worked,” Kenan explained. “So in three to four days it became the most viewed narrative online. It became viral for almost three months around the world, in some places even more, and it even got to Biden’s speech. I also, you know, I can’t show you but I have so many videos, posts of Palestinians or Hamas officials like Abu Obeida responding to that narrative, influencing them.”
Do you notice how often she repeats the word “narrative”? This is because all manipulators understand that narrative control is everything.
It reminds me of a 2024 McCain Institute conversation between then-Senator Mitt Romney and then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken where they discussed the need to ban TikTok in order to control the narrative.
After bemoaning Israel’s lack of success at “PR” regarding its Gaza assault, Romney just came right out and said that this was “why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature” — with “us” meaning himself and his fellow lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“How this narrative has evolved, yeah, it’s a great question,” Blinken responded, saying that at the beginning of his career in Washington everyone was getting their information from television and physical newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
“Now, of course, we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond,” Blinken continued. “And of course, the way this has played out on social media has dominated the narrative. And you have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost, and the emotion, the impact of images dominates. And we can’t — we can’t discount that, but I think it also has a very, very, very challenging effect on the narrative.”
There’s that word: narrative, narrative, narrative. That’s how empire managers talk to each other, because that’s how they think about everything.
This is because empire managers are always acutely aware of something that normal human beings are not: that real power comes from manipulating the stories — narratives — that people tell themselves about their reality.
They understand that humans are storytelling animals whose inner lives are typically dominated by mental narratives about what’s happening, so if you can control those narratives, you can control the humans.
They understand that power is controlling what happens, but true power is controlling what people think about what happens.
They understand that whoever controls the narrative controls the world.
That’s what’s going on with all the mass media propaganda, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation, plutocrat-funded think tanks, mainstream culture manufacturing in New York and Hollywood, and online influence operations like the one run by Ella Kenan. A few clever manipulators understand that you can control a society by controlling its dominant narratives.
They understand that power is controlling what happens, but true power is controlling what people think about what happens.
They understand that whoever controls the narrative controls the world.
That’s what’s going on with all the mass media propaganda, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation, plutocrat-funded think tanks, mainstream culture manufacturing in New York and Hollywood, and online influence operations like the one run by Ella Kenan. A few clever manipulators understand that you can control a society by controlling its dominant narratives.
Spiritual maturity means moving out of our hypnotic fixation on mental narrative and bringing our attention from the babbling mind chatter to rest in the wonder of the senses, where material reality can get a word in edgewise. As humanity matures toward becoming a conscious species, we will hopefully find ourselves less transfixed by mental narrative, and therefore less easily roped in by manipulators who rely on the stickiness of human head noise to get us to buy into their stories.
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (152)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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 