.jpg)
Johannes Vermeer The glass of wine c 1658-1660
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1958897498262581308
John Bolton was really enthusiastic about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.
“No one is above the law.”
I wonder if he feels the same way about today’s FBI raid on his house. pic.twitter.com/hsBPGzJbak
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 22, 2025
https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1958690745189376151
GDP
German GDP is a train wreck.
Investment falling more than expected.
Government spending is rising more than feared.
Consumption is worse than estimated.Everything moving in the wrong direction.
via Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/XzHuOvs3Ki
— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) August 22, 2025
Orlov – Ukraine is dying
Inevitably, CNN et al are talking almost exclusively about Trump seeking revenge when something like this happens. We’ll have to wait and see what it is about. An interesting detail is that they went to the trouble of asking a judge to sign off on the warrant. Which he did. That indicates there is at least something credible here.
• FBI Raids Home of John Bolton As Patel Says “NO ONE Is Above The Law” (ZH)
In a bombshell of a development, federal agents conducted a raid on the Maryland residence of former National Security Advisor John Bolton on Friday morning, according to various breaking sources. One source connected to the investigation has described that the search was aimed at locating potentially classified documents that authorities suspect Bolton may still have in his possession. nThere are no indicators as of yet that Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser from 2018 to 2019, has been arrested or taken into custody. “NO ONE is above the law,” FBI Director Kash Patel posted to X Friday morning, but without giving direct reference to the Bolton house raid. “FBI agents on mission.”
According to NY Post, which first revealed the raid: Federal agents went to Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Md., at 7 a.m. in an investigation ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel, a Trump administration official told The Post. …The probe — which is said to involve classified documents — was first launched years ago, but the Biden administration shut it down “for political reasons,” according to a senior US official. The FBI are reportedly sorting through papers and boxes: rump has been a longtime fierce critic of Bolton, after Bolton had long ago started going after Trump. Just this week, Bolton was on CNN and prime news shows blasting Trump’s dealings with Putin and the Ukraine negotiations. “I don’t think there’s a peace deal anywhere in the near future,” he said while criticizing the commander-in-chief’s tactics while recently speaking to CNN.
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1958857350435029104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1958857350435029104%7Ctwgr%5Ee0853c47c85c9ebfcb96432e5680a2a02ec194db%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ffbi-raids-maryland-home-john-bolton-patel-says-no-one-above-law
Back in January Bolton had been among former top officials, and Trump adversaries, to get their costly security protections stripped. Axios also recalls that Bolton wrote in a foreword to his memoir that was published last year the words: “a mountain of facts demonstrates that Trump is unfit to be President.” Publication of the book had been delayed so that the White House could review its content for any potential security breaches or disclosure of sensitive information. Mainstream media is being quick to suggest the house raid is an act of retribution. “Bolton was vocal in his criticism of the president after working in the first Trump administration. Trump has aggressively used the power of the presidency to punish political foes,” Axios observes.
“We really don’t know if something that has occurred most recently, whether they uncovered something that they believe is sort of evergreen, that this is still a viable criminal case.“
• Turley: John Bolton Could Face Years in Prison (Salgado)
After the FBI raided John Bolton’s house on Friday, legal expert Jonathan Turley noted that the allegations against Bolton could potentially result in years of prison if they are true. The Donald Trump-Kash Patel FBI reportedly raided Bolton’s home and office in search of classified documents. As my colleague Kevin Downey Jr. reported, Trump and co. have yet to confirm the report officially, but Patel and his deputy co-director Dan Bongino hinted on X that it was true and the raid was part of enforcing the law. Turley, when he commented, noted that allegations such as those leveled against Bolton could, if proved in court, lead to decades in prison.
Speaking to Fox News, Turley — who, after all, is left-leaning — would not commit to saying whether he thought the raid was justified, but he did explain how serious the crime is that Bolton seemed to indicate he had committed in a previous book. “It is intriguing here because these are long standing allegations that the book indicated were referenced classified material that he may have acquired while he was in the administration. We’re not clear as to what that is, but it would suggest that is could be national defense information,” Turley said. “The reason that’s important is that creates a heightened potential penalty. So you can have penalties that range from five to 20 years.” Bolton previously and briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser before turning on the president during his first term and becoming an aggressive and persistent critic.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley says John Bolton could be facing very serious prison time since the charges likely involve national defense:
"It could be national defense information. That creates a heightened potential penalty … 5 to 20 years."
John Bolton is in serious legal… pic.twitter.com/hZ6FyA20VJ
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 22, 2025
Significantly, Turley continued, “20 years tends to be the sentences for concealing information, obstructing justice — simply having classified information can weigh in at about 10 years, and there are often multiple counts, because each of those documents could be charged separately. So there is a strange history here.” Of course, the raid is particularly interesting to Trump supporters because Bolton pontificated so self-righteously about the outrageous Biden FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, saying that no one is above the law. That is exactly what Patel posted on X Friday after the report came out of the raid on Bolton‘s home and office.
Turley added on Fox, “So you had these allegations coming out as early as the first Trump administration. Then there was an allegation that the Biden administration essentially scuttled a further look at this case, and now we have this new development.” Interestingly, Turley believes there might be a fresh reason to investigate Bolton, which the public has yet to see. He said, “We really don’t know if something that has occurred most recently, whether they uncovered something that they believe is sort of evergreen, that this is still a viable criminal case.“
Bolton – Turley starts right before 10 min mark
“NATO has expanded six times since the two leaders’ conversation in 2000, adding 12 more countries during this time.”
• Bill Clinton Was Ready To Consider Russia In NATO – Declassified Docs (RT)
Former US President Bill Clinton promised Russian President Vladimir Putin that he would consider membership for Russia in NATO, according to newly declassified documents. Clinton also claimed that the military bloc’s expansion would not threaten Moscow, the files show. The statements were made during a meeting between the two leaders in the Kremlin on June 4, 2000, according to White House minutes published on Thursday by the National Security Archive, an independent research institute at George Washington University. “From the outset of the NATO enlargement process, I knew that it could be a problem for Russia. I was sensitive to this, and I want it understood that NATO enlargement does not threaten Russia in any way,” Clinton is quoted as saying.
“I am serious about being ready to discuss NATO membership with Russia.“ He added that he understood that “domestic considerations inside Russia” prevent this, but over time the country “should be a part of every organization that holds the civilized world together.” According to the documents, Putin said he “supported” the idea. Last year, in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin said he had brought up the subject with Clinton. While Clinton agreed at first, he later dismissed the idea after talking to his team, the Russian leader said. Had Clinton agreed, it would have led to a new period of “rapprochement” between Moscow and the military bloc, Putin added. NATO has expanded six times since the two leaders’ conversation in 2000, adding 12 more countries during this time.
After “wave after wave of expansion… we were constantly told: ‘You shouldn’t fear this, it poses no threat to you’,” Putin said in June, adding that “they simply dismissed our concerns, refusing to acknowledge or even consider our position.” “We know better than anyone what threatens us and what does not,” he said. Moscow has cited Kiev’s ambition to join NATO as one of the core causes of the current conflict, which it views as a proxy war being orchestrated by the military bloc against Russia.
“One would like to believe so, but for now this tunnel looks more like a maze, one that the United States and Russia still have to find their own way out of – while also leading others out.”
Paul Craig Roberts reposts this article from Ivan Andrianov, Founder and CEO of IntellGlobe Solutions (https://igs.expert/), a “strategic consulting firm specializing in geopolitical risk analysis, international security, and political forecasting”. It is endlessly long, this is just a small part, but it’s interesting. The first mention I see of Exxon Mobil being allowed back in to Russian oil and gas. Putin and Trump have more on their minds than just Ukraine, namely economic cooperation.
• Anchorage – A Light At The End of The Tunnel? (Andrianov)
Before turning to the high politics discussed at the summit in Anchorage, Alaska, it seems appropriate to point to two seemingly positive moments that somehow passed almost unnoticed. First, at the post-talks press appearance, Vladimir Putin read from a prepared text. Moreover, he skipped four pages, setting them aside. And second, Russia allowed America’s ExxonMobil to reclaim its stakes in the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. The Russian president’s decree was published on August 15, the day of his meeting with Donald Trump. The document supplemented a decree that in October 2022 transferred the Sakhalin-1 operator into Russian jurisdiction; at that time, instead of ExxonMobil, the operator became LLC “Sakhalin-1”.
What does this tell us? Despite many media claims, one can state that not only the summit, but also the visit to Moscow by U.S. President’s special envoy Steve Witkoff – after which the decision for a personal meeting of the two leaders was announced – was preceded by serious preparatory work that simply cannot be done in a few days. Nor can one prepare a speech text in the thirty minutes that elapsed between the end of the talks and Trump and Putin walking out to the press. As for the return of the American energy giant’s stake in the oil project, given all the bureaucratic and legal formalities, I will venture to say it took more than a month.
So all that remains is to congratulate the negotiators of our two countries, who not only managed to set up this meeting, but also avoided premature leaks that could have given opponents of the Russian-American dialogue a chance, if not to derail the Alaska summit, then at least to complicate it. Such concerns existed on both the Russian and the U.S. sides. Now to how Russia’s expert and political circles assess the outcome of this meeting, which has already been called historic in both Washington and Moscow. I hope what is meant is that it will become a point of reference from which relations between our countries begin to return to normal.
As for the results of the summit, the prevailing view in Moscow is that they should be assessed as successful for both sides. The fact there were no sensations or “breakthroughs” is a sign of the seriousness of what occurred – an acknowledgment by both parties of the complexity of the situation. The sides’ positions have been laid out (to each other and, in fact, to everyone) and, I hope, are not subject to reversal. That is a result. The presidents of the two countries accomplished the minimum tasks they set for this meeting. Trump showed that he is, in effect, the only Western leader who can, in principle, conduct a constructive dialogue with Russia. At the same time, the U.S. president demonstrated to his Euro-Atlantic partners that the outcome of the West’s interaction with Russia depends on him – and on no one else.
Moscow demonstrated that its demands are recognized and that its security must be taken into account in all variants of a peaceful settlement. This is a fundamental breakthrough. Everything before this proceeded from the simple idea that the West would present Russia with certain conditions to which it was supposedly to agree. The conditions shifted, but the approach remained. Moscow has now achieved that a resolution is possible only through dialogue and with due regard for Russian interests. Another important point – voiced for the first time by both sides – is that European countries bear responsibility for pushing the Ukrainian conflict to a high level of escalation. More importantly, it was finally stated in earnest – not only by Russia – that achieving a long peace is far more significant than the terms for a short-term ceasefire, under cover of which the West will try to rearm the Ukrainian army. Trump said as much in a tough phone call with Zelensky and EU leaders.
In this context, two scenarios are forecast for the future development of relations between the Kremlin and the White House. The first – call it the optimal one – is that Russia and the United States resolve the central problem in their bilateral relations and reach an acceptable settlement on Ukraine. Then the remaining issues, including strategic stability, Arctic cooperation, and strategic arms reductions, can be handled quickly and easily. And cooperation in hydrocarbons would be arranged in the spirit of Trump’s favored deal-making. Putin opened the road toward resolving the hydrocarbons question with a decree on potential foreign stakes in the “Sakhalin” project.
The second option is that the conflict goes unresolved due to the actions of European countries and their destructive policies. In that case Trump will try to “jump out” of the conflict, but with serious political losses and without any noticeable economic dividends. And Russia will continue grinding down the Ukrainian army, pursuing by military means the objectives announced at the outset of the special military operation (SMO) and reaffirmed by Putin in June of last year.
“Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal.”
You see the Exxon Mobil deal, and then there would be new attacks?
• Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks, Urging New Attacks On Russia (ZH)
Now, merely a week out from when Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the White House’s admirable peace efforts seem to be unraveling and even hopelessly stalled. Many independent-minded analysts had from the very start said that this conflict will ultimately be settled on the battlefield. The Wall Street Journal too seems to be coming around to this view: On Monday, President Trump boasted about quickly brokering peace to end the bloody Ukraine conflict. By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia. “It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!” His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.
Indeed this is another example of the West trying to have its cake and eat it too, as Trump strongly hints that Ukraine must take the offensive while simultaneously lamenting that Putin and Zelensky are not getting together in a hoped-for summit. Trump is essentially saying Ukraine cannot win the war unless it launches attacks on Russia. “It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country,” Trump had explained further in his Truth Social statement. The WSJ in its analysis then turns to one of the big factors which is sure to stymie talks from Moscow’s point of view: security guarantees for Ukraine: U.S. and European officials are still negotiating the makeup of a peacekeeping force that would aim to deter future Russian attacks against Ukraine if a peace deal was reached. Even that idea was quickly rebuffed by the Kremlin and raised questions about Trump’s willingness to commit to a major role for the U.S. military.
With much of his plans still unrealized, Trump is confronted with the uncertainties that have dogged him for the past seven months: How willing is he to pressure Putin, and how far is he willing to go in backing Zelensky? As we highlighted before, the ‘logic’ of this is contradictory and will lead nowhere. Why would Russia agree to end its military operations if in the end NATO-like ‘security guarantees’ are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?…to quote Moon of Alabama. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the US and its Western allies on Thursday that President Putin has “repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly” by experts and ministers.
To translate, Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal. This has been reiterated in a Friday foreign ministry statement: LAVROV: PUTIN-ZELENSKY MEETING NOT PLANNED YET — KREMLIN SAYS SUMMIT POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER AGENDA IS AGREED. And as RT outlines further, “Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022.” This means there must be the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, the formal ceding of territories, and that the Russian neighbor cease being militarized by NATO.
Reuters also describes, “Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters.” And per Bloomberg: “A full ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine remains unlikely this year, with even the prospect of a partial truce fading, according to JPMorgan emerging market and policy strategists.”
“President Trump suggested after Anchorage several points which we share, and on some of them we agreed to show some flexibility…”
• Russia Ready To ‘Show Flexibility’ On Trump’s Ukraine Proposals – Lavrov (RT)
Moscow has agreed to consider a number of US President Donald Trump’s proposals to resolve the Ukraine conflict, but Vladimir Zelensky has rejected them all, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with NBC News on Friday. Trump put forward the initiatives following his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week, Lavrov said. “President Trump suggested after Anchorage several points which we share, and on some of them we agreed to show some flexibility,” Lavrov told NBC. According to the top diplomat, Trump brought up the proposals in his meeting with Zelensky and some of his Western European backers in Washington on Monday.
He clearly indicated, it was very clear to everybody that there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership, including the discussion of territorial issues, and Zelensky said no to everything. Lavrov added that the Ukrainian leader has also refused to rescind “legislation prohibiting the Russian language.” “Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit,” he said, but added that as things stand, “there is no meeting planned.” Trump suggested that the next stage of peace negotiations should be a one-on-one meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders before a potential trilateral peace summit. Zelensky “has to show some flexibility,” he told Fox News on Tuesday.
On Thursday, however, Lavrov said that Kiev is showing no interest in a sustainable peace with Moscow. He pointed to statements made by Zelensky aide Mikhail Podoliak, who said that Ukraine would seek to regain any territories “de facto” left to Russia in a peace deal, and that Kiev would seek to join a military alliance, even if not NATO. According to Lavrov, these goals are at odds with the joint peace efforts being undertaken by Putin and Trump. Moscow has long insisted on a peace agreement that eradicates the underlying causes of the conflict. It has demanded that Ukraine maintain neutrality, stay out of NATO and other military alliances, demilitarize and denazify, as well as accept the new territorial reality.
“..unnamed figures in Russia had suggested using the system against Kiev’s “decision-making centers,” but Putin refused. “Absolutely not,” was the Russian leader’s response [..] if such a strike had taken place, “there would have been nothing left.”
• Putin Vetoed Oreshnik Strike On Kiev – Lukashenko (RT)
Russian President Vladimir Putin vetoed a proposal to strike the administrative center of Kiev with Moscow’s new Oreshnik missiles, his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko has said. The Oreshnik, Russia’s newly developed medium-range hypersonic missile system which can travel at speeds of up to Mach 10, has already entered serial production. The system, which analysts claim cannot be intercepted, can carry nuclear or conventional warheads, and release multiple guided warheads. Speaking to reporters in Minsk on Friday, Lukashenko claimed that unnamed figures in Russia had suggested using the system against Kiev’s “decision-making centers,” but Putin refused.
“Absolutely not,” was the Russian leader’s response, according to the Belarusian president, who added that if such a strike had taken place, “there would have been nothing left.” Putin has previously said that the West has been trying to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but noted that there has been no need for such measures. “I hope it won’t be necessary,” he said in May. The Oreshnik was first battle-tested in November 2024 when it struck Ukraine’s Yuzhmash defense facility in Dnepr. Its destructive power in conventional form has been compared by Russian officials to a low-yield nuclear strike.
Lukashenko stressed that Moscow is committed to a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, recalling that Putin refrained from striking civilian targets in Kiev when Russian forces reached the city’s outskirts in early 2022, later withdrawing forces altogether. At the time, Moscow described the move as a goodwill gesture ahead of a potential peace deal, which Kiev declined to sign after being urged by the UK to continue fighting. Russia and Ukraine resumed direct talks in Istanbul in May 2025 and have since held three meetings. While no settlement has yet been reached, Moscow has maintained that it is open to negotiations. Officials stress, however, that any agreement must address the root causes of the conflict and reflect the new realities on the ground.
“Gabbard has been critical of the West’s hawkish approach to the Ukraine conflict, suggesting that it was caused by NATO’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s “legitimate security concerns”…
• Gabbard Bars Intel Sharing On Russia-Ukraine Talks – CBS (RT)
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has ordered all information about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations be withheld from US intelligence partners, CBS News reported on Thursday, citing sources. Several unnamed US officials familiar with the matter told the outlet that the memo, which is dated July 20, directed intelligence agencies to classify all relevant data and subject analysis as NOFORN – not to be shared with foreign partners, including members of the Five Eyes intelligence framework, which includes the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. nThe reported memo strictly limits the distribution of such materials to the agency from which they originated.
However, it does not appear to bar the sharing of diplomatic or military operational intelligence collected outside the US intelligence community, such as security information shared with Ukrainian forces. CBS also cited several former US officials who warned the directive’s sweeping scope could erode trust between Washington and its allies built on open intelligence sharing. Others, however, disagreed, pointing out that such a move is not unprecedented in US practice and that withholding information in areas of diverging interests is common among Five Eyes partners. Gabbard has been critical of the West’s hawkish approach to the Ukraine conflict, suggesting that it was caused by NATO’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” regarding Ukrainian membership in the bloc.
The reported directive preceded the talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Alaska on August 15. That meeting – to which neither Ukraine nor any of the US allies were invited – concluded without an agreement on a ceasefire or a peace deal, although both leaders praised the talks as constructive. In the days following the Alaska talks, Trump hosted Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and European leaders at the White House. Talks focused on finding a path to settling the conflict and security guarantees for Ukraine. Trump later told Zelensky that he had to “show flexibility” and reiterated that Kiev would not join NATO.
Finland’s WWII history is not pretty. Not a great example. But everybody much prefers to ignore it, and that’s a bad idea.
• The Neutrality Fraud: The West Is About To Trick Ukraine Again (Bobrov)
At the Washington summit on Monday, one guest stood out. The extended session of Euro-Atlantic leaders – hastily convened at the White House right after Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Zelensky – brought together the usual heavyweights: the US, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and the heads of NATO and the EU. Yet seated at the same table was someone who, at first glance, hardly seemed to belong in that club of power brokers: Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb. To an outsider, it might have looked odd. Why was the Finnish leader invited when the leaders of Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states were not? The answer lies not in protocol courtesy but in the role Stubb now plays. His presence was a nod to a man whose career embodies the whole project of “Euro-Atlantic solidarity” – a project now under strain since Trump’s return to the White House.
Stubb is a cosmopolitan in every sense: a Swedish Finn, married to a Briton, educated in South Carolina, Bruges, Paris, and London. A golfer who bonded with Trump on the green, but also a seasoned foreign minister in the late 2000s, Stubb has become a rare kind of adviser – someone Trump listens to on European security in an administration where career diplomats are almost absent. It is telling that the Washington summit did not produce a US ultimatum forcing Ukraine into a peace deal with Moscow. Instead, the focus was on designing security guarantees for Kiev – an alternative to NATO’s Article 5, since membership in the alliance is no longer on the table. And behind that shift, many suspect, stands Stubb. He is quietly becoming the architect of a new Western security system, built on an openly anti-Russian foundation.
In Washington, Stubb framed his vision in a phrase that quickly went viral: “We found a solution in 1944 – and I believe we can find one in 2025.” He was alluding to Finland’s peace treaty with the USSR after World War II, and suggesting that Ukraine could follow a similar path. But here’s the catch: Stubb’s version of “Finlandization” bears little resemblance to the original concept. In his model, Ukraine would follow Finland’s supposed example – joining the EU and NATO structures, becoming part of the Western economic and military infrastructure, and, in practice, turning itself into a forward operating base against Moscow. That vision assumes a militarized society, stripped of industrial potential, and defined by an ethnonational identity designed to fence out Russian influence through the Russian-speaking population.
This is not Finlandization. It is its opposite. The original model, coined during the Cold War, described something very different: a small country leveraging its geography to live in peace with its powerful neighbor. Finland, after 1944, accepted tough compromises – ceding 10% of its territory, declaring neutrality, abandoning the dream of ethnic exclusivity. The payoff was stability, prosperity, and the chance to serve as a bridge between East and West. Helsinki became a symbol of détente in 1975 when it hosted the CSCE Final Act, a milestone in Cold War diplomacy. Finland’s economic boom – from Nokia to Valio, from Stockmann to Tikkurila – was rooted in precisely that balancing act: trading and cooperating with both blocs, and especially with nearby Leningrad. Neutrality allowed Finland to spend less on guns and more on butter, and that choice paid off.
Could such a model have worked if, back in 1944, the Finnish leadership had doubled down on nationalism? Almost certainly not. It took Marshal Mannerheim’s pragmatism – and his readiness to compromise – to give Finland a viable future.
Inside countries’ borders.
• More War Is On Its Way (Paul Craig Roberts)
For decades the British and European governments regardless of party in power have allowed millions of unassimilable people of color to walk into the countries and abuse the white women while white taxpayers are given the responsibility for their housing and upkeep. The governments, and the professors of course, call what are in fact immigrant-invaders “migrants.” “Migrants” has a legal connotation to it, but there is nothing legal about the entry. You try it, white person. Try to walk into the UK or a European country without a passport and, if required, a visa, and visible means of support. So why is it OK for immigrant-invaders to do it?
In 1973 Jean Raspail described in The Camp of the Saints the total collapse of the French belief system and that of other white ethnicities that left the leadership classes in the West without the will to protect their peoples and their cultures. The same has occurred among Democrats in the US. The Democrats would not permit President Trump during his first term to close the border with Mexico. The Obama and Biden regimes not only left the border open, they also used taxpayers money to recruit immigrant-invaders and finance their trek into America. Very quickly white American business people created businesses that made money by providing upkeep at taxpayers’ expense for the immigrant invaders. These private profit-making operations are called “asylum accommodation programs.” In the US the pretense that the immigrant-invaders are just doing Americans a favor by rushing to fill jobs Americans would not take was put to the lie by the bus stations, airports, and hotels filled with immigrant-invaders living off the taxpayers’ wallet.
Some American communities have been overwhelmed by Democrat regimes depositing huge numbers of immigrant-invaders in their communities. This is also the story in Britain and Europe. The ongoing and increasing rapes and crime have finally sparked a rebellion in a number of British communities. The UK government is being forced to disperse the large numbers of young male immigrant-invaders warehoused in hotels into the wider community. The UK government is trying to commandeer thousands of residential houses so the immigrant-invaders can be dispersed and made less visible than the current concentrations. The rent, utilities, council tax, and repairs will all be paid for by taxpayers. And, of course, the provision of homes for the 109,343 “asylum seekers” who entered Britain in the year ending last March, a 15% increase from 2024, drives up rents and house prices, thus further burdening ethnic British. And still the UK government has no inclination to stop the overrunning of Britain by immigrant-invaders.
Yet this same government is so very concerned that Ukraine’s borders be protected by British taxpayers that the government has agreed to purchase billions of dollars of American weapons to send to Ukraine at British taxpayers’ expense to protect Ukrainian borders. It is the same all over Europe. How can this mindlessness of British and European governments be understood and explained? The only answer I can give is that the intellectual class destroyed the belief system. For decades white people have been denounced in university classrooms as racist exploiters. More recently these denunciations have entered the elementary schools. Affirmatory statements in support of Western civilization have disappeared from Western education. Today the program is multiculturalism, which means the replacement of white values and white culture with a tower of babel. And that is what every European country, the UK, Canada, and the US have become.
A tower of babel cannot be united and has no common purpose. It is these towers of babel that now find themselves arrayed against three powerful countries with far more homogeneous populations and, perhaps, enough self-belief to resist. In the US the only unified Americans are Trump’s MAGA-supporters. They are ordinary people fed up with the denigration and decay of their country. Hillary Clinton dismisses them as “Trump Deplorables.” In the UK and Europe anyone who represents the ethnic basis of the countries is dismissed and harassed as a “fascist.” Only France has a political party based on national ethnicity, and the leader of the party has been banned by the French establishment from running for office for five years. She was convicted on orchestrated charges that she embezzled European Union funds. If the conviction had failed, some other bogus charge would have been pulled out of the hat.
The British, European, and American societies are the weakest possible societies before dissolution. In the US the establishment is more opposed to Trump than to Russia and China. Societies as weak as the West cannot prevail in war. The cause that is driving the West to disastrous war is the agenda of the Zionist neoconservatives. This cause is known as the Wolfowitz doctrine of American hegemony. By American they mean Israel’s hegemony, for which American lives, money, and reputation have been used blatantly during the first quarter of the 21st century resulting in the destruction of five countries for Greater Israel, six if we include Palestine. Iran, number seven, is in waiting. For the neoconservatives, Iran is a more desirable target than Russia. Iran stands in Israel’s way, whereas Russia does not. What the so-called “Ukrainian peace process” is probably about is Trump’s withdrawal of the US as a direct participant so that Trump can focus the US on Iran for Netanyahu. If this is a reasonable interpretation, than progress in the Ukraine negotiations simply means more and wider war.
Very strong from law professor Turley.
• Engoron’s Half-Billion-Dollar Miscalculation: Court Tosses Trump Fine (Turley)
In New York, a court revealed that a leading citizen had cooked the books by inflating questionable figures without any support in reality. Moreover, his wild overvaluation was widely viewed as motivated by his self-aggrandizement. The final reported figures are so absurdly inflated that they were rejected in their entirety. In the end, he was off by over half a billion dollars. That man is Judge Arthur Engoron. After a New York appellate court unanimously threw out Engoron’s absurd half-a-billion-dollar judgment and interest against President Donald Trump, the irony was crushing. It was Engoron who seemed, as he characterized Trump witnesses, as having “simply denied reality.” It made his notorious reliance on an assessment of Mar-a-Lago as worth between $18 million and $27.6 million seem like good accounting. In the end, he could not get a single judge to preserve a single dollar of that fine.
For some of us who covered that trial, the most vivid image of Engoron came at the start. He indicated that he did not want cameras in the courtroom, but when the networks showed up, Engoron took off his glasses and seemed to pose for the cameras. It was a “Sunset Boulevard” moment. We only need Gloria Swanson looking into the camera to speak to “those wonderful people out there in the dark!” and announcing “all right, [Ms. James], I’m ready for my close-up.” The close-up was not a good idea, and, on appeal, it was perfectly disastrous. The court found little legal or factual basis for his fine. The purported witnesses not only did not lose a dime, but they testified that they made money on the loans and wanted new loans with the Trump administration. That did not move Engoron. From the start, he was speaking to those “wonderful people out there.”
You did not have to go far. In both the civil and criminal trials of Trump in New York, there was a carnival atmosphere in the street outside the courthouse. It was really not derangement as much as delirium. Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James had injected lawfare directly into the veins of New Yorkers. Pledging in her campaign to bag Trump (without bothering to name any crime or violation), James was elected based on her recreational rather than legal appeal. Yet, James could not have succeeded if she had not had a judge willing to ignore reality and cook the books on the fines. She needed a partner in lawfare. She needed Engoron. Even for some anti-Trump commentators, the judgment was impossible to defend and some acknowledged that they had never seen any case like this one brought in New York.
Judge David Friedman gave Engoron a close-up that would have made Swanson wince. He detailed how the underlying law “has never been used in the way it is being used in this case – namely, to attack successful, private, commercial transactions, negotiated at arm’s length between highly sophisticated parties fully capable of monitoring and defending their own interests.” He accused Engoron of participating in an effort clearly directed by James as “ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business.” Other judges said that Engoron’s fine was so off base and engorged that it was an unconstitutional order under the Eighth Amendment, protecting citizens from “cruel and unusual” punishments. So, Engoron not only inflated the figures but shredded the Constitution in his effort to deliver a blow against Trump.
Trump can now appeal the residual parts of the Engoron decision imposing limits on the Trump family doing business in New York. Some of those limits could be moot by the time of any final judgment. Ironically, if Engoron had shown a modicum of restraint, he might have secured a victory. During the trial in New York, I said that he would have been smart to impose a dollar fine and limited injunctive relief. That, however, required a modicum of judicial restraint and judgment. Instead, Engoron chose to walk down the stairway into infamy. He was off by half a billion dollars, which could put him in the Bernie Madoff class of judges. In other words, if he wanted to be remembered on that first day, Arthur Engoron succeeded.
“The problem with the future is that it is both unpredictable and inescapable.” — Tarik Cyril Amar
• By the Batch (James Howard Kunstler)
Please everybody, extricate yourselves from the mud-wallow of cynicism. Naysayers arise and open your eyes! Sleepwalkers and black-pillers, smell the coffee and wake up! Sob-sisters dry your tears! We are marching into a promised land of accountability after all. Our country, you well know, has been sore beset under a long-running seditious coup orchestrated by an ever more insane Bolshevik-Jacobin syndicate of political reprobates seeking to erase every boundary between the real and the unreal since 2016, a year that now lives in infamy. All their malice and roguery has been focused on the odd figure who somehow rose to lead the opposition to their burgeoning color revolution, Mr. Trump, who, through some alchemy of fortitude, managed to evade their many-footed depredations — to get re-elected.
Of course, you’ve also noticed that psychological projection is the heart of the seditionists’ game. Whatever ploy or subterfuge they accuse you of, is exactly what they are doing. Their mainstay is the phrase conspiracy theory. Whenever one of their many turpitudes is carried out — such as a rigged election — your notice of it is labeled a conspiracy theory. In fact, their long train of activities to turn the country upside-down and inside-out has been one drawn-out seditious conspiracy. And that is liable to be precisely one of the charges lodged against them — but surely not the only charge.
You have seen news (anywhere but in The New York Times) that grand juries are being convened here and there to scrutinize a whole lot of bad behavior by a whole lot of officials who recklessly wielded their power, who betrayed the nation, who broke institutions, destroyed lives, careers, and households, and, as an added insult, attempted to make you swallow one patent absurdity after another — a Potemkin president, drag queens in the schools, a massive invasion of alien mutts across an open border, Saint George Floyd and “mostly peaceful protests,” math is racist, boys in girls’ sports and locker rooms — all in their campaign to destroy American cultural coherence while they seized totalistic political control and sniped their adversaries off the game board. (Just look how they destroyed Rudolf Giuliani, a heroic figure who saved New York City in the 1990s.)
Grand juries are a sign that something serious is up. Evidence is being gathered by a new FBI, no longer dedicated to just covering-up its past crimes. A sign of how serious this effort is: the hiring last week of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as Co-Deputy FBI Director. Mr. Bailey, you may recall, presided over the Missouri v Biden lawsuit (2022) about the “Joe Biden” White House’s efforts to coerce social media into censorship. The SCOTUS killed the case on spurious grounds for “lack of standing to sue.” But the government censorship crusade was a hallmark affront to the Constitution in the years’ long seditious conspiracy against the American people. It could even return as a criminal— not a civil — case this time, since censorship was so central to the overall coup.
Plausible?
• Ghislaine: Father Was Intel Asset, Trump ‘Never Inappropriate’: Transcripts (ZH)
The DOJ has just released transcripts and audio from two days of interviews last month with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who said that President Trump was “never inappropriate with anybody” while he and Epstein were associates, and that her father was an intelligence asset. “Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein or anybody say that President Trump had done anything inappropriate with masseuses or with anybody in your world?” asked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in Tallahassee, Florida last month. “Absolutely never, in any context,” Maxwell replied. “I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way,” Maxwell said in another segment. Maxwell also said her father, the late Robert Maxwell, was an intelligence asset…
Ghislaine Maxwell CONFIRMS on tape she never witnessed President Trump doing anything inappropriate:
"I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. In the times I was with him he was a gentleman in all respects." pic.twitter.com/038wSnzS6v
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 22, 2025
Robert Maxwell, a media tycoon and former Labour MP, was notably given a state funeral in Jerusalem after ‘accidentally’ falling off his Yacht, the “Lady Ghislaine.” He was long speculated to have been a secret agent for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence office that is equivalent to the CIA. By proxy, that suspicion has led to speculation that the intelligence agency Epstein was associated with was the Mossad as well. “It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Epstein had connections to the [Israeli intelligence community],” said Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown, whose investigative reporting was the reason that the Epstein case was reopened after it was buried by federal prosecutors in 2008. “Robert Maxwell certainly had those kinds of connections, and Epstein had a close relationship with Robert Maxwell.” Ghislaine, however, said that her father and Epstein never met.
So Maxwell says she never deliberately had contact with Mossad, then says she wouldn't know if Epstein did. But the clearest Israeli intelligence links in the story relate to Ehud Barak, who was the head of Aman, Israeli Military Intelligence, which is much bigger than Mossad. pic.twitter.com/S25qhvzNuO
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) August 22, 2025
She also does not believe Epstein killed himself. She also provided some tricky answers about Mossad… “I do not believe he died by suicide,” said Maxwell, who added that she has no idea who might have killed him. Also interesting is that Ghislaine admitted to being “part of the beginning process of the Clinton Global Initiative.”
Ghislaine Maxwell tells the DOJ she believes Jeffrey Epstein funded or arranged financing for the Clinton Global Initiative as well. pic.twitter.com/iOydUplfRU
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) August 22, 2025
“If that is what they wanted, they would’ve had plenty of opportunity when he wasn’t in jail.”
• Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself – Maxwell (RT)
Jeffrey Epstein’s confidante Ghislaine Maxwell has said she does not believe the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender committed suicide behind bars. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for trafficking women to Epstein, was interviewed by the Department of Justice last month due to renewed interest in the case. According to a transcript released Friday, Maxwell told investigators, “I do not believe he died by suicide, no.” She dismissed the idea that an outside party could have ordered a “hit” on Epstein, adding, “If it is indeed murder, I believe it was an internal situation.” When asked if Epstein could have been targeted because he possessed damaging information on powerful figures, Maxwell said, “I do not have any reason to believe that. And I also think it’s ludicrous.”
She added, “If that is what they wanted, they would’ve had plenty of opportunity when he wasn’t in jail.” Maxwell also denied that Epstein engaged in blackmail or kept a “client list” linked to sex trafficking. Epstein was found dead in 2019 in his cell at a Manhattan correctional facility while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Democrats, along with some conservative figures, have accused President Donald Trump of a coverup after FBI and DOJ reviews denied the existence of an “Epstein list.” Trump, who has said he ended his friendship with Epstein long before his 2008 conviction, described the accusations as part of a Democrat-led discreditation campaign.
“I’m not aware of any blackmail. I never heard that. I never saw it and I never imagined it..”
• Maxwell Claims Epstein Had No ‘Client List’ (RT)
Jeffrey Epstein’s confidante Ghislaine Maxwell has denied that the late financier and convicted sex offender blackmailed his powerful associates. On Friday, the US Department of Justice released audio and a transcript of Maxwell’s interview last month with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for trafficking women to Epstein, was questioned amid renewed speculation that Epstein kept a “client list” of individuals he was accused of trafficking women to. Asked whether Epstein maintained “a black book or a client list,” Maxwell replied: “There is no list that I am aware of.”
According to her, the claims originated in 2009 from Brad Edwards, a lawyer representing several of Epstein’s victims. “I’m not aware of any blackmail. I never heard that. I never saw it and I never imagined it,” Maxwell said. She also denied that President Donald Trump engaged in any improper conduct during his friendship with Epstein. “I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way,” she said. Trump has maintained that he cut ties with Epstein long before his 2008 conviction and was previously unaware of the allegations against him.
“Multiculturalism, as a philosophy, can only survive if effectuated by a state that subsidizes fragmentation.”
• Why Would We Want Bad People Here? (Ben Shapiro)
This week, news emerged that the Trump administration has been setting new standards with regard to incoming immigrants. According to Axios, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will now take into account the “positive attributes” of migrants entering the country; such attributes can include community involvement and educational level. Instead of simply seeking to rule out those with records of misconduct, the new system seeks to screen for better immigrants — immigrants who will enrich America. Along the same lines, the CIS will now disqualify applicants who engage in or support “anti-American activity.” As USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser explained, “America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies. … Immigration benefits — including to live and work in the United States — remain a privilege, not a right.”
Metrics for anti-Americanism include “circumstances where an alien has endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of a terrorist organization or group, including aliens who support or promote anti-American ideologies or activities, antisemitic terrorism and antisemitic terrorist organizations, or who promote antisemitic ideologies.” Shockingly, there are those who are concerned about such standards. Presumably, America can’t be truly free unless we allow in those who support terrorist groups; one day, if we’re lucky, they can even run for mayor of New York or Congresswoman of Michigan. Such are the supposed blessings of liberty bestowed on foreigners by the free speech clause of our Constitution. Professor of sociology Jane Lilly Lopez of Brigham Young University told the Associated Press, “For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That’s really worrisome.”
This, of course, ignores that there are evidentiary standards for any allegations of anti-Americanism; skin color or country of origin wouldn’t presumably be enough to bar someone on grounds of anti-Americanism. But for the left, the only excuse for a pro-American ideology must be some form of subtle racism. Meanwhile, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, objected that the new standards were reminiscent of McCarthyism. This ignores the fact that during the Cold War, America did in fact screen for membership in the Communist Party under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, and that refugees and immigrants were screened by American law enforcement agencies to ensure that they were not agents of a foreign power or sympathetic to America’s enemies.
Undergirding all of these objections is a simple and ugly proposition: that becoming an American requires no actual investment in America, and that America ought to be a gigantic agglomeration of disassociated populations. Such a proposition would have been de facto impossible before the rise of the welfare state; people immigrating to the United States generally left places with greater security for an America without security but with grand opportunity, which meant that new immigrants had to learn English, learn a trade, and embrace the Anglo-American cultural and legal traditions of the country in order to succeed. With the rise of an enormous and durable social safety net, the math suddenly changed: People could immigrate to the United States without assimilating in any serious way, and could maintain their pre-American cultures in toto. Multiculturalism, as a philosophy, can only survive if effectuated by a state that subsidizes fragmentation.
That process must now be reversed. And that can only be done by raising the bar to admission. Good immigrants make America stronger. Bad immigrants make it weaker. Treating all immigrants similarly isn’t just foolish; it’s dangerous. And the Trump administration is right for recognizing that root reality.
“Palantir founder Peter Thiel has invested in JD Vance since 2013, and the PayPal mafia which includes Elon Musk have never diverged.”
• JD Vance Extensive Interview with Laura Ingraham (CTH)
The social media conversation was triggered by an article in the Wall Street Journal which claimed Elon Musk was reconsidering, actually setting aside the third-party option, and was likely to back JD Vance as his 2028 presidential nominee instead. Factually, for those in the minority who are intellectually honest non-pretenders, the framework of the subsequent online discussion from that WSJ article was laughable. Personally, I wanted to ridicule anyone who was buying into the nonsense that Musk and the Tech alliance (Ellison, Thiel, Sacks, Andreesen, et al) had another option in mind other than Vance.
Silicon Valley is a singular organism when it comes to their collective interests. Palantir founder Peter Thiel has invested in JD Vance since 2013, and the PayPal mafia which includes Elon Musk have never diverged. There is no way Thiel, Musk and the Tech alliance are going to support anyone other than Vance. By the time we get to 2028 they will have a total investment of money and time that spans 15 years in Vance. JD Vance will be the Silicon Valley candidate. JD Vance knows this. As the conversation about bringing Elon Musk back into the Trump camp is triggered, it is not coincidental that JD Vance becomes the conduit. If JD Vance wants to be the presidential nominee in 2028, he will rely on Musk and crew; there is no other candidate for Silicon Valley.
Comet
Comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS)
It has a period of 80,000 years. The last time it was this close, Earth was inhabited by Neanderthals.
We'll never see it again.pic.twitter.com/7yJG36k30J
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 22, 2025
SuperMoon
On the night of September 7-8, 2025, nearly 7 billion people — about 85% of the world population — will witness a total lunar eclipse coinciding with a SuperMoon. pic.twitter.com/Dj7BsnnT4l
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 22, 2025
Bridge
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1958823961984475259
The beauty of Ruyi Bridge in Taizhou, Zhejiang China.
It's made up of three bridges across the Shenxianju Valley and it features a glass-bottomed walkway.pic.twitter.com/lbz0IukSF9
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 22, 2025
Nose
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1958917981661974986
Baby
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1958882816554303986
Church
Borgund Stave Church in Norway was built between 1180 and 1250 AD constructed from wood,
entirely without nails.
— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) August 22, 2025
Wallace line
THE INVISIBLE LINE THAT SPLITS THE ANIMAL KINGDOM
Across Indonesia runs a border you can’t see, but nature never ignores.
On Bali, you’ll find tigers, elephants, and rhinos. Just 22 miles east on Lombok, it’s kangaroos, koalas, and giant lizards.
Almost nothing crosses, not… https://t.co/H6rtLRs7KC pic.twitter.com/pQtdigjK0z
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 22, 2025
Ring of fire
WHAT IF THE RING OF FIRE BLEW UP ALL AT ONCE
The Ring of Fire is a 25,000-mile horseshoe of 450 volcanoes around the Pacific, and if they all erupted at the same time… basically game over.
Source: GeoAllDay IG pic.twitter.com/xqgOFjS9po
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 22, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
