Arabella Archives - The Automatic Earth

Lisa Cook's job was to guard *against* mortgage fraud, not to go out and commit it herself.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Section 10, gives President Trump the legal right to remove a Fed Governor "for cause." When someone lies on 2 mortgage applications in the span of 2… pic.twitter.com/HEvQolJm0d

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) August 27, 2025

BREAKING: Treasury Sec Scott Bessent is turning up the heat, demanding Fed Governor Lisa Cook face prosecution!

Time to hold her accountable! pic.twitter.com/dheiU8jAJF

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 27, 2025

Flashback: Fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook said in 2020 that Donald Trump was "definitely a fascist."

This is who was in charge of our nation's monetary policypic.twitter.com/iWawkhF31d

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 26, 2025

The German economy is in “free fall”with a 21% collapse in output thanks to green energy pixie farts and regulatory burdens.

Meanwhile, Trump's gunning to cart off Germany’s crown jewels to America. pic.twitter.com/vJxtlzli4H

— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) August 27, 2025

CBDC

"Did you know the EU plans to launch its digital currency, the digital euro, in October 2025?"

"This will give those in control the power to make people do less harmful things, like eating meat, buying petrol, or not complying with the government."

"Or make privacy go bye-bye… pic.twitter.com/0LugC98EVv

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 27, 2025

"I cannot think of a more dangerous initiative than this… We simply have to say no."‼️

Nigel Farage on the desperate push to roll out digital ID, CBDCs and a cashless society—globally—by 2030‼️

"If we're not careful, we head towards a Chinese-style social credit system, where… pic.twitter.com/s8EkVwPzQA

— Sophia Dahl (@sophiadahl1) August 27, 2025

Crime

Democrat Rep Jamie Raskin says he's opposed to Trump cracking down on crime because "crime has always been part of our history."

What??? pic.twitter.com/061BtCA7Dx

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 26, 2025

The author, a “Filipino philosopher living in Madrid, Spain”, gives you two endgame options to choose from:

1/ The west acknowledges defeat now.
2/ Russia launches a devastating though non-nuclear attack, and the west folds after that.

Take your pick. Both options lead to a period of peace. There is no third option.

• The Endgame of the Ukraine War: Two Possible Scenarios (Ruel F. Pepa)

Scenario One: Acknowledgment of Defeat and Surrender by the West
The first possibility hinges on a sobering and potentially unsettling reality: the Western alliance of the United Kingdom, the European Union, NATO, and the United States should finally recognize the reality that they have tragically lost the fight against Russia in Ukraine. This recognition would not be made lightly; rather, it would be the result of a combination of factors such as prolonged conflict, mounting casualties, significant resource depletion, and diplomatic fatigue that have eroded Western resolve and capacity to sustain their current level of support. Ultimately, this scenario would necessitate a formal acknowledgment of defeat, leading to a strategic and possibly humiliating surrender, signaling an end to their worthless military and political efforts to oppose Russian advances.

Such an outcome implies that the West’s military interventions, economic sanctions, and diplomatic efforts have failed to change the fundamental dynamics on the ground. The prolonged conflict, with its heavy toll on both human lives and national resources, would have culminated in a consensus that further confrontation is futile or counterproductive. Recognizing defeat would most likely lead to negotiations, compromises, and concessions that could reshape the territorial and political landscape of the region. This could include the recognition of Russian-controlled territories as part of Russia, or a negotiated settlement that cedes significant influence to Moscow.

This scenario would also entail a vital shift in regional alliances and borders, marking the end of Ukraine’s aspirations for full integration into Western institutions. It would result in a realignment of security arrangements and a recalibration of Western policies towards Russia, which would finally acknowledge Russia’s renewed regional importance and influence. Ultimately, this outcome would bring an end to active hostilities and redefine the balance of power in Europe and beyond. The global order would see a shift towards a more multipolar world, where Russia’s enhanced position influences international diplomacy and security policies for years to come.

Scenario Two: A Devastating Russian Non-Nuclear Strike
The second more provocative and alarming possibility involves Russia resorting to the use of its advanced non-nuclear weapon systems, specifically the deployment of the non-nuclear version of the Oreshnik missile system, targeting Ukraine and one aggressive NATO member country such as Germany, France, Poland, or the UK, thereby achieving a decisive and devastating victory over western aggression. This aggressive attack would be designed to inflict maximum destruction and psychological shock.

This scenario assumes that barring the possibility of the West’s surrender, Russia’s only remaining option is to escalate the conflict by deploying such a formidable weapon to indiscriminately obliterate Ukrainian infrastructure and military targets. The use of a weapon like the Oreshnik which is indubitably recognized as a highly destructive missile capable of delivering a significant payload over long distances would mark a new and dangerous phase in the conflict, aimed at delivering a crushing blow to Ukraine’s military capacity and civilian infrastructure.

The implications of such an act are profoundly chilling. It would signal a willingness by Russia to cross the threshold into large-scale destruction, possibly as a show of strength or as a means to force Western powers into concessions. Importantly, Russia’s use of such devastating weaponry is intended not only to break Ukraine’s resistance but also to test the resolve and limits of Western alliances. It will serve as a strategic warning, demonstrating that Russia is willing to unleash destruction on a scale that could also threaten member states or their interests, thereby challenging the post-Cold War security architecture of Europe.

Crucially, such a strike on a NATO country could absolutely trigger a wave of terror and paralysis across Europe. The severity and immediacy of the attack is aimed at inducing extreme fear among European nations, potentially leading to a strategic stalemate where retaliation becomes unthinkable, either due to the devastating consequences or the chaos that ensues. This scenario hinges on the premise that Russia’s willingness to escalate to such an extent would effectively paralyze NATO and European responses, thereby ending the war through sheer overwhelming force and fear. Simply put, such an ultimate and decisive attack would cancel all the risks of hostility escalation and broader conflict thereby inaugurating and guaranteeing global peace and security once and for all.

”Talking about the specifics publicly and outside of the broader context of the conflict would hardly be beneficial for our common goal..”

• Ukraine Peace Talks Must Stay Confidential – Kremlin (RT)

Public discussion of the details of Ukraine peace negotiations could harm the process, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday when asked what compromises Russia might be prepared to offer. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NBC News last week that Moscow is ready to “show some flexibility” on Ukraine after the recent Alaska summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. US Vice President J.D. Vance later told the same program that Trump’s “energetic diplomacy” had convinced Moscow to offer “significant concessions.” Peskov reiterated that the Putin-Trump talks marked a diplomatic breakthrough but stressed that Moscow intends to keep details of the negotiations confidential.

”Talking about the specifics publicly and outside of the broader context of the conflict would hardly be beneficial for our common goal. We believe such work should be done privately, if we are to produce results,” he said. Lavrov was repeatedly pressed on NBC’s Meet the Press about whether Putin would commit to direct talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The foreign minister reminded the host that Putin had not ruled out such a meeting, but insisted it would need to be meaningful. ”Yes, he [Putin] is ready to meet, but no, we cannot meet just for him [Zelensky] to have a picture and to say that, ‘now I am legitimate’,” Lavrov said.

Russia’s top diplomat was referring to the expiration of Zelensky’s presidential mandate last year. Moscow has raised questions about the legality of any international agreements he might sign. Peskov reinforced Lavrov’s remarks, saying any top-level contacts between Russia and Ukraine “need to be properly prepared to be resultful.” He added that Russia “remains committed to resolving the Ukraine conflict, preferably through peaceful political-diplomatic means.”

“I think he has made a good faith effort to engage. He certainly did at the Alaska summit. But it’s a very complicated conflict.”

• Witkoff to Meet Ukrainians in New York This Week (ET)

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said he is set to meet with Ukrainian representatives in the United States this week during an interview on Aug. 26. “I’m meeting with the Ukrainians this week. So I will be meeting with them this week in New York, and that’s a big signal,” Witkoff said on Fox News’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier. “We talk to the Russians every day,” he said, adding that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin wished to bring the war to a close. “I think he has made a good faith effort to engage. He certainly did at the Alaska summit. But it’s a very complicated conflict. “I think that we may end up seeing a bilateral meeting. My own opinion is that the president is going to be needed at the table to finish a deal.” U.S. President Donald Trump met with Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15 and later with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Aug. 18.

In the wake of those summits, Trump said the two leaders would hold a bilateral meeting, which would then be followed by a trilateral meeting including him. Zelenskyy has said Russia was doing everything it could to prevent a meeting between him and Putin, while Russia has said the agenda for such a meeting was not ready. On Aug. 24, U.S. Vice President JD Vance said that Moscow has made “significant concessions” toward reaching a peace deal to end the more than three-year conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In an interview with NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” the vice president said Putin made multiple concessions toward reaching a deal with Kyiv, including one that allows Ukraine to receive security guarantees to ward off future attacks. Vance said that the Russians have “recognized that they’re not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kyiv,” noting it was “a major demand at the beginning.”

“And importantly, they’ve acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” he said. “Have they made every concession? Of course, they haven’t. We’re making progress.” The violence between Moscow and Kyiv continued overnight, with a Russian drone attack damaging an energy sector facility in Ukraine’s central Poltava, the region’s governor said on Aug. 27. “This night, the enemy massively attacked the Poltava region,” Gov. Volodymyr Kohut said on Telegram. “Falling debris and direct hits were recorded in the Poltava district. An energy sector enterprise was damaged. An administrative building, vehicles, and equipment were damaged. Fires broke out on the territory of the enterprise.” He added that consumers had temporarily lost power as a result of the attack and that “fortunately, there were no casualties.”

The nighttime aerial assault also shut off power in parts of the northern city of Sumy after Russia struck critical infrastructure facilities, leaving all water utility facilities without power and relying on emergency backups on Aug. 26, according to a Telegram post from Serhii Kryvosheienko, the head of the Sumy city military administration. “Restoration efforts are now underway in the Sumy region after Russian drone strikes,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X on Aug. 26 discussing the attack. “Nearly a hundred UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and targeted overnight attacks on our regions, aimed specifically at civilian infrastructure.” “The Russians continue the war and ignore the world’s calls to stop the killings and destruction,” he added, calling for “new steps” to “increase pressure” on Moscow to “stop the attacks and to ensure real security guarantees.”

The Ukrainian Air Force said it downed 74 out of 95 Shahed drones overnight, and that 21 drones hit nine locations across the country. Russia, meanwhile, said that its air defenses intercepted and destroyed 26 Ukrainian drones over the country through the night, according to Moscow’s Defense Ministry.At least seven apartment buildings were damaged in a drone attack on the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, located about 60 miles from the border with Ukraine, Russian state news agency TASS reported.

But they want him to try anyway.

• Most Americans Don’t Believe Trump Can End Wars In Ukraine, Gaza (ZH)

Most Americans are doubtful that President Donald Trump will be able to help bring an end to the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, despite the US being the largest military supporter of both Ukraine and Israel, which naturally would give Trump potential influence over Kyiv and Tel Aviv. But the reality is for all the talk of peace, the White House has not used this powerful lever (that is, cutting off the arms pipeline and billions in aid).The CAPS-Harris poll is a joint project of Harris Poll and the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University. It conducted a fresh survey on a range of issues facing the American public and politics at the national and international levels.

The survey showed that 59% of respondents believe Trump would be unsuccessful in resolving the war in Ukraine, while 64% say he would be unable to bring an end to the conflict in Gaza. But despite this broad skepticism concerning the end-result, two-thirds of Americans still support Trump’s initiative to negotiate a resolution to the war in Ukraine. The survey indicated it was conducted online within the United States on August 20-21 – among 2,025 registered voters, and so it was days after Trump’s historic summit with Putin in Alaska. The polling shows that Americans saw the effort of direct US-Russia talks in a positive light. So far, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly rejected any territorial compromises, and there’s no indication that the Trump White House has piled much pressure on him to do so.

But Trump is pushing for NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, which the Kremlin is in turn rejecting this (assuming it involves Western boots on the ground). Responsible Statecraft describes: Rather than seeking security for all, Europe is still seeking partial security, only for Ukraine. This short-sightedness stems from the desire to punish Russia, which argues that it is only defending its national interests. It is telling that, toward the end of their joint press conference, Putin said he agreed with Trump’s claim that this war could have been prevented if Trump had been president. Many saw this as a throw-away line designed to ingratiate himself to Trump, but I believe that Putin was remarking on how different Trump’s approach to the conflict is from that of his predecessor.

While Biden saw NATO as an unvarnished force for good; Trump appears to appreciate that it can also be seen as a threat, especially by those who have been excluded from it. As for the other major raging conflict, the same poll found that most Americans believe there is a famine occurring in Gaza but that they hold Hamas responsible. This is certainly not a long-term solution, but likely recipe for continual escalation…[..] International human rights organizations, and the Palestinian side, have frequently accused Israel of deliberately creating famine conditions through its military campaign and blockade of Gaza. The American public has of late (as well as the mainstream media) grown more critical of Israel’s actions, but both sides of the political aisle and population tend to remain ‘pro-Israel’.

“..poor diet drives America’s chronic disease crisis, fueling seven of our 10 deadliest conditions each year, [which] claims an estimated 1 million American lives through diet-related illnesses.”

• RFK Aims to MAHA Med School (Salgado)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proudly announced that medical schools, which receive federal funds and grants, will now be asked to incorporate diet education into their curricula to address related chronic disease. In his announcement Wednesday, Kennedy quoted Hippocrates, “the father of medicine,” who said, “Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food.” Kennedy interprets this to mean that Americans should try to treat more chronic diseases by adjusting their diet rather than always taking pills, and he says that right now, medical schools often provide little to no nutrition training to many surgeons. The Trump administration’s “bold reform in our medical education system” will involve both HHS and the Department of Education to address “a situation that everyone has long recognized as wrong, but no one has yet had the gumption to fix,” Kennedy said.

The secretary slammed the “woeful lack of nutrition education in medicine” and argued, “poor diet drives America’s chronic disease crisis, fueling seven of our 10 deadliest conditions each year, [which] claims an estimated 1 million American lives through diet-related illnesses.” And with over $4 trillion being spent every year to treat what Kennedy calls “these preventable diseases,” he believes we should not “graduate physicians unprepared to confront their root cause.” The HHS secretary added, “The good news is that diet not only causes these conditions, it can also prevent and reverse them. But for too long, we’ve instead analyzed the chronic disease crisis, commissioned studies, and pontificated about the importance of nutrition without taking any meaningful action. Recent data reveals a critical disconnect.”

The answer is education, Kennedy said. “Although all medical schools claim to include nutrition in their curricula, most medical students report receiving no formal nutrition education throughout their entire training,” he stated. “This leads to a troubling reality. Most medical students recognize nutrition is necessary. Nearly all medical residents are asked to counsel patients about nutrition. [But] fewer than a quarter of practicing physicians feel adequately prepared to provide nutrition advice.” Kennedy is optimistic that the diet-related chronic disease “epidemic” can become a tragedy of the past with proper diets and lifestyle adjustments, which doctors should be able to recommend. “We’ll start by embedding nutrition directly into college pre-med programs and testing it on the MCAT. Every future physician should master the language of prevention before they even touch a stethoscope,” Kennedy insisted.

Ultra-processed foods, unhealthy lifestyles, and too great a medical reliance on Big Pharma have contributed to making many Americans chronically unhealthy. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are going to systematically transform nutrition education throughout American medicine for more than 200 of America’s medical schools, 13,000 residency and fellowship programs, and ultimately, each of the nation’s 1.1 million practicing physicians,” Kennedy laid out his ambitious plan. He enthusiastically predicted, “In the future, doctors won’t just prescribe drugs, they’ll be able to prescribe diets as well by confidently screening for diet-related diseases and collaborating with nutrition experts to recommend food-based solutions.” As the cherry on top, Kennedy hopes the reforms will ultimately save America “hundreds of billions of dollars and prevent millions of debilitating chronic diseases… We’re going to reconnect medicine with its roots.”

“..to keep vaccines available to people who want them, to require placebo-controlled trials, and to “end the emergency.”

• FDA Revokes Emergency Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccines (ZH)

The Department of Health and Human Services under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revoked emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines. “The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded,” Kennedy posted to X on Wednesday. The news comes as the FDA, which is part of HHS, announced the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for older adults and children as young as 5-years-old who have at least one condition that puts them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, Pfizer said in a Wednesday statement. Regulators have issued similar approvals for COVID-19 jabs from Novavax and Moderna.

HHS revoking emergency approval means that FDA clearance is no longer in place for some 240 million Americans, however “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors,” Kennedy sai. As the Epoch Times notes further, per federal law, the FDA approves products it determines are “safe, pure, and potent.” Emergency authorizations, in contrast, can only be offered under certain circumstances, such as during a public health emergency, and are for products that officials believe “may be effective” in treating or preventing a life-threatening disease or condition. Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA’s commissioner, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, its top vaccine official at the time, signaled the change in May, when they said that the FDA would stop approving COVID-19 vaccines for many Americans absent clinical trial data.

“The FDA can only approve products if it concludes, based on scientific evidence, that the benefit-to-harm balance is favorable. And we simply need more data to have that confidence for younger individuals at low-risk of severe disease,” Prasad said at the time. In the United States, regulators in recent years have been authorizing updated COVID-19 vaccines annually in a bid to counter waning effectiveness and better match circulating variants. The model is based on the historical approach to influenza vaccines. Regulators in 2024 cleared updated shots from Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax without human data, citing animal tests and data from trials for previous versions. Most Americans have not taken one of those COVID-19 vaccines. Just 13 percent of children and 23 percent of adults had received one of them as of April 26, according to the latest statistics available from the CDC.

Makary and Prasad also said they would continue approving updated versions of the COVID-19 vaccines for all individuals 65 and older, as well as younger people with one or more of the risk factors that increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 outcomes. These approvals would be based solely on immunobridging data, or testing that shows vaccines trigger an antibody response against the disease. Around that time, the FDA approved Novavax’s vaccine, previously under emergency use authorization, for people 65 and older, and for individuals ages 12 to 64 with at least one risk factor. More recently, the agency approved a new Moderna vaccine for the same populations, and Moderna’s existing vaccine for the elderly and for individuals aged 6 months to 64 years who have at least one risk factor. The new approval of Pfizer’s vaccine is for the elderly and people aged 5 to 64 who have one or more risk factors, Pfizer said.

That means Moderna’s vaccine is the only one available for infants and toddlers, as had been expected. Also recently, the CDC stopped recommending COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women while keeping in place recommendations to receive a shot for all other individuals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended that all children aged 6 months to 23 months receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advised all pregnant women to get one. Regulators cited the public health emergency over COVID-19 in their most recent emergency authorizations for the COVID-19 vaccines in 2024. Then-Health Secretary Xavier Becerra on Jan. 1 extended the COVID-19 health emergency to Dec. 31, 2029. Kennedy said on Wednesday that he promised to end COVID-19 vaccine mandates, to keep vaccines available to people who want them, to require placebo-controlled trials, and to “end the emergency.” The FDA actions “accomplished all four goals,” he said.

Q: why was she ever hired? Certainly this must have been predictable?!

• US Disease Control Chief Fired In Clash Over Covid Vaccines (RT)

The White House has dismissed Susan Monarez as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after she refused to resign in a dispute over vaccine policy, with her ouster triggering turmoil and further resignations by senior health officials. Monarez, who was confirmed by the Senate just last month, reportedly clashed with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his push to lift vaccine mandates and rescind emergency authorizations. “Susan Monarez is not aligned with the President’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that she was terminated after refusing to step down voluntarily.

Her lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abbe Lowell, disputed the White House account, insisting Monarez “has neither resigned nor received notification” of her dismissal. They accused Kennedy of “weaponizing public health for political gain and putting millions of American lives at risk,” warning that her case highlights the “systematic dismantling of public health institutions.” The clash came as the Food and Drug Administration approved new variants of Moderna and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines, while rescinding emergency use authorizations and restricting the shots to higher-risk groups. Kennedy, a longtime critic of US vaccination policy, has overseen sweeping changes since becoming HHS secretary earlier this year, including disbanding vaccine advisory committees and cutting funding for mRNA research. In a post on X, he said the new framework “delivers science, safety, and common sense.”

I promised 4 things:

1. to end covid vaccine mandates.

2. to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.

3. to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies.

4. to end the emergency.

In a series of FDA actions today we accomplished…

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) August 27, 2025

Monarez resisted pressure to endorse the changes or dismiss senior colleagues. According to multiple reports, she reached out to Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, whose support was pivotal during Kennedy’s confirmation hearings. At least four senior CDC officials resigned in protest: Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, immunization director Demetre Daskalakis, infectious disease chief Daniel Jernigan, and data director Jennifer Layden. Monarez had been nominated by President Donald Trump as his second choice after withdrawing former congressman Dave Weldon, who faced criticism over his vaccine views. Under a law passed during the pandemic, the CDC director now requires Senate confirmation.

“Transparency is FINALLY coming and what’s buried inside those bags could shake the nation.”

• Gabbard: Intel Community Corruption Worse Than Anyone Thought (VF)

As Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has spent months shaking Washington with bombshell after bombshell on the Russia Coup of 2017. When Trump asked her to speak [during this week’s cabinet meeting], she told him that the intel community’s corruption was worse than anyone thought. She doubled down on her mission statement of transparency. Gabbard: “Mr. President, you have charged me with the mission of finding the truth and telling the truth to the American people, and we’ve exposed some of the worst examples of the weaponization of intelligence in the last several weeks.” “I will continue down that mission and that path, wherever it leads.

Transparency, telling the truth is what will drive true accountability for the American people who deserve nothing less.” Then Trump dropped a jaw-dropper of his own. He revealed that Gabbard’s team had recovered unburned “burn bags” stuffed with classified material tied to the 2020 election…and asked when the public would see them. Trump: “And you’ve also found many bags of information, I think they call them burn bags. They’re supposed to be burned and they didn’t get burned having to do with how corrupt the 2020 election was, and when will that all come out?” Gabbard: “Mr. President, I will be the first to brief you once we have that information collected.”

“But you’re right – we are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes, in random offices, in these bags and in other areas, which, again, speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people and trying to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.” Wow. Transparency is FINALLY coming and what’s buried inside those bags could shake the nation.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1960437106767224919

Arabella is the mothership of over 200 NGOs.

• Trump Calls For RICO Charges Against Soros; Gates Foundation Severs Ties (ZH)

The “dark money” network operated by Arabella Advisors has reportedly lost one of its top funding sources: a leftist billionaire’s foundation. Equally significant in the news cycle this morning, President Trump stated on Truth Social that George Soros and his radical leftist son, Alex Soros, “should be charged with RICO because of their support of violent protests.” A New York Times report indicates that the Gates Foundation has halted funding to nonprofit funds managed by Arabella, choosing instead to work directly with some partners rather than through intermediaries. In its internal announcement, dated June 24 and sent to some Gates employees who oversee grant programs, foundation officials did not mention politics. Instead, they cited a desire to engage more directly with grant recipients and cut back on the use of intermediaries like Arabella entities.

Trump: "George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America." pic.twitter.com/KBxuyAaisF

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 27, 2025

“Teams are increasingly working directly with programmatic partners — organizations that are deeply embedded in the communities we serve and closely aligned with our mission,” the note reads. “As we look ahead, this is a chance to build deeper, more durable relationships with those partners — and to reinforce the kind of legacy we want to leave behind.” -NYT” Tracing the Arabella network’s donors is tricky. But according to the NYT, the Gates Foundation has plowed $450 million into the network since 2008, which in turn funneled money into other nonprofit entities, ranging from radical leftist climate groups to abortion initiatives, and even supporting the permanent protest-industrial complex against President Trump.

https://twitter.com/seamusbruner/status/1933626755358863457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1933626755358863457%7Ctwgr%5E1e0fde66960c2c75df873fe2087d2cf266f22afb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fgates-foundation-cuts-ties-arabella-advisors-linked-funding-radical-leftist-causes

With President Trump back in the White House and investigations focusing on corruption across the Democratic Party’s funding and nonprofit infrastructure, as well as ActBlue investigations, the risks for Bill Gates’ progressive NGO empire have never been greater. The move to cut ties could have happened even sooner, according to two people, one close to the foundation and one with knowledge of Arabella’s internal operations. Over the last few years, Arabella has become a target of conservative watchdogs because of its work with groups that funnel money toward progressive causes. With President Trump back in the White House, the political risks have only mounted. -NYT Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute recently revealed a report that detailed how the rogue anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ front group, waging a permanent protest against all things Trump, “bagged $114.8 million from the Arabella dark money network.”

The Gates Foundation told NYT that the move to sever ties with Arabella was “a business decision that reflects our regular strategic assessments of partnerships and operating models.” NYT’s report on Arabella comes hours after NBC News confirmed Gates met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday afternoon. More details from the report: • Some nonprofits are distancing themselves from Arabella to keep Gates funding. • Several groups have started exiting Arabella’s New Venture Fund (NVF), which serves as a fiscal sponsor for 170+ projects and has funneled billions into progressive causes. • While Gates once accounted for a significant share of NVF funding, in 2023 its contribution was only 2%. Still, losing Gates threatens Arabella’s influence and revenue streams.

Trump saves Europe.

• Trump Mulls Travel Ban for EU Officials Over ‘Orwellian’ Censorship Law (ZH)

President Donald Trump is weighing a travel ban on European Union officials behind the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping online regulation that the White House claims is designed to censor Americans. According to sources familiar with the matter cited by Reuters, the State Department is considering visa restrictions targeting senior EU policymakers responsible for the legislation. A decision hasn’t been made, but discussions inside the administration intensified after a high-level meeting last week. The move would directly punish foreign officials for domestic policies Washington says undermine U.S. free speech rights. The EU’s DSA aims to compel tech giants to crack down on illegal content, but the Trump administration argues the policy amounts to government-driven censorship, accusing Brussels of forcing U.S. companies to muzzle American user under the guise of combating misinformation.

“We are monitoring increasing censorship in Europe with great concern but have no further information to provide at this time” a State Department spokesman told the Telegraph. An EU Commission spokesman fired back, rejecting the claims as “completely unfounded,” insisting that the DSA “sets out rules for online intermediaries to tackle illegal content, while safeguarding freedom of expression and information online.” Relations between the Trump administration and the EU have grown increasingly strained, fueled by threats of tariffs and disputes over tech regulation. Reports earlier this month revealed the U.S. government urged European diplomats to lobby against the DSA, intensifying a battle over who sets the rules for online speech.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has previously threatened visa bans for people who censor speech by Americans, including on social media, suggesting the policy could directly target foreign officials regulating U.S. tech companies. Vice President JD Vance has also repeatedly slammed European regulators, accusing them of “censoring” Americans. In a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, he accused EU leaders of suppressing the speech of groups such as Germany’s Right-wing AfD party. Tensions aren’t limited to Brussels. The Trump administration has also targeted the UK’s Online Safety Act, calling it “Orwellian.” During Trump’s visit to Scotland last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended the legislation, insisting London remains committed to protecting free speech while tackling online harms.

The debate is expected to intensify next month when Nigel Farage testifies before Congress on threats to free expression in Britain. Farage is set to highlight the case of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months over a social media post related to the Southport attacks, before being released earlier this month.

Lucy Connolly with her husband Ray. Mrs Connolly was jailed after a social media post Credit: Heathcliff O’Malley for the Telegraph

For now, no sanctions have been formally imposed. But if the administration follows through, it would represent a historic clash between Washington and Brussels over free speech, tech regulation, and sovereignty.

“Of the 237,592 attempts made to illegally enter the UK since 2018, 85% involved men..”

“..of the attempts involving men, 83% involved men aged 18 or older..”

• Reform’s Plan for Dealing with Illegal Migrants is a Good Start (Carl)

In a recent interview with the Times, Reform leader Nigel Farage unveiled his plan for dealing with Britain’s illegal migration crisis. It involves four key elements:
• Leaving the ECHR and suspending other relevant treaties
• Banning those who arrive through irregular channels from claiming asylum
• Moving illegal migrants from hotels and rented accommodation to disused RAF bases, and keeping them there
• Striking deals with migrants’ home countries, or failing that, deporting them to third countries or British overseas territories like Ascension Island

Predictably, the plan has been criticised by Farage’s political opponents. One Tory MP claimed that he “is just recycling many ideas the Conservatives have already announced”. Which would be easier to take seriously if the Tories hadn’t had 14 years in government to implement some of those ideas. Meanwhile, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats claimed that Farage’s plan won’t work. Labour called it “pie in the sky” and the Lib Dems insisted it “doesn’t offer any real solutions”. But what would a real solution look like? The current situation is manifestly preposterous: tens of thousands of migrants turning up uninvited on the South Coast, and then being housed in hotels and private accommodation at taxpayers’ expense – to the tune of billions of pounds per year. And crucially, the overwhelming majority of such migrants are adult men.

Of the 237,592 attempts made to illegally enter the UK since 2018, 85% involved men. (I’m excluding individuals for whom sex was not known or reported). This is arguably the single most important statistic in the entire debate. It is also worth noting that, of the attempts involving men, 83% involved men aged 18 or older (and the true figure is almost certainly higher because some migrants lie about their age). In other words, the people that British taxpayers are paying to house in hotels all across the country are not desperate women and children with nowhere else to go. They are overwhelmingly drawn from the least vulnerable demographic group. Even by the Left’s own self-professed values, this is an absurd policy. There are millions of people around the world that are far more needy than the people who turn up uninvited on the South Coast. And we could help them by providing food, medicine and other essentials in situ.

Does anyone really believe that covering hotel bills for adult men in Britain is the best way to help the world’s poor? Even the Economist, long a bastion of pro-migration sentiment, admits that Europe’s asylum system is not working and should be scrapped. As the magazine correctly notes, “it cannot cope with a world of proliferating conflict, cheap travel and huge wage disparities”. As far as I can see, neither Labour nor the Lib Dems has any plan that would prevent the continual inflow of illegal migrants into Britain. (Saying that you would “create safe and legal routes” is not a plan.) And the current situation is simply not sustainable: of course people don’t want large numbers of adult men being housed in their communities. The main weakness of Farage’s plan is the difficulty of striking deals with countries like Iran, which is among the biggest sources of illegal migrants.

Britain does little trade with Iran and already imposes sanctions on its government. In fact, sanctions relief might be the only way to make them take their citizens back. [ZH: We would be remiss if we did not note that none other than Elon Musk has been focused on the immigration crisis in the UK over the last 24 hours. He criticized Farage for not going far enough…

Unfortunately, the reality is that Farage will do almost nothing to protect Britain. That is obvious.

Existing law is clear that anyone who was an accessory to aggravated rape or murder, especially of children, is guilty of serious crime and must either serve time in prison if… https://t.co/BVuCM4CC16

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 26, 2025

“I would like to help fund legal actions against corrupt officials who aided and abetted the rape of Britain, per the official government inquiry. ”

85 cities in Britain where local authorities were complicit in the rape of children … https://t.co/20tp9VFFAv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 26, 2025

Musk also retweeted Tommy Robinson:
https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1960232418054476040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1960232418054476040%7Ctwgr%5Ea96b04969d69f4a1d20858368f57c63cda23596a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Freforms-plan-dealing-uk-illegal-migrants-good-start

And while British media was evidently silent about it, Musk made it very clear how he feels about the Scottish teenager..

Start by condemning the grovelers and collaborators in positions of authority in Britain who aided the rape epidemic of their own people or turned a blind eye to their responsibilities.

Both civil and criminal prosecutions. https://t.co/H4zEpk18hE

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 26, 2025

I thought multiculturalism was about some kind of melting pot. But there’s no melting going on here.

• Multiculturalism Is Burning Down The German School System (RMX)

German schools are dealing with “hell.” That’s the conclusion reached by Die Welt newspaper, as cited by Hungarian outlet Mandiner. Based on numerous case studies, it is clear that “far too many children are being sent to school who can barely concentrate and, above all, who do not speak German.” Families, children, and teachers are suffering the consequences of the bad policies from politicians. In short, they “have failed.” One major issue is the death of the German language itself, across Germany. In the Hemshof district of Ludwigshafen, for example, barely a word of German is heard. The students in the district’s Gräfenau elementary school are 98 percent migrants.Welt indicates that plenty of Asian, African, and Slavic languages present, but as Germany has become a nation of migrants, the German language recedes.

“Italian, Greek, Turkish guest workers since the 1960s, and since 2015, the rest of the world,” Die Welt writes about the progression of immigration waves in the country. The school principal in the Hemshof district, Barbara Mächtle, has been vocal about the issues. For example, some 40 first-year students, a third of the year, may not be ready to enter the second grade. According to the newspaper, Mächtle “knows the tricks to cover this up, but he doesn’t use them.” For example, these children are enrolled in the second grade, but then “voluntarily drop out” on the first day of school. Machete refuses to play these games and will force these students to repeat the grade – “not to punish them, but to save them.” Mächtle also dispels the illusion that being surrounded by German, migrant kids will “absorb it on their own.” She says there is no “language immersion” because children “hear everything except German.”

“No child here is swimming in German waters, they remain in their Arab, Turkish, Afghan pools,” and “at best they develop a basic slang, a German of 50-100 words, which is enough for the street and the schoolyard, but not for a profession that can be understood even partially,” Welt reports. And then there is the violence inflicting schools, which the paper calls a widespread fire, not just here or there. In 2024, the authorities registered 35,570 school violence incidents, an average of 97 per day; 743 of these involved a knife. Students also express their religion, Islam, “aggressively” in the classroom. As Remix News has reported, 40 percent of all violent crime in the German school system is from foreigners. In addition, many of the German students have a foreign background.

This has created a situation where teachers are expected to be social workers first, taking immense time away from their actual work as teachers. With these students, the parents are not doing their jobs in preparing children to behave properly in the classroom. It is no wonder teachers are leaving the field, and many are discouraged from entering, which is yet another major issue: a massive teacher shortage. In Germany, it is no longer possible to provide the current student population with trained teachers. In the countryside, people are not applying for teaching jobs, and in the cities, teachers cannot afford to pay the rent, so many people apply for teaching positions immediately after graduating, only to quickly fail.

“In the past 20 years, fourth-grade maths assignments were often purely text-based. Today, books are full of pictures to make understanding possible at all,” bemoans Andreas Baudisch, the principal of the Humboldt primary school in Mannheim. “Basic operations are a great deal of work for many children. Many cannot formulate a complete sentence,” says the principal. There are some bright spots. Children from Indian families learn German better in four months than those born here because ‘they practice at home, they are interested in it,’ and this is something that is lacking in many other people who are second or third generation Germans living here.” Die Welt warns that no so long ago, these issues could only be found in troubled neighborhoods of Berlin, a situation that “horrified” people in the rest of the country. “That’s over, Berlin is everywhere,” the paper writes.

“.. it’s tough to roll back entitlements when so many have gotten used to them..”

• Merz: German Welfare State Is Running Out of Other People’s Money (Kruiser)

The biggest, boldest lie of every welfare state is that the goods and services it is providing to its citizens are “free.” Those of us with brain cells and an aversion to lying know that this is not only untrue, but also impossible. Politicians are fond of throwing taxpayer dollars around like drunk Kennedy cousins on summer break in Monte Carlo in order to make voters love them. nDespite being full-throated advocates for “sustainability” when it comes to almost anything else, socialist welfare state types are committed to an economic system that simply cannot go on forever. In the immortal words of the late, great Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” How long it is before “eventually” happens is entirely based on the habits of prevaricating, spendthrift politicians, obviously.

As Americans are painfully aware, even capitalist countries are plagued by the socialist tendencies of many of their politicians. A bloated welfare state is obviously not any red-blooded capitalist’s ideal; that kind of bloat comes from politicians who still insist that socialism simply hasn’t been done correctly yet. Europe’s various welfare state countries are often pointed to as dream scenarios by American leftists. Never mind that the comparisons are absurd from the get-go, Democrats have never let glaring illogic slow them down. One prominent European leader is now offering a painful truth: his welfare state has gotten too pricey. This is from a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece titled “A Politician Speaks the Unspeakable”:

No, we don’t mean some racial or sexual crudity. Those obstacles in politics were breached long ago. We’re referring to something far more taboo in modern Western democracies: admitting that the size of the modern welfare state is no longer affordable. Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, said at a Christian Democratic Union conference on Saturday that “the welfare state that we have today can no longer be financed with what we produce in the economy.”

Thank you, Chancellor, for this burst of candor. Mr. Merz is doing what no one else in the top ranks of Western politics seems willing to do, which is broach the fundamental dilemma of the modern West. Nations have built welfare and entitlement states that are so large they have outstripped the ability of slow-growing economies to pay for them. Yet because the entitlement cushion is so broad and reaches deep into the middle class, it has become nearly impossible to reform. Merz is a center-right politician, so it’s not odd that he believes this; it’s just a surprise that he is saying it. As the article notes, it’s tough to roll back entitlements when so many have gotten used to them. Even broaching the subject can be rife with third rail dangers.

Once politicians have gotten the people hooked on the taxpayer-funded entitlement drug, party lines disappear, especially here in the United States. Americans don’t like to have things taken away from us, even if it’s done in keeping with political principles. That’s why we haven’t seen a lot of Republican politicians fighting for any kind of fiscal sanity in Congress. Once any kind of recurring spending is shoehorned into a budget, it’s practically locked in for life. Germany has long been an industrial powerhouse. Its economy ranks behind only the United States and China. This isn’t some boutique country like Sweden struggling with its “freebie” tab; it’s one of the major players. There is, of course, a lesson to be learned here for any country that has suffered with its leftists being in power for any length of time. The world is going to need a lot more curious and honest politicians for the lesson to sink in.

“Instead of rational discourse, we get theatrical condemnation, all too willing to plunge the country into ever greater division.”

• The Radical Left Is Still Trying to Get Trump Assassinated (Margolis)

The left spent years spewing dangerous rhetoric about President Donald Trump, calling him a threat to democracy. Leftists used this rhetoric to justify their lawfare strategy to keep him from being able to return to office, and it inspired at least two assassination attempts, one of which nearly succeeded. Despite universal calls to “cool the temperature,” Democrats had no such plans to do so. Their rhetoric hasn’t slowed; it has only escalated during Trump’s presidency. Now, even his straightforward effort to crack down on crime in Washington, D.C., has the left reverting to the same reckless, inciting language they’ve used all along. CNN’s coverage of Trump’s executive order to create specialized National Guard units saw verbal acrobatics drawing dangerous comparisons to Nazi Germany, the kind of rhetoric that inspires crazies to resort to violence. President Trump recently signed an executive order intended to create specialized National Guard units, with the goal of “dealing with public order issues.”

The announcement comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized National Guard members currently deployed in Washington to carry weapons. The National Guard has already activated more than 1,900 troops from states including Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee for duty in the Capitol area. CNN’s Boris Sanchez turned to retired Army Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, for analysis. And of course, it was completely unhinged. Reflecting on the implications of the newly minted specialized units, Manner laid out the historical context: “The average American has to know that this order for what we call quick reaction forces has been in existence for over 15 years. When I was the Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, we made sure to put that into the guidance for all the states to be able to pull people from existing units rapidly, to be able to assist the governor for any kind of situation that he or she may need.”

Yet the focus swiftly turned to the framing and language of the administration’s announcement, which Manner did not hesitate to criticize: “So the idea of creating specialized units, which by the way, it’s the language that matters, essentially, what the President is doing through the Secretary of Defense is creating units, official military units to quite frankly, guard or not guard, watch the American people. And that’s the thing that is absolutely abhorrent. It reminds me so much of what happened in Germany in the 1930s.” Such commentary is not just hyperbolic; it also risks stoking the same kind of hysteria that can drive unhinged actors to pursue violence. The invocation of Nazi Germany whenever Trump acts to restore order has become a favorite tool of the left, and its effect is corrosive. Instead of debating policy, these talking heads resort to historical analogies so loaded they border on incitement.

Anchor Brianna Keilar questioned the normalization of federal troops in American cities, asking if this is setting a dangerous precedent. Manner replied in kind, escalating his condemnation: “I believe fully that the President wants to put as a show of force to anybody who opposes him. He wants armed and uniformed military on the streets. If his true intent is all about law and order, then this should be what it is. It should be a law enforcement operation, not a military operation.” His outrage continued as he targeted Trump’s fiscal decisions: “He should restore the funds for community policing, for education, for the hiring of policemen and women in all of the jurisdictions, whether it’s the largest city or the smallest town. He stripped that out of the bills; that needs to be reinstated.”

I nearly spit out my coffee when I heard that. After years of the left calling for the defunding of the police, which, of course, caused a huge uptick in crime, suddenly they’re all for more funding for police? Get real. The fact is that Democrats have been on the side of criminals for years now, and any effort by Trump to fight crime would be decried as Nazi tactics. The rhetoric is unrelenting. By ceaselessly likening Trump’s use of the National Guard to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, leftists aren’t just rebuking his policies; they are purposefully undermining civility and fanning the flames of potential violence, including more assassination attempts against Trump. Instead of rational discourse, we get theatrical condemnation, all too willing to plunge the country into ever greater division.

This is all about Trump wanting to set up a sovereign wealth fund, but I still think he simply wants to save Intel from going under. The US needs domestic chipmakers.

• Intel Deal: Trump’s Industrial Policy Is Realism, Not Socialism (Daniel McCarthy)

Is it Comrade President now? Some conservatives are up in arms about President Donald Trump’s decision to have the government buy a stake in Intel. That’s state ownership of the means of production, isn’t it? Classic, textbook socialism. “If there is anyone who was a halfway prominent mainstream conservative … 10 years ago who now tells me they wouldn’t have screamed about incipient ‘socialism!’ or ‘fascism!’ about Trump’s Intel ‘investment,’” writes Jonah Goldberg on X, “I presumptively assume they are lying … .” In fact, a whole school of thought on the Right, going back decades, has championed industrial policies as bold as Trump’s, if not bolder. The public face of that school was Pat Buchanan, who was way ahead of the national debate on industrial policy—just as he was on immigration.

Trump is not a socialist, and America has a long history of government getting involved in owning companies—Amtrak is a familiar example. The for-profit but government-owned passenger-rail company was created under Republican President Richard Nixon. What Trump is doing with Intel is different from earlier precedents, however. Trump sees the Intel deal as a first step toward creating an American “sovereign wealth fund,” with many more investments to follow. The president isn’t looking to the past: This is about keeping America competitive with other nations in the 21st century, including communist China, which controls the world’s second- and third-largest sovereign wealth funds. A sovereign wealth fund is much like private investment funds, consisting of stocks, bonds, and other assets expected to appreciate in value.

Traditionally, countries rich in national resources, particularly oil, have used sovereign wealth funds to diversify and grow their economies. Instead of being at the mercy of oil prices, petroleum-rich nations such as Norway and Saudi Arabia channel some of their oil revenue into sovereign wealth funds, which then—much like, say, multibillion-dollar university endowments in America—can produce enormous returns. Norway pays for about 20% to 25% of its national budget with the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund, which holds more than $1.7 trillion in assets. Is it a bad thing to pay for government with market profits, rather than by raising taxes on citizens or selling debt that eventually has to be repaid with interest?

A nation pays interest on its national debt but earns interest from a sovereign wealth fund. Mainstream conservatives more than 10 years ago were already behind a plan with many of the same advantages and disadvantages of a sovereign wealth fund; namely, “privatizing” Social Security. The idea was to let Americans put their compulsory Social Security payments into government-approved funds of their own choosing, which would generate higher returns from market investments than the Social Security Trust Fund could reap from investing exclusively in U.S. Treasury securities. Conservatives embraced that as a good free-market idea. Is a sovereign wealth fund any different? They both carry the same risks, above all what economists call “moral hazard.” The country got a taste of it in the Great Recession, when financial institutions that bankrupted themselves with bad investments were declared “too big to fail” and had to be bailed out by Washington and the Federal Reserve.

The government can’t allow Social Security to go bust, and if the retirement system’s money is invested in private funds, how many of those could Washington allow to fail, even if they made lousy investments? Trump is actually taking a double risk—most sovereign wealth funds only aim to maximize returns, producing revenue for the government. The president, however, also wants to conduct industrial policy with a sovereign wealth fund, by buying into strategically important but economically troubled companies like Intel. Yet the question isn’t just whether America can run a sovereign wealth fund right. It’s also what happens if we do nothing and rivals perfect the strategy. Beijing has the $1.3 trillion China Investment Corporation, Hong Kong’s $1 trillion SAFE Investment Company, as well as smaller funds with billions in assets.

During the Cold War, when America faced an international communist threat sponsored by Moscow, conservatives knew absolute devotion to free markets was self-defeating.William F. Buckley Jr., just coming into his own as a conservative leader in 1952, was staunchly committed to capitalism and small government. Nevertheless, he wrote: “Conservatives, and many Republicans, have got to think this problem through. And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington … .”

“Call me crazy — not control-the-weather crazy, or take-everyone’s-red-meat-away crazy, but still plenty crazy…”

• It’s Official: Bill Gates Now Contains 2% Less Bond Villain (Green)

I’ve long suspected that, somewhere in his underground lair, Microsoft cofounder and villainous philanthropist Bill Gates has a tabletop laser-saw on the off chance that someday he needs to cut a British superspy in half. Because when you have the kind of money that Gates has, why not? You can even imagine Gates practicing his best Auric Goldfinger impression in his bathroom mirror while he shaves: “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” You wouldn’t imagine Gates doing a very good Goldfinger, of course, because his seeming villainy is matched only by his total dorkitude. $110 billion and schemes to control the world’s weather and food production can only get you so far. Taking all that into consideration, even a longtime opponent of Gates like Yours Truly must concede that the man who wants to dim the sun with nanoparticles is now 2% less Bond villain than before.

That’s because of who Gates just cut off from his charitable foundation’s metric crap-tons of money. And Another Thing: Gates really does want to experiment with dimming the sun to control the climate. I did, however, make up the part about using nanoparticles because that sounded much more sinister than dust. The philanthropic wing of Gates’s evil empire is the Gates Foundation, with an endowment worth around $77 billion. One of the Foundation’s major recipients of big-league largess is Arabella Advisors — a for-profit consulting firm that “advises left-leaning donors and nonprofits about where to give money and serves as the hub of a politically liberal ‘dark money’ network.” That quote was from Wikipedia, which I normally do not and would not rely on, but Arabella’s page seems to be pretty fair and balanced.

“According to The Atlantic, Arabella Advisors has “undeniably benefited from the rush of panicked political giving on the left during the Trump years.”[7] In 2020, the Sixteen Thirty Fund donated $410 million toward defeating Trump and winning Democratic control of the U.S. Senate.[8] Because of the way they are legally structured, Arabella Advisors and its affiliated groups are not required to disclose their donors, and they have not opted to do so”. Arabella makes their money the old-fashioned way: helping other people ruin the country. In secret. The Gates Foundation this week “quietly ceased backing a nonprofit network closely associated with the Democratic Party and criticized by conservatives,” New York Times reporter Theodore Schleifer revealed on Tuesday, calling it “a symbolically significant blow to a powerful player in liberal politics.”

In the same report, Schleifer revealed that “The Gates Foundation has disbursed or pledged about $450 million to nonprofit funds administered by Arabella over the last sixteen years.” Call me crazy — not control-the-weather crazy, or take-everyone’s-red-meat-away crazy, but still plenty crazy — but losing a benefactor to the tune of nearly half a billion dollars is a helluva lot more than “symbolically significant.” $450 million is significantly significant. And Another Thing: Gates really does want to take your steak away and force you to eat mushrooms instead. So when he tells you that “You can get used to the taste” of fungi masquerading as meat, tell that pompous Bond villain, “No, YOU can get used to the taste.”

Gates Foundation officials “made no mention of politics,” according to the NYT report, so I will. Coming so close on the heels of Elon Musk’s DOGE boys gutting billions worth of USAID slush funds for countless progressive NGOs, the Foundation’s move at least looks like an attempt to insulate itself from the Left’s increasingly toxic politics. Well, good. But until he stops trying to control the weather and gets his pasty fingers away from my ribeye, he’s still got 98% of his Bond villain status intact.

Hearing
https://twitter.com/Censored4sure/status/1960513403660685384

Net zero

Australian senator Matt Canavan: Net Zero is "a massive socialist plan".

"Net zero emissions by 2050 means that the government has to direct how you drive, what you can eat, how we make power… They're planning the whole economy."

When you see the exact same policies being… pic.twitter.com/IvaonHQAc8

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 27, 2025

Tarsier

This dog brought a strange tiny creature (Tarsier) home to its family and then… pic.twitter.com/lKIT0qvAwg

— Gabriele Corno (@Gabriele_Corno) August 27, 2025

Owl