Paul Cézanne Curtains 1885
“That’s America. Denial is America’s way of handling complexity.”
https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2113028404635119836?s=20It’s genuinely refreshing to hear someone speak the unvarnished truth instead of peddling a carefully manufactured load of bullshit designed to deceive, manipulate, and brainwash the masses….. pic.twitter.com/8286fZJ85M
— Richard (@ricwe123) October 22, 2026
🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: President Trump has STUNNED THE WORLD
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 22, 2026
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: 'More Oil Is Now Coming Out of the Persian Gulf Than Before the Iran War.'"
🔥🔥🔥
Conveniently, the combative fake news reporters don't hound Trump about Hormuz anymore!
They are in it for… pic.twitter.com/ru9Mz0dAIl
🇪🇺🇷🇺 Europe's leaders are pushing the continent toward WAR WITH RUSSIA, and there's a much darker reason behind it.
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 21, 2026
Historian and broadcaster Neil Oliver argues that war gives governments the PERFECT EXCUSE to print money, expand their powers, declare states of emergency,… https://t.co/ERBGRc1JmG pic.twitter.com/L9Tet9dkT8
“The Pentagon and State Department reportedly made similar preparations before launching the war against Iran in February..”
• US Evacuating Middle East Bases As Trump Weighs New Iran Strikes – NBC (RT)
A Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft
The US military has quietly begun withdrawing troops from bases across the Middle East, while Washington is ordering diplomatic personnel to leave several missions in the region, NBC News has reported.Read more …
The moves come as President Donald Trump considers launching a new wave of attacks on Iran, and the withdrawals resemble preparations made by the Pentagon and State Department ahead of the initial US-Israeli strikes in February, NBC reported on Wednesday, citing two American officials and two people familiar with the matter.American troops stationed in Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait are among those being relocated, according to the report. Washington reportedly intends to maintain a limited presence at its regional bases, including personnel responsible for air defenses and security.
Ahead of the February 28 attack, the Pentagon withdrew large numbers of troops from potentially vulnerable bases to shield them from expected Iranian retaliation. Tehran accused Washington of using Gulf residents as “human shields” after thousands of American service members took shelter in civilian hotels and office buildings.
US Central Command spokesman Timothy Hawkins declined to discuss the reported troop movements, saying American forces were regularly repositioned to “optimize mission readiness” and remained prepared to defend US personnel and interests.
The State Department has also ordered non-essential personnel and their families to leave Saudi Arabia, citing escalating attacks by Yemen’s Houthi movement against civilian airports and other critical infrastructure.
Reuters reported that Washington was preparing additional diplomatic withdrawals across the Gulf, citing US officials, but State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott described reports of further withdrawals as “inaccurate.”
The developments come amid reports that senior US military officials have presented Trump with options for renewed strikes against Iran. According to NBC, the proposals include attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, underground installations and strategic islands, including Kharg Island, a critical oil export hub, and Qeshm in the Strait of Hormuz.
Some of Trump’s advisers, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have reportedly advocated resuming military operations to increase pressure on Tehran. Others have warned against launching another major campaign without a clearly defined objective.
Hegseth made an unannounced visit to Israel on Monday, holding closed-door talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just days before Israel’s October 27 parliamentary elections. Netanyahu is seeking another term amid mounting criticism of his handling of the wars in Gaza and Iran, while Trump has publicly endorsed his reelection bid.
Trump pledged earlier this month that the US would not attack Iran before the November 3 midterm elections, while maintaining that military force remains an option if diplomatic efforts fail. Netanyahu has also ruled out launching new strikes before Israel’s election but declared on Sunday that Israel was prepared to attack Tehran even without American participation.
The US-Israeli war on Iran, launched on February 28, has entered its eighth month, disrupting global energy markets and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran has offered to restore normal navigation through the vital waterway within seven days if Washington lifts its naval blockade, eases oil sanctions and agrees to a broader cessation of hostilities.
Trump has rejected the Iranian proposal as “unacceptable,” while his administration continues to consider whether additional military pressure could force Tehran to accept Washington’s terms.
Still more of her..
• Ilhan Omar Can’t Quite Rule Out Marrying Her Brother In Wild Interview (ZH)
As the investigation into whether Ilhan Omar married her brother to scam US immigration, the Minnesota Democrat just stepped in it, big time.Read more …
In her first interview since Homeland Security Investigations agents searched her Washington home last week, the Minnesota Democrat sat down with MS NOW’s Chris Hayes, about as friendly a venue as exists on cable. She called the decade-old claim that her ex-husband Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is her brother “insane.” Then Hayes gave her the layup, asking whether there was some “weird kernel of truth” to it. Her answer was “Not to my knowledge.”Regular readers will recall that earlier this week we flagged a report that federal investigators are using DNA to probe the “married her brother” claim. So the timing could have been better. The clip went everywhere within the hour:
YIKES: Ilhan Omar was just asked if she married her brother on Live TV
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 22, 2026
Her answer: “Not to my knowledge…”
WHAT?!
She can’t even say “NO”?!
What other person would answer this question like that?
Things are about to get bad for Ilhan. pic.twitter.com/n8wwJb4puy
In other words, the one question her own side’s friendliest interviewer was guaranteed to ask is the one she didn’t answer with a “no.” Below we walk through what she actually said, how fast the White House pounced, and why “not to my knowledge” is a strange hill to stand on with a federal grand jury in the background.“Which Is Insane”
Omar claims the allegation started on a Somali blog and was picked up by “right-wing conspiracy theorists in Minneapolis”: “…they just kind of went and found random people who were like, ‘She introduced us. She introduced him to us and said he was her brother.’ Which is insane.”HAYES: “He was not – you were not related to him at all? Not that there’s not some weird kernel of truth that through some-”
OMAR: “Not to my knowledge.”
The generous reading is that Hayes’s question was oddly phrased (a “kernel of truth” through “some” mechanism) and Omar was hedging against a hypothetical rather than admitting anything. The less generous reading is that when the stakes are denaturalization, people tend to choose their words very carefully. Make of that what you will. ”
That’s An Answer A Lot Of Us Assume”
It took the president about an hour and a half. After his South Carolina rally, Trump was asked about the clip, according to Townhall: https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2113099643651531165?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2113099643651531165%7Ctwgr%5E6049626984b3b8c15afd55a23413a57b3f9f805d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fnot-my-knowledge-ilhan-omar-cant-quite-rule-out-marrying-her-brother-live-tv-and-trump
That’s an answer that a lot of us assume.” The rest of the online right was less restrained, and we will spare readers most of it.Omar’s brother hasn’t made it easy on her. In a 2012 Instagram post after Ilhan’s daughter was born, her brother/husband posted “Nieces, fresh out of the vagina!”
About That Raid
The brother line overshadowed the rest of a fairly revealing interview. According to the New York Post, Omar said:
• Agents “went room by room” and “took 17 items,” including cellphones, her daughter’s old phone, her husband’s notebooks, a Somali phrase book and a camera.
• She disputed reports that investigators got her DNA in the search: “I would have seen if they did take anything that had contained DNA.”
• She called the search “intrusive but polite,” adding that agents “even folded some of my clothing that were not folded.” Service with a smile.
• Asked about the financial disclosure that once put her household’s net worth at about $30 million (later revised), she described herself as “working class” and living “paycheck to paycheck,” with a 2016 Toyota Camry and two rented homes.
She also said the people who searched her home “literally have” her late father’s naturalization papers, which is the crux of the case, since she says she became a citizen at 17 through him. That line got its own viral moment:
Ilhan Omar on her father’s naturalization papers: “The people who knocked on my door searching for papers literally have his papers”
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 22, 2026
DHS: The records do not exist. pic.twitter.com/zHQ9koHnrI
What The Feds Are Actually Probing
Per the Post, the immigration case is run out of the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office and may involve possible false statements about her birth date on immigration documents. A separate probe into her and her husband’s finances is being run out of the DC US Attorney’s Office. The Wall Street Journal reported more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including to relatives. A source told the Post that if her citizenship was obtained through concealment or misrepresentation, by her or by her father, the administration will seek to denaturalize and deport her. Omar denies any wrongdoing: “I’m confident in my truth.”Put differently, the “brother” question isn’t just tabloid fodder: if the 2009 marriage was a sham for immigration purposes, it goes to the heart of a fraud case, which is why “no” would have been the obvious answer to give.
“Your Paycheck Should Buy More Than an Economic Lecture”
” If they had their way, the Democrats would hand the average family of four a $1,700 tax increase. That’s on top of the cost of everything that families need to live their lives.”
• The Cost of an Ordinary Life (Chris Queen)
I bought a truck in January. It’s a beautiful Ford Ranger XLT that’s fun and remarkably smooth to drive and has more bells and whistles than any vehicle I’ve ever had — honestly, it’s tech-heavy, almost to a fault.Read more …
But after a decade of driving a plug-in electric hybrid that averaged 51 miles per gallon, 22 miles per gallon was quite an adjustment. Then gas prices went up. Obviously, we can lay the blame for the current high gas prices on trouble with Iran, but we’re still reeling from four years of Biden-era policies that built their foundation on higher prices for not just gas but also for everything else.“The 2021-2022 inflation spike, the worst in four decades, was the price level adjusting to a $5 trillion flood of deficit spending that investors did not believe future fiscal surpluses would cover,” columnist Veronique de Rugy reminds us. A 2022 report by Michael Faulkender that the America First Policy Institute published serves as a painful reminder today of the havoc Joe Biden and the Democrats wreaked upon this nation — and what awaits us if Democrats take the reins again:
As discussed in my recent testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, “When the economy reopened, prices started rising with inflation from June 2020 to February 2021, averaging 32 basis points per month. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act was signed into law in March of 2021. Since then (through February 2022), monthly inflation has doubled to 64 basis points per month.” Inflation doubled following the enactment of the president’s socialist spending plan a full 10 months after the economy started reopening; that was not from COVID.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine occurred at the end of February 2022, but prices had already risen 7.9 percent in the twelve months ending in February 2022. Democrats want to undo the 2017 tax cuts that President Donald Trump ushered in during his first term and solidified with the One Big Beautiful Bill last year. If they had their way, the Democrats would hand the average family of four a $1,700 tax increase. That’s on top of the cost of everything that families need to live their lives.
The American people know what’s up. Recent polling shows that 88% of Americans surveyed favor the federal government letting them keep more of their money through increased domestic energy production and increased competition. Eighty-four percent believe that the federal government should cut spending, while 78% favor cutting taxes.
Energy prices, taxes, general inflation, overregulation, and government spending all show up in our household budgets. Our paychecks should buy more than an economic lecture, as high taxes, burdensome regulation, bloated government, and a lack of competition in the marketplace take more and more of our hard-earned money.
Affordability is a huge issue for millions of Americans, and in this midterm election, we need to choose legislators who will do what we need them to do to reverse this trend. We can’t afford to let Democrats put the cost of an ordinary life even further out of reach. That’s why this election matters, so don’t sit this one out.
Is the Blue Wave a figment of your imagination?
• The Polls Are Full of Crap — and Black Voters Just Might Save America (Pinsker)
When you’re a two-ply man on a one-ply budget, life gets messy. You empathize with Lady Macbeth’s hands. Sure, you’re extra-careful. Maybe even methodical. (Everyone has their own technique.) But, alas, most of the time you still get [expletive] results.
Which is a perfect analogy for modern-day polling, because that entire industry is one-ply, too. Pollsters lack the budget to poll tens of thousands of people in million-plus communities, so they use guesswork, statistical projections, and sweeping assumptions about strangers.Thirty years ago, when the internet was a novelty and everyone answered their landlines, cold calls had a very high success rate. Voters were willing (and often excited) to talk. A decade later, it took three calls to reach one respondent. And today? Check out this 2024 article from the Washington Post:
“[N]obody answers their phone anymore. Pew Research Center’s Courtney Kennedy is one of the nation’s most-cited polling methods experts. When she started in this business two decades ago, you had to call about three random numbers to get one to answer, a low response rate that already was sending tremors through the polling industry. By last year, Pew had to hit up about 140 random numbers to get that one response.”
Garbage in, garbage out. When only one out of 140 people is willing to participate, there’s just no way it’ll produce reliable results. Because you’ve filtered out the normies.
And instead, your data is top-heavy with lonely weirdos with nothing better to do than respond to political polls — often because they’re WAY more ideologically driven than the Average Joe. It’s probably why so many polls greatly exaggerated the strength of DSA candidates, projecting that Abdul El-Sayed would win the Democratic primary by 10 points (he won in a one-point squeaker) and Francesca Hong would win by 22 (she lost by half a point).
Assuming, of course, that the polls are real. Which isn’t always true. But the weirdest, strangest, most utterly inexplicable question of the 2026 midterm polling is this: Why are the Democrats overperforming in red states — and BADLY underperforming in blue states?
This is supposed to be a blue wave election. Donald Trump is supposed to be the most unpopular president since Harry Truman. There have been countless news stories about the Democrats pulling jaw-dropping upsets in ruby-red states like Texas, Mississippi, Iowa, South Carolina, Montana, Kansas, and more.
Yet in blue states like Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire, the Republican Senate candidates are all within striking distance — which is more consistent with a RED WAVE election! Possible explanations: Candidate quality (or lack thereof) is the real story. Maybe the Democrats are overperforming in South Carolina because the Republican Senate candidate is unusually weak — and maybe the Republicans are overperforming in Michigan for a similar reason.
I’m sure it’s a factor. Quality matters. When voters can choose between sane and Cypress Hill, they usually side with sane. And it’s also true that each state is unique. Maine voters are more concerned about the Canadian border; Texans care more about Mexico’s. Somali fraud is a huge issue in Minnesota; less so in Kansas. What plays in Peoria might bomb in Biloxi.
Perhaps drawing national conclusions from state-specific elections is a fool’s errand. But I doubt it. Because millions of Americans will be voting in every state. (More than 14 million already have.) The two national political parties are battling for control of Capitol Hill — and the contrast between the two has never been more glaring.
To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, this isn’t an “echo” election. It’s a “choice” election. And it’s a helluva choice: MAGA versus the DSA. The battle lines are crystal clear. Furthermore, the biggest issues of the 2026 midterms are all national issues: affordability, inflation, gas prices, AI/data centers, immigration, the Iran War, Israel/Gaza, trans, and (of course) President Trump. Because the sitting president is ALWAYS on the ballot in midterm elections.
If this isn’t a national election, I don’t know what is! We all know about the historic headwinds: The party in power almost always takes it on the chin. That should be twice as true for a president with the lowest approval ratings since Harry Truman. So if these numbers are right, the Democrats ought to be dominating.
Yet that’s simply not happening in blue states. DSA-aligned candidates are struggling. There’s a very real risk the Dems will LOSE Senate seats in Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire! And even though Kamala Harris won Maine by seven points, Republican incumbent Susan Collins is still within the margin of error against her left-wing opponent. Something is undermining their coalition.
It’s a group that was once loyal, but is now wandering in the wilderness. A group that’s bleeding Democratic support — because the party is no longer their home. Which is making mincemeat of polling predictions and predictive models: These voters aren’t behaving like WE think they’re supposed to!
I’m talking about black voters. Sixteen years ago, black people voted 95% Democrat. By 2020, 77% of black adults identified as Democrats. And in 2023, the number fell to just 66%. From Axios: “A generational and structural shift is decoupling Black identity from Democratic Party loyalty, transforming a once-reliable voting bloc into a cohort of “political free agents” that the GOP is uniquely positioned to exploit.”
[…]
By the numbers: Republican identification among Black Americans climbed into the mid-to-high teens in recent Gallup data. Trump surged to an average near 20% approval among Black voters in the first quarter of 2025, nearly double his approval at the same point in his first term, according to Gallup. That was driven largely by Black men and those moving toward Republican affiliation.
Also relevant is religious affiliation: 73% of black people are Christian, compared to 62% of white people. Black people are also more likely than white people to attend church and engage in “religious practices.” Just 39% of white people called the Bible “very important” — compared to 70% of black people. Black Americans are (roughly) twice as likely to read the Bible daily and pray daily.
Which might be why black voters are rejecting the anti-Christian, pro-Islam positioning of the DSA. If Abdul El-Sayed had 2008-level black support, he’d win Michigan’s Senate seat in a cakewalk. The Republicans wouldn’t have a chance. This election would already be over. But in the Michigan primary, black voters rejected El-Sayed, voting en masse for his (white) opponent, Haley Stevens.
From The Hill:
[Haley Stevens] led El-Sayed by 8 percentage points in districts where more than 15 percent of the population is Black. Polling in July showed that just 21 percent of Black voters backed El-Sayed while 67 percent supported the House Democrat. A Michigan Education Survey also showed El-Sayed struggling with Black voters. Stevens notched 69 percent from the bloc; El-Sayed garnered 37 percent support. Stevens made no secret of her support for Israel. That’s probably one of the reasons why she did so well with black voters.From Fox News:
[A]ccording to the Fox News poll, African Americans were the racial group most likely to say the U.S. isn’t supportive enough of Israel when asked the question along with White and Hispanic voters. That number was 25% compared with 19% for Hispanic voters and 15% for White voters. African American voters were also the least likely of the three groups to agree that America was too supportive of Israel, with 40% disagreeing as compared to White voters at 44% and Hispanic voters at 56%.
Read more …"This is our modern-day 'Dewey Defeats Truman'" –@ChuckTodd #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/sdij0Iaa1e
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) November 9, 2016
Lrt’s see if he can.
• Trump Will Stop the Steal in Midterm Elections – Dr. Jerome Corsi (USAW)
With less than two weeks away from the midterm elections, President Trump is making plans to stop Democrat voter fraud. Dr. Jerome Corsi, who has a Harvard PhD in political science, has been on the cutting edge of enforcing election integrity for at least two years. It all comes down to presidential power to stop the cheating. Dr. Corsi says, “President Trump certainly has the power to do it, and he’s well aware of it. So, I think the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and President Trump are monitoring the situation very carefully.Read more …
They will have plans to handle various contingencies, I am sure. I cannot imagine President Trump is going to allow the election to be stolen. What is at stake is extremely important. It looks to me like the Democrats are not gaining favor with the American people. This is the whole purpose of my new book called ‘Dumb-O-Crats.’ It’s free this and free that and free everything else . . .. There is no way for a society to have everything to be free. The lies seduce people into thinking this is going to be a utopia, and it’s just the cloak behind the totalitarianism that comes.”Dr. Corsi says to expect some violence coming from the left before and after the midterms. This recent headline says it all, and reads: “Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison Suggests Trump Will Try to Steal Midterms, Tells Leftists to be Ready to ‘Take the Streets.’” Dr. Corsi says, “In regards to what Ellison said, there is a lot of signaling coming out that the Democrat Socialists of America, the Marxist leftists and jihadists that have taken over the Democrat Party are planning a ‘colour revolution’ after the election. In other words, they want to get out in the streets, and they want to cause chaos. They think they can have the insurrection we are seeing in France. This is being signaled pretty strongly right now.”
Dr Corsi says, “We now have a data base that can track every registered voter in the United States and every mail-in ballot in the United States. . .. We can run this by 25 different indices such as tax records, post office moving records to really know who these people are. The data base even permits you to click through to Google maps to see property from which the person registered. We know the cheating has been going on. . .. There are. . . millions of illegal votes being cast.”
Another wild card is traditional Democrats who are not going along with the Marxists and Muslims who have taken over the Democrat Party. There are indications they may not show up on election day or vote Republican as one story recently reported in Michigan. No matter what, expect a wild ride unlike any other midterm election ever. Dr. Corsi warns, “This is not going to end on election day. The steal is going to be attempted. The consequences remain, and the data is available. So, we are just getting into this, and this is just the beginning to a great awakening to the threat to our election integrity. We do need to take exceptional measures to make sure the problem does not continue.”
Did Musk and Trump discuss Kiev’s Starlink?
I’m sure they did.
It puts the US inside the war. It shouldn’t be.
How can you talk peace with Putin if you support Kiev?
• Secretary Rubio Delivers Remarks from Mumbai, India (CTH)
Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers remarks to the media from Mumbai, India. During the remarks Secretary Rubio answers questions about Starlink, Starshield, Elon Musk, Steve Witkoff, Ukraine negotiations, Russia, Iran, India and current geopolitical events. The video and transcript are below:Read more …
QUESTION: Sir, The Wall Street Journal reported that Elon Musk is the one who made the decision to throttle Starshield and catch Ukraine off-guard. Is this something you were aware of? Can you —SECRETARY RUBIO: Starlink.
QUESTION: Starlink and Starshield.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay, again, there’s this – all this confusion. These are two separate programs, okay? Starlink is a commercial – Starlink is the receivers you put on the roof of your house and you use for – it’s used for commercial purposes. It’s not a military system, although it could be used in order to guide drones and things of this nature and so forth. And then Starshield is different. It’s a unique defense product that is sold and operated through the Department of War, as an example. It’s two different items and it’s important to distinguish one from the other.
I have not seen The Wall Street Journal reporting because I have not read it. I know that what – so I’m not familiar with the story that you’re referring to. But Starlink is a private company. They have a contract. They have contractual terms upon how that technology can be used. The important point is we cannot direct a private company as to the decisions they make or not make. What I can tell you with certainty is the President of the United States nor anyone in our system ever requested that any changes to that system be made, and that’s what we said repeatedly. I don’t know what the story reflects, but that is the case.
QUESTION: Isn’t – even if it’s a private company, I mean, this obviously is vital national security infrastructure for Ukraine. Isn’t this something that the U.S. – you as National Security Advisor – should have been given a heads-up on before?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, again, I’m not going to comment on what we knew that they might or might not do. Suffice it to say that the reporting out there was that somehow the United States Government was denying them something they needed in order to defend their country. That’s not true. That’s not accurate. And for leaders in Ukraine to continue to represent that is also not accurate.
I would also say – and again, I hark back on this statement that was made a few days ago. I don’t know who this official was in the Ukrainian Government that went around saying that a bunch of people had died as a result of what America was denying them. Not only are we not denying them and it’s not true, how many millions of people have been saved because of what America has already provided? No country in the world has done more to help Ukraine over the last four and a half years than the United States, including under the Trump Administration, and that continues to be the case. But ultimately, what the President wants here is an end to this war. That’s what he’s focused on.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, regarding the system in question, you said it’s inaccurate to say that the administration told SpaceX to throttle this service, but you’re not ruling out that the U.S. Government, if I understand correctly, knew about this decision.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we’ve seen the public reporting on it. We’ve seen the Ukrainians reporting that they were no longer able to use basically the internet.
QUESTION: Knew about this decision beforehand.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I’m not aware that we knew about this decision beforehand. I certainly – but it’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that that is – that is governed by a private commercial contract as to the – how their stuff can be used and what speeds they allow it to be used at. And so we’ll continue to engage on the matter, but the reporting initially was that somehow this was part of a directive from the United States Government, and I’m just here to tell you, as I’ve said repeatedly from the very beginning and the President has made clear, at no point did he say deny them the use of this system because I’m trying to punish them or teach them a lesson. That’s just not accurate, and that’s what I’ve been addressing repeatedly.
QUESTION: But it doesn’t mean there was no foreknowledge.
SECRETARY RUBIO: What do you mean, it doesn’t mean there’s no foreknowledge? I don’t understand your question.
QUESTION: Well, just because – just because the President – you’re not – just because the President doesn’t tell Musk do this doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I – again, I don’t – the President has nothing to do with the decisions that are made by Starlink and Starshield and by Mr. Musk. That’s a private company. The President doesn’t run that company and can’t direct that company to do anything. I’m not aware of any foreknowledge, nor anyone – but again, the reporting was not about foreknowledge. I’m telling you there was no foreknowledge, but beyond it, even if there was, we don’t control what a private company – how they decide their product can be used.
Now, if they’re in a contract with the United States military, like Starshield, that’s a different matter, because that’s something we are purchasing and using for our use. But in the case of Starlink – we’re arguing something that’s just – it just makes no sense, the argument that people continue to make that somehow we had foreknowledge or directed it. It’s not accurate that we somehow knew about this ahead of time or directed it in any way. [..]
“The three leaders could meet next month at APEC summit in China, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said..”
• Putin, Xi and Trump Could Hold ‘Historic Summit’ – Kremlin (RT)
Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump could hold a “historic” three-way meeting at the APEC summit in China, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit is scheduled to take place in Shenzhen, China, on November 18-19.Read more …
Speaking to the Russian outlet Vesti on Wednesday, Ushakov said Beijing had already begun preparations for the potential talks. “Everyone is ready for this, but much, if not everything, depends on the Chinese hosts of the summit,” he said. The possibility of three-way talks was also discussed during Putin’s meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, according to the Kremlin.Ushakov described the proposed gathering as potentially “historic,” noting that it would be the first meeting of the three leaders in this format. Putin and Trump last met in person at a summit in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025, and have remained in contact by phone, most recently on October 9.
Putin and Xi have also held regular talks, including on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek in August. The two previously met in Beijing in May during Putin’s state visit. Trump and Xi have met twice so far this year, first in Beijing in May and then at the White House last month.Trump has previously expressed openness to three-way talks, suggesting that nuclear disarmament could be among the issues discussed.
Asked whether the talks could also contribute to peace efforts in the Ukraine conflict, Ushakov said a single meeting would not be enough. “Even if the meeting lasts one, two or five hours, it still won’t be possible to resolve all the problems,” he said.
Commenting on whether the summit could amount to a “new Yalta,” Ushakov said: “I think that if the meeting takes place, there will be a storm of comments and assessments.” The 1945 Yalta Conference brought together Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to discuss the final stages of World War II and the postwar international order.
“Despite Democratic Denials..”
The Dems still deny Antifa exists. It’s easier that way.
• French Police Identify Antifa as the Group Behind the Riots (Turley)
Years ago, I called Antifa the Keyser Söze of the left, after the character in “The Usual Suspects.” In the film, the character Virgil explains how Söze stayed in the shadows: he became “a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night.” The strategy was too simple: “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”Read more …
Democratic leaders have long fostered the myth around Antifa, the largest and most violent group on the political left. For years, they have denied the existence of the group even as members were charged with crimes (including terrorism). Now, the French authorities have found that the nonexistent group is the largest of three “ideologically distinct groups” responsible for the violence in France. It appears that either the entire French security system is delusional or the trick is up for the American left.I have testified before Congress about Antifa, run columns on the organization for over a decade, and written a book discussing Antifa. Yet, Democratic members continued to insist that there is no such group, while other leading Democrats have praised Antifa for instilling fear in MAGA. It was a curious claim even then, when other Democratic leaders were actively pandering to the violent group.
Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison — now the Minnesota attorney general — proclaimed that Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. However, Democratic leaders and pundits have repeated the mantra that there is no such group despite political violence on the left spreading across the country.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) dared anyone to name a single member of Antifa despite the charging of Antifa members with various serious crimes. Former House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) was widely ridiculed for denying the existence of Antifa. Others on the left have joined Goldman in this absurd claim. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel devoted part of his monologue to assuring viewers that Antifa is no more than a mythical “chupacabra.” “You understand there is no Antifa,” he said. “This is an entirely made-up organization.”
The denials continued even as FBI Director Christopher Wray debunked deniers like Goldman. “Antifa is a real thing.” European countries have banned Antifa Internet sites due to their criminal conduct while Antifa candidates have been elected to office as members of the group.
Now, French authorities identified Antifa as the largest of three “ideologically distinct groups” responsible for the violence in France. The French Justice Minister also banned far-left politicians for fueling the rage. A previously banned Antifa group has been linked to one murder in France. Antifa and communist flags have been prominent in the protests. A Belgian minister also blamed Antifa for the spread of the violence.
It appears that Keyser Söze is in the open, but Democrats maintain the FBI, Justice Department, and various countries are simply delusional. The problem is when the myth becomes reality. Left-wing pundits and politicians are caught in this denial web where they have to maintain the absurd idea that Antifa is just an idea.
Some of us have been writing about Antifa for years after watching them intimidate and threaten faculty and students on campuses. One such student came from my campus and proclaimed that Antifa was winning after his arrest for property destruction. When another radical was arrested after taking an axe to a congressional office, he self-identified as a member of Antifa.
Before Kyle Benjamin Douglas Calvert, 26, implanted an IED device outside of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office in downtown Montgomery, he put up stickers reading “support your local Antifa.” Numerous Antifa members have been arrested, including some who claimed to be journalists. Many protesters belong to Antifa groups that have names like “Rose City Antifa” and offshoots like Love and Rage and Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. Antifa members have been elected to the French and European parliaments.
Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” called by some the “Antifa bible,” explains that the group is united in its opposition to free speech. “Most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists,” he writes. “From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.” Yet, Democratic leaders seemed to be adopting the 1967 ‘Guide for the Married Man’ when caught with Antifa allies or associations:
”Don’t anyone come to me with free speech!“
“Both see a grave danger to the ruling class posed by the ability of unvetted or anonymous users to post opinions freely.”
• European Regimes Renew Their Attacks on Free Speech (Ryan McMaken)
In recent weeks, German and French politicians have denounced free speech, and especially the concept of “freedom of speech” as long envisioned in the libertarian tradition of natural rights. French President Emmanuel Macron on September 29 stated that ”The so-called American ‘free speech’ today, which some people have promoted, is the opposite of free speech.” Macron compared speaking freely as comparable to walking down the street assaulting other people.Read more …
A week earlier, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared, ”Don’t anyone come to me with free speech!“ He asserted we must “still be able to protect citizens from false information.” Both were speaking on issues related to online speech through social media and similar platforms. Both see a grave danger to the ruling class posed by the ability of unvetted or anonymous users to post opinions freely. In both cases, these attacks on freedom have been in the context of European regimes’ repeated efforts to impose new regulations on social media platforms to limit speech.This has been going on for several years. For example, back in February, Macron stated that “free speech is pure bullshit.” In Europe, the anonymity issue is no minor affair. In Germany, there are literal speech police who will arrest ordinary citizens merely for saying things online or reposting memes. It’s easy to see why anonymity could be an essential tool in posting ideas and facts the regime doesn’t like.
A European regime insisting on abolishing online anonymity is essentially tantamount to announcing that these regimes want the ability to make more arrests for wrongspeech.This is a growing problem across Europe, and a 2025 study concluded that British police were making 30 arrests per day for non-violent “offensive online messages.” Under British law, one can be prosecuted for hurting someone else’s feelings. That’s not how British apologists describe it, of course, but that is the essential reality.
Euphemisms for Censorship
Whether we’re talking about France, the UK, or Germany—all places where the despotic enemies of free expression have seemingly free rein—the regimes’ forces do not, of course, come right out and say that they support censorship. They couch their censorship in the soft language of Leftwing ideology. The claim is that speech must be regulated in order to combat “hate speech” or to reflect the “common good” or to combat “disinformation.”To wit, in recent years, European politicians have insisted that speech be made to fit into “a common framework”—to use Macron’s phrasing—and to be subject to some standard determining what is “false information.” But here is the rub: Who is to determine what falls within this common framework? Who is to determine what constitutes “false information”? It is the ruling oligarchy and its political allies, of course, that will determine if some proposed fact or idea is to be allowed to be spoken freely.
The ruling elites will decide if some sentiment or phrase is to be defined as “hate speech” and thus will be punished by state police and regime jailers. The ruling elites will determine what is “science,” and therefore what constitutes “disinformation.” This was on full display in the United States during the Covid Panic, when the government bureaucrat Anthony Fauci effectively declared “I am the science.” It is through these state-created and reasonable-sounding “exceptions” to free speech that the regime smuggles in its despotism.
For example, this has been the case for many years with defamation laws. Those who defend legal sanctions for “defamation” essentially advocate for government censorship to combat hurt feelings. Moreover, for centuries, governments have used defamation laws as a means of punishing criticism of the regime. Laws against “seditious libel”—employed by absolutist kings of old—have always essentially been laws against free speech.
An Assault on Truth Itself
The individuals who are directly punished will not be the only victims of this censorship. Truth and critical thinking themselves will be the victims as the regime’s subjects will no longer be allowed to fully and publicly examine the veracity of claims made by the ruling elites. It means that “truth” will be whatever the regime says it is.This problem of using free speech to hide and distort reality itself was well described more than 100 years ago by the radical free-market libertarian Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto was no naive democrat who thought that freedom could necessarily be protected by elections or written constitutions. But he did understand that freedom of speech is at the very foundation of a free society, regardless of the type of regime or whatever other freedoms might be protected in writing.
Even as Pareto was facing the rise of violent radical socialists in Italy—and thoroughly doubted the ability of the liberal state to deal with it—he never wavered on the key importance of free speech. That is, Pareto remained a dogmatic hardliner on free speech, and in this was like nearly all libertarians before him, from the anarcho-capitalist Molinari to the American Revolutionaries.
Not surprisingly, then, Pareto concludes there were no “mitigating factors” that could legitimately limit speech in the name of some common good. Writing in 1916 he stated:
“[B]efore a theory can be considered true, it is virtually indispensable that there be perfect freedom to impugn it. Any limitation, even indirect and however remote, imposed on anyone choosing to contradict it is enough to cast suspicion upon it.” Hence freedom to express one’s thought, even counter to the opinion of the majority or of all, even when it offends the sentiments of the few or of the many, even when it is generally reputed absurd or criminal, always proves favourable to the discovery of objective truth (accord of theory with fact). …
Pareto goes on to insist that there can be no exceptions, even for the sake of protecting “truths” long held to be precious. Not even those assertions said to be essential to humanitarianism can be considered protected from the scrutiny of free speech. He continues:
“Nor can an exception be made for humanitarian dogmas, nor for the dogmas of the sex religion so dear to Senator Berenger and other geniuses of the same magnitude.1 Let us keep the point strictly before us: There is no scientific liberty unless everything is open to doubt — even Euclid’s geometry and three-dimensional space. It is ridiculous to say that one is disposed to grant liberty for “truth” but not liberty for “error”; for the point at issue is none other than to discover where the “truth” lies and where the “error”; and it cannot be settled if “error” cannot be defended by every possible reason that can be advanced in its favour.2 Only after such reasons have been validly refuted is judgment of error affirmed — pending further investigation. Many people fail to understand that, because in judging of truth or error they substitute a criterion of sentiment for the logico-experimental criterion.”
Clearly, the fact that free speech is now so under siege in Europe is simply the latest evidence of how far out of favor old historical liberalism has become in Europe. Every year, Europe more enthusiastically embraces its worst tendencies in which human rights are repeatedly jettisoned to protect the “rights” of those who rule over the continent. Yet, the antipathy toward free speech also demonstrates the weakness of the European regimes and their political programs. Were the German, French, and British states not so hampered by political division, economic decline, and public dissatisfaction, they would not be so fearful.
Americans have no yet traveled so far down this road. But the foundation is already being built. Republicans support laws deeming all criticism of a certain foreign government to be “anti-semitism” and therefore “hate speech.” Covid laid bare the American Left’s enthusiasm for anti-speech tyranny. All that is necessary for the First Amendment to be wiped away is for a handful of federal judges to agree with the enemies of freedom. There is no guarantee.
“Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has blocked an EU proposal to confiscate Russian sovereign assets to fund Ukraine.”
They finally listen to the lawyers.
• EU Won’t Try To Steal Russian Assets Again – Belgium (RT)
The European Commission will not revive a proposal to seize Russian sovereign assets immobilized at the Belgium-based clearing house Euroclear to finance Ukraine, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said.Read more …
Approximately €210 billion ($236 billion) in Russian central bank assets have been frozen in the EU, most of them held at Euroclear. Brussels has been using profits generated by the funds to support Ukraine through a so-called “windfall tax,” but has stopped short of confiscating the principal over concerns about the legal consequences. De Wever has repeatedly raised those risks at meetings of EU leaders.“One colleague came to tell me in the hallway that it was as if I had run a flamethrower over that debate,” the prime minister told Belgian lawmakers on Wednesday, according to local media, referring to discussions last year. De Wever was briefing the Belgian parliament on the meeting. De Wever said he was certain the European Commission would not reopen the debate, although he could not guarantee that individual member states would refrain from doing so.
“Not everyone experienced the discussion,” he said. “New leaders have emerged who are developing a discourse that I was able to nip in the bud last year.” The proposal that De Wever considers a nonstarter nevertheless received support in various forms from Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, among others, during last week’s European Council summit.
EU leaders previously considered using approximately €185 billion ($208 billion) in Russian sovereign assets held in Belgium to finance Kiev. After De Wever demanded collective guarantees against potential financial and legal consequences, they instead agreed last December to raise €90 billion ($101 billion) through EU borrowing. European officials claim that the Russian assets could be used to repay the loan. Moscow has denounced both the windfall tax and the proposed confiscation of Russian money as theft.
Kiev has deemed the foreign financing available for 2026-2027 insufficient, with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky requesting an additional €70 billion ($79 billion) last week. The EU has made no new funding commitment and reportedly plans to seek further contributions from other potential donors, particularly the UK and Canada.
PCR won’t budge.
• Disaster Is a Possibility (Paul Craig Roberts)
In 13 days Americans will vote on the midterm Congressional elections. The outcome will determine whether the Democrats control Congress, or enough of it, that Trump’s presidency is at an end.Read more …
Even some MAGA Americans are indifferent, because Trump, rather than end money-draining wars, expanded them by attacking “at Israel’s request,” Iran, which has proven to be a strategic disaster for the United States, with its bases in the Persian Gulf destroyed and oil flows restricted by victorious Iran.As I previously reported, Trump, misguided by his ego and Zionist neoconservative advisers, refused Iran’s offer on a silver platter to reelect a Republican Congress by opening the Strait in exchange for Trump disassociating from Israel’s war against Iran and accepting Iran’s right to control its own waterways.
Trump’s strategic error is perhaps unique in human history, but he has surrounded himself with Zionists, so little else could be expected than Trump’s erroneous decision.
Trump and his incompetent regime have tried to control the narrative with false claims that the United States Navy controls the Strait of Hormuz and 20,000,000 barrels of oil are moving through the Strait each day. Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury actually told this lie with a straight face to the prostitute media. And so did the US Central Commend.
The effect of this narrative, as Wall Street always responds to the optimistic note, has been to hold down the future price of oil based on expectations that the situation is being resolved. But it is not. It seems that there is also false optimism on the Russian/Ukrainian front. John Helmer reports a poll of Russian voters taken at the end of September and made available on October 6. The poll found that 81% of Russians would support a Putin decision to stop the war with Ukraine.
If stopping the war required returning Donbas and Crimea to Ukraine, 35% would support that. The poll found that this percentage has increased by 7 percentage points over the past 18 months whereas the 51% who would oppose ending the war if it meant returning the Russian territories to Ukraine has fallen by 13 percentage points since he beginning of last year.
It appears that the drone and missile attacks on Russia have divided Russians and goes against the military and Russian nationalists, thereby offering a wedge for Zelensky and the Europeans to exploit. My conclusion: Putin has created a problem for himself by refusing to win an easy war.
Difficulties arise when false narratives are created in order to avoid dealing with real problems. Disaster is a likely consequence.
“.. Trump Continues to Serve Israel at the Expense of Republicans in the Midterm Elections..”
At least ever since the Holocaust, there is a strong connection between US and Israel. Whoever is president.
Claiming that Trump is now Bibi’s running boy must be seen in the light of that.
• Trump Still Serves Israel at the Expense of Republicans (Paul Craig Roberts)
“We must complete the elimination of the Iranian regime – that is the main thing. I have discussed this with President Trump more than once, including the day before yesterday.” — NetanyahuRead more …
The Zionist agenda of Greater Israel marches on. Netanyahu says Hezbollah’s fall will follow Iran’s as the Middle East is cleared of Muslims. The Lebanese government is negotiating with Israel the sellout of the Hezbollah militia while Muslims continue to war against one another with Egypt offering to help Saudi Arabia with the fight against the Houthis in Yemen.Iran calls for Muslim unity, something last seen under Saladin in the 12th century. Until the world understands and deals with the Zionist neoconservative US doctrine of hegemony and the Zionist Israeli hegemonic doctrine of Greater Israel, there can be no peace.
They have no-one. And they face a man with a very loyal following.
• Kamala Just Revealed That She’s Running for President in 2028 (Margolis)
Kamala Harris insists she hasn’t decided whether she’s running for president in 2028, but she accidentally gave the game away.Read more …
Obviously, nobody in the Democrat Party is exactly begging her to jump in. The establishment has been pushing back hard on the idea of a third Kamala campaign. Former allies and donors grumble that she squandered her first year out of office, and they can’t come up with a single reason voters should take another look at her. Even her husband, Doug Emhoff, reportedly isn’t thrilled about her running again.You’d think all that would give her pause. Instead, Kamala keeps dropping hints, and her latest one came at an event in Las Vegas, where she debuted a slower, lower-pitched speaking style. It’s the newest entry in her long record of changing her voice and speech cadence depending on who’s sitting in the audience.
“That era of feeling powerless — like what can we do, this just keeps happening — that era is over because we are now 13 days away from doing something about it to stop the pain,” Kamala said, speaking slowly and in a lower register, as if to a room of sleepy kindergarteners. She kept up the same condescending tone while urging Nevada voters to back Democrats in the state’s governor’s race and for Congress.
“So that’s where we are right now, and that’s kind of exciting,” she continued. “Right? This is some good stuff. Like, we’re taking our power, we’re using it, to determine who will hold offices like being the governor of Nevada. Which is so important for the people everyday on the most basic issues that affect our lives. Who will continue to walk those halls of Congress, being an extraordinary fighter.”
Kamala Harris just spoke in Las Vegas and it seems she's testing out a new oratory style.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 21, 2026
It's worse than you can imagine. pic.twitter.com/wzglFWAUBJ
This new tone she’s adopting fits how Democrats see voters: as children they need to control. You don’t talk to grown adults that way unless you think they need a nap and a juice box before they can handle a ballot.Let’s be fair: Kamala didn’t invent the fake accent. Hillary Clinton infamously slipped into a Southern drawl while campaigning in the South during the 2008 presidential primaries. Barack Obama was known for adjusting his dialect for different crowds during that same campaign. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been pulling the same trick for years. It’s phony and desperate, every single time.
The motive here isn’t complicated. Politicians who put on fake accents want voters to feel they share something with them. When a Democrat suddenly picks up a Southern drawl, leans into black vernacular, or shifts her cadence to match the crowd, it’s not random or subconscious; it’s a calculated move. The candidate is trying to manufacture cultural familiarity, hoping voters will see her as one of their own. It’s just shameless pandering from a candidate who wants to convey “I’m just like you” without saying the words.
And Kamala wouldn’t bother with any of this if she weren’t planning to run for president. Nobody road-tests a new voice for a midterm rally out of civic duty. You do it because you’re auditioning for something bigger. So she can keep saying she hasn’t made up her mind. Kamala just told us she’s running for president.
Dostoevsky is the level of Shakespeare.
“A British literary editor has suggested that the Russian novelist would appear on RT today. We imagined what he might have to say about the modern West ..”
• Would Dostoevsky Have Appeared on RT? (RT)
Fyodor Dostoevsky, the great 19th century Russian author of ‘Crime and Punishment’, the ‘Idiot’, and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’, was a counterintuitive thinker who could have appeared on RT. That’s the opinion of Times literary supplement editor Martin Ivens who, in a piece for Bloomberg arguing against censorship of Irish author Sally Rooney in the UK, mentioned the Russian great.Read more …
The suggestion is not without merit. Dostoevsky knew persecution, famously spending ten years in Siberia, four of which were in captivity and another five in military exile having completed his initial present sentence in February 1854.Rooney is a best-selling author who has publicly taken a stand to back Palestine Action, a group whom it is illegal to support, and about whom it is illegal to make public gestures of support in the UK. British police have made hundreds of bizarre arrests of elderly protesters holding signs supporting the group. Her books have been banned in Britain.
Ivens has used his platform in the Times Literary Supplement to highlight how Russian writers often assume the status of prophets. In his Bloomberg piece he reaffirmed that censoring literature is counter-productive and only serves to feed resentment against the mainstream already in the body politic.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881)
However, his suggestion that Dostoevsky could appear on RT inspired us to inquire as to what topics the great man might hold forth on in 2026.
On Europe
Like many since, Dostoevsky viewed Western Europe with a complex mix of cultural admiration and affinity, moral revulsion, and spiritual anxiety. His experience in captivity – where he was subject to a mock execution – is said to have destroyed his faith in secular humanism. He argued that discarding God led to a moral chaos where “everything is permitted.”“Conscience without God is a terrible thing; it can stray into the depths of immorality” He also predicted that attempts to build a so-called paradise on earth through rationalism and secularism alone would inevitably lead to political tyranny.
On the EU’s crisis
Dostoevsky would likely and emphatically make the case that Western European leaders have by now displayed a total political bankruptcy and that Western Europeans should renounce materialism and seek meaningful social relations. The riots engulfing major European capitals, and the unfettered profiteering and immigration that have given rise to such tensions, are a symptom of the malaise of the Western European mind. Forcing humanity into rationalist conformity will only lead to extreme bloodshed, he claimed.“Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism”
On liberalism
Dostoevsky, would have undoubtedly lamented the emergence of the European Union as a bureaucratic bearer of so-called liberal values. He would have highlighted how his book ‘Demons’ predicted the so-called democratic deficit that characterizes the EU – a tiny, largely unelected bureaucratic elite unreachable to the regular population who are stripped of freedoms. He would have called the Covid-19 pandemic a brutal event in the restriction of human experience.Abandoning God and zealously attempting to replace spiritual authority with a moral relativism where everything is permitted will only lead to social and spiritual collapse, Dostoevsky believed. He would have stoutly defended the emphasis and respect for traditional values in popular Russian culture. “The Westernizers have placed themselves above the people as a paternalistic intelligentsia, rejecting the people”
He also enjoyed the mess, and this is where he probably would’ve got into trouble with Brussels. The EU notoriously wishes to regulate everything, where Dostoevsky emphasized the irrational and fundamentally spiritual nature of human beings.
On techno-fetishism
He foresaw the loss of grace in the world and its replacement by either authoritarian Catholicism, rational individualistic Protestantism, or indeed technological fetishism. Artificial intelligence in this respect may have represented the apotheosis of his foreboding.Similarly, Dostoevsky rejected the idea that humans could be rendered calculable and rational beings in their entirety and in that sense would undoubtedly have been horrified at the creeping legislation and legalization of everyday life.
“Human nature acts as a whole, with everything it possesses, consciously and unconsciously”
The European Union’s Digital Services Act, which allows the behemoth to interfere in the local elections of member countries, would represent such a bureaucratic and legalistic invasion. He would’ve taken a strong stand against the nullification of anti-systemic narratives but would also have emphasized that such political and authority and overreach was inevitable given the collapse of religion and morality.
Dostoevsky would have been as much energized as he would have been horrified by developments in 2026. Were he to be with us today it’s highly likely his voice would contribute to the choir of outspoken and brave commentators who make the channel what it is.
ELON MUSK: "What I've learned is that legacy media propaganda is very effective at making you believe things that aren't true." pic.twitter.com/uDASRo5zAg
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) October 21, 2026
https://twitter.com/APompliano/status/2112949129416753617?s=20Mercedes sold its Tesla stake for $780 million. that same 4 percent is worth about $56 billion today.
— Di Krass (@Di_Krass_) October 22, 2026
in the clip below Musk explains how Mercedes ended up there. the US government gave Tesla almost $500 million, and he is asked directly whether that loan saved the company. he… pic.twitter.com/qeUr4XQpZR
This young man
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) October 21, 2026
Has 14 beautiful children
Employs 150,000+ people
Has made tens of thousands of people Millionaires
Has saved FREE SPEECH
Helped Bankrupt and abolish USAID
Exposed how corrupt the system really is
That’s why Democrats hate him
I STAND WITH ELON MUSK pic.twitter.com/xfwl2z3oSu
I said from day 1 that the Ukraine war will end on whatever terms Russia wants & here it is. If a comedian knew this then they also did, but the US & Europe wanted to extend the war for nefarious purposes.
— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) October 22, 2026
They actually had a peace deal 100% worked out weeks after the war… https://t.co/uy9Zb4iKvm
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
