Kushner Archives - The Automatic Earth

Elon Musk's answer to why he's still working, despite being worth over $800 Billion pic.twitter.com/tQL6fq9U5x
— The Driven Man (@Thedrivenman) April 24, 2026

If you don’t see by now that Donald Trump is a very brave man, good luck.

• Shots Fired at Correspondents Dinner, Shooter Dead, Trump Evacuated (Salgado)

UPDATE. 12:15 a.m. Eastern: Apparently, the shooter has been identified:

NEWS: The attempted shooter at the White House Correspondent's Dinner is 31 year old Cole Tomas Allen from Torrance, California and he is in custody.
— Karol Markowicz (@karol) April 26, 2026

UPDATE, 9:26 p.m. Eastern: President Donald Trump issued a statement on Truth Social:
UPDATE, 9:20 p.m. Eastern: Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich is reporting that the would-be shooter tried to get into the hotel with a gun, but the “counter assault team did their job.”
Hello from backstage.

We’re in a hold behind the stage right now. Staff are going out to reset the head table.

POTUS never left and is down the hall from me. He wants the show to go on.

We’re told by his detail someone tried to get through the mags with a gun. The counter…
— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) April 26, 2026

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro says Interim Chief of Police of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Jeffrey Carroll is heading over to take charge of the investigation and that Mayor Muriel Bowser is also coming.
Original story:
The shooter who fired off multiple rounds at the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday evening is reportedly dead, and Secret Service agents successfully took President Donald Trump off the stage to safety. Fox News announced around 9 p.m. EDT that Trump was going to return, and the dinner could go on as planned.
CNN’s Scott Jennings relayed the report from his network’s chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, who confirmed that the shooter is dead. Jennings also shared video footage of the stage and Secret Service rushing Trump out after the shots went off. Fox News’ Bret Baier, who was at the dinner, just reported live that the threat is neutralized, and people are exiting the building. Fox News, however, said that the shooter might have been detained rather than shot.
https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2048202135880265878
WHAT JUST HAPPENED AT WHCD;

Trump was introduced with First Lady 15 mins ish ago

Five or so mins after he was seated shots range out: POP POP POP POP. Sounds like five to me where I’m sitting.

Everyone immediately hit the floor.

Secret Service immediately took POTUS out…
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 26, 2026

The shooter seemingly did not fire in the main area where the dinner was happening. Baier said he thought the shots came from a “light box” in a sort of entrance area. It is not clear what that means. Baier did not confirm that the shooter was dead and said that information was still sparse. Security was searching room to room. The mainstream media have, of course, been encouraging violent hatred against President Trump for years with their extreme rhetoric framing him as worse than Hitler and the KKK. Perhaps they will be less extreme in their language now that they themselves faced such a potentially deadly situation. An announcement made live on stage, streamed by Fox News at about 9 p.m. EDT, indicated that the press is not being told to leave the building.

JUST IN: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer says he was just feet away from the White House Correspondents dinner shooter, says he was thrown to the ground by a police officer.

“It was a very, very serious weapon, he starts shooting.”

“I happened to been a few feet away from him as he was… pic.twitter.com/6ajscWy7Q9
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 26, 2026

Yep. And he just wanted to continue, Every day has this threat level.

• Trump Says WHCD Shooting Was Another Assassination Attempt (Margolis)

During the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night, an as-yet-unidentified shooter fired multiple rounds in an entrance area near the event at the Washington Hilton, prompting Secret Service agents to evacuate President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, and other officials, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, to safety. There have been conflicting reports, but it appears that the shooter was neutralized and detained, and a Secret Service agent was shot, but was wearing protective gear. No injuries were confirmed among attendees, who sheltered under tables amid chaos.

President Trump had wanted to resume the dinner, but the event was ultimately canceled. But Trump did give a press conference soon after returning to the White House. Flanked by FBI Director Kash Patel and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Trump began by quipping that what happened was “very unexpected” but also “ incredibly acted upon by Secret Service and law enforcement.” “And this was an event dedicated to freedom of speech that was supposed to bring together members of both parties with members of the press,” he continued. “And in a certain way it did, because the fact that they just unified… I saw a room that was just totally unified. It was, in one way, very beautiful. A very beautiful thing to see.”
He then offered details about what happened. “A man charged a security checkpoint armed with multiple weapons, and he was taken down by some very brave members of Secret Service, and they acted very quickly.” Trump wasted little time before announcing he had ordered surveillance footage of the attack released publicly, a move consistent with his administration’s stated commitment to transparency. “And I’ve just released, for purposes of transparency, clarity, I’ve ordered it to be put out. You probably have it by now, put out on Truth, and put out on many other platforms. A tape showing the violence of this thug that attacked our Constitution, and also showing how quickly Secret Service and law enforcement acted on our country’s behalf.”
As for the Secret Service agent who took a bullet, Trump revealed he had spoken with the agent directly. “Really did a great job. One officer was shot, but saved by the fact that he was wearing, obviously, a very good bulletproof vest. He was shot from very close distance with a very powerful gun, and the vest did the job. I just spoke to the officer, and he’s doing great. He’s great shape. He has very high spirits, and we told him we love him and respect him, and he’s a very proud guy. He’s very proud of what he does, Secret Service agent.” Trump also used the moment to point out that the incident is further proof that the White House ballroom project is very much needed.
“I didn’t want to say this, but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure. It’s drone-proof, it’s bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom. That’s why Secret Service, that’s why the military are demanding it.” He pressed the point further: “They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today’s, uh, a little bit different because today we need levels of security that probably nobody’s ever seen before.” Trump made that abundantly clear without being subtle about it, that the Washington Hilton isn’t secure enough. “It’s not a particularly secure building.”
From there, Trump made it clear that he saw this as another assassination attempt. “So, as you know, this is not the first time in the past couple of years that our republic has been attacked by a would-be assassin who sought to kill. In Butler, Pennsylvania, less than two years ago, you know, all know that story. And in Palm Beach, Florida, a few months after that, we came close. We really had, again, we had some great work done by law enforcement.” Trump then issued what amounted to a direct appeal to the country.
“But in light of this evening’s events, I ask that all Americans recommit with their hearts in resolving our differences peacefully. We have to, we have to resolve our differences. I will say, you had Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals and progressives. Those words are interchangeable perhaps, but maybe they’re not. But yet everybody in that room, big crowd, record-setting crowd. There was a record-setting group of people, and there was a tremendous amount of love and coming together. I watched. I watched, and I was very, very impressed by that.”
He also confirmed that he, Melania, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were all evacuated quickly, crediting the speed and professionalism of the Secret Service response. When it came to Hegseth, Trump couldn’t resist a jab wrapped in a compliment.
https://twitter.com/RichSementa/status/2048231706960843079?s=20

“This is why we need the ballroom…”

• Secret Service Agent Shot but in Good Condition (Salgado)

The shooter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday evening did hit a Secret Service agent who will survive thanks to his body armor, Fox News confirmed a little before 10 p.m. EDT.

The Secret Service agent received treatment and is in good condition, Fox News reported. Many of the mainstream media talking heads who were at the dinner tonight have deliberately fueled violent hatred against Donald Trump with extreme rhetoric, calling Trump a Nazi and a racist and a threat to democracy. They put the lives of Trump, his Secret Service, and everyone around them in danger. Notably, the Democrat-induced partial government funding shutdown has left Secret Service without paychecks for weeks now as the Dems hold up Department of Homeland Security funding.

BREAKING: "The shooter charged the magnetometer closest to the front door… and took a shot at a Secret Service member at the ballroom."@seanhannity describes what he's been told directly from top White House officials in the wake of shots fired at the White House… pic.twitter.com/C2bNPV25up
— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 26, 2026

Poor Erika Kirk was present and extremely traumatized by the event, a person present at the dinner who spoke to Fox News stated. It must feel as if she is reliving the nightmare of her husband Charlie’s assassination. Trump posted at one point on Truth Social, “Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job. They acted quickly and bravely. The shooter has been apprehended, and I have recommended that we ‘LET THE SHOW GO ON’ but, will entirely be guided by Law Enforcement. They will make a decision shortly. Regardless of that decision, the evening will be much different than planned, and we’ll just, plain, have to do it again.”
Fox News sources reported that the president was pushing hard to return to the stage and continue with the dinner as planned but that everyone around him, both security and family, were urging him not to do so. They felt they could not guarantee his safety as the situation was at that time. nApparently, the Secret Service won out, because Trump followed up with the following message on Truth Social:
Law Enforcement has requested that we leave the premises, consistent with protocol, which we will do, immediately. I will be giving a press conference in 30 minutes from the White House Press Briefing Room. The First Lady, plus the Vice President, and all Cabinet members, are in perfect condition. We will be speaking to you in a half an hour. I have spoken with all the representatives in charge of the event, and we will be rescheduling within 30 days.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said that Interim Chief of Police of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Jeffrey Carroll, was heading over to take charge of the investigation and that Mayor Muriel Bowser was also coming. Of course, D.C. Democrat officials are absolutely part of the problem in fueling violent hatred against Trump, just as the mainstream media is.

“It comes with the territory. If you want to do a great job, I really believe that….It doesn’t happen to people that don’t do anything..”

“Tonight was the first time they got to experience for themselves the real danger Trump faces every day. They not only got to watch how he handles it, but because they were witnessing this as they tried to hide under tables, they could feel it, too.”

• Something’s Changed: Trump Explains Why People Want to Kill Him (Tim O’Brien)

In President Donald Trump’s press briefing following the latest attempt on his life by a would-be assassin, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, sitting in the front row in the White House Press Briefing Room, still in the gown she wore to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, asked Trump if he thought he was the intended target of the gunman. This question came within a couple of hours of when the shooter attempted to breach security and shot a Secret Service agent, who survived thanks to a bulletproof vest, before being subdued. Trump said he was intercepted at the outer layer of his protection detail — the “first line of defense.”

Since the shooter did not get anywhere close to the president, Collins’ question is a fair one, even though it seems pretty likely the president was the target. After two earlier overt attempts on his life and the steady number of death threats he receives, he appears to have been the obvious subject of the shooter’s plans. But what Trump said in response is worth noting. The magnanimous Trump, still wearing his tuxedo, respectfully told Collins that he wasn’t sure if he was the target, but he added that he has studied a lot of assassinations. I’m going to go out on a limb and say his interest in the subject really piqued after July 13, 2024, when a would-be assassin shot and struck Trump’s ear at a rally in Butler, Pa.
Trump told Collins, more humbly than is characteristic for him in this room, that he could have been the target because his presidency has been “impactful.” He said that with presidencies that aren’t impactful, “they leave you alone.” But in his case, he said, just look at “the list.” He said it backs up his claim, and he’s right. Not all of the most impactful presidents experienced direct attempts on their lives while sitting in the White House, but most who have been the target of attempted assassinations were, to varying degrees, consequential in some way. He reiterated that point later in the briefing while commenting on the fortitude of his administration in its continued pursuit of his agenda.
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2048237808695812607
“It comes with the territory. If you want to do a great job, I really believe that….It doesn’t happen to people that don’t do anything,” he said, shortly before wrapping up the briefing and exiting the room. In addition to Trump, other presidents who were targeted for assassination include Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Ronald Reagan, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, George W. Bush, and Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt famously continued speaking after being shot, pausing briefly before insisting on finishing his speech.
This is not to say that all of these men were equally “impactful” on the trajectory of the country, but Trump has a point. If you do nothing, they do leave you alone. Trump has done quite a bit. He’s been impactful. He is being impactful, and it seems that long before this latest attempt on his life, he made peace with the risks he was taking in order to achieve what he wants to achieve. This was self-evident.
Trump is rarely described as “selfless.” As for the people who were in the room with him, most of them hated him before they walked into that room. Tonight was the first time they got to experience for themselves the real danger Trump faces every day. They not only got to watch how he handles it, but because they were witnessing this as they tried to hide under tables, they could feel it, too. Nothing is more persuasive than feeling it. As a result, they could no longer ignore or downplay the simple fact that he accepts the risks because he is trying to leave the country better than the way he found it. One word for this is “courage,” but don’t tell the legacy media I told you that.
On hand at the dinner at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., was a crowd of 2,700 that included members of the news media and their “plus ones.” It’s impossible to speculate on what effect this event had on all of them, or if anything will change. Experience tells me nothing material will change in Trump’s relationship with the media. But one person stands out in my mind: the chair of the event, Weijia Jiang of CBS News and the current president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. She was on the dais with Trump when the shooting happened. Before the shooting, you can see on video how relaxed she was.

President Trump was rushed off of the stage by Secret Service at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. pic.twitter.com/U71YqZdmno
— richlux713 (@RichLux713) April 26, 2026

After the shooting and once the room settled down, Jiang had to take to the podium and tell the room the event would continue at another time. In this video, you can see she was still visibly shaken by the evening’s events.

Weija Jang, President of the White House Correspondents' Association, relayed the president's message to the crowd, saying, "Thank God everybody is safe. And thank you for coming together tonight. We will do this again. Thank you." pic.twitter.com/ZVYroEBZoL
— The National Desk (@TND) April 26, 2026

And later in the briefing with Trump, hers was the first question he took, and it was as conciliatory as it gets in that room. But take note of Jiang’s demeanor as Trump responds to her question. It appears, at least to me, that regardless of how she may have felt about Trump before the evening, something had changed by this point.

White House Correspondents Association president and CBS senior WH correspondent Weijia Jiang gets the first question during the post-shooting press conference. She notes his unfortunate history with such attacks and wanted to know what was going through his head:

JIANG: As you… pic.twitter.com/Kmv2dLiXI3
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 26, 2026

For those few members of the media who are open to it, maybe just a handful allowed themselves to see Trump as human for a change. I’m not getting my hopes up, but I’d be remiss not to mention this. Meanwhile, Trump may have just punctuated his presidency in a way that he himself never anticipated, and the timing of his statements in this particular briefing may be just the thing to make sure his framing of an “impactful” presidency sticks for the rest of his term. Trump has been and will be impactful, and as long as he lives, nothing will stop him.

Strike 1 to Iran. This kind of delay is over. Let’s move to the next one. This is methodical.

Trump’s tactic is giving them a chance at everything, though he knows what that means. So, a chance, but only once.

Don’t forget, this could lead to a serious war, with many victims. Lots of people would hold that against Trump.

He’s covering his bets. Trump might not have hit Iran on his own, but he doesn’t mind having done it. He grew up with the images of the 1970s.

He did it now because Bibi said he’d nuke Tehran if he didn’t, and Trump did not want to take that risk.

• “We Have All The Cards”: Trump Cancels Witkoff-Kushner Trip To Pakistan (ZH)

In a sharp reversal first reported by Fox News, President Trump has personally canceled the planned trip of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Pakistan. Trump told the outlet that he halted the delegation just as they were preparing to leave: “I’ve told my people a little while ago they were getting ready to leave, and I said, ‘Nope, you’re not making an 18 hour flight to go there. We have all the cards. They can call us anytime they want, but you’re not going to be making any more 18 hour flights to sit around talking about nothing.’”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has reportedly already left Islamabad, Pakistan, following Saturday talks with the country’s prime minister. So much for that “cautious optimism” that Pakistani officials were citing as a sign of progress. The Pakistan-mediated channel is now in clear stalemate, with the Trump administration signaling it sees no value in further shuttle diplomacy on Iran’s current terms.
***
Iran Foreign Ministry Insists ‘No Meeting is Planned’ Even With US Delegation En Route
Not too much that’s new or bombshell happened overnight, with a second round of US-Iran negotiations still in limbo, but with the US delegation led by Witkoff-Kushner said to be departing Saturday or else en route. A small Iranian team has already been there since Friday, engaging the Pakistanis, also amid reports that they will submit a written presentation of their conditions for ceasefire and where things stand from Tehran’s point of view.
Iran has denied that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s trip to Pakistan will include new talks with Washington, rejecting reports that President Trump is sending envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to actually restart negotiations. So once the US side arrives, it would be interesting to see what happens next. Potentially they could start in separate rooms with messages delivered, and thus the interaction would be indirect.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in a post on X early Saturday that “no meeting is planned to take place between Iran and the US” during the visit and that Tehran’s positions will instead be conveyed to Pakistan. Araghchi said earlier he is undertaking a “timely tour” of Islamabad, Muscat, and Moscow to “closely coordinate” with partners on bilateral issues and consult on regional developments. Iranian state media said the three-leg trip forms part of Tehran’s ongoing diplomatic push to secure an end to US-Israeli aggression.
Reports of ‘Optimism’ amid ‘Stalemate’ in Talks
At the moment there’s no direct contact between Tehran in Washington on the diplomatic front. The Pakistanis have been back at the center of shuttling messages back and forth between US and Iranian officials. Al Jazeera has presented commentary Saturday citing “optimism” but also an ongoing stalemated situation: So we are still in that stalemate, but Pakistani officials are telling us that their presence here and the Americans coming is an indication that behind-the-scenes diplomacy is working.
There’s been shuttle diplomacy, and as one diplomat said, it’s been relentless diplomacy that has been put forward by Pakistan from all sides. There’s been, in the last 24 hours, conversations that have been held not just between the Pakistanis and Iranians, but also between the Pakistanis and the Russians – Russia is going to be one more stop when the Iranian foreign minister leaves. An important overnight headline: Sources close to Pakistan-Iran talks say negotiations are progressing through “Iranian concessions” in exchange for “American flexibility regarding the issue of frozen funds,” according to Al Hadath. And also this: Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad said Pakistani mediators are “cautiously optimistic” regarding Iran-US talks.
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian:

The enemy is attacking our infrastructure and putting us under siege so that people become dissatisfied.

We currently do not need the people's sacrifice, but we request that people reduce electricity and energy consumption.

For example, at… pic.twitter.com/Nq2A8WMqPC
— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) April 25, 2026

Iran Military: Ready & Waiting To Fight
Iran’s military warned the United States it will face the “reaction of Iran’s powerful armed forces” if the blockade of Iranian ports continues, according to Tasnim News Agency.The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said the armed forces possess “greater power and readiness than before to defend sovereignty, territory, and national interests, which the country’s army experienced part of this power and offensive capability during the Third Imposed War.” This is actually consistent with what even Trump predicted – that the ceasefire has been used by Iran to regroup, rearm, and reposition its forces. Currently the only regional fighting remains in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, despite there technically being a Trump-backed three week Lebanon ceasefire:

“.. you’re not going to be making any more 18-hour flights to sit around talking about nothing’.”

• Chaos in Iran, Trump Drops the Hammer on Talks (Robert Spencer)

Shortly before noon on Saturday, Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie reported that President Donald Trump “just told me over the phone he has unilaterally cancelled Witkoff and Kushner’s trip to Pakistan to meet with the Iranians.” Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have been carrying on the on-again-off-again negotiations with what remains of the Islamic Republic’s leadership, in hopes of striking some deal that would definitively end the mullahs’ nuclear threat. Hasnie’s assertion that Trump called off the talks “unilaterally” is a bit of a stretch, as Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had already left Islamabad before Witkoff and Kushner had been scheduled to arrive. And so in calling off their trip, Trump was simply recognizing reality.

The president explained: “I’ve told my people a little while ago they were getting ready to leave, and I said, ‘Nope, you’re not making an 18-hour flight to go there. We have all the cards. They can call us anytime they want, but you’re not going to be making any more 18-hour flights to sit around talking about nothing’.” Shortly thereafter, Trump added: “I just cancelled the trip of my representatives going is Islamabad, Pakistan, to meet with the Iranians. Too much time wasted on traveling, too much work! Besides which, there is tremendous infighting and confusion within their “leadership.” Nobody knows who is in charge, including them. Also, we have all the cards, they have none! If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!” President DONALD J. TRUMP
All this follows Trump’s announcement from last Tuesday, when he postponed the resumption of military action until the talks could run their course: “Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other”. President DONALD J. TRUMP
The latest call-off of the talks does not, of course, necessarily mean that a resumption of military action is imminent, or even in the offing at all. The situation at the moment is extremely volatile, as it is not even clear who exactly is in charge in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and there seem to be at least two factions: fanatics from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who want to pursue war with the U.S. and Israel even if it means the fiery destruction of the nation, and a more pragmatic group that appears to include Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and others among the most prominent survivors from the prewar regime.
Behind both factions is the mysterious figure of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late supreme leader and his putative successor. Mojtaba, however, still has not actually been seen or heard since he was made supreme leader, and was reportedly left disfigured and crippled from the airstrike that killed his father. It is also possible, given this regime’s long record of duplicity, that Mojtaba Khamenei is actually dead, and that regime officials are pretending that he is still alive and directing the nation’s affairs from his hospital bed because he gives them some claim to legitimacy, however tenuous.
Trump likely continues to hold out hope that the Iranians will return to the negotiating table. As recently as last Tuesday, he asserted that “Iran can get themselves at a very good footing. If they make a deal, they can make themselves into a strong nation again, a wonderful nation again.”
Yet even after the Iranian leadership and military has taken a severe pounding, there is no indication whatsoever that if the Islamic Republic of Iran becomes “a strong nation again, a wonderful nation again,” it will also be a friend to the United States. If the current regime, whoever is actually in charge of it, remains in power, it will simply be a strong and wonderful jihadi rogue state.
That orientation is fundamentally anti-American. It should not be forgotten that in a nationally televised address in November 2023, the late Khamenei explained, “The situation between America and Iran is this: When you chant ‘Death to America!’ it is not just a slogan – it is a policy. I have stated the reasons previously. For many years, from the 1940s to the 1970s – that is 30 years – the Americans did everything they could do against the Iranian nation. They hit Iran in any way they could – financially, economically, politically, scientifically, and morally.”
Despite the fact that this was not true then and isn’t true even now, the Islamic Republic remains determined to hit us back, one way or another, in any way that the opportunity arises to do so. The Iranian leadership will keep looking for that opportunity.

Europe’s “leaders” are all hugely impopular. They need to hide that.

• The EU ‘Democracy Shield’ Is The End of Freedom In Europe (Kwasniewski)

Mass censorship is coming to Europe, and it is being labeled the Democracy Shield. Jerzy Kwasniewski, head of the board of the Ordo Iuris Institute, writes: “Under the banner of protecting democracy, the European Union is rolling out a web of regulations that critics say will curb free expression, sideline conservative voices, and reshape the public sphere through opaque moderation, labeling, and algorithmic controls, Remix News provides the full article here below:

The year 2026 will go down in the history of European integration as a special moment. The European Union, under the banner of protecting democracy, has begun systematically restricting freedom of speech and real political pluralism. Thus, it embarks on the well-trodden historical paths of every authoritarian regime, resorting to violence and censorship as public support wanes. A report recently published by the Ordo Iuris Institute leaves no doubt: we are dealing with a project for a profound overhaul of the public sphere that will primarily target conservative communities, including Catholics.
The new EU mechanisms, ironically referred to as the “Democracy Shield,” are not a single piece of legislation. This is a coordinated regulatory system—from the Digital Services Act (DSA), through codes of conduct on “hate speech” and “disinformation,” to the regulation on political advertising. Their common denominator is the now-official departure from the European cult of free speech and its replacement with a system of preventive restrictions, in the name of… true freedom and democracy.
The European Commission claims that its aim is to create a “safe” information space in which “reliable” messages are meant to dominate, that is, in practice, narratives aligned with the liberal consensus . The problem is that the criteria for the EU’s “credibility,” for what is considered prohibited “disinformation,” and—what is particularly harmful—”divisive speech” are extremely vague and prone to ideological interpretation. As a result, it will not even be independent courts, but online platforms cooperating with non-governmental organizations selected by Brussels that will decide what content may reach citizens of the European Union. Including Polish citizens.
This system is multi-stage. First—mechanisms for reporting and removing content that, in practice, incentivize rapid takedowns, even at the expense of freedom of expression. Secondly—a labeling system under which statements labeled as “unverified,” “misleading,” or “political” are subject to mandatory restrictions on platforms such as Facebook or X. Thirdly—there is to be algorithmic intervention that limits the reach of content deemed problematic.
It is worth emphasizing the role of so-called trusted flaggers and fact-checker networks. It is precisely these entities, often financed with public funds from the European Union or the Member States and ideologically uniform, that gain a privileged position in the content moderation process. In practice, this means cleverly delegating censorship to entities that are not subject to any democratic oversight.
Even more troubling are the regulations concerning political advertising. The definition of “political speech” has been framed so broadly that it encompasses not only the activities of political parties but also public awareness campaigns concerning the protection of life, the family, or national identity. This means that Catholic pro-life organizations or movements defending marriage as the union between a woman and a man may be subjected to restrictive requirements and even sanctions. Even now, our own Ordo Iuris Institute and Center for Life and Family, as well as our friends from Polonia Christiana’s PCH24 news portal and their editorial team should start preparing to implement a “replacement language.” The censorship game, well known here in Poland from the communist era, is making a comeback.
At the same time, restrictions on the targeting and funding of political messages make it much more difficult to reach voters. In practice, the largest platforms, such as Facebook, have already stopped running “political” ads to avoid legal risk. It is no longer possible to freely promote petitions opposing abortion or same-sex unions there.
The Polish political context cannot be ignored. The introduction of these instruments specifically in 2026, just before the crucial parliamentary campaign in Poland, is no coincidence. Restricting the reach of conservative speech, making it harder to organize public-interest campaigns, and selectively labeling content as “problematic” will have a real impact on election results.
From the perspective of socially engaged Catholics, this is particularly dangerous. Unequivocal assessments concerning the protection of life from conception, the indissolubility of marriage, the condemnation of the aberrations of gender ideology, and even clear support for national sovereignty within the European Union will increasingly be classified as “controversial” or “divisive.” In the new regulatory model, such content may be restricted not directly—through a ban—but through invisible mechanisms of reach reduction and stigmatization.
This does not, of course, mean that the state has no right to combat crimes online or to protect citizens from real threats. The problem is that the European Union has crossed the line between protection and control, between security and social engineering.
Therefore today, more than ever, courage is needed to defend freedom and the right to publicly proclaim one’s faith. Not as a privilege for the select few, but as the foundation of a healthy society. If we allow, under the pretext of combating “disinformation,” the voices of those who defend life, the family, and sovereignty to be curtailed, democracy will quickly become a grim dictatorship hidden behind a facade of apparent diversity and tolerance.

Globalism in Europe Is On The Verge of COLLAPSE

French President Emmanuel Macron just announced he’s leaving politics for good in 2027 after his party got demolished in elections.

Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally party is surging in France.

The same right-wing wave is… pic.twitter.com/1YWawaA7O9
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 24, 2026

To go after the larger threat.

• DOJ Quietly Retracts John Brennan Subpoenas, Offers No Explanation (AP)

Greasy Deep State eel in a human skinsuit, John Brennan, may have slipped the proverbial noose once again. In what appears to be now standard operating procedure for the administration, the Department of Justice assigned Trump ally Joseph diGenova to serve as the special prosecutor for the ongoing case regarding former Obama-appointed head of the CIA Brennan and his alleged role in the criminal conspiracy to frame then-president-elect Trump as a Russian asset in 2016. Now, the DOJ, according to internal sources, with stunning parallels to the botched James Comey prosecution, has withdrawn its subpoenas of individuals associated with Brennan, opting instead for “voluntary interview” requests.

Via Associated Press (emphasis added): “The Justice Department has withdrawn subpoenas issued in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan, with officials asking for voluntary interviews instead of testimony before a grand jury, two people familiar with the matter said Tuesday. A small handful of subpoenas were known to have been issued over the weekend for witnesses to appear before a grand jury in Washington. But investigators on Monday evening informed lawyers that the subpoenas were being withdrawn in favor of requests for voluntary interviews, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to discuss developments in an ongoing investigation. The reason for the reversal in course was not immediately known.”
I’m sure Brennan, his comrades, and their respective teams of $1,000/hr lawyers will jump at the “voluntary interview” invite. They’re here to assist the government in any way possible in the furtherance of justice.These are red-blooded patriots, after all. They just want what’s best for America. Speaking of true-blue, red-blooded Americana, here is John Brennan in 2021, immediately after the Jan 6 fedsurrection, having transitioned into a “journalist” at MSNBC, joining an entire lineup of “retired” spooks speaking truth to power for the masses on the network, declaring a war on “an unholy alliance of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians” — a war that the Biden administration went on to wage with all the weight of the federal government:
“[The Biden intelligence services] are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas… It brings together an unholy alliance of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians. And unfortunately I think there’s been this momentum that generated as a result of unfortunately the demagogic rhetoric of people that’s just departed government, but also those who continue in the halls of Congress. And so I really do think that the law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence, and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic.”

“I suspect, well, let’s consider, Ciaramella has been given the opportunity to cooperate as a witness in the 2017 Brennan case; perhaps in exchange for something like limited immunity in the 2019 impeachment issue. The timeline tracks.”

• Great News – Subpoenas for Brennan Grand Jury Testimony are Withdrawn (CTH)

Several people have inquired about the Washington DC subpoenas for former CIA Director John Brennan being withdrawn, and what does that mean. I intentionally did not write about it at the time because I wanted to look closely at the fact pattern. The DOJ is still planning to send requests for voluntary interviews and grand jury testimony according to media reports.From my perspective, this is a good sign. Potentially a very good sign. The issues around the CIA targeting President Trump are extensive, attached to numerous individuals and entities, and generally complex. Normally, an investigation of this scope would begin with questions to the outer perimeter individuals who were carrying out the instructions of those above them.

It is from those types of lower-level interviews that material is gathered for use in examining the truthfulness of those who organized and directed the operations. In the example of John Brennan’s false statements to congress surrounding the ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment), or the inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the analytical material, there are key people within the Directorate of Analysis, National Security Agency and National Intelligence Council who can give first-hand statements about Brennan’s instructions. Those types of interviews are just as important as questioning John Brennan himself, and for obvious reasons those interviews should come first.
Here is where it becomes important to remember a key thing that happened between the time the investigation of Brennan began and the arrival of investigative Asst to the AG, Joe DiGenova. Do you remember the recent criminal referral by DNI Tulsi Gabbard for former CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella?
BACKGROUND: Former CIA Director John Brennan was being investigated during the time that DNI Tulsi Gabbard was working on retrieving and declassifying the material surrounding the first impeachment effort against President Trump. CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was the “anonymous whistleblower” that triggered the report to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson that started the impeachment operation. This same CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was also involved in the fabrication of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which is at the heart of the false testimony to congress that John Brennan is being investigated for.
Eric Ciaramella was criminally referred by DNI Gabbard for his actions in relation to the impeachment operation. This sets the DOJ up with the potential for a plea agreement with Ciaramella on his impeachment conduct, in exchange for testimony against Brennan on the ICA construct. Suddenly we see reports of DOJ Brennan subpoenas being withdrawn immediately after the DOJ criminal referral for Eric Ciaramella is introduced. **nudge-nudge* *wink-wink** See the dynamic? I’m not saying this is happening, but the timing is awfully coincidental, no?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has withdrawn subpoenas issued in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan, with officials asking for voluntary interviews instead of testimony before a grand jury, two people familiar with the matter said Tuesday. A small handful of subpoenas were known to have been issued over the weekend for witnesses to appear before a grand jury in Washington. But investigators on Monday evening informed lawyers that the subpoenas were being withdrawn in favor of requests for voluntary interviews, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to discuss developments in an ongoing investigation.
The reason for the reversal in course was not immediately known. The months-old Brennan investigation is one of several criminal probes the Justice Department has opened over the last year against President Donald Trump’s perceived adversaries. It centers on one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia interfered on his behalf during his successful 2016 presidential campaign. TIMELINE:
Aug – Nov 2025: CTH emphasizes need for ICIG Atkinson material to get to Ciaramella/Brennan
December 2025 – Brennan attorney notified he is under investigation.
Jan – March 2026 – DNI gains access to Atkinson transcript from HPSCI
March 2026 – DNI assembled ICIG Atkinson material from Ciaramella report and investigation.
March 25 – HPSCI releases transcript to DNI.
April 13 – HPSCI released ICIG declassified transcript / DNI releases ICIG Ciaramella report.
April 15 – Eric Ciaramella criminal referral.
April 21 – Brennan witness subpoenas withdrawn.

Hopefully the timeline helps people to understand what is likely happening in the background. I suspect, well, let’s consider, Ciaramella has been given the opportunity to cooperate as a witness in the 2017 Brennan case; perhaps in exchange for something like limited immunity in the 2019 impeachment issue. The timeline tracks.

Is he really a prince?

• Iranian Prince in Exile Reza Pahlavi Delivers a Brutal Message (CTH)

Two years after the Russia-Ukraine war began, people kept wondering why I continued to ask why no western media were boots on the ground in Ukraine delivering news of the conflict. I called it “world war reddit” for a reason. That question loomed even bigger given the relentless on-the-ground reporting over the U.S-Iran conflict. Why were/are international journalists almost immediately embedded in Iran to cover the details of the conflict, yet that same approach never took place in Ukraine. For Ukraine there was no daily reports on the fighting; no frontline reports with journalists in helmets and flak jackets; no live interviews or reports of the back-and-forth battles between Russia and Ukraine; no ‘coming to you live from Kiev‘ tonight, nothing. However, as soon as military conflict breaks out in Iran – all the familiar war/conflict reporting surfaced again.

But I see the Ukraine war reported on Telegram, some say. True, but really? What you “see” is through a social media prism that is structurally controlled by Western intelligence operations. World War Reddit! For additional context, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq/Afghanistan, how did it impact your daily life? That’s analogous the same impact within Russia that I experienced in 2024 (3 months) and 2025 (1 month). All recognizable impact is sanctions related. One of the reasons I traveled from Western Russia to Poland -specifically driving across Ukraine- was to see for myself. I shared that story before. The reality of the Ukraine conflict, World War Reddit, is entirely against the interests of those who are constructing the false impression of it.
In reality the Eastern Donbas region is very pro-Russian and when the Russian Federation took over towns and geography, driving back the Ukraine military, Russian troops were factually greeted as liberators. Now, there is a slow-grinding stalemate, and the losses on the Ukraine side are well beyond what has been reported by government officials. I provide this context of reality -vs- media presentation because Iranian Prince Reza Pahlavi is strongly calling attention to the bias and willful blindness of European media. WATCH:

“I want to speak directly to the people of Europe. In the past two weeks I have had two major press conferences — one in Stockholm, one in Berlin. Between them 150 journalists attended. We spent more than two hours together.” Not a single one of those 150 journalists asked about the 40,000 Iranians slaughtered on the streets of my country on January 8th and 9th! Not a single one of the 150 journalists asked me about the 19 political prisoners executed in the last two weeks.
When I told them 20 more are currently sentenced to death, nothing. Not a single one of the 150 journalists asked me about them. When I stood next to a mother and next to a father who lost their sons on January 8th and 9th, and asked them to hear their stories, not a single one of the 150 journalists asked them a question.
[…] It is clear to me that my 40,000 brave, innocent compatriots who were slaughtered in the fight for liberty are of little interest to these journalists. They seem more interested in criticizing America and asking why the United States and Israel killed the dictator that has slaughtered our people for 47 YEARS — than criticizing the regime doing the slaughtering. They seem more interested asking questions about Iran’s past and history than about what is happening in Iran today; or about the democratic future Iranians are seeking. One member of parliament even told me they didn’t think Iranians are ready for democracy. To that member of Parliament, to those journalists, I remind you: Iranians aren’t just “ready” for democracy. 40,000 people just gave their lives for it, and I won’t let that be in vain.”
So know this, whether or not Europe stands with us; whether or not your journalists do their jobs; whether or not your politicians demonstrate their courage to act, I will fight for my people and my country. Even if we have to do this alone – we will fight until Iran is free”! I don’t know if this guy is the right one to lead the charge to bring a more politically democratic outcome for the people in Iran, but what he is saying about the willful blindness of western media is absolutely correct.

“There is also the behavior of the three leftist judges, which is shockingly juvenile for persons occupying such prestigious positions.”

• The United States of America v. John Roberts (A.J. Christopher)

The Supreme Court is under attack. It has been under attack for years, almost exclusively from the left. And by “under attack,” I don’t mean the peaceful criticism. I mean everything from challenges to its legitimacy to outright ignoring its rulings to death threats against conservative justices. This began years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts initially responded by trying to stay apolitical and by trying to ignore the criticism. When President Barack Obama called him out during his 2010 State of the Union address, Roberts called the stunt “very troubling.” In the last two decades, that has been the entire extent of his pushback against the left.

In the last couple years, leftist district judges and leftist federal judges issue decrees and stays that directly contradict recent rulings from the Supreme Court itself. Last August, Justices Brett Kavanaugh Neil Gorsuch also publicly rebuked lower courts for having to reverse orders from lower courts regarding issues that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had already addressed. But not by Roberts. Last September, a group of anonymous federal judges criticized recent emergency stays that SCOTUS granted. In interviews with NBC News, these judges said such rulings imply that the lower courts are doing shoddy work (yes, that’s the point). One judge quipped, “It’s inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” Far be it from me to explain to this judge that the job of SCOTUS is not to “have their backs.”
It’s John Roberts’ job to explain this to them. And yet, nary a peep. District Judge Brian Murphy has twice openly flouted SCOTUS decisions. For his obstinacy, Justice Elena Kagan, of all people, publicly rebuked him. But still nothing from Roberts. Then there is the internal drama. It burst into the open with the Dobbs decision, which the liberal justices deliberately slow-rolled in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. The problem arises because no SCOTUS decision is binding until the justices’ opinions are finalized and publicized. If a justice happens to die in the interim, then that justice’s vote is nullified.
This rule applies even if a justice dies from assassination. Like, you know, what almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. An armed suspect showed up outside his home, and his presence was made known to the authorities only because the suspect got cold feet and called the police and turned himself in. The would-be assassin was upset the upcoming (and, at that time, unreleased) Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and helped decodify legalized infanticide. But how did he know about the upcoming Dobbs decision? Because one of the justices’ staffers unprecedentedly leaked it to the press. This has never happened before on the Supreme Court. It happened on Roberts’ watch.
Who was the leaker? Who knows? Roberts refused to let the FBI investigate, and instead handed the investigation to federal marshals. There is speculation that Roberts did so to prevent the executive branch from encroaching on his turf. As a result, to this day we have no idea who the leaker was.
There is also the behavior of the three leftist judges, which is shockingly juvenile for persons occupying such prestigious positions. There is Justice Elena Kagan, who screamed “so loudly” at fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer that the “wall was shaking.” Why was she screaming? Because Breyer disapproved of Kagan’s tactic of slow-rolling the Dobbs decision because of the threats to the lives of his conservative friends on the bench. Breyer was that rare liberal that put the value of human life above his personal opinion, and he supported publishing the Dobbs dissent quickly to diffuse the threats. Kagan, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to risk the murder of her fellow justices in order to possibly skew the decision.
This is the Roberts’ court. Then there is the “wise” Latina, who thinks that colorblind, impartial justice requires one to consider race and upbringing while trying to excuse why the law should be applied unequally upon the citizenry. Regarding a disagreement on a recent immigration ruling, Sotomayor told the Lawrence Journal-World that her colleague Brett Kavanaugh is “a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
Continuing, she quipped that “There are some people who can’t understand our experiences, even when you tell them.” I’m confident that Sotomayor wouldn’t understand the “experiences” of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, or Sheridan Gorman, even if they told her. But they can’t tell her. Because the very illegals for whom Sotomayor so passionately fights murdered them. If this is the left’s definition of what it means to be “wise,” then I’m glad they consider me “deplorable.” Sotomayor issued a hand-in-the-cookie-jar apology, but the fact remains is that this sort of backstabbing culture is being allowed to fester within the hallowed walls of SCOTUS.
This is the Roberts’ court.
And finally, we have that morbid disaster of a flaming clown car, more commonly known as Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a recent speech at Yale, she called the judicial rulings of her conservative colleagues “utterly irrational.” This from the person who couldn’t give a definition of a woman. Back in August, she blasted her colleagues for “lawmaking” from the bench, impervious to the fact that this is exactly what the lower courts have been doing since Jan. 20, 2025.
This is the Roberts court.

Where people go to show us they’re not funny. Did Colbert ever make that clear. The whole Jon Stewart clan once witnout Jon Stewart did.

In hindsight, an unfortunate headline…

• Trump Plans an Ambush at White House Correspondents’ Dinner (Pinsker)

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner’s featured entertainer, Oz Pearlman, is worth spelunking down the YouTube rabbit hole to learn more about. Pearlman was born in Israel and worked briefly at Merrill Lynch before launching his second career as a mentalist. Currently, he’s the biggest, most sought-after mentalist on the planet. If you didn’t know better, you’d swear he was psychic. He “guessed” Joe Rogan’s ATM PIN in an interview. (Rogan’s shocked response: “Yeah… that’s weird. Yeah, I don’t like that.”) He’s baffled all the top news and entertainment TV shows. With clockwork precision, he plucks your deepest, darkest secrets straight out of your brain. It’s spooky: Like a scholar reads books, he reads minds.

Only he doesn’t: Pearlman openly admits he doesn’t have any psychic ability. These are all tricks, based on his understanding of body language, psychology, and social behavior. There’s absolutely nothing “psychic” about him. But because he’s so thoroughly mastered his craft, you’d swear otherwise: Somehow, he’s always a step ahead. Remind you of anyone? Of course, it helps when your audience is predictable. The more predictable an audience, the easier it is to know what it’ll do next. If an audience is predictable enough, you could probably anticipate its every move. Remind you of anyone else? That’s our segue for today’s story: Saturday, April 25 is the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner — which will be attended by, for his very first time as president, Donald J. Trump.
He attended a few dinners as a private citizen, most notably in 2011, when then-president Barack Obama taunted him from the podium. Since then, he hasn’t been back. So many are wondering… why now? Why tonight? The audience, after all — and the event itself — are predictably predictable. Every (non-Trumpian) year for the past 20 years, it’s been the exact same thing: If the president is a Democrat, he’s met with kid gloves and fawning praise. If he’s a Republican, he’s vilified, mocked, and personally insulted. And if he’s Donald Trump — a.k.a. “literally Hitler” and the terrible, evil Orange Monster — he’s excoriated unmercifully. This is an audience that hates his frickin’ guts. Yet now he’s attending.
Ex-emcee Stephen Colbert will be skipping the dinner. So is the HuffPost. Hundreds of journalists have signed an open letter, asking their colleagues to “forcefully demonstrate opposition to President Trump’s efforts to trample freedom of the press.” In their evenhanded, completely unbiased opinions, “these are not normal times, and this cannot be business as usual with the press standing up to applaud the man who attacks them on a daily basis.” Many journalists will be wearing special hankies to protest the man they’re paid to cover (“without fear or favor!”). In the goofiest, lamest, most cringeworthy example of virtue-signaling yet… well, CNN’s Jake Tapper will explain:
So why would Trump waste his time by spending an evening with a gaggle of journalists who plot his demise? Why would he help his enemies publicize their complaints, lies, and political grievances? Some speculate that the choice of Oz Pearlman as emcee was a factor: He’s not a partisan comedian, but a mentalist — which minimizes chances it’ll devolve into yet another anti-Trump roast. That was surely something the White House considered before signing up: In 2006, Stephen Colbert’s vicious mockery of President George W. Bush skyrocketed his career. If you’re a comedian, attacking Republican presidents is very good for business. Pearlman probably won’t do that. Being a partisan hack isn’t his business model.
But I suspect it’s more than just Pearlman’s inclusion. From the White House’s perspective, one of two things will likely happen tonight — and either outcome plays into the president’s hands. First, there’s a chance it won’t be a complete and total anti-Trump rally. Not a GREAT chance, but a chance. I’d give it a very low probability. Because Pearlman won’t be the only speaker, and the ballroom will be filled with journalists, many of the biggest names in their industry. Like it or not, journalists have a vested interest in drawing attention to themselves: eyeballs = success.mShamelessness is their signature trait. It’s what they do best.
All Trump can reasonably hope for is that their attacks will be muted. Because almost certainly, some left-wing journalist will seize the opportunity to give “literally Hitler” a piece of his mind. But if the Trump-bashing is kept to a minimum, the president comes across as magnanimous, courageous, and confident, jumping right into the lion’s den and charming all the lions.= The second outcome expects things will go haywire: The media can’t resist the urge to draw its daggers and attack. Despite Pearlman emceeing the event, one way or another, left-wing agitators will hijack the dinner. This is, I suspect, what President Trump is counting on. Nothing rallies a people, a party, and/or a movement like a common enemy. Furthermore, if you’re a Republican, few institutions are more detestable than the mainstream media.
I think Trump wants the media to make jackarses of themselves and attack him tonight — so he’ll have an excuse to counterpunch ‘em right back! Because it would be an excellent opportunity to unite Red America by reminding us who our real enemies are: a dishonest media that propagandizes anti-Americanism, secularism, and deep state leftism.Expecting D.C.’s journalists to act “fair and balanced” is a fool’s errand. Decades of experience virtually guarantees it won’t happen. Which means, tonight’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner is obviously an ambush — so why the heck is Trump walking into it? Most likely explanation: He’s planning an ambush of his own.

DEEP STATE PANIC MODE

DOJ’s Todd Blanche is green lighting a FULL INQUIRY into Liar Cassidy Hutchinson’s FAKE J6 Testimony against Trump, REVIVING the case against Dirty Cop Comey, launching subpoenas on Fani Willis’ Team…and going FULL STEAM AHEAD on Treasonous Brennan. pic.twitter.com/zedoKhEikF
— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) April 24, 2026

HATE HOAX: Apple CEO Tim Cook funded the SPLC for nearly a decade. The SPLC used the money to fund KKK & Neo-Nazi leaders. The DOJ announced indictments. Cook resigned the day before.

h/t @TheRipCord https://t.co/35LV1mgLDN pic.twitter.com/G6IEJdB4uR
— @amuse (@amuse) April 24, 2026

This is earth-shattering.

Senator Ron Johnson just revealed that Secretary Kennedy provided him with 11 MILLION pages of HHS documents on the COVID vaccine.

What the documents exposed about the FDA is truly disturbing.

JOHNSON: “We have now uncovered the fact that FDA… pic.twitter.com/ifnpm4tqVu
— Overton (@overton_news) April 23, 2026

Greg Gutfeld says all the mainstream media knew that the Southern Poverty Law Center was funding fake white supremacy hoaxes but they went along with it anyway to help Democrats

This is one of the bigger scandals in decades. This is domestic terrorism and the media participated… pic.twitter.com/h3aFv4VK1q
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 25, 2026

BREAKING NEWS ‼️‼️

TRUMP drops post about Arizona's ENORMOUS 2020 Election FRAUD Scandal. Forensic Evidence of 25,000+ counterfeit ballots. This is just ONE state. Imagine the entire country… pic.twitter.com/pydMg3TrGZ
— MASTER POOL (@mrpooln) April 24, 2026

Today is Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.

Over 3 million Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Yazidis, and Maronites were killed by the Ottoman Turks.

This is what an actual genocide looks like. Not whatever people are calling a genocide today. pic.twitter.com/n3jD6hYLbv
— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) April 24, 2026

https://twitter.com/GustBrian/status/2047864908524773756?s=20

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Mueller Never Wanted The Truth

May 072019

May 7, 2019 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 1:01 pm Finance, Primers Tagged with: Assange, Bill Barr, collusion, FBI, interference, Kushner, meddling, Mifsud, Mueller, Rand Paul, Russia, Steele, Trump, truth, Tulsi Gabbard, VIPS 18 Responses »

Peter Paul Rubens Daniel in the lions’ den c1615

Zero Hedge ran an article about omissions from the Mueller report and/or investigation. It’s instructive, but there is more. First, some bits from that article:

Major Mueller Report Omissions Suggest Incompetence Or A Coverup

Robert Mueller’s 448-page “Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election” contains at least two major omissions which suggest that the special counsel and his entire team of world-class Democrat attorneys are either utterly incompetent, or purposefully concealing major crimes committed against the Trump campaign and the American people.

First, according to The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland (a former law clerk of nearly 25 years and instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame) – the Mueller report fails to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation, and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI.

“The Steele dossier, which consisted of a series of memorandum authored by the former MI6 spy, detailed intel purportedly provided by a variety of Vladimir Putin-connected sources. For instance, Steele identified Source A as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” who “confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

Other supposed sources identified in the dossier included: Source B, identified as “a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin”; Source C, a “Senior Russian Financial Officer”; and Source G, “a Senior Kremlin Official.” -The Federalist

As Cleveland posits: “Given Mueller’s conclusion that no one connected to the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election, one of those two scenarios must be true—either Russia fed Steele disinformation or Steele lied to the FBI about his Russian sources.”

Mueller identified only two principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election: “First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.”

Surely, a plot by Kremlin-connected individuals to feed a known FBI source—Steele had helped the FBI uncover an international soccer bribery scandal—false claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia would qualify as a “principal way” in which Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

[..] the only lawmaker to even mention this possibility has been Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who raised the issue with Attorney General William Barr last week: “My question,” said Grassley, “Mueller spent over two years and 30 million dollars investigating Russia interference in the election. In order for a full accounting of Russia interference attempts, shouldn’t the special counsel have considered whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation and interfere campaign?” [..] Barr said that he has assembled a DOJ team to examine Mueller’s investigation, findings, and whether the spying conducted by the FBI against the Trump campaign in 2016 was improper.

Mueller’s second major oversight – which we have touched on repeatedly – is the special counsel’s portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.

Weeks after returning from Moscow, Mifsud – a self-described Clinton Foundation member – ‘seeded’ the rumor that Russia had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016, according to the Mueller report.

As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) noted on Fox News on Sunday, “how is it that we spend 30-plus-million dollars on this, as taxpayers and they can’t even tell us who Joseph Mifsud is?” “…this is important, because, in the Mueller dossier, they use a fake news story to describe Mifsud. In one of those stories, they cherry- pick it,” Nunes added.

[..] As conservative commentator and former US Secret Service agent Dan Bongino notes of Mifsud, “either we have a Russian asset who’s infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up George Papadopoulos.”

This poses questions about Mueller, Mifsud and Steele and many other people and organizations involved, but the central question remains unaddressed: did Russia truly meddle and interfere in the 2016 election?

We don’t know, we have only Mueller’s word for that, and he’s ostensibly based it on reports from US intelligence, which has very obvious reasons to smear Russia. That Mifsud is presented as a Russian agent, with all the doubts about that which we have seen presented, doesn’t help this point.

That Steele hadn’t visited Russia since 1993 when he complied his dossier is not helpful either. His information could have originated with “the Russians”, or with US intelligence, and he would never have been the wiser. That is, even IF he was a straight shooter. What are the odss of that?

And of course the strongest doubts about Russian meddling and interference, along with offers of evidence to underline and reinforce these doubts, have been offered by Julian Assange and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group.

But as I’ve repeatedly said before, after Mueller had to let go of the “Russia collusion with the Trump campaign” accusation, he was free to let the “Russian meddling aided and abetted by Julian Assange” narrative stand, beacuse he didn’t have to provide proof for that, as long as he didn’t communicate with either the Russians (easy), the VIPS (whom he stonewalled) or Assange (who’s been completely silenced).

So we have -at least- 4 major omissions in the Mueller investigation and report:

1) the Mueller report failed to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation (and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI).

2) Mueller’s portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.

3) Mueller declined to talk to the VIPS, who offered evidence that the DNC servers were not hacked but content was copied onto a disk at the server’s location

4) Mueller refused to hear Julian Assange, who offered evidence that it was not the Russians that had provided WikiLeaks with the emails.

Mueller was supposedly trying to find the truth about Trump’s ties to Russia/Putin, and he refused to see and hear evidence from two organizations, WikiLeaks and the VIPS, which he absolutely certainly knew could potentially have provided things he did not know. Why did he do that? There’s only one possible answer: he didn’t want to know.

Why not? Because he feared he would have had to abandon the “Russian meddling and interference” narrative as well. If, as both WikiLeaks and the VIPS insisted, the emails didn’t come from “the Russians”, all that would have been left is an opaque story about “Russians” buying $100,000 in Facebook ads. And that, too, is awfully shaky.

That’s an amount Jared Kushner acknowledged he spent every few hours on such ads during the – multi-billion-dollar – campaign. Moreover, many of these ads were allegedly posted AFTER the elections. And we don’t even know it was Russians who purchased the ads, that’s just another story coming from US intelligence.

It is not so hard, guys. “Omissions” or “oversight” is one way to put it, but there are others. Assange could have cleared himself of any claims of involvement in meddling and perhaps proven Guccifer 2.0 was not “Russian”. His discussions with the DOJ, preparations for which were in an advanced stage of development, were killed in 2017 by then-FBI head James Comey and Rep. Mark Warner.

Mueller never wanted the truth, he wanted to preserve a narrative. The VIPS, too, threatened that narrative by offering physical evidence that nobody hacked the emails. Mueller never reached out. Mueller, the former FBI chief, who must know who these men and women are. Here’s a list, in case you were wondering:

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
• William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
• Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
• Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
• Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
• James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
• Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
• Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
• John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
• Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
• Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
• Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
• David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
• Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
• Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
• Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
• Peter Van Buren,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
• Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
• Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

And then you lead a Special Counsel investigation, you spend 2 years and $30 million, you get offered evidence in what you’re investigating, and you just ignore these people?

And there are still people who want to believe that Robert Swan Mueller III is a straight shooter? They must not want to know the truth, either, then.

Here’s wondering if Bill Barr does, who’s going to investigate the Mueller investigation. Does he want the truth, or is he just the next in line to push the narrative?

Is there anyone in power left in America who has any courage at all to expose this B-rated theater?

Tulsi Gabbard has been reviled for talking to Assad. Why not talk to Assange as well, Tulsi? How about Rand Paul? We know he wanted to talk to Assange last year. Anyone?

Globalist

Aug 012018

August 1, 2018 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 1:56 pm Finance, Primers Tagged with: Anne Frank, anti-semite, anti-semitism, Gary Cohn, globalism, globalist, Israel, Ivanka, Jew, Jewish, Jordaan, Kushner, Trump 10 Responses »

Salvador Dali Swans reflecting elephants 1937

I am often confused by events that happen and by things that people say. But then I think them over and they mostly become less confusing, even if often slivers of confusion remain. This was again the case yesterday morning. Donald Trump went after the Koch brothers, the one biggest symbol of everything that’s wrong with American politics, and I expected the anti-Trump echo-chamber to finally agree on something with him.

But no, what was I thinking? The echo-chamber has deafened and blinded its inhabitants for far too long and far too loudly for one single word of agreement to come out of it. Trump could sing the praises of Hillary Clinton tomorrow morning and it would be used against him. This is not new, it’s been going on for his entire presidency, and before, but it’s still good for people to acknowledge that it’s getting worse be the day – or better perhaps in their eyes?!

Still, if you want to call yourself a journalist, and want to be taken seriously as such, objectivity is the number one requirement. But who in the US or international press can claim to be objective when it comes to Trump? Trump sells, on all sides of the aisle. Be very much for him, or equally much against him, and your paper or TV channel can expect revenues to rise. Being neutral on him: not so much.

Anyway, so Trump went after the Koch brothers. That must have shaken up a lot of the Republican party, because countless senators and congressmen and lower level politicians owe their seats more or less exclusively to the hundreds of millions the brothers throw at election campaigns. Trump does not. Here’s how Tyler Durden covered the action:

Two days after Charles Koch voiced his growing displeasure with Trump’s domestic, foreign and economic policy, warning that Trump tariffs could trigger a US recession, President Trump responded on Tuesday by slamming the powerful Koch-led donor network as “globalist” and “a total joke,” rejecting the conservative group amid reports that the network was shifting away from him over trade and immigration issues. Trump alleged that his policies have “made them richer” and that they “want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed,” while he supports the American worker. In another tweet Trump called them: “Two nice guys with bad ideas.”

“The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against strong borders and powerful trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas,” Trump said in a post on Twitter. “They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made them richer” Trump continued his angry tirade: “Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!”

That seems obvious enough. The 82- and 78-year-old brothers have bought much of the GOP with their billions, but not Trump. Whether that is because they didn’t want to, or couldn’t, is largely irrelevant. One would think even the anti-Trumpers could feel some sense of gratification in the demise of the brothers’ pernicious influence over America as a country, but no, their hate of Trump trumps their dislike of the Koches.

And you know what they found to rationalize this? The word ‘globalist’. Yesterday morning I was watching in amazement as my Twitter feed supplied one tweet after the other on the theme. It lasted just a few hours and then it was gone; this morning the whole thing has died out. But the message, or should I say the damage, had been conveyed.

The allegation in these circles is that Globalist Equals Jew. And so you can’t call anyone a globalist, or at least Trump can’t, or you -and he- only can when someone ‘s not Jewish. Now, globalism is a real thing, it’s a philosophy concerning how economies can and should be organized. And it’s sort of the opposite of Trump’s America First and Make America Great Again.

People who ‘believe’ in globalism are opposed to Trump’s trade tariffs. Not so much his proposal to the EU to drop all tariffs though, because that is what they also want. For Trump, globalism means the jobs America lost to people like the Koch brothers moving manufacturing to China et al. His view is that America needs those jobs back. These are simply different views of how economies and societies should be organized. Nothing more, nothing less.

But by making the word Globalist the same as Jew, the discussion about the different views becomes impossible. You cannot call a Jewish person a globalist, even if that person ‘believes’ in the concept of globalism. On the other hand, it’s fine to call non-Jewish people globalists. And this is because certain rightwing forces have at some point allegedly used the term as an anti-semitic slur, or dog-whistle.

However, who decided to let the rightwing decide what a word means? See, I’m sure those who bring this up didn’t invent it out of thin air, but globalism is still a real thing, and since no-one wishes to equate globalism with Judaism one-on-one, I’d say caution is required. Like this: If you cannot positively prove that someone is an antisemite, don’t go there girlfriend. It’s toxic.

In Britain, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, 180 light years away from Trump politically, is the subject of an anti-semitism smear campaign at the same time. Though all he’s ever done is be critical of Israeli policies vs the Palestinians. And if we can’t criticize that kind of thing anymore, I don’t know what we live in, but a democracy it’s certainly not. By the way, The Guardian ran a headline yesterday saying “Corbyn Ally Says ‘Jewish Trump Fanatics Making Up’ Antisemitism Claims”. Wait, Jewish Trump fanatics? Oh, never mind…

And yes, we all know that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish, and his favorite daughter Ivanka has converted to orthodox Judaism when she married Kushner, and Trump’s grandchildren by the couple are Jewish too. Still when economic adviser Gary Cohn left earlier this year, and Trump said “he’s a globalist, but I still like him”, that is now being used against him. Trump’s an antisemite. But Cohn would still be a globalist even if he weren’t Jewish.

Which fits in nicely and seamlessly with Trump being a racist and misogynist and rapist and Putin-puppet and yada yada. But you know, the anti-Trump chamber has become so deafening it’s become fully dysfunctional. There is no information emanating from it anymore, even if many journalists reside in that chamber.

There’s just a bunch of people trying to trump each other in their hate of the man. For them that seems to do the trick, but for anyone outside of the chamber, it’s just a whole lot of noise. It has taken Robert Mueller a year and a half to come up with absolutely nothing in the way of collusion, and he just keeps going. For what? He wants to make it the full 4-year Trump term?

I’m sure there are people out there who use Globalist as a slur for Jewish, but I have no way of being sure Trump uses it in that sense, and neither do his detractors. They have reached a stage where any allegation or rumor or innuendo seems for them to prove their unproven suspicions even and ever more, but they have long lost sight of what is actually true, and what is mere conjecture.

Labeling someone an antisemite is one of the worst things one can accuse another person of, and it should therefore never be done lightly, let alone without any proof. It’s just dirty smear if you have no evidence; and mere allegations don’t cut it. Sure there are people who voted for Trump who fit the picture, but that doesn’t make the man an antisemite. Nor does calling someone who believes in open borders everywhere, a globalist. Whether that person is Jewish or not. Don’t just throw shit around hoping it will stick.

Oh, and if you feel tempted to call me an antisemite now, here’s something I wrote in January 2010 when Anne Frank’s friend Miep Gies died aged 100, about where I grew up: Miep Gies Died Today. Good luck with that.

The ‘End of Dreams’, and the Saving of Appearances

Nov 252017

November 25, 2017 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 1:48 pm Finance Tagged with: Alastair Crooke, appearances, Israel, Kushner, MBS, MI6, Saudi, Thucydides, Trump, world order 4 Responses »

Zao Wu-Ki The red sun 1950

Once again, to my delight, we’re back with former British diplomat and MI6 ‘ranking figure’ Alastair Crooke and his Conflicts Forum organization. We posted a few of his articles this year and last. This time, Alastair writes a reaction to one of his own articles posted at Consortium News, which I included in the November 18 Debt Rattle at the Automatic Earth. My short comment then: “Former (and current?!) TAE contributor Alastair Crooke draws his conclusions.” This morning, the Conflicts Forum reached out again:

Dear Raul, We took the hint on a recent posting your site that referred to one of Alastair’s articles! …. and below is a comment piece he has done. It is an attempt to be strategic at where we’re going.

Anytime, guys! My first reaction to that piece was that Alastair makes Donald Trump and Jared Kushner’s role in the Saudi crackdown seem very large, which makes the role played by deep state America look small in comparison. And I’m not so sure about that. The riddle of ‘who’s playing who?’ is not a straightforward one. But that’s by no means a criticism (I ain’t criticizing no MI6!). It’s a question.

First, here are two paragraphs of that article to ‘get in the mood’:

Trump’s Saudi Scheme Unravels

Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky, writing in Foreign Policy, suggest “that Mohammed bin Salman’s most notable success abroad may well be the wooing and capture of President Donald Trump, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.” Indeed, it is possible that this “success” may prove to be MbS’ only success. “It didn’t take much convincing”, Miller and Sokolski wrote: “Above all, the new bromance reflected a timely coincidence of strategic imperatives.” Trump, as ever, was eager to distance himself from President Obama and all his works; the Saudis, meanwhile, were determined to exploit Trump’s visceral antipathy for Iran – in order to reverse the string of recent defeats suffered by the kingdom.

So compelling seemed the prize (that MbS seemed to promise) of killing three birds with one stone (striking at Iran; “normalizing” Israel in the Arab world, and a Palestinian accord), that the U.S. President restricted the details to family channels alone. He thus was delivering a deliberate slight to the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishments by leaving official channels in the dark, and guessing. Trump bet heavily on MbS, and on Jared Kushner as his intermediary. But MbS’ grand plan fell apart at its first hurdle: the attempt to instigate a provocation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, to which the latter would overreact and give Israel and the “Sunni Alliance” the expected pretext to act forcefully against Hezbollah and Iran.

Since the crackdown seems to have had limited success so far on an international level, this is certainly an interesting issue to delve deeper into. MbS has reportedly, assisted by US mercenaries, hung members of his own family upside down from ceilings in posh hotels and palaces to break them into submission and steal their fortunes, but if the international part of his plan falls short, this becomes a very unpredictable story.

But this new article has a much broader scope. I’ve often said that the falling apart of the American, European and global political systems is caused one-on-one by deteriorating economies (even if 90% of media and politicians stick the recovery narrative). Alastair agrees, and even quotes me again.

Alastair Crooke: Robert Kagan first called attention to the fact that America would need to awake from its ‘dream’ a decade ago in End of Dreams: The Return of History, and would have to manage the rise of ‘other’ powers, (some greater than others), with adroitness, if it were to avoid a bad road-crash as emerging competitors clashed with the waning dominant power.

This meant that the US no longer would be able to assert its will everywhere, and on everything – and would have to give ground – especially to China and Russia. “There’s going to have to be some very painful horse trading”, historian Sir Max Hastings suggests, adding that its pain will be none the less traumatic, since – like Germany after WW1 – America, does not feel itself defeated: Quite the converse, it sees itself having emerged from the Cold War wholly vindicated: in terms of its societal, governmental and capitalist models.

The American-shaped globalist order, in which three American generations have been steeped, had seemed so naturally to flow out from the Cold War, that the onset of world ‘order’ dissolution seems – shockingly, for many – to have struck out of the blue – as it were – with Brexit, and the election of Mr Trump.

Commentators speak of America needing to be wary of the Thucydides’ Trap (when the then aspiring power, Athens, threatened the primacy of the established hegemon, Sparta, leading to war). But ‘the trap’ today is not simply just about who’s rising ‘up’, and who’s heading ‘down’, in the great-power stakes – for, as Josh Feinman, chief economist for Deutsche Bank, last year warned, the problem is not just great power competition. But rather: “We’ve seen this movie before. The first great globalization wave, in the half-century or so before World War I, sparked a populist backlash too, and ultimately came crashing down in the cataclysms of 1914 to 1945.” In short, the two world wars were not just about Germany challenging British hegemony, but were also about globalization ‘backlash’ too – something that is often overlooked.

In other words, in the wake of WW2, America has been backing itself into the corner of an ‘American-shaped’ (imposed), second wave ‘globalisation’, and that is the major risk posed today (as much as rising China), with ‘populism’ again markedly on the up. And ‘second wave globalisation’ is again yielding predictable political volatility (i.e. in ‘unexpected’ election results). However, as Max Hastings suggests, (quoting former UK politician Michael Howard), “we must recognize that the élites, of which he [Howard] himself freely admits to having been a part, have failed to sustain the consent of electorates for this [Euro-centralisation and for globalisation]. This ignoring the need to sustain the consent of the electorate, bears a considerable responsibility for getting us into this mess”.

Further, as Andrew Bracevich underlines globalism has its distinct social ‘flipside’: “[A] war [has been waged] on (genuine) culture: Under whatever guise, liberal-market globalism is hostile to tradition, community, established norms, and the very idea of a common culture – all of which impinge [adversely] upon the operation of the market, or claims of radical individual autonomy”.

The Thucydides’ Trap for America, rather, as Professor Lears of Rutgers writes, then, is not just the rising of Russia and China, but that of Americans being backed into the corner of not recognizing “that ‘they’ [the liberal globalists] are no longer defending either liberalism or democracy; [these] forms of élite rule – that provoke [such] popular anger – are merely the husk of liberal democracy: The once-vital discourse of liberal democracy has been hollowed out, and transformed into a language of managerial technique … Within this discourse, freedom has been reduced to market behaviour; citizenship to voting; and, efficiency for the public good to efficiency for profit. The rich civic culture that gave rise to popular American politics in the past—unions, churches, local party organizations—has been largely replaced, in both parties, by élites who have benefited from the ‘technocratic turn’”.

“As long as prosperity continued to increase as it has since 1945, western electorates were willing to give élites a very considerable measure of discretion about what they did, [whether in creating the EU], or whatever it might be. They were willing to acquiesce. Now, prosperity is being squeezed, wages are stagnant, and for many people unlikely to rise much in real terms. It is going to be much more difficult to sustain the consent of Western electorates for purposes which the élites might consider as [somehow] ‘enlightened and unselfish’”. (Hastings again – with emphasis added).

And here lies the real ‘trap’: it is not that “prosperity is being squeezed” as per Hastings, but that the economy has rather, been divaricated into the ‘squeezed 60%’ and the asset-holding, and enriched 40% (as Ray Dalio describes it). Last month Dalio, the billionaire founder of top hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, posted a new article, “The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%”. He believes it is a serious mistake to think you can analyze or understand “the” economy because we now have two of them. The wealth and income levels are so skewed between top and bottom that “average” indicators no longer reflect the average person’s experience or living conditions. Dalio explains with this chart:

The red line is the share of US wealth owned by the bottom 90% of the population, and the green line is the share held by the top 0.1%. Right now they are about the same, but notice the trend. The wealthiest 0.1% has been increasing its share of wealth since the 1980s, while the bottom 90% has been losing ground. But it would be a mistake to understand this phenomenon – ‘populism’ as it is labelled in Dalio’s chart – or, the push to recover national culture and sovereignty – as simply a gripe about inequity. It has become since 2009 much more than that: it has become a matter of survival for a major segment of the American and European population (especially, as it coincides with a pensions crisis, which will leave many impoverished in their old age):

“Prior to 2009, debt was able to support a rising standard of living…”, Raúl Ilargi Meijer says, “but less than a decade later, [personal debt], can’t even maintain the status quo. That’s what you call a breaking point.” (Alastair: Or, even, a precursor to civil violence?)

“To put that in numbers, there’s a current shortfall of $18,176 between the standard of living and real disposable incomes. In other words, no matter how much people are borrowing, their standard of living is in decline.

“Something else we can glean from the graphs is that after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-9, the economy never recovered. The S&P may have, and the banks are back to profitable ways and big bonuses, but that has nothing to do with real Americans in their own real economy. 2009 was a turning point, and the crisis never looked back”.

And Max Hastings’ point is that with austerity gone, early popular acquiescence has turned to anger against the élites – for having so taken them for granted in their utopian globalist projects.

Now the wider point: what we have here is the intersection of geo-politics with geo-finance. Both are now wholly contingent on the ‘saving of appearances’. One co-constitutes the other. One is the saving of appearance that America is not losing ‘respect’, or being disdained in the international arena, as it attenuates its global commitments (that is the Thucydides ‘syndrome’), and two, saving the appearance that ‘recovery’ and ‘prosperity for all’, are continuing to unfold nicely in the economy (the world converging globally to western values ‘syndrome’).

Both these aspects to the dissolution of today’s western ‘modernity’ are intertwined, and co-constituting, and therefore likely to march in tandem – at least for now: western ‘prosperity’ underwrites the global order, and the global order underwrites American ‘prosperity’. The American and European élites therefore find themselves painted into a globalised ‘rules-based order’ corner, geo-politically, just as the Central Bankers have been backed into their QE, low or negative interest rate corner – from which there is no easy escape, either.

The term ‘globalisation’ has been used to paint a landscape that is both inevitable, and beneficent: “free trade floats all boats; everywhere” is the meme. Devotees of globalisation however, never examine rigorously whether David Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory still holds good in the contemporary world (Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, however, being a notable exception). There just has been no point in asking the fundamentally political (as opposed to technical) question: Has the resulting off-shoring of supply lines, truly been in our interest – politically, as well as financially? And has the concomitant – globalist disembedding of humans from national culture, community and sovereignty, and the rise of the apolitical, neo-liberal, chameleon-identity ‘Self’, been in the general political and societal interest, too?

It may be objected that Trump is not a globalist. Whilst it is true that he does not favour America shouldering the claims of a world order; he – himself – protests loudly that he is a globalist – but it is just that he is a hard-nosed, New York businessman, type of globalist: that’s all. Globalisation (in the neo-liberal mode), remains as a western totem, rightly, or not, according to political taste.

Where now? In the domestic field, the Central Banks’ easy ‘group think’ on QE, low or negative interest-rates, and ballooning public and private debt, has been pursued now for so long and so extensively, that it has both given us Dalio’s Two Economies, and no way back. It has become a vicious circle: as high debt, to GDP ratios, low-interest zombification of entities and shrinking personal disposable income in the 60%, have depressed growth. Yet, paradoxically, never has the need for more of the same – QE, low or negative interest rates, or even ‘helicopter’ income – been so widely extolled — and, at the very moment when their drawbacks have become so widely identified, even by central bankers, themselves.

So here we are: there is a messy, and bitter, divorce taking place in our societies between the 60% and the 40% ‘tribes’. Asset valuations indeed have never been higher. Yet growth by contrast, has, on average, been ratcheting down, decade by decade – and for some, the situation has become truly existential (those for whom even additional debt cannot sustain their non-discretionary outgoings).

Where do we go from here? A continuation of the existing financial paradigm is what everyone believes; what everyone expects (wants) – and is what we likely will get. It might even be deepened a little, in the wake of a market hiccough (S&P down by more than 2%). And in the case of a financial black swan, we may witness the system literally ‘hosed down’ with newly created ‘money’. But essentially, the business and trade cycle will continue to be heavily repressed – volatility slammed down – and the S&P be the metric of national well-being.

Not only do the markets ‘believe it’, President Trump needs it: geo-politically he likes to do his style of negotiating from a position of strength (and not from one of economic crisis); and internally, he is at ‘war’ with the Establishment. With the S&P touching records daily, he is immune from taunts of incompetence (regardless of whether not the highs have anything to do with the President). His base likes it too: their meagre retirement portfolios at least are rising in value. And in any event, it is not surprising if Trump is a low interest, plentiful liquidity, expanding balance sheet, man globally: It is how he made his billions, personally.

Of course, the flip side to continuing the ‘easing’ paradigm is the ongoing hidden transfer of wealth from general taxpayers (the 60%) to the 40%: more populism; more unexpected election outcomes in Europe; more fake-ness; quicker dissolution of the glue holding society together; more political process, less outcome; less ability to address the needs of collective purpose, etcetera — rising rancour and push-back, in a word. This is the implication.

In parallel, the saving of appearance in geo-politics seems to require its slamming down of volatility too (and in the EU, not least – i.e. Catalonia). People want to believe it (in American power); important sectors of the economy want it, (need it): the appearance of America’s global standing must be preserved. Repressing North Korea, ‘slamming down’ Iran can save appearances (America is strong), but the flip-side is the increased danger of war – whether inadvertently triggered, or by the US cornering itself into it. Actually, ebbing power is something that you smell: false bravura only heightens the odour of weakness.

So, continuance of the paradigms (financial and geopolitical), and the continuance of ‘populist push-back’ (i.e. volatility) seem set. Is Josh Feinman of Deutsche Bank then right when he says: “We’ve seen this movie before. The first great globalization wave, in the half-century or so before World War I, [it] sparked a populist backlash too, and ultimately came crashing down in the cataclysms of 1914 to 1945.” Is a financial crisis inevitable – ultimately? Is war – a confrontation with either Russia, China or N. Korea – unavoidable?

Who can say, for sure? But the repeating of history is not inevitable. Financial re-set at some point, has become inevitable, it would appear. It has taken time for the old meme to fade, and weaken its hold sufficiently. Hemingway famously said about bankruptcy (his), that it starts only very slowly, but ends lightningly fast. The political impulse for a change in the social and cultural paradigm however does seem to be unfolding at an accelerating pace. ‘Populism’ and ‘unexpected’ election results are acting as its accelerant. And the intellectual context for a seismic economic policy shift, is in place too: monetary policy is seen to be bust, and the economic ‘models’ have been seen to be plain wrong. TINA (there is no alternative) is wobbling on her pedestal, and seems poised to topple over.

Of course there are alternatives. But will they arrive in time? Perhaps the existing paradigms are destined to endure a while yet … ’til Hemingway’s observation about bankruptcy sliding unstoppably fast towards the end is further proven as a truism? In the meantime: we wait; shackled by inertia, and backed into a corner.

How Broke is the House of Saud?

Nov 082017

November 8, 2017 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 1:47 pm Finance Tagged with: corruption, Israel, Kushner, Lebanon, MBS, oil, puppet, Russia, Saudi, UAE, US, war 12 Responses »

Salvador Dalí The oecumenial council 1960

Trying to figure out what on earth is happening in the Middle East appears to have gotten a lot harder. Perhaps (because) it’s become more dangerous too. There are so many players, and connections between players, involved now that even making one of those schematic representations would never get it right. Too many unknown unknowns.

A short and incomplete list of the actors: Sunni, Shiite, Saudi Arabia, US, Russia, Turkey, ISIS, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Kurds, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, Qatar, Israel, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Houthis, perhaps even Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan. I know I know, add your favorites. So what have we got, or what do we know we’ve got? We seem to have the US lining up with Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia against Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah. Broadly. But that’s just a -pun intended- crude start.

Putin has been getting closer to the Saudis because of the OPEC production cuts, trying to jack up the price of oil. Which ironically has now been achieved on the heels of the arrests of 11 princes and scores of other wealthy and powerful in the kingdom. But Putin also recently signed a $30 billion oil -infrastructure- deal with Iran. And he’s been cuddling up to Israel as well.

In fact, Putin may well be the most powerful force in the Middle East today. Well played?! He prevented the demise of Assad in Syria, which however you look at it at least saved the country from becoming another Iraq and Libya style failed state. If there’s one thing you can say about the Middle East/North Africa it’s that the US succeeded in creating chaos there to such an extent that it has zero control left over any of it. Well played?!

One thing seems obvious: the House of Saud needs money. The cash flowing out to the princes is simply not available anymore. The oil price is a major factor in that. Miraculously, the weekend crackdown on dozens of princes et al, managed to do what all the OPEC meetings could not for the price of oil: push it up. But the shrinkage of foreign reserves shows a long term problem, not some momentary blip:

Another sign that money has become a real problem in Riyadh is the ever-postponed IPO of Saudi Aramco, the flagship oil company supposedly worth $2 trillion. Trump this week called on the Saudi’s to list it in New York, but despite the upsurge in oil prices you still have to wonder which part of that $2 trillion is real, and which is just fantasy.

But yeah, I know, there’s a million different stocks you can ask the same question about. Then again, seeing the wealth of some of the kingdom’s richest parties confiscated overnight can’t be a buy buy buy signal, can it? Looks like the IPO delay tells us something.

And then you have the 15,000 princes and princesses who all live off of the Kingdom’s supposed riches (‘only 2,000’ profit directly). All of them live in -relative- wealth. Some more than others, but there’s no hunger in the royal family. Thing is, overall population growth outdoes even that in the royal family. Which means, since the country produces nothing except for oil, that there are 1000s upon 1000s of young people with nothing to do but spend money that’s no longer there. Cue mayhem.

And things are not getting better, Saudi Arabia loses money on every barrel it produces. There are stories about them lowering their break-even price, but let’s take that with a few spoonfuls of salt. A 25% drop in break-even prices in just one year sounds a bit too good. Moreover, main competitors like Iran would still have a much lower break-even price. So even if prices would rise further, the Saudi’s might only break even while Iran gets much richer. Running vs standing still.

Saudi Arabia Leads Gulf Nations in Cutting Break-Even Oil Price

Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s biggest oil producer, is also a leader when it comes to slashing the crude price the country needs to balance its budget. The kingdom will need oil to trade at $70 a barrel next year to break even, the IMF said Tuesday in its Regional Economic Outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia. That’s down from a break-even of $96.60 a barrel in 2016, the biggest drop of eight crude producers in the Persian Gulf. The break-even is a measure of the crude price needed to meet spending plans and balance the budget.

Gulf oil producers are cutting spending and eliminating subsidies after crude plunged from more than $100 a barrel in 2014 to average just over half that this year. The need to curb spending is more urgent with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cutting output to reduce a global glut. Oil will trade at $50 to $60 a barrel for the “medium term,” the IMF said.

So a thorough cleansing job of the royal family is perhaps inevitable, albeit very risky. King Salman and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman are up against a very large group of rich people. But there’s no way back now.

Saudi Banks Freeze More Than 1,200 Bank Accounts in Anti-Corruption Purge

Saudi Arabian banks have frozen more than 1,200 accounts belonging to individuals and companies in the kingdom as part of the government’s anti-corruption purge, bankers and lawyers said on Tuesday. They added that the number is continuing to rise. Dozens of royal family members, officials and business executives have been detained in the crackdown and are facing allegations of money laundering, bribery, extorting officials and taking advantage of public office for personal gain. Since Sunday, the central bank has been expanding the list of accounts it is requiring lenders to freeze on an almost hourly basis…

Much more will have to follow that. Doing a half way job is far too risky once the job has started. Not even $800 billion sounds like all that much. Separate families and factions within the royal family have had decades to accumulate wealth.

Saudi Crackdown Targets Up to $800 Billion in Assets

The Saudi government is aiming to confiscate cash and other assets worth as much as $800 billion in its broadening crackdown on alleged corruption among the kingdom’s elite, according to people familiar with the matter. Several prominent businessmen are among those who have been arrested in the days since Saudi authorities launched the crackdown on Saturday, by detaining more than 60 princes, officials and other prominent Saudis, according to those people and others. The country’s central bank, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, said late Tuesday that it has frozen the bank accounts of “persons of interest” and said the move is “in response to the Attorney General’s request pending the legal cases against them.”

The most visible – and perhaps richest- of all those arrested -in western eyes- is Al-Waleed. The Bloomberg estimate of his wealth that came out this week is $19 billion. But their own article seems to indicate a much higher number. He owns 5% of Apple -says Bloomberg-, and that share alone would be worth $45 billion.

Alwaleed, Caught in Saudi Purge, Has Assets Across the World

Apple – Alwaleed bought 6.23 million shares, or 5 percent, of the computer and mobile-device maker for $115.4 million in 1997. He made these purchases between mid-March and April of that year while the company was still struggling to turn itself around. He has since continued to hold the stake while Apple’s valuation has soared to as high as $900 billion.

Going through all these numbers, you can imagine why the ruling family, or rather the rulers within that family, are getting nervous. And that’s where we get to an interesting piece by Ryan Grim at the Intercept, who says it’s not even 32-year-old crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, or King Salman, 81, who control the kingdom these days, it’s the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -and maybe Washington-.

The coup has already been perpetrated.

Saudi Arabia’s Government Purge – And How Washington Corruption Enabled It

The move marks a moment of reckoning for Washington’s foreign policy establishment, which struck a bargain of sorts with Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, and Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the U.S. who has been MBS’s leading advocate in Washington. The unspoken arrangement was clear: The UAE and Saudi Arabia would pump millions into Washington’s political ecosystem while mouthing a belief in “reform,” and Washington would pretend to believe that they meant it.

MBS has won praise for some policies, like an openness to reconsidering Saudi Arabia’s ban on women drivers. Meanwhile, however, the 32-year-old MBS has been pursuing a dangerously impulsive and aggressive regional policy, which has included a heightening of tensions with Iran, a catastrophic war on Yemen, and a blockade of ostensible ally Qatar. Those regional policies have been disasters for the millions who have suffered the consequences, including the starving people of Yemen, as well as for Saudi Arabia, but MBS has dug in harder and harder. And his supporters in Washington have not blinked.

The platitudes about reform were also challenged by recent mass arrests of religious figures and repression of anything that has remotely approached less than full support of MBS. The latest purge comes just days after White House adviser Jared Kushner, a close ally of Otaiba, visited Riyadh, and just hours after a bizarre-even-for-Trump tweet. Whatever legitimate debate there was about MBS ended Saturday — his drive to consolidate power is now too obvious to ignore. And that puts denizens of Washington’s think tank world in a difficult spot, as they have come to rely heavily on the Saudi and UAE end of the bargain.

As The Intercept reported earlier, one think tank alone, the Middle East Institute, got a massive $20 million commitment from the UAE. And make no mistake, MBS is a project of the UAE — an odd turn of events given the relative sizes of the two countries. “Our relationship with them is based on strategic depth, shared interests, and most importantly the hope that we could influence them. Not the other way around,” Otaiba has said privately.

The kingdom’s broke. Not today, or tomorrow morning, but crown prince MBS is able to look at the numbers and go: Oh Shit! And if he doesn’t see it, he has Kushner (re: Israel) and Al-Otaiba to fill him in. All three relative youngsters -MBS is 32, Kushner is 36, Otaiba is 43- are exceedingly nervous by now.

And then you get war, or the threat of war. War in Yemen, a blockade of Qatar, and now ‘mingling’ in Lebanon with the somewhat mysterious removal of billionaire PM Hariri -allegedly on an Iran/Hezbollah assassination plot-, and outright threats against Iran and Hezbollah:

Lebanon’s Hariri Visits UAE As Home Crisis Escalates

Lebanon’s outgoing prime minister, Saad al-Hariri, made a brief visit to the United Arab Emirates from Saudi Arabia on Tuesday despite a deepening crisis back home and a rise in regional tensions triggered by his surprise resignation. Hariri announced his resignation on Saturday during a visit to his ally Saudi Arabia and has not yet returned to Lebanon. He said he believed there was an assassination plot against him and accused Iran, Saudi Arabia’s arch-rival, and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of sowing strife in the Arab world.

His resignation has thrust Lebanon back into the frontline of the regional rivalry that pits a mostly Sunni bloc led by Saudi Arabia and allied Gulf monarchies against Shi‘ite Iran and its allies. Hariri’s office said he had flown to Abu Dhabi on Tuesday and then returned to Riyadh, but it gave no reason for the trip. It also did not say when he would return home. Hariri’s Future TV channel said he would also visit Bahrain but gave no reason.

In short: billionaire PM Hariri is a puppet. Just perhaps not of Saudi Arabia, but of Abu Dhabi. Whether he’s under house arrest in Riyadh, as has been suggested, is still unclear. But it’s a safe bet that he didn’t fly to Abu Dhabi -and back- alone, or of his own accord. He went to receive instructions.

Saudi Arabia Accuses Iran Of ‘Direct Military Aggression’ Over Yemen Missile

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince has accused Iran of “direct military aggression” by supplying missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen, raising the stakes in an already tense standoff between the two regional rivals. Mohammed bin Salman linked Tehran to the launch of a ballistic missile fired from Yemen towards the international airport in the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Saturday. The missile was intercepted and destroyed.

“The involvement of the Iranian regime in supplying its Houthi militias with missiles is considered a direct military aggression by the Iranian regime,” the prince said on Tuesday during a phone conversation with the UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, according to the state-run Saudi Press Agency. He added that the move “may be considered an act of war against the kingdom”. Iran has called Riyadh’s accusations as baseless and provocative.

We have way of knowing what is true or not about this. We do know that Saudi Arabia have been executing a barbaric war in Yemen. With weapons from the US, UK, et al. So someone firing back wouldn’t be that far-fetched.

Regardless, Pepe Escobar, a journalist who knows much more than his peers, or at least doesn’t hold back as much as them, doesn’t see this end well for MBS, UAE, Israel, US, and whoever else is in their corner. Another losing war for the US in the Middle East? We’re losing count.

The Inside Story Of The Saudi Night Of Long Knives

A top Middle East business/investment source who has been doing deals for decades with the opaque House of Saud offers much-needed perspective: “This is more serious than it appears. The arrest of the two sons of previous King Abdullah, Princes Miteb and Turki, was a fatal mistake. This now endangers the King himself. It was only the regard for the King that protected MBS. There are many left in the army against MBS and they are enraged at the arrest of their commanders.” To say the Saudi Arabian Army is in uproar is an understatement. “He’d have to arrest the whole army before he could feel secure.”

[..] The story starts with secret deliberations in 2014 about a possible “removal” of then King Abdullah. But “the dissolution of the royal family would lead to the breaking apart of tribal loyalties and the country splitting into three parts. It would be more difficult to secure the oil, and the broken institutions whatever they were should be maintained to avoid chaos.” Instead, a decision was reached to get rid of Prince Bandar bin Sultan – then actively coddling Salafi-jihadis in Syria – and replace the control of the security apparatus with Mohammed bin Nayef. The succession of Abdullah proceeded smoothly.

Power was shared between three main clans: King Salman (and his beloved son Prince Mohammed); the son of Prince Nayef (the other Prince Mohammed), and finally the son of the dead king (Prince Miteb, commander of the National Guard). In practice, Salman let MBS run the show. And, in practice, blunders also followed. The House of Saud lost its lethal regime-change drive in Syria and is bogged down in an unwinnable war on Yemen, which on top of it prevents MBS from exploiting the Empty Quarter – the desert straddling both nations. The Saudi Treasury was forced to borrow on the international markets. Austerity ruled …

[..] aversion to MBS never ceased to grow; “There are three major royal family groups aligning against the present rulers: the family of former King Abdullah, the family of former King Fahd, and the family of former Crown Prince Nayef.” Nayef – who replaced Bandar – is close to Washington and extremely popular in Langley due to his counter-terrorism activities. His arrest earlier this year angered the CIA and quite a few factions of the House of Saud – as it was interpreted as MBS forcing his hand in the power struggle. According to the source, “he might have gotten away with the arrest of CIA favorite Mohammed bin Nayef if he smoothed it over but MBS has now crossed the Rubicon though he is no Caesar. The CIA regards him as totally worthless.”

[..] The source, though, is adamant; “There will be regime change in the near future, and the only reason that it has not happened already is because the old King is liked among his family. It is possible that there may be a struggle emanating from the military as during the days of King Farouk, and we may have a ruler arise that is not friendly to the United States.”

In the end, it all comes down to a familiar theme: follow the money. And we need to seriously question the economic reality of Saudi Arabia. That graph above of their foreign reserves looks downright grim.

With money comes power. Who loses money loses power. Saudi Arabia is bleeding money. The population surge is uncanny, and there are no jobs for all these young people. Perhaps the best they can do is be a US/Israel puppet in an attempt to ‘redo’ the map of the Middle East, but that has not been a very successful project off late -like the past 100 years-.

Then again, when you’re desperate you do desperate things. And when you’re a 32-year-old crown prince with more enemies than you can keep track of, you use what money is left to 1) keep up appearances, 2) steal what others have gathered, 3) buy weapons up the wazoo, and 4) go to war.

It all paints a very dark picture for the world. Russia won’t stand for attacks on Iran. And Iran won’t let attacks on Lebanon/Hezbollah go unanswered. All that is set to push up oil prices further, and all parties involved are just fine with that. Because they can buy more weapons with the additional profits.

I’ll leave you with Nassim Taleb’s comments on the situation. After all, Nassim’s from Lebanon, and knows that part of the world like the back of his hand: