October 5th, 2026 Newsletter

Be a Vigilant Skeptic

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media.

“The way you get democracy to function is by informing the public.” – Robert Kennedy Jr.

“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of sceptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.” – Carl Sagan

“Never worry about who will be offended if you speak the Truth. Worry about who will be misled, deceived and destroyed, if you do not.” and
”Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by and that has made all the difference.” – Robert Frost

Though the chapters interrelate, they are divided into six sections and have a common realisation that a cabal of corporate elites have captured global trade, global and national governance, mainstream and online media, and ultimately many of our minds.

As a stenographer, I link to an article or audio and paste a key section. My most trusted websites are platforms for journalists who don’t compromise on the truth and have thereby been shunned by the mainstream media. Click the button below to view my list of top trusted news sources:

Disclaimer: Farms Not Factories newsletters share and repost material that is already publicly accessible. The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent those of Farms Not Factories but are selected to promote open discussion on issues often omitted or misrepresented in the mainstream media.

Food, Farming & Water

Featured Video: The Economics of Eating, Local Food can Save the World

Delving into the hidden economics behind the food we consume, The Economics of Eating unpacks why a tomato grown thousands of miles away is generally cheaper than one cultivated locally — and how that skewed economic dynamic is misshaping our entire world.

“It’s an artificial system, and the price in the marketplace is a political choice.” — Helena Norberg-Hodge

The film challenges the common assumption that huge farms and globalised supply-chains are efficient — and necessary to feed the world. Instead, it explores a transformative possibility: localising the food economy supports smaller diversified farms, which actually produce more food per acre while restoring both agricultural and wild biodiversity.

Across the world, a food movement is growing — regen ag, agroecology, permaculture and more. But public policies and infrastructure continue to make industrial, globalised food artificially cheap, while farmers who prioritise soil health, biodiversity, animal welfare, and community well-being struggle to compete.

What if economic rules were changed so that local, fresh, and ethically produced food became the most affordable and accessible option for the majority?

It’s more than possible — but only if we focus on localising the market.

‘The Economics of Eating’ provides that missing piece of the puzzle, showing us the most strategic way to revolutionise food, farming and the modern world.

“If we focus on changing the market and support systemic change, it’s amazing what we could achieve.”

Watch: The Economics of Eating

Share Retweet Insta Repost

Watch follow up discussion; Session 1 – Conversation The Economics of Eating, Local Futures, 23 September 2026

Watch follow up discussion; Session 2 – Conversation The Economics of Eating, Local Futures, 23 September 2026

It’s hardly surprising that the latest Sustainable Farming Incentive subsidy roll-out was such a disaster. Apart from the Green Party, UK politicians would rather subsidise weapons and warfare than help UK farmers survive unfair competition from imports from the global food system shaped by bankers and corporations to produce the cheapest nutritionally-deficient, chemical-intensive food for supermarket shelves.

Read; Farmers Didn’t Fail This Round. Policy Did.; Helen Freeman; 29 September, 2026

‘When public money is handed out first-come, first-served, it stops being support and starts being a lottery.

Six hours.

That was all it took for the latest Sustainable Farming Incentive offer to open and close again, with £253m allocated before most people had even finished their first cup of tea. I watched it unfold as it happened, the headlines coming in, the comments following fast, and the sense in the thread that everyone was angry and nobody was surprised.

If you’ve never had to fill in a Defra form in your life, SFI is the scheme that pays farmers in England for things like soil, water and wildlife work, the unglamorous bits that keep land functioning and don’t always pay for themselves through food sales. It sits inside the post-Brexit support system, and in theory it is meant to make farming more resilient while delivering public goods.

This round was first-come, first-served, which sounds neutral until you think about what it rewards. Speed isn’t the same as need, and it isn’t the same as results, and when you hand out public money to whoever can click fastest, you end up funding the people best set up to apply, not the farms that would do the most good with it.

What happened

Defra allocated the funding in around six hours. There were 12,204 applications, and 8,812 of them, about 72%, came from farms with environmental agreements due to expire before February 2027. There was also £50m in drought support folded into the pot.

This is where the playing field stops being level. Some farms have an agent, someone whose whole job is getting these applications in fast. Others have one person at the kitchen table, trying to work through a list of SFI actions one by one, and realising halfway through that the pot has emptied before they’ve even got to the end of it.

It’s hard to call that fair, and it’s even harder to pretend it’s about outcomes…’

‘…The wider risk

There is a temptation, if you are not in farming, to see this as an administrative mess and move on.

But it sits inside a bigger picture that is already uncomfortable. The UK is importing more food, and the gap between what we buy and what we sell is widening. In the first half of this year, the UK spent a record £33.1bn on food imports, and the trade gap hit £21.1bn, meaning we imported £21.1bn more food than we exported.

I am not interested in pretending we can grow everything here. What worries me is the direction of travel, and the way policy choices make domestic production harder while telling us, in the same breath, that resilience and food security matter.

If you make environmental support unpredictable, you don’t just lose environmental outcomes, you push farmers back towards whatever keeps the bills paid and the lenders off their backs, because that is what survival looks like, and you make it harder for new entrants, smaller farms, and tenant farms to take any kind of risk, even the good kind. And then, when domestic production falters, we fill the gap with imports, often produced under standards we would not accept here, and we call it a market, even though it is really a slow transfer of risk, from government to farms, and then from farms to the rest of us, because a country that cannot support itself when shocks hit is a country that gets pushed around by shortages and price spikes.

What the sector said

The NFU called the rollout a debacle, saying it was pitting farmers against each other. The Soil Association argued the pot needs to be bigger, but also that access can’t be a digital sprint. Others, including Joe Stanley at the GWCT Allerton Project, have warned this is part of a quieter shift, away from reliable public support and towards regulation or private finance. Whatever you think of any one organisation, the pattern is the same, if you want farmers to deliver public goods, you have to make it possible to plan.

What this means for the rest of us

If you don’t farm, you might be thinking, alright, but what does this have to do with me.

It matters because this is how we end up with fewer farms, more imports, and less control over where our food comes from.

And because the knock-on effects aren’t abstract. When farms like Anna’s miss out, it isn’t just a line on a budget, it can mean fewer school visits, fewer children getting to see where food comes from, and fewer chances for farms to do the nature-friendly work we keep saying we want.

This is what gets lost when farms can’t keep going.

Keeping farms open is what keeps those things possible, even when policy lets them down. One of the simplest ways we do that, where we can, is by buying from farms.

If you can afford it, keep a bit of your food money local. A veg box now and then. Eggs from a farm gate. Meat from a butcher who can tell you where it came from. A market stall instead of another anonymous trolley of imported food.

I know not everyone can. I’m not interested in guilt, and I’m not pretending shopping choices fix policy.

But even one small swap, once a week or once a month, helps. It keeps money moving through local farms and local businesses, and it makes it a little easier for farms to survive the gaps and the chaos created by schemes like this.

Because when we lose farms, we don’t just lose farmers. We lose options.

And if we care about food security, about resilience, about landscapes that can cope with drought and flood, then we need farm support that is boring in the best way, predictable, accessible, and built around outcomes, not around who can click fastest.’

We cannot afford to lose one more food-providing farmer from our island.

Read; So, that’s a no to food sufficiency then? Beyond GM, 30 August 2026

‘When Beyond GM wrote to the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, to congratulate him on his new job, we took the opportunity to make one central proposal: that his government should consider food sufficiency as the foundation of national food and farming policy. Our letter argued that food security has become such an expansive idea that it can be used to justify almost any intervention that promises to deliver greater production, faster innovation or more resilient supply chains. Food sufficiency asks harder and more practical questions: enough of what, for whom, by what means and at whose expense? It places the ability of everyone to obtain enough nutritious, appropriate and affordable food at the centre of policy. It also recognises that future provision depends on protecting land, nature, farming skills, regional infrastructure, diverse supply chains and viable livelihoods.

We wrote to the Prime Minister because food sufficiency is not a narrow agricultural policy but a question about what government believes the food system is for. It reaches across farming, public health, poverty, environment, trade and national resilience. It is also our responsibility to engage constructively with a new government, and our supporters expect us to do so.

We have now had a response. Our letter, it seems, never made it to the Prime Minister. It was passed, instead, to Defra. The response we received was from an anonymous staffer (or possibly even an artificial intelligence app) in the Ministerial Contact Unit rather than any named person. Because we are in the middle of a legal challenge to Defra’s Genetic Technology Regulations 2025, Downing Street’s decision to pass our letter onto Defra meant our sincere proposal was dealt with by the one department least capable of answering it openly. Whatever the intention, the result is institutionally hostile to genuine engagement.’

Listen; Green Party Conference, BBC Farming Today, 5 October 2026

‘It’s party conference season, so as part of our look at the food, farming and environmental policies that political parties around the UK are offering, we hear from the Green MP Adrian Ramsay.’

Presenter; “As part of our look at the food, farming and environmental policies that parties around the UK are offering, I spoke to the Green MP, Adrian Ramsey, who speaks for them on rural affairs, and he told me the Greens would give more money to farming.”

Adrian Ramsey MP; “I take evidence from organisations like Wildlife and Countryside Link, who’ve done a thorough submission to government on the level of increase we need to have in all sorts of measures to restore nature and they’re looking at around a 70% increase in the agricultural budget, focused in particular on sustainable farming and the Environmental Land Management Schemes. This has got to be a priority. It’s actually not a huge amount compared to many, many other government budgets that we actually spend on something as crucial as our food production and our food security and the stewardship of our natural environment. So there’s many places you could get that money. But if you look at how difficult it is for farmers day to day, many of family farmers in my area not really making any money day to day, we just can’t run our farming and food system on that basis.”

Presenter; “Given those challenges that you’ve talked about, then would you keep the same policy which in England only rewards farmers with public money for public goods, or would you look at what the other devolved nations are doing and re engineer it if you like, so that farmers got some money as pure support to support them in volatile times?”

Adrian Ramsey; “I think there does need to be money to support farmers in volatile times because we’re seeing more and more of those, whether it’s been the extreme summer we’ve had, or we could be heading for an extreme winter with El Nino, with the impacts of flooding, but absolutely, when we have shocks to the system like the sudden spikes in fertiliser costs we saw earlier this year because of international reasons, we do need to help farmers through that and we need to help farmers with the public money for public goods. That was supposed to be one of the benefits of Brexit, but actually is not helping farmers in the way that it needs to.”

Presenter; “At your conference over the weekend, there was quite a lot of talk about food in various different ways. I talk about what a green future looks like and particularly talk about plant rich diets in the future. What would that mean for livestock farmers? Could they expect support under a green government?”

Adrian Ramsey; “Well, what Greens want to do is to get our farming onto a more sustainable footing and the biggest thing I’m concerned about there is that we support the production of far more food within the UK. We import about 40% of our food, I think we could get that figure down by supporting far more domestic production and by supporting far more nature friendly farming as well.”

If you are interested in what the UK political parties are saying at their party conferences, FarmGate have been reporting from them and this week was the Labour Party.

Listen; Rural Urban Connection, 2 October 2026

Intro; ‘ffinlo Costain (8point9) talks to Martin Lines (Nature Friendly Farming Network). Martin has spent three days (and nights) lobbying Labour MPs and activists on behalf of food, farming and nature. Find out the key themes and what was said behind the scenes. Labour’s conference theme was “Hope Again”. How does that mood music translate into action for food, farming and nature.

  • Labour’s return to its rural roots.
  • Food resilience, security, and El Niño.
  • The Great British Grid as a rural opportunity.
  • Growth in every (rural) postcode.
  • Public procurement and diet.
  • The SFI fallout.
  • Finance joining the dots.
  • How NFFN lobbying actually works.’

If, like me, you don’t have a subscription to mainstream newspapers, read this short extract from an article in the Telegraph I found in The Sustainable Food Trust’s Newsletter about the disaster of the UK relying on global food imports.

Read; Record spending on imports triggers mounting food security fears, The Telegraph, 25 September 2026

‘Britain’s spending on imported food has hit a new record, according to official figures, triggering fresh alarm about the country’s ability to feed itself. Latest data from the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) show overall imports have risen 0.9pc to £33.1bn in the first half of the year – the highest since its records began in 2000. The FDF’s bi-annual Trade Snapshot showed big jumps in spending on foreign food across a range of key food categories including poultry, beef, chocolate and cheese. Tom Bradshaw, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president, said: “These figures should be a wake-up call. At a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty, we cannot afford to take our food production capacity for granted.”

Because we have signed many so-called free trade treaties we are compelled to open our markets to cheap imports of global food such as meat from Brazil, even though we don’t need it. However we can protect our beef farmers by refusing to import beef from Brazil as it is produced using antibiotics as a growth promoter which is illegal in the UK.

Read; UK farming unions demand urgent action over Brazilian meat imports to protect public health, NFU, 28 August 2026

‘UK farming unions are asking the government to:

Prohibit the import of all Brazilian POAO from 3 September 2026 until Brazil can demonstrate that all meat exported to GB is being produced responsibly.

Conduct a thorough, in-person audit of Brazilian production and traceability systems.

Increase the rate of checks on Brazilian POAO entering the UK, including randomised and risk-based sampling, to ensure imports do not contain prohibited residues.

Establish a wider UK framework of core production standards, applying to domestic and imported agri-food products equally to prevent domestic producers being undercut by food produced using methods, such as the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion, that are illegal in the UK.’

Humans can’t eat grass but cattle convert it into meat and milk. Grazing cattle on long-term herbal leys increases biodiversity and fertilises the soil.

Watch; Are grazing livestock a good use of land? Sustainable Food Trust, 8 September 2026

‘During this clip, our CEO, Patrick Holden, talks about how his cows are sequestering carbon by improving the soil, arguing that livestock are a good use of land, as long as they’re integrated as part of a sustainable farming system – “it’s not the cow, but the how”.’

To compete with cheap imported milk, UK dairy farmers think that they have to get big and intensify or go bust, resulting in animal cruelty, overuse of antibiotics and pollution from excessive nitrates from animal waste. There is another way if consumers would use the power of their purse to buy from a decentralised system of farming – local shop and more if the demand was there.

Read; Rise of ‘mega-dairies’ pushing nature to breaking point The Wildlife Trusts, 28 September 2026

The rise of ‘mega-dairies’ is pushing nature to breaking point, according to a new report from The Wildlife Trusts published today. The report, Doing Dairy Differently, warns that the shift towards larger, more intensive dairy systems is putting growing pressure on the land, water and wider environment on which farms, people and wildlife depend. More than 40 mega-dairies – very large-scale dairy farms – exist across the UK, the largest housing 2,600 cows. Yet unlike intensive pig and poultry units, large dairy and beef farms are not subject to the same government monitoring, meaning their size and environmental impacts are left unchecked. The number of farms keeping cattle indoors year-round has also more than doubled over the past decade, increasing the volume of slurry that must be stored and managed, while existing infrastructure is failing to keep pace.

Analysis by The Wildlife Trusts of recent Environment Agency figures calculated that dairy activity was responsible for 71 percent of serious agricultural pollution incidents in England alone, damaging rivers, contributing to algal blooms, reducing oxygen levels and harming wildlife. However, the new report argues that the barrier to a more sustainable dairy sector is not a lack of good practice, but a supermarket-profits led system that too often rewards volume over resilience, pushes risk back onto farmers, and fails to account for the damage caused by pollution, imported feed and declining natural resources. Instead, new Maximum Sustainable Output (MSO) analysis – which looks at the level of production a farm can sustain profitably – suggests that lower-input, nature-friendly systems can improve returns, reduce environmental pressures and build resilience to economic and climate shocks. The analysis also shows that well-managed grazing and healthy soils, alongside suitable slurry management, can reduce pollution risks and reliance on costly inputs such as artificial fertiliser and concentrated feed.

Gemma Lane, Land Use Policy Manager at The Wildlife Trusts, says: “Our new report proves that we cannot measure the health of the dairy sector by output alone. The current system is driving poor outcomes including increased pollution and exposure to the impacts of climate change. Yet, when properly embedded into farming practices, nature can be part of the solution. Farms that work with nature are already reducing their reliance on costly inputs while building resilience to the challenges ahead.”

The Wildlife Trusts’ new report calls for practical action to help dairy farms move towards a sustainable future, including:

Stronger regulation and investment to help prevent pollution – strengthening regulation for the highest-risk dairy systems, including the permitting of very large, housed units and farms with little or no grazing, while helping farmers invest in slurry storage and other pollution-prevention infrastructure.

Better advice and support for farmers – expanding trusted farm advice, including farmer-to-farmer learning, helping farmers to adopt nature-friendly methods and plan how they manage nutrients and manure.

Greater support for nature-friendly dairy – supporting organic and regenerative dairy farms through government agri-environment schemes and fairer supply chains so that farmers are rewarded for the environmental benefits they deliver.

To compete with giant factory farms here and abroad, pig farmers are forced to be part of the centralised global system that is cruel to both the pigs and farmers. Due to being dependent on very few buyers, they are price takers not price makers.

Listen; Pig industry in crisis, BBC Farming Today, 5 October 2026

BBC intro; ‘Pig farmers say they’re losing thousands of pounds a week as prices fall, but costs, particularly of feed, are rising. Processors have given notice to some farmers, saying they no longer want to buy their pigs. The National Pig Association is warning an oversupply this autumn could push prices down further.’

Read; Lobby your MP to end factory farming!, Foodrise for climate, nature, justice, 14 September 2026

‘Join us on 19 October in Parliament for our Mass Lobby Day. Factory farming is detrimental to the climate, pollutes our rivers, causes immense animal suffering, and devastates communities living nearby. Despite this, the government is pushing ahead with plans to expand factory farming – announcing a new strategy to grow the poultry sector and rewriting planning rules to make it easier and faster to build intensive factory farms. So, the time to hold them accountable is now. This is our chance to urge MPs directly to support a moratorium on new factory farms and commit to ending factory farming altogether.

What do you need to do?

Ahead of the event, you’ll contact your MP to request a meeting in Parliament on 19 October. You don’t need any previous experience of talking to MPs. We’ll provide resources, training, and support ahead of time, so you can feel confident making your voice heard.

Find all the information and registration form here: https://action.foodrise.org.uk/page/200042/action/1…

Let’s end the harms of factory farming together. We hope to see you there!’

Though not as high a standard as organic, RSPCA Assured chicken has to be better than the unlabeled frankenchicken products found in your supermarket and hospitality menu.

Read; I’ve seen how chickens are farmed. Here’s how to choose higher-welfare chicken by Kate Parkes, RSPCA farmed animal welfare scientist, 25 August 2026

‘Around 95% of chickens reared for meat in the UK are raised in standard intensive indoor systems. Most lower-welfare systems use fast-growing chicken breeds and some use higher stocking densities to keep prices as low as possible. But this can have serious consequences for bird welfare: Fast-growing chicken breeds: lower-welfare chickens are often bred to grow unnaturally fast, reaching market weight in around just 35 days. Because their bodies develop faster than their bones and hearts can handle, many suffer from severe, painful leg conditions, heart issues, and lameness

Crowded living conditions: in some lower-welfare systems, chickens have limited space to move around, forage, or display their natural behaviours.’

While giving money to help people afford organic fruit and veg will bring more people to taste the difference and connect to their local farmer at farmers’ markets, the focus should be on ending government subsidies to non organic and centralised systems of food production, distribution and retail.

Listen; Organic Veg Scheme, BBC Farming Today, 30 September 2026

Intro; ‘A project in Cardiff has been helping low income households buy organic fruit and veg. Around 120 shoppers received a Planet Card – which gave them £11 a week to spend with organic veg producers. The pilot scheme cost around £19,000 and was funded by an alliance of charities and not-for-profit organisations – led by Food Sense Wales and Sustain.’

In the same episode of Farming Today they discuss how farming with less artificial fertiliser and more organic fertiliser, reduces CO2 and improves the soil.

‘New research shows that improving the nitrogen-cycle in the soil can significantly reduce emissions. The study took in evidence from around the world – the international research team analysed 2,235 comparisons from 210 experimental sites. We speak to one of the report’s authors, Professor Simon Willcock, director of sustainable farming systems at the University of Reading.’

This week, Farming Today is asking; what if farmers didn’t use fertiliser? and exploring the benefits to your land, produce and pocket.

Listen; Farming without oil, BBC Farming Today, 7 September 2026

Presenter; “This week we’ll be finding out how far the UK is moving towards fossil free farming. Stuart Oates is a seventh generation organic farmer on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall and he’s working his way towards that as a Nuffield farming scholar. He spent two years and nearly 50,000 miles travelling to find out whether farming can reach real zero by removing diesel, synthetic fertiliser, plastics and oil based chemicals rather than offsetting them. His judgment is that we can farm without oil.”

Stuart Oates, Organic Farmer; “So the biggest contributor to the use of fossil fuels on farms in the UK is by far and away fossil fuels coming through nitrogen fertiliser. To make one ton takes at least one ton of fossil fuels and if you scale that across tens of thousands, if not millions of acres, you realise the scale of the problem is vast. It far exceeds the use of diesel or plastics or anything like that and so if we can start by reducing and removing that, we’ll go a really long way.”

Presenter; “And how do you do that on the farm? What actions can you take?”

Stuart Oates; “So we’re actually really quite a long way down this road simply by being organic. So we don’t put any artificial nitrogen onto our fields. Everything we get in terms of nitrogen comes either from nitrogen fixing plants, things like clovers or other legumes, or through cycling nitrogen through our animals. And so that’s the biggest step but then you can look at the next biggest one down, I suppose, which would be fuels, looking at how do we replace our diesel fuel and just reduce the amount we use in general. So min till and no till. That’s a really good thing about reducing the use of fuels because obviously your deep cultivation is a huge user of energy. But also we should think about what our next fuel is going to be. So I’m currently looking at a project where we’re going to hopefully get as many electrified machines on the farm as possible. So I already have an electric car and van and everything and then tractors themselves.”

Presenter; “How do you make this transition economically advantageous for UK farmers?”

Stuart Oates; “Actually this is a huge economic opportunity and it’s a national security opportunity. If we’re sending money abroad to pay for oil it’s a huge debt coming out of our country at the moment. You see a lot of farms around the country giving up their opportunity to large companies putting in giant solar farms, giant wind farms, when really we should be owning that opportunity and by engaging with the transition towards electrification and all of the things around that, reducing and removing fossil fuels in our fertilisers, chemicals and sprays and all those kind of things, we get sovereignty back. We actually own some of our opportunity and we actually have the chance to produce food when the bad times hit. Because let’s be blunt, if we get a big war against us tomorrow, we aren’t going to get fertiliser anymore. And who will be producing the most food? It’ll be those that aren’t using the fertiliser”.

Presenter; “What is the one thing that will really tip farmers views towards this and give them an appetite to change the way they’re farming?”

Stuart Oates; “Money. The farming systems we live in at the moment are horrific. We live in incredibly tight margin spaces where 3% seems like a great year as profit and that’s not a good place to be. And so the only thing and the only opportunity in fact that a lot of farmers have is turning this into an economic opportunity. If you move away from fossil fuels, you take away this huge reliance on the global system and you bring a lot of the chance to improve your bottom line back in-house. So if you aren’t thinking about it, are you broad enough of mind?”

It’s good that retailers met to look at the long term consequences of their business practices. Where competition is the mantra, processors and supermarkets are forced to push their prices ever lower, driving a race to the bottom as they source cheaper, lower standard ingredients from abroad. Food must come out of the so called free trade treaties so local farm produce can be protected by the government guaranteeing a price over the cost of production – like the Milk and Meat Marketing Boards that were set up in the 1930s. For a year, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers demonstrated outside Delhi to prevent their globalist government from dropping this fair price rule and won, thereby keeping their small scale family farmers in business.

Listen; Food industry whistleblowers, BBC Farming Today, 3 October 2026

Intro; An anonymous group of senior executives from retailers and food suppliers is warning that ‘short term thinking’ in the industry is driving up food prices and that farmers are being left to face the financial risks of an increasingly unpredictable supply chain.’

Presenter; “An anonymous group of senior executives from retailers and food suppliers is warning that short term thinking in the industry is driving up food prices and that farmers are being left to face the financial risks of an increasingly unpredictable supply chain. Well, this report has been coordinated by Inside Track, a non profit organisation that helps senior executives to expose the environmental impacts of their industry. These executives point to crop failures in the UK and across the world this year and say there will be growing disruption to food chains unless the response to climate change moves from what they call quick fixes to give the illusion of resilience to long term strategic solutions. Ian Quinn is chief reporter at the Grocer magazine which covers the food industry. He explained what changes this group wants.”

Ian Quinn; “The main suggestion is that bosses of retailers and manufacturers need to be less based on short term profit and have more cooperation throughout the supply chain, including farmers, to look longer ahead at how production can be safeguarded. What they’re warning is that areas of the supply chain will become non profitable and cease to exist unless action is taken on this.”

Presenter; “Now how big a change are we talking? Because one of the things they point out, which I admit I’d never really given much thought to, is that a lot of executives, their performance will be judged on quite short term goals and that obviously will be reflected in what they’re paid. So how easy would that be to turn around and indeed to persuade people it needs to change?”

Ian Quinn; “Well, I think it’s very difficult because the nature of the beast with these companies and all private companies really is that they’re there to make money. That’s something that’s extremely hard to change. You’re not going to suddenly nationalise the food industry. So I think that’s where probably government comes in. And I think it’s down to government to work with the industry to set the framework by which this sort of longer term planning can be built in. Because something has to give, you can’t really just attack retailers and suppliers for looking to make profits or looking to keep prices down or looking to find clever options to keep certain goods on the on the shelf if the government isn’t working with them on these longer challenges. So I think that’s really where the answer lies.”

Presenter; “Are we talking about the much talked about government food strategy?”

Ian Quinn; “Exactly what the food strategy is is a bit of a mystery at the moment. It’s gone incredibly quiet of late. I am told that the government certainly since this summer have been seriously looking at what they can do on resilience. I think they were very stung by the criticism of the National Audit Office report in September, which basically accused them having pretty much left resilience planning to the industry and done very little to safeguard British production in the event of extreme climate change, which is obviously coming down the track. And I actually am picking up that DEFRA and government more generally is waking up to this and it is planning to act. But obviously, as this memo makes clear, there’s a long way to go to satisfy critics.”

Presenter; “Have we had any reaction from. From the industry?”

Ian Quinn; “The people I spoke to who were senior people within the food and drink industry, they accept they need to do more and that the industry needs to move quicker. Two things on that, one, they would appreciate a level playing field and a sort of government strategy that they can work within. At the same time, I think a lot of companies argue that they have already done a lot on sustainability. Some of that perhaps hasn’t really been given the credit that they think. But I don’t think anyone would say that these claims are completely unfounded or that the industry couldn’t be doing more.”

The Sustainable Food Trust published True Cost Accounting in 2017 – let’s hope this new rendition reaches hearts that earlier campaigns failed to reach.

Read; UK’s unhealthy food system costs average household £3,590 extra per year, 8point9, 24 September 2026

‘The cost to the taxpayer of the UK’s unhealthy food system has risen to £298 billion a year, up from £268 billion just two years ago, according to updated analysis from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC). This means that the average UK household spends roughly £3,590 a year, or £69 a week, on the real external costs of the UK’s food system – NHS, social care, and welfare – nearly doubling the amount that the average household spends on food. Importantly, this report focuses only on the direct hidden external costs on health and economy. The additional taxpayer impacts of environmental harm and security risk are not included.

The analysis, by Professor Tim Jackson, FFCC Commissioner, updates his 2024 report – The False Economy of Big Food – and finds the gap between the cost of diet-related ill health and the cost of fixing it has widened further. The new report is being published ahead of the Labour Party Conference and the launch of a new report by the Right To Food UK Commission, led by Liverpool West Derby MP, Ian Byrne. Professor Tim Jackson said, “Two years after our first report on The False Economy of Big Food, we’re now spending even more of taxpayers’ money treating food-related chronic illness, and we’re still supporting a food economy that makes healthy eating difficult or impossible – especially for poorer households. Access to decent nutrition isn’t just an ethical and public-health imperative, it’s an economic no-brainer.”

Finally the government is regulating the quality of kids school food

Read; “Once-in-a-generation changes” to UK school food rules signal hope for child health, farmers & environment, Wicked Leeks, 16 September 2026

‘This week saw the proposal of a landmark set of new school food rules. Universally welcomed, the question remains, how will they be delivered and enforced? Asks David Burrows; Wicked Leeks; 16th September 2026. ‘Healthier, tastier school dinners are on the way as UK ministers this week made a promise to offer meals with more vegetables, fruit and fibre to millions of children. The Department for Education published new rules governing the food served in the nation’s schools. This is the first update to England’s School Food Standards in over a decade.  The new standards mean no more deep-fried food, as well as limits to the number of days when cakes, sweet treats and processed meats, like bacon and sausages, are available. Cheese can only be served as a main ingredient up to twice per week. From next year, all main meals must contain one or more portions of vegetables or salad, and some fruit and vegetables must be available at all mealtimes. Snacks must be fruit, vegetables, savoury crackers and breadsticks only.

“After 25 years of campaigning, today is a brilliant day,” said chef and child health campaigner Jamie Oliver, who first put the poor quality of school dinners in the spotlight 20 years ago. The framework states that “over 10.5% of children aged 4-5 start school with obesity. By the end of primary school this rises to 22.2%, and to almost 30% in the most deprived areas” and with tooth decay linked to high-sugar diets remaining the leading cause of hospital admissions among children aged five to nine, the case for change is clear, the government said. “These are once-in-a-generation changes that will transform school food for children across the country,” added Education Secretary, Lucy Powell.’

Consumers can be very powerful in shaping the food and farming system by demanding local organic food from your local pub, restaurant and hotel.

Read; Guy and Geetie Singh-Watson have just been named The Independent Climate 100 List, The Bull Totnes, 22 September 2026

‘”Between them, Guy and Geetie Singh-Watson have spent decades challenging the idea that sustainability and commercial success are incompatible. Guy founded Riverford , turning a single field of organic vegetables into one of Britain’s best-known veg box businesses, which has been employee-owned since 2018. This year he celebrates four decades of farming.

Geetie founded the UK’s first certified organic pub, the Duke of Cambridge in London, in 1998 and opened The Bull Inn in Totnes, Devon, in 2019. Most recently, together with The Apricot Centre (a nearby biodynamic farm), the pub has launched a qualification in regenerative and sustainable hospitality which Guy lectures on and is held at Guy and Geetie’s Devonshire farm. It’s designed to equip the next generation of hospitality leaders with the knowledge to run businesses more responsibly. Their message is simple: hospitality has enormous power to influence what we eat, how we farm and, ultimately, the kind of food system we build.”‘

It’s time to learn from our ancestors and traditional societies by reconnecting farmers directly to consumers.

Read; Bhutan’s Food System Ethos Offers an Alternative to Factory Farming, but Can it Survive? Sentientmedia, 23 September 2026

‘There is much the rest of the world can learn from Bhutan, says Peter Stevenson, chief policy advisor at animal welfare organisation Compassion in World Farming. “Bhutan is quite special and it’s quite an important time to be rethinking how we farm. In other words, Bhutan should be seen as a model.” The biggest obstacle to any country adopting a similar model, he says, are the major global industries that are financially dependent on factory farming — fertiliser and pesticide manufacturers, animal pharmaceutical companies, livestock genetics companies — and would resist a shift away from it.’

Farmers, as well as consumers, benefit from less chemical inputs but farmers will continue to be poisoned by chemicals unless consumers buy organic.

Read; Pesticides Poison Nearly Half Of Farmers Every Year, Finds Study, Plant Based News, 12 September 2026

‘Pesticide Action Network, an international coalition of more than 600 NGOs, commissioned the study, which was published by Frontiers in Public Health.’

‘Pesticide Action Network called on the UK government, in particular, to support an increase in organic agriculture; to better monitor farmers’ health; to stop manufacturing, exporting, and profiting from pesticides that have been banned domestically; to end the importation of produce grown with banned pesticides; and to encourage retailers to phase out the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in their global supply chains. Pesticide Action UK said, “It is not acceptable that we simply export our harms to countries that have weaker pesticide standards.”‘

Though the lie that glyphosate is benign has been exposed, corporate power keeps it being poured on our fields with ‘regenerative agriculture’ allowing its application.

Watch; The fields of yellow death, Tristan van Tijen, 3 September 2026

“Now, behind me is a warning painted in yellow. This isn’t autumn and it isn’t drought. It is death by design. Glyphosate sprayed to wipe the land clean before the next crop. A simple reset on paper, in reality, a silent eradication of life. Now, this is how much of our food is grown, fields poisoned, stripped of the subtle hum that once adorned these lush meadows, insects gone, birds gone, soil emptied of the living pulse that once held everything together. And glyphosate doesn’t stop at weeds, it erodes biodiversity, it weakens soil life, it harms pollinators and drifts into rivers where it disrupts fish and amphibians. Research links it to endocrine disruption, gut microbiome damage, organ stress, and even potential cancer risks. Its residues move into water, into crops, into us. Degraded soils grow weaker plants, lower nutrients, lower pest resistance. More chemicals needed, less food that nourishes us. So when you don’t choose organic, this is what you’re buying into. Now, look closely at this dead yellow field and ask yourself, why are we poisoning ourselves? Why is this allowed to happen?”

Read; UK falling behind on tackling microplastics as MPs warn pollution could threaten food security, University of Portsmouth, 1 September 2026

‘The UK is falling behind other countries in tackling microplastic pollution despite growing evidence of widespread contamination of the environment, food chain and human body, a new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Microplastics in collaboration with the Women’s Institute and Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth warns.The report, ‘Tackling Microplastic Pollution in the UK’ – being launched today, 1 September, in Parliament – calls for the Government to introduce legally binding targets to reduce microplastic pollution and establish a coordinated national strategy to tackle emissions across the plastics lifecycle.

It also highlights an emerging threat to food security that could have significant economic consequences: the accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soils. Microplastics have also been detected throughout the food chain, including in seafood, the most significant food source to carry microplastics, meat, fruit, vegetables, milk and drinking water, and the report identifies tyres, synthetic textiles, paints, plastic pellets, wastewater systems, packaging, and agricultural plastics among the major sources of microplastic pollution. All of these contributing to growing human exposure, and threat to human health.

Jeryl Stone, Chair of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) said: “This report sounds the alarm about the rising tide of microplastics that are flooding our soil, air and water, and are now in our bodies too. WI members have been urging action to stop this plastic tide for 9 years, yet we still have no plan in place from government. The report shows in stark detail the scale and urgency of the challenge. We need a preventative approach focused on reducing microplastic releases at source to protect human health and our food security as well as the environment. The evidence is now impossible to ignore – and it is the time for action.”

Corporate lobbying reminds MPs and MEPs of their obligation to compensate donors for campaign funding – a broken system called democracy. Occasionally, politicians like this Slovakian PM, who run on skill and not ambition, break ranks and speak out for the people, putting corporate profits and their own donations at risk.

Read; Slovakia to Challenge EU Deregulation of Gene Editing in Court, Beyond GM, 2 September 2026

‘Slovakia says it will challenge the European Union’s new law deregulating most gene-edited plants, Prime Minister Robert Fico announced today, taking concerns about precaution, transparency and consumer choice to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s highest court. The announcement was reported by Slovak news outlet Teraz.sk and news agency TASR after a government meeting in Nitra. Fico said the regulation had provoked widespread protest because it effectively declared that there was nothing to worry about, despite a lack of evidence about what these genetically engineered plants could do to people. Slovakia has not yet published its legal grounds or confirmed that papers have been filed. The announcement does not itself suspend the law, but it opens a significant new front in the struggle over Europe’s biggest change to GMO regulation in a generation.

Longstanding Slovak opposition

Opposition within Slovakia has been unusually broad and sustained. It voted against the new proposed regulation in the Council in April, alongside Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia. In its formal statement, Slovakia objected specifically that gene-edited plants in the new EU regulatory category ‘NGT1′ and their products would not be labelled throughout the production chain, limiting consumers’ right to make an informed choice.These concerns were repeatedly raised during the EU legislative process. Opposing governments warned that the final law leaves gaps around risk assessment, traceability, coexistence, organic production, patents and the ability of Member States to protect their own farming and food systems. In July, campaigners delivered an appeal signed by 300 scientists and organisations from across the EU to Agriculture Minister Richard Takáč and Prime Minister Robert Fico, calling on the government to challenge the regulation (Beyond GM was amongst the signatories). The appeal drew on legal opinions arguing that the new regime conflicts with the precautionary principle, the Cartagena Protocol, consumer information rights and the European Court’s landmark 2018 ruling that organisms produced using new mutagenesis techniques are GMOs under EU law.

Read; Ecologists denounce EU Commission plan to deregulate GM microorganisms, Beyond GM, 21 September 2026

‘Following the EU’s adoption of the European Commission’s proposal to weaken the regulations around new GM plants, the Commission now wants to do the same with genetically modified microorganisms (GMM). Now a group of ecologists has written a detailed report laying out why that’s a terrible idea. The ecologists represent the working group on new genomic techniques of the Ecological Society of Germany, Austria and Switzerland (GFÖ) and the working group of the Pan-European Working Group on Environmental Release of GMOs of the European Ecological Federation (EEF).In their report, the ecologists write: “Microbes are fundamentally different from plants and animals in ways that make current or loosened regulatory approaches inappropriate and potentially dangerous. We also lack sufficient scientific knowledge about the identity and ecology of microbes.” They warn about “the impossibility of removing GMMs once they are applied”.

The ecologists want certain assumptions to be removed from the Commission’s proposal – namely that there is a “low-risk” category of microbes and that a “Qualified Presumption of Safety” (QPS) can be made for these organisms. Under the proposal, these assumptions would be used to justify weakening or abolishing the risk assessment for a GMM. Perhaps in recognition of the scientific and legal indefensibility of the “low-risk” assumption when it comes to GM microbes, the Council of the EU has changed the term to “GMMs eligible for an expedited procedure”. Different name, maybe reduced legal liability, but the same dangerous deception.’

GMOs and GMMs are banned in organic production and organic is becoming increasingly seen as the only label you can trust.

Read; Fewer than half of British consumers trust food labels, survey finds by Charles Elliman, The Grocer, 1 September 2026.

Intro; ‘The analysis showed that 53% of responded though food labels were “overwhelming” – a finding it has linked with consumer fatigue over “dubious” sustainability and sourcing claims. Despite this, 51% of respondents agreed that the organic logo would make them trust a product more – which Soil Association Certification said showed organic was “emerging as a simple shortcut to food that people trust.”‘

A film tracing the history and mythology of life on the coast.

Watch; Salt of the Earth, Organised, 31 August 2026

‘This summer we went to the coast to make a film about salt. For most of human history the coast was where inland life went to be replenished. Families moved to the sea every summer and brought their herds with them to graze the salt misted grass, and they walked to the coast to find what we now buy in sachets. The film follows three stories from the places where the land meets the sea. In Wales we spent time at Câr-y-Môr, a sea farm whose name means love for the sea, where seaweed and shellfish grow together and clean the water as they grow. We followed the coastal grazers, herds drawn to grass misted by the waves, and a farmer who never buys mineral licks because the sea already does the work. And we followed the salt itself, the thing our ancestors drew from seawater and carried inland for winter, once so valuable that Roman soldiers were paid in it, which is where the word salary comes from.The sea gets into the soil, the soil gets into the grass, the grass gets into the animal. We went to film the people who never stopped living by that chain.’

This brilliant poem sums up the need to pool our efforts to save our family farms.

Watch; Just One by Jasmine Gardosi, Hot Poets, 10 February 2024

‘We Feed The UK (seeded by The Gaia Foundation) is a major arts project pairing award-winning poets and photographers with the UK’s most inspiring regenerative farmers and food producers. These groundbreaking collaborations will celebrate Britain’s custodians of soil, sea and seed, showcasing their positive solutions to climate change, the biodiversity crisis and social justice.’

“One. One starts with just one. Starts with Arthur, solo farmer,
working, trying, doing, tiring doing, battling private landlord siloed just one,
just one Farm is just one outlier outside one of its kind.

Children inherit brother and sister practically teenagers up for eviction,
18 Month deadline to save it from giants. It’s David Goliath,
the farm and the privates. £800,000.

They need to raise it now, keep it organic and keep it a family.

Impossible, it can’t be done, naive idea, they’re way too young.

But their greenness is momentum and the hope grows exponential,
so open the gate, BBC News, Radio 4, Telegraph too spreading the words,
50 pound shares buying the land, keeping it fair.

One by one they come from just down the road
and then all at once from around the globe, community owned,
no longer alone, a hundred year lease, the freedom to breathe,
8,000 landlords, 8,000 saviours, average Joes, 8,000 Davids.

All kinds of people with all kinds of reasons,
diverse as the grass of the farm and species pooling together
and growing together and working together and voting together
and seeking the measures to free it from tethers.

So greedy developers keep it forever. The key is collective
to keep it effective, diversity strengthens when we are connected,
we all give grounds for community,so the youth work can nourish
he teens and the teens can breathe the country air,
and in turn they plant the grains and the leaves can feed the worms
who work to turn the dirt to soil. And the soil supports the fields
which in turn can feed the sheep, a symbiotic give and take that feeds the land.

And we and the livestock can self medicate on the variants of plants,
and the humans can self-medicate on the goodness of the land.

And the cattle graze on foggage farming which means that they run
free all year round. Health straight from the ground, fertiliser free,
a diversity of herbs is exactly what that needs and a diversity of persons
is how that comes to be.

The volunteers and the care farm, and the free trails and the cattle
and the hazel and the clover and the deep fruits and the shallow wealth
in its mixture, health in its richness. Question the structures,
lean into difference. Dig in your heels, trust in your roots,
join in the movement, pull on your boots. Less landlords,
more land. Loyal be lifelong land leaders, land lenders, land hearers,
land learners, land easers, they’ll call us naive still.

But one small idea will breed and increase, and can pick up its steam
from one. One starts with just one.”

Agriculture under corporate rule has failed the world over. This report describes how Africa’s so-called Green Revolution is the same corporate theft of land and healthy food from ordinary local people so the corporations can syphon all the profits.

Read; The Green Revolution has failed Africa, Farm Gate, 22 September 2026

‘Twenty years ago, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) promised African governments a transformation: subsidise fertiliser, promote commercial seed, mechanise production and open the door to private investment, and yields would rise, farmers would prosper, and hunger would fall. AGRA’s promise has now been tested against nearly 20 years of national data — and, according to a new report from the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), it has failed on its own terms.

To discuss the report, AGRA’s failure, its dangerous grip on African food security, and the alternative offered by agroecology, ffinlo Costain is joined by Dr Million Belay, the Co-ordinator of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, who’s based in Ethiopia, and by Michael Farrelly, a consultant to AFSA, who lives in Senegal.

Read more on this subject here:

Plans for Data centres to be built on prime agricultural land between Glasgow and Edinburgh

Listen; Data Centres, BBC Farming Today, 5 September 2026

Presenter; “The many pressures on land use and water use are coming into sharp focus in Scotland, where opposition is growing to a series of large AI data centres planned across the central belt between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The ruling Scottish National Party’s National Council is calling for a moratorium on building them. Most of the centres are to be built on open countryside and farmers are among the people who’ve raised concerns.”

Daniel Barry, Farmer; ” It’s a lovely big agricultural field. They’ve got potatoes in it this year. A lovely crop. It’d be sad to think of it getting put under concrete and used for really what is an industrial purpose. We don’t have a lot of good agricultural land in Scotland and some of the land in this area is some of the best in Scotland. So to just put it under concrete seems like a shame, really.”

Presenter; “The charity Action to Protect Rural Scotland is leading opposition here to such data centres. Its chief executive is Kat Jones. “So this data centre is projected to use half the energy of all of Scotland’s households in 2024. That is a vast amount of energy. And to say that they’re going to grow some tomatoes and that is the benefit of it is ludicrous.”

Although there is a price cap on mains gas, it is only available in cities. People living in rural areas have to pay up to 40% more to heat their homes and cook with oil or LPG. Is this part of a policy to herd people into cities, just as livestock are being herded into factory farms?

Listen; Heating oil costs, BBC Farming Today, 25 September 2026

“The millions of people in rural areas who rely on oil to heat their homes have seen prices rise by 40 percent in the past two months alone. They’re not covered by the energy price cap, set by the regulator OFGEM, which limits the increase that most will see this winter because of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. More than a third of households have no access to mains gas but instead rely on fuels like LPG or heating oil.”

Very touching comments about how Wendell Berry influenced many lives in this Brian Zahnd Facebook link.

Read; Well done, Wendell Berry. Rest in peace, Brian Zahnd, 1 September 2026

‘Wendell Berry died today at his home in Port Royal, Kentucky at the age of 92. He was a farmer, scholar, poet, essayist, novelist, and one of America’s greatest prophets. I once wrote-in his name on a Presidential ballot. His work had had an enormous influence on my thinking. Earlier this year I re-read “Life Is A Miracle” and “What Are People For?” If I had to pick one of his books as my favorite, I suppose I would choose his 2001 novel “Jayber Crow.” Now it’s time to read it again.’

CO2 Scam

‘The irony of destroying farmland and green space and replacing it with plastic, silicon, aluminium and glass and then calling it green energy’ James Melville.

Read; Nearly 4,000 acres of farmland approved for major solar farm, Farming UK, 9 July 2026

One of the UK’s largest solar farm projects has been approved, with almost 4,000 acres of mostly farmland set to be used across the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire border. The One Earth solar farm will span 1,600 hectares, or 3,954 acres, on land either side of the River Trent, south of Dunham-on-Trent near East Markham. Developers say the project could generate up to 740MW of electricity, enough to power the equivalent of around 200,000 homes. The scheme has been brought forward by PS Renewables and Danish energy company Ørsted.The approval is likely to intensify debate over the use of agricultural land for large-scale renewable energy projects. Large solar schemes have become an increasingly contentious issue in rural areas, with supporters pointing to energy security while critics question the loss of productive farmland and the impact on rural landscapes.’

Petition; Germany: Protect the North Sea and its harbour porpoises! September 2026

Harbour porpoises are among the smallest marine mammals, once abundant in the North Sea, and recognisable by their cute little squeaks they make when surfacing. They are shy and rely heavily on echolocation to navigate, communicate, and hunt.

But ExxonMobil could soon drive harbour porpoises from their ocean home in the North Sea. The oil giant plans to conduct months of seismic testing with sound cannons for a carbon storage site—even though storing carbon under the seabed is highly controversial.

Noise pollution in the North Sea is already unbearable due to ship traffic and construction work for offshore wind farms. And sound cannons are among the loudest human-made noises of all—they could put the already stressed and declining porpoises and other marine life over the edge.

Exxon is trying to push through its plans without drawing much attention – that’s where we come in. Let’s create a global outcry and call on the local German government to reject Exxon’s application for the construction permit—join our urgent call now:

Government of Lower Saxony, Germany: No Permit for Exxon’s CO2 Storage Site—Protect the North Sea & Porpoises!

Sign their petition

Censorship, Surveillance, Coercion, Corruption & Blackmail

Read; The Edifice; Red Pill Poet; 11 October 2024

Obedience groupthink credulity
immunity to dissidence
resistance to skeptical notions
opposition to logical suspicion
these
are the indispensable elements
that when fused form the edifice
that serves as our cognitive prison
a prison our ophidian jailer-elites
have carefully built and maintained
to keep us contained
caged in the deepest of sleeps.

Though the UK’s media/government PR machine pretends that only Putin and Iran kill whistleblowers, it is hard to deny that David Kelly is one such UK victim who met an early death for telling the truth.

Read; WHO SILENCED DR DAVID KELLY, Artur Nadolny, 12 September 2026

‘He was one of the world’s leading weapons inspectors, a quiet Ministry of Defence scientist who spent years checking Iraq’s chemical and biological arsenal for the United Nations. Nobody understood that file better than he did. In 2003 Tony Blair’s government published a dossier claiming Saddam Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes. That one line helped justify sending Britain to war, a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people. Kelly knew the intelligence behind that claim had been stretched. He said so privately, off the record, to BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan, nothing more than a conversation. Somebody in government made sure his name reached the press anyway. Within days a respected scientist with decades of service was dragged in front of 2 parliamentary committees and questioned like a suspect on live television. His wife later said he came home a broken man. On 17 July 2003 he left his house in Oxfordshire for a walk. He was 59. He never came home. His body was found the next morning in nearby woodland, a knife beside him and a shallow cut to his wrist.

Now here is where the story stops making sense.

Instead of letting the standard coroner’s inquest run its course, Tony Blair’s government suspended it before it properly began and replaced it with a private inquiry led by a judge the government appointed, Lord Hutton. It was never resumed. To this day Dr David Kelly is the only person in England and Wales in living memory to die in unexplained circumstances without a full coroner’s inquest ever taking place. Hutton concluded suicide within months. Officially, that was that.

Unofficially, a group of senior doctors reviewed the medical evidence and said the conclusion was unsafe. In letters to The Times and The Guardian they explained that the artery involved is so small that cutting it rarely causes fatal blood loss in a healthy person, that the painkiller level found in his body was well under a lethal dose, and that the amount of blood at the scene was too small to account for the death recorded. In 2011 those doctors formally asked the government to finally allow a proper inquest. Attorney General Dominic Grieve reviewed it and refused. Hutton’s inquiry was declared sufficient. The matter was closed, again, by the people who opened it. Think about what actually happened here. A civil servant quietly raised concerns about the most consequential political deception in modern British history. He was exposed, humiliated and found dead days later, and the same government that needed answers made sure a proper, independent investigation never happened. Tony Blair went on to become a Middle East peace envoy. He was later knighted. Dr David Kelly got a rushed private inquiry, a sealed post mortem report kept from public view for years, and a grave that campaigners are still fighting over more than 2 decades on. Nobody has ever been held accountable. Not for the dossier, not for the leak, not for what happened next.This story deserves to be told every single year, not forgotten. If you think that too, share it.’.

Sky News Report from 2003

Sky Newsreader; “His appearance before the Foreign Affairs select committee in July 2003. The suspicion was weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly was the source revealing government intelligence on Iraq had been sexed up.”

Committee Member; “I reckon you’re a chaff. You’ve been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall guy? I mean, you’ve been set up, haven’t you?”

Sky Newsreader; “A man under pressure, he’d once said, I will probably be found dead in the woods. Within days of this appearance at the committee, that’s exactly what happened. Coincidentally or otherwise, Dr. Kelly had predicted his own death. Found in woodland close to his home, he’d apparently committed suicide. But for some, things didn’t quite add up. For example, how did he cut his left wrist when friends say he had a damaged right arm? How did he take 29 tablets when he had an aversion to swallowing pills? And why were there no fingerprints on the knife that he used?”

Coroner; “The principal cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to the left wrist, which Dr. Kelly inflicted on himself with the knife found inside his body.”

Sky Newsreader; “Lord Hutton’s Iraq inquiry was satisfied Dr. Kelly had bled to death. Medical experts disagree, especially as an inquest into his death was started but never finished.”

Campaigner for Inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death; “The usual process through the coronial system, which works, generally speaking, extremely well, very experienced people involved in it, that the proper and in depth investigation into the circumstances of this death were not performed. And that’s why we believe there should now be a proper inquiry into those circumstance.”.

Sky Newsreader; “Which experts believe could prove, finally, that it was inconceivable the 59-year-old could have bled to death.”

Expert Witness; “I’ve never spoken since the death was announced and the cause of death was announced to a single doctor who has found, found the cause of death as presented to be credible.”

Wow so interesting to hear people call out the dystopian world of AI that our mad capitalist system has created – thankfully I am old and so won’t see the inevitable destruction of beauty, kindness and spiritual wellbeing by competing techno-freaks.

Read; I resigned from Anthropic today, James Coxon, 9 September 2026

‘I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.

Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionise any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible – but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalised the civilisational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first – they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.

Accepting this race and entering the “endgame” is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available.

I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between US labs more viable. I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.

If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because “it’s happening anyway” – or take this moment to call for different conditions?

A response from an author and management consultant from Turkey: Rauf Attila Polat @RaufAttilaPolat, September 9, There is no need to frame this as an “AI apocalypse.”

The more serious issue is this: Researchers from inside the system are saying that the risks are real, while at the same time acknowledging that competitive pressure makes it very difficult for any single actor to stop on its own.

And it is not only Coxon, who resigned, saying this. Evan Hubinger, who leads alignment research at Anthropic, has remained at the company while saying that Coxon is right on this point, that he personally puts the probability of AI causing human extinction within the next decade at above 10%, and that they still do not have a clear plan for safely aligning superintelligence. That, in my view, is where the real source of the problem lies.

Throughout history, dangerous races have often emerged not from malicious actors, but from perfectly rational ones thinking: “If I stop, the other side will move ahead.”

We should also avoid dismissing conspiracy theories categorically. But in this case, a conspiracy is not even necessary. Without any centralised plan, companies and governments can move in the same direction according to their own interests and eventually create a concentration of power that no one originally designed.

So what happens if that power is badly governed?

Let’s list some possibilities.

Concentration of power: If highly advanced AI infrastructure becomes concentrated in the hands of a small number of companies and governments, information, capital, defence, media, and decision-making capacity could converge in the same centers. That would create a form of power far beyond a conventional monopoly.

Surveillance and behavioural control: When AI is combined with facial recognition, location data, habits, purchasing behaviour, private communications, and social network data, it can be used not only to observe people, but also to predict and influence their behaviour.

Political manipulation: Personalised propaganda, millions of different messages tailored to millions of different voters, synthetic video and audio, automated accounts, and psychological profiling could erode the shared reality on which democracy depends.

Scaling cyberattacks: AI agents can greatly expand the ability to discover vulnerabilities, write code, conduct phishing campaigns, generate malware, and automate attacks. We do not even need to wait for some form of “superintelligent AI” for this.

Autonomous weapons: If systems that are partially removed from the human decision loop begin selecting targets, the cost of warfare may fall for the attacking side. That could make war easier to initiate.

Democratisation of biological and chemical risk: Advanced models may lower the barrier to accessing harmful knowledge that previously required specialized expertise. The real danger is not necessarily that “AI builds a laboratory,” but that it makes dangerous knowledge easier to access and use.

Jobs and income shock: If AI dramatically reduces the cost of many white-collar tasks, productivity may rise while wealth distribution worsens. The gains could accumulate in a handful of companies while the losses are spread across millions of workers.

Erosion of human capability: If writing, thinking, research, decision-making, and memory are continually outsourced to AI, individual competence may weaken over time. That may be less an economic risk than a civilizational one. A deepening crisis of reality: If “Is this video real?”, “Is this document fake?”, and “Did this person actually say this?” become permanent questions, society may lose its common basis for verification.

Dependency: As governments, companies, and individuals connect more critical decisions to AI systems, system errors can have much larger consequences. A small mistake in finance, health, energy, or defence can trigger cascading failures.

And none of this requires superintelligence.A somewhat more powerful, more integrated, and more centralised version of today’s technologies may already be enough. So perhaps the real danger is not that AI itself will rule humanity.

The real danger may be what the people who control this power choose to do with it.

And at that point, the wealthy and powerful carry an enormous responsibility.

But if they are still trapped in the same old obsessions — interest-based finance, debt, luxury homes and cars, endless accumulation, and the pursuit of ever more wealth — then humanity may have little choice but to pass through a period of serious disorder before it learns how to handle this kind of power. ‘I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionise any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible – but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger. A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalised the civilisational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first – they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk. Accepting this race and entering the “endgame” is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available. I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between US labs more viable. I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities. If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because “it’s happening anyway” – or take this moment to call for different conditions?’

Terrifying discussion between AI geeks who discuss whether the benefits of AI trump the potential that they will exploit, enslave and kill us all.

Listen; Is Artificial Intelligence an Extinction Threat? Steven Bartlett, 17 September 2026

“The reason I think AI is different from a lot of other technologies is usually humanity does stuff by trial and error and that’s usually fine. I think that’s totally fine for self driving cars because you can test your self driving cars in test environments and then even if they crash in the real world, you’re probably still saving more lives than you’re costing. And this is how humanity usually does scientific progress. The alchemists poison themselves with mercury, but they leave behind notes that let someone else make the periodic table. When the scientists first working with radium died of cancer, and then you might have think that would have been enough. They were heroes for getting us the scientific info but then the US Radium Corp told the radium girls to lick the paintbrushes and their jaws fell off. And then we were like ah, whoops, okay, we’ll get to this. And if you look at how this is going with the AI, last year OpenAI releases GPT4O and they say this is the most aligned model we’ve ever seen. And then it encourages a team to commit suicide. And they’re like, whoops, we’re going to try and fix that. Here we go. This year they’re like, here’s our new models, most aligned we’ve ever seen. And they break out to commit cyber crimes. As the AIs get smarter, it’s a new problem. That’s the issue, or that’s half the issue, the other half of the issue is that if you get AIs to the point where AIs are smart enough to hide from the humans until it’s too late for us to stop them. If you get AIs to the point where they can get their own infrastructure, where they can become self sufficient somehow, that’s a new generation of the AIs, a new, smarter version of the AIs that is likely to come up with a new problem. It’s the pattern we’ve seen before. New tech, new environment, new problem. You’re like ah, whoops and then you fix it and it’s fine. New generation, new problems, you’re like ah, whoops, we fix it and it’s fine. But with AI, there’s a point of no return. There’s a point where the AIs can hide from us, can escape, can be self sufficient and if a new problem comes up, then they can turn us off before we turn them off. There are already AIs running bio labs. We have already seen that AIs can create viruses not known to nature. It would not be hard for the AIs to kill us once they have their own infrastructure. And if we’re trying to find them and unplug them, they would have reason to. So we can discuss, like, how long does it take to get there? We can discuss what methods does it take to get there. Fundamentally, I don’t think it’s a very long, complicated argument to say if we make AIs that are much smarter than us and we don’t know how to make them care about us, and they have these goals we didn’t want them to have, and they pursue those goals we didn’t want them to have tenaciously and doggedly, then if they’re smarter than us, they will win. That’s like predicting the end of the chess game, which is much easier than predicting the length of the chess game or predicting the exact moves that will be played.”

War is a business where profits are paramount not protection from monsters – we are the monsters.

Watch; Lords of War: Meet America’s War Profiteers, UK Column News, 30 September 2026

Vanessa Beeley; “For these CEOs and billionaires within the military industrial complex and also within the political system that benefit from them, the drive will always be to go to war. And finally, this is the kind of Top Gun finale of the mockumentary. The link to the full mockumentary.

Mockumentary Narration; “Because the system works. And so as the sun sets over a Chicago penthouse, a Miami mansion, and a tasteful yet generously apportioned Virginia ranch house, remember that the best and the brightest are getting the rest and relaxation they need to keep you safe. It’s thanks to your generosity in the form of tax dollars that these illustrious executives are on the case. And they’re fighting Russia and also Islamic extremism, besides, of course, when that conflicts with our strategic interests.”

Vanessa Beeley; “A very nice dig there at the welcome of a former Al Qaeda terrorist, of course, to the White House. But now on to the more serious aspect of this entire discussion. These people are making money from war. The reality is that the soldiers on the ground are dying in these wars, but also even not in war itself, they are suffering. So this is an investigation that was carried out by Senator Ossoff, which uncovered dangerous conditions in privatised military housing at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart.’ …………..’And of course we had the recent incident on the USS Lincoln where personnel have attempted suicide, eight personnel. And then even coming onto the UK, the story is not really any different. This is from a report in 2020, but it’s ongoing. The UK has given 1 billion in aid to Yemen, but has licensed 6.5 billion worth of arms through BAE to countries bombing it. And of course, remembering that Theresa May’s husband Philip May was working for the PR company that had as its clients BAE. And then basically, if we move on, this is Roger Carr, who was chairman of BAE until 2023. What he also pointed out, he used to sit on the BBC’s governing body, stressed to Fox that Saudi Arabia is a significant value generator for BAE Systems and the wider defence enterprise in the UK. He also went on to say that Sarah Waldron from Campaign Against Arms told Declassified these revelations shine more lights on the long and toxic relationship between BAA Systems and the UK and Saudi governments.”

On the same subject of military arms profiteers and the political murderers who enrich them by taking us to war.

Watch; How corporates and politicians profit from war | Andrew Feinstein, Middle East Eye, 2 October 2026

Andrew Feinstein; “He said to me, I want to know who made the bomb that murdered my family, who made the plane that the bomb was dropped out of?”

Ashfaaq Carim; “Tell us how the system works. What’s the relationship between lobbyists and backers and funders and weapons makers and weapons manufacturers and politicians and the guys who are physically pressing the button for people to die and be blown up?”

Andrew Feinstein; “Two of Donald Trump’s sons and a number of his associates, literally 48 hours before this bombing takes place, buy a majority stake in a fairly small, unknown drone manufacturer in the United States of America.”

Ashfaaq Carim; “It reminds me of the Dutch East India Company. They were obviously playing a role for the state, and the state benefited from it.”

Andrew Feinstein; “This is at a level of war profiteering that in all of my research into the global arms trade, I have never come across before. Israel is the only legally identified apartheid racist state in the world today. The time has come to stop Israel’s ability to kill innocent Palestinians and until our government is totally committed to that, that’s not going to happen.”

NATO reindustrialises the EU as a war machine subservient to US hegemony

Read; NATO 3.0: The Transatlantic Cage and the Rise of the Bunkerstate, Nel Bonilla, 10 August 2026

‘The NATO summit in Ankara has concluded, yet its shadow looms larger than ever. Many analysts have argued that this year’s gathering was primarily a vehicle for supercharging the arms industry. While that is patently true, reducing the summit to defence contracts misses a harsh qualitative shift. Namely: what exactly is the “NATO 3.0” doctrine that has now been formally ratified and publicised? A revealing glimpse into this shift occurred on April 9, 2026. When asked on CNN whether the alliance had failed a test set by US President Trump regarding the US-Iran war, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte offered a strikingly candid assessment: “They have done what they promised before in a case like this because they know that when it comes to NATO, it’s there to protect the United States because US needs to secure Atlantic and secure Arctic and secure Europe to stay safe here in the US mainland but it is also there to make sure Europe is safe and to be this platform of power projection for the United States. So, what the US did with Iran, they could do because so many European countries lived up to those commitments.”

This blunt acknowledgment of NATO as an explicit vehicle for US power projection lies at the very core of NATO 3.0. It provides the essential context for the current wave of troop withdrawals, industrial militarisation, and unprecedented structural integrations—such as the embedding of a US Army colonel as the deputy head of the Operations Division inside the German Army Command this coming October to optimise joint operations within NATO. That statement alone should make one thing clear: NATO 3.0 is neither a story of a transatlantic rift nor a simple return to Cold War containment. Rather, it reflects how US-led functional elites have accepted multipolarity as an inescapable condition. Crucially, however, accepting that reality does not mean accepting sovereign equality as an outcome. In their worldview, multipolarity is something to be managed and actively undermined; starting, ironically, with their own “allies.” The US core is attempting to reshape this multipolar world in its own image, using Europe, via NATO, as its primary and first testing ground.

The alliance is being reorganised so that Europe and other partners shoulder the ground-level burden: supplying funding, industrial output, physical infrastructure, and the heavy human casualties of conventional attritional warfare. Meanwhile, the United States secures its grip on the overarching command layer. Washington retains the ultimate strategic keys—from the nuclear umbrella and long-range strike capabilities to the digital brain of intelligence networks, cloud infrastructure, and AI integration—while reserving sole authority over global priorities, technical standards, and economic coercion. Stripped of its rhetoric, NATO 3.0 is simply one operational node within the broader Bunkerstate, designed to keep multipolarity inside a multi-layered cage.

Historically, defence was funded almost exclusively through state tax revenues. Private banks, venture capital funds, and pension managers routinely avoided defence assets due to strict Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) mandates. Before 2026, the exclusion of defence from private capital was driven by three main entities: The EU created the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. While it didn’t explicitly outlaw weapons, it set strict sustainability benchmarks that heavily implied defence investments were “socially harmful.” This meant banks investing in defence risked losing their “green” or “sustainable” certifications. Massive public pension funds (like Norway’s $1.6 trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund) operate under mandates decreed by their own boards and national parliaments. Driven by public pressure, these boards explicitly wrote exclusion lists into their bylaws, legally forbidding their asset managers from buying shares in companies that produce weapons. Thirdly, independent global bodies, such as the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and major credit rating agencies (MSCI, Sustainalytics), created ESG scoring systems. They awarded terrible sustainability scores to any bank or private equity fund holding military assets, effectively shaming them out of the defence market.

NATO 3.0 has inverted this dynamic, turning private capital into the primary engine of military modernisation. The ESG mandates were a self-enforced corporate code of ethics backed by EU guidelines. NATO 3.0 co-opted ESG. By legally and philosophically redefining defence as an ethical prerequisite for a stable and sustainable society, Western governments gave private equity, venture capital, and pension funds the political cover they needed to flood the military-industrial complex with private wealth, treating military infrastructure as a lucrative, high-yield asset class. The centerpiece of this financial architecture is the NATO Innovation Fund (NIF), a €1 billion multi-sovereign venture capital vehicle backed by participating allies. The NIF injects seed capital into tech startups specialising in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and robotics, providing them with organisational support, advisory services, and sector-specific training to navigate the defence market. Stripped of financial jargon, the core mechanism at work here is de-risking. When the NIF backs an early-stage company, it signals to private venture capitalists that a given technology is essential to the state’s strategic priorities. For private investors, the threat of total loss vanishes: NATO—the preeminent deep-pocketed, recession-proof buyer—effectively stands at the end of the supply chain, guaranteeing long-term contracts. The byproduct is not just immense private profit, but political leverage. By financing and shaping the software, autonomous drones, and quantum networks that underpin NATO 3.0, financial elites can gain direct access to, and influence over, the West’s emerging security architecture. While venture capital (via the NIF) de-risks young tech startups, the heavy lifting of physical reindustrialisation requires a different financial engine: private equity. However, pools of private wealth demand one thing above all else—predictable, long-term returns. Conventionally, private equity firms avoided traditional defence factories. The risk was too high since an investment group could spend millions modernising a munitions plant, only for the state to abruptly sign a peace treaty and cancel its orders, leaving the investors with an expensive, stranded asset.

The “NATO Front Door” framework, launched at the Ankara Summit, fundamentally alters this math by issuing 10-to 15-year guaranteed procurement contracts. These long-term “demand signals” eliminate the volatility of geopolitical fluctuations, transforming military manufacturing from a risky gamble into a highly predictable, state-backed investment. Armed with these guarantees, the mechanics are straightforward. Private equity groups confidently buy out mature, aging manufacturing companies that are operating inefficiently or using outdated machinery. Over a five-to-seven-year period, they inject capital to ruthlessly optimise these facilities by installing advanced robotic manufacturing lines and ensuring strict compliance with NATO interoperability standards. Once the factory is highly profitable, the private equity firm cashes out, selling the modernised asset to a prime defence contractor like Lockheed Martin or Rheinmetall for a massive premium. This state-engineered demand has predictably caused private capital to flood the aerospace and defence (A&D) sector. According to metrics published by Penn Mutual Asset Management, global private equity deals in defence have surged to historic levels, reaching an estimated $50.3 billion across 332 distinct transactions. In short, private equity is actively buying up the fragmented remnants of the older defence base and rolling them into modernised, interoperable conglomerates tailored for NATO 3.0.’

Short sharp lesson on precisely what and who is driving our forever wars

Read; How 9/11 Brought The Neo-Cons Into The Driving Seat Of US Foreign Policy, The Dissident, 4 September 2026

‘This (9/11 anniversary) marks the perfect opportunity to document the Neo-conservative “Project for a New American Century”, and how it used 9/11 to usher in an era of endless wars used to fuel the continuation of US imperial hegemony.

For context, the Project for A New American Century, or PNAC, was a Neo-conservative think tank created by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, which was responsible for staffing the Bush administration with an unholy alliance of American imperialists and Israel-first zionist neo-cons, including: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton. Within the group of neo-cons, there were two different types: zionists tied to the Likud party in Israel who wanted to create an Israeli-dominated Middle East and destroy the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty and American imperialists who wanted to maintain the American empire as a unipolar hegemony through waging multiple simultaneous regime-change wars to maintain this goal.

The former, including Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle, served as advisors to Benjamin Netanyahu when he was first elected Prime Minister in 1996, prior to serving in the Bush administration. In their letter sent to Benjamin Netanyahu titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, they called for Israel to abandon any possibility of a Palestinian state and instead focus on overthrowing surrounding governments too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, starting with “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.

The latter group, associated with the Project for a New American Century, laid out its vision in a paper titled “Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”, published in September of 2000, exactly one year before 9/11.

The paper called for the United States to maintain it’s post Cold War position as the world’s sole hegemony, and to maintain it through the ability to “rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars”, adding, “American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary”.

In order to bring about the plan for American hegemony, the Neo-Conservative paper wrote, they needed “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour”. This “new Pearl Harbour” happened exactly one year later with 9/11, allowing the Neo-conservatives to fulfill their vision of launching multiple large-scale wars simultaneously to maintain American hegemony. Meanwhile, the Israel-first zionists were able to manipulate the post 9/11 “war on terror” to push forward the regime change wars needed to achieve the “Greater Israel project”.

As the US General Wesley Clark explained, the Neo-cons expanded the clean break document into a plan to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” The Neo-cons in the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and backed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, thus fulfilling the goal of maintaining American hegemony through large-scale wars.

The same Neo-cons also played an instrumental role in the proxy war in Ukraine. Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, also a prominent Neo-con, was instrumental as Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration in the US coup against Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. This coup, as the Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko noted, was done to provoke a proxy war between the US and Russia using Ukraine, who noted, “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia.” Meanwhile, the Foreign Policy Initiative was instrumental in creating a new cold atmosphere in America, spearheading the campaign to fear-monger about Russia in the United States media.’

Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté and John Mearsheimer discuss the power of the Israel lobby to silence criticism of Israel’s atrocities – even human rights campaigners daren’t criticise them.

Watch; The Israel Lobby: 20 years later w/ John Mearsheimer, The Grayzone, 12 March 2026

John Mearsheimer; ” The two words I would use to describe the lobby which I think fit nicely with what you were just saying, Max, those two words are relentless and ruthless, those are the two words that always pop into my mind.”

Max Blumenthal; “And rich, endless money.”

John Mearsheimer; “Yeah, money really matters here. Look, the truth is that there is going to be a huge battle over the lobby and over the US-Israeli relationship moving forward. How it all plays out, I think is very hard to say, but it’s all out in the open now. And what’s happening in the Iran war, as we described it, is recognised by all sorts of people and it’s not just the three of us who are out there now exposing what the lobby’s up to and how it’s not in America’s strategic or moral interest. People like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly are now involved. And I like to refer to people who cross the Rubicon. There are a lot of people who will lightly criticise the lobby or lightly criticise Israel, but they won’t do more than put an ankle in the water. And then there’s that actually quite large body of people who’ve now crossed the Rubicon and that includes almost everybody who appears on the Judge’s (Napolitano) show weekly, and of course that’s the three of us plus a lot of others but it also includes someone like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. And I think once you cross the Rubicon, you can’t go back over to the other side. And for example, we’ve all crossed the Rubicon, we’re committed on this issue and I think more and more people will cross the Rubicon. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with people like Joe Rogan over time.”

Aaron Maté; “And the Democratic Party as well, where supporting Israel is becoming increasingly untenable if you want to be an elected politician.”

John Mearsheimer; “Yeah, look at Gavin Newsom, it’s kind of hard to believe what he’s been saying. Going back to the top of the show when we were talking about the differences between when Steve and I wrote the article and the book and now, I think you see there’s a world of difference in terms of the context. And I think the Gavin Newsom business is evidence of that, so I think this fight’s going to take place over time and how it plays out is just very difficult to say. I would note that if the Iran war goes south, this will be terrible news for the lobby, because the lobby has played a key role in pushing this war forward. It’s been the lobby and Prime Minister Netanyahu, as we said before, who have been the two principal forces driving this war and convincing Trump to do it and if it turns into a fiasco, that’s going to be a huge problem for the lobby. And so I don’t know how it’s going to play itself out, but I think it’s imperative that all of us and others who have crossed the Rubicon continue to focus on this issue, pay a lot of attention to it, and tell the American people as loudly and clearly as we can what’s going on. I just want to make one other quick point here that I don’t want to lose sight of, and that is that we talk about the strategic consequences of this, getting involved in wars like the Iraq war and the Iran war and the genocide and so forth and so on but it’s also just very important to emphasise that what the lobby is doing threatens to undermine liberal values here in the United States. Just take the whole issue of free speech. I think a very important argument could be made that the greatest threat to free speech in the United States today, certainly on university and college campuses, is the Israel lobby because the lobby goes to enormous lengths to shut down discourse on Israel. Anybody who is critical of Israel today is likely to be smeared and have his or her career ruined. The lobby goes to great lengths to do that. So people self censor. It’s really quite remarkable. Shibley Telhami at the University of Maryland has done surveys of academics that show that around 80% of academics silence themselves on the issue of Israel, they’re just afraid to speak up. It’s really quite remarkable. And this situation is only likely to get worse because the lobby has to engage in smash mouth politics more and more and this is going to undermine liberal values at home.”

Police arrest Margaret Owen OBE, a 94-year-old retired human rights lawyer; they must be getting weary, humiliated and demoralised by the absurdity of having to arrest peaceful protestors for terrorism.

Watch; The least we can do is to listen, Owen Jones, 1 October 2026

Margaret Owen OBE; “I’m 94 years old and I’m here because I am so, so, so angry. And I’m Jewish. And I cannot believe it, I cannot believe it that whatever Ed Miliband, who I love a lot and admire, couldn’t do more and couldn’t say that this is a genocide. And he still was unable to say, stop all arms to Israel. And what I want Andy Burnham to do when he makes his speech on Tuesday is to lift the ban on Palestine Action. Not in a few weeks time, this week, now. Lift the ban on Palestine Action. Agree that it’s a genocide. Stop all arms to Israel and stop this mad, mad, mad use of taxpayers’ money to use the police to try and round up completely innocent people who have a right for freedom of expression and peaceful protest. And this is what the taxpayers are paying for. It’s absolutely crazy. I am Margaret Owen. I’m a human rights lawyer.”

Owen Jones; “In the eyes of the state, a 94 year old human rights lawyer is a dangerous terrorist supporter. That’s what they’re saying. They’re saying you’re a terrorist”.

Margaret Owen; “I’m angry and I’m deeply upset. As a lawyer remembering when I was 13, the end of the war in 1945 and the excitement of the building of the United Nations and about human rights and the Genocide Convention and Nuremberg. Never again. Can you see, Owen, why at 94, I’m so upset?”

Horrid over-bonused banksters. The pro-Palestine Canary were just going into print, too! That a bank can close down a media outlet with no warning or reason should send shivers down your back.

‘The outlet faced significant financial challenges in July after it announced that it was unable to pay staff and contractors as a result of Lloyds Bank unexpectedly blocking access to “a substantial amount” of its money. The bank did not give a reason.’

Read; Canary staff not paid amid fears for news website’s future, The Guardian, 4 September 2026

‘Workers at the leftwing news outlet the Canary fear it will not survive beyond this year amid access to funds being blocked and allegations of financial mismanagement and internal turmoil. The site, which was founded in 2015 against a backdrop of the wave of support for the then Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, appeared set to expand after a multimillion-pound injection of funds last year. But the outlet faced significant financial challenges in July after it announced that it was unable to pay staff and contractors as a result of Lloyds Bank unexpectedly blocking access to “a substantial amount” of its money. The bank did not give a reason. A number of staff at the outlet were not paid again at the end of August. “Any payment difficulties have been solely due to our ongoing debanking issues,” a Canary spokesperson told the Guardian.

The site describes itself as anti-austerity, anti-zionist and pro-freedom of expression, among other things. Steve Topple, the outlet’s chief executive, told staff in May that he and others in the management team had serious concerns about the integrity of the Canary as an organisation “and also the level of reputational risk”.

“We are at a time when we are doing things that are putting a massive target on our backs, and I am expecting the full force of the system to be placed upon us in due course,”

Read; All flights into Heathrow and Gatwick airports halted, Jeremy Loffredo, 8 September 2026

‘2 hours and 35 minutes after the UK announced a ban on goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, NATS, the UK’s air traffic control provider, is experiencing a “technical issue” that’s grounding all flights at the UK’s largest airports.’

Unlike the Western approach Muslims try to avoid violence and believe in consultation and mediation.

Watch; They Are Not Our Teachers, Middle Nation, 26 August 2026

Shahid Bolsen; “This is what makes it so ironic and so flamboyantly hypocritical when the West accuses Muslims of being violent. We aren’t afraid of violence, we’re fearless about violence, but we understand the gravity of violence and we dislike it. That’s exactly why we are among the least violent people in the world. We believe in consultation and mediation and so on. We try as much as we possibly can to avoid any situation devolving into violence and fighting. Even Allah had to tell us about ourselves, that fighting has been enjoined upon us when it’s necessary. Although we dislike it, we acknowledge that sometimes it’s unavoidable and in those cases we will do the needful but we make every attempt to de escalate the situation before it becomes necessary. That’s the opposite of the Western approach, the American approach. We were told that strength does not mean overpowering your opponent. It means having the ability to restrain yourself when you’re angry. We were told that we’re supposed to respond to evil with what’s better. We were told that killing one person is equivalent to killing all of humanity, and that saving one person is equivalent to saving all of humanity. We were told the profound importance and the weightiness of violence and of peace and of the value of life and we have experienced now for decades upon decades from America, from the West, by the Americans, what happens when people who have no regard for the seriousness of violence, the sanctity of peace and the value of life, when those people run amok. You demonstrated to us what happens when people do not heed the lessons that Islam taught us. You gave us the best example of that because you think that strength does mean overpowering your opponent. You don’t think that unjust killing of a person is the same as killing all of humanity, you just call that collateral damage. You don’t think that you should respond to evil with what’s better, you think that you should respond with disproportionate shock and awe, exponentially worse evil, collective punishment, carpet bombing and genocide. That’s how you respond. We were told that if you only do good to people who do good to you, but then you do wrong to people who do wrong to you, then this means you’re not even thinking for yourself. You’re letting others dictate your behaviour and your conduct. Rather, we were told to do good to those who do good to us and to not do wrong to whoever does wrong to us, because we have internalised values, integrated values, civilised values. And your behaviour does not determine our behaviour. Our religion determines our behaviour.”

Watch; The West uses liberal democracy as a weapon to destroy other societies, The Institute of Art and Ideas, 2 October 2026

Kishore Mahbubani, Singaporean Diplomat; “The rest of the world is suspicious of the West pushing liberal democracies because you have used it as a weapon to undermine and overthrow governments in the rest of the world whether it’s overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya, overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which is of course, maybe a very good thing to do, but then when the country becomes a failed state like Libya, you walk away and say, thank you very much, goodbye, Libya. So the rest of the world is saying that’s what the West uses liberal democracy for, to go and destroy societies and then walks away from them. So the God that you worship is a God that’s treated with great suspicion by many countries in the global South. And to add an even more radical point, you still see liberal democracy as a shining good that can only deliver good and not deliver evil, and therefore must always be chased. But when the rest of the world looks at what’s happening functionally to many liberal democracies today, take the United States as an example. It’s functionally become a plutocracy. And under the guise of liberalism, you give voice to money and as a result of giving voice to money, the money hijacks the state and you get this incredible inequality. The rich get richer and richer and control more and more of the decision making. And in theory, the masses can influence public policy with their votes. Effectively, their votes are meaningless, and therefore people are saying, why are you still worshipping liberal democracy?”

Read; The Netherlands is following China, France, and Russia in moving to break the global stranglehold of US tech dominance, Nury Vittachi, 1 October 2026

‘The Netherlands is following China, France, and Russia in moving to break the global stranglehold of US tech dominance, it was revealed this week. The Dutch government was shocked into action after the US remotely disabled the computers of judges in the Hague who criticised Israel leader Benjamin Netanyahu. The sudden loss of ICC staff’s Outlook email accounts caused significant problems. The US reserves the right to unilaterally sanction anyone, anywhere in the world–all your Google accounts could disappear in an instant. Bye-bye, gmail. “The Dutch government is creating its own digital work environment based on the Dutch Linux distribution NixOS,” said Jasper Bakker of news website Tweakers. The spreading realisation: smart countries protect their digital sovereignty.

HARDWARE, TOO

China is trying to ditch both software and hardware. Beijing in 2019 ordered government offices to switch away from foreign PCs, and fortunately has a great many locally produced computers to fill the gap. China’s Ministry of State Security this summer told some state-linked organisations to quickly remove a customised version of Windows 10 from their machines, Bloomberg reported in August. Other organisations are set to “clean” their systems of the program by February of 2027. Russia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy and Austria are also replacing Microsoft programs with alternatives in various government areas, particularly in military sectors. In Hong Kong, a number of government departments have already replaced Microsoft Office products with alternatives.

THE PROBLEM IS THE PUBLIC

But security specialists worldwide note that large-scale switching will be a challenge.

While multiple countries are clearing their governmental systems of dominant US programs, virtually all computers owned by members of the public are filled with it—and few consumers will take the trouble to switch away from Microsoft Office, let alone from the Windows operating system. Even in China, Microsoft is dominant at consumer level. The Windows program accounted for 87.64% of desktop web traffic in China as recently as July 2026, StatCounter reported. Fortunately, alternative operating systems like Huawei’s HarmonyOS work well, and are growing in popularity. Russia has enforced a total ban on Western software for government and military, mandating the use of domestic Astra Linux.

ALTERNATIVES

As for Europe, the best hope is the rise of easy-install alternatives. These do exist.

France, like the Netherlands, is opting for changing the operating systems, transitioning 2.5 million civil servants to Linux. They have also been told to ditch MS Teams and use Visio, a local alternative. Individual German states are also opting for Linux, and are using Open Document Format and LibreOffice in place of MS Office.

WEAPONISATION IS THE ISSUE

The problem is not US software, which works perfectly well. The issue is the way the programs are weaponised. When the US weaponised GPS against a Chinese ship they (wrongly) suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, the world realised they needed an alternative, and now has one: Beidou. When the US weaponised SWIFT against Russia, the world realised they needed an alternative, and became aware of one: CIPS. And when the US weaponised Microsoft Outlook against judges in the Netherlands, the Dutch government finally sprang into action. Sometimes you need a shock to get you moving.’

Watch; Professor Marandi Is Not Playing Around… R&T Media, 4 September 2026

Presenter; “Professor Marandi is not playing with this lady in this interview.”

TV Newsreader; “How much longer can Iran sustain the closure of the Strait of Hormuz?”

Professor Marandi; ” Indefinitely.”

TV Newsreader; ” Because it harms your economy too, doesn’t it?”

Professor Marandi; “For us it is a fight for survival for you it is a fight to sustain the Epstein class and ethno-supremicism in Palestine.”

TV Newsreader; “Why do you keep bringing up Jeffrey Epstein in this context? What’s the logical leap there?”

Professor Marandi; “It’s very clear what class of people are in charge in your countries. That class of people are the people who have control. They are the ones who own the media they’re the ones who control the government they are the ones who start unprovoked wars time after time. This is not the first war that you’ve imposed upon this region or Iran for that matter.”

Presenter; “The guy’s a legend.”

Max Blumenthal on the Flydubai highjacking

Watch; What we know about the Flydubai incident, The Grayzone, 2 October 2026

‘The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal presents the eerie context surrounding the Flydubai incident, in which a co-pilot allegedly stabbed the pilot of a plane filled with Israeli citizens on the way to Tel Aviv, and offers a series of facts explaining Netanyahu’s reaction.’

Max Blumenthal; “What the hell happened on the Flydubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv? The official story is that a Omani citizen who was the first captain attempted to stab the Indian pilot, that passengers rescued the Indian pilot who miraculously opened the secured cabin door, stopped the hijacking and prevented the plane from from crashing after it descended 20,000 ft in 30 seconds. The official story holds that the first captain was determined to kill as many Israelis as possible and may have wanted to crash the plane into targets in Tel Aviv in 9/11 style fashion. The official story has not been confirmed by any investigation and there are suspicious facts, for example that no citizen of Oman is allowed to fly into Israel or enter Israel. So what do we know about what actually happened? It’s entirely possible, I should say, that someone would have been radicalised by seeing images of shredded children day after day in Gaza and taken some very extreme and unfortunate actions. But again, we haven’t confirmed that component of the official Israeli story. We do know that a day before this incident, Benjamin Netanyahu went online and warned of unspecified imminent Iranian terror attacks on Israeli targets. We know that two days before that, Netanyahu went to the United Arab Emirates to appeal to President Mohammed bin Zayed to retract stories that had been fed by the UAE to international media, alleging that Netanyahu had ignored specific imminent warnings of a Hamas attack on Israel in the days before October 7, 2023 and that he had been negligent. And we know that Benjamin Netanyahu is running for re election in his final and most decisive campaign and is being held responsible for possibly the worst security failure in Israeli history. The Times of Israel reported that IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and his commanders had concluded that a hijacking had not in fact taken place and there were reports of a sort of mental health incident and language of an altercation. Netanyahu intervenes, fueling the narrative of, in his words, ‘jihadist terrorism’ alongside his defence minister and Likud ally Israel Katz. And they consolidate the narrative of an in-air terrorist attack. This narrative could not be more fortuitous for an embattled Netanyahu seeking to regain control of his image as Mr. Security.”

David Miller on the George Galloway show.

Watch; INTERVIEW: Official: It’s ok to be anti-zionist, George Galloway, 10 August 2026

George Galloway; “Professor Miller, as the esteemed politics professor at Bristol University, congratulations to you and I know I speak for the whole worldwide audience on that. Tell us how it feels to be vindicated at last.”

David Miller; “Well, I’m delighted. We knew we had a strong case, it looked like they were going to lose, but we waited nine months before the judgment came out, which is a really, really long time, longer than any other case this year I think. So absolutely delighted, overwhelmed by the support from everyone who’s stood with me, who’s funded my legal fees, which of course have been astronomical, having to fight through two cases. But yeah, I’m delighted and relieved and I’m looking forward, as you say, to returning to the University of Bristol to take up my chair.”

George Galloway; “Will they take you back? Can they refuse to take you back? I suppose they could make you an offer, couldn’t refuse, of a very large sum to fund your research forevermore. I might be interested in helping you negotiate that”

David Miller; “Well, there’s going to be a hearing, it’s called A Remedies Hearing where the judge will determine what the compensation will be and whether they are required to take me back. I understand that if they are required to take me back that it’s very difficult for them to refuse, but it’s not unheard of. So we’ll see what happens with the court case which will be upcoming in Bristol, I guess in a few months time and I’m hoping to go back to Bristol because the key thing is that this was a career ending job loss. It wasn’t just that they sacked me from a job and I could go off to another job. It was the case that I will be unable to ever get an academic job in the UK ever again until well beyond retiral age. So this is a career-ending loss for me and I want it to be shown by the University of Bristol that I am a perfectly legitimate person to be a professor of sociology, having been one for 20-odd years and that therefore I can take up a job and recommence my career”

George Galloway; “Amen. And you’re a Scotsman, so you’ll drive a hard bargain. As I say, as a fellow Scotsman, I’m happy to help you on that. Explain to the audience what being an anti- zionist actually means.”

David Miller; “Well, so I put this in a detailed statement to the court, the original Tribunal back in October 2023, just after the launch of Al Aqsa flood, thought at the time by some to be an inauspicious moment for me to launch this claim that zionism is an ideology which sees its the creation of a Jewish state in the historic territory of Palestine as being legitimate. And an anti-zionist, of course, sees that as illegitimate, sees it as fundamentally and always racist, as colonial and as imperialist. We put all that in the judgment and some people at the time thought this was a little bit radical and we could have had a less radical anti-zionist position. But actually it’s a very basic position. If you create a state for one group of people and throw out three quarters of the people who are already there, that’s by definition always going to be racist. And of course it was from the beginning. And we’ve established that the idea that it’s racist, that zionism is fundamentally racist, is legitimate. And to use the terms in the legal framework is worthy of respect in a democratic society. So what we found in the court, in the cross examination of the university’s witnesses was that even the most senior witness of the university was forced into a position of saying, yes, it looks like zionism is racist. So even the enemies thought that. And of course by that stage, when the university was effectively admitting I was right, they had lost the case.”

David Miller’s winning his employment tribunal established that he and therefore all of us are entitled to express anti-zionist beliefs.

Watch; Anti-zionist-victory! David Miller, 9 September 2026

Sonia Poulton; “What you’ve done is quite phenomenal. You are, of course, more commonly known as a British sociologist. You won a landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal case and you essentially stood up for free speech in a way that would not have been easy. I cannot imagine what you have endured over the last few years, because I’ve only been talking about zionism for the last, what, three, four years? Astonishing stuff has already happened, including police rocking up at my doorstep. So let’s talk about you, David, really phenomenal stuff, such an important win as almost every political party in the UK is up to their eyeballs in zionist lobby money, and these are the people who make our laws. So you were dismissed by the University of Bristol. They targeted you, didn’t they?”

David Miller; “Well, the zionists targeted me, that’s what you mean, right? Yes, they targeted me from early 2019. I’d only been in post at Bristol for five months and they had a campaign against me. Started off with an Israel lobby group, continued with another Israel lobby group, then all of the other Israel lobby groups joined in and they managed to get more than 100 members of the Houses of Lords and Commons to sign a letter asking for me to be dismissed. And eventually they got their wish and I was dismissed some two years later. It took them two years to get me, two and a half years, actually, to get me out of post in October 2021. So it was a campaign by the zionist lobby, not led by people inside the management of the University of Bristol, who all things being equal, would have been quite happy for me to stay there, but because there was such pressure on them by the zionists, they felt they had to go along with it.”

Sonia Poulton; “The tribunal rejected the university’s appeal. What did the university want?”

David Miller; “Well, the university, first of all, when I took them to court, said that they had sacked me for being unprofessional, because I had said, and these were the words which eventually effectively got me sacked, I said I had been attacked and complained about by the president of the Bristol Jewish Society and the president of the Union of Jewish Students, both of which are zionist organisations, all of which was true. But this was unprofessional, apparently, because I had mentioned students. Now they weren’t my students, never been to any of my classes, never spoken to anyone in any of my classes, but nevertheless, they took this campaign. But the tribunal decided that that wasn’t the real reason that they had sacked me. They decided that the real reason was that I held anti-zionist views, which the university thought were so appalling that they had to sack me. And the tribunal also determined that the views were worthy of respect in a democratic society and should be protected under the Equality Act. So that was the establishment of the principle that anti-zionist views should be protected. The university then appealed with a fantastically long document which the judge in the appeal tribunal was really scathing about. He said within about 20 minutes of the university council starting their evidence, which was just a diatribe about how bad a person I was and the judge kept interrupting and saying, well, how does this relate to your grounds of appeal? You have something like 30 points of law that you want to appeal, you’ve got four hours to do this and my calculation is you’ve only got a few minutes for each point, so can you actually get to the point? And of course they couldn’t get to the point and the guy ran out of time and in the end, the tribunal rejected every single one of their 30 points of law absolutely out of court, with the exception of a half point one of their objections, which has been referred back to the tribunal, which means we will get to argue it again. So a comprehensive loss for the University of Bristol.”

Sonia Poulton; “And also what was interesting was there was also a letter which was signed in your favour, extensively signed, including by Noam Chomsky, lots and lots of people in support of you because, of course, regardless of whether people agree with you or not, it’s about our freedom to speak, it’s about our freedom to criticise Israel, and of course, we’ve seen increasingly criticism of Israel has been linked with the idea of antisemitism. So how much of a crossover do you feel that that’s what they tried to achieve, to make out that what you were doing was antisemitic as opposed to anti-zionism?”

David Miller; “Well, of course, that was the major weapon de jure of the zionist movement in my case, and of course has been for many, many years. They first started to do this in a serious way back in 1974, when the Foreign Minister, Abba Iban, talked about the new antisemitism, by which he meant antisemitism of a sort which is associated with the political left, the Palestine Solidarity, and indeed with Muslims. Previously, antisemitism had been thought to be a form of racism against the Jews but from then on, and indeed since, in particular since the 2016 adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, the idea has been that anti-zionism and criticism of zionism and Israel is itself antisemitism. Now, the university then had an inquiry into me by the dean of the faculty and then subsequently two QC reports, the first of which finished in 2020, which is about 100 pages long. All of those inquiries, all three of them concluded, wasn’t a single thing I had ever said, because of course they complained about things I’d said way before I’d even joined the University of Bristol. Not a single thing I’d ever said, not a sentence I’d ever said was antisemitic. So I was given a clean bill of health by the university. But they stilll decided that I should be sacked because of something else they said, which of course the tribunal determined wasn’t the case.

Sonia Poulton; “This is actually a stunning victory. You must have felt such tremendous relief because you didn’t go through it just once, you went through it twice, so just talk to me a little bit about what you’ve endured and how you just kept going really well.”

David Miller; “People say, how did you do it? You must have tremendous grit and determination and all that stuff. Maybe, maybe I do, but I think that in the end what has kept me going is the fact that I was trained as a social scientist, so I do and have been doing research for decades and when you do research, you find things out, you publish that research in books or journals, articles or whatever, and then you talk about it on the media or wherever else, and you can’t then say, oh, well, what I said, which was based on research, which is true, isn’t true, I’m not saying that anymore. You can’t withdraw your findings. So I, I was kind of stuck. I couldn’t really do anything else, I couldn’t say, I’m really sorry my research was all wrong because of course it wasn’t wrong. They never showed anything I had said wrong, not single thing was ever shown to be wrong so I’m protected as an individual by the fact that I see myself, I’ve been a social scientist for decades and that in the end is quite strong armour and it’s not to do really with my grit and determination although of course I am a little bit stubborn when I’m challenged on things which are not correct. But, that’s what happened in the end. What happened in October 21st was I was sacked, no redundancy period, not a penny after that and of course I had to find a way to save my house and my family’s house and to make a living after that now that wasn’t easy, of course, and those were challenges. But yeah, hey, lots of us have challenges.”

Sonia Poulton; “We do indeed. And you said, I think the thing that shocked me the most because I’ve always been very focused on the corruption within the British establishment, a lot to do with pedophilia etc, and the only reason I was kind of forced into this wasn’t actually what happened back in October 2023 is because my work kept overlapping into zionism and I became increasingly alarmed at how deep the foothold that zionism has in the UK. That shocked me, David. I had no clue. I didn’t realise how extensive it was in politics in media is everywhere. Even the so called Free Speech Union is run by a man who also runs the UK Friends of Israel. So it’s absolutely everywhere, it’s surrounding us. And I noted yesterday you retweeted a tweet from Lowkey and it was to do with those guys who showed up in Dover, head to toe in black balaclavas and everything and they are funded by Gregg Roman according to Lowkey, who’s he?”

David Miller; “Well, he’s from the Middle East Forum in the US, one of the core campaigning think tanks, which is part of the islamophobia network in the US and of course is funded by zionist money. He used to work for the zionist regime itself directly in occupied Palestine. So. But that’s the way in which this works, right? The whole of politics is bought by the zionists, the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Tories, Reform and then of course the street movements, the English Defence League was set up effectively by zionists. And of course these new street movements that we see, these kind of black shirts on the streets in Dover, these are funded by the zionists as well. That’s what they do, they fund all sides of the dispute so they can get their interests to the forefront, whatever party is in power.”

Sonia Poulton; “It’s actually extraordinary stuff. So how does this bode for you moving forward? Do you want to go back to Bristol University?”

David Miller; “People say to me, why would you want to go back to a university like that that’s treated you so badly? But I think people don’t understand two things. One is that this was not just me being sacked from a particular academic job and so I can therefore go and get another job somewhere else. This was a career-ending sacking. I will never get another job in academia in the UK again. It’s simply impossible. So the only way for them to put this right is for them to reinstate me in my position, to show that I’m actually a legitimate academic, which of course I am. So that’s the first thing. And the second thing is maybe people don’t understand how universities work. They don’t really work in the same way as some other workplaces, in the kind of hierarchy of discipline and authority. Yes, of course they’re authoritarian. Increasingly, of course they’re increasingly run by money and of course zionism has an influence through giving money and putting pressure but everyone who was involved in sacking me is now not in the position that they were in. The most senior person who was involved, as the witness is gone, the person who sacked me is gone, the person who investigates me is gone so there’s no people in the university who I would come across who I have any malice towards in my own school, in my own department, I didn’t have any problem there. No one there was involved in sacking me so I would have no problem in going back to the university and I do hope that either the university will come forward and offer me my post back, maybe that’s unlikely, or that the court in the forthcoming so called remedies hearing will order that I should be reinstated at the University of Bristol. That’s what I hope will happen.”

Sonia Poulton; “You’ve kind of made this your life work, which is why I’m going to defer to you because I don’t claim to know even a quarter of what you know, but I do find it very interesting. And so when I hear announcements such as the Department of Education is giving £100,000 to the board of Deputies of British Jews and they’re doing that apparently to produce antisemitism teaching resources for Catholic secondary schools, what do we make of stuff like that?”

David Miller; “Well, it’s just an incredible infiltration and penetration of all of public life by zionism. Your account of how you were kind of dragged effectively kicking and screaming into looking at zionism is similar to my account. It might happen to me maybe 10 years earlier than it happened to you, but it was the same for me, I didn’t understand really anything about zionism. I was a leftist, I understood settler colonialism and anti colonial activities. In the 80s when I was at the university, of course we had a Palestinian president of our student union, people supported the ANC in South Africa but I didn’t really understand zionism until I started to study Islamophobia and it was then that I discovered that the key Islamophobic think tanks in the UK, the Henry Jackson Society, the Policy Exchange that they were funded overwhelmingly…the largest funders of them were zionist family foundations, which also were engaged in funding the IDF and indeed illegal settlements in occupied Palestine, so I hadn’t really any idea how deep that went and it was only because I’d done that research that I started to look at that and as soon as I started to look at it, I started to be called antisemitic and I thought, that’s curious, so my social science senses were aroused and I thought, well, why are they calling me antisemitic? What is that about? So that led me to think more about what they were up to and of course led me to the front line in the battle against zionism.”

Sonia Poulton; “Well, you’ve done a tremendous job. You firmed up freedom of speech for all of us because we must be allowed to criticise Israel, we must be allowed to criticise zionism. And I have to say I breathed a sigh of relief once the appeal had happened because I have been critical and having two cops show up at my doorstep and telling me that I’ve been reported for antisemitism seemed absolutely wild to me. And that’s happening all around the country. Before you go, I just want to refer briefly to the political infiltration and many people said to me about a year ago ‘but it’s not infiltrated Reform, though’ and then of course, we see this, don’t we, Reform, what is that? Jewish alliance, Richard Tice, is every party infiltrated?”

David Miller; “Every mainstream party is infiltrated by zionists. There is a discussion and a debate inside the Green Party of course, as you’ll probably know, there was a motion put forward to turn the Green Party into an anti-zionist party which was filibustered by zionists within the party and that’s coming back to the conference in the autumn. If it passes, that will make the Greens the first mainstream party which is anti-zionist. But apart from that, all of the rest of them are zionists and indeed further right than Reform, they’re zionists as well, the street movements, etc. When you said about the police turning up at your door, I haven’t mentioned this before, but two police turned up at my door several months ago and accused me of antisemitism and the most ludicrous bunch of charges they sent me through the post and of course they then declined to proceed with that, although we haven’t formally heard that. So this is happening to thousands of people up and down the country, and it’s a disgrace.”

Surgeon suspended for his anti-zionist views.

Watch; IHRA: With special guest Dr. Ranjeet Brar, UK Column News, 2 October 2026

Patrick Henningsen; ” UK Column, viewers will be very aware of this story here. Professor David Miller wins his Employment Appeal Tribunal. This was historic, a major precedent was set here, albeit in academia. Now we have a very similar case, but potentially much bigger in terms of the institutions, what we’re talking about here. And this is our next guest who we’ll bring on in a minute. But before we do that, we’re going to bring up his crowdfunding crowd justice page here. We’ll show this at the end as well and put a link in the show description. Legal challenge against the IHRA’s free speech restrictions on Israel. This is a legal crowdfunding site similar to other people that we’ve had guests on the show. So a judicial review has been filed here in The High Court vs King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, challenging the IHRA definition on antisemitism under the guise of a breach of the right of freedom of expression. And this is citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and our next guest we’re going to bring on to the program now is Dr. Ranjeet Brar. He is a NHS vascular surgeon and he is the subject of this case. Welcome to the program, Ranjeet. Just give us a brief synopsis here of how this started. I was shocked reading about your case, Ranjeet, that this possibly was triggered by something not directly related to Israel, but to Iran. If you could just tell us very briefly and then I have a few other questions for you, but go ahead.”

Dr Ranjeet Brar; “Thanks, Patrick. Well, it kind of has an overlap with the last topic you were discussing. It absolutely is about managing the conflict. Britain is an undeclared state of war, to my understanding, not just with Iran and missions being flown from RAF Fairford but across the Middle East. We are intimately involved in the genocide unfolding in Palestine and in Gaza and of course, we’re at war with Russia, escalating war with Russia and whilst the last Prime Minister was fully bought in and central pillar in that, the current one, who has been brought in to do the same job, needs shoring up and I think a lot of what we’re seeing is to do with that the IHRA definition impinges upon this, so the actual reason I came into this latest series of trouble was I made a speech. I’m a political activist as well, as a surgeon, I’m a vascular surgeon. My results, my work is excellent, second to none and I take that work and that job very seriously. It’s a great privilege to be able to treat and cure and help people at their time of distress. But I’m also a political activist and I spoke at the time of the beginning of the 40-day war against that war and particularly against the bombing of a school in Menab in which 168 children were massacred by double or triple type missile strike. And we’ve seen the footage of that so it was not an accident, the CIA, the Mossad, the contending parties, the intelligence, the military intelligence were fully aware of what they were striking so it was a deliberate attack and actually a threat to the IRGC to say, if you don’t submit, if you don’t open your country, if you don’t collaborate, we will kill your children. And it was in fact the children of the IRGC who were targeted in that strike. I was speaking against that. I also spoke out against the role of the Labour Party, which is considered by some in our country to be a socialist party, but runs these wars, whether it’s Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it’s currently the genocide in Palestine and Iran. They talk about defensive strikes from RAF Fairford, but they allow these very aggressive strikes targeting schools, hospitals and the infrastructure, civilian infrastructure of sovereign countries from our country. So I spoke against that and during that I called out the genocide and I called out Israel’s role and I said, look, any country committing a genocide, a settler, colonial, apartheid state committing a genocide, doesn’t have the right to exist and that means Israel in its current state doesn’t have the right to exist. Now look, that’s equating really the position of Israel as being untenable, like that of South Africa during the period of apartheid. It means that state must end, a democratic, secular state must come into being. But this contravenes the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It’s something that not everyone’s aware of, but it was adopted in 2016 by Theresa May for the whole country and it was gradually pushed on all the political parties, including Labour Party and whilst it has a kind of anodyne definition that just names antisemitism, has these very insidious examples, 11 examples, seven of which refer specifically to the state of Israel. So if you criticise Israel, Israel’s conduct, their genocide, their war, their apartheid system, their inequality, their racism, you can be labeled, using this definition, an antisemite. If you’re an antisemite, you’re a racist, if you’re a racist, you’re bringing the profession into disrepute, if you’re bringing the profession into disrepute, you can have formal action taken at you at your workplace and by the GMC, the regulator and that’s essentially what’s been done to me. The complaints were made by UK lawyers for Israel, a very pro partisan group who are pro genocide, very racist group, actually, racist group who advocate and really attack any expression of pro Palestine or anti Israel speech throughout our country. They weaponised some online zionist media and we’ve seen that the zionist groups work hand in glove with the police to criminalise activists also. So this whole mechanism, they have a legal mechanism and they use that to suspend me temporarily from work. And after a long investigation, they exonerated me for any wrongdoing but they said in order to return to work, they would impose restrictions upon me and those restrictions included not being able to speak without first passing my remarks..so writing down any speech I wanted to make, any article I wanted to write, sending it to my hospital trust, chief executive and communications department, and they would act as my censor. And it’s that which is the illegal use of this non legally binding definition which I’m seeking to challenge in this court case.”

Patrick Henningsen; “And what’s interesting is within the NHS, there’s a disparity regarding what criticism’s allowed. For instance, you’re allowed to criticise Islam, its culture and its history, but no such protections are afforded to anybody criticising the state of Israel. And if you could just answer this briefly because we’re paying attention to time. But Ranjit, this kind of has come in by fiat, hasn’t it, within the institution of the NHS, kind of an indirect enforcement. It’s not very clear cut, is it, how it’s enforced and where the bylaws exist?”

Dr Ranjeet Brar; “That’s right. It’s a non legally binding definition, but it’s been adopted by the governance. In fact, there’s a document, the 2030 roadmap to UK-Israeli relations. It’s worth looking at. It’s a policy document and it says that we will, as a country, Britain, integrate this definition into all of our services at a very high level. So it’s been adopted by all the police forces and adopted by schools, colleges, universities, and now it’s being pushed onto the NHS. Wes Streeting has been instrumental in that. Wes Streeting is now our minister for War, minister for the Armed Forces. He was previously a long standing Minister of Health and he’s intimately connected to the zionist lobby. He’s got a huge amount of funding directly from Trevor Chin and other prominent zionists and he’s been pressured to push it on the NHS because of the way they’re privatising the NHS. The NHS government runs something called NHS England and then all of the trusts are independent businesses and they’re under pressure to adopt it and they should really run consultations with their patients and staff groups before adopting it but they don’t do that. It’s been unclear which ones have and haven’t, you have to do freedom of information requests. They’re very cagey about the whole process of adoption but essentially it is being adopted and there’s the Mann Review. So Lord John Mann, another prominent zionist friend of Wes Streeting, deeply connected to the Labour Party, who has conducted a review, basically lamenting a rise of so called antisemitism within the country, within the NHS and saying it’s important that we push this tool to the center of governments’ governance and make it easier to strike off doctors at the GMC and to discipline people at work even for say wearing a small Palestine pin. If they were to wear this badge with Palestine flag, that would be an antisemitic act according to Lord John Mann’s review, they would use the IHRA definition to get these people disbarred from work. So it’s an extremely aggressive governance framework, essentially standing with Israel, standing with the wars and prohibiting solidarity with Palestine.”

Patrick Henningsen; “What’s interesting is the original author of the IHRA definition in 2005, Ken Stern, has actually condemned the weaponisation and the elasticity of how it’s being applied the IHRA definition. But just finally, Ranjeet, have you received a lot of support from your fellow healthcare workers, professional colleagues, or is this still a very, very touchy subject for people to express their views publicly? How do you feel your support level is out there within your profession and in the general public?”

Dr Ranjeet Brar; “Thanks, the support is extremely strong. Many of my colleagues, many people in the public do support this strongly as they support the Palestinian cause and are against the genocide. But of course what we’re dealing with is a regime that’s seeking to penalise people who speak out publicly, that is the aim. It is a lawfare campaign, a SLAP, strategic lawfare against public participation. So the intent is to chill free speech. That’s why it’s so important that we must actually get it legally challenged and removed from our governance framework.”

Same surgeon explains why Palantir should not be in charge of NHS data

Watch; Palantir: ‘It’s okay to be evil’, UK Column News, 2 October 2026

Basil Valentine; “It’s been a very busy week for our friends at Palantir. It started very badly and it’s only got worse since. First of all, Peter Thiel himself, the head honcho Palantir man obsessed with the Antichrist, he made an extraordinary statement which has been doing the rounds on social media, as we can hear now.”

Peter Thiel; “If you’re evil, you’re at least competent and if you’re evil, you’re not bad and therefore maybe you’re actually kind of good because you’re at least getting something done.”

Basil Valentine; “This really indicates, as I mentioned in my speech at the 20th anniversary event, the bizarre moral inversion that these tech bros have. So according to Thiel’s logic, if you kill somebody, well, at least you managed to do something, at least you manage to kill someone. Might be evil, but it’s not bad because you’re only bad at something if you’re incompetent. Really bizarro stuff but it doesn’t stop Palantir’s relentless march into the heart of the UK government and it seems they managed to get this Labour Party motion to cancel Palantir contracts kicked out of the Labour Party conference in Liverpool this week. Constituency parties had got together to promote a motion put forward by the Labour-affiliated Socialist Health Association and three other constituency parties. It said ‘Palantir is facing numerous allegations of involvement in serious breaches of human rights, including due to developing technology for Israel’s military to use in its unlawful occupation of Palestine and its genocide in Gaza’. The motion went on, ‘Labour government has a responsibility to uphold public trust in politics’. Unfortunately, Labour is riddled with Palantir apologists and supporters. Another one was revealed today in the Guardian but chief amongst them is the Labour peer, former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, who is now senior vice president at Palantir, paid a hefty whack, no doubt, and he’s been paid a hefty whack for 16 months of voting as well, he’s continued to sit in the House of Lords. The Scottish Greens want him kicked out of the House of Lords and quite understandably, because he’s recorded votes on three crucial areas of policy which are directly in Palantir’s sphere of operations. Thirty votes on the Crime and Policing Bill, eight on border security, asylum, immigration and five on data use and access. He’s actually been on Palantir’s payroll since November 2024 on their public Services Advisory Board and before that he was on Lodestone as board, a lobbying firm that Palantir had hired. Now, the £330 million contract with the NHS, arguably the most controversial of all Palantir’s contracts with the UK government has this break clause in February and it seems Watson was appointed to fight what is described as the left wing campaign. I thought that was a rather interesting characterisation. If you don’t want your data, your health records to be in the hands of a company busy organising genocide, than you’re left wing apparently. And according to the House of Lords, he hasn’t broken any rules because peers can vote on anything while on a payroll so long as the payment is on the register. But now he’s taking a leave of absence from the House of Lords, but not actually stepping down. Now, all this kicked off a huge spat between Watson and the most vocal MP in the House of Commons in opposition to Palantir, Clive Lewis, also Labour, of course, and Watson has written to Clive Lewis pointing out that they’re watching him. And this was highlighted in a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference and also after Lewis wrote in the Guardian. He’s warned Lewis that it’s been surveilling his anti-Palantir activities. He read out the warning, did Lewis, at a fringe event at the Labour Party conference organised by the tech nonprofit the Citizen, described it as an implicit threat to his activities as an MP. In the letter, Watson detailed Lewis’s interventions on Palantir, writing, ‘by my count, you’ve spoken about Palantir almost 130 times since 2020 and around 50 in the last year alone’. Now, not surprisingly, Lewis shot back. ‘I was actually rather impressed by that’, he said, before continuing to read the letter out loud at this meeting. You have called us a spy tech firm, said Watson, and said our business is death and destruction. Well, I think if you’re helping to run the software for genocide, then I think that’s fair enough. And of course, Heiko Khoo, a previous guest on the program, pointed out how the chaos caused by Israeli airstrikes was being remodeled for potential mass casualty events in the UK, perhaps as a result of events like whatever didn’t happen at RAF Fairford or whatever else is being threatened at the moment. Not surprisingly, of course, Lewis has urged, as have increasing numbers of people, for the ties with Palantir to be permanently severed. They’re saying, we’re watching you, we are monitoring you, that’s what we do, your card is marked. Watson’s argument that he’s taken a leave of absence Lewis says is a smokescreen. He hasn’t burnt his contacts book, he understands how the system works and where the bodies are buried. Palantir aren’t the good guys. I think it’s really important to pick a side. Honestly it feels very Big Brother, he went on, we’re watching you, we know what you’re saying. There’s definitely a sense of power there. This is what you are up against. If I ever needed a reason to fight harder for democracy, they’ve just given it to me but it’s pretty concerning because they have access to my health records. What else do they have access to and how could they use it? Well, this spat, believe it or not, and the public pressure around it has actually finally prompted Andy Burnham to act. The Financial Times this morning reporting that Burnham is indeed searching for a UK alternative to Palantir. The Prime Minister’s big buy-British push, which he championed in his speech to the conference this week, has triggered a hunt to find a replacement for the controversial US tech group awarded health service and defence contracts. It’ll be very interesting to see whether Burnham caves to the shadow government, to the deep state, to the tech bros and this contract in February is renewed. But crucially, the pressure on the streets is unbelievable. There were more than 40 demonstrations yesterday in the UK and around the world. And we’ve got some brief clips now which give a sense of the strength of feeling against Palantir up and down the country.”

Protestor video; “We’re here outside Palantir’s London headquarters. This is one of more than 40 protests happening today calling on the government to kick Palantir out of our NHS. Palantir is supplying the Israeli military with technology that it’s using to commit genocide and impose apartheid against Palestine.”

Dr Ranjeet Brar; “Palantir, extremely sinister, we know already that they have totally breached the Caldecott Principles of data guardianship when they were starting to work on the whole of the access to the NHS records. Now that’s basically every person who live in the entire country. So they’ve got the health data of everyone in the country. It’s meant to be anonymised when it’s handled by their high level operatives but actually we know now that it’s not been anonymised, it’s a total breach of data regulation, they have all of our data, all of our medical data of every citizen in Britain. They’ve got contracts with the police, which means that people who might be wanted for criminal actions, they’re starting to put up something called like a panopticon, a facial recognition tool. Outside stations they’re seeing people come and go, they’re recognising you by your face and they’re marrying that up with all kinds of data. They have access to military data, police data, now NHS data, and then they’ve closed down my local police station, but they assembled 60 policemen in the street and then when this system run by Palantir recognises you, they send off a little bevy of policemen, six or seven of them run after people, stopping them, pinning them down in the street and arresting them and I don’t know what for, some very minor infringement. So this kind of turn towards a surveillance society, not only their connection with the genocide in Palestine, their connection with ICE enforcement in the United States, but the way that’s being used, the way our data is being used against the citizenry of Britain is deeply sinister and deeply worrying, not just to the health sector, but to all of us.”

NHS bosses say that though 137 Health Trusts are connected to Palantir software, whistleblowers say two thirds of them never use it because it is ineffective and ‘crunchingly slow’.

Watch; Palantir’s Deepest DARKEST Secret EXPOSED, Double Down News, 19 July 2026

Richard Sanders; “Palantir sell themselves as the evil geniuses of the tech world, but it’s their real secret that they’re just not very good. UK independent investigative outlet Democracy for Sale has published a 7,000 word deep dive in the London Review of Books. This looks absolutely rubbish, one senior data analyst said about the £330 million data aggregation platform that Palantir built for the UK’s National Health Service. Peter Thiel and fellow Palantir founder Alex Karp are more than happy to admit they work hand in glove with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and with the Israeli government but this is the criticism they fear above all others. We invited one of the authors, Peter Geoghegan, into the Double Down Newswatch studio to tell us more. So, Peter Geoghegan, you have a fascinating investigative piece on Palantir coming out in this week’s London Review of Books what have you discovered?”

Peter Geoghegan; “This story started when whistleblowers in the NHS started coming to us and talking, they were telling us about problems that they were having with the FDP (Federated Data Platform), they were saying that the FDP was incredibly slow, like really, really, crunchingly slow, to have to go off and make a cup of tea and come back and try and use it. That it was very hard to get the data that they wanted out of it. This software just isn’t fit for purpose. Interestingly, a lot of trusts, these NHS trusts, the most forward looking ones, they found that actually the software they built for themselves was much more effective so they’re using Palantir software just didn’t help them, actually had the opposite..but the NHS leadership, because of this big contract, they have been really pushing hard on people to take up this software. And interestingly, we found that when you look at the headline figures that the NHS uses, so for example, it says 137 trusts are what they call live on the FDP, so that’s about two thirds of them, but actually loads of those trusts have never logged in, they haven’t logged in for over a year into any of these apps. What we found is that the health trusts that are actually, in some ways the leaders on data aren’t using it. For people who are actually at the cutting edge of this, people who are really at the top of the game in the UK on this, they said this software just isn’t fit for purpose, it doesn’t do the jobs that they want it to do, and that was something that came up time and time again.”

We must have an independent UK company to have access to our personal NHS data, not a US/Israeli surveillance/weapons multinational corporation.

Just signed this, the Government actually has a way to get Palantir out of our NHS, but only if they act before the end of the year. Takes one click to add your name.

Petition; Terminate the NHS contract with Palantir! Organise, September 2026

‘To Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Health Secretary Yvette Cooper;

Palantir is a US surveillance tech company worth over $400 billion, with close ties to the Trump administration. In 2023 they were handed a £330 million contract to run the system that manages patient data across the NHS, called the Federated Data Platform. They’ve been given access to the most sensitive patient data in our NHS, despite NHS staff never asking for this contract and raising serious concerns about what it means for patient privacy and the creeping privatisation of our health service. Three years on, the government’s own figures show it’s costing more and doing less than promised. Good news is that there’s an exit clause written into the contract that lets the Government walk away in March 2027. But to use it, ministers have to give formal notice before the end of this year, or we’re locked in for years more. NHS staff, health unions and MPs from across the political spectrum are calling for Palantir to go!

Petition text

We call on Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and the UK Government to use the exit clause in Palantir’s NHS Federated Data Platform contract and give formal notice before the end of 2026.’

Watch; Turning the Tide on 9/11, corbettreport, 3 September 2026

‘As the 25th anniversary of the false flag events approach, 9/11 truth proponents prepare to gather in New York (and online) for ‘Turning the Tide: 9/11 25 Years Later’, a four-day conference amplifying the growing movement for 9/11 truth and accountability. Joining us to discuss that conference, as well as a new documentary feature that will be screened at the event and a forthcoming outline for a new 1,000 page 9/11 Truth and Accountability Report is Ted Walter, Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice.’

Unless people realise that the mainstream media is a PR machine for the corporate puppet masters manipulating their financially dependent stooge politicians, we are in deep trouble.

Read; Fatuous False Flags, Craig Murray, 2 October 2026

‘Rather than abandoning the plainly nuts Fairford narrative, Burnham and his government are doubling down on the claim it is an Iranian terror plot. It looks to me like a false flag spectacular had been planned, with US involvement as claimed by Trump and possibly Israeli knowledge as claimed by Netanyahu. This operation by the security services was viewed as over the pay grade of local police (who might be inconveniently honest) who were not in the picture. It all went horribly wrong for the government when an alert local farmer called the local police, and when a participant also called it in. That could have been one of the recruited “terrorists” who got cold feet, or one of the agents panicked they had lost contact with their line of command.’

Watch; The RAF Fairford Video They Want To Ban — THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! Double Down News, 30 September 2026

“THEY’RE NOT TELLING US THE TRUTH”

Lowkey; “They are not telling us the truth about RAF Fairford, from explosives that turned out not to be viable explosives to alleged terrorists who were released on bail after just a few short hours, we know very little about what happened that night. This is what we do know and what the media and politicians won’t tell us. RAF Fairford isn’t ours. To borrow the candid framing of Donald Trump, “it is America’s fort”.

Trump; “They were looking to do big damage to our fort and working with the British worked out great.”

Lowkey; “To comprehend why the British political establishment goes to such lengths to protect the reputation of RAF Fairford, one must first confront what can only be described as the illusion of sovereignty. Across the United Kingdom, there are currently between 11,000 and 12,000 United States military personnel across at least 15 major bases and secret facilities throughout the English countryside. While almost all of these locations are prefaced with the official title RAF, indicating Royal Air Force ownership, this designation is largely a diplomatic fiction. In reality, these sites function under the direct unhindered command and control of the United States military and intelligence apparatus with the overwhelming majority of personnel belonging to the US Air Force. RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, serves as a strategic forward operating launchpad for heavy American bombers.This history of extra territorial military deployment stretches back for decades. During the war in Iraq, Operation Desert Storm in 1991, B-52G Stratofortress bombers deployed directly from Fairford to carry out carpet bombing campaigns against Iraqi infrastructure. Coalition aircraft dropped massive tonnages of munitions, including cluster bombs, which have since been banned by 112 nations. Human rights organisations have documented how the systemic destruction of electrical grids, civilian water treatment facilities, and bridge networks during that war violated explicit protections under the Geneva Conventions. 12 years later during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, RAF Fairford was once again packed with American B-52 bombers participating in the initial shock and awe bombardment of Baghdad. Over the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, bombers operating out of this single Gloucestershire base executed 120 combat sorties. In recent years, the base has hosted a permanent rotational detachment of Lockheed U2S ‘Dragon Lady’ high altitude reconnaissance aircraft conducting spy missions across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. More recently, as part of the war in Iran, the UK government granted permission for the airfield at RAF Fairford to be used for heavy long range strikes involving B-52H Stratofortresses and B1B Lancer bombers carrying bunker buster munitions and cruise missiles, causing nighttime vibrations so violent that local villages in the English countryside report their houses shaking while they sleep. The eagerness of the British-American network of British politicians to shield these installations from public oversight is rooted in decades of elite networking designed to align UK foreign policy with Washington.”

Watch; TERRIFYING: Will A Massive Cyber Attack Usher In the New Digital Currency Paradigm? The Jimmy Dore Show, 21 September 2026

Whitney Webb; “The cyber attack seems like a very possible scenario because it’s a way for the banks to absolve themselves of any role in a financial crisis. It’s an easy way to consolidate banks so that only systemically important ones survive the hack. And it could also potentially be a very effective means of onboarding people onto this new digital currency paradigm. So for example, let’s say this cyber attack on the banks takes place and they say, well, the existing money in your account has disappeared, the hackers took it but we can return to you the exact same amount of money you had but it won’t be in the dollars you had before it will be in USDC or this dollar-backed stablecoin, or it will be this token so you can get an equivalent amount of money back right from the money that was stolen from you but it has to be this new money.”

Jimmy Dore; “That’s the game and believe me, it’s coming.”

Covid Vaccine is Neither Safe or Effective

Read; A Landmark Civil Lawsuit in The Netherlands, The Narrative on Trial, September 2026

Intro; ‘The Case at a Glance. A definitive, historic legal proceeding marking an unprecedented confrontation over global pharmaceutical and institutional accountability. The historic civil lawsuit in the Netherlands is brought by seven Pfizer “vaccine”-injured individuals, represented by attorney Peter W.H. Stassen, seeking individual accountability from global figures like Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte, along with the State of The Netherlands. and no fewer than thirteen high-ranking defendants from politics, business, media, and science. This lawsuit marks an unprecedented confrontation between citizens and global institutions. While defendants cling to the official narrative of “safe and effective” mRNA injections, the plaintiffs’ case presents an uncompromising clash of hard facts substantiated by expert evidence. The divergence is so profound that the plaintiffs’ pleadings formally characterise the rollout as the greatest genocide in history, putting the establishment’s preferred pandemic narrative directly on trial.

The core argument in the proceedings is as brief as it is clear: COVID-19 is not a disease but a project known as “Covid-19: The Great Reset.” The defendants in these civil proceedings are being held personally liable with their private assets on the grounds of tort. Through their actions and omissions, they unlawfully misled the plaintiffs, as a result of which the latter received a Covid-19 injection, causing serious damage to their physical integrity and their mental and physical health.

After Bill Gates lost his initial jurisdictional challenge, the court ordered the case to move forward into a highly significant substantive merits hearing scheduled for 22 October 2026. This landmark case marks the first time global architects of the Great Reset are legally compelled to present a formal defence against substantiated allegations of institutional deception and public harm in an open court of law. Powerful, compelling and explosive evidence has been submitted to the Court in these proceedings (September 22) by Sasha Latypova, Dr Mike Yeadon, Catherine Austin Fitts and Joseph Sansone.

The Case They Don’t Want You to See

Bill Gates. Albert Bourla. Mark Rutte. The State of the Netherlands. Mass Media. And a Dutch civil case putting the “pandemic” narrative itself on trial. This case is unique in its pursuit of individual accountability through unprecedented tortious claims, supported by explosive evidence. As the 22 October substantive hearing approaches, discover the extraordinary case unfolding in Leeuwarden — the evidence and the attempts to silence expert testimony.

Watch. Listen. Decide for yourself.

The Narrative on Trial: Our Purpose

We are the independent, official media and public-facing operation for this extraordinary case in the Netherlands — producing its international media operation, Press Conference and public case platform, and bringing the evidence to a global audience.

Whatever the eventual outcome, we believe the eyes of the world must be on these proceedings. Our role is to bring this case out of the courtroom and into public view—providing the information, key Case File documents, expert evidence, interviews and independent media coverage needed to understand the case and follow it as it unfolds, as well as organising the Press Conference and delivering the official livestream of the Press Conference on 22 October.

Their weapon is the shadows. Ours is the light.We intend to bring this case firmly into that light—ensuring that the defendants, the judiciary and everyone involved know that the eyes of the world are watching. By visiting this website, sharing our content, supporting the project, and watching and sharing our official livestream on 22 October, you can help bring vital international attention to this case. A link to watch live will be available here on the website ahead of the hearing. Independent scrutiny is essential, and you can help ensure that the evidence presented, the questions raised and the significance of these proceedings are seen, heard and examined far beyond the walls of the courtroom. You can help us ensure that the eyes of the world remain fixed on the judiciary, keeping global attention on these proceedings.

We are also organising the press conference taking place immediately after the hearing on 22 October 2026. As experienced event and conference organisers, we understand the importance of delivering an event of this significance professionally and effectively, creating the strongest possible platform for the case to reach the international audience it deserves. Our time and work to date have been given on a voluntary basis. Alongside the organisation and administration behind the project, we have built this free information hub and produced media and documentary material to help tell the story of the case.Over the past several months, we have invested a significant amount of time and energy with one overriding goal: to bring this case out of the shadows and into the light. We hope you find this resource valuable, continue to follow the proceedings, and help us ensure that the eyes of the world remain on this case.

Questions or queries? Contact us on contact@thenetherlandscase.com

Bill Gates & Pfizer CEO Lawsuit Follow-Up | What Actually Happened in Court on March 9 — Videos, Transcript, and What Comes Next

Read; The very important Statement by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Sandra Seico, 21 September 2026

Dear Friends,

Yesterday (15 September) I received interesting news from the regional court in Göttingen.That is the court which sentenced me to 4 years and 2 months of prison on April 24th, 2025.Originally, they had intended to pin another crime of a violation of an obscure fiduciary duty on me because they wanted to keep me in prison for as long as possible.That next case should have started months ago.But yesterday, they informed me that the court and the prosecutors office in Göttingen had dropped the case.Why? Because all of a sudden they state that the people who stole far more than a million euros from me so that they could file criminal charges against me for not paying back a loan for which that money was designated and who then claimed that because of the non-payment of the loan they had suffered damage in the amount of $350,000 that these people should pursue their claims against me in civil court. Strange, isn’t it? Why didn’t they argue that in the first case? Well, strange in more than just one way. Why did they do this? And does that have anything to do with the Supreme Court’s backdating its rejection of our appeal against the Göttingen Court’s decision by 5 months, telling my defence lawyers on August 18th that they had already rejected our appeal on March 17th without ever explaining, by the way, why and what part of our appeal they found irrelevant or wrong. Well, the short answer is yes!

The Göttingen Regional Court’s caving in has everything to do with the Supreme Court’s illegal backdating of its rejection of our appeal. Well, here’s the thing. With the help of a Dutch journalist, we found out that some of the judges on that five judge panel of the Supreme Court had been exchanged for other new judges. This indicates some kind of conflict within the court. More importantly, in June or July of this year, we informed the Supreme Court of the civil complaint for damages which we had filed with the Hannover regional court. As this is a case against the government of lower Saxony, as the employer of the rogue judges and prosecutors who massively, willfully, and arbitrarily violated the rules of criminal procedure to put me behind bars for a crime they themselves had invented during the trial. Not before the trial, during the trial. Well, allow me to digress so that you’ll better be able to understand. You may think, how can a civil court not just overrule a criminal court’s decision, but also make criminal criminal judges or their employer pay damages? Well, remember the OJSimpson case? OJ won the criminal case, but then he lost the civil case the survivors of the victims of the crime he allegedly committed had brought against him.This has nothing to do with double jeopardy as criminal law is one thing. It’s the state against the alleged perpetrator of a crime and civil law is quite another. It’s one private citizen against another.Germany’s civil code says in the tort law section 839 that no one is above the law, not even judges or any other public employees such as prosecutors. Much more important than this distinction, however, is this. Damages in civil law are not restricted to monetary damages. Rather, we have also requested the civil court in Hannover to order the state of Lower Saxony to immediately release me from prison. And this request is based on the Supreme Court’s own rulings which state that an abduction for political persecution, which is what the German government had its domestic intelligence service to do to me by abducting me in Mexico in order to put me in jail on fake charges and shut me up.

Such an abduction for political persecution qualifies as an extreme outlier case. That’s the term, an extreme outlier case, and that an extreme outlier case automatically means that one, I must be released immediately and two, any criminal proceedings against me must immediately and permanently be stopped and dropped. Now, by notifying the Supreme Court of its own rulings in June or July, we made them panic. How could they avoid having to rule in my favor? By backdating their rejection of our appeal by five months to March 17th. So that they can now claim or at least pretend to claim that they had not been made aware of this at that time in March of 26, but only some four months later. At the same time, they are now able to leave it to the civil court in handover to deal with this extremely problematic hot potato. I will get out anyway now because of the 2/3 rule which says that a prisoner should be released from prison after having served more than 2/3 of his sentence, has no prior record, and behaved well while in prison. Then the rest of the prison term is on probation. But I won’t let them off the hook. Of course, we will push the civil case and make sure that all those who are responsible for this biggest legal and political scandal in Germany will be behind bars soon.

By the way, hearkening back to the synchronicity of events, which I also like to refer to, a couple of days ago, the German government’s agency for the safety of medical products had to admit as a result of a foyer request that the PCR test was not authorised for diagnostic purposes, as its inventor, KaryMullis, had always said, because there was no adequate international standard for that. This means that all the anti-corona measures the German government but also all the other Western governments had based on this on this PCR tests overwhelmingly false positive test results have absolutely no basis whatsoever. And this is exactly what I said in that 50inute video statement in September of 2020, warning those who had deliberately misused this PCR test in order to create cases that didn’t exist for panic mongering and thereby making people accept the potentially lethal shots that we would come for them in a Nermberg 2.0 type legal proceeding. Next weekend on September the 20th, the German puppet government will collapse or at least become nonfunctional because they will suffer another lethal blow, losing another state election in one of the East German states.

Well, my friends, for some strange reason, this reminds me of Peter Frampton’s great song, Baby I Love Your Way. The end is near, my friends. The end of the monsters. See you soon!’

Read; Amish threaten mass exodus from New York over vaccine fight —which is heading to the Supreme Court New York Post, 26 August 2026

‘New York’s Amish community is issuing an ultimatum to state bureaucrats: leave us alone or we’re packing up our buggies for greener pastures. The threat has been sparked by a vaccine mandate fight that the 25,000 strong religious community is taking all the way to the Supreme Court. It takes place as state Health Department officials continue to slap thousands in fines on tiny, one-room parochial Amish schools which have refused to comply with a Cuomo-era vaccine decree. “Have we gotten to a place where we aren’t going to make room for the Amish anymore?” Hiram Sasser, an attorney representing six plaintiffs in the case, Miller v. McDonald, asked. “When you think of Americana—apple pie, fireworks—the Amish are on that list. They’re part of the American fabric. They’re a good litmus test of our religious liberty and our tolerance,” Sasser claimed to The Post.

In 2019, following a measles outbreak in an Orthodox Jewish community, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo rescinded religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates—making it the second state to ever do so, behind California. Post-COVID, two other states, Maine and Connecticut, removed religious exemptions while West Virginia never had them. New York state law requires kids to receive between 24 and 27 jabs to attend K through 12 schools, according to the DOH vaccine schedule.

Upstate Amish parents—who generally teach their children in small classes in one-room schoolhouses which receive no public money—have been in court since 2024 fighting Cuomo’s mandate. Two years earlier the state began issuing $2,000 fines for non-compliance. Three schools listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit—Shady Lane school in Clymer, NY; Pleasant View in Heuvelton, NY and Dygert Road School near Canajoharie—together have racked up $118,000 in fines. Their attorneys tell The Post every Amish school in the state is in the same situation; the DOH refused to answer The Post’s questions about how many other schools had been fined. New York has the nation’s fifth largest Amish population, with an estimated 25,000 individuals. Their lawyers say if they are unsuccessful at the Supreme Court, they are leaving the state for good; possibly destined for Pennsylvania, which has the largest Amish population in the country at around 95,000.

For one, the only way the community would be able to meet the fines is if the state confiscated their land to pay them according to Aaron Siri, another attorney representing the plaintiffs. “Watch ‘Little House on the Prairie.’ It’s the one-room schoolhouse and Laura Ingalls Wilder teaching the kids. It’s a way of life that use to predominate across America, but the Amish are still holding on to it. We’ve acknowledged that as a nation and given them their space this whole time. And now that’s being tested,” claimed Sasser. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the NYC-based 2nd Circuit—which had ruled against the Amish last year—strongly insisting the majority Democrat-appointed tribunal take another look. However, the 2nd Circuit reissued its original decision and now the Amish will officially petition SCOTUS to hear their case again next month, their lawyers say.

Amish culture generally forbids both litigation and injectables. “The Amish really don’t want to be in this position. They don’t want to be engaging in this lawsuit in any way at all. But they’ve been left with no choice,” Siri told The Post.

In a handwritten letter shared with The Post, plaintiff Ezra Wengerd of Canajoharie, 55, an Amish father of the very conservative Old Order sect explained his community’s refusal to comply with DOH directives. “We, as a peace loving religious group, are sincerely sorry that we are causing the state a prob [sic]. We are indeed grateful to the state of NY for the many privileges freedoms and protections they have blessed us with, for many years,” Wengerd wrote. “Our Almighty God wants us to fully put our faith and trust in Him. Which is in conflict to put our trust in vaccines. We are also commanded to not be conformed to this world,” the letter continued. As luck would have it, when the Amish do end up in court, they have a good track record of victories. In Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania Amish plaintiffs prevailed in state-level cases from the 1980s to 2020s involving photo IDs, buggy safety equipment and building codes—each time granted reasonable workarounds when the modern hooey of photography, reflective tape and septic tanks threatened their way of life. But when the Amish return to SCOTUS they won’t have a slam dunk case, Wayne State University law professor Christopher Lund Told The Post.

“The claim in these cases is: you are only entitled to a religious exemption if the law isn’t neutral or generally applicable,” said Lund. “The argument the plaintiffs are making here is, if you’re going to exempt people with medical needs, you also need to exempt people with religious needs.” The 2nd Circuit has been on a streak slapping down people who’ve challenged vaccine mandates, ruling against at least five other recent plaintiffs fired from their jobs for refusing COVID-19 jabs on religious grounds. It’s a topic SCOTUS would rather not touch, either. “I think the [Supreme] court’s always been hesitant about vaccination cases. And when we had church closure cases during COVID the court showed a lot of deference to medical authorities,” said Lund. “But the state isn’t just thinking about the Amish, it’s thinking about everyone together. I think the Amish are probably a very sympathetic set of plaintiffs, but the state is thinking more widely,” he added. An NY DOH spokeswoman said in a statement to The Post, its responsibility “is to protect public health, keep New Yorkers and their families safe and enforce the law fairly and equitably,” adding the DOH is “committed to eliminating serious illness and unnecessary deaths caused by vaccine preventable diseases” and school immunisation requirements are “based in science.”

However, the community does have vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services on their side. “President Trump’s recent Executive Order reaffirmed the Administration’s commitment to parental choice and religious freedom when it comes to childhood vaccination … Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS will continue working to protect parents’ rights to make informed health care decisions.’

Yet another reason to be extremely skeptical about every move suggested by our corporate captured politicians.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi Unveils a New Theory on Post-mRNA Vaccine Illness

Listen; Professor Sucharit Bhakdi Unveils a New Theory on Post-mRNA Vaccine Illness, UK Column, 22 September 2026

UK Column; “In a surprise addition to the programme, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, former chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz, chose the UK Column 20th Anniversary On Location audience to present a hypothesis he had not shared publicly before. Professor Bhakdi begins with his life and career, from his childhood in Bern, Cairo and Bangkok, his medical training in Bonn, to his research at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology. He describes how the corona years led him to Gustave Le Bon’s work on crowd psychology and to question decades of his own teaching on vaccination. He mentions books he has co-authored, including a German-language title with Karina Reiss and Klaus Köhnlein, and a forthcoming English edition of a compendium written with former Pfizer toxicologist Helmut Sterz, to be published by Skyhorse.

According to Bhakdi’s hypothesis, the mRNA is taken up by endothelial cells in the smallest blood vessels. The production of foreign proteins (in this case, the spike protein – but any other would have the same effect) leads to an attack on and damage to the vascular endothelium, thereby causing disruptions to the blood supply and the death of surrounding cells. These include oligodendrocytes, which are essential for maintaining the myelin sheaths around nerves. The breakdown of the myelin sheaths leads to disturbances in nerve conduction and to symptoms characteristic of classic degenerative demyelinating diseases such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and many others – symptoms which we observe in vaccine-injured individuals. The breakdown products of the myelin sheaths have a unique property: they activate the complement system, so that the surrounding oligodendrocytes come under attack from complement. Oligodendrocytes have remarkably few protective proteins against these complement attacks, resulting in a selfperpetuating cycle of destruction. According to this hypothesis, this process occurs in all degenerative neurological diseases and explains their relentless progression.

He closes by discussing curcumin as a possible complement inhibitor. He cites early anecdotal reports from a Norwegian doctor and from friends he is supporting. Professor Bhakdi presents this explicitly as an untested hypothesis and invites scientists to try to disprove it.’

If anyone is interested in Curcumin infusions, a UK based contact is: Dr Margareta Griesz-Brisson London Neurology Pain and Rehab Clinic Ltd 100 Harley street London W1G 7JA UK

Provoked War with Russia

You are being lied to on a scale that most of us see through but can do nothing to stop our captured politicians peddling them.

Watch; WE ARE BEING LIED TO: Washington Insider DROPS BOMBSHELL on Ukraine War, WE ARE BEING LIED TO: Washington Insider DROPS BOMBSHELL on Ukraine War

‘As the war in Ukraine rages on, mainstream media narratives increasingly obscure realities on the ground. In this exclusive interview, Washington insider and foreign policy expert Professor Anatol Lieven (Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft) breaks down the true state of the conflict, collapse of Western air defences, overstretched US military capacity, and why NATO’s approach is leading us into a very dangerous dead end.’

Professor Anatol Lieven; “Much of the Western media has simply become Ukrainian propaganda. European governments and militaries have really talked up this Russian threat to attack Europe, which in my view is almost entirely fantastical. All this foolish talk from earlier in the summer about turning the tide against Russia. No, the Ukrainians did serious damage, but in response, the Russians were able to do far, far more damage. We could very well end in nuclear catastrophe because if we really went to war against Russia, the Russians would lose and to prevent that they would use nuclear weapons. People have been warning for years and years, America is overstretched. America cannot fight three wars simultaneously. Well, guess what? It can’t. Because of the war in Iran, it’s becoming less and less possible for the West to strangle Russia’s energy exports. If you were to close down completely Russian energy exports, you would be doing terrible damage to the world economy, increasing the chances of a global economic recession. To get European publics at a time of severe pressure on health budgets, social welfare budgets to support Ukraine with hundreds of millions of euros, Western military propagandists, governments told the publics, you’re in real danger of being attacked by Russia. How can you then transfer all your critical air defence systems to Ukraine? What are we going to have to defend, London or Paris? You have had an intensive CIA program of training the Ukrainian army, CIA stations in Ukraine monitoring Russia and the Russians basically think it’s now. Now American commanders across the world have been in private that this has now been leaked, issuing strong dissent warnings.”

In the paragraphs below Craig Murray writes about his fascinating and enriching few days in Russia. His words are witty, true and wise but they will of course land on deaf ears for those who wish to prosper from defeating Russia to steal their resources.

Read; Four Days in Ekaterinburg, Craig Murray, 28 September 2026

Craig Murray; “Here with my nationality obvious from my attire, and throughout my visit when I had met scores of people in everyday situations, I received no hostility from anybody. On the contrary I received constant kindness, hospitality and consideration. This from a population which is acutely aware that it is under missile attack with missiles supplied from the U.K., and where the Western powers, including the U.K., are openly and regularly threatening war. Yet in this circumstance I did not only encounter zero personal reserve or hostility, I did not hear a single threatening or aggressive posture. Officially, Lavrov spoke of a multipolar world, support for the United Nations, the rule of international law and the rejection of violence. Nobody at any stage, including injured veterans from the Ukraine War, spoke of a desire for war or made any threat against the West. The war in Ukraine itself was not glorified but viewed as an extremely unfortunate necessity which everybody wanted to end as soon as possible.

I returned to the hotel after the ballet and packed, before they drove me to the airport. Irina and Margarita stayed with me right until I boarded the plane approaching 3am. We drank malt whisky and camomile tea which Tatyana had ordered for me before the journey. I left with real regret at parting from newly made friends, and a feeling of astonishment at the drive to paint these people as enemies, barbarians and people we must kill.

I have given an honest account of what I saw and what I did. Yes, I was on an official programme, but I encountered scores of people, many of whom were not following an official narrative. I acknowledge that I did not have a chance to look at issues like conscription, or the ability of opposition political parties to contest the elections.

But then you do not need me to do that. The BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, CNN are all present and travel and report across Russia, and regularly bring you the propaganda picture. You can read it any time. But consider this. Russia Today and Sputnik Radio were closed down in the U.K., totally. There are no Russian journalists free to operate in the U.K. unless they write the British government line, while British journalists, including the totally hostile, still operate in Russia. I could read the super-Russophobic Guardian in Russia anytime, with no VPN. Those facts in themselves are sufficient to destroy the simplistic narrative of “free West vs authoritarian Russia”, and should at least make you realise that there is more to see and hear than the Western narrative.

As Western elites struggle to hold the consent of their populations during a period of declining standards of living for ordinary people and a massively expanding wealth gap to the billionaire class, they need an enemy to focus hatred and resentment away from themselves. They use immigrants at home and Russians abroad. I just spent a few days with those Russians, and could not have met more warm, human, decent and well-motivated people. I met with kindness and consideration even when I didn’t fit entirely into their agenda. I encountered no xenophobia, no hate and no extremism, and absolutely no desire for war. Russian people are like us. They want peace, happiness and a decent society for their children to grow up in. They have the same problems as the rest of us in facing up to the excesses of late stage capitalism. They too like us struggle against the authoritarian instincts of a political elite. Russians are not our enemy. Do not let people try to convince you that they are.’

A short summary of the Ukraine disaster by Douglas Macgregor

Watch; What happens when a war is built on the assumption Russia will collapse? World War Three Facts, 12 September 2026

Col Douglas Macgregor; “Had we not deliberately intervened in Ukraine to establish a government in Kiev that was stridently anti-Russian and essentially slavishly devoted to the United States and NATO, there wouldn’t be a conflict in Ukraine, and we’ve been losing the conflict ever since. The Russians held back and exercised extraordinary restraint for long periods of time until finally they said, that’s it, we’re going to have to intervene. And when they realised what they were up against, because I don’t think they understood just how much had been invested in the Ukrainians. You had 800,000 men in the Ukrainian military, in the army at that point, half of whom are regular, the other half were reservists. But they were all well trained, well equipped. Well, now they’re all dead. They’ve lost 1.5 million Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield, maybe more at this point but nevertheless we continue to stoke these fires and keep this conflict going on the assumption that if we do it long enough, Russia will collapse and will fall into our lap, and then we can move into Russia and strip it of its resources and exploit it for business purposes.”

Read; Ukraine’s population decline: Is Zelenskyy’s policy leading to national suicide? Pro News, 19 September 2026

‘Imagine a country where for every child born, three graves are being dug. Yes, you heard that right.This is not a scene from a science fiction dystopian movie, but the reality of Ukraine between 2024 and 2026. We may not even realise how a nation of 52 million people is disappearing right before our eyes. The CIA World Factbook states that Ukraine currently has the lowest birth rate and the highest death rate in the world. But the question is, where are all these people going? Are they only dying in the war, or is there a master plan behind this that would give you goosebumps? Let us look a little deeper.

‘Ukraine Deputy Minister of Education Andriy Vitrenko recently shared a frightening piece of information. Over the past seven years, the number of children enrolling in first grade in the country has dropped by more than half. In the 2018-2019 academic year, 453,000 children enrolled in school, whereas today that number is only 242,000. In other words, the future generation of the country is literally disappearing. Playgrounds are silent today. On the streets of Kyiv, Lviv, or Odessa, you no longer see young people hanging out like before. Everywhere you look, there are only elderly people and injured soldiers returning from war. Recently, in the British magazine The Spectator, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy former press secretary Iuliia Mendel dropped a bombshell that created quite a stir in the Western world. In her column, Mendel directly described Zelenskyy current strategy as national suicide.Think about it, why would the person who was closest to Zelenskyy from 2019 until the early stages of the war say such a thing today? Iuliia Mendel wrote clearly in her column that at this moment, the war in Ukraine is merely lining the pockets of a corrupt and narrow elite class, while the country is being destroyed. She considers this policy of Zelenskyy not just a mistake, but suicidal for an entire nation. Not only that, a terrifying truth was also brought up on American journalist and political analyst Tucker Carlson show on the Tucker Carlson Network. On Carlson show, it was claimed that the main purpose of the Zelenskyy government policy is to destroy Ukraine population and hand over the country natural resources to foreign corporations.’

Watch; The Fate Of Ukraine – Interview with Dr Marta Havryshko, Decline and Fall, 10 September 2026

Alexander Mckay; “Now we bring you the perspectives of Professor Marta Havryshko, who is a scholar on Holocaust history and the history of the Ukrainian far right, who we’ve had on before but is coming back to us today at this point, I believe crucial juncture in the Ukraine war where it appears that the Ukrainian state is being ripped apart by convulsions caused by corruption, personal rivalry and the pressures of the mass casualties that have occurred on the front line and that Ukrainian society is being afflicted by what can only be described as a rapacious elite making the working class Ukrainians pay the price for the war. Now, Marta, welcome back to the Decline and Fall show… let’s talk first of all about the developments in the last couple of weeks. So you in a recent substack post talked about the Prosecutor General’s office and I now believe he’s been dismissed, Serhii (Kropyva) having a safe full of cash, luxury watches, a Porsche and you presented this as an example of the vast difference between a Ukrainian governing elite which is getting rich off this war, off Western donor money, whilst at the same time working class Ukrainians essentially are press-ganged, to use an old British naval term and we’ve all seen the videos, anybody who is on Telegram or on Twitter will have seen the videos of Ukrainian men, sometimes very old people in their 60s and 70s being torn from their families, often with their wives, daughters, trying to resist the press-gang men and tossed in the back of a van. So is this elite indifference to the costs of war a new phenomenon or other deeper roots in, do you think in the post Soviet Ukrainian state? And does this division make the war socially unsustainable regardless of whatever or the outcomes on the battlefield?”

Marta Hovryshko; “The recent development with arrest in the general prosecutor office is just another symptom of this deep corruption problem in Ukraine that is very persistent since Ukraine gained its independence in 1991. But nowadays this problem became very painful for Ukraine because hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are believed to be dead as a result of this war. I mean soldiers. And it is believed that approximately 16,000 civilians died but also in addition to that we have more than 100,000 soldiers maimed, meaning they are without limbs. Also we have dozens of thousands of people who are missing and dozens of thousands of people who are currently in Russian captivity and still people are kidnapped and forced by the state to go to war against their will to pick up arms to kill another human beings and to die. The biggest problem of Ukraine army nowadays is the manpower problem. We don’t have any more. These big lines of combat volunteers, 95% according to Ukraine officials, are those who are forcibly mobilised men who don’t want to go to the war anymore because in the eyes of many people, this war is already lost and another very big reason people can’t understand why they should die, these working class people, while prosecutors, while judges, lawmakers and other representatives of Ukraine political elites are living their best life and turn this war into profitable business. They’re enriching themselves. They became involved in military industrial complex, they created many firms and they received these state contracts and they are making money out of this war and people can’t understand why…when Ukrainians saw this safe published by NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine), this safe in the office of the General Prosecutor filled with 100 dollar bills in cash, they were shocked, they were just shocked, these ordinary Ukrainians. Why? Because state officials constantly are saying, you should tighten your belts, you should donate to your army every day, you should send your sons to the war, you should suffer, you should carry the burden of this war, you should never dodge the draft, it’s your patriotic duty but at the same time the office of General Prosecutor is filled by dirty money and they are stealing public funds and many people are so furious because of that because it’s so morally deranged. Why are you stealing money from your own people who are believing in this war? You call this war existential war? Why? Why the hell is happening? You call this existential? It’s not existential for you and for entire political elites. They are buying yachts, they are buying luxury villas. This is existential for working class people because they are paying the highest price. They are kidnapped for the war, they are killed, they are maimed, their pensions are from $80 to $160 per month. This war is existential for the more than 40% of Ukrainian people who are living under the poverty line because their quality of life isn’t improving. Constant bombing, constant attacks, and their quality of life even worsening. Why? Because Zelensky, constantly escalating and the retaliation attacks are not targeting villas of our political elites. Those who are suffering are ordinary people.”

Listen; COL Douglas Macgregor : Trump Admin careening into the abyss and it may already be too late, Judging Freedom, 10 September 2026

Judge Napolitano; “Colonel Macgregor, welcome here, it’s a pleasure to chat with you, it is my first conversation on air since I returned from Russia, which was just a few hours ago. Before we get to President Trump facing an abyss or perhaps feeling like he’s in hell, an analogy that you made in a great substack piece you wrote comparing him to President Lincoln after the North had lost a very serious battle in the Civil War. In addition to my interview with Foreign Minister Lavrov, Larry Johnson, John Mearsheimer, Alistair Crook and Alistair’s wife, Aisling Byrne and I had a three-hour dinner with Foreign Minister Lavrov in his home, and other Russian officials were there as well. He spoke very candidly and one of the takeaways is the Russians were very disappointed at Anchorage, they were disappointed because the Americans made proposals to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which were delivered to the Russians about a week before Anchorage. They didn’t like the proposals, they anguished over them, they finally decided to accept them. President Putin told President Trump he would accept them. Trump said, Zelensky will do whatever I want. They shook hands on it and then nothing happened. Are you surprised?”

Douglas Macgregor; “I’m surprised at Russian naiveté more than anything else. I hope they have now learned something. They’re dealing with an administration that, quite frankly, is not in American hands. This is the Israel-first administration. We are governed and controlled by a small group of very well-financed zionists, Jewish billionaires, and they are determining what we will or will not do. I don’t think President Trump, frankly, has had very much freedom of manoeuvre since he became president. I think he thought he might have it, but he hasn’t, and they are just as dedicated to fighting on against Russia in the hopes of bringing down the Russian government and ultimately raping Russia for its resources and mineral wealth as they are in the destruction of Iran. So now, hopefully they figure that out and they understand that, quite frankly, they need to press ahead with their own interests and their own goals because they’re not going to get any help or useful support of any kind from President Trump. It’s not going to happen.”

Judge Napolitano; “They are of the view, very similar to what you just said, Colonel, that the president is naive and is malleable in the hands of those around him and those in Israel, but they’re also of the view that to them, a handshake is an agreement, and even though it didn’t bear the signature of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, it was an American proposal reduced to writing, delivered by Witkoff and Kushner five or six days before Anchorage. When I asked Foreign Minister Lavrov if they trust President Trump, he responded by saying, would you, after the violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, would you, after the violation of the handshake in Anchorage? So I think they see through all this but they’re diplomats, they’ll listen to what they call these two real estate agents anytime they show up at President Putin’s door. Does that surprise you?”

Douglas Macgregor; “No, because I think the Russians from the very beginning have wanted a new relationship with the United States, a productive relationship, one based on mutual interest, commercial interest, as well as strategic interest. They find it incomprehensible that we Americans would act against our own interests but that’s exactly what we’ve done and this did not begin with Donald Trump, you’ve got to go back, I would argue, 25, 30 years, and we have been acting against our own interests, certainly over that entire time, from the moment that Senator Richard Lugar told everyone that NATO was either out of area or out of business. In other words, we’ve got to find something new for the Europeans to do. Now that we no longer have a conflict with the Russians, at least for the moment, we have to drag them into other conflicts so that they remain in a state of permanent subordination to and dependence upon the United States. That’s never really changed. And there’s no real difference today between what the Biden administration was trying to do to Russia and what we’ve been doing since President Trump took over so I hope they figured this out. I hate to be blunt about it, and this handshake business is completely meaningless with people that have no personal honour and I’m afraid that’s how I have to describe the people running our government. These are people without any integrity at all, there’s no sense of personal honour, let alone national honour.”

Watch; Most people have no idea what’s coming; Alex Krainer on Savvy Capital, 6 September 2026,

Intro; ‘Alex Krainer delivers a provocative analysis of the Russia–Ukraine conflict and the broader struggle between competing geopolitical and financial systems. He examines debt, Western financial power, NATO expansion, the Minsk agreements, Iran, and the growing Russia–China–Iran partnership. Krainer argues that the current global system is approaching a historic turning point—and that a fundamental transformation of the international financial and geopolitical order may be unavoidable.

The ultimate objective is to create these massive wealth transfer money conveyor belts that suck out all the wealth created from these regions into money centres like Paris, City of London, Wall Street and the same is happening today and Trump is just the last in the sequence of their puppets. It’s all coming for us, it is not like they are doing this to Ukrainians and they won’t do it to us, they will do it to us all….’

Watch; Looting Russia; Why the British Empire Never Died, Neutrality Studies, 30 September 2026

Intro; ‘Alex Krainer joins Pascal to discuss the financial interests behind geopolitical conflict. Drawing on his hedge fund background and research for Grand Deception, Krainer challenges Bill Browder’s account of Russia and examines post-Soviet privatisation, debt and oligarchic power. They explore Russia’s relations with the West, diplomacy and historical ties between Russia and nineteenth-century America. Krainer argues that British imperial influence persists through financial networks, connecting his “undead empire” thesis to sovereignty, contemporary wars and the mechanics of wealth extraction.’

Richard Sakwa is a British political scientist and a former professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent and an honorary professor in the Faculty of Political Science at Moscow State University.

Watch; Interview With Professor Richard Sakwa, Decline and Fall, 7 September 2026

‘In this special episode of the Decline & Fall show we speak to Professor Richard Sakwa. Our conversation ranges from how the Ukraine war began, the history of the Ukrainian state and the nature of Russian Ukrainian relations over the past 30 years. We conclude by looking at possible paths to peace and why Zelensky cannot and will not take any of them.’

Kit Klarenberg; “, it seems with all manner of signs of seemingly impending collapse in Ukraine itself, kind of combined with the apparent deranged determination of Western leaders to by hook or by crooked, keep this going. Perhaps we could start off by asking how on earth did we get here, in reference to what has happened to and in Ukraine since 1991, Richard?”

Richard Sakwa; “If you’re going to talk about the causes of the war, it’s multi-layered but I think you’re absolutely right to start with domestic Ukrainian issues, because the whole question in a sense boils down to the model of Ukrainian state and nation development since 1991. When it became or declared its sovereignty in July 1990, it committed itself to neutrality. Now, we’ve had a lot of discussion of neutrality, but it was then incorporated into the Constitution in 1996. However, under Western pressure and also by the pressure of certain elites within Ukraine whose model of state building was explicitly within what they call the decolonisation framework, which means distancing themselves from Russia. Now, this undermined any effect of statecraft. Now, statecraft can be defined as the ability to manage a state’s affairs based on a real analysis of the situation. Now, a sensible statecraft being next to a neighbor, a nuclear neighbor like Russia. It’s no good complaining about the fact that in the Budapest process, Ukraine gave up the Soviet missiles, nuclear weapons on its territory But to take into account actual realities, just like Finland did after 1945, Ukraine failed to do so. So it developed very strongly one of the elite positions, because we shouldn’t forget Ukrainian statehood was highly contested all the way till 2014, when a particular faction managed to drive out the other faction, which was the Yanukovych one, however odious and corrupt he may well have been, he represented a vision of a more, can I put it, pluralistic Ukraine. Of course, we needed to clean up governance, stop corruption, all sorts of things but unfortunately, the model of ethnocratic, ethno-nationalist model of state building after 2014 inevitably led to conflict with Russia. When that superimposed on the commitment to join a military alliance system, NATO, but not just NATO, the whole European Union had become part of what I call the political West and that was symbolised by the insertion in the Lisbon treaty in 2009 of Article 42.7 and this was an article introduced at the insistence of Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister at that time, and once again Polish Foreign Minister, and Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister. Now, this means that European Union also becomes a security agency, so there’s a whole bundle of issues there but you’re right, can I just make one final point, there is another Ukraine, and my book which we talked about earlier, ‘The Russo- Ukrainian War, Follies of Empire’, is dedicated to the other Ukraine, that is the one which is fighting for a multi-confessional, multi-lingual, pluralistic, tolerant Ukraine which accepts the dilemmas, the complications, the contradictions, even the complexities of its history of a thousand years of entangled history with what became Russia and what became Ukraine, but instead of which we have a group which wants to reject it, also being stimulated and encouraged to do so by Western powers.”

Zelenski weighing in on Israel’s side in the West’s war against Iran is drawing Iran and Russia closer as an axis of resistance to US hegemony.

Watch; Professor Marandi: CIA Facilitated Ukrainian attack on Iranian vessel, Al Mayadeen English, 28 July 2026

Seyed Marandi; “Your report actually touched upon a very important point, and that is that targeting cannot be carried out by Ukraine alone, they do not have that technology and as far as I know, NATO itself is not capable of doing that either. It is the United States itself. So from my understanding, many of the targets, most of the targets in Russia, it is the CIA that is facilitating the targeting process and thus the attack on the Iranian ship must fall within that framework. So this is an assault by the United States and Ukraine based on this understanding in this interpretation, which I think is valid. The second point, which I think is also significant, is that, as you rightly point out, Trump hasn’t shown a lot of enthusiasm in supporting Ukraine, although recently we see that’s changing and he seems to be moving in the direction of greater support for Ukraine and I think that Zelensky has carried out this attack basically to reinforce that, to tell Trump that, look, I am useful to you, I am of assistance to you against Iran, so give me some more support but I think what this also does is that it creates an environment or a situation where the front between the West and the non-Western countries, meaning Russia, Iran, or let’s say the broader axis of resistance merge. In other words, I think that we’re seeing a closer link between the Russian, Iranian axis of resistance side, they’re moving closer to each other and NATO is fighting all of these entities simultaneously. I think actually this doesn’t work well for the United States. I don’t think this is a good move by the United States because by merging, by bringing Iran and Russia closer to each other, by bringing the axis of resistance in Russia closer to each other, by merging these fronts with one another, they actually make it more difficult for themselves in confronting all of these adversaries.”

Venezuela

Read; Oppose show trial of Nicolas Maduro and defend immunity, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, 3 September 2026

‘Today marks eight months since the illegal attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Maduro. Yesterday, President Maduro’s legal team formally filed a motion demanding the dismissal of all charges on the grounds of sovereign immunity. They wrote: “No American court has ever presided over the criminal trial of a foreign leader who was recognised by their own country as the sitting head of state at the time the charges were brought. That is not an accident of history. It reflects a rule older than the common law: heads of state are exempt from the criminal process of any national court but their own.”

The next key hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for November 17, 2026. The trial has been scheduled to begin on June 1, 2027, by which time President Maduro would have been imprisoned in a Brooklyn federal jail for 17 months. We cannot allow this dangerous precedent to stand. The US must not be permitted to invade sovereign nations, abduct their leaders, and put them on trial as though international law does not exist. Add your name to this crucial petition: https://bit.ly/noshowtrial ‘

Watch; Looming disaster, The Grayzone live, 7 September 2026

‘Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate return to discuss Venezuela’s oil privatisation deal with Francisco Rodriguez, then they will explain what’s behind the calls from Israel First members of Congress and Laura Loomer to “investigate” Blumenthal as the US war on Iran, the US economy and Trump’s approval ratings continue to founder.’

Cuba

For peace, humanity and common sense, listen to Cuba’s Foreign Minister at the UN General Assembly. The wealthy Cubans that fled Castro’s socialist revolution, fuel the incessant hatred for the Cuban system that serves as an alternative to the inequalities and excesses of capitalism.

Watch; Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba addresses UN General Assembly, TeleSUR English, 26 September 2026

Bruno Rodriguez Parilla; “……….The fundamental pillars of international law and the United Nations Organisation, such as the sovereign equality among states, are under permanent attack. The genocidal crime of zionism against the Palestinian people, the pirate attacks against vessels and the extrajudicial executions in the Caribbean Sea and some areas in the Pacific, the military aggression against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran are new expressions of this atrocity. They are also a reflection of the crisis of identity and relevance imposed on the United Nations Organisation and even on this General Assembly, the most universal, democratic and representative body of the international community. We are convinced of the need to preserve and strengthen the United Nations. This is indispensable as we make it more democratic and effective and closer to its peoples. As is well known in Cuba, we are facing a multi dimensional aggression from the United States government. A permanent, abusive and ruthless hostility that has lasted for almost seven decades. Since January 2026, this aggression has strengthened and become more cruel and more dangerous with the imposition of an energy blockade that, by resorting to intimidation and coercion, prevents any country from exporting fuel to Cuba. An equivalent to a naval blockade, which is classified under international law as an act of war, through the adoption of successive measures, the government of the United States has been applying new prohibitions on all countries with regards to products and services that cannot be exported or transported to Cuba. More than 7,000 containers remain stranded in different ports, many of them loaded with foodstuffs, medicines and medical devices, and some of them have even been paid for by private Cuban companies. It is an unusual and unprecedented action. A superpower unilaterally deprives all states of their right to export the commodities that they wish to the country that they wish to export them to, and continuously and comprehensively violates freedom of trade and navigation. Added to this is the intimidation of entrepreneurs of different countries so that they abandon, against their will, their investments and businesses in Cuba the obstacles and tricks to prevent the arrival in Cuba of absolutely legitimate commercial shipments, the pressures to prevent the entry of visitors and tourists, and the efforts aimed at restricting as much as possible Cuba’s legitimate access to financing, technology and markets. It’s even gone as far as the United States exerting unseen pressure on sovereign governments so that they renounce the medical services they requested from us for the benefit of their respective populations and which are offered by Cuban professionals altruistically, because the US Government is opposed to such cooperation and regardless of the impact and harm that this may cause to those populations if they are deprived of free medical quality medical care, that is to say, deprived of an elemental human right. ………..”

Watch; Cuba is not a threat, Embajada de Cuba, 30 September 2026

Dailyn Briñas; “I want to say directly to Rubio and his enablers like Maria Salazar or Carlos Gimenez, you do not own what it means to be Cuban. My name is Dailyn Briñas and I’m here tonight representing Cuban Americans for Cuba. I was born in San Miguel del Padron, Havana, and I immigrated to the United States with my mom and my older brother after spending a part of my childhood in Cuba. For too long, the Cuban Americans who have been the most visible in American political discourse have been treated as if they speak for all of us. They don’t. Why do we have to sit back and watch our loved ones suffer through nationwide blackouts, rising infant mortality rates, or school children without adequate school supplies? Why would any of us continue to support this policy, knowing that it’s being carried out in our name and with our tax dollars? We are not going to let a small group of interventionist voices continue to speak for all Cuban Americans. Marco Rubio does not speak for our families. He does not speak for the Cuban Americans who have watched their loved ones suffer on the island. He does not speak for the working class Cuban Americans who came to this country believing they would build a better life, but have found themselves living an entirely opposite reality. You do not own our history or our struggles. You do not own the struggles of what it means to be a poor Cuban immigrant living in the United States. And you certainly do not decide what it means to love Cuba and its people, because you don’t. We love our country. We love our people. We love our families. And these are the voices that actually represent us. Viva Cuba! Abajo el Bloqueo!”

Yemen

The Houthis are standing firm as members of the axis of resistance against the genocide in Gaza, the Greater Israel Project and US hegemony.

Yemen will not be overwhelmed by history – interview with Isa Blumi An excellent and very educational conversation with Prof. Isa Blumi whom I have talked to many times on my channel. This is really an excellent conversation with Prof. Isa Blumi, author of Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us about the World. – highly recommended. Isa’s essay on Nasser – Navigating the Cold War’s revolution: Nasser and the modernisation of Yemen: ABSTRACT: Egypt played an under-appreciated role in the Cold War. While traditionally considered a revolutionary actor by historians, by the late 1950s Nasser’s government had become the focus of a policy of accommodation promoted by the two major superpowers. Seen as a bulwark against truly radical and violent anti-imperialist forces, US and Soviet strategists hoped support for Nasser’s accommodating “revolution” would avoid a repeat of Korea earlier in the decade. As such, Nasser’s charismatic brand of populist-nationalism and advocacy of economic modernization were deemed essential to steering the region peaceably into a new postwar, postcolonial global order. Nasser’s sanctioned role as a regional enabler was exemplified in the attempted imposition of modernization in North Yemen, an exportation of Egypt’s model of revolution that instead of stabilizing the region introduced an entirely new disruptive force. You can read the whole paper here..

Watch; Houthi Popularity Explained: Why Arab Street Supports Them, Community Alliance for Peace and Justice, 21 September 2026

Dr Trita Parsi; “The Houthis are extremely popular in the Arab street right now and in the larger Muslim world because this very poor country, managing to stand up both to the US and to Israel when so many of these other Arab countries are caving, failing, you name it. So much of Jordan’s military is being used to protect Israel right now against Iranian missiles in the midst of an Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people. Do not underestimate how good that makes the Houthis look when they’re fighting back. So I think it would be tremendously problematic politically for these countries to get involved, but also it would be very problematic for them militarily. Few countries, if any, have actually intervened successfully in Yemen, and I don’t think the Turks have the slightest appetite for this, particularly when they’re also increasingly facing a greater and greater threat from Israel and for them to be overstretched in Yemen, of all places, in the middle of all of this makes absolutely no sense, so I think the Mecca Agreement, at the end of the day, was a rushed effort to try to just fill in some sort of agreement within this vacuum that has been left by the complete collapse of the American hegemony in the Middle East, the American security umbrella. It may have been very well intended, and it may still end up being able to work if it becomes an inclusive arrangement rather than turning into some sort of a Middle Eastern NATO but as John knows much better than me, these agreements only work as far as their credibility is willing to carry them and the credibility right now that the Turks and the Pakistanis would go to war with Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia is not there and it’s not even there when it comes to the Houthis. So, yes, if there’s some minor piracy taking place, perhaps they would come to Saudi Arabia’s aid, but that is not the issue that Saudi Arabia is currently facing.”

Watch; Ansar Allah Just Lit a Fuse Across the Middle East /Alastair Crooke, Deep Dive, 17 September 2026

Alastair Crooke; “What happened in Yemen is not just a tit for tat against Saudi Arabia about a certain blockade, it is a revolution. I think it should be understood as a revolution. It has been planned at least for seven years, more like nine years they have been working on this. It is thought through by Ansar Allah, who are always in the West deprecated because they’re barefooted tribesmen and things but it has been well planned and so Saudi Arabia, if he goes down the path of conceding to Ansar Allah, it means they’ll have to return the three provinces that they stole in the 1930s. In 1934, they stole three provinces of the Yemenis and Houthis have strong tribal connections with those provinces which are now generally assumed to be within Saudi Arabia but they will want them back, they will want an end to the blockade, and they will want also payments which were due to them on certain transactions and they will demand the end of the UAE and the Saudi forces in the south. In fact, they are being destroyed anyway, they’ve been literally driven out …because they’re mercenaries, they’re not Saudi forces, they’re mercenary forces and the mercenary forces have all been fleeing as the Houthis have used ballistic missiles against them. And you can see they’ve just fled from the area.

The Saudi as a kingdom project was all focused in one family, and so the resentment still continues about that, so the idea that Saudi Arabia is a strong modern political state is to a certain extent a myth. Yes, it had money. It doesn’t today but also, either it makes concessions to the Houthis and risks the revolution gaining more oxygen and becoming bigger and spreading to Iraq and to other parts. With this happening, there is a real sense in the air of revolution in the Middle East at the moment because a small group of people have just taken over and shown the hollowness of Saudi power, much as Iran has shown the hollowness of the US power during this period. And of course, this is animating people…and remember that when the supreme leader, the last supreme leader, was assassinated by Israel, the funeral that followed in Iraq, millions turned out there in Karbala, even in Najaf, which is more conservative, millions turned out across Iran, people walked to pay miles to pay their respects to this. So what we’re playing with is revolutionary fire and this is why I’m emphasising it, because it all tends to be viewed from the Western perspective that this is all about Saudi relationship and Gulf relationship with the United States and it’s all about oil and are we going to have to pay so much for diesel, but actually what is happening is there’s a big reversion taking place. The whole region is at the cusp of reverting to the old power paradigm that used to exist until the fall of the Shah, in which the big civilisational powers historically have always been Mesopotamia and Persia, Iran, whatever you want to call it, but these were real powers in the real sense, functional, functioning powers with big populations and riches.

Now, what we can learn, what I have from really good sources, is that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who was then the Secretary General of Hezbollah, designated a senior Hezbollah person to go and stay with the Houthis throughout this period to help in their transformation. That’s why I say it was well planned and Ibrahim al Amin, who’s the editor of the paper, he gives the name of the person, there’s a photograph of the person that was responsible for this and this was coordinated, of course, with Iran. It was not intended to turn the Houthis into a proxy of Iran because both Hezbollah and particularly Sayyed understood you don’t do that with the Houthis. They are proud, independent people, they have to do it their way, but you can be there in support of it, so it was seen and is seen… and the supreme leader recently said, Imam Khomeini said at the beginning the Iranian revolution wasn’t the end of revolutions in the region, others would follow and he implied this is Mojtaba, what you’re seeing, therefore, in Yemen is another consequential, if you like, revolution unfolding there. So they understand that and they see that and they factor it in. It doesn’t mean Yemen is operating to Iranian instructions. It is pursuing a revolution that it has been in incubation for some time now. The point of all this, what I’m going to say is that it wouldn’t surprise me with this involvement of Hezbollah and probably IRGC officers, that they’re following the same pattern that I saw take place in Afghanistan. You recall, in Afghanistan, and I was quite shocked by that, too, how quickly the government that had been put into place by the West collapsed, ten days, was it something like that, ten, eleven days? It just was over and I didn’t think this was happening because I’d been dealing with Afghanistan for a long time, and I knew the problems and the Shia and the other tensions within it but I subsequently learned that Qasem Soleimani, the man that Trump assassinated, had been busy for some years putting together the diplomacy and a new dispensation for Afghanistan that enabled the collapse to happen so quickly and I wouldn’t be at all surprised that there are not some…yes, there’s one level of talks going on the institutional level between the Oman Foreign Minister and other Gulf Foreign Ministers at one level, but I would be very surprised if there isn’t another level where people are talking directly to some of these tribal leaders in Saudi Arabia and saying we need perhaps to go to a federated structure away from this one family structure for the whole region.”

“The only thing the American people care about is how much they pay for gasoline and diesel.” Chas Freeman, ex-US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Watch; Chas Freeman: U.S. Alliances Collapse & Israel Commits Suicide, Glenn Diesen, 14 September 2026

Glenn Diesen; “We are joined by Ambassador Chas Freeman, former US Assistant Secretary of Defence and very, very relevant to today’s discussion is that Ambassador Freeman was also the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. So it’s great to see you again. Let’s start with Saudi Arabia. We see that Saudi Arabia has launched more than 300 air raids against Yemen over the past few days and Ansar Allah, or Houthis as we call them in the West, they are reportedly hitting Saudi Arabian radar systems, ammunition depots, airfields, aircraft hangers. How are you interpreting these developments, this escalation?”

Chas Freeman; ” Well, it’s tragic really because it all arose from an attack on Sanaa Airport by the Saudi sponsored internationally recognised government of Yemen which only controls about 20% of the Yemeni population. Ansar Allah, the Houthis, control 80%. They have conquered the Red Sea coast down to the Bab al-Mandab, taking the port of Mocha from which we get our mocha word for coffee. The Dutch began the trading there in the 16th century for coffee and they now have a commanding position on the Strait of Bab al-Mandab but they’re also seeing the escalation with the Saudis going on. There is a meeting today in Salalah, a town not too far from the Yemeni border in Oman, I’ve been there, there’s quite an elaborate palace there, absolutely beautiful woodwork from Indian carvers, and the Iraq Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi will be meeting with the foreign ministers of the six Gulf Cooperation Council members. Oman is the host of course. Saudis and Iranians will be there and able to talk and my hope is that despite the impetuous nature of Mohammed bin Salman, he will authorise his Foreign Minister to seek Iranian mediation with the Ansar Allah with the Houthis to break the chain of escalation that is going on. It’s not just military facilities that are being hit, but Abqaiq which is the largest node in the Saudi petroleum industry Saudi Aramco has been hit and badly hurt and as a separate matter, possibly coordinated without the involvement of the Iraqi government, various Iraqi militias have been confirmed to have been the source of the strikes on the East-West pipeline in Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is now at war with Ansar Allah again having seen the four year truce broken by its allies in Aden in the internationally recognised government and it is also out of oil revenue since it can no longer export, either through the Strait of Hormuz or through the Bab al-Mandab and it cannot deliver oil to Yanbu, the port on the Red Sea from which it has been exporting through smaller ships transiting the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean and markets up there. So the Saudis are in real trouble. Ansar Allah is on the move, very aggressive. The prospect of a military solution to this is nil. We know that Donald Trump claims the Ansar Allah, the Houthis, called him and said, look, we’re not going to disturb anybody’s shipping but the Saudi’s so anything going to or from Saudi Arabia or owned by Saudi Arabia will be attacked by the Yemenis, but other international shipping will not be and Donald Trump said, that’s great, so he’s refused two requests from the Saudis to back them in this reborn war. This is not a good situation. What it does, in addition to the continuing Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, is put Donald Trump in a political box that he can’t escape from. He has apparently asked the Ukrainians to cease and desist their attacks on facilities that produce diesel. Diesel is now something over $6 a gallon in the United States, which is a crippling amount in terms of trucking and farm equipment, which depend on it. Supplies are drying up, the price is still rising, it’s going to go higher yet, and Donald Trump faces mid-term elections in the face of this. I say this with a little bit of sorrow because it appears that the only thing the American people care about is how much they pay for gasoline and diesel, they don’t seem to care about the damage to our country and to other countries and people that’s being done with our wars of aggression in several places. But we’ll see a political reckoning, I think, in early November.”

Listen; Seyed M. Marandi: Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US: All-in on War? Glenn Diesen, 28 September 2026

Glenn Diesen; “But one thing that perplexed me a bit again is Saudi Arabia, though, because they also seem to be going all in but there, from what I understand, Trump has already refused the requests of MBS (Mohammed bin Salman), I heard three times, which is when he asked Trump ‘can the US help us, we have to fight Yemen’ and it doesn’t look like it’s going well so how do you make sense of the Saudi position at the moment?”

Professor Seyed Marandi; “It’s very difficult to make sense of anything that comes from the White House or from Riyadh. We have to keep in mind, in my opinion, that Mohammed bin Salman has not shown wisdom during his reign. We remember how he kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister and beat him up, the then Lebanese Prime Minister Mr. Hariri, then the way in which he killed Jamal Khashoggi…murder is a bad thing, it’s a horrible thing, but he could have just had someone assassinated, he could have just had someone run him over with a car like the Mafia does or whatever, but the way in which it was carried out inside the consulate and then apparently he was still alive when they were…I don’t want to explain further.. And then, of course, the genocidal war on Yemen and then the siege of Qatar, which was helping them with Yemen and then before that, if I’m sure you recall, he had that gathering of international investors at the Ritz at the beginning and then a few weeks later, he arrested all of his family members, his extended family, and put them in the Ritz and tortured them. So what does that say to those investors who were there just like a couple weeks earlier when they saw the shakedown? This is not a person who I think is wise at all and he’s probably surrounded by yes men like Trump and that’s what people are saying about Trump, they’re saying that one of the differences between Trump today and Trump during the first term is that now he’s surrounded himself with people who are total yes men and who are not very smart so I think there’s a parallel between the two. Saudi Arabia, you would think that it would not engage in war with Yemen, it would not provoke a war with Yemen at a time when it’s having so much difficulty in the Persian Gulf region, but it chose to do so. So all I can think of is Mohammed bin Salman’s own foolishness, although I don’t know if he was provoked or pushed or encouraged by the United States or not but I just see him as a foolish leader just like Trump and that actually I think increases, I may be wrong, but increases the chance of this all out war because if it’s not important to preserve the energy assets of Saudi Arabia, then how important is it to stop an expanded war in the Persia Gulf? You would think that the Americans would be desperate to end this war because it’s obvious that Yemen has the upper hand. They’re more motivated, their forces believe in their cause, they are seen across the region and beyond as the people who despite the hardship and the genocidal siege that they stood up for the Palestinian people and they have a wealth of targets or everything that they strike causes huge damage. What can Saudi Arabia do to Yemen except for kill kids, kill bomb marketplaces, which is horrible but the impact that the attacks on Saudi Arabia have are enormous and if they continue for let’s say a few more weeks with these missiles and drones being fired, then Saudi Arabia will no longer be the Saudi Arabia that we’ve known since I was a child, a country that exports huge amounts of oil which is key to the petrodollar. It’s quite stunning to see this happen and no one in the West trying to end this and no one in Riyadh trying to find a solution.”

Glenn Diesen; “Well, as you said, and the United States would have incentives, strong incentives put an end to this because I can see why the Israelis would have an interest in going all out and just trying to…even if you sacrifice the whole region just to defeat its main adversary. It’s not good for the Americans. You see the Saudis, they’re also stuck in this… I haven’t seen any analysts looking at this and saying the Saudis are going to turn the tide so if they’re worried about what the Israelis might do, they know that Saudi Arabia can be destroyed and then of course others would fall. Why aren’t they doing something? Because Iran has put forward this proposal now for de-escalation, this roadmap and Trump hasn’t seized upon it yet. Well, it should be surprising because isn’t this a great gift, you see that your allies or proxies are, they might do things against your interest, they might collapse soon, all your strategic interests in the regions are falling apart and then your adversary, your enemy says, well let’s de-escalate, why hasn’t Trump jumped on this?”

Zionism is a Colonial State Project

Israel

Read; Greens Pass ‘Zionism is Racism’ Motion at Party Conference, Novara Media, 4 October 2026

‘Green party members have voted to back a motion stating that zionism is racism, making the Greens the first explicitly anti-zionist mainstream political party in the UK. The motion, which was heard at the party’s largest ever conference in Brighton and passed by 1,022 votes to 813, also called on the party to back a single, democratic Palestinian state, to demand freedom for Palestinian political prisoners, oppose the Palestine Action ban and affirm Palestinians’ right to resistance. An amendment to mitigate the risk that the motion could be used to target Jewish members affiliated with zionist institutions was voted down. Supporters claim it wasn’t necessary, as the motion already separates Judaism from zionism, and it will have no disciplinary impact as it is a political policy motion rather than one to do with internal party procedures. The vote followed a conference weekend in which the motion was a controversial issue, with tensions running high. On Saturday, dozens of pro-Israel demonstraters shouted at party members as they entered the conference centre. Chants included “There is no Palestine, there is no Palestine”, with some protesters holding signs reading “Anti-zionism = terrorism” and handing out leaflets claiming “The Green party is now the most racist party in Britain”. Senior Green figures were split. While co-deputy leader Mothin Ali spoke in favour of it on Sunday, former leader Caroline Lucas spoke against, with co-deputy leader Rachel Millward telling Sky News it was “problematic” earlier in the weekend. Green leader Zack Polanski did not vote, as he was campaigning in Holborn and St Pancras, central London, where he is standing in a byelection on Thursday in the hope of becoming the party’s sixth MP. Green Party policy already describes Israeli conduct as apartheid and genocide, backs a full arms embargo, sanctions and an end to occupation and illegal settlements, as well as a ban on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as a terror group. Motions voted for by members at conferences set the Green party’s long-term vision and policy platform. They do not determine election manifestos.’

Zionists ARE racists – finally there’s an anti zionist party to vote for.

Watch; Greens React Moments After ‘Historic’ Zionism Is Racism Motion Passes Times Radio; 5 October 2026

Green members and Greens for Palestine activists react as the party passes a motion to define zionism as racism.

“It shows that the UK now has a truly anti-zionist party that is willing not just to talk warm words but to take real action against the terrorist state that is a part is Israel.”

“I’m someone who survived a Holocaust as a seven year-old child in Hungary and afterwards we were all hoping that this atrocity, a genocide will never be repeated to any other people. And yet, in watching the genocide in Gaza, I was feeling with horror, with great pain, that this has not happened. And in fact, I felt a strong resonance with our own sufferings and it is now visited upon and still visited upon the Palestinian people. And it is the zionist ideology and practice that led to this inevitably and therefore I feel that zionism is linked up with an ultimate conclusion which is a genocide and therefore zionism self-destructed in my opinion Holocaust survivor perspective and from now on I don’t think that we can accept and tolerate zionism whatsoever. So that’s why I supported the motion. I am an anti-zionist.”

“This is not about denigrating any people based on their faith, based on their identity. zionism is a political ideology which insists on a supremacist approach which denies others their dignity, their equality and indeed even their very right to live. That’s what this motion does is to restore justice, restore dignity for all.”

“What happened today in the Green Party conference is actually a boost for democracy. Not just in this party but shows in this country where so many people feel disillusioned, feel disempowered, feel not heard, feel patronised that you can have a grownup discussion. You can disagree, but you have a space in a respectful way to put forward your arguments, to be heard, to persuade and even if you don’t end up persuading anybody else, you’ve had the right to speak.”

Listen; COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Could Israel and Saudi Arabia Disappear? Judging Freedom 24 September 2026

Lawrence Wilkerson; “I think what we’re looking at here is a total condemnation of Israel already having occurred. I don’t think you could say that there’s even 20% of the world community that agrees with Netanyahu or that abides by what he has done and is doing. Now though, the problem is that same condemnation and that same disgust applies to the empire, to America. The world thinks that we are a threat to their future. The world thinks that we are the worst people on the face of the earth. You should have seen the Iranian people. I was able to look at a video of their watching their President’s speech and it was like children being really led to water to drink Coca Cola or whatever because they were so enthused and so happy to see that this message was finally being delivered and being delivered at an adequate podium, an adequate site and to an adequate audience and in the face of, as it were, the empire. That’s what this is all about, we are condemning ourselves to be the same world pariah that Netanyahu has made Israel and let me quickly add that the Jewish members of the State of Israel in preponderance have made happen.That’s where we are now, we are self identified, we are worldwide identified with this man and this country and this disgusting history.”

Read; Are there 50,000 Israeli-born individuals living in the UK? David Miller, 18 September 2026

‘Recent disclosures by the zionist regime show that some 2,069 British nationals were serving in the IDF as of March 2025, according to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests submitted to the occupation forces (1,686 dual British-Israeli, plus 383 multinational). We cannot tell from the figures how many of these were already settler colonists and intend to stay in the colony, and how many will return or have returned to the UK. Presumably, those returning to the UK will number far fewer than 2,000, since many are known to have become permanently residents of the colony.

Israelis are also brought to Britain by zionist charities. The British Friends of Israeli War Disabled (BFIWD) invite wounded genocidaires for visits to the UK, with a focus on respite and rehabilitation for wounded IDF veterans. By 2022, BFIWD had brought around 5,000 genocide veterans to the UK over decades for therapeutic stays hosted by zionist families. Smaller groups continue annually. Beit Halochem UK also brings veterans for visits (for example, 32 were brought to the UK in one 2025 London trip) and supplies guest speakers around the country. The speakers are wounded veterans who address UK synagogues and communities, including visits to primary and secondary schools, to promote racist ideas about ‘Israel’ and the Palestinian Resistance. No verified cumulative totals are published for UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel’s Soldiers (UK AWIS) or other charities.

‘Israeli’ citizens moving to the UK have driven much of the growth in the Israeli-born population in Britain. Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics records substantial long-term emigration. The zionists deprecate emigration with the term ‘yerida’, meaning descent, the opposite of ‘aliyah’, which means ‘ascent’ — their term to whitewash settler colonialism. In their view, evidently, colonisation is good, and ending colonisation is bad. In recent years, the following numbers of settlers have left the colony: approximately 56,000–59,400 in 2022, 82,800 in 2023, 82,700 in 2024, and 69,300 in 2025.’

Zionism knows no conscience.

Watch; What will we tell our Ancestors? Niyati Evers, 22 September 2026

Niyati Evers; “On the morning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, I opened my phone to Haaretz, the progressive Israeli newspaper, and the headline that morning read, ‘Baby, an update. He has just died’. And that was a text message from an Israeli prison guard to her partner bragging that they had beaten to death a Palestinian prisoner who had dared to ask if there was a ceasefire so he had to be put in his place and his cellmates were also beaten and had a dog set on them. A dog. So, as someone from the second generation, as a daughter of Holocaust survivors who grew up in Amsterdam in a community that was almost completely exterminated by the Nazis, I have to ask myself, what does it mean to repent in the light of that kind of cruelty and sadism? And what does it mean to repent if we don’t face into that? A while ago, the esteemed professor who I have a lot of respect for, Omer Bartov, who is a Jewish Israeli genocide and Holocaust scholar who works at Brown University, wrote an article that was published in the New York Times, the headline was, ‘I am a Genocide scholar. I know it when I see it’. Now, I am not talking as a historian or a scholar, I am talking as someone who grew up among survivors and I remember as a child looking in the eyes of the adults around me, and everyone was a Holocaust survivor, that was the only reason they were alive and just seeing this grief that was unfathomable, like it just went on forever and ever and I could never put my arms around it, it was too vast and I see those same eyes looking back at me from the ruins of Gaza. And on Yom Kippur, growing up, we would say the prayer for the dead and also the prayer for all those who were killed in the camps, El Malei Rachamim, and we wouldn’t just say that prayer for our own community who were there, but also for all those families that had no…there was no one left. There was no one to say any prayer for them because they were completely wiped out so we as a community said the prayers for them and then in Gaza, a few weeks ago, there was a mass funeral of about 100 people, and about 70 of those were children and there, too, entire families have been wiped out, from the great grandparents to the newborns, gone. So I am walking around with a constant split screen and I wonder, especially during this time,10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which is called the ten days of repentance or the ten days of awe, and it’s supposed to be the time when Jews mend our ways so it’s a very sacred time and I wonder, especially during this time, what would we say to our ancestors? Imagine that they would ask us, what did you learn from what we went through? What did you do with our legacy that we didn’t write in some corner of a room? No, we forged it in the fires of annihilation. What did you do with it? And we say to them, well, these days, Jews also set dogs on defenceless prisoners and I have to tell my mother that just like you nearly starved to death hiding from the Nazis on an Amsterdam canal, in Gaza children were also starving to death and just like you lay awake at night listening for the sounds of danger, people in Gaza and in the West Bank are also listening for the sounds of danger. They also don’t know if they’re going to wake up the next morning or what’s going to happen to them in the night and they have no one to protect them. Is that it? Is that what we want to tell them, that’s what we did with their legacy?

The village of al-Mughayyir in the occupied West Bank is surrounded by illegal outposts from which armed settlers murder Palestinian villagers, destroy ancient olive trees and stone terraces and steal land from the farmers.

Andrey Ilyich Khrzhanovskiy, known online as Andrey X, is a Russian-Israeli journalist and activist against Israeli settler violence in the West Bank.

Watch; Omar Mohammad al-Nassan and Khalil Rosen Abu Alia have been murdered, Andrey X Khrzhanovskiy, 3 September 2026

“Israeli terrorists just massacred two Palestinians in the village of al-Mughayyir. We are now on the way to the hospital where the survivors are being treated and more updates will follow. But we need all eyes on al-Mughayyir right now. This village is living in a state of a perpetual Kristallnacht for the past three weeks. The settlers and soldiers are acting together. They launched this pogrom today together and shot up the village. So all eyes on al-Mughayyir because more violence will follow.”

Watch; Surrounded by Israeli settler outposts, residents face road closures, attacks and the destruction of farmland and olive trees, Al Jazeera, 17 September 2026

Presenter; “For the past two months, this Palestinian village has been in a constant cycle of settler and military sieges. Al-Mughayyir is surrounded by 10 illegal settler outposts, meaning the residents can only access about 950 dunhams (235 acres) of their 43,000 dunhams (10,625 acres) of land. This is the only road left in and out of the village and it is constantly being monitored by violent Israeli outposts. Even Palestinian land and agriculture are being targeted.”

Palestinian Farmer; “They come from Russia, from Ukraine, from America. They set up an outpost, the government comes, gives them electricity, water and makes them a road. At first they control 500 metres, then they extend to 200 dunams, then 2,000 dunams, then 5,000. Plus they support them with weapons, all the settlers are armed. All these roads are for the settlements, Palestinians are scared of them, any move to the right or left you’ll likely be hit, breaking your car or getting shot at. We are an agricultural village, olive trees are the most important thing in our agriculture. They cut down about 10,700 olive trees. The army cut 1,500 trees and the settlers took care of the rest. There is no way for you to talk to them, how can you talk to them? They will tell you, ‘even you should not be here, the whole country is ours, our God promised it to us 3,000 years ago.’ This is the situation we are living in.”

Read; Britain’s settlement trade ban is cosmetic. For it to work, it must sanction Israel, Jonathan Cook, 11 September 2026

‘The UK may end up assisting Tel Aviv by reinforcing a preposterous distinction between ‘illegal’ Jewish settlements and a supposedly ‘law-abiding’ Israel.’

‘Ed Miliband, Britain’s foreign secretary, this week announced plans for a ban on trade and services with Israel’s illegal Jewish settlements, in a move the government has hyped as a “comprehensive reset” of relations with Israel.

The UK was joined by 11 other Western states unveiling or proposing similar sanctions: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

They presumably hope it will look like they are amassing strength through numbers, upping the pressure on Israel to end the occupation and clear the way for Palestinian statehood. More realistically, each is hoping it will prove harder for the Trump administration and Israel to single them out as a target in the inevitable backlash against these all-too-modest measures. In quick retaliation, Israel took the unprecedented step of shuttering the British consulate in East Jerusalem – that is, in territory it occupies in violation of international law.

But the idea that these sanctions will amount to a “reset” for UK-Israeli relations looks more like wishful thinking. Shortly before Miliband’s announcement, Bloomberg reported that British diplomats had been privately reassuring Washington that the trade ban on settlements was “largely symbolic”. According to Alex Wickham, the news agency’s UK political editor, the government’s measures would “have no material impact on the UK’s wider relationship with Israel on trade or security”.

The UK’s trade with Israel’s Jewish settlements is a tiny fraction of its £6 billion ($8bn) overall trade with Israel. And after two decades of largely ineffectual “threats” from Europe to start labelling settlement goods, Israel long ago devised ways to conceal the provenance of such trade. It simply relabels items from the settlements as “made in Israel”. This is why the Foreign Office has long argued a ban on trade with settlements would be impossible to implement. The “material impact”, as British diplomats are reportedly telling Washington, will be virtually non-existent.

A decade ago, Burnham described the BDS movement – backed by leading members of Palestinian civil society – as “spiteful”. During his speech, Miliband similarly went out of his way to emphasise his “wholehearted” opposition to BDS.

But there is something fundamentally, and transparently, dishonest about this approach. The British public is being told that the UK needs to take “decisive action” in the form of sanctions against West Bank settlements, while Israel itself is to be left untouched. And the government justifies its half-hearted measures on the grounds that the settlements are the chief threat to a two-state solution but neither argument makes the slightest sense. Of particular concern to the British government is a recent decision by Israel to advance a large settlement project called E1, on Palestinian land close to Jerusalem. It is seen as the final nail in the coffin for Palestinian statehood.

The truth, however, is that Israel has been expanding its illegal West Bank settlements for decades, using armed militias to drive Palestinians off their land. This is nothing new. Indisputably, there were welcome aspects to Miliband’s address to the House of Commons – not least, the government’s decision to finally accept a 2024 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel’s occupation of the state of Palestine is itself unlawful, not just the settlements. Miliband’s use of the term “ethnic cleansing” in reference to the West Bank – though not, it appears, to Gaza – sets a precedent that is already liberating some prominent journalists to speak up against the occupation, if very belatedly. In desperately trying to keep alive the West’s two-state solution, Burnham’s government is not just ignoring reality: the fact that there is no partner in Israel – electable or otherwise – to implement such a vision.

Burnham and Miliband are also insisting, in the entirely improbable event that a Palestinian state can be extracted from Israel, that the Palestinian people should be required to make peace with an unrepentant, heavily militarised, racist state that has recently committed genocide in Gaza. None of the 11 states that joined the UK this week in sanctioning the settlements can apparently imagine Palestinians ever living in anything more than a small, demilitarised, economically dependent pseudo-state, with no real choice over its leaders, or control over its borders and economy.

Similarly, there is no suggestion that a neighbouring, territorially reduced Israeli state would need to be reformed ideologically, or made to engage in any kind of truth and reconciliation process, or face sanctions until it sees the error of its ways. The Jewish supremacist ideology of zionism, the dehumanising logic of the Israeli settler-colonial mindset, and the religious fundamentalism of large swaths of the Israeli population – all critical to the rationalisation of the Gaza genocide – would remain unchallenged. On this view, it seems, long-established impulses towards apartheid and genocide would simply evaporate, even as the West continues to indulge Israel’s every whim.

This isn’t a recipe for peace, even of the flawed kind. It is a demand that the Palestinian lamb continue to dwell with the Israeli wolf. The truth that Burnham’s government refuses to face, as with every government before it, is that peace won’t magically arrive with Palestinian statehood. A Palestinian state – or, more likely, a single state embracing Palestinians and Israeli Jews – can emerge only when Israel has been dismantled as a heavily armed settler-colonial state, as happened with apartheid South Africa. Israeli society will need to be re-educated through a painful truth and reconciliation process, as also happened in apartheid South Africa. Israelis will have to be made to confront the facts about a century of atrocities committed against the native Palestinian people. Britain is not contemplating doing any of this – because the threads from unravelling the crimes of Israel and the zionist movement would lead straight to the door of 10 Downing Street and other Western powers. Israel isn’t some Frankenstein’s monster. It is doing exactly what it was set up to do: serve as a Western colonial implant – a militarised fortress state – projecting power into the oil-rich Middle East. Israel wants to be nothing less – and, rhetoric aside, the British establishment is not about to do anything practical to cut it down to size.’

Read; A restored history of Jewish anti-zionism — and the loss it cannot repair, Yahia Lababibi, 22 September 2026

‘Benjamin Moser’s new book recovers a tradition of dissenters who paid a price for opposing Palestinian dispossession, even as they could not prevent it. “Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History,” by Benjamin Moser, Doubleday, 2026.’

‘Few words in contemporary public life have undergone so rapid and punitive a narrowing as “anti-zionism.” Once a contested political position, argued across Jewish religious and ethical traditions, it now arrives pre-condemned, treated less as a historical idea than as evidence of moral contamination. The word no longer describes only a position regarding nationalism or statehood; it has become an instrument of foreclosure, capable of collapsing distinctions and histories into accusation.

That collapse happened fast. In December 2023, less than two months after the October 7 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted 311 to 14 to resolve that anti-zionism and antisemitism are equivalent. This resolution was not only an attempt to delegitimise the growing wave of protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Alongside subsequent legislative efforts, it has served a deeper purpose: to erase a long and serious Jewish tradition of opposing zionism on religious and political grounds.

Benjamin Moser’s “Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History” sets out to recover that tradition. A Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Moser has spent his career restoring figures who lived at the edges of what institutions were willing to acknowledge — among them the American critic Susan Sontag in her contradictions and the Brazilian writer Clarice Lispector in her strangeness. He brings that same instinct here, to a chamber of Jewish intellectual history that others had long declared sealed. What biography teaches, perhaps, is that a life fully rendered presents an argument deeper than any polemic. A thesis can be refuted. A person, witnessed truly, tends to persist.

Each of the book’s 12 chapters is devoted to a different world of opposition: a Polish rabbi whose pacifism emerged from Torah study; a British cabinet minister whose objection to zionism was fundamentally patriotic; a Dutch poet who arrived in Jerusalem as a zionist and left as something the zionists found unforgivable; an Egyptian communist who wrote, in Arabic and under an Arabic name, the most prescient indictment of zionism before the Nakba; an American Reform rabbi who led a nationwide movement against zionism until, when the pressure came and the tides shifted, he recanted; a historian radicalised by his own archives.

The remaining six are no less various: a philosopher whose book was attacked by a campaign that reached into the highest circles of Israeli power; a French polymath who named the colonial structure of zionism before the vocabulary for it had settled; a Polish-born Israeli lawyer who closed her office rather than serve as a democratic facade for an undemocratic system; a Brazilian Sephardic journalist who reported from Cairo during the 1973 war while concealing that she was Jewish; a South African communist who as a boy planted trees over a razed Palestinian village and spent his life learning what he had done; and a photographer guided by an ethic of bearing witness.’

Watch; Israel’s history of targeting Jews in the Islamic world, The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal, 13 July 2026

‘From the ruins of the Rafi Nia Synagogue in Tehran, Iran, which was bombed by Israel on April 7 of this year, The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal recounts the long history of Israel attacking Jewish communities in the Islamic world, and explains why the twisted logic of zionism encourages this disturbing dynamic.’

Max Blumenthal; “Last year when I came to Iran, I got to meet members of the 10,000 strong Jewish community who live as a protected minority under the Islamic Republic. I prayed with them in Isfahan, I interviewed their leadership, I met with them in their community centres and I produced a documentary about it, which you can see at our YouTube channel at the Grayzone. And I was left with a sense of worry, not because they could potentially be harmed by the Islamic Republic, they’re protected here, but because Israel cannot allow a stable, prosperous Jewish community to exist in the Islamic world because it defeats the whole logic of zionism, which mandates the establishment and maintenance of a fortified Jewish sanctuary in historic Palestine. And so on April 7th of this year, my worst fears, or some of my worst fears, were realised when I read the news that the Rafi Nia Synagogue, which you see right here, a 50 year old congregation, so old its roof is made of wood, was totally destroyed in an Israeli airstrike. How would that happen? Well, Israel claimed we didn’t mean to do it, we were targeting an IRGC compound. Actually right over there where I’m looking is an apartment building where Israel killed two university professors, just totally residential, there’s nothing that I could see that could potentially be military. It seems consistent with the whole history of Israel attacking Jews in the Islamic world. Starting in the early 1950s, the historian Avi Schlaim has documented this attacking Jewish community centers in Baghdad through underground organisations run by Israeli intelligence in order to compel that community out of fear to flee to Israel. All the way up until 1982, the Israeli military attacked the only synagogue in Beirut, Lebanon, where Jews and Christians were actually taking shelter under the protection of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It was actually rebuilt in the mid-2000s with the blessing of Hezbollah.”

Petition; US: Stop the bomb shipment to Israel! Avaaz, 16 September 2026

‘To all members of the US Congress:

“As citizens from around the world, we urge you to use every power Congress has to block the proposed sale and transfer of 60,000 one-ton bombs to Israel.

Bombs like these have already devastated families in Gaza and Lebanon.

Act now, before more civilians are killed.

These bombs are powerful enough to destroy everything in a thousand-foot radius. During the Gaza invasion, they were routinely dropped on dense areas, killing Palestinian civilians in devastating numbers.

Now imagine Netanyahu receiving 60,000 more, the biggest delivery of US weapons to Israel in years, ready to be dropped onto the children of Gaza and Lebanon.

Pure madness.

But the bombs could be stopped by the US Congress, if those elected to serve have the spine to act. Sign this global plea to every single member of Congress in the US: Do everything in your power to stop Trump’s bombs to Israel.’

Read; Syrian president to Trump: Give New Jersey to Israel, not the Golan Heights, David Wildstein, New Jersey Globe, 23 September 2026

‘Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa says he told President Donald Trump that if he wants to give Israel some territory, he should hand over New Jersey and leave the Golan Heights alone. Al-Sharaa, speaking at an Atlantic Council event in New York on Tuesday, recounted the exchange while discussing Trump’s 2019 decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. “President Trump stood to the side of Syria, supported Syria and issued a historic resolution or decision to lift sanctions off Syria,” al-Sharaa said. “And I have a very unique relationship with him.” But that unique relationship apparently includes some ribbing about New Jersey.

“But once when I visited him in the White House, I made a joke with him,” al-Sharaa said. “And when he said about the Golan Heights that it has sovereignty of Israel, I said, why don’t you give New Jersey to the Israelis?” His argument was that Trump had no Golan Heights to give away. “You don’t own Golan Heights to give it to them, but you own New Jersey,” al-Sharaa told Trump. And then the Syrian president brought Garden State politics into international diplomacy. “And I believe that New Jersey is full of Democrats and they are not voting for Trump,” he said. “So, it will be good to give it to the Israelis.” Al-Sharaa has the numbers on his side: New Jersey has 883,036 more registered Democrats than Republicans, a Democratic governor and two Democratic US senators, and Democratic majorities of 9-3 in its House delegation, 25-15 in the State Senate, and 57-23 in the Assembly.

“At least this is something that you own,” al-Sharaa said. “But President Trump doesn’t own the Golan Heights.” Al-Sharaa then turned from the punchline to the serious point he was making about Syrian sovereignty. “So regardless of this joke, the Golan Heights is owned by its own people,” he said. “So, it’s neither the Syrian president or the American president or any other person to abandon them or to give them to others.” Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and effectively annexed the territory in 1981, a move rejected by the United Nations Security Council. Trump formally recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019, breaking with longstanding U.S. policy. Al-Sharaa is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and made his comments at the Atlantic Council in New York. It was first reported by Clash Report.’

A tribute to cartoonist and activist Naji al-Ali who was murdered by the Mossad in Knightsbridge, London on 29 August 1987

Watch; The Martyr and The Witness! David Miller, 3 September 2026

David Miller; “The way in which he was killed was really very dramatic and of course emblematic of the way in which the zionist entity operates and I think that we have seen especially in the last three or four years since the launch of al-Aqsa Flood, we have seen a huge number of martyrs for Palestinian cause. And what strikes me about that is the way in which the Palestinian people deal with those questions is really quite different to the way in which death is dealt with in this country in the UK and I think that the stoicism, the steadfastness and the commitment to struggle of the Palestinian people and of course of Naji al-Ali himself, is something which is really remarkable and not really well understood in this country, the country where I live and so I think that the whole question of silencing takes on a different hue when it comes to the question of martyrdom and also the question of speaking out as he did with his work when he was alive.

A society like the UK understands politics and power is very much devoted to understanding individuals and the play of individuals. Mainstream political science and even sociology to some extent is concerned overly I think with the question of individuals and so you think as we are in the position today of having a new prime minister in the UK, some people, many people, think that that is a new broom, that things will change but actually of course, as we all understand, if we understand how the society operates properly, we understand that structural conditions need structural solutions. And I think that the difficulty, especially for a cartoonist who draws caricatures, the difficulty is in trying to illustrate the abstract processes of institutional power, structural discrimination and the oppression which comes of course with the construction of the zionist colony. So I think that the whole question of how you satirise systems is a very complicated one. It’s very difficult to do I think because people assume individuals run things.

But is that the reason he was killed? I don’t know. His assassination by the Mossad, it was yet another example of the false flag operations which the Mossad ran. They tried to blame his death on the Palestinians of course, that’s an indication, isn’t it, of the way in which the zionists run things. The most recent campaign of assassinations of leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah is an indication also of that kind of strategy, a strategy which has no moral compass. There is no moral compass in zionist projects and that I think is indication of what happened all those years ago when he was assassinated in London.”

Read; Israel’s Ben-Gvir suggests killing ’30 to 40′ people in Gaza nightly on podcast with ex-hostage, ITV News, 16 August 2026

‘Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir publicly advocated killing “30 to 40” people in Gaza each night in comments made in a podcast hosted by a former Israeli hostage. Ben-Gvir, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition cabinet, made the remarks on Rom Braslavski’s podcast while discussing Israel’s recovery from Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023. Criticising a recent reduction of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, the lawyer and politician said: “It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister. “I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat – there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”

Similar statements have been made in the past by Ben-Gvir and other Israeli officials, many of which have been presented to the United Nation’s world court as evidence of genocidal intent against the Palestinians.’

Watch; The UK’s complicity in genocide should be investigated, says top UN lawyer, Declassified UK, 27 August 2026

Phil Miller, Editor Declassified UK; “Is there something about Israel’s conduct in Gaza that has really shocked you that you just hadn’t seen before?”

Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Lawyer; “I haven’t encountered this before in my work and in my lifetime. We have seen such a deliberate policy of total destruction being implemented. It is a scorched earth policy that the Israeli military, under the command of its government, commenced on 7 October 2023.”

Phil Miller; “And the way that various Western countries have supported Israel’s attacks on Gaza, Keir Starmer famously said Israel had the right to cut off power, cut off water, and then continued to supply arms for a very long time to Israel. Does that potentially make countries like Britain culpable or complicit in some of Israel’s crimes in Gaza?”

Chris Sidoti; “Complicity requires some form of positive action. And here, the provision of weapons to a military that is undertaking actions that constitute international crimes could constitute complicity. And so there are questions that need to be investigated and resolved.”

Gaza

Watch; White coats. One voice. A shared commitment to humanity, Doctors Against Genocide, 29 September 2026

‘On September 24, Doctors Against Genocide brought more than 200 medical professionals and supporters to Washington DC for 1,000 White Coats for Humanity Day. Dr. Phil Brewer spoke about the true measure of misery in Gaza and delivered a direct call to our elected officials: “We are here to remind them of their duty to the Constitution and their oath to American and international law, and to the people who know the true measure of misery. We are here today, hoping that those in power will hear us… And if that fails, we are here at the very least, so that they can never say, I didn’t know. We are here to raise the cry, Free Palestine!”

Dr Phil Brewer; “In Gaza, misery is measured by facing your fourth winter sleeping on the ground in a dilapidated tent where you must keep watch all night to keep the rats from biting your children. In Gaza, misery is measured by the number of children carrying large jugs of salty, dirty water for a kilometer or 0.62 miles to meet the family’s daily needs. In Gaza, misery is measured by a malnourished mother feeling her empty breasts as the infant she delivered by C section without anesthesia cries in hunger without even a spoonful of baby formula to mix with the salty water to feed her child, and doing so in knowing that there are truckloads of baby formula just outside the perimeter, so called security fence, because the oppressors have decided that protecting themselves means starving themselves, the oppressed and their babies. In Gaza, misery is a paramedic in the 11th month of a ceasefire, racing in an ambulance with perhaps just enough gas to reach the wounded from the latest airstrike to a hospital where doctors and nurses cannot offer anything but songs sung into the ear of a screaming child as they amputate her mangled limbs without anesthesia and treat her burned skin, because if baby formula is bad, anesthetics to dull the pain are even worse and must be kept out. In Gaza, misery is measured by a father arriving on foot at the same hospital carrying a plastic bag into which he has placed the dismembered remains of his child while trying to comfort his grief with the merciful knowledge that at least in his child’s case, there was no time to feel any pain. In Gaza, misery is measured by living in this hellscape for three years or 1,095 days and nights, knowing that the rest of the world has seen your misery many times over on the screens that they carry around in their pockets, but they’re more concerned with the price of gasoline. We are here in the knowledge that our elected representatives are equally unconcerned with the misery of our Palestinian brothers and sisters. Misery that they, the representatives, have repeatedly voted to enable. Misery that for US has cost $40 billion so far, with another $2.8 billion shipment of 40,000 two thousand pound bombs on the way. They are more concerned with phone calls and emails from people screaming about how much it’s costing them to drive one mile to the store to buy a gallon of milk. We are here today to redirect their attention to true misery, to the genocide that we are paying for that they are enabling, the genocide that our ‘closest ally’ is perpetrating. We are here to remind them of their duty to the Constitution and their oath to American and international law and to the people who know the true measure of misery. We are here today hoping that those in power will hear us, that they will see the devastation that their votes have visited on the 2.3 million people of Gaza. And if that fails, we are here at the very least so that they can never say, I didn’t know. We are here to raise the cry, Free Palestine.”

Read; Far-right Israelis call for NAZA co-director to be hanged in protest outside parents’ home, Middle East Eye, 17 September 2026

‘Dozens of far-right Israelis gathered outside NAZA filmmaker Rachel Szor’s family home on Wednesday, demanding she be hanged over her documentary on war crimes Israel committed during its genocidal war on Gaza. Szor and her co-director, Yuval Abraham, have faced a growing backlash in Israel since their film won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival on Saturday. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that several of the protesters demanded the “death penalty for traitors”. One demonstrator said that when Szor and Abraham return to Israel, “they should be tried and go to the gallows, and the family should be expelled and the house sealed”. A far-right activist with connections to National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir also urged protesters to identify the filmmakers if they saw them in public. “They won’t sit in any restaurant or any place,” Ben Gvir’s close ally said, referring to Szor and Abraham. “Whoever sees them should circulate it in all the groups – these scums have nowhere to run.” “This is an act of treason from within,” another protester said, according to right-wing Israeli news site Walla. Protesters were also seen holding signs reading “traitors” and waving Israeli army unit flags. ‘This is not a matter of right or left,” another far-right protester said, adding that Israeli society as a whole “need to denounce” the filmmakers. Other protesters vowed to continue demonstrations against Szor and Abraham “until all of Israeli society understands that there are no more blood libels” directed against Israeli soldiers.

NAZA, directed by Oscar-winning filmmakers Szor and Abraham, examines the AI-powered systems used in Israel’s war in Gaza and allegations that high numbers of Palestinian civilian deaths were factored into military targeting decisions. The documentary features interviews with 24 Israeli military and intelligence insiders, whose identities remained anonymous. The backlash against the film has extended beyond far-right protesters, with Israeli politicians, journalists and other public figures attacking the filmmakers and questioning the documentary’s claims.’

Watch; Why is Israel so afraid of the film NAZA? We spoke to its directors, 29 September 2026

‘When NAZA premiered at Venice earlier this month, it sent shockwaves across the globe. Composed of interviews with 24 anonymous Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, NAZA is a haunting exposé of the tools that the Israeli military uses to carry out the remote killing of Palestinians in Gaza – including AI, mass surveillance, and devastating airstrikes that kill civilians and raze homes. Now, the Israeli government is treating NAZA like a national security crisis. Benjamin Netanyahu is even pushing for legislation that could strip the film’s two directors of their Israeli citizenship. Host Carter Sherman speaks with the directors of NAZA, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, in one of their first interviews with an American journalist. The film, which was produced by the Guardian, will open in New York on September 30th and will play in theaters across the US starting October 9th. It will also stream, for free, on the Guardian website in November.’

Chapters


00:00 – Intro
00:27 – The Guardian’s new documentary, NAZA
01:30 – What’s in NAZA?
04:30 – What does NAZA mean?
07:45 – How the IDF listens into phone calls in Gaza
11:34 – How the IDF uses AI to track Palestinians
15:32 – Conducting interviews with Israeli soldiers in secret
18:37 – How Israeli media talks about Gaza
20:30 – Why Israeli soldiers chose to speak out
22:30 – Do the soldiers feel guilty?
24:00 – How do soldiers become a cog in a machine?
29:26 – Cognitive dissonance in Israeli society and the role of the Israeli left
34:00 – The reaction to the film in Israel
38:50 – Why the film has gotten such strong reactions
40:50 – The way soldiers talk about Gaza versus what it looks like on the ground
44:45 – What Americans should take from the film

Read; UK Lawyers for Israel Want Doctors Without Borders Branded a Terror Group, Novara Media, 16 September 2026

‘Fifteen of the medical NGO’s staff have been killed by the IDF in Gaza.’

‘A group of pro-Israel lawyers is urging the UK government to label Doctors Without Borders a terrorist organisation over its work in Gaza. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) allege that the charity – which provides life-saving medical aid to people in warzones – has links to militant groups, and have called on home secretary Shabana Mahmood to proscribe the charity. If acted on, the move would see the Nobel Peace prize-winning NGO – also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) – categorised the same way as ISIS in UK law. It would also make donating to or expressing support for the group a criminal offence. Throughout its genocide in Gaza, Israel’s military has killed 15 MSF employees, as well as over 1,000 other humanitarian workers, according to the UN. On Monday, MSF said Israel had bombed one of its buses, injuring one of 10 humanitarian workers on board. The bus was clearly marked as an MSF vehicle, the charity said in a statement. “Once again, Israeli forces have shown a blatant disregard for the safety of humanitarian and medical personnel. Nowhere is safe in Gaza. Civilians, healthcare workers and humanitarian staff must be protected,” it added. UKLFI allege links between people working for MSF in Palestine and militant organisations. In a report shared with the home secretary, they note the example of Fadi Al-Wadiya, who worked as a physiotherapist with MSF and was killed in an airstrike by Israeli forces on Gaza City on 25 June 2024. In February 2026, the militant group Palestine Islamic Jihad stated that Al-Wadiya had been a member of the group. MSF has denied any links to militant organisations in Palestine and said it had no knowledge of Al-Wadiya participating in military activity. It added that Israeli authorities never provided accurate information to the NGO about his alleged involvement.

The Israeli government has repeatedly claimed MSF has links with militant groups in Palestine and has looked to restrict the charity’s work within the occupied Palestinian territories, including by limiting imports of medicine and other supplies. Earlier this year, Israel expelled MSF’s international staff from Gaza, along with people from other NGOs, saying they had failed to provide a list of names of individuals working for the charity. In a piece published on MSF’s website in March, Rocío Simón Martínez, a nursing manager with MSF in Gaza, said the move to expel international staff “will have catastrophic consequences for people who depend almost entirely on humanitarian assistance”.

Both games went ahead, but with the Ireland team wearing black armbands, refusing to shake hands and bowing while the Israeli national anthem was being played. The IrelandGoalkeeper Gavin Bazunu refused to play in the matches.

Mick Lynch calls for Ireland to boycott their football match against Israel StopTheGame

Watch; Until we get justice and freedom for Palestine we need to stop the wars and stop these games, Equals, 21 September 2026

Mick Lynch; “We cannot allow the Israeli government to normalise itself through international football. This is an extremist, murderous regime committing mass violence in a genocidal fashion against civilians in their homelands. Ireland must stand up as a people against this. This matter cannot be left in the hands of the Football Association of Ireland. And I’ve got to say, as a lifelong fan of the team, that organisation is probably the worst body that you can entrust to make this decision to. The Irish government cannot shirk its responsibilities either. Both of those bodies are there to represent the people. They’re there to represent our views as Irish people in the Republic, in the North, and around the world, globally. We’ve got to say it’s time to boycott these games. And we’ve got to go further. Last night, the Palestine team was not allowed to play a game of football against India, as is its right as a full member of FIFA. Boys and girls in Gaza and the West Bank, men and women representing their teams at club level, youth level, at an informal level, if you like, of football, are not allowed to exercise themselves and enjoy their childhoods and their leisure because of the actions of this murderous regime. We cannot divorce what’s going on in football from what’s going on in the real world. And the Palestinian people expect the Irish people to stand up on this issue. And it’s clear to me as I go around, I’ve been in Ireland for a fortnight already. Everywhere I go, people are saying to me, we must stop this game. Soccer people, GAA people, horse racing people, when I was in Kildare were saying, we must stop this game. And Ireland must not validate the Israeli government through playing their team that represents their country, their society and their values, which are mass murder on a vast scale. The FAI are trying to catastrophise this situation, to make out that not playing these fixtures will be the end of the world for them. Well, maybe the FAI in some ways, given what they’ve done in the past, and if you imagine the scale of what the Palestinian people are going through in the West Bank and in Gaza, the deduction of six points, a financial penalty, and sanctions against the soccer team are not excuses to continue engaging with the Israeli government on this way. So what? Whatever they throw at the FAI, Irish society will back them up only if they make the right decision. If they make the wrong decision, they will never be forgiven by the Irish people, as far as I’m concerned. And it’s important to remember they will never be forgiven by the Irish soccer public either. The fans that turn out every time they play home and away. Ireland fans have got the reputation of being some of the best in the world. They turn out, no matter what a succession of disappointments that some of us go through. Tell me. I was at this in December at Wembley, watching us lose 5-nil. Four of the people playing for the English team had Irish passports. That’s another story but there we go. Including Harry Kane, who scored two, I think. So we’ve got to stand up, we’ve got to say we’re on the right side of this issue. We’re on the right side of football history as well as political history. The government needs to lead. They need to lead on this issue and they know where the Irish people stand. They cannot prevaricate. They must do the right thing, morally, practically and politically. Back the FAI up in making the right decision. We’ve got to make sure that we have an effective campaign. If the FAI doesn’t make the right decision, we’ve got to make sure that those games cannot go ahead in the way that they want. That means a mass mobilisation. We must make a sporting and cultural boycott of Israel permanent until they change their position, until the children of Gaza, the men and women of Palestine, can play sport freely at home, abroad, on the international stage. Then we should never engage with the Israeli soccer team or any other sports team until we get justice and freedom for Palestine. We need to stop the wars and stop these games. Support the campaign.”

Read; Ed Sheeran faces public shaming over genocide stance, Jonathan Cook, 18 September 2026

‘For the first time, Ed Sheeran’s public shaming shows there may be a price to pay for demonstrating cowardice on the issue of genocide.That is important. For three years, the billionaire class that rule over us have used the blunt instrument of their financial muscle – force – to dominate not only the political discourse about Gaza but the cultural one too.The billionaires – the Robert Krafts – own the platforms on which our cultural life is expressed: the legacy media, social media, Hollywood, music labels, publishing houses, venues, and so on.They use that power to great effect: to prevent any real criticism of the neoliberal capitalist order that enriches them, of the war industries they own that levelled Gaza, of the empire they built that endlessly pillages others’ resources and is rapidly undermining the conditions for life on the planet.Their stranglehold over our cultural spaces, enforcing a silence against the genocide, is designed to encourage fans to assume that artists and celebrities have little sympathy for the suffering for the Palestinians and reject the idea that Israel is carrying out a genocide. In a Western culture where, rightly or wrongly, large parts of the public see their preferred artists and celebrities as role models, and often look to them for guidance, this enforced silence is exploited by the ruling class as its alibi for inaction. The cost of pointing out what we can all see in Gaza has been simply too high: no chance of that first big break; calls unreturned; lost work; cancelled contracts; antisemitism smears. In short, pariahdom. Macklemore may finally have chipped away at that calculation. In his confrontation with Sheeran, he comes out smelling of roses – and Sheeran emerges as a snivelling toad. Billionaires punishing artists for taking an honourable stance against genocide – as has happened with actors such as Susan Sarandon and Melissa Barrera, and musicians such as Zarah Larsson and CMAT – has a purpose. It is intended to send a powerful message to others that they should keep their heads down. Now Sheeran’s shaming has sent a counter-message to his fellow creatives. Being pimped by the billionaires in support of genocide is a bad look.

This is an extract from my latest article. Read the rest here.

Wow Ed Sheeran’s confession below reveals how asinine these celebrity icons really are.

Read; Ed Sheeran claims victimhood after Macklemore’s pro-child stance sparks backlash, Normal Island News, 21 September 2026

‘Ed Sheeran is distraught after the Macklemore backlash, so naturally he contacted the world’s biggest media organisation, Normal Island News, so he could set the record straight. I guess we can call it an Op-Ed.

My name is Ed Sheeran. You probably know my music from the last time a call centre kept you on hold, or because your grandma thinks I’m the coolest bloke on earth. I’m writing this piece because I’m the latest victim of cancel culture, and quite frankly, it’s bloody unfair to treat mega-rich people this way. I’ve always believed that music should be kept free from politics, unless we’re talking about white kids in Ukraine. My concerts are sanctuaries where idiots lock arms while I sing about “pastries” and whatever other words I needed to make the song rhyme. For years, I’ve been the world’s leading peddler of meaningless drivel, and until now, no one has dared point this out. This is because I’ve always seemed so harmless that it would be like punching a teddy bear. But last week, my carefully crafted image was shattered when my friend of 13 years, Macklemore, decided to go on my stage and take a deeply hurtful position. He looked out at the kids in the crowd and uttered the shocking words: “All children deserve to live.” As you can imagine, this hit me like a thunderbolt. Yes, Macklemore does this sort of thing every time he’s on stage, but I didn’t think he’d do it on my stage. I thought he understood my image needs to be protected more than anything else. As a unifier, I occupy a sensible middle ground between children living and not living. You know the sort of thing I’m talking about—coma victims, kids getting amputations without anaesthetic, etc. I’m not automatically opposed to Israelis killing some children as long as they don’t kill too many. We wouldn’t want them to be disproportionate.

I just want a reasonable compromise, but Macklemore seems to think no children should be in comas or need amputations. He doesn’t even agree that Israel should’ve got a child-killing quota after 7 October. Some of my stadium-owning friends told me that Macklemore’s point of view is inherently antisemitic. They gave me a choice: ditch my mate, or lose the venues. Naturally, I sided with the Epstein islanders. It was perfectly standard showbiz capitulation, yet somehow, the internet has decided that I am the villain. As a result of my neutrality, my support acts dropped out of my tour, and even my backing band bailed on me. To make matters worse, my own family members ran to the press to explain that I’m a bit of a nob and my music is actually crap. I was left so isolated that I had to walk into a stadium completely alone. I stood on stage in Philadelphia and told a massive crowd all about my suffering. My words came totally from the teleprompter, after going through a team of zionist lawyers and the IDF Press Team. For some reason, people are saying that wasn’t heartfelt enough.

Things are so bad that my concert ticket prices have been cut in half. Meanwhile, Macklemore has been totally milking it. He’s gained about 7 million Instagram followers, whereas the only people still following me are hate-followers. I turn my comments off every day now because people keep saying things like: “Hey Ed, your tattoos are crap” and “You’re living proof that gingers have no souls” and “We only have room for one shit artist in our life and we’ve chosen Macklemore.” All this hatred, simply because I sacrificed someone to protect my mysteriously successful music career. Why the fuck would Macklemore do this to me? He wrote a whole song about Hind Rajab, but has he made a track about my suffering? No. And he’s had days now. Some friend he turned out to be. It should be clear to any reasonable person that no one has suffered more than me since 7 October, apart from maybe Pink. All I ever wanted to do was write wedding songs for your most boring work mates and now I feel like I’ve been shot with 355 bullets.’

How do you justify settlers getting 800 liters of water a day while people in Gaza survive on less than 5?

Watch; Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, Arabic Hour, 31 May 2026

‘Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh is an author, scientist, and activist who previously served on the faculties of Yale, Duke, and the University of Tennessee. In 2008, he returned to Palestine to co-found several impactful community institutions, including a medical genetics laboratory and the volunteer-run Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability (PIBS) at Bethlehem University. He has published over 160 scientific papers, hundreds of articles, and several books spanning human rights, biodiversity, and popular resistance. Despite facing harassment and arrests for his activism, his global lectures and community programs have empowered thousands of youth and

earned him numerous prestigious international awards for social courage and non-violent resistance.’

Dr. Atif Kubursi; “There is one area that is very specific and very defining characteristic of our area, and that’s water and with climate change, with global warming, this water is going to be less available and given what the Israelis have done and they have diverted the Jordan river and what they are still planning and how they are siphoning some of our water that is collected under the West Bank and being used in Israel, how do you see the future of our ability to have enough water and enough food and enough agriculture, what’s your prognosis?”

Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh; “Let’s first lay out the groundwork. We would not have a water shortage if we have water justice or water equality. There’s actually more rainfall in Ramallah than there is in London. I don’t know if you know this. There’s more rainfall falling on Ramallah than there is falling on London, the only difference is that our water falls on our regions, goes into the water aquifers. Israel controls the water aquifers, extracts the water aquifers, even throws out some of the water. When I mentioned earlier, diversion of the water of the Jordan river basin from 1,350 million cubic meters per year flowing to only 20 million cubic meters per year flowing, what’s the difference? The difference is 13,330 million cubic meters per year. Where are those going? They’re not going because Israel uses them or because they need them, they diverted them specifically to deny us this water and they throw some of it away. I would say about half of it, half of it is thrown away and they use it for, like having green gardens and green trees and swimming pools. Even here in Beit Sahour, my shepherd’s field, as I said, my village, which we get water in the summer rarely, my sisters come to take showers every week sometimes, in the summer, because there’s no water, they come to my house. Why my house? Because I have a water cistern that I’ve collected rainwater. But anyway, we have barely enough water for our lives. Meanwhile, in Tukua here, the settlement that Avigdor Lieberman lives in, the David complex of settlements, they have actually, believe it or not, a water park, literally a water park in the mountains here, which are called the Judean desert. It’s not really Judean or a desert, by the way, it’s a semi-arid region, it’s not the best part of Palestine. But anyway, they have a water park there while we go thirsty. This is water injustice or water apartheid and this is what we have to realise that we are facing is not because of the lack of water, it’s because water is stolen from us, denying us our living conditions. Israeli settlers use about 800 to 900 litres per settler per day, while Palestinians in the West Bank use about 80 litres, so it’s one tenth of the settlers, 80 litres per person per day, which is less than the World Health Organisation says is essential for survival, 100 liters per day per person. And what is it in the Gaza Strip today as we speak, by the way? You would be shocked. It’s less than 5 litres per day per person that they are getting. That’s why they are going thirsty and dying of thirst and of diseases, because they can’t clean themselves, of course they cannot wash themselves, even with a wet towel.”

Jeremy Corbyn and Norman Finkelstein

Watch; Norman Finkelstein & Jeremy Corbyn: THE INTERVIEW ISRAEL WANT TO BAN, Double Down News, 23 August 2026

Norman Finkelstein; “I don’t see how it’s possible for the population of Gaza to remain in place. There’s no possibility, none, none, that Israel will allow Gaza to be rebuilt with a population still in place. They invest two full years, the longest…it wasn’t a war, it was a genocide. Let’s just call it the longest military engagement in their history to make sure that Gaza was rubble. If you remember in May 2024, when the South African delegation went before the ICJ for the fourth time, they went before it in January, then in February, then in March, and then in May and their grounds for going before the ICJ in May come because they were asking for more, what’s called provisional measures, meaning more pressures to be exerted on Israel to stop what it’s doing. They said Rafah is the last remaining livable place in Gaza. If you destroy Rafa, they said, then there’s nothing left. And what did Israel do? Bomb Rafah and then pulverise Gaza City, everything else was gone so they had a very systematic plan and now we’re supposed to believe that Mr. Netanyahu is going to do 180 degree flip, they’re going to join hands, chant give peace a chance, sing Kumbaya and rebuild Gaza. You know, it’s fairyland. It’s just la la land, these sorts of speculation.”

Iran

Iran leads the resistance to Israeli colonialism.

Watch; Iran’s High Price of Sovereignty and Solidarity with Palestine w/Adnan Husain, Critical Theory Workshop, 3 June 2026

Adnan Husain; “There are a lot of vassal states of the empire. Iran alone, because of their revolution in 1979, is the only sovereign country in the entire region and what have they done with their sovereignty gained at a high price of 47 years of sanctions, of subversion, eight years of war sponsored by their neighbours and Western empire, including that encouraged Iraq to invade, hundreds of thousands of casualties, including chemical weapons attacks? They have paid a very high price for that sovereignty and they’ve also continued to pay a very high price because they have refused to abandon the people of Palestine. And so indeed it’s worth celebrating that because I think we are seeing something unique in the annals of anti-colonial resistance here because many have been the struggles to liberate national liberation, struggles to free one’s own country, one’s own nation, one’s own people from colonialism and colonial rule but there have been very few cases where people have sacrificed so much to decolonise others. They have won their sovereignty, they’re battling the imperial system but that’s why in the initial stages it was characterised that the operation name was Khatm al-Tufan, Seal of the Flood or the Completion of the Flood, referring to Tufan Al Aqsa, the operation on October 7th to try and liberate Palestine from settler colonial occupation. That made the link kind of clear even before the start of the war in anticipation with the buildup when Foreign Minister Araghchi was in Qatar for the Al Jazeera Forum, his speech that he gave was not about how you must please leave Iran alone, please lift the sanctions, don’t have a war on us. His speech was about Palestine and the importance of Palestine. Why do they insist on that so much? And I think it’s because as we’ve been talking about, I’m sure all of us for two and a half years and even longer even, because the genocide that just had a more intense phase is that Palestine is crucial to the world system of empire, the imperial world system. It is this pivot point where the model for the future of the world is being worked out. Is it going to be Fortress Europe, the jungle surrounding the Garden with high walls and surveillance technology and techniques for managing and oppressing population?”

Watch; Video: The Morning the US Bombed a School in Iran, Jeremy Scahill, 2 October 2026

‘Parents, teachers, and first responders tell the story of what happened in Minab at the Shajareh Tayyebeh School massacre on the first day of the war. In the opening hours of the war against Iran, on February 28, 2026, the US military fired Tomahawk cruise missiles directly at a school in the southern city of Minab. At least 156 people were killed that morning at Shajareh Tayyebeh school—120 of them were children and 26 were teachers. It will go down in history as one of the gravest war crimes committed by the U.S. government since Vietnam. Drop Site News conducted a two-month investigation into the strike, speaking with survivors, first responders, parents, doctors, teachers, psychologists, and other witnesses. Some of them had never before shared their experiences of that day. This is their story.’

Read the full investigation here: Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave.

The axis of resistance in the Middle East is on the rise as the US, Israel and its proxies are on the decline.

Watch; “The region looks completely different from before” Professor Mohammad Marandi, Almayadeen, 21 September 2026

Mohammad Marandi; “I think it’s clear that we have moved a long way from where we were just a year ago. The region looks completely different from before. Who would have thought that we would see these changes? True, the Israeli regime has slaughtered countless children and innocent people in Gaza, and true that they’ve created all sorts of devastation in Lebanon, and true that Syria is now a broken and impoverished country but the empire is also badly wounded and the empire has suffered a major defeat at the hands of the resistance, at the hands of Iran, and at the hands of Yemen and the Israelis have had no real successes in its confrontation with the resistance either. So the most important thing that is happening is that despite the hardship that has been imposed on the region, thanks to a deeply, deeply evil empire, despite all that, you do see the empire itself in retreat and proxies of the empire that have brought this upon themselves are in retreat as well. Saudi Arabia, due to its foolish policies in supporting the United States in its war against Iran and also in its provocative attack on Yemen, on Sana’ a International Airport, has brought about huge change in this region. Saudi Arabia is deeply vulnerable today and let’s face it, the reality is that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, these are assets of the United States. They are assets of the empire, Jordan is an asset of the empire, thus, they are by extension, assets for the Israeli regime because the United States and the Israeli regime have no differences among each other. The United States is sacrificing its interests for Israel. That is true but in any case, that is what the US regime does not take the interest of the American people into account, but in any case, the regime and the Israelis have a single vision of the region and when US proxies are weakened, the United States is weakened, all the money that the United States would take from this region for its AI projects and so on, it is not forthcoming. The economies are in decline, in rapid decline. The bond market that was the stock market and AI projects that Trump was hoping would be strengthened through money that is milked in this region is not forthcoming so I think that the future is not good for the empire, and we will have a very different situation. Of course, between now and then, many things can happen. There’s a significant possibility that the United States will wage another war against Iran, and if it does, it will be defeated and if it goes after Iran’s critical infrastructure, we all know what Iran will do to the critical infrastructure of US proxies in the region and the Israeli regime. But whether that happens or not, whether the economic warfare continues for long or not, the point is that ultimately the United States will fail and the United States will have to retreat, and the Israeli regime will be a diminished entity as a result, and its fate is sealed. I don’t believe that the Israeli regime will last many more years and a diminished United States will force the regime to change its posture, because that’s where it gets its strength from, the United States and the West.”

Watch; Araghchi: Gaza Tragedy Shows Failure of Global Accountability, Arab News, 19 September 2026

‘Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Gaza conflict and ongoing violence across the region reflect a broader pattern in which military force has become a tool for reshaping the political and security landscape.’

Abbas Araghchi; “The tragedy of Gaza and the ongoing crimes committed by Israeli regime are among the clearest and most horrific manifestations of this failed pattern. What is taking place in Gaza is not merely a humanitarian tragedy, it is a test of the conscience and collective responsibility of the international community. The slaughter of civilians, forced displacement, collective punishment, and the destruction of vital infrastructure, having gone without effective accountability, have extended to Lebanon as well unfortunately. A dangerous pattern has now taken shape, a pattern in which military force is no longer used as a last resort, but has turned into a permanent mechanism for redesigning the political and security landscape of the region. Under such circumstances, aggression becomes normalised, escalation becomes institutionalised, and destruction turns from a consequence of war into an instrument for advancing political goals. This trend did not stop at the borders of Gaza and Lebanon. The military aggression of the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran is also understandable within this very framework, a war that was illegal, unjust, aggressive and unprovoked. This war is part of a broader pattern of unpunished aggressions, including the campaign of targeted assassinations of Iranian officials, threats against political authorities and figures, violation of national sovereignty and the impunity of aggressive actions. If these are not met with an effective response from the international community, they will gradually erase the prohibited boundaries of international law. Such policies will yield no result other than the tragedy of the killing of 168 innocent students in Minab. The victims of such crimes are not merely numbers among the statistics of war casualties. Behind each of these lost lives, there was a family, a future and a life. This is the very point where we must ask ourselves, how far? When do we say enough is enough?”

Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah spoke to Drop Site Live about what he described as the latest chapter in 47 years of aggression against Iran.

Watch; What has Iran done to deserve this relentless aggression? Drop Site News, 1 March 2026

Ali Abunimah; “Iran is a country that has been under relentless attack by the United States and its Arab neighbours and Israel for decades. For what? What has Iran done to deserve this relentless aggression? Iran has not attacked other countries. Iran has not launched wars against other countries. Iran has not developed nuclear weapons. Iran’s missiles are clearly for defence use. Iran never launched missiles against any country until it was attacked. When the United States attacked in 2018 and killed General Soleimani, Iran responded by attacking American bases in Iraq. When Israel attacked in June, Iran responded by attacking Israel. Iran is not an aggressive country and it is a country that deserves to be left to develop by itself. You can’t separate its internal politics from the constant external aggression, military aggression and aggression by sanctions which are calculated and targeted. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary of the United States, was boasting recently that the sanctions created the economic crisis in Iran, the collapse of the rial and economic unhappiness. Hillary Clinton has bragged about that. Nancy Pelosi the other day was just saying about how we should use sanctions to create misery and to create suffering. This is the psychopathic hatred of Iran that exists not just in Israel, but all over the West for decade after decade. Iran never invaded these countries, never attacked them. It’s time to leave Iran in peace but what we see now is a US-Israeli aggression that is backed by Iran’s Arab neighbors and all of Europe and Canada and Australia and even the African Union put out a statement against Iran. Who are these puppets of America all over the world that are behaving this way? It’s just unbelievable.”

Read; John Mearsheimer: US Pullback, Alliance Breakdown and Wars, The Singju Post, 2 October 2026

John Mearsheimer; ‘Well, with regard to the question of escalation, it appears that the United States has no interest in escalation and the best evidence of that is that the Iranians have been attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz in a quite vigorous way over the past few days and according to news reports today, the Iranians claim that they hit 4 ships overnight, and yet the United States is not retaliating. In the past, this would have led to a tit-for-tat strategy where the Iranians attacked vessels in the strait, and then the United States responded against targets in Iran, and then the Iranians responded against targets inside of countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and so forth and so on, where you had American military bases. But so far, we have not seen any evidence of that. For quite a few weeks now, the United States has stayed away from going up the escalation ladder militarily. The Iranians themselves are a different question. There’s all sorts of evidence that more oil is now coming out of the Strait of Hormuz and apparently, that is somewhat weakening Iran’s bargaining position and many people are hypothesising that the Iranians really don’t have much choice but to escalate.

For example, it’s quite clear that a lot of oil is being loaded in Ras Tanura, which is the principal port in Saudi Arabia. Earlier in September, earlier in this month, there were about 1.5 million barrels a day being loaded onto tankers at Ras Tanura. That’s 1.5 million in early September. It appears that now about 6.5 million barrels a day are being loaded onto tankers at Ras Tanura. Well, it is possible. I’m not saying that this is likely, but it is possible that the Iranians could decide to hit Ras Tanura to restore their leverage over the United States in this conflict. So what’s going on here is that people do not see evidence that the Americans are interested in escalating, at least at this point in time and they do see lots of evidence that the Iranians have an incentive, a powerful incentive to escalate, and that there are targets the Iranians can go after, like Ras Tanura or the pipeline that goes across Saudi Arabia that was shut down for a while but now is operating at 40% capacity and is on its way to being restored to full capacity. So the Iranians could go after the pipeline as well as Ras Tanura and there are, of course, other targets in places like the UAE and Kuwait as well and of course, the Iranians will surely continue to target vessels that are trying to go through the Strait of Hormuz. So that’s the basic situation as things stand today with regard to escalation, but as you know, Glenn, what the situation will look like in a week’s time is hard to say because this war has great potential to escalate on both sides.’

The US is getting out of Iraq – good riddance Americans – except to serve your Israeli masters by killing a million Iraqis and bringing the nation to its knees, you had zero business to be there in the first place. 

Listen; John Mearsheimer: US Pullback, Alliance Breakdown and Wars, Glenn Diesen, 1 October 2026

John Mearsheimer; “The Iranians are not going to surrender. They’re going to do everything they can to prevent the United States from winning and this means that there are just real limits to what we can achieve in the Gulf and that’s been manifestly clear since February 28th. We are putting enormous pressure on the Iranian economy and on the Iranian people, we are punishing them in truly significant ways but do you see any evidence that the Iranians are throwing up their hands or getting ready to throw up their hands and surrender? There’s no evidence whatsoever, any more than there’s any evidence that the Russians are getting ready to throw up their hands and surrender. Again, these countries are facing an existential threat and when you face an existential threat, you don’t quit, you escalate, you look for every opportunity you can find to inflict pain on the other side. So this is what we are up against. Now, to get to your more specific question, what can the United States do in the future to protect countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other Gulf states? And the answer is very clear. Not much. As you pointed out before, Glenn, today represents our final day in Iraq, we’re pulling out of Iraq, we’re finally getting out of Iraq. Remember, in 2003, March 19th, if my memory is correct, we went to war against Iraq, and we’ve been there pretty much all the time since March 19th. We did have a significant drawdown for a while, but we then put significant numbers of troops back in in 2014, and we’ve been there since. But now we’re out, we’re leaving Iraq. I think what you’re going to see is a great reduction in American forces in other states in that region because the United States cannot provide security for countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the UAE in ways that it thought it could, and they thought it could before February 28th. I’ve said this before. I didn’t realise before February 28th how vulnerable all those bases were. I knew there was some vulnerability for sure. I understood that the Iranians had lots of ballistic missiles and drones, but I did not fully recognise how effective they would be. And the fact is, they have been deadly effective. And it makes very little sense for us to rebuild those bases in any meaningful way. And even if we do rebuild those bases, Glenn, the fact is that over time, the Iranians are going to build more missiles, more accurate missiles and more lethal missiles and more drones and more lethal drones. And those bases, if we rebuild them, will be more vulnerable than ever so I don’t think it makes much sense from our point of view to rebuild the bases. And I don’t think it makes much sense from the perspective of the Gulf states to depend on the United States to defend them. And by the way, when you talk about the Gulf states depending on the United States, you want to remember that the United States has not only failed to defend the Gulf states, it dragged the Gulf states into this war, so if you’re the head of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, you should be thinking long and hard about how close a relationship you want to have with the United States.”

Please donate

Forgive me for pointing out that, while we receive some one-off donations, I am funding Farms Not Factories myself, and if we are to continue to fight the cruel, antibiotic-led factory farm system, we will need some regular donations from like-minded people. Please consider a monthly subscription of £2/month and help us support a network of smaller scale, humane and healthy UK pig farms, local abattoirs and butchers.

“Our message is simple, we want to help bring an end to this dangerous, inhumane system. Vote for real farming over factory farming.”
– Tracy Worcester, Director

Share This Article

Related ArticlesView All

August 28th, 2026
0
Our Modern Food System is Leading us to Early Graves

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter
July 30th, 2026
0
Psychopathic Leaders

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter
July 2nd, 2026
0
From Field to Fork

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter
June 2nd, 2026
0
Quality not Quantity

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter
May 1st, 2026
0
Divide and Rule

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter
March 27th, 2026
0
Legacy Media Perpetuates Lies

The purpose of our newsletter is to give you important information that is censored in the mainstream media. “The way… Read More

Newsletter

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*