General

Tucker and Dennis Kucinich: Congress Moves to Commit Treason and Allow Israel to Forever Enslave America’s Military

As more and more opposition to arming Israel mounts in Congress, the Israelis come up with the brilliant plan to simply merge the U.S. and Israeli militaries. No more controversial bills to fund Israel. It will be completely on autopilot. And Israel will have a free hand to sell U.S. technology to other countries. Is it possible to sink any lower? And even asking whether Donald “America First” Trump would veto it is absurd. He won’t.

Video: Congress Moves to Commit Treason and Allow Israel to Forever Enslave America’s Military

This month, unless Donald Trump stops it, our treasonous Congress is likely to merge the US military with Israel’s genocidal armed forces. Dennis Kucinich on the end of American sovereignty.

Transcript

Tucker [00:00:04] Dennis Kucinich, thank you for doing this. So a lot of us who’ve been paying half attention keep hearing that there’s an effort in the Congress to in some basic sense, merge the US military with the IDF, with the Israeli military. Same with our intelligence services. It’s hard to believe that could be true. Is it true? What do you know about it?

Dennis Kucinich [00:00:24] Well, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, section 219 has a provision that provides for the integration of the IDF and the U.S. Military at the top most sensitive levels of our military operations. And that is a fact. Now, when you have an integration… And you say you’re gonna eliminate duplication, that’s a merger. And so they’re merging. And the…

Tucker [00:01:04] The US military and Israeli military.

Dennis Kucinich [00:01:07] Yeah, in specific areas, like artificial intelligence and autonomous functioning of vehicles, you know, that will increase the kill efficiency, right, in quantum sensing that deals with very sophisticated data and will blur the distinction between offense and defense, okay? Cyber electronic war is another area they want to merge in, which you can’t really – if you take AI and you match it with these sophisticated technologies, you expand the ability to hurt people, really, to kill people. They want to merge missile defense. Space defense, directed energy, it’s a whole range of things, and biological technology, including biological, potential biological warfare. What could go wrong, right? See, and I look at it this way, Tucker. The first issue is American sovereignty. I don’t care Israel or whoever, we need to maintain our sovereignty. We cannot cause another country to be involved in the decision-makings that relate to the national security of the United States of America. We have to be singular and solitary in that regard. Unfortunately, this provision in this bill, all the safeguards go out the window. And essentially it’s a merger and, you know, one step from merger is an acquisition. I am, yeah, really, you think about that. But, and think about this too, in this context, we had kind of a quasi, kind of a practice run of this merger in Iran. Look what happened, you know, the Israel, the United States had to be head of Israel, goes in and attacks Iran. Working with Israel on this, it ended up being a disaster on so many different levels. So that’s what we’ve already found out from that kind of a cooperation, let’s say. Now imagine if you get two parties together and they go forward from there, what, You know, again, what could go wrong? The United States must remain sovereign. We must not in any way cede this idea of Israel being integrated, the militaries of the U.S. And Israel being integrated. The other thing is, it’s unconstitutional. I mean, really, they bypassed the treaty mechanism. We joined NATO as a treaty. Yes. There’s no treaty or it’s just in legislation. This should be going to the Senate, at least. For approval, not so just to put in legislation, make it happen. And also, people, you know, the president is the commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces, each of whom take an oath to defend the Constitution. First of all, Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Secondly, they’re not taking any oath to the United States of America to protect our interests. So what is this about? Why are we becoming more vulnerable to a nation whose whose military values are so distinct from ours.

Tucker [00:04:47] Well, I mean, there’s so many levels here. I mean just to address that, of all the militaries you could merge with, why pick the only one on the planet that’s currently committing genocide? I mean it does seem grotesque of all the militarys on the plan. Right. So, it does seems like this changes the dynamic between the United States and Israel completely were to become law. Because as it presently stands, United States is. Israel’s benefactor. Israel can’t fight seven wars or whatever, or how many fronts they have at any given time without the United States paying for most of it, which we do. And so we can withdraw the support and thereby control, at least theoretically control, Israel’s behavior. We never have, but we could. This would, if it becomes law, integrate the militaries to such an extent that the United states would actually be at the mercy of Israel. So Israel withdraws technology and the United States military is hamstrung. So it would actually put Israel in the driver’s seat.

Dennis Kucinich [00:05:50] That’s right 100% correct. And as such, it’s adverse to the national security interests of the United States of America. We cannot be in a situation where there’s no oversight. Congress is out of the picture once this thing passes. What does that mean? How? What it means is that this is run in the Defense Department with a coordinator and that just like the daily business of the Department of Defense moves on, this becomes part of the daily businesses. Integration is coordination. So no more votes? No, not on these matters. No, and even more important is this. The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $1.5 trillion annually, 80% of the discretionary budget of the United States of America is now going for military. I mean, that’s horrific.

Tucker [00:06:56] To begin 80% of America’s discretionary budget total discretionary budget is

Dennis Kucinich [00:07:01] The discretionary budget of the United States of America is about $1.9 trillion. We can spend money on education, we can spend on health care, we could spend money on food nutrition programs.

Tucker [00:07:14] Infrastructure.

Dennis Kucinich [00:07:15] Infrastructure, yes, or we can choose to spend money on a military. And President Trump has made his own case that, well, you know, we’ve got to protect our country, but there’s questions as to whether this is in our national security interests. And $1.5 trillion annually, that is a 67% increase over the previous year. The budget was nine. 100 billion, now it’s 1.5 trillion. Think of that increase of 600 billion in one year, plus we now have a department of war, plus Israel would then have access, not just to the 4 billion that we give them in military assistance, they have access to the whole of Magellan, to everything. We will be opening up the possibility of Israel having influence over a 1.500 billion trillion dollar annual budget. I feel sick.

Tucker [00:08:16] Carrying this. First of all, we just lost a war with Iran, which has an economy, you know, the size of an American state. Okay. So you would think at that point, someone would say, let’s not continue feeding a system that is failing. Let’s stop and assess where the money went the first time before we, you know, up the budget, right? I mean, clearly what we’re doing is not working. Right. What do you think? Okay, and this would give Israel influence over that entire.

Dennis Kucinich [00:08:51] Over 80% of Again, let’s look at counter drones, anti-tunneling, directed energy, AI, autonomous weapons, cyber technology, electronic warfare, the national security architecture of the future. The future. Here it is, you know, we’re going to share it. Really? And also… You have to remember that Israel was a conduit for taking technology from America and sending it to China. There’s no guarantees in this agreement that they can’t. And the Soviet Union.

Tucker [00:09:34] I mean, Jonathan Pollard’s secrets, which he stole from the United States military, from the Navy, wound up in the hands of our arch-rivals, the Soviets, because they’re David’s people.

Dennis Kucinich [00:09:41] Well, you don’t have to spy or steal if everything’s open and you’re right at the, you have a seat at the table, do you? And you know, this is, and then as you pointed out earlier, Tucker, ethic cleansing, genocide, these are partners. Because we’re not just, you know taking in their IDF let’s say, we’re taking the values. That we’ve seen demonstrated or lack of values on moral law, international law. How do we, what does it say about us as a country if we want this kind of a partnership in the largest expenditures of U.S. Tax dollars of any single area in terms of, especially with respect to our defense?

Tucker [00:10:39] I think the majority of Americans agree with you. I think that polling shows that attitudes on Israel are changing dramatically because of Israeli, because of the fact they’re committing genocide, that tends to lower your approval rating. But this vote would, as you said, be the last vote. So Congress wouldn’t have to be on the record supporting Israel after this vote, because it would all be handled by the Pentagon procurement office. That’s right.

Dennis Kucinich [00:11:06] And the procurement, I mean, it’s very significant. So that’s why I’m saying there’s a limited amount of oversight that occurs then. You have to remember, when I first got to Congress, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense said that there was over $1 trillion in accounts that could not be reconciled. That was in 1997. They couldn’t keep track of over $trillion. Today, it is multiple trillions. You know, it… They had like 1100 different accounting systems in the Pentagon. They’re, it’s engineered to where money might just disappear. You get engineered to evade.

Tucker [00:11:44] Oversight. There’s no way to even know what’s happening.

Dennis Kucinich [00:11:49] So this time, if we bring Israel into the picture and create this merger at the top of the most sensitive aspects of our national security, our national defense, where’s that going to go? So you’re merging, you’re integrating, you are eliminating duplication in the context of a country that’s involved in genocide and ethnic cleansing, so what do they gain from this? They gain weapons endurance, okay, because they get these weapons systems which they may not have access to right now, they’ll have intelligence depth that they don’t have right now. They’ll have AI targeting capacity that they may or may not have right now. There’s no diplomatic deterrent, right? I mean, because the game’s going to be led by the Department of Defense, but the Department of State is going to further be diminished by this, for sure. You have, you know, the…

Tucker [00:12:56] Wait, can I just ask, what about the Secretary of War, the Secretary Of State, cabinet secretaries, house and senate leaders, everyone in the White House, like they’re all on board with giving a foreign country control over our military?

Dennis Kucinich [00:13:13] Who knows who’s on board? It’s in the legislation now, and they vote for it. It’s law. This entangles our military in whatever Israel chooses to do. They want to go to war against Egypt. They want go to go war against Turkey as part of this Zionist expansion. Hey, we’re pulled right along. Our country then becomes a target. Our country, then, becomes vulnerable based on anything Israel chooses to do because we are partners then. And we have no control over that. We don’t have any control over what they’ll do. That’s like a fantastic thinking that we can bring them into the military and all of a sudden we’re gonna control them. No, the way you control them is to keep the IDF at bay and try to work out some kind of diplomatic relations which really aren’t working out right now because otherwise why would you have so many dead people in Palestine and in Lebanon? There’s no diplomacy going on. It’s basically a license to kill that Israel has.

Tucker [00:14:11] Paid for by us. Yeah, absolutely. Can I just go back, I have too many questions, to your description of the U.S. Defense budget as 80% of discretionary spending, which I didn’t know, which is like hard to believe. The United States is prosperous, largely because it’s isolated from threats by the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. Basically the United States, the threats that it faces were gonna come from Canada or Mexico, really. And those are you know, not existential at the moment. So why would the United States spend 80% of its discretionary budget on defense?

Dennis Kucinich [00:14:52] That’s crazy. Well, it undermines, I think the. Constitutional imperative of the United States, we the people of the united states, you know, it laid out certain purposes of governance, provide for the common defense, but that wasn’t the only thing, okay? Promote the general welfare, ensure the blessings of liberty. We’re moving away from that. If it all becomes about defense, what happens? And what is happening now? There’s specific things that have happened. Uh… We’ve seen health care test

Tucker [00:15:32] correct you and say it’s not defense anymore, it’s war. It’s not the Department of Defense, it’s the Department.

Dennis Kucinich [00:15:37] Thank you, because I mean, that’s right.

Tucker [00:15:41] Because if it’s about defense, the United States is defended by geography mostly. It’s defended by oceans, by its lack of physical proximity to people who hate it. So like we’re pretty safe, always have been, probably the safest country in the world. But that’s it. But it’s not about defense. It’s about war.

Dennis Kucinich [00:15:58] And because it’s more about war than ever, how do you measure that? You measure that by how much money you allocate. Again, $900 billion were allocated for the 2026 Department of Defense, now war. This year, $1.5 trillion. It constitutes 80% of discretionary spending. So what’s happened? We’ve seen cuts in healthcare, they’ve cut back administration of the Affordable Care Act, they’ve got back the CDC lost about three and a half billion dollars. The education has just been wrecked, the kind of benefits that were out there. In the education department, we saw the work-study program. I took a work- study program when I was. Just starting my college career, I worked as a plane dealer in Cleveland for a while and worked and went to Cleveland State. They cut this funding 90 percent, so all these young people who want to get educational experience and work at the same time, they’re not going to be able to do that. There’s programs that affect the poor that would enable young people to reach up and an education that they’ve cut. Uh… Their specialized education funds they cut out the whole divisions it there’s a lot of uh… Uh… Programs have been cut in education they could job prone training programs tucker and all this uh… Goes you know by i think it was job training is about three point seven billion they’ve cut from that they cut nutrition program you know feeding people feeding the food stamp program which you know largely has kept a lot of americans fed they’ve got that by about six point three billion and And with that… There’s reductions in the women’s and infant children’s nutrition programs. What are we becoming as a nation when we arm ourselves to the teeth, inevitably benefiting all these defense contractors, and leave the American people defenseless at home, defenseless against poverty, defenseless against ill health, defensless against being ill-educated? That’s the real strength of our country. We’re letting that go. And so my, my sense is that. It’s bad enough that 1.5 trillion is going to go primarily to these arms manufacturers, okay, because those are capital intensive expenditures. And at the same time, here comes Israel right inside the Department of Defense at the most sensitive technological areas, most sensitive security issues. And they’re right there helping to direct what America does.

Tucker [00:18:54] At exactly the moment when the American public has made it very clear we don’t want this. Right. So it’s like, it’s hard to imagine a less democratic, more authoritarian response to public opinion polling. It’s like your job, you served in Congress, your job is to represent the people who put you there. Right. So you look at the opinion polling and you say, you see people don’t want this, right? And so that’s the first thing you do, something they don’t want? Like, how is that a real system? How is that representative government?

Dennis Kucinich [00:19:24] It’s an ad. It reflects a level of control that already exists. I mean, let’s be clear, you know, this objection that is being raised here is cognizant of the fact that we’ve had a relationship that goes back at least to 1948, you now, to 1948 and then going forward from there, and more recently, you know Israel saw to their advantage to encourage the United States to go to war against Iraq. I mean, Benjamin Netanyahu sat in front of me, you know. Government Oversight Committee and articulated reasons in September of 2002 why the United States should go to war against Iraq. And he also said, I asked him, who else would you attack? And he said, Iran and Libya in committee. You can go to the internet and find that. There’s a different imperative that Netanyahu has than what our aspirations are for country. The people of Israel have to make their own decisions, but they cannot decide for us. We have to have autonomy here. We have have sovereignty. And I fear for the future of our country. If we bring in these genocidal group that has shown no compunction about murdering children, shooting them in the head and the chest, laughing about it, celebrating their dominance over defenseless people. It It goes beyond being heartbreaking, it’s insane, and we need to push back. People should be calling their congressmen and saying, do not vote for this bill. Force an amendment to be made to take it out, take that provision out of the bill, and if they won’t do it, vote against the bill. I mean, I would vote against a bill anyway. I voted against almost every single expenditure for these kinds of things when I was in Congress, Tucker, because I knew it was a scam. I knew the people of the United States for getting hosed. By these defense contractors, and it became a racket, you know, it’s a Smetley Butler said it years ago, war’s a racket. So this is a racket! We got pulled in one war after another, we didn’t have to be in, and Israel was coaxing it all along. And the Middle East region is going to end up in a worse conflagration if they come inside, because they’ll be leading the dance when it comes to making strategic decisions in that region. That’s just, it is happening right now, they have that kind of influence, but this locks it in! This is formal! This is the law. And what happens to our country. My concerns about America, I don’t, you know. I consider myself a citizen of the world, but I am an American, and I don’t want anybody trying to influence our country to do one thing or another. We make our own decisions here. Not anymore, though. Israel has too much influence already. And through AIPAC and other groups, they have engaged in a kind of subterfuge over what the interests of the American people are. And it’s not in our interest to be merging a military with a military that presents a clear and present danger to our own country. I don’t want to hold hands with somebody who has blood on their hands.

Tucker [00:22:39] No, I think all people are capable of evil. I certainly am and I think all of us are capable of genocide. I believe that because I know what human nature is. But there’s only one country committing it right now. I mean, we don’t need to guess. Is the Israeli government evil? Yes, I mean obviously. Murdering children is evil no matter who does it period. They don’t get a pass. It’s a universal standard. So the idea that we would merge with that of all militaries

Dennis Kucinich [00:23:09] Well, again, I agree with that, Tucker, and I wouldn’t want to merge with any military. I don’t even like NATO for that matter. I totally agree. Because I don t want anybody acting and trying to drag us into conflicts. Our founders warned, beware of foreign entanglements. We were warned about that. And they had the vision to understand that the United States needed to protect It’s independent. Protected sovereignty by not getting drawn into conflicts in other countries on behalf of other nations, not on behalf of ourselves. You know, I’m for defending our country, but now where we’re at is that we’re on the threshold of forever wars. I don’t think Donald Trump went into office with the idea that, you know, we’re going to have more wars. He promised we don’t, you don’t know more wars, he made that I promise. But he couldn’t keep that promise because of the influence of this particular group, and that’s really sad. It’s really sad.

Tucker [00:24:17] I saw it firsthand. It’s the saddest thing I’ve ever seen in public life, for sure.

Dennis Kucinich [00:24:24] Who are the people pushing this? Well, you know, it’s very interesting. There was an iteration of this bill that was introduced into Congress by two members. Didn’t get much attention. But this was folded into the bill. Nobody knows who put it in. That’s number one. Number two. No hearings on this part alone, there’s been no hearings and no real discussions about it. I mean, you and I could talk for an hour or so easy on this. Between us, there’s more discussion that’s occurred on this bill than any place in D.C. By far. They don’t want to talk about it. They just want to quietly slip this provision into a bill without debate. Remember, they shut off any hope in the rules committee of a debate over an amendment by Tom Massey and Ro Khanna. They had an amendment up. They didn’t even include it in the list of amendments that would be made in order when they go to the floor. There was No debate in the committee over this. And so, you know, when it gets to the floor, then there can’t be, there won’t be any debate over this provision, you, know, unless somebody gets up and says, well, this provision. But there won’t t be an effort, an amendment to strike it is not in order. So it stays in the bill. People have to understand this is being engineered quietly, but no more, hello, to try to just slip it in, make an accomplished thing, and then all of a sudden here we are. And the thing that- We don’t know who pushed it. Well, we know whose idea it was, Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s taking credit for this. He has? Oh yeah, he says it’s his idea. Yeah, this, and why would Netanyahu want this? Because Israel is gonna have every possible advantage they could possibly have in terms of weapons enhancement and AI targeting and lower operating costs, right? You get to offload your operating costs down to the US. They can entangle the U.S. Into things. All of a sudden, you want to fight me, buddy? Here’s me, body, you know, and you’re off to the next war.

Tucker [00:26:44] Without the Congress ever debating it, no one going on the record to support it, it would just all of a sudden become part of the system. It’s embedded in the way the U.S. Government operates. They just can effectively control 80% of our discretion.

Dennis Kucinich [00:26:59] No committee hearings, no debate in the bill, there you have it. One of the most serious changes in American sovereignty in the history of our country would occur without any debate at all. It just folded into a bill that’s probably close to a thousand pages. Could this happen soon? Well, here’s what’s going to happen. Congress comes back on July the 13th. The rules committee will try to meet again. The reason why it didn’t get voted on this last time is there was a dispute. The White House wanted the SAVE Act that deals with curtailing certain voter registration privileges. They wanted the save act folded into the National Defense Act. And so they pushed the House leadership to combine that and in order to make that happen the House has to first pass a rule. Every bill can have its own rule. It’s like, what are the rules of debate for this particular bill, this piece of paper? So they create the rule. And the rule said, you know, it did not include that amendment that would amend out this Section 219. And, but what it did do, it’s combined the SAVE Act and the NDAA, so it gets.

Tucker [00:28:25] You don’t get voter ID unless you hand the military to Israel.

Dennis Kucinich [00:28:30] No, that’s an interesting reduction.

Tucker [00:28:33] Well, everything’s a reduction in politics, right?

Dennis Kucinich [00:28:35] But they can make that case. That’s interesting. But let me just say that it didn’t, the rule was voted against because 14 Republican members didn’t like the way the thing was set up. So the rule went down, which meant they couldn’t get to the bill. So there was no vote, you know, a week or so ago. But so they go back to the drawing board, they’ll go back the rules committee and come up with a rule. Will they include an amendment that could be voted on to determine whether or not Israel and the U.S. Military should merge? I doubt it. It’ll go to the floor again. So people are gonna be faced with an up or down vote. That would be my guess, it’s a guess. An up or a down vote on the bill itself. I mean, you know, I’d recommend voting against it and keep voting against until they take that provision out.

Tucker [00:29:28] But that could pass this month.

Dennis Kucinich [00:29:30] Yeah, absolutely. How do you stop it? Well, votes. But if you’re not in Congress? People have to call. This is where we’re not helpless. People or voters who are watching this from across the country call your congressmen or congresswomen and say, look, we don’t want to merge the military. Vote against the bill. Or take it out of the bill! That’s it. I mean, it’s, you know, as I said, I wouldn’t vote for this bill anyway because of how it

Tucker [00:30:07] But it’s treason. It’s literally treason, you’re handing your government to a foreign government against the will of your own people who pay for everything. I mean, my view is if there was ever a justification for shutting down Washington, it’s this. And yet, it doesn’t seem like there’s any way to stop it. Call your congressman, does that matter?

Dennis Kucinich [00:30:29] Sometimes, yeah, sure. I mean, if the people get enough calls, they get nervous. And when they start getting nervous and there’s a slippage and votes. Yeah. I mean it can make a difference. Absolutely. Sure. It can make the difference. Now, uh, you know, given APEC’s influence, will it make a difference? I don’t know, but I’ll But you won’t need APEc after this. No, I mean well, I mean,

Tucker [00:30:54] Dehumiliating control and all that I get it but like as a practical matter you it’s done

Dennis Kucinich [00:30:59] Well, wait a minute. This is interesting. There are people who are now talking about, well, you know, we’re going to cut, we won’t give Israel any military funding. They don’t need any military fund. They’re in the inside now. They can direct the expenditures of over a trillion dollars. What do they need a tip of $4 billion for when they can have It’s over 1.5. Trillian, watch that. You’ll encounter people who will tell you, oh, we’re going to eliminate the military spending to Israel. Really? And you’re going bring them into the decision-making position in the Department of Defense for the most sophisticated spending that exists for the future national security and future defense of the United States of America. Whoa. So that’s why.

Tucker [00:31:51] You see these Israelis and their agents in the United States saying on television, you know, maybe we should stop taking military aid from the United Sates. There you are, there you have it. The lying is just a…

Dennis Kucinich [00:32:07] It’s like every word is a lie. It’s called Hasbra, right? Yeah. You know, I mean, it’s, yeah, you know. What does the poet say? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. And there’s deception everywhere here. And they’re trying to deceive the American people as to where their interests lie. But when we keep seeing more and more of the resource of the United States going for wars, and then we get the countries that’s committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, Bring them in to the top echelons. Of decision-making in the Department of Defense on a formal agreement, Tucker, that would affect a merger. Now, people are saying, it’s not a merger, well, okay, integration, eliminate duplication, it is a merger you can call it what you want, but they’re going to be sitting there making decisions. And another thing is it’s going to affect defense, not just production, where things are made. But Israel, you know, we’ve had Buy America. Provisions in our contracting. This legislation, I think, would enable Israel to preempt those buy-America provisions. Oh, yeah, yeah. It’s just going to cost the U.S. Jobs, too. I mean, that’s another thing. That’s another argument.

Tucker [00:33:22] So typically, when the US government buys equipment for the US military, it is generally from American suppliers. Generally, not always. Right. But the idea is, the concept is, you should buy American.

Dennis Kucinich [00:33:35] Yeah, you buy from your own. Yeah, yeah.

Tucker [00:33:37] But this would allow. Purchases from israel basically to count as purchases from america because they’re

Dennis Kucinich [00:33:46] Right. It’s a procurement thing. The procurement becomes a fact of life that we’ll be procuring more and more from Israel, and Israel will be able to set up production in the U.S. This is really crazy. This is such a giveaway on so many different things. You use the word treason. It is treason!

Tucker [00:34:09] And everyone involved in it should be charged.

Dennis Kucinich [00:34:12] That won’t happen, but it’s true. So it’s not lost on any of us. A day doesn’t go by where I don’t think about the people and guys in the West Bank and South Lebanon and what they’re living through, their children being killed right in front of them, their whole families being blown up in some cases, journalists killed, Health care workers murdered. Ambulance drivers murdered. Double-triple tap to cynically just kill everything and everybody, drones flying everywhere. How in the world can anybody with a heart look at this and say, well, you know, it’s okay, that’s happening over there? No, no. If you’re a witness, you have to take some responsibility for that morally.

Tucker [00:35:02] And we’re the funder of it, which we are.

Dennis Kucinich [00:35:04] We are the funders, but we, the American people, are witnesses, and it’s time to say, look… We cannot support this. We should really be standing up and defending the people of Palestine against these attacks. That’s my feeling. We cannot be in a position where we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of people killed. For what? For some fake interpretation of the Bible that somebody says, well, this is my land. This is my home. This is in my property. Really, really? Somebody knocks on your door and says, give me your house. In America, we’d go bonkers over that. We’d say, you can’t do that. Get out of here. That’s what’s happening every day. And it’s happening in South Lebanon now. Settlers are coming in and are protected by the IDF. The IDF has demonstrated itself to be just a group of psychopathic killers. I mean, you cant call it anything else. No, you cannot. And so… The question, though, isn’t who they are, it’s who are we as Americans? What do we stand for? We just celebrated our 250th anniversary of our independence, and we need to regain our independence. We need to gain what it really means to be an American. We’ll help anybody around the world. We’ve got big hearts as Americans, but we also need to stand up for the abuse. Of of the resources that we give to another country that are being used to kill people and and kill them in mass well it’s just been so corrupt

Tucker [00:36:44] It’s been so corrupting of the United States, corrupting Christianity to see, you know, good people ministers get up and defend genocide as if Jesus is in favor of killing kids. It’s being corrupting politics, the conservative movement, which doesn’t obviously exist anymore, but I’ve been a part of it for 40 years. And one of the basic foundational ideas was property rights, property rights. They lecture you for hours. I’ve given those lectures, property rights, it’s the basis of liberty and of a functioning economic system. And then all of a sudden they’re supporting us stealing people’s lands because stealing actually, and then killing anyone who gets in the way. What about property rights? I thought we were for property rights. Free speech, the foundational freedom of this country, all of a sudden you’re not allowed to criticize a foreign country. You can’t boycott a foreign. Country. It’s illegal. It’s like, it totally corrupting of who we are. That’s my problem with it. I don’t think Israel’s uniquely evil. I think everybody is evil in his heart. Of course, I’m a Christian. Of course I believe that. But this, what they’re doing is evil, completely. There’s no euphemism that describes it more precisely than that. And we become evil when we participate in it. Like, what the hell? Yeah, it’s exactly what the Hell. So what is the motive? So you served in the Congress, you got there 30 years ago, you know a lot about the Congress. What would inspire a lawmaker to get on board with this? I, you know, look,

Dennis Kucinich [00:38:19] You have to go back to the Holocaust, you really do. I mean, in order to understand the thinking about Israel. The Jewish people suffered horribly in the Holocaust. It is a level of cruelty that the world could not have imagined prior to that. Yes. And so Israel began with a great deal of sympathy that people had. But then as you start on more

Tucker [00:38:48] including from me.

Dennis Kucinich [00:38:49] Yeah, of course, and for myself. But as you unwind the history and you see that where the Balfour Declaration went and how in 1948 that the founding of the State of Israel was not supposed to mean the subjugation of the Arabs or the Palestinians, there was somehow supposed to be an agreement worked out. It was, you know, airy-fairy in some ways. But what’s happened is that there’s been a murderous oppression of Palestinians that goes back generations now. And so Israel evolved into something Dad. That was, that no one I think counted on, at least, except the Zionists maybe, who believed that we have a greater destiny and it’s not just this land, but as the chosen people, we are going further and beyond it. And that’s unfortunate because what they’ve done, Zionism is hijacked Judaism. My life has been guided by people who happen to have been Jewish. And I think that’s true of a lot of people. Yeah. I mean, greatly influenced. And when you understand the meaning of charity, of caring, of giving, throughout my life, I’ve always associated that with people who happened to be Jewish. You know, I’ve seen that. I’ve experienced it. I have experienced it also. But then, but then when you, when you take Zionism, and a particular virulent strain of Zionism as is practiced by people like Minister Smotrich and Venkavir, as well as Netanyahu. It it has created such a source, if you could call it that, for people who happen to be Jewish in this country and worldwide. And that’s not what many of us understood Judaism to be about, and it still isn’t, but Zionism has hijacked that. And in service of a political agenda, they’ve basically jettisoned spiritual principles that And in my view, we’re always about what’s called Tikkun Olam, the healing of the world. That’s a principle that comes from Judaism, Tikkun olam, heal the world, so it’s not destroy the world but heal the word. And so it is heartbreaking, really. And we’re looking at an immense human tragedy here, Tucker.

Tucker [00:41:44] That’s just beginning because everyone who committed genocide or supported or excused it or denied it, the genocide deniers, and there are many in the United States, they’re all going to suffer. And I feel bad for them. Some of them I like personally, but they’re all going suffer because there’s justice. And if you got behind the genocide in Gaza, you’re going to suffer for that. So I feel, I feel sorry for them

Dennis Kucinich [00:42:06] You know, again, I call it a great human tragedy, but here we are just after we celebrated our independence, 250 years. How do we remain independent? And this proposal to merge, integrate the U.S. And the Israeli military is a direct attack on American independence. A direct attack on American sovereignty, a direct attack on the United States Constitution, which keeps us sovereign. I’m concerned, you know, how drones are hunting people in Gaza and West Bank and even South Lebanon now. That’s going to come home. Does anyone think that if we If we enrich this partnership with Israel formally, that we’re not gonna be seeing these drones that are patrolling the United States. Of course we are. That’s, I mean. Soon. Well, this is, you know, we’re looking at dystopia here. We’re looking a minority report, another version. Who are we? Again, ask the question, who are we as a nation? I wanna reclaim what it means to be an American. I wanna claim what it mean to be free, to be independent, to be sovereign, to be able to make our decisions without… Any undue influence from any other country in the world. And certainly not to be holding hands with people that are genocidal, with genocidal intent. So, you know, this is ultimately about freedom, our whole experience, our constitutional experience about freedom. We’ve seen our freedom of speech undermined in the last few years. College campuses, notably, okay, you can’t criticize a certain group because if you do, you could lose your scholarship, you get expelled. You can’t protest and college campuses. Which were the cradle of the rebellion against the war in Vietnam, okay? The Fourth Amendment, the idea that Americans can be free in their homes from unreasonable search and seizure. The idea that you look at ICE and how they’ve moved in to just knock down doors. We’re seeing our basic constitutional liberties undermined here in this country right now. We’re celebrating the 4th of July, but, you know. Our liberties can’t go up like in the smoke of a disappearing firework. We really have to look at each and every area where our liberty is under attack and our freedom is under attacks and it is under an attack with this proposal to merge the U.S. And the Israeli military. But if you’re a member of Congress, what are you thinking? Why would you sign on to this? What’s a constitution among friends?

Tucker [00:45:06] But you know that every public appearance that you have, every town hall that you do, you’re gonna get asked about this. People are getting pretty radically anti-Israel, way more than I am. I feel like I’m pretty moderate compared to the public on this question all of a sudden. And you’re going to have to live with that, but you’re doing it anyway.

Dennis Kucinich [00:45:27] Well, look, politically, it’s hard to figure out. One does not need to be anti-Israel. We need to pro-human. I agree. Pro-peace. Pro-America. Pro-American, yeah. Really, I mean, this thing about America first, that’s OK with me. That doesn’t mean we’re not citizens of the world, but we have an obligation to take care of our own people. Tucker, you know, I’m in Cleveland. I see people begging for food at freeway exits.

Tucker [00:45:50] Yeah, I do too.

Dennis Kucinich [00:45:52] Some of them are veterans. What are we doing with our country here? So this debate over this section in the National Defense Authorization Act really provides an opportunity for a deeper reflection about who we are as Americans. What do we stand for? Where are we going as a country? Where do we want to go as a county? How do we avoid future wars? How do we avoid? Wars that could end it all. You know, it wasn’t too long ago that Joe Biden was rattling sabers against Russia. And now we’re seeing, you know, more attacks on Russia. We, we could see another war, but if we’re not easily easily.

Tucker [00:46:35] We can see a real war with Russia.

Dennis Kucinich [00:46:38] But we need, so we need to pay attention to what our government’s doing and demand that we stop these wars and demand, that we not bring in the one country that’s hell bent on war everywhere they turn in order to feel protected. I mean, what a paradox that you’re protected by killing more people.

Tucker [00:47:02] Netanyahu is destroying Israel and, if allowed, I think, and not just Netanyah, his coalition of religious extremists. He was on Fox today on Fox News, which shamefully gives him a platform at every opportunity saying we need to go fight Turkey, our NATO ally, to whom we’re bound by a treaty. We have to have a war with Turkey now because- He said.

Dennis Kucinich [00:47:27] That this morning, I didn’t. Well see, that’s why when I look at this agreement, it is about war with Turkey, it’s about war with Egypt, it about war, war, and our dime, their policy, no, stop it. America, remember who you are. We are supposed to be that shining city on a hill. We’re supposed to be the unfolding of a patriotic dream. We’re supposed to be the country that is the beacon for the entire world, you know, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We need to reconnect with what it means, the deeper meaning of what it mean to be an American, that this journey that began 250 years ago that gave America this ability to adapt to and dream to a future. We need reconnect with this, with this advancing tide of creativity and freedom and democracy and really let freedom ring, really let it ring. But we’re not there right now, we’re in a different space and we need to begin anew to challenge any effort that would attack our sovereignty, undermine our independence.

Tucker [00:48:49] You just saw a number of Democrats lose in primaries on the question of support for Israel. So it’s such a cliche, I hate even to use the word, but it’s toxic among democratic voters. It’s true. Toxic. And good for them, by the way, it should be toxic. It’s totally unacceptable. You’re pro-Nazi? No, you’re not allowed to be pro-nazi. Well, you can’t be for the genocide in Gaza. I mean, I don’t see the difference, but how can Democrats vote for this?

Dennis Kucinich [00:49:20] I think a number of them will vote against it, but some of them with some difficulty. And the this that we were talking about is this proposal to merge the militaries of Israel and the United States. Yeah, it should be an easy vote for many members of Congress. But they’re not gonna get a chance to vote on just that because it’s folded into a thousand page bill. So what you have is a circumstance where, you know, most members will know this is in the bill. There’s been enough commotion about it. How can they vote for it? Because they’ll say, well, you know I voted so that our district could get X number of dollars for this. Defense contractor, which is providing hundreds of jobs in our district. That’s the logic, okay? Yeah. There’s a logic there. Yeah. You need to understand, and people need to understand, your many viewers need to understand that every single member of Congress has a defense contractor in the district, and these contractors, in order to pass the bill, they go and visit the of Congress and they say, look… You know, we make this material for the Department of Defense, and we need you to vote for this so that our area can have these jobs. And some of them may have been around a while, some of these, you know, businesses. So the member is moved by people from the district who want them to support this program, which may be millions of dollars, including in a $1.5 trillion bill. So members have a motivation to vote for it. Now, I didn’t vote for because I knew it was going to go for war, and I’m opposed to that. But members have jobs at stake, so they want to vote for the bill. That’s how that happens. Lobbyists are there from the district. So then you put this provision in the bill, which is really a poison pill, if you want to call it that, and members then have to look, well, how am I going to vote? Because they’ll be attacked if they vote against something for their district, right? This is a diabolical construction that’s occurring here legislatively. You put a bill to defend the country, which is excessive to the nth degree, and you fold into it this proposal for a merger. Members are going to be hard pressed with a vote on this. But the ultimate issue is if you give up sovereignty, if you That is the overarching concern, not where does this money go? Because once you give up what it means to be an American and to be able to make your own decisions, everything else doesn’t matter.

Tucker [00:52:21] Who thought up this system where you don’t vote on specific legislation or issues but you wrap all these different notions into one thousand page bill and vote up or down on it? What?

Dennis Kucinich [00:52:36] Yeah, yeah, that’s it. Well, you know, from that came the aphorism, never ask how laws are sausage.

Tucker [00:52:43] Yeah. Are made. But that seems designed to hurt the country and to make a mockery of the legislative process.

Dennis Kucinich [00:52:51] Well, the way the bill is crafted, groups of people get together, various interest groups, they go to the committee, they give their ideas of what they want, and a bill is produced. And somebody came in with this thing, ah, let’s put this merger in.

Tucker [00:53:09] But why not just vote on that? Why not just on changes to voter registration or ID requirements or what weapon system we should fund.

Dennis Kucinich [00:53:18] And they’re supposed to, except the rule permits them to do it. They change the rules. The rules are always there to be changed. There’s a rule against legislating on an appropriation. Doesn’t matter. You can have a rule that says all points of order are waived. So nobody can get up. Mr. Chairman, point of order. No, it’s not happening. This system, people are going to start to pay a little bit more attention to a system which is serving. A very small group of people at the expense of everyone else. And right now it’s not working for the people of the United States of America. And it hasn’t, it doesn’t matter if someone’s a Democrat, Republican, who’s in the White House, that system has a specific gravity and a specific momentum that keeps moving forward inexorably to replicate itself. Yes. Okay, it just keeps going. Nicely put, that’s right. And that’s what happened, and that’s why once something like this merger is in the bill, forget about it, it’s just going to keep going and going, they’ll develop data integration, that’s another big thing, that’s a merger, data integration. So we’re going to be operating out of the same fundamental math of what it means to operate the nation’s defense. Wow. And that’s how dangerous this is, Tucker.

Tucker [00:54:51] So there’s kind of no disentangling at that point without hurting the US military.

Dennis Kucinich [00:54:55] That’s exactly right. It is the ultimate entanglement that we’ve been warned against. It’s an entangling and the most granular details in every sophisticated area of defense of our country, of the future, national security policies of the United States of America. We are becoming entangled to the nth degree, and as a result, our nation and our sovereignty is at risk. Have you seen anyone defend this explicitly? No, that’s interesting. That’s an interesting question. If you find somebody, it’d be great to have that person on your show so that you could ask them about the benefits. They’ll just scream.

Tucker [00:55:38] They’ll just scream about anti-Semitism and refuse to come on, I’ve tried.

Dennis Kucinich [00:55:41] Well, you know, we understand that anti-Semitism has become a canard. It lacks meaning anymore where it’s just being used to try to deflect attention to something that’s going on that’s beneath the dignity of human beings. I’ve noticed.

Tucker [00:55:58] Yeah, I’ve noticed. Do you think there’s any chance the president would veto this?

Dennis Kucinich [00:56:04] It’s an interesting question because Netanyahu has basically discounted the authority of the President of the United States. He’s done that when President Trump was trying to end this war against Iran that was started had to be hashed of Netanyahu. And what did he need? One of the things he needed was for Israel to stop attacking South Lebanon. That was one of the conditions that Iran asked for. Didn’t happen. And Netanyahu publicly defied the President of the United States, as if he, as head of a nation of nine, 10 million people, is superior to a man who’s head of nation of 340 million people. I mean, this is. You know, you have to look at this. This is so weird that Israel could be actually jeopardizing an agreement that would end a war that has resulted in not just 168 children being killed and the leader of Iran, whose funeral is still ongoing right now as we speak, but also had a devastating effect and the, and our economy. You know, that war’s going to cost, just that war is going to cost about a trillion dollars, tax fares. You know most of it will go to national debt, which is, you know, a whole other story because the more debt we’re in, the more vulnerable we are because we’ve got to make the interest payments and that means we have less money to take care of things we need right now. You know America’s in a trap right now, You know, we’ve dug ourselves a hole. And the only difference between a hole and a grave is in the dimensions. And I don’t want to have this merger lead America to its own destruction. And we’re not in good shape right now. When the president of the United States can be told by some guy who’s just a hustler who is trying to finagle his way to another election, you know, through another election to survive so he doesn’t go to jail. I mean, let’s be real about this. Netanyahu’s facing jail. And so his policies are aimed at keeping himself out of jail. He didn’t care about the United States. He sure didn’t about what President Trump wants. All he cares about is staying out of jail and staying in power if he can. And, you know, so what does that mean? Tack South Lebanon, forget whatever America wants to do in ending the war in Iran. And everyone’s going to pay for it. The people are going to pay for in South Lebanon with their lives. And people around the world are going pay for it with damage to the world economy. Lives are superior to every other concern, but the fact is we all know about the knock-on effects of the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz or Bab-O-Mandab or anything that interferes with the flow of energy is going to cause the price to go up. Americans have experienced that and we’re going to keep experiencing that because the opportunity for peace keeps ebbing away. And we’ve learned recently that Israel was planning to kill Iran’s peace negotiators, right? There was an assassination plot to kill the principal representatives of Iran because it’s not in Israel’s interest to have peace. They don’t know what peace looks like. They think peace is a threat to their existence. And so when you get that kind of an equation, you’re gonna have forever war. And we bring them into the Department of Defense, we have forever a war. This is, you know, what about America? Why aren’t we having discussions about what America’s interests are here? Because that’s anti-Semitic.

Tucker [00:59:56] Nationalism is is uh… A moral crime No, we’ve been hearing that for 10 years and I thought Trump would be strong enough to stand up to it, but he turned out to be weak. But it’s not just Trump, it’s the system itself is just not working in any way. How would you fix it?

Dennis Kucinich [01:00:18] Well, we know that if someone becomes president and he is determined to fix the system, drain the swamp, he’s going to run into problems no matter what his politics are.

Tucker [01:00:29] Yeah, real problem.

Dennis Kucinich [01:00:30] Yeah, real problems, or he could get assassinated. Yeah. I mean that, you know, but we have to look at, you know, follow the policy back to whose interests are threatened and would want to kill our leaders. How do you cure it? First of all, it starts with America’s international policy, we have to stop these forever wars. We have to start protecting our economy and rebuild relationships with people so they still use the dollar because the elasticity in our economy depends on the petrodollar. Of course. The more people that jettison it, whether we’re talking about Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Iran and others, the less trade that happens in dollars, that is a compounding economic problem for the United States of America. People are getting rid of our treasuries, they’re dumping our treassuries, okay? So higher interest rates, more burden on the U.S. Economy. Hey, that relates to our ability to make our own decisions so that we don’t become a vassal of a future IMF or something. A president and has to have a congress that closes ranks on these issues of sovereignty, on the issues of expenditure. We really are in need of, you know, I come from a discipline of the old FDR, New Deal, rebuild America, rebuild the infrastructure, keep building, building, build and create, teach entrepreneurship, teach people how to create things and make things. We have that capacity, we’re not doing it. So how do we get out of it? Is to stop the wars, first of all. Stop the wars. Stop holding hands with a country who’s forever on a war path. Must stop that. And then we start to rebuild diplomatic relations with countries knowing that we can be friends, but don’t try us. But let’s try to find a way to work together and use our resources to build, to build. To show. You know, America can be a friend again, not just a feared foe. We need to go back to the basics, which are education. Public education has fallen apart. We need to give people a chance to have a way of learning so that they can make a contribution to our society. Now, personally, I’m for healthcare for all. We shouldn’t have these big corporations cashing in on the health misery of the American people. We should have jobs for all, we should have an opportunity for every person who’s able-bodied to be able to make a living, Make a contribution to society. We need to protect our air and our water. Our water right now ends up being a bargaining chip for these new data centers. Why should we be sacrificing the water that people need to survive just to say, well, we’re going to be smarter because we use more AI? See, we have, and you know where it all goes back to, here we are in Maine. New England had those town hall meetings some years ago. Norman Rockwell, you know, that painting of the man standing up, freedom of speech, okay? It’s, you go back to the town hall, literally, not just figuratively on the internet, you go to the back to town hall where people are meeting each other and they talk about what they want out of a country. And then you require people want to be a representative to meet with those groups and to hear what people have to say about what are their aspirations? What are their dreams for America? You get, it’s a rebuilding that has to happen. It has to happened from a neighborhood all the way up, Tucker. We have to, we have to. Re-excite our civic soul. We have to learn what it means to be a citizen again, in a democracy that we can, or a republic, as I would like to refer to it as. We need to refresh that republic with our own civic involvement. And if we fail to do that, then America gradually fades away into the pages of history. You know, we’re not guaranteed this country. Eternal vigilance truly is the price of liberty. And this discussion today is about being vigilant. It’s about understanding at every turn where America’s interests might be harmed.

Tucker [01:05:12] I think the first expression of civic engagement might be national protests against this bill.

Dennis Kucinich [01:05:20] I agree. I agree, people should be going to their town halls. And first of all, you can type in section 219 NDAA and get a copy of the bill, you understand what it means. But You know, this discussion today, we’ve given, you know, I’ve given you some content of what the specifics are because there’ll be people arguing specifics and and what the cost is and what what israel has to gain and what america has to lose and you know when you’re talking about merging the most sensitive areas uh and you’re taking about giving away american jobs you’re talking about America plus Israeli technology equals genocide now? Well, wait a minute, with no serious discussion about it and no legislative review, this is just going to happen? Sure, people need to go to their town halls and start saying stop, but this is happening. This thing is an express train. It’s coming down the tracks, Tucker. Congress comes back on the 13th of July and they’re going to try to grease the wheels to make sure this thing moves through. Who are they? They are the people that are running the government internally and externally to push legislation not just for 1.5 trillion for more wars, but to make we bring Israel into the decision-making process formally in the Department of Defense through this Section 219, which merges. Uh… The defense capabilities and integrates defense capabilities and eliminates duplication you’re talking about eliminating duplication you’re together your one year you’re single unit then

Tucker [01:07:12] At some point we’re going to get, because nothing is hidden forever, we’re going to find out exactly how many women and children, non-combatants Israel murdered in Gaza and Lebanon and the West Bank and public opinion in this country will join the rest of the world in revulsion and horror and Israel will suffer the same fate that Germany has suffered for 80 years, which is, you know, having to public to confront what you did. Cause all countries have to confront what they do. And I just think anyone who’s on board with something like this now, these are like the last moments where you could vote for this with a straight face after this, every person who votes for this is going to have to answer for it in this life and the next.

Dennis Kucinich [01:07:59] I think not only are you correct, Tucker, but… The consequences of this are going to be felt for the foreseeable future. And this is really a moment of truth for America.

Tucker [01:08:23] You’ve really added so much to this, Dennis Kucinich. Thank you very much, and I hope this makes some small difference.

Dennis Kucinich [01:08:29] Thank you Tucker, appreciate it.

On Resistance to Replacement by Force

On Resistance to Replacement by Force

The Morality of the Coming Long Struggle for the Survival and Dignity of Our Peoples

‘Violence is never the answer’, according to virtually everyone on the ‘right’, particularly when popular anger against one or other of the many evils of mass immigration spills over from words to action. We heard it most recently after the protests in Southampton over the despicable, anti-white behaviour of the police towards Henry Nowak, as they mocked and handcuffed while he bled to death. We hear it every time.

‘Violence achieves nothing’ is how many others express the same sentiment. Which is rather odd, since every scrap of history reminds us that ‘they’ – the various elites who are, or have at times been, our masters, ALWAYS use violence against us at home, and against those whom they deem to be their enemies abroad. The conditioning against violence is for us, not for those who rule us, or for those who enforce their rules.

Those in power routinely use violence, or the threat of violence, against us. And – with the exception of the all too rare elites genuinely influenced by traditional Christian teachings – every concession, every last shred of decency and justice which rulers have granted to their subjects, has been won not by polite requests and obedience to the law, but through violence, or the threat of violence.

All the rights we have already lost to the creeping tyranny of totalitarian liberalism were extracted from former elites by militant struggle, confrontation and martyrdom by our ancestors.

Those few rights which still remain were not given to us out of the goodness of the hearts of kings, popes, archbishops and politicians, but because there were more of ‘us’ than them, because ‘We the People’ organised to turn those numbers into power, and used force or the threat of force – sometimes implicit, often explicit – in order to compel them to do the decent thing.

Rights are never granted, they are taken. And if each generation does not organise to secure them then, sooner or later, they will be taken away. Such is the natural, eternal tension between those with formal and economic power, and the rest of the population.

‘Violence is never the answer’, say those who parrot the containment propaganda with which all citizens are brainwashed throughout their school years, continually reinforced by the elite’s media outlets, and by politicians who lecture us on the sacrosanct nature of peaceful submission, while constantly threatening us with the violence of their police, courts and prisons if we fail to obey their demands.

‘Violence is never the answer’ is at the dark heart of the conditioning process whereby We the People are trained from the start of our schooldays to obey and submit. It is one of the most ridiculous of the control myths they stuff into minds of the children groomed through the ‘education system’ to be obedient citizens. It is, needless to say, closely related to the tale that having a lifetime ration of pencil crosses, to use in elections dominated by plutocratic media outlets and social media algorithms, in some way gives you a say in the running of your country.

But here’s the plain truth: Violence is almost always their answer to their enemies – and, make no mistake, they know far better than we do that we are potentially their most dangerous enemies. This is true not just of the actual physical violence which the state and ruling class deploy through police batons and soldiers’ guns when all other means of persuasion and control fail.

Their courts and prisons are methods of compulsion as well. Their force is ritualised and legitimised by custom, and often by our own agreement, since it is often directed against individuals who thoroughly deserve it. But, if push comes to shove, the ruling regime will empty prison cells of real criminals, in order to free up space for political prisoners and those who dare to resist their nation-killing agenda. Their rule is enforced through violence.

‘Violence is never the answer.’ Really? Let us consider a few historical examples which give the lie to this convenient elite untruth.

Why do we in Britain have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch? Because we cut the head off one king, chased another out of his kingdom, defeated him, his son and his grandson in a series of rebellions which lasted more than fifty years, and repeatedly slaughtered their supporters.

Did the United States celebrate the 250th anniversary of writing a polite letter to King George which persuaded him of the justice of releasing the colonies from his rule and from the financial death-grip of the Bank of England? Or is the United States an independent nation because American rebels threw tea into Boston harbour and then killed thousands of British soldiers and German mercenaries who were sent to crush them?

For that matter, how did a small group of colonies on the eastern seaboard expand until they stretched ‘from sea to shining sea’? By sitting down with the Red Indians and convincing them that they should stop butchering and scalping white settlers, and that they would be far better off accepting rule from Washington?

The abolition of slavery and the granting of votes to upper-class women before they were given to working-class men were changes advocated by peaceful argument. But that was not the only method used. Slavery was ended on the High Seas by the armed might of the Royal Navy. The Pankhursts and other feminist harridans pressed their case by smashing windows, burning down shops and churches, burning down Arsenal football ground, horsewhipping politicians and inventing the letter bomb.

The extreme physical force employed by the suffragettes is glossed over by the liberals who celebrate their victory, and it is clear that the positive work done by decent women during the First World War was far more important in winning the argument for votes for women than all the mayhem caused by the extremists. But they are liberal icons nonetheless.

Ulster stayed British in the early part of the 20th century not because the majority of her citizens desired it, or voted for it, but because they organised an army of 100,000 men, smuggled in 30,000 Mauser rifles and five million rounds of ammunition in one weekend, and made it clear that, if necessary, they would fight the entire British Empire, in order to resist Irish Home Rule.

On the other side of that fence, Irish independence came not from ballot boxes packed with Sinn Fein votes, but from the rifles, grenades and bombs of the Irish Brotherhood and the IRA. They never defeated the British, but the level of violence the Irish rebels applied, and the way they kept applying it, generation after generation, eventually helped to convince the Westminster elite to grant them the freedom which, more recently, their descendants so carelessly gave away to Brussels.

Coming right up to date, Sinn Fein/IRA now run the government of Northern Ireland. Not because of the reasonableness of their arguments, but because of the damage their bombs did to the City of London, and because the women of their community had more babies than the Prods.

The state of Israel was born out of the genocidal violence launched with the massacre at Deir Yassin. The Arabs weren’t convinced to share their land by gentle debate, but by having their throats cut and their corpses thrown down wells, compelling hundreds of thousands of terrified survivors to flee. The Zionist state was created through psychotic violence, and has been sustained and expanded by it ever since. Did you ever hear a British politician trying to tell the IDF that ‘violence never achieves anything’?

More mundanely, the entire liberal establishment romanticises the Stonewall riots whose violence marked a key point in the long cultural and legal war for the legalisation – and current exalted status – of homosexuality.

The most bestial violence becomes acceptable when the liberals agree with its aims and targets. The same elite who so often tell patriotic dissidents that ‘violence is never the answer’ stood foursquare behind the ANC when Winnie Mandela’s ‘football squad’ militia were busy placing burning tyres round the necks of Africans who refused to support their war against white minority rule.

I could give many more examples, but that should be enough. So let’s leave the final word on the verdict of History to the Communist theorist who was such a strong influence on the ’68 generation and their proteges who now run every institution in our society – Chairman Mao: ‘All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’ Actually, as we will see, there are other sources of power, but that is what the left believe.

Force in all its forms determines relations between nations and governments, but also of the balance of power between governments and their subjects. Can you name any government that changed its fundamental direction, any oppressive system which reformed, any rights won by any oppressed people or group, without the use of force?

With the exception of Sweden granting independence to Norway, and the mutually agreed ‘Velvet Divorce’ between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the answer is ‘no’.

Now, before various fools and low-level touts start screaming ‘fedpost’, let me make one thing very clear: I am not calling for the use of violence. Not against either our oppressors or any of their pet ‘minorities’. Far from it.

In exploring this question in depth, we should start at the very top. If anyone really believes that violence is ‘never the answer’, yet claims to be a Christian, let them consider Jesus. Faced with the stinking corruption of the money-changers and the Sanhedrin’s hangers-on in the Temple, He didn’t waste time debating the problem. Christ didn’t try to convince them to mend their ways with kindly words.

He sat down and spent several hours braiding a cat of nine tails, a ferocious whip, then He rushed in, threw over the tables, and drove the crooks and hypocrites from the House of God with the lash. An act of premediated, calculated, morally inspired, ‘cold rage’.

I am not, however, going to argue that the violent example of our Lord gives us the right to turn to violence whenever we feel that our rights, or the boundaries of fairness, have been trampled upon.

Far from it; a proper understanding of the problems of oppression, resistance and violence tells us that physical violence must always be a last resort. It should also tell us that – even under a ruling elite which has empowered the invasion of our country and turned us into second-class citizens in our own land – we are, at the time of writing, nowhere near that point.

Let us move the discussion on from indoctrination and containment propaganda by doing away with the loaded term ‘violence’. Things will become much clearer if we instead use the neutral term ‘force’.

Next, let us recognise that, when it comes to human relationships, whether oppressing a people, securing rights or suppressing wrongdoing, there are two different categories of force: Physical Force and Moral Force.

They are of course related. In a savage world without rules or concern for consequences, moral force would count for nothing. In the diseased and dangerous world which exists in the brains of Nietzscheans, ‘Might is Right’ and moral force is some sort of weakness.

Strangely, this individualistic, anti-nationalist poison invariably infects the brains of the physically weakest and most mentally delicate specimens. Giving credence to the syphilitic Nietzsche (or, more accurately, to the works edited by his equally disturbed sister) is a vice of soft-handed intellectuals, so let’s recognise that moral force exists, and move swiftly on.

Good governments use moral force – custom, beliefs and institutions whose power rests largely on tradition and consent – to nudge their subjects into conformity with commonly agreed values. In a healthy society with a monocultural base, such moral power is enough to maintain order and good behaviour among the vast majority of the population.

The dual nature of the obligations and restrictions on state and governments are mirrored by those which apply to individuals, local communities and the nation. The state is ultimately subordinate to the nation; no government may place itself above the nation – the collective will of the majority, informed by loyalty to the legacy of the past and tempered by the interest of those still to be born.

In a good state, run for the current and future generations of the people who created it, and based on the customs and morality of their ancestors, citizens freely give their right to self-defence over to it. The right to declare and wage war becomes a matter for the head, rather than the body, of the nation. When a state goes bad, there comes a time when the people can and should take back their right to self-defence.

Similarly, with war, there can come a time when the state and its allies are so perverse, so wicked and so dangerous to the nation that it can become necessary to seek to turn its wars into a civil war, in which the nation overthrows the tyranny which, if left in charge, would bring all to ruin.

In a normal, healthy society, however, such drastic measures are wholly unnecessary. Physical force may properly be used by the state, although, in practice, it rarely is. It is generally deployed, with near unanimous popular support – only against those who break tradition and accepted norms. In a state whose laws grow from the people and tradition, only those who refuse to comply become outlaws.

Elite use of physical force beyond these traditional boundaries turns the state itself into the outlaw. Our ancestors groaned under, and fought to end, such evil in past centuries. The two-tier ‘anarcho-tyranny’ which is a noted feature of late-stage liberalism is an example from our own times.

This is not a matter of ‘moral force good, physical force bad’. There are times and places for each. Whether in an argument between two individuals, two communities, a people and their government, or two states, there is invariably the option of using moral force or physical force. The question of which should be used and when, was developed most fully in the traditional Christian doctrine of the ‘Just War’.

As we will see, the theory set out by the Church Fathers is every bit as valid for nationalists and traditionalists up against the repressive force of the liberal state and the violence of its favoured client minorities, as it is in the case of quarrels between nations.

Christian Just War theory developed as an attempt to reconcile the Christian commitment to peace with the reality that governments may sometimes need to use force to protect the innocent and preserve justice. It was part of the broader Church effort to house-train the Dark Age warlords, a feat without which High Medieval Europe could not have been created. The theory was shaped primarily by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

According to their traditional theory, a war must satisfy several criteria before it can be considered morally justified. First, there must be a ‘just cause’, such as self-defence against aggression or the protection of innocent people from grave harm.

Second, the war must be declared by a ‘legitimate authority’, typically a recognised government rather than private individuals or groups.

Third, those waging war must possess ‘right intention’. The aim should be the restoration of peace and justice, not revenge, conquest, or economic gain.

Additional criteria were developed over time. War should be a ‘last resort’, undertaken only after peaceful alternatives such as negotiation or diplomacy have been seriously attempted. There must be a ‘reasonable chance of success’, since launching a hopeless conflict that causes suffering without achieving its goals would be immoral.

Finally, the expected good achieved by the war must be ‘proportional’ to the harm it will cause. The Church Fathers were far too worldly wise to believe the old lies about war being ‘glorious’.

Just War theory also places moral limits on conduct during war (‘jus in bello’). Combatants must distinguish between military targets and non-combatants, and force used must be proportionate to the military objective. Deliberate attacks on civilians are morally unacceptable.

In summary, traditional Christian Just War theory holds that war is never a positive good in itself, but may be morally permissible under strict conditions. A just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, probability of success, proportionality, and respect for non-combatants are the key criteria that must be met for a war to be considered ‘just’ within the Christian tradition.

‘Just War’ theory is not generally taught in state-approved education systems. For one thing, it’s rather too complicated for dumbed-down modern brains. More important is the fact that an appreciation of what constitutes a ‘Just War’ rapidly produces the understanding that the vast majority of the wars waged by successive elites in our name, and with our blood and our taxes, are thoroughly unjust – and thus illegitimate. Which is why they are always preceded, sustained and excused by warmongering propaganda and fictitious atrocity stories.

The most important contribution to ideas on the subject in recent times is On Resistance to Evil by Force, in which Ivan Ilyin sought to provide moral support for the anti-Bolshevik struggle. As the White Russians called for armed resistance to Lenin’s coup d’etat and the depraved brutality of Bolshevism, Ilyin set out to answer the question that had become particularly urgent in the aftermath of revolution and civil war: What is the moral duty of a Christian when confronted by real evil?

His work was written largely in response to the Christian pacifism of Leo Tolstoy, whose interpretation of the Gospel emphasised non-resistance to evil and the rejection of all violence. While Ilyin admired the moral seriousness and sincerity of this position, he asserted that it failed to reckon adequately with the reality of evil and the obligations that human beings owe to one another.

Evil, Ilyin maintains, can be real, deliberate, destructive and implacable. Some individuals and movements consciously seek domination, cruelty, and the destruction of moral order.

In such circumstances, he argues, appeals to conscience, persuasion, and personal example may prove insufficient. A person who encounters evil cannot always overcome it through passive endurance alone.

A person who refuses to resist an aggressor may keep his own hands clean, but in doing so he leaves the innocent undefended. Christian love, in Ilyin’s view, is not merely a matter of refusing to do harm; it also requires the active protection of others. Under certain circumstances, therefore, resistance to evil may require coercion and even physical force.

Yet Ilyin is careful not to portray violence as something good in itself. Force remains a tragic necessity rather than a positive moral achievement. The soldier, police officer, judge, or citizen who acts to restrain evil does not escape moral burden simply because his cause is just. The use of force inevitably involves suffering, guilt, and spiritual danger, but it remains – in the face of genuine evil – a moral necessity.

This understanding extends to political authority. Ilyin argues that the state exists in part to restrain evil and preserve the conditions necessary for moral and social life. Courts, police, armies, and other institutions of coercion perform an indispensable function.

A society which renounced all forms of force would not become a realm of universal peace; rather, it would leave itself vulnerable to those without scruples or compassion. The existence of lawful authority is therefore justified not by a desire for domination but by the need to defend justice and protect the innocent.

Themes of conscience, sacrifice, responsibility, and moral burden occupy a central place in Ilyin’s argument. The defender of justice appears not as a triumphant hero but as a tragic figure who accepts painful duties for the sake of protecting others.

On Resistance to Evil by Force is an attempt to grapple with a profound moral dilemma. Ilyin sought to explain how a Christian could remain faithful to the demands of love while acknowledging the existence of genuine evil in the world. His answer was that love sometimes requires resistance and that resistance may sometimes require force. Such force is never pure, never desirable for its own sake, and never free from moral cost. Yet in a fallen world, he believed, a refusal to oppose evil can itself become a form of moral failure.

Thus, far from force never being the answer, in a Fallen World, in which evil is rampant, force is very often the answer.

When faced with real evil, it is refusal to use force which is impermissible. Knowing the intended audience of this essay, I will take it as a given that you already understand that there have been few things in History more evil than the systematic and sustained effort to impose policies and conditions which are ethnocidal, arguably even genocidal, on the English, the other home nations, and all the other peoples of European descent who make up no more than 8% of the world’s population.

It would be evil if done to any of the divinely-ordained separate nations or peoples of humanity. It is doubly so since the targets have, over many centuries, produced the highest expressions of religious and political thought, architecture, music, art, culture, technology, law and decency ever seen on God’s good earth.

We are not merely entitled to defend our people, we are duty-bound and morally compelled to do so, since decades of trying to do so through appeals to reason and fairness have manifestly failed. A poisonous cocktail of greed, ideology, racial hatred, religious bigotry, power-mania and jealousy in an interconnected network of elite groups – together with many failings of our own – has marked our peoples for dispossession, replacement and elimination.

Complaining about the Great Replacement is no longer sufficient. Force is required. The only question is: What sort of force? Politics being in itself a form of warfare, this question can only be answered properly by reference to Just War theory.

We have already seen that there are six principal requirements for a Just War, and understood that they are every bit as applicable to tensions and conflict within nations as well as between them. Let us look briefly at each in turn, and decide whether the threshold has been crossed:

First, there must be a ‘just cause’. We hold it to be self-evident that securing a future for our kinsfolk does indeed qualify.

Second, the war must be declared by a ‘legitimate authority’, typically a recognised government rather than private individuals or groups. Equally clearly, this is not the case. However, taken literally, it would make resistance to the most monstrous and brutal tyranny impossible. A tyrant might be elected, supported by the leaders of the mainstream churches, backed by the whole of the plutocratic media and funded by the richest corporations.

In strictly legal terms, he and his supporters would form the only ‘legitimate authority’, but once his regime starts robbing and oppressing people, is it necessary to wait until it begins torturing them to death, or until one of the bought-and-paid-for bishops finally finds the courage to speak out, before taking steps to end his tyranny? Of course not! And, when the ‘rebellion’ in question fits with the liberal agenda, our masters certainly have no such scruples – just check out the terrorist activities of the Communist bomber Nelson Mandela, and his ‘necklace’-happy wife.

The ‘legitimate authority’ in our case is provided not by the voice of a pope or bishop, or a high-profile political opponent of the regime. As nationalists, we understand that tradition gives voices and moral votes to the dead of our folk, and enfranchises the unborn of the nation too.

Despite decades of deliberate dumbing down and deracination of our education system, despite years of liberal brainwashing, we – and growing millions – know what freedom really means, and which freedoms must never be relinquished.

We know who are ‘our people’, who we are prepared to accept as permanent guests, and who should be on the first plane out. We know the difference between legitimate ‘free enterprise’ and corporate looting. We know the difference between tolerance of the odd and the essentially harmless, and surrender to foul and dangerous perversions.

We know this from what we feel in our own bones, but also by giving due consideration to the writings and example of past heroes of our people’s long struggle against oppression and looting by previous elites every bit as wicked, albeit in somewhat different ways, to that under whose heel our folk suffer in our own time.

The great William Cobbett, for example, wrote in his epic and indispensable Rural Rides:

“The people have (the right) to insist upon measures necessary to restore the greatness and happiness of the country”, and if our rulers “show not that disposition, it will be my bounden duty to endeavour to rive (them) from the possession of power.”

We know, in short, that the time has come for resistance, and we do not need anyone’s permission to organise for resistance and to begin its goodly – and Godly – work.

Third, those waging war must possess ‘right intention’. The aim should be the restoration of peace and justice, not revenge, conquest, or economic gain.

Now, we have to face the truth: There are some among the indigenous would-be resistance who have already been driven mad by the injustice of what has already been done to our people and by the fear of what is yet to come. Repression has already begun the familiar cycle of alienation, hatred, violence and more repression. There are some out there, people who parrot what we say, or preach hatred and impossible ‘solutions’, because such soundbites get them hits and make them money.

The vast majority of people in our wavelength, however, are motivated by completely legitimate grievances and genuine fears and aspirations. ‘Right intention’ is indeed all present and correct.

The road to Hell is, however, paved with good intentions, and even when these conditions are met, it is still not enough. War – and, in internal affairs, physical force short of war – must be a ‘last resort’. It must be undertaken only after peaceful alternatives such as negotiation or diplomacy have been seriously attempted.

Among the alternatives open to a people in legitimate struggle against unjust government, moreover, are various moral force tactics which are not available in the case of clashes between nations.

Do not be confused by that word ‘moral’. Yes, moral force does include rational argument – the works of Thomas Paine, for example, played a major role in the success of the American revolution against King George. It takes in all sorts of things, including appeals to the better nature of the rulers and their enforcers, mass prayer, hunger strikes, having extra babies, and protests which remain peaceful even in the face of brutal provocation and repression.

One of the best examples of this is also in our native tradition of resistance to tyranny. Shelley’s Masque of Anarchy was written in 1819, in direct response to the Peterloo Massacre, where cavalry charged a peaceful crowd demanding parliamentary reform, killing around 18 people and injuring hundreds. It includes a call to passive resistance which predated, for example, Gandhi, by more than a century:

Stand ye calm and resolute,

Like a forest close and mute,

With folded arms and steady eyes,

And little fear, and less surprise,

Look upon them as they slay

Till their rage has passed away.

Then they will return with shame

To the place from which they came,

And the blood thus shed will speak

In hot blushes on their cheek.

Every woman in the land

Will point at them as they stand.

They will hardly dare to greet

Their acquaintance in the street.

And the boldest will turn pale,

When they hear the people tell

Of the meeting, and the rout,

And the trampling, and the shout,

And the cry of “Liberty!”

‘Ye are many—they are few’, the poet concluded, echoing the position of Etienne de Boetie as he sought to galvanise the French against absolute monarchy.

Gilad Atzmon on Athens vs Jerusalem

Gilad Atzmon — jazz musician and “ex-Jew” — makes great posts on his Facebook page. Here’s a recent one:

Athens, Jerusalem and the Genocide
The best way to grasp the dichotomy between Athens and Jerusalem is to understand that Jerusalem has replaced ethics with litigation. Jerusalem is the institutional lack of ethics. It mimics ethics deploying a set of Mitzvoth.
In Jerusalem a genocide is kosher as long as you get away with it. How do they get away with it? They will do whatever it takes. They will dismantle the ICC ability to operate, they will threaten the prosecutors, if needed, they will wipe out The Hague together with the UN.
Athenians fail to grasp Jerusalem until it is too late because Athenians project their own ethics. Humans find it very hard or even impossible to imagine an operation out of the ethical ‘box’. Even the worst criminal tend to sense guilt and empathy.
These two (guilt and empathy), are the exact elementary human features that we don’t find in Jerusalem.
Since the lack of empathy and guilt is widely considered a core and defining feature of psychopathy, we may have to reach the conclusion that we are dealing with a collective psychopathy.
I wish I was original here. Jesus realised it 2000 years ago. The Hebrew Prophets also saw it. The Jewish State is in big trouble right now because the whole of humanity is experiencing this epiphany right now…

The Quiet Operational Architecture Behind U.S.-Israel Integration

21st-Century Wire: The Quiet Operational Architecture Behind U.S.-Israel Integration

Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire

GenXGirl’s recent article, “Backdoor Alliance With Israel,” does a good job of tracing the policy architecture behind the deepening U.S.-Israel security relationship. She correctly identifies how NSPM-12, several legislative vehicles, and Pax Silica are being used together to create pathways for greater integration. Her framing is useful and timely.

What GenXGirl’s piece does not fully develop is the operational layer already in motion beneath those policy instruments. The reporting maps the intent. This article today is the part that moves the story from mapping the policy architecture to showing the operational layer already in motion. It shows how access is already moving through procurement channels, certifications, and existing legal authorities, and how new legislation is being used to make that access harder to reverse.

The evidence does not point to a future architecture waiting to be assembled, but to systems already operating within U.S. federal networks that are now being legally fortified. We can demonstrate that the implementation proof exists and can be mapped.

The legal root was already there

The current debate often begins at the wrong point. It treats the new bills and memoranda as the starting gun, even though the legal foundation predates them by decades. The 1982 General Security of Information Agreement (GSOIA) — effected by exchange of notes in Tel Aviv on July 30 and Jerusalem on December 10, 1982, with an Industrial Security Annex dated March 3, 1983 — already created the bilateral framework for classified exchange between the United States and Israel, including controlled information sharing involving cleared contractors and project agreements. That is not a theory. The old legal spine of the relationship needs to be described in detail if one is to understand what is being implemented today. 

Under the GSOIA framework, Project Agreements can be concluded by designated Executive Agents on each side. On the U.S. side, through the relevant Military Department or Defense Agency, and on the Israeli side, through the Director of International Programs and Cooperation at the Directorate of Defense Research and Development (DDR&D / MAFAT). This means Israeli entities do not require new legislation to receive classified material under a co-production arrangement. They need only a valid Project Agreement under the existing GSOIA. The five bills and NSPM-12 do not create this pathway. They supercharge it.

Our analysis shows that the new legislation is not inventing access from scratch. Instead, it is widening, modernizing, and hardening a channel that already exists. Therefore, the practical question is not whether the United States and Israel can share classified material. They already can. The question is how much further that exchange is being normalized, how many systems are already inside the orbit, and how much discretion is being removed from future reversals.

The operational layer is already inside the machine

The clearest example is Axonius. Founded by three Unit 8200 veterans — Dean Sysman, Ofri Shur, and Avidor Bartov — who met while serving on the same team, the company is already running inside more than 70 federal agencies, including DoD, DHS, Energy, Treasury, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. It passed a Defense Innovation Unit prototype and a Defense Information Systems Agency production pilot for Cyber Asset Inventory Management. The solution met the criteria for success and was approved for DoD-wide use. It is now available under DoD Enterprise Software Initiative Blanket Purchase Agreement N66001-23-A-0050 through DLT Solutions GSA Schedule GS-35F-267DA. Any DoD component can procure it without a separate acquisition action. The platform gives operators unified visibility and control over devices, monitors privileged accounts, detects unsanctioned applications, and supports Zero Trust enforcement across DoD networks.

This is not a minor administrative detail. Asset-management software defines what the network looks like, who is connected, and what can be isolated. Whoever controls that layer controls the map of the machine. Once a vendor is embedded there, the relationship becomes harder to challenge because it is no longer a political abstraction, and it becomes an operational dependency.

CyberArk, founded by Unit 8200 alumnus Udi Mokady, manages privileged credentials on National Security Systems, the highest-value access layer in any classified environment. Privileged access is not a side function. It is the key to the vault. A company that handles it helps determine who gets inside the network, when, and under what authority. CyberArk achieved NIAP Common Criteria certification, explicitly validating its Privileged Access Security Solution meets strict security requirements for U.S. National Security System procurement. Its products are available through multiple federal procurement vehicles.

Check Point completes the perimeter. Also tied to Unit 8200 founders, it holds DoD certifications for enterprise software and has achieved NSA certification under the Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) Program. The program explicitly enables the use of commercial products to protect classified National Security Systems data. Check Point’s firewall and security products are embedded across DoD and allied networks. In January 2026, China’s government banned cybersecurity products from Check Point, CyberArk, Palo Alto Networks, and Fortinet, specifically citing concerns that “data are being sent out” and that these firms have “deep ties to intelligence agencies.

Taken together, Axonius, CyberArk, and Check Point show a pattern that is not incidental. Israeli-intelligence-linked firms are already embedded in the U.S. security stack across monitoring, privilege, and transport. The scale of this presence is documented. As of August 2025, more than 1,400 veterans of Israeli intelligence were working in U.S. tech, with more than 900 from Unit 8200 alone. Microsoft alone employs approximately 250 Unit 8200 alumni. Unit 8200 was also documented to have stored 8,000 terabytes of surveillance data in Microsoft Azure before Microsoft partially severed the relationship in September 2025.


GRAPHICS: The Access Map – From Policy to System

Description: This graphic summarizes the layered access already achieved through validated U.S. procurement and certification channels. It shows how policy instruments connect to deployed companies and federal systems.(Source: Created by Author)

The procurement route is the real story

This is where the story stops being abstract. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) are not ceremonial bodies. In fact, they are the practical gates through which technologies move from pilot to production and then into wider federal use. It was through those channels that Axonius was approved and pulled into the federal environment as a trusted capability.

Once a system passes through DIU or DISA and becomes available through procurement vehicles, it ceases to be a speculative vendor relationship, and the same logic applies to the NSS certification path used by CyberArk and the classified-data certifications associated with Check Point. Look at it as admissions tickets into the most sensitive rooms in the building.

The new laws are reinforcement, not origin

The legislation now moving through Congress does not create the relationship. It formalizes it. Section 224 of the FY2027 NDAA points toward an executive-agent model for synchronizing U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation. The language that requires people’s attention is not the boilerplate, but the reference to “network integration” and “data fusion.” That is not ordinary diplomacy. We are looking at an architecture of technical merging.

Quincy Institute analyst Ben Freeman understood the implication immediately. The provision creates a path where U.S. military data could become Israeli military data. That does not mean the transfer is automatically total tomorrow morning. It means the statute builds the administrative skeleton to make such a transfer appear increasingly normal, increasingly defended, and increasingly difficult to reverse once the structure is in place.

Section 622 of the FY2027 Intelligence Authorization Act is the same kind of move in a different domain. It is designed to make intelligence sharing with Israel a default condition, while limiting the president’s ability to suspend it without specific findings and notice to Congress. Suspension would require a positive presidential finding of a specific, identifiable national security concern, followed by a 15-day advance congressional notification covering the categories withheld and an anticipated regional security impact assessment. As analyzed by ICBRIEF, this “renders the presidential carve-out functionally inert” because organized opposition to any suspension is built into the procedural requirement. In my book, this is not a trivial procedural tweak, but a lock. It takes a policy that could be managed discretionarily and pushes it toward a statutory default that is much harder to unwind.

And the timing holds importance too. The DIA reportedly raised Israel’s counterintelligence threat level to “critical” at the same moment this legislative lock was being discussed. That is the contradiction at the center of the story. The U.S. intelligence apparatus is reportedly warning about the threat while Congress is moving to harden the channels anyway. Go figure!

Fort Foundry One and the dual-use problem

The personnel map and bilateral agreements add another layer. On January 16, 2026, the U.S. and Israel signed a Memorandum of Understanding for “Fort Foundry One”, a 16,000-dunam technology park in the Negev or Gaza border area. Signed by Brig.-Gen. (Res.) Erez Eskel, head of Israel’s National AI Directorate, and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, the MOU grants the U.S. a 99-year lease while day-to-day management and primary investment remain American, with U.S. and Israeli technology companies operating side by side on chip production, advanced computing, and AI development. The MOU provides for “expedited regulation” with licensing and permits capped at 120 days. It also raises the possibility of a U.S.-regulated nuclear power plant to supply the energy demands of AI data centers.

Israel was the first country to sign a bilateral agreement under the Pax Silica framework. The Fort Foundry One MOU itself states it “creates no legal rights or obligations”, standard MOU language, but it establishes the political commitment and operational framework, with implementing legislation and project agreements to follow. Given that the semiconductor and AI technologies being developed there feed directly into NSPM-12-governed NSS domains, and that NSPM-12 explicitly enables NSA agreements with foreign governments for security material, the park creates an environment where the line between civilian AI R&D and classified technology transfer is structurally blurred.

The personnel map tells the same story

The people involved are not random. They are the connective tissue. Jacob Helberg, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, sits at the State Department point of contact for the Pax Silica and Fort Foundry One ecosystem. Brig.-Gen. (Res.) Erez Eskel, Head of Israel’s National AI Directorate, anchors the Israeli AI side of that arrangement. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is driving the intelligence-sharing push. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is carrying the House defense integration language. Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) are advancing the broader defense partnership bill. The pattern is not of one-off initiatives, but of a coordinated institutional push.

David Friedman at NSO Group adds a separate but relevant layer. In November 2025, NSO Group, maker of the Pegasus spyware, appointed David Friedman, Trump’s former Ambassador to Israel (2017–2021), as Executive Chairman, simultaneously announcing that a group of American investors had taken controlling ownership. NSO retained the Vogel Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to the Trump administration. In December 2025, the Trump administration separately lifted sanctions against three executives tied to the Intellexa spyware consortium. The Commerce Department Entity List blacklisting of NSO remains nominally in place as of mid-2026. However, NSO executives have themselves downplayed its practical significance. Under NSPM-12, the NSA Director’s authority to certify tools for NSS use, combined with the bills’ push to integrate Israeli-origin cybersecurity technology, creates the procedural pathway for Pegasus-class tools to receive NSS accreditation, the Entity List notwithstanding, if the NSA Director makes a national security determination and the NSC concurs.


GRAPHIC: The Personnel Map – Who Enables the System

Description: This graphic shows the individuals, institutions, and companies driving the integration. It maps how key officials connect to agencies and companies, and how those connections feed into operational functions. (Source: Created by Author)

Section 622 is where the floor drops. On paper, it’s another intelligence‑sharing clause. In practice, it plants the flag on one simple idea, in which information moves to Israel as a matter of course. Interrupting that flow becomes the abnormal act, the thing that needs explanations and paperwork and a president willing to spend political capital.

The delicate part of any intelligence partnership isn’t what leaders say into microphones. It’s whatever moves on autopilot, the cables and feeds that no longer trigger a debate before they go out. Section 622 pushes this relationship into that zone.

Once it’s written that way, the burden flips onto whoever wants to close the valve. You are no longer continuing a cautious norm. You are “disrupting” a statutory default. You have to sign your name to that and walk into a fight.

All of this is happening while the Defence Intelligence Agency is reportedly flagging Israel as a “critical” counterintelligence threat. So the machinery is being told, in effect, to keep the pipe open at the same moment the warning lights are flashing red.

The data-fusion clause is the deep cut. Section 224 is where the article’s missing depth becomes most visible. The words “network integration” and “data fusion” are not decorative. They are the textual hinge on which deeper interoperability can be built. That is why the Quincy Institute warning matters. If military systems are integrated at the network and data layers, the boundary between allied cooperation and foreign visibility starts to erode.

This is the point readers need to understand. The statute does not have to explicitly say “give Israel your data” for the result to move in that direction. It only needs to build the legal and administrative conditions in which such access becomes routine, defensible, and normalized. That is what real operational capture looks like. Not a dramatic seizure, but a controlled, lawful, and increasingly permanent embedding.

The authorization test

The crucial test is whether any of these instruments actually authorize the access being implied. The answer is yes, but only partially and in layers. The 1982 GSOIA authorizes bilateral classified exchange under controlled procedures. NSPM-12 authorizes foreign-government technical-security agreements within the National Security System framework, though it does not grant a free pass. Section 224 and Section 622 do not prove that all implied access is already fully open, but they do create a stronger legal basis for broadening it and making it stick.

At this stage, it would be wrong to claim that every implied channel is already wide open in its maximum form. It would be equally wrong to pretend this is merely a future risk. The better reading is sharper. The access already exists in operational form, and the new law is being used to widen, normalise, and legally fortify it.

Why the original article needed this layer

GenXGirl’s reporting identifies in great detail the political convergence. This article is not meant to be better. Its aim is to add the missing implementation proof that is so much needed. It shows where the access already lives, how it entered through procurement and certification, which laws already authorize parts of the exchange, and which new clauses are now being used to lock the structure in place.

As I understand it, and what the evidence shows, is that the story is not only about a future architecture being assembled in Congress, but about a current architecture already embedded in U.S. systems, now being hardened through law.

The operational capture is not complete. NTIB inclusion is under review, Section 622 and Section 224 are pending final passage, and NSO remains on the Entity List. But the monitoring and privileged access layers are already deployed. The intelligence statutory lock is moving through Congress on a bipartisan basis. The legal and procurement infrastructure to expand it is being constructed in parallel. The story here isn’t just a future architecture under construction. We are witnessing a live deployment, and Congress is busy bolting the doors around it.

German Feminist Activist Calls For White People To Stop Having Children And Accept Refugees

German Feminist Activist Calls For White People To Stop Having Children And Accept Refugees

Germany’s Verena Brunschweiger, a self-described “radical feminist,” is promoting the slogan: “My lineage ends with me.” She says she hopes to encourage people, especially White people, to stop having children.

She claims that Western pro-natalists only want to “control women, and keep refugees out.”

The article on her views, from Australian broadcaster news.com.au, is entitled: “‘My bloodline ends with me’: Why feminist ‘childfree icon’ wants fewer ‘white babies’ and more refugees”

The report quoted her as saying: “We have a proud slogan, ‘My bloodline ends with me.’ I think this is a responsible choice.”

Brunschweiger said that Europeans are to blame for the poor quality of life in Africa, and she would invite the entire world to Europe.

“So I would take all immigrants and refugees in because we ruined the world, so to speak.”

“We produce the climate change which makes life in Africa, for instance, miserable and horrible. So of course, why not invite [them] if they want to come?”

She said that in her home country, “populist nonsense” is being promoted by the German party Alternative for Germany (AfD).

She claimed the party wants Germans to have more babies so “they can say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, dear refugees, go back and drown or die or starve or whatever, because we have so many of our own people and we have to care for them first.”

“They say we need our own kids because German white kids are better than other kids who immigrate into the country,” she added.

“All the white people go, ‘Wouldn’t it be so horrible if we lost the white people, the white majority?’ They always want white women to have more babies to in order to be able to say, ‘Oh, stay the way we are, we are already full,’” she added.

She says Western countries have a moral duty to accept refugees.

“Because we produce all the climate change and all those things which make them leave [their] country,” she said.

Despite immigrants producing children at a much higher rate than White people, especially African migrants, she dismisses any argument against restricting immigration.

She said that she “of course” targets Whites specifically to stop having children.

“My focus, and that’s what drives the AfD nuts, is we have to cut back our numbers,” she said.

Read more here…

Douglas MacGregor on Judge Nap: “Well, it’s good to know that our Jews are talking to their Jews…”

Douglas MacGregor: Well, it’s good to know that our Jews are talking to their Jews and their Jews are talking to our Jews and the Jews have decided they don’t like each other. I suppose I find the whole thing reprehensible. I don’t even want to talk about it. I’m disgusted. I’m tired of listening to people talk about Jews instead of talking about Americans and American diplomats and American governmental officials and an American president.

Transcript

Napolitano:  I’m going to ask you in a minute uh your opinions on whether Prime Minister Netanyahu uh will engage in the systematic sabotage of the memorandum of understanding. But before I ask and obviously before you reply, I want to run a clip from uh Jake Tapper. Now, Jake, whom I’ve known for years, I believe to be intellectually honest, is paraphrasing a tape from a transcript that he verifies as a call between President Trump and Prime Minister uh Netanyahu. It’s pretty graphic. Chris, cut number one.

Trump told Netanyahu he was sick of his antics. “I’ve done everything to protect you. You better go along with this. Everybody’s sick of you, BB,” Trump said. All the Jews are sick of you. Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you,” Trump added, referring to Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff. “You can’t back out of this,” Trump ticked through the list of controversial decisions he had made supporting Israel through both of his presidencies.

Now, does that in your view manifest a serious effort to make the MOU work or just performative by the president?

MacGregor: Well, it’s good to know that our Jews are talking to their Jews and their Jews are talking to our Jews and the Jews have decided they don’t like each other. I suppose I find the whole thing reprehensible. I don’t even want to talk about it. I’m disgusted. I’m tired of listening to people talk about Jews instead of talking about Americans and American diplomats and American governmental officials and an American president. Okay, I got that off my chest. It’s early. All right, this that’s Go ahead, please. I’m just sort of sick of that now. Is this real? Yeah, it probably is real. But what difference does it make? How much freedom of maneuver does President Trump really have? What have they got on him? Is he under duress? I think he’s under duress. This man never wanted to go to war with Iran to begin with, as far as I can tell. That was certainly the case 5 years ago. So what made him do it to begin with? And then once he got into it and he figured out this was a catastrophe, the Israelis and their agents in the United States wanted him to continue to bomb and bomb and bomb. You know, bomb your way to success. Kill your way to success. Just keep bombing. You know, the old Air Force argument. Well, drop some more bombs. Eventually, it’ll work. He rejected that to his credit. That’s a good thing. He went along with this although he hates it because he knows he’s effectively admitting that, you know, we lost militarily. But you know I think it’s probably real but again what difference does it make? The only way out of this is a military solution and that military solution is not to attack; it’s to disengage which is why I wrote the piece I did on the Substack. …

Judge: Will Netanyahu do his best to sabotage the MOU because he can’t stay in power and probably can’t even stay a free man if he doesn’t have a war to fight.

Oh, I’m sure that’s true. But I also don’t see any evidence that he or the people around him are prepared to stop any of it. I think they’re clinging to the notion that if they can keep this going long enough, they will somehow or another be victorious. And I don’t think that’s going to change. So the answer to your question is President or or Mr. Netanyahu will do everything in his power to sabotage any agreement whatsoever with Iran. And unfortunately, I think that President Trump is being duplicitous because on the one hand, it’s clear that he does want to disengage and he would like to find a way out of this. But at the same time, he’s got the CIA, MI6, and Mossad working out to drag Syria’s head chopping brigade into the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. and he’s actually given the green light to the sale for $700 million of jet engines to the Turks that they’re going to put in their new jet fighter, the Khan. So, it looks like we’re trying to bribe the Turks to turn their gaze away from Lebanon, and allow us access to the Arabs they control in uh Syria, the head choppers, and move them over to fight Hezbollah. Uh, this doesn’t sound like a man who’s trying to disengage and restore stability, does it?

 

Dred SCOTUS: This is more embarrassing than Roberts’s Obamacare decision.

Obviously, the Supreme Court’s ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!)

Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights.

1) Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis’s dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy’s dissent in Korematsu. (It’s also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance of “domicile.”)

By contrast, Roberts’s opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders.

2) I’m sorry to mention that Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O’Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution?

3) Thomas’s central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that Black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court.

Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass’s plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.”

In response to Thomas’s manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.”

3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point.

This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today’s decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”)

It’s as if Roberts didn’t realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens.

5) Roberts’s weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

Wow, great quote. But one thing Roberts neglects to mention—it falls to Thomas to do so—is that the child’s claim to American citizenship was then promptly denied by Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, who proclaimed Heinrich “an Austrian subject …not an American citizen.”

6) Alito’s dissent includes a lengthy description of the border states’ many attempts to deal with the crisis of illegal immigration, but being repeatedly thwarted by the federal government—including the Supreme Court, “from the comfort of chambers more than 1,000 miles from the southern border.”

Here’s one I did not know from the Biden years: After Border Patrol officers ripped down the barbed wire fencing Texas had erected on the border, “federal officers installed a climbing rope on the Texas side of the river.”

A climbing rope for illegals!

7) Alito demolishes Roberts’s argument that “the British rule of birthright subjecthood” was, with minor exceptions, “transplanted intact to American soil.” As indicated by the devastating phrase “birthright subjecthood,” the British rule did not concern “citizenship” at all:

“There was no such thing as a ‘citizen’ of England, Scotland or Ireland. The inhabitants of the British Isles were the King’s ‘subjects’ [and his] authority was understood to come from God. … The Declaration of Independence emphatically rejected the British theory of government. It proclaimed that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,’ not divine right.”

As Alito says, how ironic that Roberts makes this profoundly ahistorical claim only days before we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration.

It’s one thing for Roberts to forget the Civil War. Liberals do that all the time, quickly turning the 14th Amendment into an instrument for the advancement of gays, immigrants, lesbians, the disabled, etc. —wait, what were you saying about slavery? But to forget the American Revolution sounds more like galloping Alzheimer’s.

In light of the court’s majority opinion requiring the country to commit suicide, how about we agree to take all of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East in exchange for deporting Roberts?

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTE