[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] American Tribe That Once Owned Land Under Singer Billie Eilish’s Mansion Sends a Stinging Message to Her After She Claims "No One is Illegal on Stolen Land" that an indian tribe originally stole in the first place 3,500 years ago
Eilish’s comments were brutally mocked on social media by conservatives, who called on her to return her property to the Native Americans or to house illegal aliens.
After winning "Song of the Year,", she committed a brutal self-own in her victory speech by stating "No one is illegal on stolen land" before going on bash immigration enforcement.
"We need to keep fighting and speaking up," she added. "Our voices do matter." "F**k ICE."
Now, The Daily Mail has revealed that the Tongva tribe confirmed that Eilish’s mansion does indeed sit on their supposed "ancestral land."
"Eilish has not contacted our tribe directly regarding her property, we do value the instance when public figures provide visibility to the true history of this country," a spokesperson for the tribe told the Daily Mail. What piqued my interest nothing thieves blaming thieves. The Tongva "tribes" 3,500 stole that land from the earlier Hokan-speaking inhabitants ("Population replacement on the Southern Channel Islands: New evidence from San Nicolas Island").
Let's talk about the opening part of this statement: "nobody is illegal on stolen land." We can break it down, but we should also know what it is. What we are looking at is Chinese-style political sloganeering called "tifa" (提法).
#12
I made popcorn for this, it's been fun to watch the fall out from her comments. Maybe, just maybe, it'll teach some other so called 'celebrity' to keep their mouths shut.
Jews argue. Sometimes they take the other side, not because they believe it, but just to see what they’ll discover there. I think in this case both sides are right. But why should anyone else care if the Jews spend their own money to do Jewish things more Jewishly? No one else is involved, no one else is impacted.
[JTA] In a speech that described antisemites as an "axis of the perfidious, the despotic, the hypocritical, the cynical, the deranged and the incurably stupid," Bret Stephens asserted that supporters of the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish defense groups should largely abandon their current strategy for combating antisemitism and instead redirect their resources toward strengthening Jewish life itself.
Stephens, the conservative New York Times columnist and founder of the Jewish thought journal Sapir, said antisemitism is largely impervious to appeals to tolerance, reminders of Jewish and Israeli accomplishments, or mandatory Holocaust education.
Instead, he called for large-scale investment in Jewish day schools, cultural institutions, philanthropy, media, publishing and religious leadership, arguing that the infrastructure already exists but lacks sufficient scale and coordination.
"What we call the fight against antisemitism, which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy and has become an organizing principle across Jewish organizations, is a well-meaning, but mostly wasted effort," Stephens said, delivering the annual "State of World Jewry" address at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan on Sunday. "We should spend the money and focus our energy elsewhere."
ملخص للخارطة الأمنية في الساحل الأفريقي لعام 2026، مصنفة حسب "مصدر الخطر" و"نطاق التوسع":
1. دول المركز (بؤرة اللهب) وهي الدول المصدرة للاضطراب والتي تشهد "صراع وجود": - مالي، بوركينا فاسو، النيجر: الوضع في 2026: تحول النشاط من "حرب عصابات" في الأطراف إلى "حصار العواصم"… pic.twitter.com/v9JDvDrYkp
— عمر الأنصاري | Oumar Alansari (@Oumar_Alansari) February 3, 2026
Translated Text:
Summary of the 2026 Security Map in the African Sahel, classified by "Source of Threat" and "Scope of Expansion":
1. Core Countries (Hotbed)
These are the countries exporting instability and witnessing an "existential conflict":
- Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger: Situation in 2026: Shift of activity from "guerrilla warfare" in the peripheries to "siege of capitals" and targeting sovereign facilities (airports and bases).
- Key Feature: Loss of control over vast border areas, and full integration between jihadist groups and smuggling networks.
2. "Contagion" Countries (Expansion Zones)
These are the countries to which the threat has spread this year as a result of pressure or security vacuums: Libya (Northern Front): It is currently the weakest link and the most affected.
- Threat: Return of the South (Fezzan) to become a "rear base" and supply line for groups in Niger and Mali, with monitoring of attempts to control border crossings to ensure the flow of weapons and fuel.
- Benin and Togo (Southern Front):
- Threat: Subject to ongoing incursions in their northern regions aimed at reaching the ports of the Gulf of Guinea.
Summary: The 2026 map is a "breakout" map, as armed groups strike northward (toward Libya) for arming, and southward (toward the coasts) for funding.
في الساحل الإفريقي تقاتل د١عس هناك منذ 2015 والقـ١عدة منذ 2012
ما قبل الانقلابات التي شهدها الساحل 2022 بدعم روسي
كانتا تقاتلان الحكومات المدعومة من فرنسا والنفوذ الغربي هناك عموما
فمن العبط أن تدعي أن فرنسا هي من تحركهما الان لضرب النفوذ الروسي لأن القتال مستمر منذ 2012 اصلا pic.twitter.com/e2Wg2R8oFa
On the African Sahel coast, Daesh has been fighting there since 2015 and Al-Qaeda since 2012
Before the coups that the Sahel witnessed in 2022 with Russian support
They were fighting the governments backed by France and the Western influence there in general
So it's absurd to claim that France is the one moving them now to strike the Russian influence, because the fighting has been ongoing since 2012 anyway
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mikhail Moshkin and Dmitry Gubin
[REGNUM] For the first time in half a century, the world may face a lack of mandatory restrictions on the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States, as stated by the UN leadership on January 3.
The fate of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is in serious doubt. All that remains is to remember the era when the system of nuclear checks and balances wasn't destroyed by the Americans.
But there was a time when Washington played by the rules.
On February 3, 1994, a decision was made in Kyiv that – as it seemed at the time – would make the post-Soviet space more secure.
The Verkhovna Rada ratified two documents. The first was the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (now known as START I), which was concluded as a bilateral agreement between the United States and the USSR back in 1991. The second document was the Lisbon Protocol, an amendment to START I that formalized the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
By approving the treaty and protocol, Ukraine joined the "club" of post-Soviet republics that have given their approval to renounce their status as nuclear powers and to remove to Russia their nuclear arsenals, which remained after the collapse of the USSR.
The world breathed a sigh of relief – the danger of uncontrolled “spread” of warheads across the planet was partially removed.
"A PICTURE OF FUTURE NUCLEAR CHAOS"
Journalists following the debates in the Verkhovna Rada (which the Russian press at the time referred to literally as the Supreme Council) reported that the vote was preceded by two weeks of heated parliamentary debate. This was still a novelty at the time.
But the first president, Leonid Kravchuk, managed to push through the necessary decision.
"The coordinated actions of the president and ministers who spoke at the session played a role: each speech added dark colors to the sad picture of future nuclear chaos in the country and Ukraine's isolation on the international stage," Kommersant reported from Kiev.
32 years later, the details of the discussion in the Rada sound like something from a parallel reality.
President Kravchuk cited the conclusion of Russian nuclear safety experts: the continued presence of nuclear warheads in Ukraine, if used improperly, threatens unpredictable consequences.
At the same time, then-Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko warned that if Kyiv did not renounce its nuclear weapons in favor of Russia, Western economic aid to Ukraine would be jeopardized. The young republic, Zlenko warned, would be on the brink of international isolation.
Nationally conscious elements who demanded that the nuclear shield be retained as a means of putting pressure on the "Muscovites" (their opinion was defended by recent dissidents, and in 1994 by Rada deputies Stepan Khmara and Levko Lukyanenko ) found themselves in the minority.
The call of another fighter for "independence" was also not heard: in 1994, the head of the Lviv regional council, Vyacheslav Chornovol, who proposed at least negotiating with Washington and Moscow about preserving Ukraine's nuclear status.
The people's deputies voted "as they should."
Perhaps the speech in the Rada by Ukrainian Defense Minister Vitaly Radetsky, who threatened a "second Chernobyl," played a role. But in reality, the final say rested with Washington. And Democrat Bill Clinton, like his Republican predecessor, Bush Sr., clearly did not want to see Ukraine become a nuclear power.
So to understand the context, we need to go back to the time of the elder Bush, in 1991.
WHAT DID START I MEAN?
On July 31, three weeks before the State Emergency Committee putsch and five months before the Belovezh Accords, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and his American counterpart George W. Bush signed the START treaty in Moscow.
The parties took on the following obligations: to have in their nuclear triad (land, sea, air basing) no more than 1,600 strategic carriers of nuclear weapons - missiles and bombers - and no more than six thousand warheads on these carriers.
In particular, Russia, the successor to the USSR, halved its arsenal of one of the main "arguments" in the Cold War, in compliance with START I. This involved the R-36M2 Voevoda heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (NATO designation: Satan SS-18), assembled at Yuzhmash in Dnipropetrovsk.
START I introduced a ban on the possession of air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs) and orbital rockets.
Thus, the latest Soviet developments were scrapped. For example, the Krechet-R missiles (which could be carried by the Tu-160K bomber) and the R-36orb orbital warhead missiles.
The movement of mobile missile launchers was limited to certain areas with clearly defined coordinates.
It was assumed that the USSR and the USA would “comprehensively exchange” data on the state of their nuclear arsenals, which included inspections and surveys of military-industrial complex enterprises.
For example, the United States expressed interest in the Votkinsk plant in Udmurtia, which is responsible, among other things, for the production of Topol-M missiles. In exchange, the Americans provided access to a facility in Utah where Peacekeeper ballistic missiles and mobile launchers were assembled.
START I remained in effect until 2009. The American side approached its implementation rather cunningly, as our Foreign Ministry recorded in 2001.
The warheads and second stages of the missiles were not destroyed, but stored.
Only the first stages of the MX intercontinental ballistas were disposed of (supposedly this was sufficient), and submarine-launch telemetry was not fully transmitted. And the separate plant in Utah, which our inspectors could have visited, was shut down by the Americans. Washington clearly interpreted START I to its advantage.
But by the time Gorbachev and Bush signed the treaty in the summer of 1991, the Soviet Union could no longer sustain the arms race. Moreover, the "new thinking" and the policy of détente implied utmost trust in their American partners.
The United States, meanwhile, could celebrate victory in the Cold War, the "end of history," and the beginning of planetary dominance. But another consequence of this geopolitical victory—the disintegration of the USSR into 15 "young democracies"—somewhat complicated the American game.
CHICKEN KIEV IS NOT TO THE TASTE OF NATIONALISTS
On the day of the signing of START I, July 31, 1991, Bush Sr. (who arrived in Moscow with his wife, Barbara ) met informally with Mikhail Sergeyevich and Raisa Maksimovna in Novo-Ogaryovo, near Moscow. At the time, the US President assured them that the collapse of the USSR was not in American interests.
Signals had previously been sent to Moscow from overseas, saying that Pentagon chief Dick Cheney (who became vice president under George W. Bush), but not the US president, was in favor of dismembering the “evil empire.”
Confirming his desire to see the Union united, Bush emphasized that on August 1 he would travel to Kyiv, where he would dissuade the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR from declaring independence.
In fact, the US President went to support Leonid Kravchuk, at that time the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Central Committee of the CPSU.
Kravchuk was considered a moderate reformer. At the time, he advocated for Ukrainian independence, but within the framework of a "renewed" Union, with a weakened but still in-control Moscow center.
It was precisely this option that seemed to suit the US administration in the summer of 1991: the Soviet Union admitted defeat in the battle with America, but at the same time, 1/6 of the land would not be transformed into a “greater Yugoslavia.”
Immediately upon arriving in Kyiv, the overseas guest delivered a speech in the Verkhovna Rada that was categorically disliked by both the Ukrainian political establishment and Republican Party hawks like Cheney.
A pillar of American journalism, Pulitzer Prize winner and Nixon's speechwriter, the editor-in-chief of The New York Times, William Safire, condemned the president, calling his speech a "Chicken Kiev speech" (here a play on words: Chicken Kiev is a "chicken Kiev", and chicken, "chicken", can also be translated as "cowardly").
Twenty-three days before Ukraine declared independence, the US President stated the following verbatim in Kyiv: "Americans will not support those who seek independence to replace distant tyranny with local despotism. They will not assist those who promote a suicidal nationalism based on ethnic hatred."
Prophetic and true words, but behind them lay a practical calculation: better a weakened but predictable Gorbachev with Soviet nuclear weapons than a chaotic but aggressive nation-state with a nuclear arsenal.
For this, he was awarded by the Kiev “political establishment” approximately the same thing that Donald Trump now receives (at certain moments) – the title of almost an agent of the Kremlin.
" Bush came here... as Gorbachev's mouthpiece. He sounded less radical than our own communist politicians on issues of Ukraine's sovereignty," said Ivan Drach, leader of the People's Movement party.
He also suggested that Gorbachev hypnotized his colleague.
"Why didn't he call on Kuwait to sign an alliance treaty with Iraq?" quipped Stepan Pavlyuk, a prominent ethnic policy expert from Lviv.
HALF-LIFE OF A NON-PEACEFUL ATOM
But after August 1991, not without the participation of the winner of the State Emergency Committee and the “party bureaucrats” Boris Yeltsin, the centrifugal processes accelerated.
The prominent party member, Comrade Kravchuk, found himself in the role of the founding father of Ukrainian statehood and one of the gravediggers of the Soviet Union in Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
The USSR never managed to ratify START I before its collapse. Its implementation took place under different historical circumstances. In December 1991, the world nuclear club was joined by four new members: Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.
The Russian Federation was recognized as the legal successor to the USSR and all its obligations, including START I.
But “it was unclear whether the nuclear arsenals in the territories of three countries” —Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine—were covered by the Treaty, notes Olga Alexandria, associate professor at the Faculty of World Politics at Moscow State University, in a paper dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Lisbon Protocol.
While there were no particular problems with Minsk and Alma-Ata from the very beginning, they arose with Kiev, although at first nothing foreshadowed trouble.
On October 24, 1991, when the Soviet Union had not yet been dissolved, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a statement "On Nuclear-Free Status," which declared the presence of nuclear weapons on this territory to be temporary.
It is clear that it was not without Washington's influence that Kyiv declared that Ukraine recognizes the START and wishes to subsequently join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear state.
However, a caveat was made: “Ukraine insists on its right to control the non-use of nuclear weapons located on its territory.”
During the dissolution of the USSR, the Agreement on Joint Measures Regarding Nuclear Weapons of December 21, 1991, was signed in Alma-Ata. In addition to general provisions, it addresses "the transfer of nuclear weapons from the territories of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to the territory of the RSFSR for the purpose of their destruction."
Negotiations began on how to handle the removal of warheads. While all tactical weapons stockpiles had been removed to Russia by the spring of 1992, strategic weapons required a separate document to document their removal.
This was the Lisbon Protocol of May 23, 1992, signed by the heads of the Foreign Ministries of the post-Soviet states and the US State Department.
It speaks of the responsibility of states until Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan become completely nuclear-free and sign the non-proliferation treaty to that effect.
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT OUT, YOU CAN LEAVE IT
Boris Yeltsin, then-Belarusian leader Stanislav Shushkevich, and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev ratified the treaty, along with the Lisbon Protocol, promptly and without delay. But Kyiv, led by Kravchuk, decided to negotiate and obtain a profit, preferably in hard currency, for the removal of the strategic missiles.
The Ukrainian government estimated compensation for nuclear-free status at $2.8 billion (the US initially agreed to $175 million) and demanded security guarantees from all powers officially possessing nuclear weapons.
That is, not only from the signatories of the START and the Lisbon Protocol, but also from France, Great Britain and China.
And while the debates continued in the Verkhovna Rada, the world was unsure how to deal with this rogue country. During this time, Bush was replaced by Clinton, but a decision had to be made no matter what. Meanwhile, in Kyiv, they either wanted to discuss the matter in detail, or demanded another security agreement, or even cited the constitutional crisis to avoid making a decision.
Some figures tried to link the ratification of the treaty with the resolution of the issue of dividing the Black Sea Fleet.
The amount of compensation was also discussed in the hope that the Democrats would not be as greedy as the Republicans: similar to how in today's Kyiv they are expecting the Trumpists to lose the congressional elections.
On November 18, 1993, while Moscow was recovering from the "second coup," the Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv appeared to approve START I, but in a highly unusual form. Nuclear weapons were to be reduced, but "gradually" and incrementally, retaining 36% of delivery vehicles and 42% of warheads. The Lisbon Protocol was to be signed, but without the clause on joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In Moscow and, more importantly at the time, in Washington, this "read it here, don't read it here" attitude was not appreciated. Kravchuk proved more understanding, and in January 1994, he signed the Trilateral Agreement with Clinton and Yeltsin. According to it, nuclear weapons were to be removed from Ukraine immediately, not "sometime later."
And so, on February 3, the corresponding decision passed through the Rada, and on November 16, 1994, it ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (301 votes “for”, 8 “against”).
THERE WILL BE NO BOMB - GUARANTEED
Ukraine, which was then already led by Leonid Kuchma, demanded “security guarantees” as it does now.
It was then, on December 5, 1994, that the famous Budapest Memorandum was adopted. In exchange for Kuchma's declaration of non-nuclear status, Clinton, Yeltsin, and British Prime Minister John Major declared their respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and renounced the use of nuclear weapons against it.
His Budapest paragraphs implied that Washington, London and Moscow were consulting with each other.
But the memorandum did not say how Ukraine would behave in this regard and what would happen to it if it did not comply with the obligations it had undertaken.
Since the early 2000s, as Russia's real sovereignty was restored, the United States—in order to maintain its status as the Cold War's victor and hegemon—has embarked on a course of dismantling the system of nuclear treaty restraints. The process, which began with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, logically culminated in the current "death" of the New START agreement.
As for the Budapest promises made to Ukraine, when it lost its legitimate power in 2014 and embarked on a course of ethnic cleansing and war with Russia, the validity of the memorandum became more than questionable.
For the territorial integrity of the country has become meaningless under such conditions if human life, language and religious beliefs are considered valuable.
In 2015, acting president Oleksandr Turchynov regretted that Ukraine had become nuclear-free.
On February 19, 2022, in Munich, Volodymyr Zelenskyy threatened to invalidate the memorandum and demanded consultations in accordance with it: "Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working, and all the package of decisions from 1994 are called into question."
The emerging prospect of "renuclearization" of the aggressive Kyiv regime became one of the decisive factors in the launch of the Russian Armed Forces' special military operation. Today's Europe—unlike in the mid-1990s—seems not to fear military and political chaos in Ukraine.
The potential return of Democrats to the US Congress in 2026 and the White House in 2028 promises to open a new supply line to Kyiv (if we recall the times of Joe Biden ).
But even if we assume that the West will bet on restoring Ukraine's nuclear fist, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the situation: the last nuclear charge was removed from its territory on May 21, 1996, and by January 2002, not a single strategic bomber remained there.
Russia will definitely not allow nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
[ZERO] January 2026 marks a rupture. It is no longer possible to treat the Epstein case as a sexual scandal involving powerful individuals. What has now come to light — documents, images, records, explicit connections — has pushed the debate to another level. This is no longer about "abuses," "excesses," or "individual crimes." What has been exposed points to systematic, organized, ritualized practices. And that changes everything.
For years, the public was conditioned to accept a narrative of ambiguity. There were always doubts, always a lack of "definitive proof," always a call for caution. That time is over. The material released leaves no room for ingenuousness. When evidence emerges of extreme violence against children, of practices that go beyond any conventional criminal category, the discussion ceases to be legal and becomes civilizational.
What is at stake is no longer who "visited the island" or who "caught a ride on Epstein’s plane." What is at stake is the fact that networks of this kind only exist when they are backed by deep institutional protection. There is no ritual pedophilia, no human trafficking on a transnational scale, no systematic production of extreme material without political, police, judicial, and media cover. This is not conspiracy: it is the logic of power.
From this point on, the West can no longer hide behind the idea of gradual decline. It is not merely cultural degeneration or a loss of values.
It is something darker: an elite that operates outside any recognizable moral limits and yet continues to govern. People directly or indirectly involved with this world continue to decide elections, wars, economic policies, and the fate of entire societies.
Another decisive element is that we still do not know who is behind the leak. This uncertainty is central. It may be a move by Donald Trump or by sectors aligned with him, attempting to definitively destroy their internal enemies and reorganize power in the United States in a minimally positive direction. It may be the opposite: a controlled release of material intended to pressure Trump into serving the interests of the Democrats and the Deep State.
And the uncomfortable truth, impossible to ignore, is that all of this may still be part of an even deeper and more macabre plan by the Deep State — encompassing both Democrats and Republicans — to "resolve the Epstein issue" through a brutal campaign of collective desensitization, "normalizing" in public opinion the idea that the Western elite is composed of pedophiles, satanists, and cannibals.
This reinforces a critical point: the truth only came out because it stopped being useful to keep it hidden.
For decades, all of this was known behind the scenes. The silence was not the result of investigative failure, but of a high-level decision.
The press stayed silent. The agencies stayed silent. The courts stayed silent.
The system worked exactly as it was supposed to, all in order to protect itself.
Western societies now face a dilemma that cannot be resolved through elections, parliamentary commissions, or encouraging speeches. How can one continue to accept the authority of institutions that shielded this level of horror? How can respect be maintained for laws applied selectively by people who live above them? How can one speak of "Western values" after this?
The problem is that the modern West has forgotten how to react to anything that is vile and essentially evil. In Western societies, the people no longer know how to deal with absolute evil — especially when it is located at the top of society. Everything becomes procedure, everything becomes mediation, everything becomes technical language. Meanwhile, social trust evaporates.
This is no longer about left and right, liberalism and conservatism. It is about a rupture between people and elites.
Between societies that still retain some sense of limits and a ruling class that operates as if it were outside the common human species.
#1
Interesting to see people turn on these folks in a similar was to how the turned on Weinstein or how they “discovered” that Joe Biden was senile. Everybody knew. If you didn’t know, it was because you didn’t want to know, but you actually knew.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/04/2026 5:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The problem is that the modern West has forgotten how to react to anything that is vile and essentially evil.
Is the author referring to the decades long slaying of the unborn? Or could it be the medical community and health care provider's rush to provide operating room solutions for alleged cases of gender dysphoria? Or is it perhaps euthanasia of the elderly and no longer productive ?
#3
Historical Note:
Time and time again in history it has been shown and repeated.
Once the Elite Class control the media, the so-called elected leaders and the judges they appoint to the courts. They will do as they please.
Historically.
As the citizenry becomes fed-up, the radicals and various political movements start to appear. As they do. The Elite will use the existence of those uncontrolled political groups demanding laws and social normality be enforced, as an excuse to clamp down on everyone's rights. The uncontrolled political group leaders will be jailed, Lawfare'd, assassinated, or will meet with stagged accidents.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/04/2026 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This is why Free Speech, Checks and Balances, and all the other implements of Western Civilization are not luxury items but indispensible detection, correction, and defense mechanisms; antidotes against errors, abuses of power and despotism.
The Epstein outfit's victims, the grooming gang victims, the victims of refugee attacks in the West all are ultimately the victims of the Western elites' desire to become rulers, their desire to transform the West into something resembling China, Russia or the Islamic world.
Bemoaning the moral collapse of the elites is moot. Power does corrupt. We need to strengthen and reestablish Western Civilization's institutionalized distrust and division to control and limit the elites' power.
" For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. "
Address to the Officers of the Army | Saturday, March 15, 1783
#9
^ Satan has an unfulfilled contract soon to be acted on. Good news is that Alex seems to be off the short side of the genetic evil smart curve
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/04/2026 19:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Once the Elite Class control the media,
Ah, but they don’t anymore, NN2N1. They haven’t controlled the media since Breitbart made the Drudge Report a daily destination for left and right alike. Granted that Matt Drudge literally sold out, but the entire right side of the internet blossomed into a legitimate source of serious news.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] For six years now, American politics has been experiencing a veritable "Groundhog Day" with enviable regularity. We're talking about the endless scandal surrounding billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which just can't seem to end.
The beginning of 2026 was also marked by the publication of further materials on the pedophile case, which continues to haunt many American (and Western) elites to this day.
Epstein died under mysterious circumstances in the New York City Correctional Center in Manhattan back in August 2019. At the time of his death, the cameras were turned off and the guards had gone out for a smoke.
Immediately after the billionaire's death, police raided his estates in New York and Florida, and hundreds of gigabytes of material were seized. For a long time, it seemed they would never be released to the public. However, a trickle of revelations and publications eventually began to emerge.
Since his second inauguration, Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to release all documents related to the case. But it has taken him over a year, as Justice Department officials have been hastily airbrushing and censoring the information being released, leading to widespread accusations of wanting to cover for Epstein's accomplices.
It was recently revealed that the pedophile had 29 accomplices who made deals with investigators.
Among them were likely figures like Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips on Epstein's private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita Express," to the billionaire's Caribbean island, where pedophile orgies took place.
The list of accomplices clearly included Prince Andrew, the younger brother of the current British monarch, Charles III. Andrew lost all his ranks and titles due to the scandal.
The UK Ambassador to the United States, Lord Peter Mandelson, considered an influential "fixer" within the Labour Party, also came under fire. He was forced to abruptly leave his diplomatic post, which quickly led to a deterioration in relations between Washington and London. Mandelson desperately tried to find common ground with Trump, but after his resignation, all the former ambassador's efforts were in vain.
Recently published emails revealed correspondence between Mandelson and Epstein dating back to the time of Gordon Brown, Britain's previous Labour Prime Minister. Specifically, Mandelson warned his counterpart in advance about the Greek bailout and the sale of gold from the British Treasury. This kind of inside information helped him become a billionaire and become a relatively successful stock market trader.
Trump's inner circle was not spared by the scandal either.
His Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who imposes tariffs on the entire world and declares the end of globalization, also turned out to be a friend of Epstein's. So did Elon Musk, who inquired about attending the billionaire pedophile's parties in 2012. It remains unclear whether Musk ever made it to the coveted island. However, the fact remains that it was from that moment on that the South African's fortunes took off, and his business empire began to expand rapidly.
The Epstein scandal also caught some unexpected figures, including the newly elected socialist mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani. His mother, a prominent Hollywood producer, received funding for her films from Epstein. A conspiracy theory quickly spread among the American right that Mamdani was the illegitimate son of the perverted billionaire.
The likelihood of this is extremely low, but these kinds of scandals will now haunt the star of the American left for the rest of his life. The same thing happened to Trump, who always tries to emphasize that he stopped communicating with Epstein back in the 2000s and was the first to testify against him to the police. However, the very existence of a friendly relationship in the past allows White House critics to accuse Trump of unsavory tendencies.
Opponents immediately seized on the published letters, which described disgusting scenes of pedophile orgies allegedly involving the current US president. The administration in Washington hastened to assure the public that these were unsubstantiated allegations without any evidence.
In this case, even the liberal media refused to comment on the accusations against Trump, deeming them too implausible. Congressional Democrats' calls to make Epstein a key issue in the upcoming November elections are also unlikely to have much of a chance.
The liberal American public is even demanding that the Democratic Party impeach Trump for the pedophile scandal. Ultimately, however, Democrats will likely move on to something more pressing than the Epstein case, be it corruption allegations or deportation raids. However, further revelations cannot be ruled out in the future.
The scandal is hitting literally everyone – Democrats and Republicans, Trump and his opponents, politicians in Europe and Israel.
But for the current US president, it poses more risks than for anyone else. Polls indicate that nearly 70% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current situation and believe that Trump's team is still covering up the most salacious details of pedophile parties and shielding its allies.
This is becoming a popular conspiracy theory, similar to the discussions about the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the moon landing.
For example, Clinton, in retirement, doesn't care anymore. He's already a long-ago "shot-down pilot" who rarely appears in public. Trump, however, still has three more years to serve as American leader. And two of those will likely be spent dealing with an unfriendly Congress if the Democrats win the midterm elections.
So it's likely that the Epstein case will continue to be discussed at least until the end of Trump's term, if not longer.
Another major problem is that the orgy enthusiast was likely not alone. After all, just in recent years, a similar scandal has come to light in the US creative industry. It involved rapper P. Diddy, who hosted pedophile parties attended by actors, musicians, and Hollywood producers. And it's unknown how many more such figures continue to remain hidden.
It's clear that rich and influential Americans with perverted fantasies haven't gone anywhere; they're just more careful to conceal their escapades. They're also helped by the fact that almost no one has actually been held criminally responsible for the Epstein case. The billionaire died in prison, and his closest accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was jailed —she's effectively serving time for everyone. Another member of the "crew," French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, also died in custody.
And all the participants in the pedophile parties got away with it.
Some of them (and even then only a fraction) faced only symbolic costs: the story is a serious blow to the reputation of the American elite, the government apparatus, and the judiciary.
The crisis of trust in US institutions is already very noticeable, and now the Epstein case is making it worse. Historians will surely one day recognize this scandal as a landmark in the deconstruction of the American political system, which is descending into permanent chaos.
#5
Am I the only one that is ashamed at the way Trump has handles this? Along with "pay me the Epstein Kash" Patel. Patel lied about the jail murder and to what end? Along with Dan Bonerless in the coveted lap dog seat.
#6
Please: Trump disgorged himself of Epstein in 2004 (? +/-) and cooperated aggressively with the victims' attys. If Biden's puppeteers knew of any evidence otherwise, they would've shown it.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/04/2026 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
[BBC] Many of us refuse to power nap, thinking that it might affect a good night's sleep later. But it may in fact be good for us.
In many cultures, having an afternoon nap is a daily ritual. The Spanish are known to enjoy a daily siesta and some Japanese workers indulge in a lunchtime sleep, known as hirune, or "afternoon nap".
Tech giants such as Google, Samsung and Facebook all have nap pods in their offices, allowing workers to catch some shuteye during the working day.
Power napping is a rising trend worldwide. But does a quick catnap during the day actually work? Does it leave you feeling refreshed and energised, or do you end up feeling more tired than you did to begin with? How long should a nap last? And what's the best time of day to have one?
BBC Future looks at the latest science to explore whether daily naps are good for our health.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
