2024 in Progress
Happy northern-hemisphere midsummer! First to the followers of Radio Free Pizza, of course, and next to humanity in general. As we find ourselves in the midst of the year’s journey, with the summer solstice marking the peak of daylight in the northern hemisphere, it seems like a perfect moment to pause and reflect on how it’s all been going. For this mid-year dispatch, let’s delve into the significant developments of the past six months, revisit the ongoing stories we’ve been tracking, and maybe even try to anticipate what unfolding narratives the latter half of the year may bring.
Fact-Checked-Flag Attacks
In our 2023 retrospective, we highlighted how global energy markets responded to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the 7 October 2023 attack, when 1200 Hamas gunmen breached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel, overrunning an outdoor concert and army bases, and killing over 1000 Israelis and foreign nationals in the process.
Those of them that weren’t killed in friendly fire, that is: as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said on p. 44 of “Detailed findings on attacks carried out on and after 7 October 2023 in Israel” on 10 June 2024, the UN “documented strong indications that the ‘Hannibal Directive’ was used in several instances on 7 October, harming Israelis at the same time as striking Palestinian militants”—indications that Israeli forces killed their own citizens on purpose.
Two and a half months into the campaign, Israel had killed more than 24,500 Palestinian civilians—including over 6,000 children—while receiving more than $26.38 billion in U.S. military aid. We pointed at the time the Gaza Marine natural gas field—containing an estimated $3–4 billion in natural gas—as a significant factor in the conflict. Of course, that makes sense: as we covered in February, Israel serves as an outpost for U.S. and British imperialism to maintain control over Middle Eastern oil: accordingly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots in the strategic decision to establish a settler colony to dominate the world’s energy markets, an imperialist project in progress since the early 20th century.
Since that strategy remains a prerequisite to Western hegemony, the U.S. has pledged unwavering support to Israel in the state’s genocidal campaign, and by mid-May the estimated civilian death toll in Gaza had risen to 35,000. In the meantime, another significant economic factor in the conflict had gained some further visibility once Jared Kushner, son-in-law to former President Donald Trump, suggested in a Harvard interview in February that Israel should forcibly remove everyone from Gaza to develop valuable waterfront property. Though Trump optimistically predicted in 2017 that Kushner would achieve peace in the Middle East, the supposed scion failed in his efforts, but after Israel has ramped up its extermination campaign, Kushner proposed relocating Gazans to Egypt or the Negev Desert—since, after all, “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable.”
Given the views of Trump’s son-in-law—who in January was reportedly being considered for Secretary of State in a potential second Trump administration—we can predict that the 2024 presidential election will yield no meaningful change in U.S. policy toward Israel. Especially not while public and private crackdowns on pro-Palestinian voices continues. For example, the U.S. House of Representatives bill passed on the first of last month threatening to define “targeting of the state of Israel” as antisemitic, and therefore taking aim at anti-Israeli protests; or, more recently, Briahna Joy Gray’s firing from The Hill for her 4 June interview on The Rising with Yarden Gonen, a sister of a young Israeli woman held hostage by Hamas.
Gonen tells Gray (at ~14:23), “I don't know if you know [the] ZAKA organization, but they have the worst pictures of what Hamas has done to the women during the October 7th attack.”
Gray pushes back: “Yeah, unfortunately, we are very familiar with ZAKA. But regrettably, the reporting has been roundly discredited by both Israeli and American media sources.”
Gonen stands her ground: “I saw the pictures with my own eyes, and when you will have a sister in a terror organization’s hand you will know the feeling […] can’t even drink a sip of water because I know that my sister is drinking salt water from the sea, that she's not getting food and the terrorist is eating in front of her face.”
The exchange was hostile enough that just before disconnecting (at ~20:26), Gonen told Gray, “I really hope that you specifically will believe women when they say that they got hurt”—in response to which Gray rolls her eyes, for which she was dismissed.
As Gray explained to Glenn Greenwald later that week (at ~16:54–20:20), Gonen “is not someone that The Hill reached out to […] This person offered themselves up and very specifically when making the request, they said that they wanted to talk to me. And when our producer Joanne forwarded the request to me […] immediately a red flag went up.” She cautioned her producer then “against having yet another person on that wanted to litigate what they found distasteful about my own personal political views” and describes rolling her eyes as “more about the stupidity of my producer, making the choice to have this guest on, who very predictably was going to make it into a personal attack about me.”
Obviously, Gray has been pushing back against the narrative promoted The New York Times’s “‘Screams Without Words’” from 28 December last year, which alleged a pattern of extreme brutality, including rape and mutilation of women, in the 7 October attack. (For example, on 8 May.) They reported that Israeli police confirmed multiple instances of sexual violence, though they conceded that many bodies were quickly buried without thorough examination. Notably, the piece worked to raise Gal Abdush, known as “the woman in the black dress,” into a symbol of the atrocities faced by Israeli women—but did so to the outrage of Abdush’s family, who denied any evidence of her rape and accused the paper of manipulating them. The next month, The New York Times would withdraw from circulation an episode of its podcast The Daily that aired claims of mass rapes.
Of course, Gray isn’t alone in dissenting against the prevailing narrative that accuses Hamas of committing sexual atrocities during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. In fact, she might have drawn on reporting from Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone, who reported last December (even before the NYT’s controversial report) on how the ZAKA group that Gray mentioned above was instrumental in spreading claims of beheaded babies and mass rapes that were debunked due to lack of evidence and contradictions with verified records, but which were nonetheless amplified by high-profile figures such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, ZAKA—marred by allegations of financial fraud and corruption, and with a founder who has his own history of sexual abuse—has leveraged the heightened publicity to raise substantial funds.
Accordingly, Blumenthal condemns the cynical exploitation of false narratives for financial gain and political influence, and the minimal retractions from the media that initially propagated these stories. Aaron Maté joined him on New Year’s Eve of last year to deliver their shared critique in the podcast format.
Here, Blumenthal and Maté discuss the allegations of mass rape by Hamas militants against Israeli civilians, critically examining claims made in The New York Times, which cited testimonies from Israeli witnesses and officials to support the allegations. Blumenthal and Maté, however, cite numerous instances of debunked Israeli allegations in the past, such as beheaded babies, babies burned in ovens, and fetuses cut out of wombs, proposing that these are good reasons to be skeptical about Israeli claims of mass rape by Hamas militants.
With regard to the claims that arose after October 2023, they highlight the lack of forensic evidence and problems with the testimony to support these claims, and question the credibility of the witnesses cited in the article (including a security consultant and a paramedic in an Israeli commando unit), who variously have contradictory testimony, or a history of fabricating stories and making contradictory statements, casting doubt on their credibility as reliable sources.
Instead, the pair suggest instead that The New York Times’s claims are part of a pattern of atrocity propaganda used by Israel and its supporters to justify military actions against Palestinians, necessary now as international support wanes. In their view, these allegations play into racist stereotypes of Arab men as savages, providing emotional cover for Israel’s actions against Palestinians, with the NYT article only laundering propaganda that relies on discredited sources to portray Hamas as barbaric savages in the service of the Israeli government’s political objectives.
Just for good measure, Blumenthal and Maté published their criticisms in January, citing significant credibility issues with the article’s sources and lack of concrete evidence. The Grayzone demanded the NYT address the claims of the aforementioned Abdush family, before going on to highlight inconsistencies and discrepancies in the unverified testimony of witnesses and paramedics. Israeli police statements further challenge the NYT’s claims, as they had been unable to find evidence or eyewitnesses to support the allegations. The Grayzone called for the paper to retract the article if it cannot adequately address these issues.
As mentioned above, the NYT soon withdrew an episode of its podcast, whether in response to The Grayzone or not. Either way, Blumenthal and Maté returned to the controversy around The New York Times’s reporting again in February, if only for good measure:
Once again, Blumenthal and Maté argue that article was a fraud devise to whitewash the Israeli genocide upon Gaza, lacking forensic evidence and relying on dubious witness testimonies, and allege further—with specific credit to
for details, as well as to Electronic Intifada and to MondoWeiss for contesting the story—that one of the article’s authors, Anat Schwartz, is a former Israeli intelligence officer hired to gain access to Israeli witnesses and who has liked social media posts calling for violence against Gaza.Blumenthal calls the article (at ~6:08) a journalistic scandal on par with the Judith Miller WMD reporting before he and Maté go on to criticize (at ~10:23) other media outlets, such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Nation, for parroting the claims without proper verification. Blumenthal and Maté contrast this with the lack of attention given to allegations of sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls by UN experts. Blumenthal and Maté accuse the media of double standards and bias in favor of Israel.
Together, Blumenthal and Maté suggest (at 5:50) that the NYT’s reporting may have been intended to serve Israeli propaganda (“hasbara”)—assessing that narrative in a similar fashion, I suppose, as the U.S. intelligence community did of Israel’s allegations against UNRWA staffers accused of fighting with Hamas, which they mention (at ~16:20) received a rating of “low confidence.” (With good reason, it seems: UNRWA staffers said in March that Israeli authorities pressured them in claiming the agency had links to Hamas.)
A month later, Al Jazeera released a documentary that goes into even greater detail (at ~53:24) on the horrors that this atrocity propaganda would supposedly justify, detailing how the Israeli army, initially caught off guard, soon responded overwhelming force, launching airstrikes and a bombardment of Gaza that had then killed an estimated 31,000 Palestinians—mostly civilians, and a high percentage of them women and children. Footage shows Israeli helicopters firing on vehicles carrying hostages and civilians fleeing back to Gaza.
Though the Israeli government claimed the strikes were justified due to the atrocities that Hamas committed, Al-Jazeera makes their own case (at ~34:43) that these claims represent misinformation and propaganda, arguing that Israeli officials and media outlets circulated unverified stories of Hamas fighters beheading babies, raping women, and committing other atrocities to justify Israel’s retaliation against Gaza, despite a lack of credible evidence. Instead, these stories were simply weaponized to dehumanize Palestinians and lower the threshold for violence against them. Though the documentary reports (at ~57:07) that the Hamas leadership viewed the attack as a success in putting the Palestinian cause back on the global agenda, it nonetheless questions whether the price paid by Palestinians was worth the perceived gains, and highlights the ongoing cycle of violence and retaliation in the region.
Of course, Al-Jazeera’s documentary wouldn’t be the only one on the subject for long, finding its competitor in Screams Before Silence one month later, claiming to document mass rapes carried out by Hamas fighters on 7 October. In Sandberg’s documentary, survivors recount being raped, beaten, and subjected to degrading acts. Eyewitnesses describe (at ~27:11) encountering horrific scenes that included piles of bodies, some mutilated beyond recognition, and women’s bodies found naked with signs of sexual abuse and torture.
The documentary goes on to include (at ~36:49–37:54) confessions from Palestinians to committing atrocities, including that of Manar Mahmoud Muhammad Qasem. But Middle East Eye reported a month before Sandberg’s documentary that organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International suggest that the confession was likely obtained through torture, pointing to a significant rise in arbitrary arrests and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees by Israeli forces since 7 October. They emphasize that such filmed confessions should not be considered valid evidence. Middle East Eye also notes that despite Qasem’s detailed description of the alleged victim, Israeli authorities have not been able to identify her, and that this confession arises amid broader accusations of Israel using torture to extract false confessions, with many Palestinians reportedly experiencing severe physical and psychological abuse in detention.
Setting aside questions about the sincerity of Qasem’s confession—or what might motivate it besides torture—those interviewed in Sandberg’s documentary describe such sexual violence as premeditated and systematic, with instructions given to kidnap, rape, and humiliate as many women as possible, with an Israeli officer alleging (at ~37:55), “They were sent with clear instructions to kidnap as many, to rape as many, to humiliate as many, to murder as many. They came here with a mission, and they succeeded in the mission.”
Survivors who were held hostage detail (at ~40:52) the psychological and physical abuse they endured. They recount being sexually assaulted, threatened, and living in constant fear—though presumably not Yocheved Lifshitz, who described her captors as “very kind.”
Pretty harrowing, right? But much like “‘Screams Without Words’” (2023), Screams Before Silence attracted detractors. Nora Barrows-Friedman and Ali Abunimah of the aforementioned Electronic Intifada offered their critique of Sandberg’s documentary at the start of May.
Here, Barrows-Friedman and Abunimah highlight how the film relies on unverified testimonies, torture confessions, and misinterpretations of post-mortem changes to push the narrative of systematic sexual violence. Critiquing the film’s reliance on unverified testimonies, torture confessions, and misinterpretations of post-mortem changes as evidence of sexual violence, Barrows-Friedman and Abunimah scrutinize the accounts of various witnesses featured in the film, such as ZAKA volunteers Rami Davidian and Tali Binner, are scrutinized and find them inconsistent or lacking credibility. The duo also addresses the absence of key claims from the debunked New York Times article in Sandberg’s film, suggesting an implicit admission of their falsity. They highlight the retraction of stories like the alleged rapes of two teenage girls in Kibbutz Bary and the case of Gal Abdush, which were central to the NYT article but omitted from the film. They also question the NYT’s claim about Israeli police finding severed heads, which was not reported elsewhere.
In their concluding remarks, they argue that the mass rape claims are part of a long-standing colonial tactic of portraying colonized men as sexual savages to justify dehumanization, murder, and genocide, in a desperate effort to distract from Israel’s ongoing violence and genocide against Palestinians, particularly targeting women and children. They assert that the claims amount to vile, genocidal atrocity propaganda used to justify mass murder.
Two days later, Abunimah published a similar critique, reiterating that Israel has not provided forensic evidence or video proof, despite possessing extensive footage from that day, and points to the 4 March report from the official visit of the UN’s Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Office of the SRSG-SVC reported on p. 19 that “while the mission team reviewed extensive digital material depicting a range of egregious violations, no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence was found in open sources” though “digital material of circumstantial elements […] may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”. With regard to accusations of systematic rape as a weapon of war, the Office of the SRSG-SVC reported on p. 22 that it had been “unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and concludes that the overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a fully-fledged investigation.”
For that reason, Abunimah concludes that the UN report found no credible evidence for these atrocity claims. Likely for similar reasons, then, Israel’s Haaretz reported on 18 April that “from inquiries put to three bodies in the defense establishment […] it emerges that the intelligence material collected by the police and the intelligence bodies, including footage from terrorists’ body cameras, does not contain visual documentation of any acts of rape themselves.”
(Regarding the supposed confessions of militants like Qasem, the report says on p. 9 that it didn’t consider “accounts collected by Israeli intelligence bodies, including those related to interrogations of alleged perpetrators […] due to the mission team’s inability in the time allotted to establish the due process rights of the accused person and adequate authentication.”)
That report from the UN’s Office of the SRSG-SVC in March prefigured further findings in the “Detailed findings on attacks carried out on and after 7 October 2023 in Israel” from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, mentioned above at the top and released at this start the month, which reported on p. 27 (emphasis mine):
The Commission has identified a pattern of sexual violence in the attacks on 7 October. In relation to rape, the Commission has seen open-source reports stating that Israeli civilians were subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence at various sites in southern Israel on 7 October. The Commission has reviewed testimonies obtained by journalists and the Israeli police concerning rape but has not been able to independently verify such allegations, due to a lack of access to victims, witnesses and crime sites and the obstruction of its investigations by the Israeli authorities. The Commission was unable to review the unedited version of such testimonies. For the same reasons, the Commission was also unable to verify reports of sexualized torture and genital mutilation. Additionally, the Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.
So, the UN’s OHCHR could not independently verify allegations of rape due to limited access and investigative obstructions, and also noted that some specific claims were found to be false or contradictory—much like Blumenthal argued seven months ago, and to which, it seems, The Times of London similarly gestured when it referred to “false and misleading information from senior political figures and government-linked activists to those in the police and security services tasked with the official [Israeli] investigation” into 7 October,
Investigations into Operation Al-Aqsa Flood starkly highlighted the ongoing complexities and brutal realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, revealing how geopolitical strategies and economic interests continue to drive and exacerbate violence. Despite the controversy over Kushner’s insensitive suggestions for the future of Gaza—in effect, a confession that the genocide serves as a territorial conquest—the enduring support of the U.S. for Israel remains evident, with little indication of policy change in the foreseeable future. Amidst the conflict, narratives of atrocities used to justify the genocide have been heavily contested, with human rights organizations and independent journalists questioning the validity of reported sexual violence by Hamas militants. Meanwhile, the crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices and the use of atrocity propaganda further complicate the narrative, underscoring the need for critical scrutiny of media reports and political rhetoric.
The controversy over these claims underscores the broader issue of propaganda and misinformation in times of conflict, reflecting the deep-seated tensions and the dire humanitarian consequences faced by civilians in the region. Still, here at Radio Free Pizza, we don’t think it’s asking too much to demand forensic evidence and independent investigations to substantiate allegations of mass rape, rather than relying on confessions extracted from prisoners or from testimonies provided by sources with potential biases or ulterior motives and a history of making contradictory or fabricated statements.
On the contrary: applying rational scrutiny to all claims means doing so regardless of their sensitivity or the potential backlash—as well as prioritizing the pursuit of truth over the uncritical acceptance of narratives without questioning evidence—is our best strategy for preventing disinformation propaganda from spreading during a conflict, and for holding accountable those who deliberately disseminate false or unverified information. As international support for Israel’s actions potentially wanes, it remains crucial to navigate these narratives with a discerning eye, recognizing the profound human cost behind the geopolitical maneuvers.
Fog, War, & Fogs of War
At the start of this year, we featured Whitney Webb’s coverage of a 2020 report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that predicted an imminent cyberattack could disrupt the global financial system and emphasized the need for unprecedented collaboration between Wall Street, regulators, and intelligence agencies to mitigate the risk—or rather, to increase surveillance and control under the guise of cybersecurity.
(Side note: Klaus Schwab announced that he will step down as the WEF’s Executive Chairman by 2025. I wish we could say good riddance! But sadly he’ll remain Chairman of the Board of Trustees.)
Webb also warned of the possibility of false-flag cyberattacks, suggesting that intelligence agencies might use such incidents to blame innocent nations and justify further conflicts, particularly with Iran. We’re still waiting for something like that, but in the meantime we’ve seen instead recent kinetic escalations between Iran and Israel, marking a significant shift from covert operations to direct military confrontation.
On 1 April 2024, an Israeli airstrike targeting Iran’s consulate in Damascus killed two Iranian generals—General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy, General Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi—and five officers, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict. A Hezbollah member and two Syrians were also killed, and several others were wounded. Israel did not comment on the strike but blamed Iran for a drone attack on an Israeli naval base earlier that day. Iran vowed retaliation, and on 13 April launched an unprecedented large-scale drone and missile attack on Israel, showcasing its growing military capabilities. This marked the first direct assault by Iran from its soil, significantly escalating the conflict, to which Israel responded with a counterstrike on a military airbase in Isfahan, Iran on 19 April—an attack of unexpectedly limited scope.
Exactly one month later, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi, a prominent conservative figure and potential successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, died in a helicopter crash in East Azerbaijan province. The crash occurred in a forested, foggy mountainous area during poor weather conditions. Raisi had been president for nearly three years and was likely to run for re-election, with his death therefore marking a significant moment in Iranian politics, given his close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and his influence within the country’s conservative factions.
Upon hearing of it, I (and surely others) immediately worried that the crash might represent an Israeli reprisal. The U.S.’s National Public Radio seemed to think along the same lines when they titled their investigation, “What might have caused the helicopter crash that killed Iran’s president[?]”, which reported the crashed helicopter as a Bell 212, an older model likely purchased in the 1970s, with a history of fatal accidents. U.S. sanctions have made it difficult for Iran to obtain spare parts for American-made aircraft, affecting maintenance and safety standards. Although NPR found no immediate evidence of sabotage, they acknowledged that historical precedents exist for using aviation accidents to eliminate political leaders.
Though NPR couldn’t find any evidence of sabotage, some still appealed to my (and surely others’) confirmation bias in suggesting that Israel's Mossad may have caused the helicopter crash that killed President Raisi and other high-level officials, citing confirmation from an Israeli security source. While a Hezbollah-affiliated journalist hinted at Israeli involvement, the cause remains unconfirmed. Additionally, the crash occurred shortly after Raisi’s return from Azerbaijan, raising suspicions of possible Azerbaijani complicity.
Whatever the cause, following Raisi’s death, Iran announced plans to hold an early presidential election for which five conservatives and one reformer registered. Two candidates withdrew from the race the day before the election to consolidate support among hard-liners, leaving four candidates in contest largely seen as a three-way race among reformist Masoud Pezeshkian—who criticizes past administrations and emphasizes unity, while appealing to the Azerbaijani community—against a pair hard-liners viewed as the main contenders, Saeed Jalili and Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, with the latter considered the most prominent.
But the 28 June elections proved inconclusive: Iran is set for a runoff presidential election between reformist Masoud Pezeshkian and hard-liner Saeed Jalili after a record low turnout, with over 60% of voters abstaining. Pezeshkian received 10.4 million votes, while Jalili garnered 9.4 million. The runoff comes amid widespread public dissatisfaction and economic hardship. Jalili, a former nuclear negotiator known for his hard-line stance, now faces Pezeshkian, who must rally voters in a politically apathetic environment against a backdrop of heightened regional tensions and Iran’s ongoing nuclear activities.
As geopolitical tensions rise and the fog of war thickens, the line between kinetic military actions and potential cyber warfare blurs. The recent series of escalations between Iran and Israel—from devastating airstrikes to the suspicious helicopter crash that claimed the life of President Raisi—underscores the precarious state of international relations and the potential for further conflict. Though the crash’s exact cause remains uncertain and could involve a combination of these or other factors, the situation remains volatile, with both nations apparently navigating a delicate balance to avoid a broader, more devastating war between Iran and Israel, which appears increasingly inevitable. As Iran prepares for a runoff presidential election amid economic strife and widespread public discontent, the specter of cyberattacks, both real and orchestrated, looms large, suggesting that the future may hold even more complex and covert confrontations. The intricate dance of power, surveillance, and retaliation continues to shape the turbulent landscape of global politics, demanding vigilance and critical scrutiny from the international community.
Rockets to Russia
In January 2024, we forecast that Ukraine faced the reality of ending its conflict with Russia, a situation that had become increasingly apparent with dwindling U.S. support and shifting political priorities in Washington. Despite unprecedented NATO aid, Ukraine’s prolonged struggle appeared unsustainable, as evidenced by significant battlefield casualties and the then-conspicuous absence of new U.S. funding authorized by Congress.
Unfortunately, the treaty that we hopefully anticipated hasn’t yet appeared. But the hawks in the legislature came through, approving $61 billion in additional aid at the end of April: a couple months after the cost of U.S. military aid to Ukraine had exceeded the cost of its two-decade campaign in Afghanistan. (We’ll leave aside the costs incurred to the UK and the EU.) Meanwhile Trump has attacked Biden for Ukraine’s failure, saying that he would do more than his opponent to secure the U.S. proxy—as I mentioned in February (at ~55:23 in the linked clip) with what reads now like offhand exaggeration, or a misreading of The New York Times’s slant.
So, I must beg forgiveness for having said something misleading! I hope you understand: the Russia-Ukraine conflict represents the latest phase of a long project undertaken by the imperialist West against the Soviet Union and its surviving states, and so I guess I just assumed Trump was signaling his willingness to join the effort.
For those seeking more information on that project, I recommend Jeffrey Sachs’s interview with Tucker Carlson from the end of May: their discussion provides an excellent overview of the historical context for the war, tracing it back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent expansion of NATO towards Russia’s borders—in violation of promises made to Russia regarding a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion, and of Russia’s repeated warnings against this perceived threat to Russian security—while exploring the role of key figures like Zbigniew Brzezinski and their strategic goals of surrounding Russia in the Black Sea region. Carlson and Sachs also discuss U.S. support for the 2014 coup in Ukraine [without mentioning its support for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, about which longtime Radio Free Pizza members already know] that overthrew the pro-Russian government, and its subsequent recognition of the new government—similar to its involvement in other conflicts, such as the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, which Sachs views as reckless and driven by the neoconservative agenda of maintaining U.S. hegemony. That agenda, he sadly notes, has driven us closer to nuclear war than ever before.
(“Almost like the final round of the Great Game!”)
But with little besides that to show for the investment of American taxpayers’ dollars, the Biden Administration decided to double-down on their own, and at the end of May authorized Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike at targets within Russia’s borders. Germany quickly followed suit, and earlier this month, France’s President Macron announced plans to “‘finalize’ a coalition of countries that will send military trainers to Ukraine”—the vibrant democracy with a president who called off the elections once scheduled for March and whose term has therefore expired—against the Russian Federation, which celebrated the inauguration of Vladimir Putin’s fifth term as president on 7 May.
All this came before Ukraine’s missile strike on Crimea a week ago, during which Russian air defenses intercepted four out of five missiles, but one veered off course and detonated over Sevastopol killed at least five people and injured over 120. The Trends Journal reported last Sunday that Russia accused the U.S. of being behind the attack, asserting that Washington-provided ATACMS with cluster warheads were used, and vowed the attack will not go unanswered. Accordingly, the incident represents a significant escalation, with such attacks having the potential to drag the U.S. and UK fully into the conflict.
Of course, Ukraine has attacked (or has been accused of attacking) inside Russia’s annexed territories before, with attacks on the Kerch Bridge in 2022 and ’23, and on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in ’22 and again in March ’24, to highlight a few Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure. Other attacks in (what we’ll call) Russia’s legacy territory involved terrorism, the most deadly of which killed 145 Russian civilians in an attack by gunmen on 22 March at Crocus City Hall, a Moscow concert venue, for which ISIS swiftly claimed responsibility but which the Russian government alleged had originated from Ukraine. (ISIS has previously claimed responsibility for attacks that investigators concluded it didn’t commit, so make what you will of its claims here.)
The Crocus City Hall attack had a few predecessors that generated lower casualties: in particular, the August 2022 assassination of Darya Dugina at the hands of Ukrainian intelligence, daughter of philosopher Alexander Dugin, to whose work her murder eventually introduced me.
The philosopher again came to my attention in February with a tweet about the aforementioned Tucker Carlson’s then-recent trip to Russia, where he interviewed Vladimir Putin. Here, Dugin presents Carlson’s trip as a political move aligned with his firm paleo-conservative ideology: one shared by a significant portion of American society that holds favorable views about Russia and Vladimir Putin. Therefore, as Dugin sees it, his visit underscored a dual challenge to the globalist liberal establishment in the United States: externally from Putin, and internally from figures like Carlson and former President Trump. The same tweet advertised Dugin’s article in Arktos Journal describing Carlson’s interview with Putin as a pivotal, symbolizing a potential bridge between conservative elements in both the West and Russia capable of challenging the liberal globalist agenda so that we can all more certainly avoid nuclear conflict and the possible destruction of humanity.
Of greatest interest to me, however, had been Dugin’s brief analysis of “MAGA Communism” as a viable socialist faction capable of forging an an unusual alliance between Marxists and paleo-conservatives: a diverse opposition united in their aim to disrupt liberalism’s dominance.
If you’ve been tuning in to Radio Free Pizza over the past few months, then you’ll know the same faction gained my attention last year, with the broader category of “patriotic socialists” providing most elements of the Libertarian Communism that I’ve articulated a few times now as a 21st-century socialism with American characteristics.
Accordingly, I took some time to acquaint myself with Dugin’s work. For what little I’ve learned, Michael Millerman deserves most of the credit, with lectures like this one leading me to works of Dugin’s like this one, an excerpt from his Templars of the Proletariat (2023) that articulates what he calls “National Bolshevism” as a political ideology synthesizing elements of radical leftist socialism with nationalist and traditionalist views that even incorporates broader mystical elements in its challenge to liberalism and the “Open Society.” Dugin’s National Bolshevism emphasizes a super-ethnic, geopolitical understanding of the nation, free from racism and chauvinism, that advocates for transformative revolutionary experiences that transcend conventional political dichotomies.
I suppose that National Bolshevism represents a subspecies of Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, the political and philosophical framework that he developed as an alternative to the three major political ideologies of the 20th century—liberalism, communism, and fascism—and which he outlined in The Fourth Political Theory (2009) as an attempt to provide a new paradigm for political thought, from which we might derive the new approach needed to address the challenges of the contemporary world. This theory rejects modernity, individualism, secularism, and the totalitarianism of the previous ideologies, promoting a return to traditional values and spirituality. Additionally, Fourth Political Theory emphasizes geopolitics, advocating for a multipolar world where various civilizations coexist and maintain their distinctiveness, in opposition to globalism and the imposition of a single universal ideology. By promoting social justice, national sovereignty, and traditional values (an excerpt from Arktos Journal tells us), the Fourth Political Theory seeks to create a pluralistic and just global order, countering the homogenizing forces of Western hegemony.
Fourth Political Theory seeks to challenge the prevailing liberal, capitalist, and modernist principles of globalization by synthesizing elements from previous anti-liberal ideologies while rejecting their outdated and contradictory aspects. The aforementioned “National Bolshevism” seeks to combine socialism without its modernist and materialist aspects with a modified Third Way, advocating for a united front comprising the radical Left, the New Right, and traditional religious groups to oppose the common enemy of global liberalism. I wasn’t sure in February whether I could say with complete certainty that National Bolshevism—or patriotic socialism, for that matter—represents a variant strain: I’m new to Fourth Political Theory, having only started exploring it last February (mentioning him on accident at ~28:48, on purpose at ~32:18, and describing the aforementioned tweet at ~1:02:23–1:03:20 in the linked clip). Still, I’m definitely not alone as a relative newcomer to Dugin’s work: not after his own interview with Tucker Carlson that aired in April.
Carlson first introduces Dugin as a 62-year-old Russian academic philosopher who was an anti-Soviet dissident in his youth and who has lately become famous as “Putin’s brain” in the English-language press—perhaps explaining why his work has been banned in the U.S.—although he is not a political figure in Russia. Following this introduction, Carlson invites the venerable thinker to share his views on liberalism.
Dugin first discusses (at ~1:56) the ideology’s evolution from classical liberalism—focused on individual freedom—to a new form of liberalism that he sees as prescriptively totalitarian, and as failing to recognize human nature. He describes liberalism as a process of liberating individuals from collective identities: first from the Catholic Church, then from the nation-state, and today from gender and human identity itself. Though classical liberalism emphasized the rule of the majority, Dugin argues (at ~7:59) that this new liberalism represents the rule of minorities and a prescriptive agenda of being “woke” and “progressive”: a totalitarian turn from an ideological regime that no longer concerns itself with individual freedom as such.
The philosopher believes that the next step in this process is transhumanism and the abandonment of human identity altogether, leading to a post-human future. Accordingly, he suggests (at ~13:15) that the post-human future envisioned by new liberalism is already portrayed in science fiction films like The Matrix and Terminator, which have become more plausible with today’s technological sophistication. In his view, this future represents a political project within which humans can choose to abandon their humanity in favor of artificial intelligence or other post-human forms.
Carlson also inquires (at ~17:10) after Dugin’s analysis of the West’s changing attitude toward Russia. Dugin also comments on the West's changing attitude towards Russia, from celebrating the country’s supposed economic liberation following the Soviet Union to opposing Putin’s resistance to the global progressive agenda. Dugin argues that this opposition is not casual but a metaphysical conflict between those seeking to destroy traditional values and Putin’s defense of the same.
(After reading Dugin’s perspective presented above, I expect some will feel quite unsurprised [while some will feel immense alarm] to learn that, in Dugin’s analysis, the upcoming U.S. presidential elections will influence not just U.S. policy but global power dynamics, potentially shaping a multipolar world order if Trump prevails—though only after a debate filled with absurd exchanges and mutual accusations, mirroring Beavis and Butt-Head’s satirical depiction of American adolescence and immaturity, reflecting a broader critique of American culture as being stuck in a perpetual state of adolescence, incapable of mature governance—will determine not only the future of the U.S. and the West, but possibly humanity’s survival, given the current threat of nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO. The election’s outcome will either reinforce the globalist trajectory under Biden or shift towards a more nationalist and multipolar world under Trump.)
The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia reveals how ideological complexities shape the international landscape. The West’s involvement in Ukraine, framed within the broader context of its long-standing opposition to Russia, reveals deep-seated tensions that challenge the stability and future of international relations. As scholars like Sachs and Dugin offer their perspectives on these dynamics, it is crucial to acknowledge how this conflict transcends mere territorial disputes and taps into the ideological underpinnings of modern geopolitical strategies. Thus, while immediate peace seems to remain elusive, understanding the broader historical and ideological context provides us essential experience for navigating the complexities of civilizational struggles unfolding in the months and years to come.
Who Needs the WHO? (Not You!)
In February, we spent a fair amount of time critiquing the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 2020-’23 coronavirus pandemic and its aftermath, highlighting perceived failures and controversial actions. In particular, we criticized the WHO’s proposed treaty changes for potentially increasing censorship under the guise of combating misinformation, which could stifle dissent and undermine civil liberties. On the whole, we characterized the WHO and other health authorities as complicit in a broader agenda prioritizing profit and control over transparent science and individual rights.
Accordingly, you can imagine how we celebrated at the start of this month—compared, at least, to how we might have otherwise despaired—when the amendments passed by the WHO to its International Health Regulations (IHR) during the 77th World Health Assembly certainly prioritized private profits but didn’t seem to restrict individual rights nearly as much as feared.
Still, we might have been too hasty for celebrating at all, as James Roguski would surely tell us. If you’re wondering why, he explained the adopted IHR amendments to James Corbett something like that at the start of June.
As Roguski tells us (at ~2:35 in the linked clip), the WHO faced difficulties in finalizing both the IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic agreement, but managed to adopt the IHR amendments in a rushed manner towards the end of the assembly. Despite facing legal deadlines, the WHO continued working on the amendments until the last minute, cobbling together an agreement that was adopted late at night after protests in Geneva.
Roguski explains (at ~5:31) that the adopted amendments establish a coordinating financial mechanism to maximize funding for implementing health priorities, particularly in developing countries. This mechanism aims to build pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities globally, focusing on products like medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, and cell/gene therapies. Naturally, Roguski therefore raises concerns about the potential diversion of funds towards pharmaceutical interests rather than addressing basic health needs like clean water and nutrition.
Roguski also describes (at ~15:48) how the amendments also expand the WHO’s authority over international travel and quarantine measures. Article 31, which has governed international travel under the IHR since 2005, empowers authorities in foreign nations to compel travelers to undergo medical exams, prophylaxis, vaccination, isolation, or quarantine. Additionally, amendments to Articles 24, 27, 35, and to annexes now strengthen the ability to impose policies on conveyance operators like airlines and cruise lines. The definition of an “ill person” has also been expanded, potentially leading to increased restrictions on travelers.
Though countries have a window of as little as ten months to reject or reserve against the amendments—and, Roguski suggests (at ~25:52) some nations like Slovakia and Costa Rica have already indicated their intention to do so—nonetheless, both the guest and the host highlight the need for individuals and communities to assert their bodily autonomy and resist mandates or regulations that violate personal freedoms. To that end, they emphasize the importance of grassroots movements and local initiatives to spread awareness about the amendments’ potential implications.
Of course, the WHO didn’t wait too long to remind us about the significance of those implications: as James Evan Pilato of Media Monarchy reported a little more than two weeks ago (at ~0:30–7:11 in the linked clip), the WHO initially claimed that the death of a 59-year-old in Mexico resulted from the A(H5N2) strain of bird flu, never before detected in humans, which Mexico’s Health Secretary swiftly contradicted.
But that doesn’t look too likely to stop the fear-mongering, based on comments from former CDC director Robert Redfield covered on The Jimmy Dore Show the week before last.
Though Dore shows (at ~0:18) how Redfield warned in May that gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses is being conducted in university labs, potentially leading to a devastating pandemic. He also shows (at ~2:44) Redfield saying in an interview little more than two weeks ago that a bird flu pandemic is likely to occur at some point, and when it does, it could have a mortality rate of 25–50%, meaning that one out of every two infected individuals could die. Naturally, Dore expresses disbelief and outrage at Redfield’s seemingly calm demeanor while discussing such a grave threat, and suggests (at ~14:52) that the bird flu threat may be a test to see if the public has learned from the alleged deception during the 2020–’23 coronavirus pandemic.
While the 77th World Health Assembly resulted in amendments that may appear less restrictive than initially feared, they still raise significant concerns. These changes prioritize financial mechanisms aimed at bolstering pharmaceutical interests, potentially at the expense of fundamental health needs. Furthermore, the expanded authority over international travel and quarantine measures threatens personal freedoms and bodily autonomy. Despite a window for countries to reject or reserve against these amendments, it’s crucial for individuals and communities to remain vigilant and proactive. Grassroots movements, local initiatives, and (dare I say) independent journalists must continue to spread awareness and advocate for personal freedoms in the face of potential overreach by international health authorities.
Taiwanese Timetables
At the start of the year we covered escalating tensions between the United States and China over Taiwan, then in the light of President Xi Jinping’s New Year’s address, in which he described the reunification of China and Taiwan as inevitable. Of course, this had been anticipated for some time, with analysts forecasting an eventual clash between the two powers: especially since President Biden rejected Xi’s request to publicly endorse a peaceful reunification.
In particular, we mentioned how Vanguard Group announced it was closing its Shanghai offices and ending its joint venture with Jack Ma’s Ant Financial, raising speculation about the future of U.S.-China economic cooperation. Since we presented the end of that financial partnership as implying that a kinetic conflict over Taiwan had become even more likely, we therefore take no pleasure in reporting that, as of March, U.S.-based asset manager Matthews has also closed its Shanghai offices.
Also in the meantime, Lai Ching-te was elected president of Taiwan in January 2024, at which time China reiterated that it viewed reunification with Taiwan as “inevitable,” despite Lai’s win with 40.1% of the vote. Lai, from the Democratic Progressive Party, has long emphasized Taiwan’s commitment to democracy over authoritarianism—his opposition, in other words, to Chinese authority over the island. In response, China asserted that the election results do not represent mainstream Taiwanese opinion—though others report that Taiwanese voters oppose reunification and favor maintaining the status quo of de facto independence—and do not alter its goal of reunification. The U.S. congratulated Lai and highlighted its commitment to peace in the Taiwan Strait, while maintaining a stance against Taiwan’s independence—even as it benefits from the $8.12 billion that the U.S. provided it in April to “counter communist China and ensure a strong deterrence” in East Asia.
Lai was inaugurated in May, with a speech urging China to end its alleged political and military intimidation and to share in maintaining regional peace, reinforcing Taiwan’s democratic sovereignty while noting its history under authoritarian rule. International delegates attended the ceremony—including those from the U.S., UK, Australia, and Japan—during which China’s commerce ministry announced sanctions on U.S. arms manufacturers supplying Taiwan. Meanwhile, overseas Chinese communities criticized Lai’s pro-independence stance, calling him a "troublemaker" who incites cross-Strait confrontations. His critics contend that Lai misrepresents Beijing’s willingness to engage in dialogue, as evidenced by a recent meeting between Xi Jinping and former Taiwan leader Ma Ying-jeou. Despite a poll showing most Taiwanese favoring cross-Strait communication, critics accuse Lai of ignoring public sentiment and collaborating with foreign interests, which they say jeopardizes regional stability.
So, the stage looks increasingly set for a conflict—and not necessarily a kinetic one. Though we haven’t yet seen come to pass Whitney Webb’s concerns (mentioned above) about a false-flag cyberattack to serve as a pretext for transitioning to digital currency and enhancing global governance, it’s worth mentioning that James Evan Pilato of Media Monarchy reported (at ~7:08 in the linked clip) a similar story at the start of this month, about the new NSA chief expressing concerns about the efforts of its East Asian rival to pre-position in critical infrastructure networks for potential future attacks—with Pilato naturally questioning the evidence behind these claims, and suggesting that cyber threats would more likely arise from endeavors like the CyberPolygon technical training exercise scheduled for September of this year, which will simulate an attack on a Western tech company. (Those who knows about the war games practiced on 11 September 2001 will surely understand why he proposes it.)
Still, others aren’t scrutinizing the risk of Chinese cyberattacks as much as they are estimating he possibility of near-term kinetic collision. On that subject, The Duran released an episode at the start of this month discussing growing tensions between the U.S. and China over Taiwan and analyzing coverage suggesting that the U.S. military has been actively preparing for a potentially imminent conflict.
The articles cited—specifically, one from The Daily Mail providing free-to-read coverage of another from The Wall Street Journal—suggest that the U.S. expects a war with China over Taiwan’s independence, with the U.S. conducting military exercises in the Philippines amid growing fears of a planned Chinese invasion of (their own territory of) Taiwan. As Mercouris tells us (at ~1:27), U.S. and Philippine troops have conducted war games on islands near Taiwan, with the U.S. seeking capabilities to island-hop while avoiding Chinese detection. Apparently, the U.S. is committed to defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, despite no official treaty requiring this.
As the pair note (at ~4:09), China considers Taiwan a red line issue and has warned it will not remain idle if Taiwan declares independence. Thinking ahead, China has conducted military exercises around Taiwan rehearsing a naval blockade. Meanwhile, they note that China’s military capabilities have been growing rapidly, with new warships, aircraft carriers, and nuclear forces being developed with Russian assistance. In their view, the military balance in the region is shifting in China’s favor.
Their discussion then turns (at ~9:14) toward the U.S.’s dilemma in maintaining simultaneous commitments in Europe and Ukraine, and the potential for the U.S. to prioritize the China threat over Russia, noting later in their conversation that anti-China hawks see the Ukraine conflict as a distraction and want to prioritize the China threat. There are concerns about the U.S. overextending itself and facing strategic disasters by engaging in conflicts with both Russia and China concurrently. The pair also draw historical parallels to Spain's overextension and eventual collapse in the 17th century due to its refusal to accept reality and retrench.
I wouldn’t call it a silver lining, but they also mention (at ~14:37) a small peace camp emerging between the anti-Russia and anti-China factions of the U.S. political establishment. However, they express their concerns that the U.S. may escalate conflicts with both Russia and China simultaneously, leading to strategic disasters.
Keeping all that in mind, however, we’re still free to ask: instead of two or more superpowers colliding in a strategic disaster, what do you think a diplomatic miracle might look like?
Maybe without realizing it, earlier this month Jerry Grey of Jerry’s Take on China (whom you might hopefully recall from our May Day bulletin) offered us the answer he expects the People’s Republic of China would give to that question.
Here, Grey discusses China’s proposal for reforming the United Nations (UN) to increase the voice of developing countries and enhance the UN’s ability to manage global issues like the conflict in Ukraine and human rights violations. Evidently, that proposal suggests that the UN’s inability to enforce its rules stems the non-compliance of powerful nations like the U.S.—which prioritizes its own sovereignty over international regulations and therefore declines adhering to UN rules and conventions—while portraying China as a responsible global power that complies with international regulations. Accordingly, Grey describes (at ~1:11) the proposed reforms to increase the representation of developing countries in the UN and strengthen the UN’s coordination and management capabilities, aimed to align with the current UN Charter and ensure all countries adhere to the same standards, rather than changing the rules themselves.
Grey goes on (at ~3:27) to outline China’s positions on various global issues, including supporting a political resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, advocating for a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capital, seeking denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, and resolving conflicts through dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for the sovereignty of nations, rather than military intervention. Importantly, Grey notes (at ~4:44) that China reiterated its position that alleviating poverty, deradicalization, and eradication of root causes are the best ways of addressing terrorism—rather than, for example, waging war on it.
He also describes (at ~5:03) occasions when China put its money where its mouth is, such as with its pledge not to use nuclear weapons first and its advocacy for the gradual eradication of nuclear weapons while maintaining global security, as well as its efforts in carbon peaking and transitioning towards carbon neutrality and its support for fair economic globalization and food security. Finally, Grey contrasts (at ~6:48) China’s international regulatory compliance with the U.S.’s disregard for UN rules, conventions, and resolutions, with China charging the U.S. with invading and interfering in other nations, funding and training terrorist groups, conducting biowarfare research, and engaging in rendition and torture practices.
As tensions between the U.S. and China escalate over Taiwan, the possibility of conflict looms large. Lai’s inauguration has intensified these tensions, with U.S. military preparations in the region and China’s growing military capabilities further complicating the situation. Despite some voices advocating for peace and diplomacy, the risk remains high for a strategic disaster from simultaneous conflicts involving the U.S., China, and potentially Russia. However, there is still room to consider diplomatic solutions, such as China’s proposal for UN reform to give developing countries a greater voice and promote global stability through dialogue and respect for sovereignty. These proposals highlight a potential path forward that emphasizes cooperation and adherence to international norms, offering a glimmer of hope amidst rising geopolitical tensions.
Now, let’s just hope that the U.S. gets the message, and hears the wisdom in it.
Insert More Coins
Last month we published a bulletin celebrating Bitcoin Pizza Day by exploring speculation that Bitcoin (BTC) might have been created by the American deep state—specifically, the NSA—drawing from a 1996 paper that outlines a system similar to Bitcoin and the NSA’s involvement in developing cryptographic algorithms like SHA-256. In trying to estimate the motives of the U.S. intelligence apparatus in developing BTC, we also discussed the broader interest of governments and organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) in digital currencies and CBDCs, suggesting that such technologies could potentially be used for greater control and surveillance, with tremendous implications for financial privacy.
If only for that reason, it would behoove us to track any developments in CBDCs and their adoption by governments. However, they came from an angle that I didn’t see coming: not from the Digital Currency Monetary Authority, but instead from the BRICS+ economic coalition.
As FOX Business reported in March, the BRICS+ bloc announced its plans to create a blockchain-based payment system as part of its ongoing efforts to move away from reliance on the U.S. dollar. Their initiative aims to leverage digital technologies and blockchain to create an independent, cost-effective, and politically neutral payment system that simplifies and secures international transactions—thus enhancing the BRICS+ nations’ financial autonomy and reducing their vulnerability to U.S. economic sanctions. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov emphasized at the time the new system would be crucial for increasing the role of BRICS+ in the global monetary landscape and decreasing dependence on the dollar. This move follows the 2023 Johannesburg Declaration, where leaders committed to increasing settlements in national currencies and strengthening their banking networks. Additionally, BRICS+ has been developing their Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) as an alternative to the IMF to support member nations during currency crises. With over 40 countries expressing interest in joining BRICS+ to mitigate currency risks and avoid U.S. sanctions, this new payment system will represent a significant step towards a multipolar global trading system.
Later in the month Watcher.Guru added details on remaining challenges, including internal contention and unequal power distribution among member countries. For the new currency to succeed, BRICS+ members must commit to cooperation and bridge the gaps between economically powerful nations like China, India, and Saudi Arabia, and less prosperous members such as South Africa and Ethiopia. Nonetheless, achieving a cohesive infrastructure and balanced support among all member nations could transform the global economic model and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar for international settlements.
Now, as Reuters reported at the start of this month, Saudi Arabia has joined Project mBridge, a cross-border central bank digital currency (CBDC) trial led by China and facilitated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This project, which also includes central banks from Hong Kong, Thailand, and the UAE, aims to modernize international payments and reduce dependency on the U.S. dollar, particularly in global oil trade. The mBridge platform—which uses China’s e-yuan technology—has reached the “minimum viable product” stage, indicating it is ready to move beyond the prototype phase.
The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, a major G20 economy and the world’s largest oil exporter, could significantly scale up commodity settlements on the platform, further promoting the use of non-dollar currencies in international trade. Despite the potential for CBDCs to modernize payment systems and provide alternatives to physical cash, they face challenges such as technical complexities, political sensitivities, and public resistance due to privacy concerns. While countries like China and several emerging economies are progressing with CBDC pilots, the U.S. remains hesitant, with legislative moves to ban the creation of a digital dollar.
There’s good reason for hesitancy, as James Corbett reminded us again not two weeks ago in an interview with Reality Check Radio. After contrasting it against the wholesale and retail monetary circuits covered when we last featured him, he describes (at ~2:59) CBDCs as “a different form of money itself” for which he suggests (at ~3:12–5:54) that retail banks may instead as intermediaries between individuals and central banks, maintaining a level of separation while still allowing for control and surveillance. Corbett details (at ~12:48–13:57) the programmability of digital bank notes and their potential for restricting consumption or enforcing lockdowns, and explores (at ~17:54–22:54) the connection between CBDCs and digital identity systems, suggesting that they may be integrated with biometric data and personal information linked to digital wallets to enable greater surveillance and control over individuals.
But most interestingly, Corbett offers (at ~14:13–17:25) the aforementioned mBridge—though without mentioning Saudi Arabia—while discussing the potential for CBDCs to be interoperable across countries and integrated into a global system. However, the BRICS+ member comes up while discussing (at ~38:59–42:30) the geopolitical implications of a CBDC monetary system, during which time Corbett also hypothesizes that the transition to a new global reserve currency could be a potential catalyst for war.
Whatever your concerns about financial privacy, the evolving landscape of digital currencies certainly highlights a significant shift in global financial dynamics. As the BRICS+ coalition advances its blockchain-based payment system to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, and major economies like Saudi Arabia join cross-border CBDC initiatives, the world edges closer to a multipolar trading system. These developments underscore the strategic importance of digital currencies and blockchain technology in enhancing financial autonomy and resilience against economic sanctions. Despite facing challenges like political sensitivities, technical complexities, and privacy concerns, the adoption of CBDCs by emerging economies and major oil exporters signals a transformative potential for international trade and financial systems. As governments and global organizations continue to explore and implement these technologies, tracking their progress will become increasingly crucial to understanding their long-term impact on global economic structures and personal financial privacy.
Puff Piece
Ya’ll heard about Sean Combs, right? Formerly known as Puff Daddy before rebranding himself as P. Diddy, and then (apparently) as Brother Love? Sued last November by ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura before settling it the next day, just to catch three more lawsuits for various sexual assaults—including the gang-rape of a minor—before seeing two of his homes raided by the FBI in March as part of an ongoing sex-trafficking investigation, and, most recently, being sued for aiding and abetting his son in a sexual assault of junior’s own?
(I think that’s all of them, at least from the past year.)
I might think more highly of you if you haven’t heard about it, but despite my best efforts so far, I’m still down here in the muck of modern American culture. Still, I appreciated how the scandal surrounding Combs came paired with some elements sure to intrigue many conspiracy researchers. Besides that, the story offers a useful excuse for introducing Craig “Pasta” Jardula of Pasta2Go, who has long preceded me (“Zacharoni Pizza”) in food-themed nicknames.
In late May, Jardula and Matt Weinglass of The Homeless Left discussed a video released by CNN showing Combs assaulting Ventura in a hotel hallway in 2016.
Jardula and Weinglass first speculate (at ~0:27) that the release of the video is a form of public humiliation and punishment for Combs by the ruling class, but they believe he will still be protected and not face serious consequences due to his connections and importance to the ruling class. After analyzing (at ~7:18) Combs’s apology for his actions in the assault video, the pair criticize the recording artist for being narcissistic and not mentioning the victim, Cassie Ventura. They question the timeline and sincerity of the apology, suggesting it is a form of public humiliation and punishment by the ruling class, but they believe Combs will still be protected.
Their discussion also touches (at ~8:51) on the control and influence of the ruling class over mainstream media and the entertainment industry, suggesting that the ruling class controls what information is released as “a leak” and when, and that they use their power to protect and punish individuals as they see fit. They also discuss (at ~9:50) the grooming and conditioning of the public through entertainment and media, and how it relates to which individuals reach positions of influence and power.
Interestingly, Jardula and Weinglass’ last point here echoes those from a trio of videos that Ian Carroll released a few months prior, which Candace Owens later featured.
In the first, Carroll details a lawsuit filed by former music producer Rodney Jones accusing Combs and his associates of illegal activities including sexual misconduct, drug use, and violence (with alleged evidence in the form of videos and audio recordings) while implicating other industry figures such as Clive Davis, Lyor Cohen, and Julie Greenwald in unethical practices, and suggesting connections to organized crime and intelligence agencies. Carroll’s specific allegations include Combs’s involvement in the murders of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G., cover-ups by law enforcement, and a sexual blackmail scheme to control and exploit artists within the music industry.
In the second, Carroll examines Combs’s alleged sexual blackmail operations and their roots in the entertainment industry, particularly rap music, tracing this practice back to J. Edgar Hoover and mobster Meyer Lansky, and discusses how sexual blackmail has been used to control the music industry before suggesting that Combs’s mentor, Clive Davis, may have facilitated both his professional rise and his purported blackmail activities. Carroll highlights how anti-gay sentiment has historically been exploited for blackmail while drawing parallels to the rap industry’s stigmatization of homosexuality, and argues that such operations have influenced the industry’s promotion of content glorifying gangs, violence, sex, and drugs, thereby impacting broader cultural dynamics.
In the third, Carroll focuses on allegations of sexual misconduct, drug use, and criminal activities involving Combs’s head of security, Faheem Muhammad—who formerly worked as head of security for Michael Jackson. Here, he raises concerns about Muhammad’s background and his potential role in covering up crimes, such as using his law enforcement connections to shield Combs from legal repercussions. Additionally, Carroll questions Muhammad’s rapid career ascent and his real estate ventures, suggesting potential ties to intelligence agencies, before highlighting his involvement in questionable activities at Combs’s parties and his invitation to speak at a Wharton School event—in Carroll’s view implying deeper, possibly covert affiliations.
Maybe that all sounds a little crazy to you, if you haven’t heard before about connections between U.S. intelligence and blackmail operations. Should you need more background on the topic, journalist Nick Bryant’s appearance on The Kim Iversen Show in April offers an amazing introduction, detailing his investigations into various child-sex-trafficking rings and scandals conducted throughout his career—as well as the evidence linking these to political blackmail.
Bryant starts (at ~11:06 in the link above) by recounting his investigation into the Finders cult, where the CIA intervened to drop charges against members arrested with children showing signs of abuse. Here he recounts how he stumbled upon the Finders cult while researching Satanists for a magazine article. Members of the Finders were arrested in Florida with children showing signs of abuse, but the CIA intervened to drop all charges and return the children to the cult. Bryant questions why the CIA would protect such a nefarious group and suggests the Finders may have been used to infiltrate other groups.
He then delves (at ~21:59) into the Franklin scandal, a massive child-trafficking network operating in the 1980s, involving high-level politicians and figures. Bryant describes his extensive investigation into the Franklin child-trafficking network and reveals how the lead investigator, Gary Caradori, was gathering evidence of abuse before his plane was blown up. Grand juries were used to cover up the abuse, with victims threatened with perjury charges if they didn’t recant their stories. Crucially for our purposes here, Bryant suggests the network involved high-level politicians and figures, with evidence of child pornography production and parties compromising attendees for blackmail purposes.
He also explains (at ~47:17) how he obtained Epstein’s infamous “black book” containing contact information for victims and powerful perpetrators. He reports victims as young as 10 years old were flown to Epstein’s island for abuse, and suggests this network too represented a political blackmail operation, with intelligence agencies aiding and abetting the trafficking and the criminal justice system covering up the abuse.
Finally, Bryant discusses (at ~59:36) the allegations of sexual abuse against Combs, in a segment that Iversen clipped as a standalone video for YouTube.
Given his specialty, it should come as no surprise that Bryant highlights potential connections to an intelligence-backed child sex trafficking operation. He cites (at ~1:02:32 in the full interview, or ~3:36 in the clipped segment) Rodney Jones in describing Combs’s homes as wired for audiovisual blackmail, suggesting that the investigation may be part of the same intelligence operation as Epstein’s network, and expresses concern that the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case is the same one who oversaw the flawed Epstein trial. Bryant therefore draws parallels between the Epstein case and the allegations against Combs, on the basis of which he suggests that powerful figures in the entertainment industry may have been compromised for blackmail purposes, similar to politicians.
Bryant also highlights (at ~1:07:48 in the full interview, or ~8:12 in the clipped segment) the endemic nature of child abuse in the United States, with statistics indicating that significant numbers of the population have been molested as children. Finally, he emphasizes (at ~1:09:04 in the full interview, or ~9:28 in the clipped segment) the need for public outrage and action to hold perpetrators accountable and prevent the government from enabling child trafficking, and for this reason operates EpsteinJustice.Com to raise public awareness and advocate for justice through petitions, form letters, and newsletters.
The recent allegations leveled at Combs have spotlighted broader and more disturbing implications about the entertainment industry and its potential entanglements with intelligence-backed blackmail operations. Analysts like Jardula and Weinglass, researchers like Carroll, and journalists like Bryant have drawn connections between these allegations and larger conspiracies involving organized crime, sexual blackmail, and intelligence agencies, echoing patterns seen in historical cases like those of Jeffrey Epstein and the Franklin scandal. The gravity of these allegations and their potential ramifications underscore the urgent need for thorough investigations and public accountability to address the endemic issues of abuse and exploitation within powerful circles.
I’m sure we all sincerely hope to see swift movement in that direction—however unwise it might be to hold our breaths until then.
Ya Haz Grande Latinoamérica!
On 2 June 2024, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo was elected President of Mexico, and thereby became the first female president in North America. The next day, U.S. President Biden signed an executive order limiting asylum requests at the U.S.-Mexico border when the weekly average of daily encounters exceeds 2,500, relying on the same Section 212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act that former President Trump used for his own policies. Critics, including Doctors Without Borders, argue that it endangers vulnerable migrants and contradicts Biden’s promises of a humane immigration system.
Unfortunately, it therefore looks like the U.S. has set itself on imposing that additional instability of a growing refugee population on its southern neighbor. Too bad for them, I’d say, but lucky for me: here at Radio Free Pizza, Latin America has previously been an area of interest to which I’d gladly return ever since I first touched on the region last November (though I quoted Clara Mattei referencing Western support for Pinochet in Chile the preceding July) to illustrate the historic correspondence between mass social engineering and manufacturing consent for imperialism—on that occasion in Guatemala to benefit the United Fruit Company, now known as Chiquita, which earlier this month a federal jury found liable for the killings of eight men in Colombia by the paramilitary group AUC, to which Chiquita paid millions from 1997 to 2004 even after the group was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government, before awarding $38.3 million in damages to the victims’ families.
In another dispatch from last November, we next explored U.S. imperialism in the region through the lens of the Panama Canal and its critical role in global trade, while simultaneously examining last year’s controversies over a new mining contract for the Cobre Panama mine, which sparked widespread protests, fueled by fears of corruption—and during which Kenneth Darlington, a 77-year-old retired American with dual Panamanian citizenship, shot and killed two protesters. Later, our 2023 retrospective offered an update, reporting how Panama’s supreme court ruled the contract unconstitutional just days after our dispatch went out, leading to the mine’s closure and the filing of a case in the International Chamber of Commerce seeking $20 billion in damages.
Earlier this month, some six months after that coverage, the aforementioned Darlington was sentenced to 48 years in prison. But with regard to Cobre Panama, little seems to have changed, though the former deputy economics minister advocates for a public referendum to relaunch the project with greater state oversight—presumably to recapture some of the 2024 GDP growth that Panama had been forecast to lose some six months ago.
In the meantime, however, Panama enacted a policy change with a curious correspondence to Biden’s executive order: in March, the country ordered the aforementioned Doctors Without Borders to stop providing medical services to migrants who passed through the Darien Gap separating Panama from Colombia about a week after the group called on the government to take more action to stop sexual violence on the migration route, which in turn accused the non-governmental organization (NGO) of failing to share its data on its victims. Additionally, Samira Gozaine, the country’s national director of migration services seemed to implicate Doctors Without Borders more broadly in a video alleging that similar NGOs provide migrants with maps to cross the Darien Gap “knowing they are going to be raped, they are going to be robbed. It is extremely irresponsible.”
For some Americans, the idea of NGOs helping migrants undertake their illegal border crossings will come as no surprise: those, at least, inclined to have read the Heritage Foundation’s “Tracking Movement of Illegal Aliens From NGOs to the U.S. Interior” from December 2022. Following an investigation that involved geofencing mobile devices at over 30 NGO facilities near the border, before tracing the locations of these devices (primarily belonging to migrants) to almost all U.S. congressional districts—highlighting the significant role NGOs play in processing and transporting migrants into the U.S. interior, exacerbating the border crisis and suggesting that these organizations extend the impact of illegal immigration nationwide.
But I’m sure it would still surprise many of even those Americans to consider that NGOs helping migrants cross borders, not just in the U.S. but in Panama too, may not represent only the deep trend of U.S. imperialism in Latin America now bearing the fruit of a dispossessed population haunting its home front. As Bret Weinstein proposed in January for his DarkHorse podcast on the migrant crisis as it looks in Panama, the border crises at the Darien Gap and on the southern U.S. border may also coincide with a deeper geopolitical strategy,
Here Weinstein hypothesizes (at ~15: 14) to his wife, fellow biologist Heather Heying, that the economic migration from South America to the U.S. is cloaking a separate, more organized migration of primarily Chinese military-aged males, based on the distinct characteristics observed during his then-recent trip to Panama and the Darien Gap in camps housing Chinese migrants, including their reluctance to interact, the secrecy surrounding their camps, and the presence of organized transportation awaiting their departure.
Most importantly for his analysis, however, Weinstein reports (at ~39:10) that the camp primarily housing Chinese migrants had a skewed sex ratio, with a predominance of military-aged males. These observations led to the hypothesis that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may be facilitating the Chinese migration as a covert movement of a fighting force, which he proposes (at ~40:31–45:34) may have resulted from the CCP’s historic one-child policy and its consequent overproduction of males, effectively creating a standing army.
While Weinstein and Heying explore (at ~52:29) alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, such as cultural differences or economies of scale in human trafficking allowing for larger-than-expected populations Chinese migrants, nonetheless Weinstein believes his observations support the hypothesis of a covert migration facilitated by the larger economic migration. For that reason, the biologists’ discussion also touches (at ~1:04:50–1:08:47) on the potential vulnerability of the U.S. political system to foreign influence, drawing parallels with the questionable decision to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for the military and suggesting that adversaries could exploit the pay-for-play nature of the U.S. political system to induce self-harm through its migration policy, much like the vaccine mandate that compromised military readiness.
Even just taken at face value, the recent actions by the U.S. and Panama to limit asylum requests and restrict NGO activities highlight the growing tension between governmental policies and humanitarian efforts. The broader implications, including the potential for geopolitical maneuvering that Weinstein and Heying explore, underscore the urgent need to address the challenges at both the U.S.-Mexico border and the Darien Gap. As these situations evolve, the interplay between local actions and international repercussions will surely continue to shape the landscape of migration and border policy throughout the Americas. We hope, however, that this month’s guilty verdict for Chiquita launches a fresh trend of U.S. corporations being held accountable for the social devastation they’ve wrought abroad—and, in this case, that Latin America has the chance to recover from it.