2024 in Retrospect
Suspiciously inspecting the wake of another year
Finally! We’re almost at the end of it! Best (belated) wishes to celebrants of the holidays on the Gregorian calendar, and to all those who outlived the northern hemisphere’s 2024 winter solstice—first to Radio Free Pizza gourmets, of course, and then to humanity in general. As the year draws to a close, it’s only fitting to look back at the year that was. For this final dispatch of 2024, let’s revisit the major developments that defined the past twelve months, update any lingering narratives we’ve followed, and consider what these stories tell us about the road ahead.
Paging All the Doctors
Our coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza began in last year’s retrospective, focusing on its impact on energy geopolitics, suggesting that control over the Gaza Marine gas field—which contains an estimated $3–4 billion in natural gas that has been inaccessible due to the Israeli blockade since 2007—might have been a driving factor behind Israel’s extermination campaign, drawing parallels between it and historical imperialist practices (such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the 2002 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline) to emphasize how the need to control energy markets has frequently underpinned geopolitical conflicts.
That coverage continued in June, exploring the controversy surrounding the claims of Hamas’ atrocities on 7 October 2023, including allegations of mass rape, which independent investigations, human rights organizations, and journalists found to lack forensic evidence or reliable testimony. Of course, we criticized the mainstream media narratives and atrocity propaganda, including claims of sexual violence, as unverified, politically motivated, and used to justify the genocide—one that The Lancet estimated in July might have claimed as many as 186,000 lives (7.9% of Gaza’s population), with projections indicating a potential total of 335,500 deaths by the end of the year. As of last month, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) found that women and children accounted for nearly 70% of the verified civilian deaths in the conflict’s first six months, with children alone accounting for nearly 44%—meaning that the aforementioned projected year-end total death count may include as many as 147,620 children.
Certainly “genocide” isn’t a contentious term to describe Israel’s campaign: after all, in January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found it “plausible” that Israel has been committing and a genocide, and ruled that the state must take measures to ensure its troops do not commit genocide and to preserve evidence of any allegations of such acts. But apparently Israel didn’t abide by the ruling, since the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices reported last month that Israel’s warfare in Gaza aligns with characteristics of genocide, citing mass civilian casualties, deprivation of basic necessities, and obstruction of humanitarian aid.
While that report cited Israel’s deprivation of medical supplies from the civilian population, it did not go so far as to mention Israel’s deliberate targeting of medical personnel. The most recent example of such came with last month’s murder of Dr. Ahmed Al-Kahlout, the director of the Intensive Care Unit at Kamal Adwan Hospital in the north of Gaza, who was killed by a drone strike at the hospital’s gate.
Other examples include Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh, a renowned orthopedic surgeon in Gaza, who had dedicated his career to treating patients at Al-Shifa Hospital and later relocated to other hospitals after Israeli forces targeted Al-Shifa, including the Indonesian Hospital (into which Israeli tanks fired on 20 November 2023, killing at least twelve) and Al-Awda, with each one facing escalating attacks and deteriorating conditions. Captured by Israeli forces in December 2023, Dr. Al-Bursh was detained at the Sde Teiman processing facility, where allegations of sexual abuse are widespread, before he was transferred to Ofer Prison near Jerusalem in April, arriving in critical condition—“with injuries around his body” and “naked in the lower part of his body”—before dying shortly afterward, under circumstances that remain unclear and for which Israeli authorities have provided no explanation.
Accordingly, some speculate that Israeli guards raped Dr. Al-Bursh to death—which would be consistent with the aforementioned UN Special Committee report, which noted “serious concerns about the arbitrary and punitive nature of these arrests and detentions,” with detainees subjected to “threats of rape and anal rape with an object by Israeli security personnel” (p. 21).
(Of course, the allegations from the UN Special Committee report are very interesting, given the narratives of mainstream media and of the Israeli state about Hamas’ use of mass rape as a wartime strategy in its attack on the Nova music festival, which we covered in June. Though alleged sexual assault survivors appeared in the April 2024 documentary Screams Before Silence, the UN’s Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict report from March said that its team “did not meet with any survivor/victim of sexual violence from 7 October despite concerted efforts encouraging them to come forward” [p. 4]—leaving us therefore to wonder why these survivors didn’t meet with the Office of the SRSG-SVC’s team, but one month later appeared in the documentary to make their claims.)
Other Palestinian surgeons reportedly suffered similar abductions—some after a two-siege of Al-Shifa Hospital in March that killed at least 400—though these surgeons’ fates remain as yet unknown. However, Israeli targeting of medical personnel hasn’t been restricted to Gaza: as of October, over 100 Lebanese rescue workers had been killed in airstrikes, most of them since 23 September 2024, after which Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon had killed more than 2,100 and displaced 1.2 million. While Israel claims that its operations target Hezbollah militants, Lebanese officials and humanitarian groups report deliberate strikes on rescue centers with no military presence. Civil defense workers describe their missions as near-suicidal due to persistent airstrikes, even on evacuation and rescue operations. Videos and eyewitness accounts reveal Israeli forces blocking rescue efforts, leaving civilians and workers vulnerable to further attacks.
Those airstrikes came on the heels of Israel’s 17–18 September 2024 pager attacks against the Lebanese, an act of terrorism carried out with explosives concealed inside the lithium batteries of pagers and walkie-talkies—manufactured in a supply chain spanned Taiwan, Hungary, and Norway, with Israeli intelligence reportedly using shell companies to disguise its involvement—that were detonated via remote electronic signals to explode in public areas, universities, and hospitals, where they killed at least 37 people and injured nearly 3,000, including civilians and children.
Though these attacks nominally targeted the Hezbollah militia, there’s good reason to consider medical staff a secondary target, with pager technology still in persistent use in hospitals despite the availability of more modern communication methods. Despite the apparent advantages of the latter, attempts to introduce them failed to improve either patient wait times or organizational efficiency, and medical staff still favor pagers for their reliability, their long battery life, and (perhaps most importantly) their ability to function during power outages or disasters. Though these Israeli attacks blindsided Hezbollah—which had adopted analogue communication tools to avoid infiltration—its leadership largely escaped harm, as many used older pager models.
While UN officials condemned the attack as a violation of international law, warning of potential escalation in the region, the incident marks a dangerous new precedent in modern conflict, prompting calls for international accountability and de-escalation. Of course, neither appear forthcoming—and neither does the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the warrant issued last month by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with countries like France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands already hinting that they wouldn’t abide by the ICC’s orders, and with U.S. Senator Tom Cotton even threatening the ICC with military reprisal in the event of Netanyahu’s arrest.
Certainly the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the conflicts in its surrounding regions highlights a disturbing confluence of geopolitical, humanitarian, and legal crises. Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian medical personnel and hospitals—which have lost 75% of their capacity—and its terroristic pager attack in Lebanon underscore a broader pattern of disregard for international law and human rights. Despite mounting evidence and international condemnation, accountability remains elusive, with key global powers complicit in shielding perpetrators from justice. Of course, that won’t help keep the 2024 Palestinian death toll from reaching the 335,500 projected in September—especially not with so many doctors dead or detained.
As the world watches, the collective failure to address these crimes risks entrenching impunity and perpetuating cycles of violence. Those risks therefore demand urgent intervention and an unwavering commitment to truth and accountability. However, given U.S. President-elect Trump’s threat at the start of this month that “there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East” (not just in Gaza) if Hamas doesn’t release its Israeli hostages before his inauguration—alongside his advocacy in October for strikes on Iran’s nuclear research facilities three weeks before Israel’s attack on the same, and the interest that his nominee for Secretary of Defense expressed in 2018 to see the construction of a Third Temple on the site currently occupied by the Aqsa Mosque—the incoming administration seems to have as little interest as its predecessor in holding the State of Israel accountable for its crimes against humanity. Accordingly, it looks less and less likely (at least under the current international order) that we can expect anything like humanitarian intervention and commitment to accountability will be at all forthcoming.
Breaking the Chains
We go now to Africa, happy to correct our habit of neglecting the continent. (We’ll get to you too someday, Australia!) Of course, the world’s second largest and second most populous continent deserves better coverage, particularly given the political developments in member-nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). That regional organization, established in 1975 to to promote economic integration and cooperation among West African states, has struggled with internal disagreements following military coups in Mali (2020 and 2021), Guinea (2021), Burkina Faso (2022), and Niger (2023), leading ECOWAS to suspend these nations’ memberships and impose sanctions in efforts to restore the previous regimes.
However, these measures had limited success, and tensions escalated. In January, Burkina Faso announced plans (along with Niger and Mali) to leave ECOWAS, citing disappointment with the bloc’s inability to address security challenges and accusing it of straying from its Pan-Africanist ideals. Despite initial sanctions (lifted in March), negotiations, and threats of military intervention, the departing governments have distanced themselves from former colonial power France, fostered closer ties with Russia, and in 2023 formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) for defense cooperation against ongoing insurgencies by al Qaeda and Islamic State-linked groups, raising concerns about ECOWAS’s declining influence in the region. Additionally, their participation in the West African Monetary Union (UEMOA), which uses the CFA franc currency, could be affected, as the monetary union has previously restricted financial access to Mali and Niger following the coups.
These withdrawals naturally raise concerns about the impact on regional integration, including freedom of movement and the common market for ECOWAS’s 400 million residents. These concerns only increased when Burkina Faso introduced new biometric passports in September without the logo or mention of ECOWAS, signaling its commitment to withdrawing from the West African bloc, which requires a formal one-year notice for leaving.
Certainly the new AES has been taking its own steps to restrict the freedom of movement—of capital flight out of Africa, that is. Last year, the AES member-nations began discussing plans for a new currency, further distancing the three nations from the West African CFA franc—a euro-pegged currency often criticized as a colonial relic—with Burkina Faso’s leader, Ibrahim Traoré (whom in October survived his second assassination attempt), emphasizing the alliance’s potential to evolve into a comprehensive economic union. The countries’ finance ministers proposed measures to support this vision, including the establishment of a joint stabilization fund, an investment bank, and a committee to study the feasibility of an economic and monetary union. These discussions are part of a broader push for sovereignty as the countries increasingly reject French influence—with the former colonial power having previously required the nations to hold a portion of their foreign reserves with the French Treasury until its 2019 constitutional reform—and resist international sanctions imposed following military coups.
The interest of AES nations in developing their economic sovereignty also threatens Europe’s energy security, particularly for countries like France, heavily reliant on West African uranium. By reforming mining codes, the AES nations are facilitating economic partnership in their uranium mines with the Russian Federation, which last month opened the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi, aiming to build on last summer’s Russia-Africa summit and to further strengthen Russia’s ties with African nations, with Russian President Vladimir Putin has emphasizing the expansion of political and business relations with African leaders. This raises the possibility that economic tensions between the Russian Federation and the European Union will result in a decision to limit uranium exports that could lead to supply shortages, energy price hikes (on top of those seen since the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline), and economic disruptions in Europe. While France has a two-year uranium reserve, prolonged disruptions could incite public unrest and destabilize internal markets.
Such destabilization may already be in progress: earlier this month, Niger’s military authorities took control of uranium mining operations previously managed by the French nuclear firm Orano, after revoking its permit in June to exploit one of the world’s largest uranium deposits, leading the company to suspend production. Niger, which accounts for 5% of global uranium output and was a significant supplier to France, has made it clear that foreign companies must provide the country with greater benefits from its resources.
Of course, it’s not just uranium extraction that the AES is disrupting: in November, authorities in Mali detained Terence Holohan, CEO of Australia’s Resolute Mining, and two other employees during discussions with mining and tax authorities about the company’s gold mines. Resolute Mining agreed to pay $160 million to the Malian government to settle the tax dispute, and Malian authorities released the detainees from the Economic and Financial Centre of Bamako, who then left the country.
Continuing the trend, this month Mali issued an arrest warrant for Mark Bristow, CEO of Canada’s Barrick Gold, and for Abbas Coulibaly, general manager of the Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex—which accounted for nearly 14% of Barrick’s annual gold production and 12% of revenue in 2022—over alleged money laundering. The arrest warrants follow the detention of four Barrick employees last month, tied to disagreements over Mali’s demands for additional economic benefits from its largest gold mine and for payment of over $840 million following a controversial sector-wide audit that led to the aforementioned Holohan’s detainment. The government is also pressuring mining firms to adopt a revised mining code that increases royalties tied to gold prices, with Mali’s finance minister hinting at revoking Loulo’s permits when they expire in 2026 if no agreement is reached. In contrast to Resolute Mining, Barrick has yet to settle, offering $370 million to address the audit claims.
Mali and its AES partners seem to be inspiring other African nations to assert their sovereignty, with President Bassirou Diomaye Faye of ECOWAS member Senegal calling last month for the closure of French military bases in his country, citing France’s historical responsibility for a massacre of Senegalese soldiers in 1944. Just a few hours later, Foreign Minister Abderaman Koulamallah of Chad released a statement announcing the abrupt end of its defense cooperation agreement with France, emphasizing his country’s desire to assert full sovereignty and redefine its strategic partnerships—much in the mold of AES member-nations, which individually demanded the withdrawal of French forces from Mali in 2022 and from Niger and Burkina Faso in 2023.
Without a doubt, the unfolding political and economic shifts in West Africa represent a significant reordering of the region's relationships with former colonial powers and global actors. As countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger assert their sovereignty, their growing ties with Russia and their push for economic independence—especially in critical sectors like mining—are reshaping the landscape of African politics and international trade. The potential disruption of vital resources such as uranium and gold could have far-reaching consequences, not just for Europe’s energy security, but also for the global economy, underscoring the geopolitical and economic risks posed by the trio’s realignment and deepened ties with the Russian Federation. As African nations increasingly reject Western influence, the continent’s political trajectory is poised for greater autonomy, challenging traditional power dynamics and creating new avenues for international cooperation. The evolving situation calls for closer attention to the shifting balance of power and the implications for both African nations and the wider world—which we here at Radio Free Pizza look forward to covering more diligently in the coming years.
Law Laid Low
In June we noted how former-and-now-future President Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony charges related to financial misconduct marked a historic first for a former U.S. president, and naturally sparked intense debate. Critics argued that the prosecution was politically motivated, highlighting potential double standards in the justice system, and warned of a broader erosion of the rule of law. Economic forecaster Martin Armstrong tied the conviction to a predicted decline in U.S. stability, suggesting it accelerates a trajectory toward systemic collapse and global conflict by 2032, signaling a turbulent future.
For now, maybe that turbulence has been delayed: federal cases like the D.C. election interference and Florida classified documents cases have been dismissed or stalled, while state-level cases linger with unresolved legal questions—though a New York court rejected his legal team’s attempt to dismiss his conviction for falsifying business records, ruling that presidential immunity does not apply to personal acts. In Georgia, the state election interference case remains paused as Trump challenges the court’s jurisdiction, citing his presidential status and federal guidelines. As the legal dust settles, Trump’s return to the presidency could shield him from further prosecution in several cases until 2029, adding a unique twist to ongoing discussions about constitutional questions of presidential immunity, state versus federal jurisdiction, and the justice system’s ability to hold high-ranking officials to account.
Of course, Trump’s cases weren’t the only ones that had our attention this year. Also in June, we covered Hunter Biden’s conviction on three felony charges for falsely claiming he was not using drugs during a 2018 firearm purchase. Key witnesses for the prosecution included his ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, and Hallie Biden, who disposed of the gun for safety reasons. The defense highlighted his condition at the time through testimonies, including one from his daughter. Hunter faced a potential 25-year sentence, while outgoing President Joe Biden then took a firm stance against pardoning his son, whose foreign business dealings and additional tax crimes were under intense scrutiny—notably the Biden’s relationship with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, the board of which Hunter joined after the Maidan coup in 2014.
But that scrutiny need trouble the Bidens no longer, with the outgoing president having broken his word and delivered his son a pardon on the first of this month. Naturally the outrage was immediate, resulting in sharp criticism for contradicting his previous pledges to uphold judicial independence and avoid interventions in his son’s legal cases. Among those critics stands Glenn Greenwald, who on 3 December reviewed the ignominious decision on System Update, with clips from the episode posted the next day on YouTube.
In the first clip, Greenwald details how President Biden and his administration repeatedly promised over several months that he would never pardon Hunter, emphasizing this as evidence of his commitment to the rule of law. Of course, Greenwald notes (at ~7:15) the initially lenient plea deal offered by Biden’s DOJ—which seems to us to undermine that expressed commitment, and which soon unraveled under judicial scrutiny, leading to more serious charges. But now, reaching the end of his tenure, Greenwald observes (at ~10:37) how the text of Biden’s pardon asserts that his son was “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,” contradicting previous Democratic rhetoric about respecting institutions. In addition, Greenwald describes (at ~14:06) how the outgoing president’s pardons applies not just to existing felony convictions, but covers all potential crimes from 2014 to 2024, including possible foreign influence dealings—casting the soon-to-be-former president’s claims of unfair prosecution in further doubt.
The scope of the pardon also shields both Hunter and Joe Biden from investigations related to foreign business dealings in Ukraine and China, as Greenwald explains (at ~14:06) while comparing it to George H.W. Bush’s Iran-Contra pardons:
This pardon, in other words, doesn’t just shield his son from the criminal convictions […] it shields him for all possible crimes, going back to influence, peddling, and trading in Ukraine and China, for which there’s evidence that Joe Biden himself may have had criminal exposure […] The only other example I can think of is when George Bush 41 who was knee-deep in the crimes of the Iran-Contra scandals during the Reagan administration when George Bush was Ronald Reagan’s vice president, especially in the second term when Reagan […] was suffering from Alzheimer’s and a kind of cognitive decline of the type Joe Biden has been suffering […] George H. W. Bush, rather, had a lot of foreign policy experience: he had previously been the director of the CIA, he played a major role in what became the illegal selling of arms to Iran in order to take that money and fund the Contras to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, even though the Congress had banned any funding in order to do that. And there was a criminal investigation and it was arriving at the doorstep of George H. W. Bush and his close ally, Caspar Weinberger, who had been Defense Secretary under Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush issued a pardon on his way out for every single person involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which included protecting George H. W. Bush himself: because once those criminal investigations were barred by the pardon, it meant that there was no avenue anymore to investigate the president himself. The difference here is that Joe Biden was actually pardoning his own son after spending a year swearing he would never do so.
But the implicit self-preservation of President Biden’s pardon isn’t the only aspect of it that Greenwald finds reason to criticize: in the second clip, the esteemed journalist discusses its contrast with Biden’s contrasting approaches to drug policy—his harsh stance as a legislator versus his protective attitude towards his son Hunter Biden.
Here he highlights how Biden, alongside the lifelong segregationist Strom Thurmond, championed severe mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine possession in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly affecting poor and minority communities. (It’s worth noting, then, that the aforementioned Iran-Contra affair introduced crack cocaine into those marginalized communities.) Greenwald notes that Biden advocated for five-year mandatory prison terms for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine, while now seeking to protect his son Hunter from similar consequences despite documented drug use. For that reason, Greenwald criticizes (at ~4:04) portrayals of Biden as a compassionate father, pointing out the hypocrisy given Biden’s historical role in criminalizing drug addiction:
We covered this at the time this first emerged when we were told that Joe Biden is such a loving, compassionate father: “We should applaud him for protecting his son, Hunter, because of the compassion he's showing for drug addiction,” which, again, I would have been empathetic to had it not been for the fact that Joe Biden is responsible for sending thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other people’s kids to prison for a long, long time for doing exactly what Hunter Biden did. In fact, Hunter Biden did a lot worse. He didn’t just use crack cocaine addictively the way a lot of people who were sent to prison by Joe Biden’s policies for a long time did, but he did these other kinds as well from which he's now being protected.
Accordingly, Greenwald criticizes the liberal media’s portrayal of Biden and discusses the declining public trust in institutions, citing (at ~11:32) a recent poll showing FBI approval at 41%. He also addresses (at ~13:57) the broader implications for Democratic Party support among minority groups, which of course most would expect to decline.
As it should: Biden’s pardon underscores a glaring hypocrisy that risks deepening public cynicism toward the justice system and eroding trust in democratic institutions. While Trump’s critics decry his alleged abuses of power and evasion of accountability, Biden’s actions in pardoning his son Hunter reveal an unsettling double standard, undermining supposed commitments to judicial independence and respect for institutional norms. Certainly this hypocrisy becomes even starker when viewed through the lens of Biden’s past: as a legislator, Biden was a staunch advocate of harsh drug policies that disproportionately punished marginalized communities—policies that starkly conflict with his leniency toward his own son’s offenses.
Such double standards not only invite comparisons to past presidential scandals but also validate accusations of political favoritism, emboldening critics who argue that the justice system operates differently for the powerful and connected, furthering the perception that accountability is a privilege reserved for the less fortunate. This selective application of justice tarnishes efforts to hold others accountable, weakening the moral high ground necessary for critiquing Trump and others. Ultimately, this episode reinforces a damaging narrative: that principles are often sacrificed for convenience or self-preservation. In a time of widespread institutional distrust, leaders must strive to demonstrate integrity and fairness; President Biden’s actions, however, risk further polarizing an already divided nation, sowing deeper doubts about the impartiality of the justice system. Accordingly, if a turbulent future of political instability in the U.S. has been at all delayed, we can’t imagine it has been forestalled for too long.
Free Play
One of our October bulletins covered the 2024 BRICS+ summit in Kazan, Russia, which marked a significant moment for the bloc’s growing influence. With major leaders from countries like Russia, China, India, and South Africa discussing expanding economic ties, financial analysts anticipated the potential introduction of a new currency—the UNIT. This hypothesized digital currency, aimed at reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar, would have been backed by a basket of assets including gold and national currencies. With more than 30 international delegations present, the summit promised to showcase the ambitions of BRICS+ to reshape global finance and challenge Western-led economic systems—though its internal tensions and complicated geopolitical dynamics underscored the complexity of such talks.
But, as you might have noticed, BRICS+ didn’t debut the UNIT: instead, the best they could offer turned out to be a mock-up banknote symbolizing the bloc’s awareness of its member-nations’ need for alternatives to the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, a unified BRICS+ currency remains a distant prospect, with geopolitical complexities and financial system disruptions making such a currency impractical in the short term. Instead, BRICS+ nations have focused on expanding the use of national currencies in trade and exploring digital financial systems, including the aforementioned potential gold-backed digital currency and the blockchain-based BRICS Pay digital payment system discussed in our October bulletin. However, these discussions remain speculative, with no formal timeline for implementation.
Still, with regard to payment systems, the BRICS+ members seem to be making significant strides. In a 24 October appearance on Judging Freedom with Andrew Napolitano, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow notes (at ~19:54) that BRICS+ will establish new commodity exchanges for grain, gold, and silver to compete with Western institutions.
Additionally, he offers (at ~20:36) further details on the bloc’s plans for economic integration:
As to currency, everybody expected that the decision on a BRICS currency. Well, there isn’t going to be one. But what they are going to do is continue their work, and probably this will be implemented rather quickly because there are prototypes, both in Russia and in China, for a SWIFT-equivalent messaging service for all banks participating in it, whereby the U.S.-controlled, Belgium-based SWIFT will be not used. Similarly, they are going to put in place a method of handling [imbalances] in the commercial exchanges that they do state-to-state using national currencies. These are world-changing institutional changes. They are not a military alliance, but they are of key importance for global governance. Will BRICS soon have two eyes in it? Will it be B-R-I-I-C-S, the second eye being Iran? Well, however we spell the acronym, the reality is that there are now nine full members [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates] […] there is a two-tier organization with an inner and outer. The inner side is already made. I think they will be announcing some new members, memberships being offered to key Southeast Asian countries. As we know, the big expansion last year was in Northeast Africa and West Asia. So they have a big gap to fill in the other most dynamic part of the world economy, which is Southeast Asia. And Malaysia is certain to be admitted to BRICS in short order. So there will be a bigger number than nine, but thirty members are not going to become full BRICS members. Just a handful of them will. And the rest will be partners. is to avoid a period of confusion, to water down what cohesion they have now.
Doctorow also discusses (at ~26:04) the bloc’s strategy regarding the U.S. dollar, noting that it doesn’t aim to replace it entirely but to reduce its dominance in global trade and as a reserve currency. Perhaps that’s for the best: after all, at the end of last month, the again-incoming President Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on the members of the bloc if they pursue efforts to undermine the U.S. dollar.
However, it seems the trend toward de-dollarization wasn’t entirely stymied: following the summit, Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) Mohammad Reza Farzin announced on 11 November that Iran and Russia have implemented financial settlement mechanisms to bypass the dollar-based SWIFT banking system. The two nations, both subject to U.S. and Western sanctions, now rely on Iran’s SEPAM financial messaging service and a newly linked payment system that enables Iranian bank card holders to withdraw cash from ATMs in Russia. Future phases of the initiative will allow reciprocal access for Russian card holders in Iran and the use of Iranian cards at point-of-sale machines in Russia. Additionally, Iran is exploring similar payment system linkages with other countries, though specific details remain undisclosed.
Still, some question how much of a change BRICS+ truly offers in comparison to the global capital order under which we suffer at present. Just after the summit, Riley Waggaman of Edward Slavsquat gave an overview of what he sees as a bait-and-switch. As he explains, the summit’s Kazan Declaration underscored the coalition’s commitment to multilateralism and global governance reforms. The declaration reaffirmed the United Nations’ central role, emphasized equitable representation in international organizations, and supported sustainable development, public-private partnerships, and climate action. BRICS+ also endorsed carbon markets, the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in global health, vaccine development, and digital transformation with emerging technologies like 5G.
While hailed as a step toward multipolarity, some argue the bloc’s policies mirror existing globalist frameworks, potentially repositioning rather than redefining global power dynamics. The summit’s theme, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” hardly contrasts at all with the then-upcoming focus on “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet” of the Group of Twenty (G20) meeting in November, sparking debate over the real ideological distinctions between these global coalitions. Critics like Waggaman and others therefore note the overlap between BRICS+’s stated goals and broader globalist agendas, and they accordingly question whether BRICS+ truly represents an alternative to Western-centric globalization—including Joseph P. Farrell, who asserts that despite the bloc’s anti-globalist image, its agenda aligns with the same centralizing, technocratic principles seen in organizations like the G20, highlighting how both entities advocate for global governance, sustainable development, public-private partnerships, and centralized health and climate policies, demonstrating the same authoritarian ambitions masked with mere euphemisms.
Accordingly, Farrell argues that the bloc’s rhetoric of resistance to the Western-led global order is superficial, with the group’s policies reflecting the same elitist agendas as their supposed rivals. He compares the globalist visions of BRICS+ and the G20 to a “Mafia enterprise,” under which various factions engage in a covert struggle for dominance, and revisits his long-held theory of “Mafia wars,” emphasizing that beneath both sides’ polished rhetoric of cooperation lie unresolved national and geopolitical tensions that could lead to open conflict as these factions approach their goal of centralized power.
For hints of significant factionalism within BRICS+, Farrell points to the absence of discussions about integrating the militaries of the bloc’s member-nations. He suggests that no member of this “global Mafia” is willing to relinquish its enforcement power, knowing it will be critical in any future struggles for supremacy. In his analysis, the unity projected by BRICS+ is a façade, designed to maintain appearances while rivalries simmer beneath the surface. Ultimately, Farrell predicts that the globalist project—whether driven by BRICS+ or the Western-led G20, is inherently unstable, with reliance on centralized control representing a recipe for eventual collapse, fueled by internal competition among the elites vying for control of the system. Despite the lofty language of sustainability and multilateralism, Farrell concludes that the geopolitical landscape remains shaped by old power dynamics and self-interest, casting doubt on the feasibility of a truly unified global order.
The comparisons that Waggaman and Farrell draw between BRICS+ and the G20 seem to accord with the depiction in the pseudonymous 009’s analysis from 3 October of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF)—whom we ourselves first targeted last December—arguing that they are spearheading a covert “billionaires’ revolution" aimed at dismantling nation-states and replacing them with a global governance system managed by technocratic elites who seek to employ advancements in artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and quantum computing as mechanisms for consolidating power under a centralized, corporate-style technocracy.
009 argues that this agenda hinges on “syndicated regionalism,” which seeks to replace the traditional nation-state system with regional blocs coordinated by groups like BRICS+, and goes on to critique the WEF’s vision for “smart cities”—characterized by AI-managed infrastructure, urban density, and sustainability—as eroding personal freedoms and increasing surveillance under the guise of progress. While these technological advancements promise societal benefits, critics like 009 see them as less about improving humanity’s collective well-being and more about entrenching control in the hands of a small elite.
In the interest of promoting resistance to this perceived global takeover, 009 emphasizes the need for public engagement in shaping the future of technology and society. Rather than allowing billionaire technocrats to dictate the trajectory of human civilization, he advocates for a revolution grounded in equity, compassion, and genuine empowerment of individuals. According to 009, humanity must rise to the challenge of confronting and defeating this billionaire class to secure a future defined by freedom and dignity rather than centralized control.
While initiatives like BRICS Pay show the bloc’s potential to challenge Western-led global systems, critics raise important questions about whether BRICS+ represents a genuine alternative to Western-centric globalization, or if it represents a mere rebranding of similar technocratic frameworks. While the bloc’s push for multipolarity and de-dollarization could redefine global trade and financial systems, but internal divisions, competing agendas, and overlapping globalist policies may hinder its long-term cohesion. Whether BRICS+ can evolve into a true counterweight to Western dominance or will merely perpetuate existing power dynamics remains an open question—one that will shape the trajectory of global governance in the years ahead.
As the world watches, the challenge lies not only in forging an inclusive and equitable financial system but also in ensuring that such efforts genuinely serve the interests of nations and their citizens rather than reinforcing centralized, elitist control. Whether BRICS+ can deliver on its vision of transformative change, or if it succumbs to the pitfalls of its critics’ warnings, will ultimately determine its legacy.
Tea-Time Taiwan (“What’s Taking So Long?!”)
As we discussed in “2024 in Forecast” from last January, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s New Year’s address reaffirmed the inevitability of China and Taiwan’s reunification, escalating long-standing tensions between the U.S. and China over the island. This declaration came a few months following the Vanguard Group’s announcement of its Shanghai offices’ closure and the end of its joint venture with Ant Financial—raising speculation about the future of U.S.-China economic ties amid rising geopolitical strains—which came only a couple weeks before U.S. President Biden declined Xi’s request to publicly endorse peaceful reunification and reject Taiwanese independence, later referring to Xi as a “dictator.”
Vanguard’s withdrawal from Shanghai may reflect broader concerns about the escalating conflict, particularly as its investments include Chinese defense industry subsidiaries subject to U.S. sanctions. While these developments don’t necessarily predict imminent military conflict, they underscore the increasing complexities in U.S.-China relations and their broader implications for global economic and political stability, and highlight the deepening divide between the two nations’ approaches to Taiwan, with the U.S. maintaining a policy that indirectly supports Taiwan’s de facto independence.
Later on, our “2024 in Progress” described how China’s reiteration of its commitment to reunification—deemed inevitable by President Xi Jinping—clashed with Taiwan’s pro-independence regime under President Lai Ching-te, which the U.S. has been supporting with military aid while avoiding outright endorsement of independence, further straining relations with China, which has responded with sanctions and military exercises. Amid growing fears of conflict, the U.S. began conducting military preparations in East Asia, while China bolstered its military with advanced technology, often in collaboration with Russia. Amid the tension between these superpowers, China proposed reforms to the United Nations to amplify the voice of developing nations and enhance the UN’s ability to manage global challenges, advocating for dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for sovereignty as solutions to global conflicts, while positioning itself as a proponent of international regulations and cooperative global governance.
Of course, we haven’t yet mentioned a recent landmark in the increasing antipathy between the U.S. and China: the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden on 9 August 2022, which allocated $280 billion to revitalize domestic semiconductor manufacturing while reducing U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains during a global chip shortage, and to strengthen scientific research and innovation in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and clean energy. Knowing the dominance of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which produces over 90% of the world’s advanced chips, it’s impossible to miss the subtext: the CHIPS Act represents one tactic of a broader strategy to ensure that the U.S. retains access to advanced semiconductors critical to national security and economic stability following China’s promised reunification with its erstwhile island territory.
Distributing the corporate grants allocated under the CHIPS Act became more urgent following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with Republican leaders, including President-elect Trump, criticizing the Act and hinting at its possible repeal. But just the day after the election, TSMC and GlobalFoundries (formerly the manufacturing arm of California’s AMD) reportedly finalized agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce to receive their CHIPS Act funding, with GlobalFoundries using its $1.5 billion award to expand and modernize its New York and Vermont facilities—focusing on automotive, defense, AI, and next-generation gallium nitride (GaN) chips—and TSMC using its $11.6 billion in grants and loans to add a third Arizona factory for advanced semiconductor production.
According to the Biden White House, the funding will drive $65 billion in private investment from TSMC, creating tens of thousands of jobs by the decade’s end and solidifying President Biden’s legislative legacy before President-elect Trump assumes office. Meanwhile, companies like Intel, Samsung, and Micron have pushed for accelerated funding to avoid renegotiation under Trump’s second administration, with the President-elect having criticized the CHIPS Act as favoring wealthy companies and suggested tariffs as an alternative strategy, despite concerns about increased consumer costs. Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasized earlier this month that the funds are legally locked in and protected from potential changes under the incoming Trump administration.
However, Schumer’s statement came one week after China announced its own ban on exports to the U.S. of key materials, including gallium (key to GlobalFoundries’ aforementioned GaN chips), germanium, and antimony in retaliation for U.S. restrictions on semiconductor-related exports, with China’s Commerce Ministry explaining that the export restrictions were necessary to protect its national security. These materials—essential for products such as computer chips, cars, and military technology—are critical to both countries’ industries. China is the leading global supplier of gallium and germanium, and the export controls have already caused a surge in prices for these minerals.
Therefore, we can predict that whether or not Trump can impose his planned tariffs, prices of consumer electronics will rise regardless of increases to domestic production. But despite the economic context for escalating U.S.-China tensions, we shouldn’t imagine that this is only a trade war, as the esteemed Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and professor at Columbia University, explains in a clip posted last month.
Here, Sachs describes a deep resentment in the U.S. towards China’s rise, arguing that U.S. leaders—often ignorant of modern history—view China’s progress as an affront to American dominance, and notes having observed how, starting around 2014, the U.S. began recasting China as an enemy rather than a recovering nation. Consequently, Sachs explains (at~1:34), the U.S. adopted a containment policy, seeing that China’s rise no longer serves U.S. interests. He criticizes this approach, noting that the U.S. seems to believe it has the right to determine China’s prosperity, while observing that canny Chinese leaders have not failed to note this shift in U.S. policy. Sachs argues (at ~2:05) that the West, having led the world for a brief 250-year period, feels entitled to continue doing so, and therefore the attitude among the Group of Seven (G7) major global economies of feeling privileged to decide international norms, citing Obama’s approach to writing trade rules for Asia without China’s input as an example—a mindset he calls naïve, dangerous, and outdated.
Sachs goes on to criticize the U.S. approach to foreign policy as militarized and often disregarding other countries’ security interests, which he traces to the Soviet Union, when some American leaders embraced the idea of a “unipolar world.” He criticizes the subsequent militarization of U.S. foreign policy—citing (at ~4:20) a Tufts database showing over 100 U.S. military interventions since 1991—and shares his personal observations of the U.S. prioritizing military solutions in various regions, such as in Ukraine, which he argues (at ~5:37) could have been avoided through negotiations had the U.S. not rejected diplomatic efforts. He explains that Russia had been expressing concerns about NATO expansion into the Black Sea region for years, and reveals that he attempted personally to contact the White House in late 2021 to urge the Biden Administration to engage in diplomatic talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but was told that this was “off the table.”
Unfortunately, Sachs warns (at ~7:02) that the U.S. is taking actions in East Asia similar to those that led to the Ukraine conflict. He criticizes the U.S. for organizing alliances and building up weaponry while antagonizing China, and specifically mentions Speaker Pelosi’s 2 August 2022 visit to Taiwan (just one week before Biden signed the CHIPS Act) despite Chinese requests to lower tensions. Accordingly, he expresses his concerns that these actions could lead to war, emphasizing the dangerous nature of current U.S. foreign policy, calling (at ~7:42) for a fundamental change in how the U.S. conducts its foreign relations—noting that the U.S. represents only 4.2% of the world’s population and therefore should not attempt to dominate global affairs—and emphasizing the need for the U.S. to adopt a more cooperative stance in global affairs.
Naturally, that would help alleviate tensions with China. But the U.S. seems unlikely to abandon its strategic policy measures aimed at increasing its domestic production of essential semiconductors, and China’s retaliatory export controls underscore the deepening rivalry between the two superpowers. However, as Sachs notes, these ongoing trade disputes are not just about economic dominance, but result from broader historical and ideological shifts in U.S. policy, and his critique of the U.S.’s militarized foreign policy and its disregard for diplomatic engagement suggests that the current trajectory may lead to further instability in East Asia.
As the U.S. and China navigate this precarious path, it is clear that the future of global governance, trade, and security hinges on the ability of both nations to reconsider their approaches and foster more cooperative relationships, rather than resorting to adversarial tactics. While the risk of conflict remains high, the Chinese proposals (which we discussed in June) for diplomatic and structural changes at the UN may offer a potential path toward de-escalation and international stability. But whether this vision can influence current power dynamics and avert strategic disasters remains uncertain—or rather, quite doubtful, given the U.S.’s competitive influence and domineering capacity. Still, only time will tell if a new era of diplomacy can emerge or if tensions will continue escalating: either way, however, the implications for international order will surely be profound.
Errors & Omissions
Longtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets may have noticed how eagerly we correct our reporting when the occasion demands it, such as our mistaken recollection of Superman’s origins that we confessed last March, or the false understanding of Saudi Arabia’s supposed BRICS+ membership addressed in October. In addition, sometimes we miss the opportunity to offer further insight, as we did in November with the lost chance to explore potential connections between the mononymous Parker’s six chivalric virtues and our beloved The Once & Future King (mentioned at ~21:41 in the clip featured in the immediately preceding link). In keeping with the former tradition, and in an attempt to rectify the latter, we’ll try now to address similar shortcomings in our dispatches and bulletins from 2024 in the quartet of narrow slices that follow, presented in the order of each one’s first appearance.
Amending “Split Value Circuits”
Our May dispatch investigated the economics of our proposed Libertarian Communism, which attempts to blend American individualism with nationalized essential industries and worker-owned enterprises—both very communist, of course. Meanwhile, we highlighted the common ground that communists share with libertarians in their criticisms of central banks, which the latter argue erode currency values to the benefit of financial oligarchs. We humorously compared the libertarians’ opposition to central banking to Vladimir Lenin’s advocacy for nationalized banks, and accordingly advocated for establishing public banks to counteract the resulting upward wealth transfer and immiseration of the working class.
However, we may have been too optimistic that libertarians would find that agreeable. In fact, they’ve long critiqued the U.S. government’s control over currency—in addition to seeing the Federal Reserve as a coercive institution that drives inflation, debt, and potential default—since the 1970s, many libertarians have championed alternatives like a return to the gold standard and, more importantly, privately issued, decentralized currencies.
(Of course, readers with impeccable memory will recall that we already found occasions to address a point omitted from that original dispatch, with a July bulletin citing the connection drawn by Peter Coffin between the labor theory of value and the gold-backed currencies that libertarians often promote. As he explains, the labor required to mine gold gives it intrinsic value, aligning with Marxist thinking about economic value being derived from labor.)
Key figures, including economist Friedrich August von Hayek, supported the introduction of privately issued currencies. In his Denationalization of Money (1976), Hayek argued that the government monopoly on currency should be replaced with free-market competition among private banks. Hayek argued that a single national currency and central bank have historically caused significant inflation, and therefore, unregulated private currencies could serve as a counter to the government’s monopoly over the national currency.
That, of course, explains the libertarians’ devotion to Bitcoin—though one therefore wonders if they’re aware of the evidence for tracing its origins to the U.S. National Security Agency.
So, while our initial optimism about finding common ground between libertarians and communists on the issue of central banking may have been premature, the ongoing debate highlights an interesting convergence of ideas around the role of money in society. Libertarians’ long-standing critique of government control over currency aligns with some of the communist critiques of central banking and wealth inequality. However, their solution—privately issued, decentralized currencies—offers a stark contrast to the nationalization and public banking alternatives that we propose. In the end, the challenge lies in reconciling the goals of economic freedom, stability, and fairness, and understanding that while the paths we take may differ, the ultimate aim should be to create a more just and equitable financial system for all. The question remains: can we find a way to balance private innovation with public accountability, ensuring that monetary policy serves the broader needs of society rather than just the interests of the few? Stay tuned to see if we can figure it out!
Y Tú, “Ya Haz Grande Latinoamérica!”
One (narrow) slice from “2024 in Progress” featured Bret Weinstein in a discussion with colleague and wife Heather Heying on the DarkHorse podcast, hypothesized that the migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and Panama’s Darien Gap could mask a covert geopolitical strategy involving Chinese military-aged males. Based on his observations during a trip to Panama, Weinstein noted distinct patterns among Chinese migrants, including their secrecy, skewed sex ratio favoring military-aged males, and organized transportation, suggesting potential facilitation by the Communist Party of China (CPC). He speculated that this might be tied to the CPC’s historic one-child policy, which produced an overabundance of males. Weinstein and Heying also discussed the broader vulnerability of U.S. systems to foreign influence and how policies like COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the military could weaken readiness. Then-recent U.S. and Panamanian actions to curb asylum requests and NGO activities highlighted tensions between policy and humanitarian efforts, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to migration.
But some have since given us reason to suspect Weinstein might have been disingenuous. This past September, Johnny Vedmore—whom we cited last year for his research into Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum—published his investigation into Bret’s brother Eric, in which Vedmore describes the United Nations International Labour Organization’s (ILO) initiative to create a free-market solution for economic migration, which critics argue undermines native workers in host countries. Led by Manolo Abella and with contributions from Eric Weinstein, the project aimed to align employer and native worker interests by introducing market-based mechanisms, such as allowing natives to sell labor market access rights. Weinstein’s 2002 contribution “Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration” analyzed the economic and social impacts of these migration programs, arguing that while employers benefit from hiring migrants due to lower wages, this often disadvantages native workers unless offset by compensatory measures, such as redistributing income or creating marketable labor access rights. He of course acknowledged societal challenges associated with economic migration—including stress, environmental impacts, and security risks, which could make such policies unpopular among electorates— and consequently proposed strategies for redistributing wealth and managing societal effects to address these issues in order to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
Though Weinstein recognized the negative consequences of migration, such as wage suppression, ghettoization, and long-term labor shortages for native populations, these issues were not presented as reasons to limit migration. Accordingly, critics have accused Weinstein and the ILO of advancing a “globalist” agenda that prioritizes economic migrants at the expense of native populations. Vedmore therefore critiques Weinstein’s proposals as an example of large-scale migration policies implemented without democratic consent as debates about the social and economic impacts of such policies continue worldwide.
Cynthia Chung provided her own critique in October, beginning with her analysis Bret Weinstein’s closing remarks at the Rescue the Republic event on 29 September, in which invoked the myth of the Phoenix while urging a dramatic and destructive rebirth to save the West from its perceived decline. Chung interprets his metaphor as a call for societal upheaval akin to the devastation associated with past policies like the Vietnam-era Operation Phoenix—the CIA program, notorious for its brutality, used the Phoenix symbol to represent its counterinsurgency tactics, which included torture and mass killings— and therefore highlights the dangers of embracing destruction as a pathway to renewal, while linking these methods to broader attempts at societal control, rooted in psychological manipulation and “mind control” experiments by organizations like the Tavistock Institute. These historical parallels, coupled with the symbolism of the Phoenix, raise concerns about the implications of advocating for crisis-driven renewal.
Chung goes on to critique Weinstein’s geopolitical commentary, particularly regarding Chinese construction projects in Panama, portraying his warnings as suspect for echoing historical U.S. military operations in the region. While his commentary may seem on its face antagonistic to his brother Eric’s prioritization of migrants over native populations and endorsement of wealth redistribution despite the negative impacts on native societies, Chung criticizes Bret’s rhetoric for echoing the historic manipulation of the Ghost Dance Religion among 19th-century Native Americans, which Jesuit teachings and other external forces manipulated into tools for control, offering promises of salvation that ultimately led to devastation among indigenous communities. Accordingly, she accuses Weinstein of promoting a dangerous narrative of purification through destruction, manipulating contemporary concerns about migration and societal collapse into instruments of ideological control.
Perhaps that narrative represents the second act of a longer-term saga, with Eric Weinstein having contributed to the first. For further details on that first act, we can turn to a clip from The Jimmy Dore Show posted 9 December 2024 from a stream conducted on 6 December.
Here, the eponymous Dore and co-host Kurt Metzger discuss recent comments from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on immigration policies—which Starmer admits (in a clip available at ~2:20) had been deliberately liberalized, acknowledging that this was “by design, not accident”—and their impacts across Western nations. Dore and Metzger go on to cite (at ~11:14) Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who points in another clip to George Soros’ September 2015 plan published in Project Syndicate, which outlined accepting at least one million asylum seekers annually in the European Union and establishing financing through Eurobonds.
Dore and Metzger also note (at ~19:09) how similar policies have been implemented in the U.S., with reference to Jeffrey Jaxen’s interview on Del Bigtree’s The Highwire, in which the interlocutors note the UN Population Division’s March 2000 report “Replacement Migration” while discussing how NGOs facilitate migration through the Darien Gap as a key migration route. Of course, the hosts point out (at ~21:53) how the rhetoric around immigration from politicians in the domestic U.S. establishment has changed dramatically, particularly among Democratic politicians.
Needless to say, the narratives surrounding migration, societal transformation, and geopolitical influence remain deeply contested, revealing layers of historical precedent, ideological entanglements, and contemporary strategy. Bret Weinstein’s warnings about migration routes and potential CPC involvement, alongside his brother Eric’s contributions to UN migration policies, highlight a broader tension between national sovereignty and globalized frameworks. However, critics like Cynthia Chung and Johnny Vedmore provide sharp critiques of the Weinstein brothers, connecting these contemporary issues to historical patterns of manipulation, societal upheaval, and control.
Through Bret Weinstein’s metaphors like the Phoenix and references to historical programs like Operation Phoenix and the Ghost Dance Religion, commentators argue that the rhetoric of renewal through destruction risks perpetuating cycles of manipulation and harm. Whether through direct policy proposals, such as those advocated by Eric Weinstein, or through broader cultural and geopolitical commentary, as exemplified by Bret Weinstein, these ideas’ implications demand our observation of historical lessons from the exploitation of indigenous populations to properly examine the liberalization of immigration policies across the West.
As discussions continue, the need for transparency, informed consent, and critical engagement with these ideas becomes ever more urgent. Whether these narratives represent calculated strategies or misguided interpretations, their potential consequences demand careful scrutiny. The stakes are not just policy decisions, but the broader social and cultural cohesion of nations now struggling to navigate complex and often competing visions of progress, sovereignty, and global interconnectedness.
Really: “Someone Tried It in Butler”?
As you all surely remember, once-and-future U.S. President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt on 13 July 2024 during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, which left one attendee dead and two critically injured. The assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds before being killed by a Secret Service sniper. Subsequent criticism focused on how the Secret Service missed obvious security risks, including the presence of the gunman on a nearby rooftop.
This incident, the first of its kind involving a former or sitting president since 1981, raised serious concerns about security lapses and potentially intentional negligence by the Secret Service, and intensified discussions on political violence and its impact on American democracy. Additionally, it generated speculations that the shooting was a deep-state plot to destabilize the political landscape, with both the left and right theorizing that the assassination attempt was a staged event to inspire support for Trump, or a globalist conspiracy to eliminate him as a supposed rival.
However, Peter Yim observed last month how, though The New York Times had published a video the day after the assassination attempt featuring a photograph central to widespread media coverage that purportedly captured the path of a bullet narrowly missing Trump which was later scrutinized as fraudulent. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sought records from the FBI regarding the photograph, specifically whether The New York Times had provided it to the agency. The FBI responded on 6 November—the day after Trump’s successful election—stating it found no records indicating that the photograph had been submitted. This absence raised further doubts about the assassination attempt’s legitimacy.
That said, a fraudulent photograph wasn’t the only thing raising those doubts, though many would consider that other item rather unorthodox as “evidence.” Big Mad Crab, whom appeared in one of our July bulletins published just ten days before the shooting in Butler, posted a video on Twitter nine days after it: a clip from the cartoon Ugly Americans (2010–2011) showing an assassination attempt in which a bullet grazes its target’s ear just seconds before his finger presses the button to activate a doomsday device to inaugurate the End of Days.
Surely that will remind longtime readers of our February dispatch on the 2020–’23 coronavirus pandemic that discussed predictive programming: the theory that media—through subtle conditioning—prepares the public for planned societal changes or major events through their depiction in entertainment, reducing resistance by framing them as natural or inevitable.
Of course, the assassination target in that cartoon receives the flesh wound in his left ear, whereas Trump received it in his right: so, nothing to worry about—regardless of any potential connection between the doomsday device in the cartoon and Trump’s continual claims that he will need only 24 hours to conclude the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which seems increasingly to risk turning into a nuclear war. Nonetheless, as the world awaits Trump’s inauguration to see if he can make good on his promises of swift resolutions to the crisis, questions linger not only about the attempted assassination itself, but also about the far-reaching consequences of its symbolism in an era increasingly defined by uncertainty and polarization. But as far as the potential approach of doomsday is concerned, rest assured that we’ll be keeping an eye on it!
Repeating “The Horrible Rumors About Comet Ping Pong”
Our July dispatch discussed various scandals linking intelligence agencies to child sex-trafficking, along with one we considered a hoax: the Pizzagate conspiracy theory of 2016 alleged that prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta, operated a child sex-trafficking ring inside the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., fueled by interpretations of “coded” messages in emails appearing on WikiLeaks. Fact-checkers debunked these claims, but they became intertwined with conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose 2016 death, officially labeled a botched robbery, spurred speculation that he was assassinated for leaking sensitive DNC emails to WikiLeaks, challenging the narrative that Russian hackers were responsible. But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) criticized the official assessment, suggesting forensic evidence indicated a local leak rather than a remote hack, and WikiLeaks’ reward for information on Rich’s murder—as well as statements by founder Julian Assange (freed this year on a plea deal with the U.S. government)—fueled theories of Rich’s involvement in the email leak.
Therefore, it seems to us that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory served to delegitimize the leaked DNC emails. Interestingly, however, some online commentators continue associating news stories with Pizzagate: last year, in connection to James Gordon Meek, the former ABC News reporter who in 2023 pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and another of possessing child pornography, for which a court sentenced him to six years in prison. In 2017, Meek co-authored an article titled “Behind #SyriaHoax and the Russian propaganda onslaught” that briefly mentioned Pizzagate as a “debunked” conspiracy theory in the context of discussing alleged Russian disinformation efforts. But the trend continued this year after the arrest on charges related to child pornography of Slade Sohmer, former editor-in-chief of The Recount, with some online commentators claiming he wrote a similar “debunking” article. However, those online commentators did manage to link Sohmer to the aforementioned Podesta, who tweeted his thanks in 2017 for Sohmer’s reporting on a sinkhole at Mar-a-Lago.
Kind of annoying, isn’t it? That true crimes might continue finding some association with debunked ones that seem to us to have only been invented to cover up the source for leaked emails and to smear a geopolitical rival. But nonetheless, thanks to this latest apparently false claim that Sohmer had at one time debunked Pizzagate, we discovered another curiosity: though James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong, told Metro Weekly in 2015 that the restaurant stored canned tomatoes in its basement, after the Pizzagate debacle in 2016, Alefantis told BBC Trending that the restaurant had no basement.
Still, the persistence of associations between real crimes and debunked (for now?) conspiracies like Pizzagate underscores the challenges of navigating a digital landscape rife with misinformation, selective memory, and speculative connections. While these narratives often distract from substantive issues—such as credible criticisms of intelligence agencies or inconsistencies in official accounts—they also reveal the enduring power of narratives to obscure truths and shape public perception. As we continue to sift through claims both credible and fabricated, it’s imperative to maintain a commitment to evidence-based analysis and accountability, resisting the allure of oversimplified explanations that obscure more complex realities.
Diddy Done What?
Our June dispatch discussed how Sean Combs, formerly known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, has come to face numerous legal allegations, including sexual assault and sex trafficking, were accompanied by civil lawsuits, FBI raids, and claims about his involvement in orchestrated blackmail schemes within the music industry. Critics and conspiracy analysts, such as Craig “Pasta” Jardula and Ian Carroll, linked Combs’s actions to systemic abuses in the entertainment world, drawing parallels to historical scandals like those surrounding the late (good riddance) Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, journalist Nick Bryant connected these allegations to intelligence agency-backed blackmail operations targeting figures of influence, with his investigations highlighting patterns of abuse, exploitation, and institutional cover-ups in the U.S., exemplified by cases like the Franklin scandal. Of course, these findings suggest deeper issues within elite circles, implicating intelligence agencies and organized crime in facilitating and protecting these operations.
When we last left Combs, federal investigators had only been preparing to bring (some of) his accusers before a grand jury. They came through, and Combs was arrested on 16 September following a grand jury indictment on federal charges of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Despite multiple bail requests—including a $50 million bond offer and house arrest proposals—judges consistently denied his release due to concerns over community safety, witness tampering, and his alleged pattern of violence. (Amusingly, Combs’s lawyers responded to Judge Arun Subramanian’s 22 November request for written submissions with one that referenced legal precedent from United States v. Trump to argue against pretrial speech restrictions.) Throughout his detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, Combs’s legal team highlighted poor conditions and accused the Department of Homeland Security of leaking incriminating videos, which the prosecution denied.
While those bail hearings were being held in September, Ian Carroll—whom we cited in our previous coverage of Combs—presented a detailed analysis of a 2018 incident involving Jonathan Oddi at Trump National Doral Hotel in Miami, when Oddi entered with a gun and American flag, caused property damage, engaged in a shootout with police, and eventually surrendered after being shot in the leg. During his police interrogation, Oddi asserts (at ~8:24 in his interrogation) alleges Combs’s membership in a secret society called the Black Boulét, which he describes as a Black branch of the Illuminati, with Combs’s fame arranged by the Black Boulét to serve its agenda. He describes himself as Combs’s “sex slave” and makes allegations about his sexual activities, including involving paid sex workers and filming sessions, now echoed in recent lawsuits.
Soon after presenting his analysis, Carroll appeared on Redacted to discuss Combs’s case further. He first highlights the absence of Lucian Grange (CEO of Universal Music Group) from the indictment despite being initially named in lawsuit previously filed against Combs by producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleging grooming, sexual assault, drugging, and forced participation in sex acts, has spoken out amid ongoing legal proceedings, before Carroll and host Clayton Morris go on to detail (at ~3:414) suspicious property purchases along the southern border wall near Tijuana by Faheem Muhammad, former security head for Michael Jackson before becoming Combs’s security chief. The property in question, connected to Muhammad through media reports, is listed on tax records under the “Dior Sunset Foundation,” based in Los Angeles, which promotes youth programs focused on social skills, gang prevention, and healthy living. For Carroll and Morris, this suggests potential connections to child trafficking operations—perhaps something like those discussed in our July dispatch—though they note (at ~6:07) the absence of child trafficking charges in Combs’s current indictment, before discussing the challenges in prosecuting such cases and the broader prevalence of child trafficking in the U.S.
Since Combs’s arrest, another hip-hop star has come under similar scrutiny: at the start of this month, a rape complaint filed against Combs by the Buzbee Law Firm was refiled to additionally accuse rapper Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter of participating in the sexual assault on the victim on 7 September 2000, when she was just thirteen years old. Carter first sued the eponymous Tony Buzbee anonymously, then issued a strong public denial of allegations, accusing Buzbee of blackmail and theatrics. In that statement, Carter alleged that Buzbee sent a demand letter attempting to leverage public scrutiny for a settlement. Refusing to comply, Carter called the allegations “heinous” and encouraged filing a criminal complaint rather than a civil suit, asserting that such crimes against minors warrant imprisonment. (Of course, the statute of limitations on the alleged assault has long expired.) Combs’s legal team also condemned Buzbee, labeling his lawsuits as baseless publicity stunts meant to extort money from celebrities while reiterating Combs’s innocence.
It’s worth noting that contradictions in the accuser’s story have emerged—including conflicting accounts of the evening’s events and photos showing Carter and Combs at a different location—for which reason Carter’s lawyers have asked the court to dismiss the case. Now 38, the accuser maintains her allegations and has offered to undergo a polygraph test. Advocacy groups, including RAINN, note that inconsistencies in memory are common in trauma survivors, particularly when drugs are involved, and should not invalidate claims. The accuser hopes her case will inspire others to come forward. Buzbee said his firm continues to investigate her claims.
But with that said, Carter’s Roc Nation label seems to have taken some extra-legal steps that don’t seem like innocent behavior: little more than a week ago, the Buzbee Law Firm filed its own lawsuit against Roc Nation, attorney Marcy Croft, and law firm Quinn Emanuel, accusing them of engaging in illegal activities such as barratry and impersonation of public officials, claiming that Roc Nation representatives posed as state officials and approached former Buzbee clients with an offer of $10,000 to file lawsuits against the firm. Buzbee alleges that these actions (captured on tape) occurred over 24 times and resulted in at least two lawsuits against his firm, representing part of a coordinated effort to harm the firm’s reputation and interfere with ongoing litigation involving Combs, whose prosecutors have vowed to disclose all evidence by the end of 2024 in preparation for a trial set for 5 May 2025.
The unfolding scandals surrounding Combs and Carter paint a troubling portrait of power, abuse, and manipulation within the entertainment industry. Regardless of the cases’ outcomes, these revelations demonstrate the need for closer scrutiny of the entertainment industry’s systemic issues and its intersections with institutional power, underscoring the need for accountability—not only for alleged perpetrators but also for enablers and protectors within elite circles.
As the legal battles unfold, they also highlight the challenges survivors face when seeking justice, from navigating public skepticism to confronting powerful adversaries. Whatever the verdicts, this moment calls for introspection, reform, and a collective commitment to dismantling the structures that allow exploitation to persist. Only through such efforts can the entertainment world (and society at large) begin to reconcile with these dark truths and move toward a more equitable future. Though critics may maintain skepticism about meaningful change due to the entrenched power structures involved, you can be sure that we here at Radio Free Pizza will have at least one eye on the case—if only to see if the determiner in Katt Williams’ September claim that “all lies will be exposed” wasn’t just hyperbole.
What Ever Happened to Our Right-on-Time Crimefighter?
Habitual Radio Free Pizza gourmets may remember how often “Pizza-Man” (the urban superhero themed around pizza) appeared throughout our newsletter’s “Year One”: the more curious among them might therefore have wondered why that silly AI-generated mascot disappeared from our bulletins and dispatches—except for one parenthetical reference on May Day, that is.
“What ever happened to Pizza-Man?” they might wonder, but I can’t give you any firm answer. I suppose he must have returned to train with his mentor.
“Who’s that?” you might ask. Well, some of you may have seen the AI-generated images depicting “Gumbo Slice”—supposedly credited as “the first thing I've ever seen where I can’t tell if it's AI or not”:
But fewer among you might know that user drangis_ posted the AI-generated backstory to Gumbo Slice on the subreddit dedicated to the Midjourney image-generating AI:
Gumbo Slice was not always a fat shirtless black man eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He used to be a successful chef and restaurateur in New Orleans, known for his signature dish: gumbo with a slice of pizza on top. He had a loyal clientele, a loving wife, and a bright future. But everything changed when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Gumbo Slice lost his restaurant, his home, and his wife in the devastating storm. He was left with nothing but his name and his passion for cooking. He wandered the streets of New Orleans, looking for a place to start over. He found it in the bayou, where he met a group of friendly alligators who shared his love of pizza. He befriended them and learned their ways. He built a shack in the swamp and started making pizza with whatever ingredients he could find. He also learned how to wrestle alligators, which he did for fun and exercise. He became known as Gumbo Slice, the fat shirtless black man eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He was happy and content, until one day, he encountered an alligator that was not so friendly. It was a rogue gator that had been terrorizing the swamp for weeks. It attacked Gumbo Slice while he was enjoying his pizza, and tried to bite off his leg. Gumbo Slice reacted quickly and kicked the gator in the face, sending it flying into the water. He then grabbed his pizza and ran back to his shack, where he celebrated his victory with his alligator friends. He took a selfie with his phone and posted it online, with the caption: “Don’t mess with Gumbo Slice!” The photo went viral and became a meme sensation. People loved Gumbo Slice’s quirky personality and fearless attitude. They made jokes, captions, and remixes of his photo, spreading it across the internet. Gumbo Slice became an internet celebrity overnight. He did not mind the fame, as long as he could keep eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He was happy and content, and he never looked back. He was Gumbo Slice, and he loved his life.
However, absolutely none of you could possibly know (because I’m making it up right now) that the beloved Gumbo Slice also plays a key role in the backstory of our very own hot and fresh Pizza-Man, becoming our heroic mascot’s mentor in the ancient Creole art of alligator-wrestling.
You see, adapting the lyrics from various versions of “En Sexto, un Agil”—translated into English from the gibberish Spanish that one AI had provided when it wasn’t instructed to generate an instrumental, and which another AI had transcribed from the audio output of the first—Pizza-Man first met Gumbo Slice as a sixth-grader working after school in a pizza shop. No one remembers his real name anymore, since his nickname “Nomor” took off around town, with everyone having too often heard him saying to himself, “No more.”
But he didn’t need to go on too much longer: dodging traffic around the gas station, he didn’t see the open manhole ahead of him, and so Nomor the pizza-boy went plunging into the sewer—lucky for him, because wouldn’t you know it, Gumbo Slice was the very customer who had placed the order, and he kept the alligators in the sewer from tearing into young Nomor once he hit the water.
“Hey there, little Nomor! You okay, boy?”
Nomor squinted through the dim light of the sewer, trying to make sense of the silhouette waddling toward him. The figure was shirtless, broad, and unmistakable: Gumbo Slice himself, cradling a half-eaten slice of pizza in one hand and flanked by two lounging alligators.
“How’d you know my name?” Nomor stammered, still gripping the battered pizza box.
“Ain’t much goes on in this town I don’t hear about,” Gumbo Slice said, gesturing up toward the open manhole as he pulled Nomor out of the muck. “Plus, that pizza smells like it’s got my name on it.”
Nomor handed over the box, groaning as he found his footing and feeling a strange mix of awe and terror as Gumbo Slice opened it and took a bite, unbothered by its bedraggled state. “Sorry: I tried to tell whoever answered the phone that you gotta be careful with the address,” Gumbo Slice said between chews. “But y’know, you got lucky. That manhole? Leads to my favorite shortcut. Come on, let me show you.”
Nomor pulled his bicycle out of the water and just like that he found himself following Gumbo Slice through the maze-like sewers, lit only by the glow of the faint bioluminescence of the swamp water.
“What does that?” Nomor asked.
“Fluoride bacteria,” Gumbo told him. “The species evolved to absorb them through granules on its cell wall, and their riboflavin phosphates reacts with the fluoride.”
The journey was surreal, not least because of the bioluminescence, but also because Gumbo Slice’s alligator companions—affectionately named Pepperoni and Mozzarella—ambled behind them, their tails sloshing in the water.
By the time they reached Gumbo’s sewer shack, Nomor had learned more about life—and pizza—than he ever thought possible. Gumbo Slice was a fountain of wisdom, sharing sewer survival tips, the secret to his signature gumbo-pizza fusion, and even his philosophy on life:
“See, Nomor, life’s like a slice of pizza. Even when it’s a little burnt or a little wet, it’s still worth savoring. You just gotta know which parts to bite into and which parts to leave for the gators.”
So, Nomor’s fall into the sewer wasn’t the disaster it seemed at first. That night, as he sat by the fire outside Gumbo’s shack, surrounded by the sounds of the city above them echoing through the sewer and the comforting presence of Gumbo and his gators, he realized that falling into the sewer might have been the best thing that ever happened to him. Gumbo Slice became Nomor’s mentor, and taught him the art of alligator-wrestling so that Nomor would know how to protect himself.
As the years passed, Nomor discovered that developmental exposure to the bioluminescent bacteria gave him unnatural speed. That, of course, gave him an advantage in pizza deliveries, even as public speech became increasingly confused. Growing ever faster, he found more and more time to ponder that confusion, and decided he’d do his best to get to the bottom of it, taking on the name of Pizza-Man as his alter ego to learn as much as he could from the man on the street without allowing any prior impressions of his secret identity to prejudice them.
Hot and fresh, the Pizza-Man
Zooms all through this land
Right on time he’s always there
With a taste beyond compareCity lights the streets are mean
But he serves that cheddar dream
Needy folks in every block
Pizza faster than the clockHot and fresh Pizza-Man
Saving lives with sauce and pan
Super-speed, he’s on his way
Bringing joy to every dayFrom the oven to the door
Hero we’ve been waiting for
Pepperoni flying high
Through the night he’s slicing byEvery topping in his hand
Quick delivery he’ll stand
And the kids all dance and cheer
When Pizza-Man is nearHot and fresh Pizza-Man
Saving lives with sauce and pan
Super-speed, he’s on his way
Bringing joy to every day
Suffice it to say, Pizza-Man’s disappearance from our dispatches mirrors the ebb and flow of life’s absurdities, much like his origin story—a blend of surreal mentorship, bioluminescent bacteria, and swampy heroics—reminds us to embrace the unexpected twists that shape our journeys. Whether he’s off honing his alligator-wrestling skills with Gumbo Slice or fighting crime under our noses, Pizza-Man serves as a reminder that even the quirkiest tales can carry nuggets of wisdom: life, like a pizza, is best enjoyed with a sense of adventure and a willingness to savor every strange, soggy, or slightly burnt slice.
That’s a wrap, everyone! See you all next year.