On March 11, 2026, Spain permanently withdrew its ambassador to Israel. The move came after months of Madrid’s open opposition to Israel’s campaign in Gaza and its public condemnation of the joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called the aerial attacks “unjustifiable,” “illegal,” and a violation of international law. Spain also refused American requests to use its bases and airspace for the operation.

Days later, Michael Rubin publicly called on Moroccans to stage an unarmed entry into the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, in order to raise the Moroccan flag. Who is Michael Rubin? Well here it is: Rubin sits deep inside the US’s pro-Israel ecosystem. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum - two of the most influential, hardline pro-Israel institutions in Washington. He is not some random commentator - as a former Pentagon official, he lives and breathes in the inner circle.

Like clockwork, less than a month later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released an official video statement accusing Spain of waging a “diplomatic war” against Israel and declared:

“I am not prepared to tolerate this hypocrisy and hostility. I will not allow any country to conduct a diplomatic war against us without facing an immediate price.”

Fast forward to late July 2026:

(First, a quick geography lesson: Ceuta and Melilla are two small Spanish autonomous enclaves on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, completely surrounded by Morocco. They have belonged to Spain for centuries and form the European Union’s only land borders with Africa. Their location has long made them vulnerable, and anyone who wants to hurt Spain knows it.)

On 30 July, around 60,000 people - the overwhelming majority being young men - began to pour into Ceuta from Morocco. According to reports, at least 72 people died - most drowned while trying to swim around the breakwater or were crushed in the stampede. Local Civil Guard officers described the incident as “total collapse.” Ceuta, a city of just under 83,000 people, was overwhelmed.

This was not spontaneous.

Reports indicate Moroccan border controls were gradually relaxed during July, and were allegedly removed entirely as crowds surged toward the Tarajal crossing during Morocco’s Throne Day holiday. (Remind you of anything?)

Spain’s own foreign intelligence agency apparently failed to warn the Interior Ministry of an imminent surge, creating internal tensions that officials are now scrambling to downplay.

Flying into the territory, the Spanish PM called it a “violation of Spain’s territorial integrity.” Defence Minister Margarita Robles blamed “trafficking networks.” Using standard talking points, both carefully avoided the part that actually matters.

Against the backdrop of worsening Israel–Spain ties, Michael Rubin and the American Enterprise Institute have spent months openly pressing the Trump administration—particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio—to recognize Ceuta and Melilla as occupied Moroccan territory. It’s worth mentioning that Morocco normalized relations with Israel under the US-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020; while Spain, by contrast, has grown increasingly hostile towards Israel.

In April, Florida Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart - a close Marco Rubio ally who has received more than a million dollars from pro-Israel lobby groups - inserted language into a House committee report stating that the Spanish-administered cities of Ceuta and Melilla “are located in Moroccan territory” and remain the subject of Morocco’s longstanding claim. The report directed the State Department to encourage diplomatic engagement over their future status. This is not fringe. This is a sitting Republican congressman and one of Washington’s most established pro-Israel think tanks speaking in the same direction.

So what does this all mean? When Moroccan authorities facilitate a human wave against Spanish positions at the exact moment AEI fellows and congressional allies are arguing that these enclaves are illegitimate Spanish “beach heads,” you are not watching a simple border failure. You are watching geopolitics at play.

The video evidence is clear: coordinated rushes by military-age men, with Moroccan security using water cannons one moment and then standing aside the next. Many of those who made it across later said they left because locals turned hostile, and there was no path onward to the Spanish mainland.

The think-tank papers, the congressional language, and Netanyahu’s explicit warning of an “immediate price” are also clear.

Connect the dots. The pressure campaign against Spain did not begin on a beach in Ceuta - it began in Washington and Jerusalem months, if not years, earlier.

What happened in Ceuta was not a border mishap. It was a message.

- Alex

Dig deeper. Keep an open mind. Knowledge is power.

I usually make it a point not to speak ill of the dead, but there are a few people who earn a pass because of the damage they have caused to our world. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham was one of them.

In an interview that has now been viewed millions of times, Graham said of Gaza:

“Do whatever the hell you have to do…”

“Level the place.”

“Just flatten it. Just like we flattened Berlin and we flattened Tokyo.”

“We weren’t wrong to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. Do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin.”

His solution for the crisis was to flatten Gaza. When it came to foreign policy, this “kill ’em all” mentality was nothing new for Graham.

In 2002, he strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, which was sold to the public on the lie that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were ever found. After the invasion turned into a bloody quagmire that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destabilized the entire region, Graham opposed any meaningful withdrawal of U.S. forces. He never apologized for backing a war based on false intelligence. Instead, he doubled down, pushing for a permanent American presence — even after over 4,400 Americans died in that war.

He was equally enthusiastic about the war in Afghanistan. That conflict eventually claimed the lives of over 2,400 American troops and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians and security forces. Twenty years later, when President Biden finally ended the war, Graham called the withdrawal a disaster.

In 2011, Lindsey Graham pushed hard for military intervention in Libya to remove Muammar Gaddafi. The campaign, sold as a humanitarian effort to protect civilians, quickly became a regime-change operation. It left Libya in ruins, turned it into a failed state that has not recovered to this day, and created the conditions for open-air slave markets that still exist. Many analysts directly link the chaos in Libya to the later rise and spread of ISIS across North Africa and the Middle East. Graham celebrated Gaddafi’s death and never expressed regret.

He then turned his attention to Syria. Graham repeatedly demanded a much larger U.S. military role, and called for arming rebel groups (many of which were jihadist-based), while downplaying the fact that some of the groups the U.S. was backing were as brutal — if not worse — than the regime they were fighting.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Graham was already deeply invested in the conflict — in fact, many analysts argue he and his neoconservative allies helped create the conditions for it. Back in 2016, he traveled to Ukraine with Senators John McCain and Amy Klobuchar, promising the Ukrainian government that America would give them “all the support they needed” against Russia. He spent years pushing for more weapons, NATO expansion rhetoric, and confrontation, treating the conflict like a personal crusade. When diplomacy was still possible in late 2021 and early 2022, the U.S. and its allies largely rejected Russian security concerns about NATO expansion and Ukrainian neutrality. Proposals for a new European security architecture were dismissed, and the U.S. continued arming and training Ukrainian forces. Graham and others celebrated this hardline approach, essentially daring Russia to act while promising full Western backing to Ukraine.

And of course, there was Gaza. After October 7, 2023, Graham became one of the most vocal cheerleaders for Israel’s devastating military campaign. He repeatedly defended actions that many governments and human rights organizations have described as war crimes, and even genocide. His comments about flattening Gaza were not a one-off — they were consistent with his worldview that saw overwhelming military force as the answer to almost every problem in the international arena. In this case, it wasn’t only bloodlust; money was also a driver — Graham reportedly received over a million dollars from AIPAC and related pro-Israel groups to push this agenda.

When it comes to Iran, he was just as hawkish. For years he parroted Benjamin Netanyahu, demanding bombing campaigns and preemptive strikes — showing an open enthusiasm for death and destruction.

Lindsey Graham was a true warmonger who never met a conflict he didn’t want to escalate. He spent his career in the Senate sending other people’s children to fight and die while he remained safely in Washington. He never served in the military. He never experienced war. Yet he spoke about it with casual cruelty. Unfortunately, his “gift” to humanity didn’t end there.

Graham’s damage went beyond foreign policy. At home, the senator was consistently hostile to women’s rights. He opposed abortion access even in cases of rape and incest, voted against the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, and supported the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. He showed little interest in expanding healthcare access for working families and repeatedly voted against measures to strengthen worker protections or raise the minimum wage. On the other hand, he was a reliable defender of big oil and corporate interests, which helped him keep friends in high places.

The senator was also strongly anti-immigrant and supported expanding the surveillance and policing powers of the state. On LGBTQ issues, he was a consistent opponent of marriage equality and other protections.

Lindsey Graham represented much of what is wrong with the world of politics. He helped destroy countries, destabilize regions and enrich defense contractors, while ordinary people paid the price in blood and money. He was a man who spoke about death and destruction with disturbing ease, yet never had to face the consequences of the policies he championed. His death will be mourned by the war machine and the political establishment that profits from endless conflict. For everyone else — the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Gaza, and beyond — his passing may feel like one less voice pushing the world toward more violence. For me, I’ll say it plainly: good riddance. The world is better off without another warmonger cheering for death from the safety of a Senate seat, or an easy chair for that matter.

Peace. Compassion. Humanity.

Alex

Whenever we witness strife in this world, one of the first calls toward healing is for “unity.” Whether it’s international conflict, fractures within a country, or anything else that divides us, bringing opposing forces together has historically been the way to find common ground in hopes of promoting peace.

One of the greatest divides we have seen in the history of the Western world is the Great Schism of 1054, when the Christian Church split into two — namely the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Nearly a thousand years later, the rift remains. However, an increasing number of voices are calling for the faith to be united once again.

A quick history lesson: the formal break of the Christian Church in 1054 didn’t come as a sudden crack that pulled the East from the West. Rather, it was the culmination of centuries of growing apart. Linguistic and cultural differences between the Latin West and Greek East played a major role. On the religious side, one big dispute was over a single word added to the Nicene Creed — the West said the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, while the East insisted it comes from the Father only. To most of us today it seems like splitting hairs - back then, it got everyone’s got their knickers in a knot. Then there was the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist (seems like a strange reason for a divorce), and of course the big one: clerical celibacy. Today, Orthodox clergy can marry, while Catholic priests are expected to keep it in their pants.

All that aside, at the heart of the conflict was authority. You got it — politics. The West, especially after the Gregorian Reforms, emphasized the universal jurisdiction of the Pope — seen as God’s man on Earth. In the East, the Pope was viewed as the “first among equals” — the most honoured bishop, but not the big boss.

The Orthodox thought the Church should run more like a team: large councils of bishops making decisions together, within a system of five major ancient centres — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. They also believed that in the Byzantine East, the emperor should have a significant say in church matters (Politically, it sounds kind of like the Pope thing, doesn’t it?)

Digging deeper into politics, tensions grew as the Holy Roman Empire rose in the West and clashed with the Byzantine, aka Eastern Roman, Empire. For starters, in the year 800, Charlemagne was crowned emperor in the West, upsetting the Byzantines. Then the Normans — who followed Rome — invaded southern Italy, which was traditionally controlled by Byzantium. The final straw came in 1054 when a cardinal from Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople officially excommunicated each other.

BAM! Schism!

That led to lasting damage, culminating in the brutal sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Western Crusaders.

As time progressed, both sides took advantage of the split for their own political gain as they drifted further apart.

While the churches took steps in the opposite direction, many setbacks emerged. The Catholic Church suffered major breaks like the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther and later other reformers such as Calvin in the 16th century, splitting large parts of Northern Europe away from Rome. More schisms!

Today, although not in a formal schism, the Catholic Church has experienced deep internal tensions that some describe as a “soft schism.” In 2026, reports emerged of plans for illicit bishop consecrations by traditionalist groups, prompting warnings from the Vatican about schismatic acts. At the other end of the spectrum, progressives have pushed for changes on issues like women’s roles and LGBTQ+ inclusion. These are not yet formal breaks, but they create parallel communities, mutual suspicion, and weakened institutions.

In the East, the Orthodox world is experiencing more overt divisions, which are often highly politicized. The most significant is the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism, triggered when Constantinople granted independence to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The Russian Orthodox Church broke communion with Constantinople in response. And this is not the only area of dispute for the Orthodox — Montenegro has experienced tensions between the Serbian Orthodox Church and efforts to establish a more independent Montenegrin Orthodox identity. Similar dynamics are playing out in Georgia and Armenia, where national identity, historical grievances, and Russian influences intersect with church life. The Greek Orthodox Church remains relatively stable, however there are tensions between traditionalists and those wanting a more modern approach towards a number of social issues.

While schisms make it into the news, some voices are calling for the opposite - greater unity. These people believe when church identity becomes too closely tied to ethnic pride or state power, it stops serving a universal faith and starts reflecting political borders. Many argue that this kind of fragmentation weakens the Church’s moral credibility and makes any future reconciliation much more difficult.

With both sides of the argument having their own merits, you may ask: why is un-schisming the way to go? First, we’re talking about religion, not politics. A united people in faith should rise above national identity, ethnicity, and anything earthly. The fact remains: Catholics and Orthodox share the same sacraments, creeds, and early Church fathers. The differences, while real, are smaller than the commonalities - as with most Christian churches. Many in the two biggest churches seem to recognize that. There have been decades of official dialogue that have produced real progress.

Documents like the Ravenna Document (2007) and ongoing work on cooperation have shown movement on core issues. Recent meetings in 2025 advanced discussions on the Pope’s infallibility and the creed regarding the Holy Spirit. Today, the Joint International Commission’s work is continuing, building on existing agreements rather than starting from zero. In addition, regular high-level meetings between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch are happening, including joint prayers and shared statements on global issues. This is not only symbolic but truly unifying in practice.

While bringing church officials together is working, the next step is a bit tougher: addressing politicization honestly.

In places like Ukraine and Montenegro, churches need to prioritize pastoral obligations over geopolitical alignment. With many churches deeply embedded in politics — for example, Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church — this may seem difficult, but it is not impossible if people put faith before earthly divisions. And speaking of people, there are grassroots movements that encourage joint charitable work, theological education exchanges, and shared morality. This brings real people and families together, even when politics try to tear them apart.

What we are looking at here is not a full organizational merger. The hope is to restore communion while creating mutual respect for distinct traditions and governance, similar to how Eastern Catholic Churches exist in communion with Rome while retaining their own liturgy and customs.

The original schism was not inevitable, and neither are today’s divisions. The question is whether church leaders and the faithful have the humility and vision to move beyond entrenched positions, national loyalties, and institutional defensiveness. If Christianity is to play a meaningful role in a deeply fractured world, it may be time to seriously revisit what it would take to heal these ancient and modern wounds.

More broadly, the world’s major religions — despite real differences — share many core beliefs as well: the importance of compassion, justice, human dignity, stewardship of the earth, and the search for transcendence or ultimate truth. In an age of deep division, conflict, and moral confusion, there is growing reason to explore greater unity and cooperation across all faith traditions, not by erasing what makes each unique, but by building on the substantial common ground that already exists. Un-schisming the two largest branches of Christianity would be a great start.

Peace. Unity. Respect.

Alex

Back in the day, when someone said “conspiracy theory,” it was usually about something outlandish, like that birds aren’t real, reptilian shapeshifters run the world or that the Earth is flat (shout out to the Flat Earthers — and what the f#$k are you thinking?)

However, not so long ago, the term “conspiracy theory” started being used to dismiss arguments before they even began. Think back just a few years — if you said COVID-19 was leaked from a lab, you were bonkers! Those “in the know” were certain that it came from some weird anteater lookalike that slept with a bat. How about the idea that the U.S. funded risky research in Wuhan? Oh — sorry — that was confirmed. Or, my favourite from a couple of decades back, the Bush administration and the UK government (with support from the mainstream media) told us Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as if it was a proven, imminent threat. If you questioned it, you were a tin-hat wearing “conspiracy theorist”.

Full disclosure — I was a “conspiracy theorist” regarding all three of the above. And guess who was right my friends? Me and everyone who questioned the often absurd narratives that were handed to us.

These days, you might have noticed some inconsistencies when it comes to Iran and Israel, as well as the war in Ukraine. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, “the first casualty of war is truth” — so no matter who is telling the story, always be skeptical.

Heads up — that was my intro. Now let’s dig into the latest “conspiracy theory” they want you to forget about:

For years, we have been told that claims of U.S.-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine were “Russian disinformation,” “conspiracy theories,” and “laughable malarkey.” The official line from the Biden administration, mainstream media, and countless politicians was crystal clear: “don’t be a conspiracy theorist, there are no labs.” Super stand-up people (sarcasm) like Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, and others pushed back hard, while Dr. Fauci and his supporters did the same. Anyone who dared ask questions was branded a Putin puppet or a danger to democracy.

Earlier this month, everything changed regarding this oh-so-BS story.

On Friday, June 12, as outgoing U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents revealing that the U.S. government funded more than 120 biological laboratories across over 30 nations, with a heavy concentration in Ukraine (over 40 labs). These labs worked with dangerous pathogens including anthrax, plague, Ebola, and others. Specific to Ukraine, some labs have been described as vulnerable due to the war, raising serious biosecurity concerns.

We all know that Russia may not be the most trustworthy source of information, but remember when it first raised the alarm about these labs in 2017 and then again after the 2022 invasion? The U.S. response was swift and dismissive:

“The United States does not own or operate biological laboratories in Ukraine. Full stop.”

“There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories.”

“These are absurd Russian propaganda claims.”

CNN and most of the Western media treated the story as Kremlin disinformation. But guess what? The declassified files from Gabbard’s office confirm the labs existed, U.S. funding flowed, and work with dangerous pathogens was happening.

Gabbard’s release also mentions labs beyond Ukraine — part of a sprawling network around the globe, with a concentration in former Soviet states like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, and Armenia.

Whether you call them “biolabs for threat reduction” or something more sinister, the core issue is the same: the American public and the rest of the world were lied to — repeatedly — about programs funded by U.S. tax dollars. (Note: Officially, these were “defensive biosecurity programs.” Given the years of outright denial about their existence, I’ll let you decide how much trust to put in that framing.)

Now, this certainly isn’t about defending Russia. It’s about basic honesty from our own governments. If the labs were purely defensive and benign, why the years of stonewalling and name-calling? Why attack Tulsi Gabbard for simply releasing declassified information? The same crowd that spent years calling skeptics “conspiracy theorists” is now quietly hoping we all forget how aggressively they denied reality — with this and other subjects. That said, this revelation should raise serious alarms — but as you might have noticed, it was released on a Friday and it was buried in the news cycle.

Insider’s Note: The “Friday Night News Dump” is a deliberate tactic. By Friday afternoon, people are mentally checked out for the weekend, media coverage drops, audience engagement falls, and controversial stories get buried. When something significant is released on a Friday, it’s almost never an accident.

In the West, we love pointing fingers at Russia, China, and every other regime we label “corrupt” and “authoritarian.” Yet we rarely turn the mirror on ourselves. Corruption and media control aren’t just problems “over there” — they’re thriving right here at home. Our elites have simply mastered the art of hiding it behind polished press releases, so-called “fact-checkers,” and endless accusations of “disinformation.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only real difference between “us” and “them” is that they stuff brown envelopes with cash which are delivered above the table, while we do it under the table.

This biolab revelation is not some isolated footnote. It is the latest proof that our governments and mainstream media spent years gaslighting the public, smearing honest skeptics as “conspiracy theorists,” “Putin puppets,” and threats to democracy — only to quietly admit the truth when the political winds shifted.

Adding insult to injury, these documents were conveniently declassified after the statute of limitations had already run out on key allegations against Fauci, leading some to label this as pure political theatre.

When any government — left, right, or centre — operates behind walls of secrecy, denial, and character assassination, it doesn’t just erode trust. It destroys it. The public is not stupid. We are waking up. And we have every right to demand full transparency, real accountability, and the whole truth. So as I’ve said before, question everything — because yesterday’s “crazy conspiracy” has an annoying habit of becoming today’s inconvenient truth.

Stay skeptical. Trust your instincts. Look both ways before you cross the street.

Alex

—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This is an opinion piece based on publicly available information and declassified documents as of June 2026.

Exciting news: I’ve been hard at work building out Alex M: Undiplomatic with new audio and video components. They’re coming very soon — stay tuned!

In the United States, the founding promise was a clear separation between church and state. The reality is very different. The knot between the two keeps tightening as people across the political spectrum pull the rope — and this kind of thing is not exclusive to the US.

Religion and politics have always had a dangerous relationship. The mixture of the two, more often than not, produces confusion and tribalism, while handing power over to those who best know how to weaponize the holy for earthly gain. The strategy has been around forever: take something sacred — faith, scripture, divine authority — and fuse it with something base — power, policy, and primitive tribal loyalty. This potent cocktail turns debatable political positions into undebatable holy commandments. Disagree with the policy? You’re no longer just wrong. You’re a heretic, an infidel, or an enemy of God.

History is full of examples of this. Medieval popes crowned and deposed emperors. Puritan leaders in colonial America blended biblical law with governance. In our time, we’ve seen it in Iran’s theocratic republic, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Hindu nationalism in India, and parts of the American Bible Belt, where political loyalty is seen as proof of religious devotion.

One can argue that today the game has become more sophisticated than before, and it appears across the political spectrum. Progressive movements in the West have turned their beliefs into quasi-religious dogmas, from which any deviation is punishable — think identity politics, gender ideology, and climate activism. Or you might have heard someone say “I acknowledge my privilege” — this can be whittled down to a ritualistic confession of sorts. Any way you turn it, dissent is often labeled not as disagreement but as moral failure or even “hate.”

On the other side of the coin, some conservative and nationalist movements, especially segments of American Christian nationalism and evangelical politics, explicitly wrap policy platforms in religious identity, suggesting that true faith demands support for specific parties, hardline immigration policies, and free-market economics. In parts of the Middle East and South Asia, parties openly campaign as “defenders of faith” against all other religions.

The genius of the conflation is that it works in both directions. Religious leaders gain power and influence. Those in politics gain divine approval for their agendas. As for the rest of us — many in the public get emotionally charged and locked into us-versus-them thinking. The result is that faith becomes corrupted when morality and spirituality are replaced with tribalism. Politics becomes fanatical when every issue turns into a crusade and even the slightest compromise is labelled as betrayal.

Don’t get me wrong — this is not about hating on religion. Deep moral convictions — often rooted in faith, but not exclusive to it — should shape how people envision a good society. That influence can even promote unity when practiced with humility and respect. What’s dangerous is the deliberate conflation — the weaponization of the sacred for partisan gain, or the arrogant claim that one political tribe has a monopoly on God’s favour (which many tend to do).

History shows that faith and good governance both tend to thrive when they maintain some healthy distance from one another. The early American republic, with its deliberate separation of church and state, is one of the clearest examples of this working in practice. However, when religion is hijacked by the power-hungry, it loses its beauty and mysticism — and when politics becomes a holy war, reason and discussion die. Right now, those who thrive on this kind of confusion are winning — brilliantly. The question is how long the rest of us will keep falling for the same old dirty tricks that have been used (and have worked) on many generations before us.

Question everything. Love thy neighbour. Seek truth over tribe.

Alex

Let’s talk about what I like to call “New MAGA.”

Politics is a dirty game, and Donald Trump understands that better than most. On his road back to the White House, he cranked up the BS like never before — “America First” hit a new level of rhetoric, and “no new wars” was as convincing as a MyPillow money-back guarantee. Both old-school MAGA faithful and millions of others bought into what Trump was selling. As the Obama campaign once put it, this was about “hope and change.”

With White House experience tucked under his belt, and a purge of “political insiders” for optics, Trump once again convinced enough voters that he was the ultimate outsider ready to deliver real, positive change for Americans. However, it didn’t turn out that way.

Instead, Trump returned to power with a deeper network of loyalists, insiders, and enablers. The moment he walked back into the Oval Office, MAGA began morphing into something less recognizable. Some people ran for the exits; his hard-core supporters chose blind faith. MAGA Classic was gone, and New MAGA was born.

With that in mind, ladies and gentlemen, may I present the top five ways that the MAGA Classic promise turned into something less palatable:

1. The Economy

The Promise: Trump said he would end inflation “on Day One,” bring down grocery and energy prices, restore broad affordability, revive manufacturing, and cap credit card interest rates at around 10%. Hope was given to working families across the country.

What America Got: The truth is that inflation has been lower under Trump than during the Biden years, but that does not mean the cost of living went down. Prices are still high; they’re just rising more slowly. As for tariffs, they generated revenue adding up to about $264 billion in 2025 — but in case you didn’t know, tariffs are taxes paid at the border by importers, with the real cost passed along to U.S. businesses and consumers through higher prices. As for tariffs helping bring back jobs - Reuters found that there was no meaningful on-shoring boom or manufacturing revival. In fact, manufacturing jobs have fallen by roughly 80,000 since the tariff push.

Ultimately, the U.S. trade deficit remained near $901 billion in 2025 and in April of this year, Iran-related energy disruptions helped push U.S. inflation to a three-year high. As for the credit card promise: nothing happened.

2. Healthcare Reform

The Promise: Trump talked about creating a cheaper, better alternative to Obamacare — one that would lower premiums, protect coverage, and deliver the fix Washington had failed to provide for years.

What America Got: Other than a few minor tweaks, next to nothing was done. Obamacare remains the healthcare backbone for tens of millions, while premiums and out-of-pocket costs continue hitting families and employers. Right now Republicans are once again talking about weakening key parts of the law, which could make things even worse for average Americans.

3. Wars

The Promise: The peace candidate told the world he would end the war in Ukraine in days, while keeping America out of foreign entanglements. New MAGA has tried to twist and turn this in every way possible, but on election night, November 5, 2024, Trump said it plainly: “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars.”

What America Got: Trump has dragged the U.S. into a war with Iran. Critics can call it an “operation” if they want, but the point is the same: this is exactly the kind of escalation his “no new wars” pledge was supposed to avoid. To date, thousands of Iranians have been killed, while 13 Americans have died, and hundreds of U.S. service members have been wounded. Also, the war in Ukraine is still going, and it looks like Trump has lost interest in even trying to stop it. The “no new wars” pledge might as well have come from a used car dealer.

4. Government Spending and the Swamp

The Promise: Like a kid running for class president who promises there will be beer in the water fountains, Trump told Americans he would balance the budget, shrink the national debt, and drain the swamp by confronting lobbyists, insiders, and entrenched bureaucrats. Sounded great, didn’t it?

What America Got: The federal deficit remained enormous, with a projection of nearly $1.9 trillion for 2026. The national debt now exceeds $39 trillion, which works out to roughly $288,000 per American household. As for the swamp, it didn’t drain — it just got bigger. Those who sucked up to Trump the most got cushy jobs, while donors became policymakers. Nothing was cleaned up; instead, there was a reshuffling of who gets to sit closest to the all-you-can-eat buffet in the brand-new ballroom.

5. International Relations

The Promise: It was music to MAGA Classic’s ears — pure “America First”. Trump promised to get tougher on trade deals, and to get allies to pay their fair share, especially NATO. Mexico would pay for a southern border wall, and foreign policy would become transactional. There would be no favourites.

What America Got: Trade initiatives did more harm than good, and the wall was mostly paid for by American taxpayers. On NATO, Trump demanded that members pay their share — basically, show us the money, and America will have your back. So far, promises have been made, but the cash is not flowing in. Basically, “the checks are in the mail” — wink, wink.

And here’s the kicker — the all-encompassing transactional rule is not being applied to everyone. Billions in military aid continue to flow to Israel, often expedited through or bypassing Congress. Moves like Golan Heights recognition, arms deals, and joint actions against Iran prioritized Israeli security goals over American restraint. Critics, including some traditional conservatives, have argued that America’s attacks on Iran have dragged the U.S. into a situation that burns through resources while creating diplomatic blowback. The “no entanglements” pitch went the way of the dodo.

6. Epstein

The Promise: As the outsider, Trump promised to expose corruption, smash protection networks for the powerful, and deliver real transparency on institutions that shielded connected predators. He positioned himself as the one who would finally release the Epstein files — all of them.

What America Got: Millions of pages from the Epstein files were released in late 2025 and January 2026, but a big chunk of the information is still under wraps. Some names have been revealed (including Donald Trump’s), but many people believe key individuals are still being hidden from the public eye. The whole process has created suspicion rather than putting the issue to bed.

New MAGA

MAGA has become a very different animal, and even as diehard New MAGA Trump supporters attempt to retrofit reality, you can’t avoid the fact that big promises turned into big lies. The moving of goalposts and the endless excuses won’t change that.

In short, MAGA stopped being about disruptive political reform and became a movement centred on loyalty to one man. What began as “Make America Great Again” has turned into a cult of personality. New MAGA may have looked similar to MAGA Classic from the outside, but the new recipe fizzled quickly once the old promise gave way to reality. What remains is a smaller, hard-core base that will make every excuse in the book to keep things going.

Question everything. Get out of your comfort zone. Filter out the noise.

Alex

Monday, September 26, 2022. Two major seismic events occurred at the bottom of the Baltic Sea — the first at approximately 2:03 a.m. local time, the second at approximately 7:03 p.m. — a full 17 hours later.

Soon after, it became clear: someone had deliberately blown up the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. To this day, no one has been officially charged. The investigations in Sweden and Denmark have been quietly closed, while Germany’s probe is still on the books.

This is a story they desperately want you to forget. The Nord Stream pipelines were intentionally destroyed, in what is one of the largest acts of industrial sabotage in modern history. Over €10 billion worth of critical infrastructure was destroyed on the seabed in one day. Europe’s energy sector was thrown into immediate chaos. Like the pipelines, gas prices exploded, causing factories to shut down, and heating bills to skyrocket for households across the continent.

Then there’s the part the media barely touched: an environmental catastrophe. The explosions released an estimated 485,000 tonnes of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere. It was the largest human-caused methane release ever recorded, equivalent to the annual emissions of roughly 8 million cars, driven for a full year. For days, parts of the Baltic Sea literally bubbled like a giant cauldron. The long-term ecological damage to the seabed and marine life is still being assessed, while many of those who have sounded the alarm on “carbon footprints” chose to look the other way.

Right after the blasts, the media machine went into overdrive. First it was “Russia blew up its own pipelines.” Then it shifted to a mysterious pro-Ukrainian group on a sailboat.

Finally, after a quick rewind, it was obvious to most of us:

On February 7, 2022 — just weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine and months before the explosions — Joe Biden stood beside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the White House and said this:

“If Russia invades… there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

When asked how America would do that, Biden replied: “I promise you, we will be able to do that.” Not “Germany will.” Not “sanctions will.” We will.

At this point I don’t know how much more convincing anyone would need, but just in case:

A few months later, legendary investigative journalist (and one of my personal heroes) Seymour Hersh dropped a detailed bombshell on his Substack.

According to Hersh’s account:

• Biden personally authorized the operation.

• The plan was developed over months by the US, with Norwegian assistance. (Remember, Norway is Europe’s biggest energy producer - it has a lot to gain)

• US Navy divers planted C4 explosives on the pipelines during the NATO BALTOPS 22 exercise in June 2022.

• The charges were remotely triggered on September 26.

When a Pulitzer Prize winner with a track record like Hersh says it, and it lines up with Biden’s own public threat, it might as well be written in stone.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs went a step further, arguing the US (particularly the Biden-Sullivan-Nuland team) helped create the conditions for war in Ukraine through the rejection of serious diplomacy. The pipeline sabotage, in his view, was the final nail — locking Europe into dependence on American gas. We all know, war can be a money maker — add energy sales and it turns into a goldmine.

But here’s the thing many don’t know -

Europe never actually stopped using Russian gas — they just stopped getting it directly and are using less of it.

For the past few years, Russian gas has been rerouted through India, Turkey, and other intermediaries, and sold to Europe at a massive markup. Exact same product — much higher price. The pipelines might be gone, but the energy still flows — just at an extra cost and with a big ol’ Russian pill to swallow.

Billions in destroyed infrastructure. Skyrocketing energy prices. One of the worst man-made environmental disasters ever. And for what?

“Punishing Russia”? Russia found new buyers in Asia and still sells to Europe via middlemen.

The U.S.? The American LNG industry is making a killing.

The E.U.? Insiders are profiting, while forcing Europeans to think twice about turning up their thermostats.

When this “whodunnit” turned into what many now view as an open-and-shut case, the real scandal was no longer about who planted the bombs, but about how quickly the entire Western political and media class moved on from the story. Investigations closed. Questions were labelled “conspiracy theory.” And then silence.

When something this enormous happens and nobody in power seems to care about stating the truth, you already have your answer. As Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg once said: “All administrations, all governments lie, all officials lie and nothing they say is to be believed. That’s a pretty good rule.”

I’d add, when the media stops talking about a story that’s this big, it’s time to thoroughly question everything that they said in the first place.

And to answer the question “why did the U.S. blow up pipelines when Europe could have just shut them down? Because sooner or later, with the shocking new costs of energy, Europeans would have demanded that the taps be turned back on. This way, the taps are gone.

If it sounds like BS, looks like BS and smells like BS — it’s BS.

— Alex

Genocide. Torture. Settler violence. The systematic destruction of cities, towns, and villages across Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Animal abuse. The deliberate targeting of Muslim and Christian places of worship and historical monuments.

The list goes on, and none of it was enough to truly enrage leaders in the West. But some gloating and manhandling? Suddenly everyone’s knickers are in a knot.

You’ve probably seen the video — Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained pro-Palestine activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla. Ben-Gvir and his entourage walk among handcuffed civilians lying on the deck. With Israel’s anthem playing in the background, he waves an Israeli flag while acting like a complete dick.

The Global Sumud Flotilla carried over 400 protesters from more than 40 countries, including doctors, nurses, journalists, lawyers, politicians, trade unionists, and faith leaders. Among them were citizens from Italy, France, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil, New Zealand, the US, UK, many Arab countries (Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.), and Canada.

The group was attempting to deliver humanitarian aid and break the blockade on Gaza. Israel intercepted the boats in international waters, detained the activists, and brought them to port. This is where Ben-Gvir stepped in for a sadistic personal photo op — smirking and humiliating bound and helpless detainees.

While many Western politicians turned their backs to the death and destruction for years, even some of the most pro-Israel pawns in the West couldn’t ignore this one — it would likely be career suicide.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (not a pawn) called the treatment “abominable” and “unacceptable.” Several European leaders (including those in Italy and France) condemned the scenes and summoned Israeli ambassadors. Even some AIPAC-backed American politicians broke rank, distancing themselves with lines like “Ben-Gvir does not represent Israel.”

The problem is, he does.

Ben-Gvir isn’t a lone extremist. A convicted criminal with a long history of racism and support for terrorist groups, he enjoys considerable popularity in Israel — and not just from his radical civilian base, but from the very top. Prime Minister Netanyahu deliberately brought him into the government because his hardline views reflect a large and growing segment of Israeli voters. Recent polls show Ben-Gvir’s far-right party either holding steady or gaining traction, especially among young voters. Surveys also show (even with all the evidence of IDF crimes) that a clear majority of Jewish Israelis — often between 65% and 80% — continue to support Israel’s military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. That’s the uncomfortable truth the West keeps trying to ignore.

So, let’s be real — in the grand scheme of things, Ben-Gvir’s vulgar stunt is small compared to the death, destruction, and suffering that has unfolded since the October 7 attacks. That said, sometimes it takes seemingly insignificant but grotesque moments to finally open some eyes. This recorded speck in time may be the piece of straw that breaks the camel’s back, forcing more people to confront just how vile, unhinged, and untouchable parts of Israel’s far-right have become.

The good news is, this incident has caused moderate voices in Israel to get louder, while forcing those who have backed Netanyahu and his government (which includes many people like Ben-Gvir) to reassess their allegiances. For whatever reason it may be, at this moment, being seen as all-in with Israel is not a good look.

In a perfect world, people like Ben-Gvir — and those who promote, enable, and defend his brand of politics — would one day stand before an international tribunal. Not for abusing foreigners on a boat, but for the systematic horrors in the Middle East that have been documented for the entire world to see.

One can dream — but for now, it at least seems we are finally headed in the right direction. Extremism — no matter where it stems from — will not be accepted.

Question everything. Stay true to yourself. Be fearless.

- Alex

Who does this sound like to you?

“The US government should be smaller and not infringe on your rights.”

“No more wars.”

“Release all the Epstein files.”

Well, to me, it sounds like Donald Trump before he won his second term as president - all great ideas that snagged him the vote.

However, today we have a very different Trump - one who wants the Epstein files kept buried and has ditched many of the core promises that got him elected. While Trump betrays one commitment after another, the people who stayed loyal to the original MAGA vision - smaller government, no forever wars, real transparency - are now being punished by the very movement they helped build.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, Trump made his contempt for the original MAGA faithful crystal clear. His target was Thomas Massie.

Kentucky’s 4th District Congressman Thomas Massie - a 7-term winner who has voted with Republicans over 80% of the time - was defeated in the Republican primary. One of the few consistent voices left for limited government, fiscal sanity, and America First principles lost to Ed Gallrein, a political newcomer who had never held office, skipped most debates, and only jumped into the race because Trump personally recruited him.

This wasn’t a normal primary. It was the most expensive House primary in American history - over $32 million spent on ads in a relatively quiet corner of Kentucky. Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL reportedly hated by many of the special forces soldiers he served with, cruised to victory with massive outside help from Trump-aligned super PACs and pro-Israel groups.

According to Senator Bernie Sanders:

“AIPAC spent $9 million to take out Rep. Thomas Massie. Trump megadonors spent another $7 million… all because he defied Trump on Gaza and Epstein.”

Massie, by contrast, relied heavily on small-dollar donations from actual constituents - raising $1.87 million compared to Gallrein’s $197,000.

After the win, AIPAC openly celebrated on social media:

“Congratulations to US Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein for defeating anti-Israel incumbent Thomas Massie! Pro-Israel Americans are proud to back candidates who support a strong alliance…”

Massie has been a thorn in the side of the establishment for years. A man of the people, he stood by many core principles from Trump’s original MAGA movement, including:

• Anti-reckless spending

• Pushing for full Epstein files transparency

• Putting an end to endless wars

In addition he has:

• Opposed the use of glyphosate (a controversial herbicide widely linked to health concerns and cancer)

• Opposed kill switches in cars

• Challenged AIPAC’s power on the Hill (he wants the group registered as a foreign agent)

As much as Trump would like to think that this was his win against Massie, the truth is he couldn’t have done it without his billionaire buddies and the support of pro- Israel lobby groups. The cash helped turn his personal grudge into a full-scale political operation. He called Massie “the worst Congressman in the history of our country” and poured it all into beating him - and he did just that.

It is obvious that Trump’s “MAGA” and “drain the swamp” movement has morphed into something completely different from its beginnings. What once looked like a true democratic revolt promising hope and change has become nothing less than a cult of personality.

It is clear: loyalty to Trump now matters more than loyalty to principle. If you question endless wars, push for Epstein transparency, or refuse to bend the knee to AIPAC, you’re out - no matter how long you’ve served or how consistent your record is. Republican voters spent years hearing about elite corruption, child trafficking, and the deep state. Then, when someone actually tried to do something about it, many turned around and voted for the candidate backed by billionaire donors and personally hand-picked by Trump.

Back in 2025, Trump used democracy to win the election. Now he’s using every tool at his disposal to tear it apart. The MAGA movement was supposed to be about draining the swamp. Instead, it has now turned the swamp into an ocean-sized cesspool of lies and deception - and it will crush anyone who stands in its way.

America’s democracy has never been challenged like this before.

- Alex

“Show me your friends and I’ll show you who you are” - in quotes because I’m not the one who came up with it. No matter who it was, there’s a lot of truth to it, especially when you look at the inner circles of leaders around the world.

There’s no need to talk about Putin, Xi or the Prince of Saudi Arabia - people with an iron grip are obviously surrounded by yes-men.

Instead, we will focus on Western “democracies” like Canada, the EU, and the US … which, guess what? Are also full of yes men.

First off, the US — if you want ass-kissers, the American government can’t be beat.

USA! USA! USA!

Trump’s inner circle of politicians, donors, and family members is nothing short of a complete farce. If you pretend to worship the man, you’re in. The appearance of loyalty is the price of admission - and the man himself has made that crystal clear.

Look at who he’s surrounded himself with in his second term:

JD Vance - the ultimate convert. This guy went from “never-Trump” to a full-blown MAGA lap dog. Now he’s Vice President, echoing the boss on pretty much everything.

Pete Hegseth (Defence Secretary) - A former Fox News host who’s as loyal as a German Shepherd, while having the demeanour of a rabid Pit Bull. His nomination and confirmation drew massive controversy, with accusations of racism and Islamophobia - never mind the allegations of domestic abuse and sexual misconduct.

Miriam Adelson - one of the largest financial donors in modern American politics. Her massive financial support buys serious influence. She’s a dual citizen who wouldn’t say whether she loves the US or Israel more when Trump asked her directly.

Jared Kushner and Steven Witkoff - family and close business allies with real estate and investment interests that often intersect with policy. These guys are not politicians, but rather insiders whose business interests somehow tend to magically line up with the current administration’s decisions.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz - former critics turned loyalists. They know where their paychecks come from.

And let’s not forget the sellouts of the century:

Tulsi Gabbard - I mean, WTF was that? From the “no new wars” to backing the war with Iran, she has done the opposite of everything she promised to do. My head is still spinning from that 180.

RFK Jr. - anti-establishment superhero turned butt licker. Sure, he was a bit kookie, but back in the day, it at least looked like he was his own person.

When it comes to the US, the list goes on and on … but nobody has time for a “War and Peace” length article.

Bottom line: Trump’s inner circle isn’t a traditional government team. It’s a cult of personality. The message is clear: Ass-kisser? Check mark. Competence? Meh.

But before we dump it all on Trump, let’s head north to the “squeaky-clean” leader of Canada, where groupthink looks different, but smells the same.

Prime Minister Mark Carney may project the image of a calm, competent, fiscally responsible environmentalist looking out for all Canadians - but look at who he’s surrounded himself with and the picture becomes clearer.

Before we go there, let me tell you a little story:

In March 2024 I attended an event put on by the Club of Florence (now the House of Florence) at Palazzo Vecchio in - you guessed it - Florence, Italy. That evening, Mark Carney was given an award for “his exceptional contributions to climate action.” The intimate crowd included Canadian and international political dignitaries plus business people, including former Brookfield insiders. (If you’re not familiar with Brookfield, it’s a global asset management powerhouse, worth hundreds of billions. Its headquarters was in Toronto - now it’s in New York).

After the award was handed out, I chatted with his handler (a young woman from Alberta). Carney walked over, and I caught him off guard with the question: “So, you’re going to be Canada’s next Prime Minister - any idea when?” The handler tried to change the subject (as handlers do). I pushed. Carney laughed it off and said it wasn’t in his plans. I hit him with a “come on!”

(Pro tip: The “come on” — it either flops or works like a charm. This time it worked.)

He laughed again and gave me a wink. I pointed at him, he pointed back, smiled, and walked away.

“I knew it!” I told the handler. She blushed, smiled and changed the subject (as handlers do).

I’m not a clairvoyant and I don’t own a crystal ball, but based on chats with journalists and political insiders, as well as a little intuition, I knew Carney was on his way to becoming PM - it was written. I just didn’t expect how quickly and untraditionally it would happen. He was sworn in a year later, without ever holding elected office.

My first impression? Straight-laced, all business, a little square - the perfect banker. But his World Economic Forum ties and political visions laid out in his book were red flags. Now, those concerns look spot on, with a little extra “finance guy” to spice things up.

The Old Boy Technocrats - AKA We Are Smarter Than “The People,” So Suck It Up Buttercups

Mark Carney gives off that squeaky-clean “Canadian” vibe when he throws on the hockey equipment for the cameras. However, when it comes to running a country, Carney clearly prefers an echo chamber to anyone challenging his worldview.

Just look at his hand-picked inner circle:

• Tim Hodgson (Energy Minister) - longtime Goldman Sachs executive and close Carney ally. Deep ties to international finance and energy markets.

• Mark Wiseman - former head of CPP Investments and BlackRock executive. Major player in global asset management.

• Doug Guzman - one of Carney’s longtime Goldman Sachs colleagues. Carney appointed him as CEO of Canada’s new Defence Investment Agency. The role comes with a reported salary of over $675K, making it one of the highest-paid public-sector positions in Canada.

The list goes on.

Getting personal, critics often point to Carney’s Brookfield history. While there, he helped launch massive green transition funds - some registered in offshore tax havens. Carney’s own compensation details remain murky, but he walked away with millions tied to those funds while preaching that everyday Canadians need to pay their fair share.

Today, Carney is continuing to push that green agenda hard, with infrastructure projects that look tailor-made to benefit his old Brookfield buddies and Goldman Sachs networks down the road.

To be fair, these initiatives may “improve Canada” for all, but any way you turn it, it’s Carney and his inner circle first - just like Trump.

By now, you might be shaking your head thinking “damn these old white guys! They’re ruining everything!” Well, let’s step away from North America and head to Europe, where it’s not the old white guys, but rather middle-aged white women who hold the reins.

The EU is a club like no other. At the supranational level, you’ve got Ursula von der Leyen running the Commission like her own personal fiefdom. She has centralized power, pushed under-the-table deals, and is tied to cronyism scandals from her German defence minister days. She talks big on “European values” while punishing dissent and cozying up to certain energy partners when convenient. Many of her actions can be described as authoritarian. Then there’s Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief - a blunt anti-Russia hawk, uncompromising, and quick to sanction and isolate anyone (in the EU and out) who is not fully aligned with von der Leyen’s version of Brussels. She has clashed with member states and even the US at times.

To be fair, there’s one key man (Björn Seibert, chief of cabinet), but out of von der Leyen’s top 6 closest advisers, arguably, 5 are women. She holds a tightly managed core team with loyalists and technocrats. The women are featured front and centre.

The bottom line in Europe: Anyone who steps out of line with Brussels gets punished or eliminated in the name of “democracy.” Look at Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who faced funding battles and political pressure, Slovakia’s Robert Fico who’s dealing with isolation (and surviving an assassination attempt), and overt political interference in places like Romania.

What All Of This Tells Us

No matter their stripes, the people chosen to flank a leader tend to be chosen for the same reasons: loyalty, keeping the elite happy, control and ideological conformity. Dissent is not an option.

This is why you should always keep an eye on the inner circle. Whether it’s those who bow to Trump, Carney’s Bay Street boys club, or von der Leyen’s ideological lap dogs, the pattern is the same: leaders build teams that reflect who they really are and what they really want to do. There’s no room for pushback or open dialogue.

Sadly, the yes-man culture we criticize in dictatorships looks a lot like what we are seeing in Western democracies.

The difference? We still have a choice. We can watch the inner circles and hold them accountable. If we don’t like what we see, well let’s just say that it wouldn’t be the first time in history that when a king falls, so do his men.

Stay skeptical. Pay attention to who has a seat at the table. Complacency is the enemy.

Alex

Let’s talk about a subject that most everyone I know loves - food!

Well, I wish that exclamation mark had a happy “umph” to it, but once again, I’m going to be a Debbie Downer.

As many of you know, when compared to the US and Canada, Europe has some pretty strict regulations when it comes to its food supply - and that’s great for the consumer.

The EU has long banned many questionable additives and it has maintained some of the world’s toughest GMO regulations, requiring labeling above 0.9% and allowing member states to ban cultivation outright. Countries including France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Hungary, and Poland have taken a hard-line stance against GMOs. Other nations such as Russia, Algeria, Bhutan, and Peru are also firmly on the no-GMO team. Canada and the US - not so much.

In fact, both allow more food additives and have weaker GMO labeling requirements than the EU. The US is the biggest culprit, permitting many additives (over 1,300) that are completely banned in Europe, including certain food dyes, brominated vegetable oil, and potassium bromate in bread. Canada sits somewhere in the middle: better than the US on some additives and labeling, but still far more lenient than Europe’s strict standards, with GMO labeling being “voluntary” in that country.

That said, it hasn’t been easy for the EU to maintain its famously “good for you” food supply. Back in 2016 when Russia banned GMO cultivation (with relatively little pushback), Europe had to fight tooth and nail to do the same. As in North America, some local governments and big international agribusinesses fought hard to prevent mandatory bans, as well as clear GMO labeling. Millions were spent on lobbying, so consumers wouldn’t easily know if their food contained genetically modified ingredients.

Think about that for a second. The industry openly wanted to hide the fact that their products were in your food. Their excuse? The public is too stupid to understand the science.

Now here we are in 2026, and they’re back at it again in Europe. In about a week, the EU is expected to vote on new rules for “New Genomic Techniques” (NGT) - basically gene-edited plants. If the proposal passes, these crops will no longer be classified or labeled as GMOs.

No risk assessment, no transparency, no right to know what’s in your bread, your tomato, or your olive oil.

Why? As with many things - follow the money. The global GMO seed market is already worth tens of billions annually and is projected to grow rapidly. For the corporations involved, the potential prize in Europe alone is enormous. One study estimates that wider adoption of new genomic techniques in the EU could generate up to €171–335 billion in yearly economic benefits. That’s serious money. And they want it.

This is obviously the most profitable path for a few, but it’s not the only path. For decades, farmers have shown there are other ways. In the 1930s and 40s, Sir Albert Howard pioneered organic farming methods in India, proving that healthy soil through composting and crop rotation could dramatically reduce pest problems and increase yields without chemicals. In the 1980s and 90s, the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania ran long-term trials showing that organic systems could match or exceed conventional yields while building soil health and resilience. Recently, one farmer solved a spider mite outbreak simply by adjusting nutrients to shift his plants’ metabolism. Within 24 hours the pests were gone - no pesticides, no gene editing, no patents required. Nature-based solutions like this work in many cases, yet we’re constantly told genetic engineering is the only answer for food security.

The pattern is clear: the more control a few companies gain over the food supply, the less you’re allowed to know about what you’re eating. Food sovereignty quietly disappears while the public is told to trust the experts.

I’m not saying every GMO or gene-edited crop is automatically evil. But when the industry fights so hard to hide what’s in your food, it makes you wonder.

The upcoming vote could quietly erase the type of transparency Europeans have come to expect in their food supply. If there is no pushback, they’ll end up with exactly what we see in parts of North America: minimal or no GMO labeling. That’s less than ideal.

So here’s the real question: Who is actually protecting the consumer - the countries that ban or heavily restrict GMOs, or the ones that fight to keep them unlabeled? I think we all know the answer to that.

Stay skeptical. Follow the money, not just the messaging.

Alex

Israel’s excuse of “self-defence” has fallen. The narrative has crumbled in real time and no amount of spin, celebrity statements, or carefully crafted press releases can save it.

What began with overwhelming global sympathy for Israel after the October 7, 2023 attacks has turned into one of the most dramatic public relations collapses in modern history. Support for Israel’s military campaign has plummeted across the West, while much of the Global South has turned sharply against it. This shift isn’t driven by conspiracy theories or sudden antisemitism. It’s driven by a visible reality that no amount of carefully crafted messaging can hide.

Let’s start with October 7, 2023. There is little doubt that around 1,200 Jewish people were killed that day.

Have you seen the videos? The Nova Festival massacre - chilling. The kibbutz attacks - horrific. And if you ask me, the most compelling anti-Hamas footage was actually shot by Palestinian civilians - not party goers or terrorists.

What is etched in my mind from the beginning of this war is the video of 22-year-old German-Israeli tattoo artist Shani Louk, who had been at the Nova music festival. Killed by the terrorists, her partially naked body was paraded through the streets of Gaza on the back of a pickup truck. In what can only be described as sickening, Palestinian civilians were cheering and spitting on her corpse as it was driven through the streets. My immediate thought was “kill them all.” Those Palestinian civilians acted barbarically, and any sympathy I had for their “cause” quickly disappeared.

But a couple of days later, once Israel began its retribution, my anti-Palestinian rage subsided.

Firstly, I realized that I had been suckered into the classic “us vs them” narrative that always gets weaponized in these conflicts. There is no “them” or “us.” Some of my best friends are both Jews and Palestinians who hold varying views on what is happening. There is no consensus in either group. I should have immediately recognized that xenophobia, jingoism, nationalism, racism and prejudice have reared their ugly heads from the get-go, like in every conflict of this type.

Then it suddenly clicked - yes, the terrorists were sick bastards, but there is absolutely no way on Earth that a bunch of rag-tag militants on mopeds and paragliders pulled “October 7th” off entirely on their own. The gates to one of the most heavily fortified and monitored borders on Earth were left undefended by someone.

There are plenty of documented accounts to support this. A BBC investigation revealed how young female IDF surveillance soldiers repeatedly warned their commanders about suspicious Hamas activity and training exercises in the weeks and days leading up to the attack - warnings that were largely dismissed. Haaretz reported similar ignored intelligence, including spotters noting unusual Hamas drills just days before. Egyptian intelligence also reportedly warned Israel days in advance about a major Hamas operation. First-hand testimonials from IDF soldiers described being told to stand down or ignore anomalies, with some units even receiving orders to cancel routine patrols that morning. It was unprecedented.

Which brings us to the next point: let’s be real - the attack didn’t just benefit Hamas. It handed Netanyahu and the far-right in Israel exactly what they needed to pursue their agenda. For Netanyahu, who was already facing massive protests and legal challenges over corruption, October 7 was politically life-saving. It united a fractured country behind him, delayed his trials, and allowed his far-right coalition partners (like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich) to advance aggressive policies.

Along with this came a massive push of what can only be labelled as propaganda, and that did little to help Israel’s cause. Early on, we were flooded with claims like “40 beheaded babies.” That story spread like wildfire before being walked back and eventually debunked. It was reminiscent of past propaganda efforts by the U.S., like the 1990 “incubator babies” story from Kuwait (which turned out to be fabricated) and the Weapons of Mass Destruction narrative before the 2003 Iraq invasion. Same playbook - except this time, those in charge failed to realize that their tactics were completely obsolete. In today’s hyper-connected world, information and disinformation don’t spread unchecked. Scrutiny comes fast, and so do the consequences.

The same predictable talking points kept coming from Israel: “Israel is only defending itself,” “the IDF is the most moral army in the world,” “we are fighting for our very survival.”

Meanwhile, dozens of videos of massacres, houses being bulldozed, and settlement expansion flooded the internet. The gap between the official narrative and what people were seeing on their phones grew too wide to ignore. The Gaza death toll climbed into the tens of thousands, as raw, unfiltered videos from the ground dominated social media. IDF soldiers actually filmed themselves mocking the dead, destroying homes, and in some cases celebrating killings.

That kind of content is almost impossible to explain away.

At the same time, senior Israeli politicians made unapologetic, often vitriolic statements that spread like wildfire. Calls to “erase Gaza” and open talk of turning parts of Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon into Israeli settlements became regular soundbites. Added to far-right Jewish supremacy narratives and open talk of a “Greater Israel,” images of ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians in Jerusalem’s Old City went viral, along with disturbing torture footage from Israeli detention facilities.

In Lebanon, the conflict expanded dramatically, with some Israeli officials and influencers openly describing the operation as a land grab and part of a “Greater Israel” project - comments that further stoked international outrage.

The killing of journalists and aid workers added fuel to the fire. An unprecedented number of journalists have been murdered in Gaza - more than in any other recent conflict according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Humanitarian workers have also died in large numbers, including the high-profile World Central Kitchen convoy strike that killed seven aid workers. These incidents, combined with the scale of destruction, made the official “precision operation” narrative harder and harder to sell.

By April 2026, a Pew Research survey found that only 37% of Americans overall held a favourable view of Israel (down from 64% two years earlier) - 60% now view it unfavourably. Among younger Americans (under 50), the collapse is even steeper - roughly 70% hold unfavourable views of Israel. Europe has followed a similar trajectory. Public opinion has soured, and governments that once offered near-unconditional solidarity have begun recognizing Palestine and openly criticizing Israel’s conduct. The International Court of Justice case brought by South Africa, combined with the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in 2025, further eroded Israel’s moral standing on the global stage.

Meanwhile, Israel’s documented influence in the U.S. and abroad - particularly through powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC - has become a major topic of discussion. What was once considered a third-rail issue in American politics is now being openly debated on mainstream platforms, with critics pointing to campaign donations, media pressure, and political leverage as factors shaping U.S. policy.

While often justified, all this outrage has dark - and potentially dangerous - side effects. Antisemites now scour Torah texts, cherry-picking passages to “prove” Jewish supremacy claims. Others are revisiting revisionist historical narratives and tumbling into outright conspiracy theories about Jewish power and influence.

Much of this surge in scrutiny can be rightfully blamed on Netanyahu and “Zionists,” allowing broader criticism of Israeli policy without immediately being labeled antisemitic. But the genie is out of the bottle. In the worst cases, Israel’s actions have handed genuine antisemites the fuel they’ve been waiting for - a ready-made excuse to spread and intensify their hatred. This is not only disturbing. It puts innocent Jews around the world at greater risk.

The bottom line: Israel has lost the PR war not because the world suddenly hates Jews, but because the human cost became too visible, too consistent and too difficult to explain away, while Israeli politicians and the IDF continue to unapologetically support these actions. No amount of accusations of bias or claims of “Hamas propaganda” could overcome months of graphic, unfiltered footage combined with inflammatory statements from Israeli leaders and officials.

The best path forward is empowering moderate Israeli and Jewish voices who are currently being drowned out by hardliners. After all, real security and respect come from actually living up to the values you claim to hold - not from trying to control the message, while the images tell a different story.

Stay skeptical. Challenge your assumptions. Policy criticism is not antisemitism.

Alex

If you’re tired of the sanitized version of events and want unfiltered analysis like this, hit subscribe if you haven’t already - and I encourage you to share this with anyone who wants to see beyond the headlines.

Walking into a Canadian grocery store in 2019 wasn’t exactly bargain shopping, but it sure was a hell of a lot cheaper than now. A loaf of bread was around $2.50. Today it’s closer to $3.60. A dozen eggs that cost maybe $3 back then, now run $4.80 or more. A litre of milk has jumped from around $2 to over $3.50 in many places. And yes - I have to mention it - gas prices. $1.30 a litre seemed like a rip-off back in the day. Now Canadians are paying up to $1.90 a litre at the pumps, depending on where they live. As for wages - little to no real change.

This isn’t just a story about Canada. In much of the world today, everything costs noticeably more - often a lot more - while wages for the average person have barely moved. Canada is a perfect example of just how bad it can get.

In real terms (after inflation), median wages in Canada have been largely stagnant for the better part of 15 years. People are working longer hours, but their money buys less and less. Somehow Canadians have accepted this, even though there is absolutely no reason it should be this way. Think about it: Canada has the second-largest landmass on Earth, the third-largest proven oil reserves, massive fresh water, uranium, potash, farmland, and a direct border with the world’s richest economy. Yet ordinary Canadians are poorer than they should be.

Since 2019, the cost of living has outpaced wage growth dramatically. Housing prices in major Canadian cities have skyrocketed, making home ownership feel impossible for many young people and middle-class families. Rent has followed suit. Food prices have risen sharply - up 4–6% in 2026 alone, adding nearly $1,000 a year to a typical family’s grocery bill. Gasoline is roughly 20% higher than in the United States, and electricity prices have climbed in parts of the country. Median wages, meanwhile, have grown very slowly in real terms. Money simply doesn’t go as far as it used to.

A big part of the squeeze started with how governments around the world handled COVID - and Canada offers a textbook example. Lockdowns and mandates systematically destroyed thousands of small businesses - restaurants, retailers, gyms, salons, and family-run operations that employed millions. Some of my favourite Toronto neighbourhoods still haven’t recovered. Many businesses never reopened. The heavy-handed rules, combined with slow and uneven support, wiped out years of built-up equity and jobs. Meanwhile, the big guys cleaned up. Walmart, Loblaws, Amazon, and other large corporations posted record profits during the lockdowns in Canada. They stayed open while the little guys were forced to close. Government policy didn’t just hurt small businesses - it actively shifted money upward to the largest players.

But the Canadian government didn’t stop there. Still reeling from the pandemic, Canada opened the floodgates, allowing over 5 million immigrants into the country in just five years - a record-breaking number. On paper, more people should mean more growth. In practice, it has put enormous pressure infrastructure, the welfare system, and housing. Ordinary Canadians watched home prices and rents skyrocket, while competing with millions of new arrivals for the same limited supply. You’d think the logical response would be a temporary pause to absorb the newcomers - make sure they have housing and jobs before bringing in even more. Instead, the taps stayed open.

This is where Mark Carney’s worldview fits in nicely into the story (a POV many find problematic). As a long-time Davos regular and advisor to Trudeau before becoming Prime Minister, he has championed carbon taxes, net-zero targets, and international climate commitments. Most people I know (myself included) want to help the planet - just like Carney. The key, however, is that it must be done sustainably, not in a way that makes ordinary Canadians poorer, while doing more harm overall. For example, Canada sits on some of the world’s largest oil reserves and applies some of the strictest environmental standards for extraction. Yet it currently imports oil from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Those tankers travel thousands of kilometres, burning fuel and creating emissions along the way. Domestic Canadian oil doesn’t need to cross oceans and is produced under much higher standards. The double standard is obvious: Canada imposes high costs and restrictions at home, then imports dirtier oil from places with lower standards. The result? Higher energy prices for Canadians and worse outcomes for the planet. It would be surprising if the Prime Minister of Canada wasn’t aware of this.

A pandemic, wars, political instability - there is no doubt that we live in a world in flux. That said, it still feels unreasonable that the cost of living in Canada and many other places has risen so quickly. It is not a stretch to see this as government mismanagement or even as deliberate, to forward a global agenda.

Either way, the results we’re living with today stem largely from government policies. The cost of everything - housing, food, gas, energy - has risen faster than wages for far too many people. COVID policies hammered small businesses and economies, while a Davos-style focus on global climate targets has made daily life more expensive.

This is especially striking in a country like Canada, blessed with abundant resources and potential. That said, it is not acceptable anywhere. The real question is whether we keep quietly putting up with it, or do we finally start demanding better from those in charge.

Stay skeptical and don’t just accept the new normal.

Alex

It’s easy for Trump’s loudest critics to spend all their time on moral outrage and his “orangeness,” while completely ignoring the one undebatable thing that should piss off all Americans (including his core supporters): the jaw-dropping waste of taxpayer dollars.

I admit it - I’m guilty of it too. “Moral outrage” gets my attention. Numbers? Not so much. But if I were an American, the following would make me blow a gasket, no matter how entranced I was by the President.

In just 15 months, Trump’s administration has already racked up spending at one of the fastest paces in recent history. Much of that money has gone to waste through incompetence, rushed policies and completely avoidable legal messes.

Angry yet, my American friends? Just wait.

If that hasn’t caused steam to come out of a few Yankee ears, how about the fact that the U.S. media (the so-called Fifth Estate) gives this almost no sustained attention and gets away with it?

As a wise young boy with disabilities once said on South Park: “I mean, come on.”

What’s going on? Is it cell phone addiction, benzos, or something else that has sedated Americans into accepting outright thievery? Let’s start with the small stuff that adds up fast.

Remember that idiotic rebrand? On day one, Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” This was pure dick-swinging - nobody voted for it and it changed nothing substantive. Meanwhile, federal agencies are still scrambling to update maps, charts, documents and websites. Early estimates put the direct cost in the tens of millions, but when you add every agency, contractor and unnecessary update, the total balloons into the hundreds of millions. A classic flashy, pointless gesture that achieves nothing except burning taxpayer cash.

Then came the tariffs.

Using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump rolled out broad tariffs faster than most could say “Melania.” There was little real legal vetting and the rollout was chaotic. Courts eventually struck down large parts of the policy, forcing the government to process an estimated $160–175 billion in refunds to importers who paid duties that were later ruled unlawful. That’s real money - billions of U.S. tax dollars wasted on a rushed policy that didn’t hold up. To put it in perspective: $175 billion could fund a lot of roads, bridges, hospitals, or school repairs. Instead, it went poof because of sloppy execution.

Next came the endless executive orders that triggered lawsuit after lawsuit. That means more taxpayer-funded lawyers on both sides, more court time, more delays and more money down the drain.

Here’s another one: Remember DOGE - the Department of Government Efficiency? Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy sold it as the ultimate waste-cutter. Many of us (myself included) were genuinely excited. Instead, U.S. federal spending actually went up in 2025. While some contracts were canceled and headcount dropped, the net result was disruption, lawsuits and (according to multiple analyses) little to no real long-term reduction. Some independent reviews suggest DOGE’s hasty cuts even created new costs through rehiring and chaos.

And then there’s everyone’s favourite - ICE. The agency got a massive funding surge for Trump’s immigration crackdown - billions extra for detention, hiring and operations. Much of it was necessary for enforcement but the rushed rollout brought training shortcuts, legal challenges and more taxpayer-funded court battles.

You might be saying, “Alex, this is all in the past. We know you’ll never let Trump live down the well-done steak with ketchup thing, but come on… governments everywhere waste money. Give us a break!” Fair point - in my mind, well-done steak remains a sacrilege and yes, I know, waste happens under most administration, most everywhere. But we’re talking about the United States here and the scale in this case is staggering.

Right now, look at Iran. What started as targeted strikes expected to last days escalated into a broader conflict. The Pentagon now puts the cost at $25 billion so far, with some estimates higher when including base repairs and supply replenishments. Supplemental funding requests have climbed into the $80–200 billion range. Americans are also paying through higher oil prices and grocery bills.

And let’s not forget Israel, which many consider part of the broader “Iran” package. Since Trump’s return, the U.S. has provided significant additional military aid and arms sales on top of the baseline $3.8 billion per year - including multiple emergency packages worth several billion dollars and large-scale weapons transfers totalling over $10 billion in 2025 alone. In early 2026, the Trump administration pushed the total value of new commitments well above $15 billion since it took office.

Many will argue that this so-called “aid” actually helps America by pumping money into the weapons industry and keeping defence jobs humming. Fair point on the surface. But from a more critical perspective, one could easily see it as a purely socialistic wealth transfer and/or blood money that props up a controversial regime, while American taxpayers foot the bill.

Bottom line: None of this is about whether you like Trump’s goals. It’s about results.

A government that claims to hate waste shouldn’t be generating it at this scale. Executive orders struck down in court, policies triggering massive refunds, symbolic name changes that cost real money and military actions with foreseeable economic blowback - this is the kind of stuff Trump ranted and raved against before entering his second term. It should outrage any American who cares about their tax dollars, regardless of party.

Yet the conversation stays stuck on culture-war outrage. The fiscal reality (the actual dollars taken from American pay checks and dumped down the shitter) barely gets mentioned.

Here’s the bigger picture: America just crossed a dangerous milestone, with debt held by the public now exceeding the size of the entire U.S. economy (over 100% of GDP). Washington is spending roughly $1.33 for every dollar it takes in, with a projected $1.9 trillion deficit this year alone. This is not sustainable. When the bill comes due, expect higher taxes, a weaker dollar, fewer services and a more strained military. Trump probably won’t be president when the worst of it hits - but average American kids will be stuck paying for it, while his own family stays extremely wealthy.

That’s the real scandal. Not the tweets, not the rallies, not the cable-news talking heads “making good TV” with endless screaming matches. It’s the quiet, very expensive incompetence that adds up to real money leaving American wallets and achieving far too little in return.

U.S. taxpayers deserve better than this from any administration - left, right, or otherwise.

Stay skeptical. Stay informed. Don’t get distracted.

Alex

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced the creation of the country’s first national sovereign wealth fund. In keeping with the government’s recent messaging campaign, it has been named the “Canada Strong Fund.”

It will start with a $25 billion federal injection over three years. The stated goal is to partner with private industry on “major national projects” in infrastructure, energy, mining, agriculture and technology, while giving ordinary Canadians a way to invest directly. Carney described it as a “national savings and investment account” to grow wealth for future generations.

On paper, this sounds great. Canada is going to be just like Norway! That country has a $2.2 trillion sovereign wealth fund which has helped make Norway one of the wealthiest countries per capita in the world. The people there enjoy virtually free university education, excellent healthcare, lengthy paid parental leave, robust infrastructure and one of the highest standards of living on Earth - supported in large part by their fund.

But hold on to your horses - unfortunately (although it has the name) Canada’s sovereign wealth fund is a very different animal.

Norway’s Fund vs. Canada’s Proposal

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global is the gold standard - it’s amazing. Built on decades of North Sea oil revenue, it owns about 1.5% of global equities and equates to over $390,000 per Norwegian citizen. The fund follows a disciplined “3% rule” for withdrawals to preserve capital for future generations.

Canada’s version? A $25 billion seed, which is smaller than the province of Alberta’s Heritage Savings Trust Fund (around $32 billion). And unlike Norway, Canada’s fund will run on debt rather than surplus revenue. Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne essentially confirmed the government will borrow the money at “favourable rates”. Not surprisingly, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre immediately called it out, dubbing it a “sovereign debt fund.”

That’s the key difference. Classic sovereign wealth funds are built on excess money. Canada is borrowing to create one.

A quick comparison for context: Norway’s proven oil reserves are relatively modest at roughly 7-8 billion barrels. Canada, by contrast, sits on approximately 167-172 billion barrels, making it one of the largest oil reserve holders in the world. Yet Canada has never created a similar national savings vehicle, choosing instead to spend most of its resource revenue rather than save and invest it for the long term, like Norway.

More of a Government Investment Vehicle Than True Sovereign Wealth

The Canada Strong Fund is designed to co-invest in government-priority projects. This makes it more of a public-private partnership vehicle or development bank, rather than a traditional savings fund. It will be managed by a new Crown corporation with an independent board, which is good on paper - but the heavy focus on government-chosen “nation-building projects” opens it up to political meddling. Allowing individual Canadians and foreign investors to participate directly is also unusual. Most sovereign wealth funds are government-only. This retail angle sounds inclusive on the surface but it could easily become a way for Ottawa to tap into Canadians’ savings to fund its preferred projects, while maintaining full control.

The Bigger Picture

Even before he was Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney advocated using finance and government coordination to drive a “just transition” to a net-zero economy. This fund fits neatly into that worldview (a vision that is far from universally popular). It allows the government to direct capital toward its favoured sectors, while calling it “wealth building for future generations.”

Whether this becomes genuine wealth creation or another layer of politically guided spending will depend entirely on governance. History is littered with sovereign funds that were eventually used to advance political priorities. Canada has solid examples of professionally managed funds like CPP Investments and the Caisse de dépôt, but it has also witnessed repeated failures at the provincial level when they fall into the hands of politicians.

Let’s be honest - this is a fairly small fund being started with borrowed money, which is hardly ideal. The stated focus is on accelerating the government’s preferred projects, all wrapped in the comforting language of “building for future generations.” Bottom line: this is nowhere near Norway’s world-class scale and disciplined approach.

Canadians should watch this very closely: Who really controls the fund? What are the investment rules? How protected is it from short-term political goals? And most importantly, will this actually grow real wealth for future generations, or just provide new ways for Ottawa to direct capital and get its hands on even more hard-earned dollars from Canadians?

The name sounds impressive. From what we can see right now, the initiative, not so much.

Stay skeptical. Stay informed.

Alex

Tap…

No more fumbling with crumpled bills or hunting down ATMs. Using our own money has never been easier.

And that’s exactly why they love it.

Every tap feeds the machine - banks get the fees and a perfect digital trail is left behind for those who are watching. We’ve been conditioned for decades and soon we could all be fully traceable.

Right now, while the world is distracted by high oil prices and a teetering Middle East, few are paying attention to what’s happening behind the curtain: a quiet war on our financial freedom.

The people running the show aren’t coming for our guns first - they’re coming for our wallets.

Imagine money that’s programmable, traceable and revocable with one keystroke. That’s total control. Dissent is tough when your funds can vanish in less than a second. We’ve seen hints of this and many believe the full version is coming.

Think back to 2022. During Canada’s trucker convoy protests, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act. Authorities targeted roughly 200 bank accounts and financial products linked to organizers, truckers and donors - some for small contributions. Most were unfrozen within 3 days but Canada’s national police force (the RCMP) could flag anything connected to the convoy. Whether you agree with the movement or not, the real red flag here is a government’s ability to go after ordinary people’s money.

In truth, this incident in Canada was small beans. There’s something much bigger going on - a global agenda: phase out cash in the coming decade, make everything digital and tighten the grip on how people spend their hard-earned money. The bills will be ripped out of our hands - and with them, our freedom.

China Leads the Charge

China’s digital yuan (e-CNY) is the world’s biggest live test of this kind of money. It already has hundreds of millions of wallets and has handled trillions of dollars in transactions - all under the watchful eye of the Chinese government.

The money is fully programmable, completely traceable and deeply wired into the state’s systems for oversight.

Working in tandem, the China-led mBridge cross-border platform has processed over $55 billion in tests, with the digital yuan handling about 95% of that volume. Beijing is pushing this hard to gain more control over international trade and tighten domestic surveillance. No sugarcoating: this is a play for trade dominance, while unapologetically building government surveillance straight into the money itself.

Europe’s Blueprint

Europe isn’t hiding what it’s doing either. New anti-money laundering rules (AMLR) will hit full force on July 10, 2027. Cash payments of €10,000 or more to businesses will be banned EU-wide - with possible hefty fines or jail time for breaking the rules. Any transaction over €3,000 will trigger mandatory ID checks. For those thinking of using crypto to dodge the regulations, there’s the ‘Travel Rule,’ which requires full sender and receiver information on almost every crypto transfer.

Then there’s the Digital Euro. A 12-month pilot is scheduled to launch in the second half of 2027, with possible issuance as early as 2029. It includes holding caps (debated in the range of €500–€3,000 to protect banks), zero interest (just like cash) and “waterfall” mechanisms that auto-pull extra funds from your linked bank account if needed.

You may be asking, “what’s this waterfall thing?” Here’s an example:

Buying a car? You pay from your digital wallet, which has a holding cap. The system checks your balance. If it’s short (and for any bigger purchase, it will be), the so-called reverse waterfall pulls the extra cash from your bank account. The full amount zips instantly to the seller in digital euros. Sounds convenient, right? However, critics are pointing out built-in traceability and regulatory checks — China anyone?

Cash will stay legal tender, but the squeeze is already on. Bills and coins you can touch will become increasingly cumbersome with limits and ID requirements. Greece already has one of the EU’s lowest cash limits at just €500 for many purchases. Want to buy a Playstation 5 in cash? In Greece, you’d better whip out a card - going over the limit can get you hit with heavy fines, and doing it repeatedly can land you in serious legal trouble. Kind of mind-blowing, isn’t it?

Europe is moving fast in this direction, while North America is showing some pushback - but a lot is still happening behind the scenes.

North America: Push and Pull

The US has drawn a line - for now. In January 2025, President Trump banned federal agencies from building or promoting a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC), citing privacy, stability and sovereignty risks. Prior work was killed and focus has shifted to regulated private stablecoins - dollar-backed tokens from companies under oversight, like USDC or USDT. For now, there is no direct government programmable money.

That said, today U.S. banks are still required to report cash deals over $10,000, suspicious wires get flagged and surveillance continues to tighten through private channels. Meanwhile, America is aggressively tokenizing assets: stocks, bonds, buildings and even Treasury notes. Roughly $26 billion is already on public blockchains, with some projections hitting $16-30 trillion by 2030 - a big slice of global GDP. This is a strategic play by the United States to build a modern, digitized financial system on blockchains that is more resilient to traditional global shocks, including oil price volatility.

North of the U.S., Canada has pumped the brakes on its “digital loonie,” calling it a contingency plan. Focus has shifted to payment upgrades and stablecoin rules, while large transactions stay monitored. Remember the convoy freezes we talked about? A full digital system would make that instant and effortless - no emergency act required. That’s not happening … yet.

Over 130 countries (covering 98% of global GDP) have explored digitizing their currency. Most notably, India is scaling its digital rupee with offline options, Brazil is pushing a digital currency project (although it had to scale back on its original version) and Japan and the UK are moving cautiously. Other countries have paused or rejected plans altogether, like South Korea.

The Big Play

Tokenization turns physical assets into digital for “efficiency,” but it also makes them easier to control or reset - that’s especially handy if you’re sitting on trillions in debt. And do you know who is trillions in debt? Take a guess.

In 1933, the U.S. government made private gold ownership illegal through Executive Order 6102, forcing holders to swap their gold for bonds at the official price of $20.67 per ounce. Then, in 1934, the government revalued gold to $35 per ounce. This devalued the dollar by about 41%. Bonds held by many Americans became significantly less in worth. By 1944, with other nations broke from WWII, the U.S. used its now massive gold reserves to establish the Bretton Woods system - essentially making the dollar the world’s anchor currency that other countries tied their money to.

America appears to be using tokenization as a modern version of that same strategy - digitizing its massive debt and assets in an attempt to reset the financial system and re-establish dollar dominance in the global order. Today’s full digitization of assets smells like the same playbook: centralize, control and rewrite the rules when it suits the house.

And let’s not overlook the fact that there’s another problem here: when money isn’t tangible, it’s a lot easier to mess with. Digital can be hacked, glitched, or crashed and hackers could flip your balance overnight.

Why It Matters — And How to Push Back

“The man” says it’s about crime-fighting and inclusion - but here’s the truth: this will be the death of anonymous transactions for normal people. When money is digital, privacy evaporates and control takes over. Programmable money makes it easy to impose spending restrictions (by category or location), or to freeze accounts for “bad” behaviour. We can even be penalized for not spending. Dissenters get de-banked quietly. They control our money like a kid’s allowance.

Cash - the last permissionless option - gets pushed to the margins.

Even if their intentions were pure (and they’re not), computers fail - cash and barter have staying power. This isn’t tinfoil-hat stuff. It’s about who decides our financial freedom.

So let it be us. I don’t want to be preachy, but here are a few basic ideas that I know most won’t follow:

Aside from using cash as much as possible, diversification is a good way to protect yourself - don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. Also, get Biblical - the elite don’t hoard gold and silver for no reason. And if you have faith in technology, add a bit of digital gold (Bitcoin) — why not?

If barter floats your boat, go for it! It’s a great way to stay off the books.

The bottom line: the goal isn’t chaos. It’s sound, decentralized, private money and assets coexisting with regulated systems. Bitcoin can’t be printed endlessly like regular money, so it protects you from the tricks that make your dollars lose value over time. Gold and silver are tried-and-true. For now, cash is our veto.

“Money as software” funnels power upward. It should anger anyone who values liberty.

The only assets they can’t easily program against us are the ones we truly control. The fight is getting harder, but it’s far from over.

Stay skeptical. Control what you can. And accept what you cannot.

Alex

Content warning:

The following section contains extremely disturbing descriptions of sexual violence and torture, including allegations of rape. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

Do you remember those disturbing torture photos from the Iraq war back in 2004? Let me jog your memory - we saw U.S. soldiers grinning behind a group of naked Iraqi detainees stacked in a pyramid. We were also exposed to photo evidence of prisoners being beaten, threatened with electrocution, forced into simulated sex acts and cowering from attack dogs.

Most of us were shocked. The world lost its mind. Investigations, resignations and congressional hearings kicked in. Sure, many would say it wasn’t enough - and they’d be right - but some action was taken. Abu Ghraib Prison became the symbol of what happens when power goes unchecked in wartime.

Now try to imagine something worse. Much worse.

Welcome to Sde Teiman (Sdeh Tay-man) - a remote Israeli military base in the Negev Desert that has become one of the most notorious detention centres for Palestinians detained after October 7, 2023. What started as a temporary holding facility for suspected militants has turned into a place of systematic torture - including sexual violence so grotesque it makes Abu Ghraib look like a playground. This isn’t speculation. The claims are backed by human rights groups and Israeli voices. The latest reports are stomach-turning.

Sde Teiman first exploded into global view in 2024 when leaked CCTV footage showed Israeli soldiers brutally gang-raping a male Palestinian detainee, including penetrating him with objects, as others stood by laughing and cheering. Nine soldiers were arrested. What happened next was mind-blowing to many. Instead of insisting that the rapists be punished to the full extent of the law, right-wing mobs (including Knesset members) stormed military bases in protest, demanding the soldiers be released. Adding insult to injury, in March 2026, the Israeli military dropped the sexual assault charges against five of them. Amnesty International called it “disgraceful,” noting that out of dozens of documented abuse cases, almost no one has ever been held accountable.

According to reports, at least 29 Palestinians have died in Sde Teiman alone, with the total death toll in Israeli custody reaching at least 84–98 Palestinians since October 2023.

The pattern is clear: mass roundups after October 7, incommunicado detention (no lawyers, no family visits, no Red Cross access for weeks or months) and a culture in which abuse is not just tolerated, but actively protected and celebrated by parts of the Israeli military, political leadership and right-wing civilians. A number of human rights groups have been keeping tabs.

B’Tselem’s January 2026 report “Living Hell” documented the Israeli prison system as a network of torture camps. Detainees described being attacked by dogs, stripped naked, beaten on the genitals, as well as being tied with cords until they bled and swelled. One released prisoner told them soldiers set dogs on him while he was naked.

Euro-Med Monitor’s April 2026 report called sexual violence in Israeli detention centres a “de facto state policy.” Testimonies include men raped by soldiers, forced into humiliating positions and left bleeding.

Then come the accounts that are almost impossible to comprehend.

One PCHR testimony from a man identified as A.A. (arrested from Al-Shifa Hospital in March 2024) is especially harrowing: “We were stripped completely. Soldiers brought dogs that climbed on us and urinated on me. Then one of the dogs raped me … I suffered a severe psychological breakdown and deep humiliation.”

Basel Alsourani, international advocacy officer at PCHR, put it bluntly: “They know once they rape someone with a dog or with a stick that these people won’t be able to carry out their jobs or live their lives normally. It’s part of their genocidal intention to destroy [Palestinians].”

These aren’t isolated claims. Multiple released detainees have described similar horrors - trained dogs used deliberately for sexual assault, while soldiers watched or participated.

Israeli analyst Shaiel Ben-Ephraim - a geopolitical expert and former IDF soldier - dropped a bombshell on X earlier this month. He said he spoke directly to two guards who worked at Sde Teiman, on more than one occasion. “Some have said that claims Israel uses dogs to sexually abuse prisoners are antisemitic blood libels,” Ben-Ephraim wrote. “Unfortunately, there is a good deal of evidence.” One guard told him he had seen it happen but it was ‘too awful to talk about.’ The other had heard the same stories from colleagues and believed they were true. Add the consistent testimonies from victims, eyewitnesses and human rights groups, and the evidence is overwhelming. A BBC investigation backs it as well. If you don’t believe me, look it up - the reports are publicly available.

Why the silence?

Talking about it can get you branded as antisemitic. The images are too horrific for polite company. Powerful lobbies and governments don’t want anyone mentioning it.

However, we all need to speak up. At its core, we know this isn’t about “self defence.” It’s about basic human decency. Rape is a war crime.

With all that we now know, the world needs to stop looking away. When this kind of brutality is met with silence or excuses, “never again” loses all meaning.

Stay skeptical. Stay informed. Stay human.

Alex

I’m knowingly walking into hostile waters here, but let’s bottle up the emotions for a second and look at reality instead of slogans.

Taiwan is China.

That is not just Beijing’s position. It is also the official position of the United Nations, the position of the vast majority of countries in the world and - crucially - the longstanding official policy of the United States.

The One China policy has been the foundation of U.S.-China relations since 1979, when Washington formally switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. Every single U.S. administration since then - Republican and Democrat alike - has publicly affirmed that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of it. The U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as a separate sovereign country. It maintains unofficial relations through the American Institute in Taiwan, sells defensive weapons under the Taiwan Relations Act, but stops short of formal diplomatic recognition or a mutual defense treaty. In other words, even America’s own policy acknowledges the reality that Taiwan is not an independent nation separate from China.

The United Nations takes the same view. In 1971, UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China and expelled the representatives of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Most countries around the world followed suit. Today, only about a dozen small nations formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. The overwhelming global consensus is that Taiwan is part of China.

This isn’t ancient history or propaganda. It’s a documented diplomatic reality.

So, should we worry about Taiwan? Consider this - China does not think or act like America. It does not have the cowboy mentality that leads to knee-jerk invasions and regime-change wars every time a leader feels disrespected. Beijing plays the long game. While Western capitals obsess over quarterly earnings, election cycles and four-year leadership terms, China thinks in centuries. Its leaders study dynastic cycles that lasted hundreds of years. They remember that their civilization has outlasted empires that once looked invincible.

That patience is visible in everything Beijing does on the Taiwan issue. It applies military pressure, economic leverage and diplomatic isolation - but it has not launched a full-scale invasion despite decades of rhetoric. Contrast that with how quickly the United States has jumped into conflicts when it felt its interests or pride were at stake. The difference in strategic tempo is not weakness on China’s part - it is discipline.

If I were running Taiwan today, I would sign a 100-year reunification pact with Beijing tomorrow.

I would bet on the fact that China in 2126 will not be the same country it is in 2026. A century is an eternity in politics. Regimes evolve, leaders die, societies change and interests shift. Taiwan would keep its distinct system, its economy, its way of life and its de-facto autonomy for an entire lifetime while the mainland slowly transforms. The alternative is to bet everything on America’s willingness to risk nuclear war with China over an island over 11,000 kilometres from California - a bet that looks increasingly reckless as American voters grow tired of DC’s military adventures.

None of this is new. China’s territorial claims have deep historical backing and the country has never veered from that. Between 1405 and 1433, the Ming Dynasty sent seven massive treasure fleets under Admiral Zheng He across the Indian Ocean all the way to East Africa. These expeditions carried tens of thousands of sailors, diplomats and traders. They reached ports in what is now Kenya, exchanged gifts, established diplomatic ties and conducted cultural and commercial exchanges.

And then they went home.

They did not plant colonies. They did not seize land. They did not conquer or settle. That single historical episode tells you more about China’s strategic culture than any modern soundbite. When China has had overwhelming maritime power, it has chosen trade and influence over conquest and colonization. Compare that to the European powers of the same era, who arrived, planted flags and never left.

This is not to say China is peaceful or harmless. It is a great power pursuing its own interests and those interests include eventual reunification with Taiwan. But pretending the issue is simply “democracy versus autocracy” or “freedom-loving Taiwan versus evil Beijing” is childish. It’s a territorial dispute rooted in history, power and national identity - the same forces that have shaped every major conflict in history.

The United States has turned Taiwan into a strategic pawn in its effort to contain China’s rise. That policy requires Taiwan to remain permanently separate and permanently armed - an expensive, dangerous and ultimately unsustainable position. Beijing has made it clear that it will not accept permanent separation forever. The longer we pretend otherwise, the higher the risk of miscalculation.

A 100-year pact would be the adult move. It would freeze the status quo for generations while giving both sides time to let history do its work. Taiwan keeps its democracy and prosperity. China gets a peaceful, negotiated path to eventual reunification without the catastrophic cost of war. At the same time, the world avoids turning the Taiwan Strait into the 21st century’s version of the Korean DMZ - only with aircraft carriers and hypersonic missiles instead of artillery.

I know this view will get me called every name in the book. That’s fine. Shooting the messenger has never changed the message.

Reality doesn’t care about our slogans. Taiwan is geographically, historically and strategically part of the Chinese world - a position shared by the UN, the vast majority of the world’s countries and America’s own official policy. China thinks in centuries, not soundbites. The smart play is to recognize that fact and negotiate from strength instead of clinging to the fantasy that America can indefinitely guarantee the island’s separation by force.

The long game favors patience. The question is whether anyone in Taipei is capable of thinking that far ahead.

Stay skeptical. Follow the history. And remember: empires that last do not act like cowboys.

Alex

If you’re tired of the sanitized version of events and want unfiltered analysis like this, hit subscribe if you haven’t already - and I encourage you to share this with anyone who wants to see beyond the headlines.

While poor Ukrainians are forced to fight and die in the trenches, some of the country’s elite are living it up on the French Riviera and in Monaco - on our dime.

I see it everyday - at local grocery stores, on the road, parked in front of the most expensive restaurants - brand new luxury vehicles with UA plates. If you don’t believe me, come visit the south of France … or we can just follow the money.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in Western aid - mostly from American, Canadian and European taxpayers - have flowed into Ukraine since 2022. The stated goal: help the country defend itself against Russia. Commendable, right?

Yet if you walk the streets of Monaco or drive along the French Riviera, you’ll see something that doesn’t quite add up: a striking number of brand-new supercars sporting Ukrainian license plates.

Bugattis, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Rolls-Royces and a shit-ton of Mercedes G-Wagens - many of them fresh off the lot. Donald Trump Jr. claimed that during a visit last summer, roughly half the supercars he saw in Monaco had Ukrainian plates. Whether the exact percentage is accurate or exaggerated, the phenomenon is real and widely documented. Videos, photos and reports from the area consistently show luxury vehicles with UA plates parked outside multimillion-euro villas, yachts and casinos.

This has earned the group the sarcastic nickname the “Monaco Battalion” - wealthy Ukrainian men of fighting age who left the country (sometimes under questionable circumstances) and settled into luxury on France’s Mediterranean coast.

Meanwhile, ordinary Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 are largely banned from leaving the country, conscripted into a brutal war of attrition with extremely high casualties. The contrast is brutal: one group sends its sons to the front lines, while another group’s sons cruise the Riviera in six and seven-figure cars.

The question that naturally arises is simple: where did the money come from?

Ukraine has long struggled with corruption. Even before the full-scale war, oligarchs and connected insiders controlled huge chunks of the economy through opaque schemes in energy, banking and government contracts. Western aid - cash, weapons and reconstruction funds - has been massive. While much of it has undoubtedly gone toward the war effort, there have been repeated scandals involving embezzlement, overpriced contracts and money disappearing into offshore networks.

A lot of that money appears to have found its way into luxury real estate, yachts and supercars on the Côte d’Azur. Ukrainian oligarchs and their families have been documented owning high-end properties in France, including villas near Monaco. The flow isn’t always direct (aid money is often funneled through government budgets, defense contracts and various intermediaries), but the end result is the same: Western taxpayers help fund the war machine, while the Ukrainian elite class maintains - or even upgrades - its lavish lifestyle abroad.

This is trickle-down economics in reverse. Your tax dollars go to “support Ukraine,” a portion gets siphoned off through corruption and cronyism and the benefits show up as Ferraris on the French Riviera, while conscripts suffer in muddy trenches.

I’m not saying every Ukrainian with a luxury car stole aid money. Some were already wealthy before the war. Some may have legitimate businesses. That said, the optics are terrible and the pattern is hard to ignore. When a country is supposedly fighting for its survival, its elites flaunting extreme wealth in tax havens and playgrounds of the “rich and famous” raises obvious and uncomfortable questions.

The average person in the West is told this is a noble cause worth endless billions. Yet the people actually sacrificing the most are the poor and working-class Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying. The connected class? Many of them seem to have found a comfortable exit ramp.

This isn’t “supporting democracy.” This is another chapter in the long story of how war and foreign aid create winners and losers — and the losers are almost never the ones driving supercars along the Mediterranean.

Follow the money. It rarely lies.

Alex

Subscribe now

The headlines are blowing up again: Trump is threatening to pull the United States out of NATO. The pundits are losing it. European leaders are panicking and the usual suspects in Washington are warning that the sky will fall.

I say - so what?

The “defensive” alliance that never defended and only attacked has run its course. Europe can - and should - stand on its own two feet. Canada and the other non-European Union members can decide whether they want to tag along or find their own arrangements.

A long time ago, NATO did have a job. It was created in 1949 as a straight-up defensive alliance to keep the Soviet Union from rolling tanks into Western Europe. That was it. Article 5 summed it up - an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. No global policeman, no forever wars, no endless shopping sprees for weapons.

It made sense in a bipolar world where the Red Army was parked on the other side of the Iron Curtain. However, that world is long gone. The Soviet Union collapsed 35 years ago. Russia today is a regional power with a wrecked economy and a military that’s been bleeding out in Ukraine for years. The fact that Russia can’t beat Ukraine alone is telling.

The bottom line: the original threat NATO was built to face no longer exists in any meaningful way. So why are we pretending that this 20th-century club has a 21st-century purpose?

One fact alone is enough for me to say “good riddance to NATO”: For decades NATO hasn’t been defensive — it’s been offensive. That’s the dirty little open secret they don’t want you to think about.

NATO has never been forced to invoke its core defensive purpose. Not once. (The single invocation after 9/11 was against non-state terrorism.) Instead, it’s spent the last 25+ years jumping on situations far outside its chartered mandate — often without full buy-in from all its members (European or non-European) or even a clear UN mandate.

Remember Bosnia in 1995, where NATO launched its first major combat air campaign? Then came 1999, when NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days over Kosovo — an internationally recognized part of Serbia at the time. There was no explicit UN Security Council approval and several NATO countries had serious reservations. But the bombs fell anyway. Add to that the two-decade entanglement in Afghanistan that turned a post-9/11 response into a full-blown nation-building quagmire. Then came Libya in 2011. NATO started under a UN resolution authorizing measures to protect civilians and impose a no-fly zone but the mission quickly morphed into full-on regime change. Gaddafi ended up dead and to this day, Libya remains a failed state and a launchpad for migrants and terrorists. NATO walked away whistling.

These were not defensive operations. These were offensive wars of choice sold as “humanitarian interventions.” The alliance that was supposed to stop invasions started launching them.

And here’s the part that really grinds my gears (as Peter Griffin would say): NATO functions like a giant COSTCO for weapons. Members are expected - and pressured - to buy almost exclusively from the American-led ecosystem. You want to be a “good ally”? Better load up on F-35s, Patriot systems and Raytheon missiles. The 2% GDP defense spending target isn’t really about building the alliance’s strength; it’s about guaranteeing steady cash flow to U.S. defense contractors. It’s a protection racket dressed up as collective security.

Meanwhile, the dynamic inside NATO has always been the same: the U.S. is the big kid on the block doing the actual bullying, while the rest of the “allies” - European and non-European alike - are the smaller kids tagging along, providing political cover and a few troops so Washington can say “it’s multilateral.” The little guys don’t have much choice, since there’s a chance that the bully and its entourage could turn on them as well.

So if the U.S. actually walks away, what happens?

A NATO without America can absolutely work - it just has to change dramatically.

Europe and Canada already spend more on defense collectively than Russia (and in many categories rival or exceed China when looking at broader totals). In 2025 alone, European allies and Canada invested $574 billion in defense - a 20% real-term increase from the previous year. The money is there. What’s missing is the political will to stop free-riding on the American security blanket and build something that actually serves their own interests.

Countries with industrial muscle like France and Germany can ramp up production, eastern members bring strategic depth and resolve, while Canada and other non-EU members can choose their level of commitment. A reformed defense pact could focus squarely on genuine defense - not endless Middle East adventures or “containing China” for Washington.

It would mean Europe finally paying its own way, making its own decisions and stopping the habit of following the U.S. into every new quagmire. No more pretending that bombing Libya or Serbia was “NATO defending democracy.” Just honest collective defense for those who choose to participate - by Europeans, for Europeans, with Canada and others deciding their own level of involvement.

Either way - with or without the U.S. - NATO has to change radically if it wants to fulfill its real raison d’être. The old model is obsolete. The threat environment has shifted. The cost-benefit ratio for American taxpayers has become ridiculous. Americans are subsidizing European (and Canadian) defense, while many allies want little to do with America’s more aggressive foreign policy or its positions on trade and the environment.

Meanwhile, NATO’s endless eastward expansion has not made the world any safer — it has just caused unnecessary tensions.

I’m not saying Russia or China are harmless. I’m saying pretending NATO is still 1949’s noble defensive shield is a fairy tale. It’s become an offensive alliance that drags everyone into conflicts most members never wanted. And it’s become a very expensive subsidy program that sends money directly to U.S. weapons makers.

Trump threatening to leave isn’t the end of Western civilization. It’s a long-overdue wake-up call. Europe and Canada can step up and build a serious, independent defense architecture that actually matches their own security needs instead of Washington’s global ambitions and its Iran obsession. Or the alliance can try to strike a new deal with Washington: pay up for European defense, skip America’s fights - and keep that U.S. taxpayer wallet from slamming shut.

Either outcome beats the status quo of pretending this alliance is still purely defensive while it runs around the world starting fights.

The people who profit from the alliance and the spending that goes with it don’t want you asking basic questions like: “What exactly are we defending against in 2026?” and “Why are we even talking about entering wars that have nothing to do with defense?”

So yeah — the U.S. threatening to exit NATO? So what?

NATO will either retreat into the pages of a history book or reemerge with a brand new face. Either way, it’s time for a change.

Stay skeptical. Follow the money. And remember: defensive alliances don’t start wars.

Alex