BREAKING: Pam Bondi Launches Task Force
Pam Bondi has formed a De-Weaponization Task Force to investigate alleged political prosecutions against Donald Trump, targeting Jack Smith, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg. She vows to hold them accountable for “abuses of power.”
BREAKING: AG Pam Bondi Orders DOJ to Cut Funding to Sanctuary Cities
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the DOJ to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities over immigration enforcement.
https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1887183504439464060
Join us. Trump’s Global War Room
The Invisible War: Propaganda’s Role in Global Perceptions of Israel
https://m.primal.net/ORob.webp
Throughout history, narratives have shaped perceptions, and few conflicts illustrate this better than the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Behind the surface-level debates and deeply entrenched positions lies a less-examined force: a decades-long propaganda campaign designed to influence global attitudes. This campaign finds its origins in Cold War-era disinformation efforts led by the Soviet Union and continues to manifest in contemporary geopolitics.
The Soviet Strategy: Weaponizing Perception
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union sought to expand its influence in the Middle East, using psychological warfare to alter public perception of Israel. One of the most significant efforts in this regard was Operation SIG, an initiative orchestrated by the KGB to delegitimize Israel on the world stage. By fostering anti-Israel sentiment and intertwining it with global antisemitism, the Soviets aimed to isolate the Jewish state and align Arab nations with their own ideological interests.
Why the Soviet Union Targeted Israel
The Soviet Union viewed Israel as a strategic obstacle to its broader Middle Eastern ambitions. Initially, the USSR had supported Israel’s creation in 1948, hoping to gain an ally in the region. However, when Israel aligned itself more closely with Western powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union reversed its stance. Israel’s growing relationship with the U.S. and its role as a democratic foothold in the Middle East made it a natural target for Soviet propaganda efforts.
By turning Arab states against Israel, the USSR aimed to expand its influence in the region while simultaneously weakening Western control. The Soviet Union saw the Arab-Israeli conflict as an opportunity to foster anti-Western sentiment, using Israel as a scapegoat for broader grievances against colonialism and Western intervention. Additionally, by aligning with Arab nationalist and socialist movements, the Soviets sought to counterbalance U.S. alliances with Israel and other pro-Western Middle Eastern governments.
The Creation of a Palestinian Identity
A central component of the Soviet strategy was the deliberate shaping of a Palestinian identity to serve its geopolitical goals. Prior to Soviet intervention, Arab populations in the region largely identified with broader Pan-Arab nationalism rather than a distinct Palestinian identity. By promoting the notion of Palestinian nationhood, the Soviets sought to create a compelling narrative of indigenous struggle against Western-backed colonialism. This narrative framed Israel as a foreign imposition rather than an indigenous nation, a framing that resonated strongly with anti-colonial movements around the world.
Through diplomatic channels, media influence, and ideological training, the Soviets reinforced the idea that Palestinians were a distinct national group with historical claims that predated Israel’s existence. This strategy not only galvanized support in Arab nations but also attracted sympathizers from Western leftist movements, which were already predisposed to oppose perceived Western imperialism. By constructing and amplifying this narrative, the Soviet Union was able to cultivate long-term opposition to Israel that extended beyond the Cold War itself.
Soviet Disinformation as a Weapon Against the West
The Soviet Union’s attack on Israel was never solely about the Middle East—it was a calculated maneuver in its broader campaign to weaken Western powers, particularly the United States. By positioning Israel as a villain in the global arena, the USSR sought to discredit U.S. foreign policy and erode support for Western alliances in the region. The Palestinian cause became a useful tool, allowing the Soviets to portray the U.S. and its allies as colonial oppressors while strengthening Soviet-backed regimes and movements in the Middle East.
The promotion of anti-Israel sentiment was not just about destabilizing the region; it was a strategic method of dividing Western societies. The Soviet Union actively spread disinformation within Western intellectual and political circles, turning public opinion against Israel as a means of fracturing support for U.S. influence abroad. By fostering movements that opposed Israel, the USSR encouraged ideological rifts within Western democracies, ensuring that debates over Middle Eastern policy would weaken political cohesion in the U.S. and Europe.
The Consequences of Soviet Disinformation
The long-term impact of these Soviet campaigns is profound. The disinformation strategies initiated during the Cold War persist today, having fundamentally reshaped global perceptions of Israel. Many individuals unknowingly adopt perspectives that are not the result of independent thought but of carefully curated messaging designed to serve Soviet geopolitical goals. The lasting effect has been an entrenched and widespread skepticism of Israel, often detached from historical facts.
Recognizing the role of Soviet disinformation in shaping global narratives is crucial. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, and any genuine understanding must be based on historical facts rather than orchestrated propaganda. The Soviet Union's efforts were not just about Israel—they were a strategic attack on Western cohesion and influence. As modern geopolitical struggles continue, so too must our ability to discern fact from fiction, ensuring that our perspectives are informed by truth rather than manipulation.
When Google Met WikiLeaks: Assange’s Warning on Big Tech
In When Google Met WikiLeaks (2014), Julian Assange offers a provocative critique of Google’s deep ties to U.S. intelligence and global power structures. The book revolves around a 2011 meeting between Assange and Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google, revealing how the tech giant operates beyond its public image as a neutral innovator. Assange argues that Google is not just a company but a key player in mass surveillance, political influence, and state-aligned digital control.
A Meeting That Revealed More Than Expected
While under house arrest in the UK, Assange met with Schmidt and a group of Google executives, including Jared Cohen, Lisa Shields, and Scott Malcomson. The official purpose was a discussion for Schmidt’s book, The New Digital Age, but Assange later revealed that the meeting shed light on Google’s alignment with U.S. intelligence and foreign policy objectives.
The conversation, which Assange recorded and later published, provides an inside look at how Big Tech collaborates with government power in ways that go far beyond the public narrative of innovation and progress.
Key Themes of the Book
1. Google’s Role in Government Surveillance
Assange presents evidence that Google is deeply embedded in U.S. intelligence operations, with strong ties to the NSA, CIA, and State Department. He describes Google’s vast data collection as a powerful tool for state surveillance, positioning the company as a corporate extension of government intelligence agencies.
2. The Internet: A Tool for Liberation or Control?
Schmidt portrays Google as a force for global connectivity and progress, but Assange warns that centralized platforms like Google could become tools for behavioral control, censorship, and mass surveillance. This debate—whether technology serves to empower or to dominate—remains highly relevant today as data privacy concerns and algorithmic manipulation grow worldwide.
3. A Clash of Worldviews: Assange vs. Schmidt
The book highlights the ideological divide between Assange and Schmidt:
Schmidt sees Google as a neutral, benevolent force shaping the future of the internet.
Assange sees Google as a geopolitical actor, actively shaping events in alignment with U.S. interests.
This fundamental disagreement raises pressing questions: Are tech companies neutral, or are they geopolitical players? Who holds them accountable?
4. Google’s Influence in Global Politics
Assange argues that Google is not just a business but a political powerhouse. He highlights Google’s involvement in the Arab Spring, where executives played roles in supporting opposition movements. According to Assange, such actions demonstrate that Google wields state-like power, influencing political events around the world in ways that often go unnoticed.
Why This Book Matters Today
A decade later, When Google Met WikiLeaks remains a crucial warning about Big Tech’s unchecked power. Many of Assange’s concerns have only intensified:
Corporate-government surveillance partnerships are stronger than ever.
Tech giants influence political discourse through content moderation and AI-driven algorithms.
Privacy concerns have escalated, with increasing mass data collection.
Assange’s book challenges readers to consider whether the internet remains a tool for freedom—or if it is becoming a mechanism of control by a handful of powerful corporations.
Final Thoughts
More than just a conversation, When Google Met WikiLeaks serves as a wake-up call about the future of digital power. Assange urges us to question who really controls the internet and whether companies like Google are champions of free information or gatekeepers of surveillance and influence.
The Israeli’s seem happy.
The Gaza Dilemma: Relocation as a Path to Peace
Since the events of October 7th, the discourse surrounding Gaza has been dominated by the portrayal of the region as an "open-air prison." This narrative emphasizes the humanitarian crisis, with the Arabs of Gaza depicted as trapped and oppressed due to restrictions on movement, limited resources, and a struggling economy. Yet, when a potential solution is proposed—relocating the Arabs of Gaza to neighboring countries where they can rebuild their lives in peace—the narrative shifts dramatically, with critics labeling the plan as "ethnic cleansing."
This contradiction reveals not only the politicization of the issue but also the missed opportunity to prioritize the well-being of the Arabs of Gaza. If staying in Gaza is portrayed as inhumane, then opposing resettlement is tantamount to condemning them to a life of misery. This article argues that relocation offers the best path forward for the Arab population of Gaza, providing them with the chance to live in stability, security, and prosperity.
The "Open-Air Prison" Narrative
For years, Gaza has been described as an open-air prison, a term that underscores the severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods. The blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt, coupled with the ongoing conflict, has left the Arabs of Gaza with limited access to basic necessities, economic opportunities, and essential services.
This framing has been widely used by activists, international organizations, and media outlets to highlight the humanitarian crisis in the region. Critics argue that the conditions in Gaza are unsustainable and inhumane, calling for immediate solutions to alleviate the suffering of its population. Yet, when a solution like resettlement is proposed, the same voices often oppose it, revealing a troubling contradiction.
The Resettlement Proposal: A Humanitarian Solution
President Trump’s proposal to relocate the Arabs of Gaza to Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab countries offers a practical and humane solution to the crisis. The plan includes financial support, new housing, schools, and medical care, aiming to provide a fresh start for those affected.
Unlike the stagnant and oppressive conditions in Gaza, resettlement would allow the Arabs of Gaza to live in environments with better infrastructure, economic opportunities, and access to essential services. For families, this means safer neighborhoods, quality education for their children, and reliable healthcare.
Relocation is not about erasing identity or undermining historical ties to the land; it is about empowering individuals to embrace a new chapter in their lives, one that offers stability, security, and the opportunity to build a brighter future. For many, this means leaving behind a region marked by conflict and hardship, and settling in places where they can thrive without the constant threat of violence or deprivation. By choosing resettlement, they can focus on rebuilding their lives in environments where they are welcomed and supported, free from the burdens of the past.
The "Ethnic Cleansing" Accusation: A Misguided Critique
Critics of the resettlement plan have labeled it as ethnic cleansing, arguing that it forcibly displaces the Arabs of Gaza from their homeland. However, this accusation ignores both the voluntary nature of the proposal and the reality that for many, staying in Gaza offers no viable future.
Resettlement is not about coercion; it is about creating real opportunities for those who wish to build better lives for themselves and their families. Opposition to resettlement often assumes that all Arabs of Gaza prefer to remain in a devastated and unstable region. In reality, many already seek a way out but lack the means. Even among those reluctant to leave, circumstances may make staying untenable.
For this group, additional incentives—such as financial support, housing assistance, and job placement in host countries—are necessary to make relocation a practical and appealing option rather than a forced decision.
The charge of ethnic cleansing also overlooks a deeper moral contradiction: if remaining in Gaza means perpetual suffering, then discouraging resettlement is effectively advocating for that suffering to continue. The real humanitarian question is not whether people should be allowed to leave, but whether enough is being done to ensure they have viable places to go.
Those who claim to care about the plight of the Arabs of Gaza must ask themselves: is it more important to uphold political narratives, or to provide a tangible path to stability, security, and prosperity?
The Case for Relocation
Relocation is not just a humanitarian solution; it is a pragmatic one. Gaza’s population density, limited resources, and ongoing conflict make it nearly impossible to achieve lasting peace and prosperity within its current borders.
By contrast, resettlement in neighboring countries with stronger economies and infrastructure offers the Arabs of Gaza the opportunity to rebuild their lives in stability and security. For children, this means access to quality education and a future free from the trauma of war. For families, it means economic opportunities, safe neighborhoods, and reliable healthcare. For the broader region, it means reducing tensions and creating the conditions for lasting peace.
Relocation is not about abandoning Gaza but about providing a viable path forward for its people. To oppose this solution is to prioritize political narratives over the well-being of the Arabs of Gaza, condemning them to a life of misery for the sake of ideological agendas.
Conclusion
The Gaza dilemma underscores the complexities of the Israeli-Hamas conflict and the challenges of addressing humanitarian crises in politically charged environments. While the resettlement proposal has been met with criticism, it offers the best chance for the Arab population of Gaza to live in peace, stability, and prosperity.
Relocation is not about erasing identity or undermining claims to the land; it is about giving people the opportunity to thrive rather than merely survive. If staying in Gaza is portrayed as inhumane, then opposing resettlement is tantamount to condemning the Arabs of Gaza to a life of misery.
This contradiction reveals the politicization of the issue, where ideological agendas take precedence over the well-being of the people. For those who truly care about the plight of the Arabs of Gaza, the choice is clear: support resettlement as a path to peace and prosperity. Anything less is a disservice to the people of Gaza and a missed opportunity to break the cycle of suffering. https://m.primal.net/ORDp.webp
Steve Witkoff : "Peace in the region means a better life for the Palestinians. A better life is not necessarily related to the physical space you are in today... It doesn't happen because you get to pitch a tent in the Gaza Strip."
The End of Zero ROI Wars
https://m.primal.net/OQev.webp
For decades, the United States has expended vast amounts of blood and treasure to prosecute wars, only to invest even more in rebuilding the very nations it fought. From Iraq to Afghanistan, America has repeatedly taken on the role of both conqueror and benefactor, toppling regimes and then shouldering the financial and logistical burden of reconstruction. These wars, fought at great human and economic cost, have historically yielded little to no direct return on investment for the American people. But what if the future of American warfare followed a different model—one that ensured the U.S. was reimbursed for its sacrifices?
The Cost of Past Conflicts
Consider Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States spent trillions of dollars on military campaigns to remove hostile regimes, stabilize regions, and combat terrorism. Following the military victories, America assumed responsibility for nation-building, pouring additional billions into infrastructure projects, governance training, and economic aid. Instead of leveraging the resources of the defeated aggressors, the U.S. took on the burden alone, often to the benefit of corrupt governments and factions that had little interest in long-term cooperation with American interests.
The result? Decades of debt accumulation, lost American lives, and a geopolitical landscape that has often reverted to instability. The U.S. has spent its wealth without securing any substantial economic return.
A New Model: War with Economic Payback
What if, moving forward, the U.S. redefined its approach? If forced to engage in military conflict, rather than absorbing all the financial burden, the United States could take control of the aggressor’s resources and redirect their profits into an American sovereign wealth fund. This approach would serve two purposes:
Reimbursement for War Costs – The wealth and resources of the defeated nation—whether it be oil, minerals, or strategic industries—would be used to pay back the U.S. government for its military expenditures, ensuring that American taxpayers are not left footing the bill.
Long-Term Investment for National Prosperity – Rather than simply covering costs, these profits could be funneled into a U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), a national investment vehicle designed to finance infrastructure projects, research, and debt reduction.
Integration with the U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund
This concept aligns directly with the recently announced United States Sovereign Wealth Fund, an initiative that aims to strategically invest in long-term national economic growth. Just as other nations use their natural wealth to fund their sovereign funds, the United States could leverage the assets of defeated aggressors to fund its own future.
Potential Benefits:
Self-Sustaining National Security – No more wars that drain the economy without return. Instead, military action would be tied to economic compensation.
Debt Reduction & Economic Stability – The SWF could use wartime reparations to help pay down the national debt, lowering financial burdens on future generations.
Stronger Leverage in Global Affairs – The U.S. would maintain long-term economic influence in formerly hostile regions, ensuring that investments align with American security interests.
A Strategic Shift in Warfare
The goal is not to encourage war but to ensure that, if conflict becomes necessary, it is economically sustainable. America should no longer fight wars that leave it worse off. If the U.S. is forced to engage in military action, it should not merely win battles—it should secure the economic means to recover from them.
In this new paradigm, the aggressor nation’s natural resources, industries, and strategic assets would be used to compensate the American people for the cost of war, preventing future generations from bearing the financial burden. The U.S. would shift from endless wars with no return to a model where any necessary conflict results in economic benefit rather than depletion.
Conclusion
The era of zero ROI wars must come to an end. The U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund presents a historic opportunity to reshape American strategy—not just in economics but in warfare. By ensuring that war expenditures are offset by post-victory resource control, the U.S. can move away from unsustainable military engagements and toward a future where conflicts, if they must occur, result in financial security rather than endless debt.
This is not about conquest for profit—it’s about fairness and sustainability. The American people should no longer bear the costs of global security alone. A smarter, self-funding military strategy ensures that those who threaten the U.S. and provoke war will ultimately pay the price, while Americans secure a future of prosperity rather than perpetual loss.
🚨BREAKING: Trump Watches Unedited October 7th Footage🚨
President Trump viewed raw footage of the October 7th Hamas attacks and was horrified by what he saw. The footage, showing the brutal events, left a deep impact ahead of his meeting with Netanyahu.
More updates to come. #Trump #Hamas #October7 #BreakingNews
🚨BREAKING: Trump Says Hamas Will Be Removed from Power🚨
Trump declared that Hamas will no longer govern Gaza, emphasizing that the group will be ousted both politically and militarily. "Hamas will never govern Gaza. That is completely unacceptable," he stated.
More updates to come. #Trump #Hamas #Gaza #BreakingNews
🚨BREAKING: Trump Says Gazans "Will Have No Choice but to Leave"🚨
Trump stated that the people of Gaza "will have no choice but to leave" and promised, "We will find them a nice piece of land and build them something great so they can have a great life."
More updates to come. #Trump #Gaza #BreakingNews
🚨BREAKING: Trump Says He Ordered Iran to Be "Obliterated" if Assassinated🚨
Trump claims he left instructions for the U.S. to "obliterate" Iran if the regime assassinates him or his staff. This follows reports of an alleged Iranian plot to target him.
More updates to come. #Trump #Iran #BreakingNews
State Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Model for a U.S. National Investment Fund?
The idea of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF) has long been a topic of debate, but the conversation has recently gained momentum following President Donald Trump’s executive order directing officials to draft a proposal for such a fund. While the concept of a national SWF may seem novel, several U.S. states have already established their own wealth funds, primarily using revenues from natural resources, taxes, and other state income streams. These funds serve as potential models for how a national SWF could be structured and managed.
Existing State-Level Sovereign Wealth Funds
Across the United States, multiple states have established sovereign wealth funds to manage and invest surplus revenues, with varying purposes and funding mechanisms:
Alaska – Alaska Permanent Fund (APF): Established in 1976 and funded by petroleum revenues, this fund is notable for distributing annual dividends to residents.
Texas – Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) & Texas Permanent University Fund (PUF): Established in the 19th century, these funds are financed by land and mineral rights, primarily from oil and gas revenues, to support public education and universities.
Wyoming – Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust Fund (PMTF): Established in 1974 and funded by severance taxes on mineral extraction, this fund provides long-term financial stability for the state.
New Mexico – New Mexico Permanent Funds (Land Grant & Severance Tax Funds): These funds, supported by oil, gas, and mineral revenues, help fund public education and infrastructure projects.
North Dakota – North Dakota Legacy Fund: Created in 2011 and backed by oil and gas tax revenues, this fund is used for state development projects.
Utah – Utah Permanent State Trust Fund: Funded by state land and mineral revenues, it provides long-term financial support for various public initiatives.
Montana – Montana Coal Trust Fund: Established in 1975 and financed by coal severance taxes, it contributes to economic development and state government funding.
Alabama – Alabama Trust Fund: Established in 1985 and funded by offshore oil and gas revenues, it supports state infrastructure and government operations.
Louisiana – Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund (LEQTF) & Louisiana Permanent Trust Fund: These funds, fueled by offshore oil and gas revenues, are used for education and public services.
West Virginia – West Virginia Future Fund: Established in 2014 and financed by oil and gas severance taxes, this fund is intended for long-term state investments.
Idaho – Idaho Endowment Fund and Oregon – Oregon Common School Fund: These funds manage revenues from public lands and other resources to support public schools.
A National Wealth Fund: A Longstanding Idea
The idea of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund is not new. Past administrations have considered similar proposals but have faced political and logistical challenges in implementing them. Presidents from both parties have entertained the concept, recognizing the potential benefits of a fund that could generate revenue for public programs without raising taxes.
During his presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt explored ideas for public investment funds as part of his New Deal economic policies. More recently, President George W. Bush’s administration discussed using oil revenues to establish a stabilization fund. Similarly, Barack Obama’s administration considered mechanisms for reinvesting federal revenues from natural resources into long-term assets.
Now, President Trump’s executive order to explore a national sovereign wealth fund has reignited the discussion. The proposed fund could be modeled after successful state-level funds, using federal revenues from natural resources, trade surpluses, or other income streams to build a long-term financial reserve.
Conclusion
With multiple U.S. states already operating successful sovereign wealth funds, there is a precedent for establishing a national counterpart. Such a fund could serve as a buffer against economic downturns, reduce reliance on taxation, and provide long-term financial security for the country. As policymakers begin drafting proposals in response to Trump’s executive order, they may look to the experiences of states like Alaska, Texas, and North Dakota for guidance on best practices and potential pitfalls. Whether or not the idea gains enough political traction remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: sovereign wealth funds are not just a foreign concept—they are already a working model within the United States.
