Bruna Frascolla
Strategic Culture Foundation

The most surprising thing about this whole story is that the cover of Hobbes’ magnum opus already gave it all away.

This week, I came across a news story titled “Satanic Temple Opens Abortion Clinic in Maine, Tells Women to Do Evil Chants Celebrating Killing Babies”. The story has a goat with a pentagram as an illustration, and is from a pro-life website called Life News. In the past, I would read such a headline and think it was an fabrication by that kind of evangelical who claims that there are satanic chants in a lot of pop songs when listened to backwards. But this is 2025, the year in which it is unscientific and criminal to say that women do not have penises.

The story on the thematic website uses as its source a story from a local news website in Maine. There, we get to the bureaucracy of the matter: there is a Satanist temple in Salem, Massachusetts, which in 2019 managed to register with the IRS as an exempt religious entity. In fact, if all religions are equal before the liberal state, discriminating against Satanists would be an injustice. The name of this distinguished entity is The Satanic Temple, abbreviated as TST.

Just as churches have philanthropic hospitals, TST has TST Health, which “provides free religious telehealth medication abortion care”. Unfortunately, I know what the tele-abortion part is.

The Dissident
The Dissident (Substack)

Israel's War With Iran Is The Final Phase To The Greater Israel Project

Benjamin Netanyahu has finally gone forward with his long-term goal of going to war with Iran.

[On June 13th], Netanyahu offensively ordered strikes on Iran, which included “Senior Iranian regime officials. Nuclear scientists. The uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and surface-to-air missile systems in Tehran.”

In response, Iran has struck Israeli military targets in Tel Aviv. This war of aggression from Israel has been launched with support from the Trump administration. Axios reported that

💬 “Israel killed much of Iran's military leadership, targeted its top nuclear scientists for assassination, and is actively bombing the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites.”

According to the Axios report, Trump pretended to oppose an Israeli strike on Iran in public to give them a strategic advantage. The report wrote, “Since last night, Israeli officials have been spreading the word that Trump was completely on board, and only publicly opposed the attack as a ‘smokescreen’ to increase the odds of success”.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Two false flag scenarios are being cooked up in the Baltic Sea to this end according to Russian spies.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Agency (SVR) warned that the Brits and Ukrainians are preparing two false flag scenarios in the Baltic Sea. The first one would see Ukrainian-transferred Soviet/Russian torpedoes explode near a US ship there and a supposedly malfunctioning one will then be found to implicate Russia in the alleged attack The second, meanwhile, will involve Ukrainian-transferred Soviet/Russian mines fished out of the Baltic Sea and presented as proof of a Kremlin plot to sabotage international shipping.

These perfidious provocations are being employed to manipulate Trump into escalating against Russia after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in mid-February that the US won’t extend Article 5 mutual defense guarantees to NATO countries’ troops that might deploy to Ukraine. That scenario was the initial one that was planned for getting him to pull out of talks with Putin and then double down on support for Ukraine, but his team preemptively scuttled it through Hegseth’s announcement.

That’s why efforts are now underway to organize a false flag attack against a US ship in the Baltic and/or frame Russia as a threat to international shipping through the fishing out of its mines there. The Baltic has already been a so-called “NATO lake” since even before Finland and Sweden’s joined NATO given their prior shadow membership in the bloc, however, so it’s unrealistic that Russia could really carry out either of these two operations undetected even if it wanted to.

Jeffrey D. Sachs & Sybil Fares
Common Dreams

We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation

For nearly 30 years, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.

Netanyahu’s fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.

The founders of Netanyahu’s political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” The now infamous chant, “from the River to the Sea,” which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.

Donald Jeffries
donaldjeffries.substack.com

"Hate" in a free society | It has become obvious over the past few years that more and more Americans are questioning not only the wisdom behind our unwavering support of Israel, but Jewish power and influence itself. The artist formerly known as Kanye West played a large role here, as did other prominent Blacks like Jason Whitlock and Candace Owens.

White conservatives, which in the past were more likely to criticize Israel, have been completely coopted by the Rapture bunch, the ones who enable the Jews’ elitist notion that they are God’s “chosen people.” Every politician who hopes to hold elected office visits the Wailing Wall in Israel, and dons a yarmulke. I’d call it just another humiliation ritual, but I’m sure that would be labeled “anti-Semitic.” Consider how Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that “if the Capitol crumbles to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to Israel…that’s fundamental.” One member of our Congress has worn his IDF uniform to work. Lindsay Graham isn’t the only U.S. “representative” that has stated Israel should nuke Iran. Whether or not he really did have some kind of verbal altercation with Bibi Netanyahu, Donald Trump’s support of Israel is such that they have streets named after him there.

Because Black people are generally untouchable in terms of public criticism, their anti-Zionist or blunt anti-Jewish comments were ignored at first. Ignored by a state controlled media which consists of a wildly disproportionate number of Jews in prominent positions. But something happened when Ben Shapiro- who fits every historical stereotype of an obnoxious, parasitic figure who profits from a society he considers himself outside of- fired Candace Owens from the Daily Wire. Prior to that, Owens was a pretty innocuous Black conservative- the kind the Stupid Party salivates over. However, Owens was triggered enough by her dismissal to apparently start researching some forbidden topics. Pretty much anything to do with Jews collectively, the religion or the race, is “forbidden.” Ask the Anti-Defamation League, which serves as an unregistered agent for the foreign state of Israel.

Pascal Lottaz
Pascal’s Substack

Despite the mass-dying in the world's largest death-camp, western cameras still turn away from the blood and toward the same old Zionist script to justify genocide.

How many times over the past decades have we been told that journalism is meant to “speak truth to power”? Oh, sweet, sweet lies and lullabies. Narrative opium for the masses. In fact, today, as always, mainstream journalism obviously protects power from truth. As Gaza is turned into rubble and its people starved in front of all our eyes on social media, the mainstream—especially in the West’s settler colonies like New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.—acts as an accomplice to genocide.

A few days ago, I hosted a panel of New Zealand-based journalists—Eugene Doyle, Jeremy Rose, and Ramon Das—to discuss just that. The three explained in detail how state media like Radio New Zealand (RNZ) washes the sins of its complicity away by absolving itself from all guilt. How do they do it? Well, RNZ just wrote a report about its own coverage and declared that all is well! It’s really that simple for these media outlets that constantly shower each other (and in this case themselves) with praise.

So, in addition to the lies like the “40 beheaded babies” and other BS that they report on when spoon-fed by western officialdom, they add to this strategic silence, soft language, and selective storytelling to whitewash the currently ongoing crime of crimes. Of course ,this is not just a New Zealand problem but the story of how the West launders genocide through the language of journalism.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

All NATO leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes and inciting crimes against peace.

Israel’s years-long covert aggression against Iran has now escalated into open war following a massive wave of air strikes overnight in which several Iranian cities, including the capital, Tehran, were targeted with hundreds of missiles and drones.

Several of Iran’s top military commanders have been killed, as well as dozens of civilians, according to Iranian media.

Tel Aviv is warning that the attacks will continue for weeks. U.S. President Donald Trump has gloated about “excellent” strikes and warned of more to come, although he also claimed that he advised Israel against taking military action.

The U.S. claims it did not participate but did give “exquisite” intelligence for the attack. Meanwhile, NATO is believed to have provided military support to thwart Iranian retaliatory strikes while the organization’s civilian leader, Mark Rutte, deceptively appealed for a “de-escalation”.

The Iranian leadership is vowing a painful retaliation in the coming days for Israel’s “declaration of war”. The situation is spiraling into an all-out war in the Middle East, the dimensions of which are potentially devastating for the region and indeed the entire world.

Pascal Lottaz
Pascal’s Substack

In an unprecedented and unprovoked military attack, Israel kills several top leaders of the Iranian military, targets the country's nuclear facilities and commits yet another blatant crime.

Overnight, the terrorist regime in Tel Aviv added another crime of aggression to its nearly endless list of the worst of all international crimes. This time, by attacking Iran in a massive bombing campaign, which Netanyahu says will continue until he judges that what he calls a “threat” from Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons has subsided.

This is, of course, utter rubbish and reminiscent of the United States’ excuse in 2003 to commit the same crime against Iraq under the pretext of Saddam’s WMDs posing an “imminent threat” to the USA and the whole world. Netanyahu is conjuring up exactly the same phantom—even using the terminology of this being a “preemptive” strike—but with even less reason. Not only is it a verified and accepted truth, even by Israel and the USA, that the Iranians currently have no nuclear weapons, but the Americans were in active negotiations with them and scheduled to hold another meeting on Sunday, when Israel decided to commit this blatant act of war.

Shahrokh Saei
Tehran Times

Israel’s airstrikes against Iran in the early hours of Friday are not just a military provocation — they are a sign of strategic desperation

The strikes, launched amid escalating tensions in the region, reflect Tel Aviv’s struggle to maintain dominance in a West Asia that is rapidly shifting in favor of resistance forces. Iran, having already demonstrated its missile and drone capabilities in past confrontations, is now positioned to deliver a powerful and measured response that could redefine the balance of power.

The initial reports of the attacks came from Tehran, soon followed by a cascade of explosions across multiple provinces. Social media footage shows widespread damage to civilian neighborhoods, underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the aggression. Israel later claimed responsibility, targeting sites in Natanz, Khorramabad, Khondab, and other areas. The Israeli military called the strike Operation ‘Rising Lion’.

This act of unprovoked aggression comes amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose warmongering policies continue to destabilize the region. While U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to distance Washington from the strikes, calling them a “unilateral action,” observers across the region believe such a major operation could not have happened without at least tacit U.S. support — especially amid indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

In addition to structural damage, Israel’s attack reportedly killed several Iranian military personnel. Iran has pledged a strong response, making clear that such provocations will not go unanswered.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets early Friday morning. The situation is fluid: The answers will determine the course of this crisis.

This followed the latest US-Iranian nuclear talks stalling, continued speculation that Iran is secretly building nukes, and growing Israeli anxiety with the situation. From the looks of it, Israel decapitated the Iranian Armed Forces and the IRGC, yet Iran still vowed to retaliate. The situation is fluid, but as of Friday morning Moscow time, there are five questions whose answers will determine the course of this crisis:

1. To What Extent Did The US Assist Israel?

Trump publicly distanced himself from Israel’s rapid lead-up to these unprecedented strikes, which followed his reported rift with Bibi, but Iranian policymakers have long believed that the US and Israel are iron-clad allies that always work together. Their assessment of the extent to which the US assisted Israel in these strikes will therefore determine the scope and scale of their retaliation. If they conclude that the US played a role, then American military assets in the region and elsewhere might be targeted.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Considering that the realistic range of Russia’s retaliatory options is now limited, Bibi likely calculated that the harm to bilateral ties will be manageable, ergo why Israel wouldn’t have much to lose by finally going through with this.

Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Brodksy said that Israel transferred US-made Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine but was contradicted by his Foreign Ministry. They were unconvincing though so ties with Russia might be harmed after its UN envoy warned of “certain political consequences” last summer if this happened.

The region has changed since then after Hezbollah chief Nasrallah was killed, Assad fled Syria, and Iran resumed nuclear talks with the US, however, so such consequences might be limited.

After all, it’s no longer realistic to countenance the scenario of Russia arming Hezbollah, finally allowing Syria to use its S-300s to defend itself from attacking Israeli jets, or providing other forms of indirect support to the Resistance in its regional proxy war with Israel that’s now practically lost.

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

Traditionally, nurses are beyond criticism. They are `angels' and they have always received a `good press'. But nurses have changed. And they have changed a good deal. The result is that today's nurses are nothing like their predecessors. If they are to be forced back into doing what they should be doing then they need to be criticised - and their shortcomings need to be identified.

The big problem is that today's nurses are too self-important to carry out any of the traditional tasks entrusted to nurses. Modern nurses don't like to bother much with caring, touching, feeding or comforting. They regard themselves as above collecting bedpans or plumping up pillows. Nurses are now too self-important to feed patients or to lift them and too protective of their past to let anyone else do these things either. It is a tragedy that as nurses have become too important to nurse, no other group has been allowed to take on the most essential caring tasks. Auxiliaries, for example, are not allowed to do anything with to or for patients and the result is that there is no one on the average hospital ward to wash, feed or care for patients.

In the bad old days nurses would help their patients in a thousand tiny ways. They would make sure that their female patients wore clean nighties and had their hair brushed before visiting time. They don't do these things any more. And it isn't that they have other, more important things to do. Go into any hospital these days and you will see half a dozen nurses sitting around the nurses’ station chatting and eating chocolates. (It's no wonder they're all so fat. You'd think nurses would be more concerned with their health. If they got up and moved about a bit occasionally they would burn up some of the calories.)

Nurses should bandage wounds, make beds, empty bedpans and soothe sweaty brows. They should take temperatures and record pulse rates and give out prescribed medicines. That's what they are there for and it's what they are best at. It is also what patients need from them. These are important tasks. Sadly, most nurses consider themselves far too grand for such work. Nurses have become lazy.

Elena Panina (Елена Панина)
Елена Панина/Telegram

The further away, the less doubt remains that after the exhaustion of Ukraine, Poland will become the main element of direct military pressure on Russia and the Union States. The authoritative RAND Corporation has published a report entitled “Modernizing Poland's Armed Forces: A New Cornerstone of European Security” listing exactly what needs to be done to give the Poles the necessary capabilities and character.

In particular, the Pentagon is advised to “temporarily increase its military presence in Poland” so that Poland has time to modernize its army to its most combat-ready state. Washington should also figure out how to help Warsaw accelerate the purchase of weapons from the United States - on credit, of course.

Interestingly, the modernization of the Polish army is presented as an alleged response to the SWO. The report begins with the phrase

💬 “Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine prompted Polish politicians to begin military modernization and expansion of the armed forces at a pace, scale and direction unprecedented in post-communist Poland.”

However, this in no way explains why Warsaw has modernized the army until 2022 - for example, by purchasing F-35s in 2019. In reality, preparing for a conflict with Russia is Poland's long-term strategy, not reacting to the current conflict.

Leonid Savin
Oriental Review

Behind all the talks about a combination of ecology and politics there are always the interests of certain oligarchic groups.

The concept of sustainable development has been advertised on international platforms for many years, primarily in the United Nations.. At the Summit of this Organization in 2015, 193 countries signed 17 Sustainable Development Goals, where, in general, everyone agreed that the world needs a certain model that takes into account both political and economic, as well as social and environmental, aspects.

Even earlier, at the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, the concept of sustainability was adopted as the blueprint for economic and environmental programs under the auspices of the same UN. The UN Millennium Development Goals were also directly related to this theory.

Although no one denies the need for careful management of natural resources and for the environmental protection, it is alarming that issues of sustainable development are actively promoted by typically globalist projects such as the Davos Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab. Similarly, George Soros and Bill Gates, with their projects also related to the UN through WHO and other initiatives, regularly advocate for sustainable development. Therefore, it is necessary to consider in more detail what kind of theory and methodology it is. And also who is, in particular, promoting it and why.

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

Everything the police do seems designed to isolate them still further from the communities they are paid to protect.

Back in 2010 I bravely (or idiotically) wrote a long book called `2020’ in which I tried to forecast what our future would be like in the year 2020. Here is a short extract from that book which is now available again as a paperback. (For details CLICK HERE)

My 87-year-old father parked his car (quite legally) and went into a hotel to have lunch. While he was enjoying his meal the manager tottered over and told him that the police wanted to speak to him. My father abandoned his meal and struggled down the steps to the roadside. Another motorist had nudged his car while parking. There was no damage to either car. My father's car was parked perfectly legally. The police were in the vicinity only because they had been called to another minor traffic accident. My father confirmed that there was no damage and was eventually allowed to go back into the hotel to finish his (by now cold and ruined) luncheon. A couple of weeks later he received a letter from someone in the local `collisions department' of the constabulary informing him that the police had given themselves six months to decide whether or not to take legal action as a result of his collision. At the time of the offence, remember, he was sitting in a hotel eating his lunch while his car was parked outside. And, remember, there was no damage done to the vehicle and neither he nor anyone else had complained. He received further warnings about this non-existent incident and was, as a conscientious, law-abiding citizen unnerved by them. He knew he had done absolutely nothing wrong. But the police were, nevertheless, warning him about some unspecified legal action.

A 71-year-old widow who prodded a 17-year-old hoodie who had been throwing stones at her window found herself charged with assault. When the hoodie threw stones at her windows she pursued the stone thrower to tell him off. When she caught up with him (the fact that she was able to do so says more than we would like to know about the health and fitness of the current generation) she `addressed him frankly' and prodded him in the chest with a finger. The police were called and instead of arresting the stone thrower they arrested the old lady and bundled her into the back of a police van. She was eventually ordered to pay £50 costs and given a conditional discharge.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

The trouble is, these effete, elite Europeans are running the risk of starting a nuclear world war with their puny games.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and other European leaders are desperately playing with fire in a bid to sabotage diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. It’s a nefarious role with a long history.

This week, Merz caused a storm (by the way, his grandfather was a Nazi Stormtrooper) when he publicly declared that Germany was henceforth giving permission to Ukraine to fire long-range missiles at pre-war Russian territory.

The chancellor, who only took up the office three weeks ago on May 6, also indicated that he was considering approval for the supply of German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. The Taurus has a range of 500 kilometers and thus could hit the Russian capital, Moscow.

Russian Federation: Memorandum
Interfax (Русский текст ниже)

Moscow. June 2. INTERFAX.RU - Interfax publishes the full text of the Russian memorandum handed over to the Ukrainian side on Monday in Istanbul:

Section I

Main parameters of the final settlement

1) International legal recognition of Crimea, LNR, DNR, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as part of the Russian Federation; complete withdrawal of AFU units and other Ukrainian paramilitary formations from their territories;

2) Ukraine's neutrality, which implies its refusal to join military alliances and coalitions, as well as a ban on any military activities of third states on Ukrainian territory and the stationing there of foreign armed formations, military bases, and military infrastructure;

3) termination and refusal to conclude in the future international treaties and agreements inconsistent with the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Section;

4) confirmation of Ukraine's status as a state that does not possess nuclear and other WMD, with the establishment of a direct ban on their reception, transit, and deployment on the territory of Ukraine;

Leo Hohmann
LeoHohman.com

Ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson says Ukraine could not have pulled this off on its own and that it bears the fingerprints of a CIA and/or British MI6 operation.

By now you’ve all heard something about Ukraine’s massive assault of killer drones that attacked Russian airfields housing Russia’s nuclear bomber fleet in Siberia and several other locations deep within the country’s heartland.

The mainstream narrative is that the operation took upwards of 18 months to plan and execute and was “personally overseen” by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sorry, folks, but I don’t buy it. This attack was not something a guy like Zelensky, whose skill set includes being a former homo-erotic dancer and actor, was prepared for. The attack, according to mainstream reports, took out 41 aircraft or roughly 34 percent of Russia’s fleet of strategic bombers.

Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter's Substack

Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb has crossed the threshold when it comes to triggering a Russian nuclear response. How Russia and the United States respond could determine the fate of the world.

In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that “The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and play a key role in maintaining the regional balance and stability.”

In the intervening years, western analysts and observers have accused Russia and its leadership of irresponsibly invoking the threat of nuclear weapons as a means of “saber rattling”—a strategic bluff to hide operational and tactical shortfalls in Russian military capabilities.

In 2020 Russia published, for the first time, an unclassified version of its nuclear doctrine. The document, called “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” noted that Russia “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons” when Moscow is acting “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

The document also stated that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in case of an “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions.”

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Tonight will be fateful for the conflict’s future.

Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him every finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.