Ana Marta Teles, Daniela Monteiro, Filipa Carmo, Helena Mendes, Iacuba Camará, Luis Garza, Marisa Murtinha, Nuno Labau, Sílvia Ferreira e Vânia Jorge foram os artistas que participaram na residência artística RAS#9 que decorreu no Centro Cultural Regional de Santarém (CCRS). O projecto RAS nasceu há cerca de nove anos pelas mãos de João Maria Ferreira, Elias Rodrigues, o então presidente do CCRS…
The right-wing Portuguese Reconquista movement would win 5.2 percent of the national vote if it were to register as a political party, according to independent polling firm Intercampus. Remigration activist Afonso Gonçalves, who founded Reconquista, told Remix News that the poll shows the remigration movement could garner significant support from Portuguese voters who have grown tired mass immigration.
“Despite all the lies, slander, false accusations and tyrannical state persecution, Reconquista and its founder are currently polling at 5.2 percent without even being a registered political party yet. The Portuguese people are tired of feeling like foreigners in their own homeland. We will not be ignored any longer,” Gonçalves told Remix News.
Mass immigration is the number one issue driving the growth of the remigration right across Europe. In Portugal, the demographic change has not only been dramatic but also extremely rapid compared to other Europe countries.
“The foreign population has doubled in the last six or seven years, and in the last 12 years it has tripled, because in 2014, we had around 400,000 legal immigrants, already a few hundred thousand — like 600,000 or 700,000 —naturalized citizens that are from an immigrant background. So, in total, we had just short of 1 million immigrants if you count naturalized citizens. So, it has tripled in 12 years and doubled in six years,” said Gonçalves.
In total, the Reconquista founder said there are 3 million foreigners or people with an immigration background in the country, including 2 million legal immigrants and 900,000 people who already acquired citizenship. On top of that, there are approximately 100,000 illegal immigrants.
The polling data shows, however, that Reconquista has most of its support from young people, a trend seen in other European countries, including Germany and France. However, even among the general population, the favorability rating for Reconquista is at 27 to 28 percent, which means the party has ample runway for growth.
“If you consider the people who have a very positive or positive opinion about us, that is almost one-third among the youth, so 18 to 34, and in the overall population it’s at 27 percent or 28 percent,” he said.
This support may also have to do with Gonçalves’ high-profile social media actions, which have gone viral on numerous social media platforms.
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 18, 2025
Portuguese activist @AfonsoJFG was detained by police for protesting against mass immigration.
"Not in our country! Portugal belongs to the Portuguese people!"
Gonçalves was detained by police for an hour and released. He was never charged, but was actively protesting… pic.twitter.com/MkyQv2R8ue
It is important to note that Gonçalves said his movement is not yet actually a party, however, the poll is serving as a sort of public litmus test to gauge how such a party would perform in a general election in Portugal.
Meanwhile, Gonçalves said his movement has built strong relationships with other parties in Europe.
“We have very strong and friendly relationships with Alternative for Germany. We also have friendly ties with Vox in Spain, Restore Britain in the United Kingdom, so I would say that these are our biggest and strongest connections internationally,” he said.
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 8, 2025
Portuguese activist @AfonsoJFG was arrested for peacefully protesting this Islamist procession in Almada. pic.twitter.com/NsNobHjXkM
His potential party would mark a major sea change in “business as usual” on the right-wing spectrum of parties that already exist in Portugal, especially in relation to the Chega party. Notably, Reconquista takes a strong stand against immigration from former Portuguese colonies and is opposed to legal immigration.
“We are different because we are formally defending remigration. Chega just defends controlling migration; we defend reverting and inverting the immigration influxes. We defend remigration, and we also criticize migration from our former colonies – so countries like Angola, Mozambique, Brazil, Cape Verde, etc. These countries are the highest representatives in terms of immigration to Portugal. Chega doesn’t criticize them because they want to attract their votes,” he said.
Gonçalves noted that immigration from these countries represents major problems, as “they represent the highest per capita levels of criminality, representation amongst people who are jailed, and also the highest absolute numbers of immigrants to Portugal.”
Gonçalves warned that these groups “are also the most heavily politicized, they despise our history, and a lot of them feel a sense of vengeance against our people and form an ethnic bloc of voting that has the potential of turning the Portuguese liberal democracy into a tribalistic, let’s say, Balkanized democracy that doesn’t serve the will of the people, for sure at least not the will of the native people.”
Major challenges still exist for Gonçalves and any potential party. For example, while he has garnered ample attention on social media, that attention has also brought censorship, persecution from the Portuguese state, and an authoritarian debanking blitz. In short, he is arguably the most persecuted political activist in Portugal and among the most persecuted in all of Europe.
“Our movement is censored on YouTube and TikTok. So for example, me, I have lost four YouTube accounts and 16 TikTok accounts, and I’ve never been able to regain access to these accounts. Regarding other types of censorship and persecution, we’re being heavily, tyrannically persecuted by the Portuguese state. I have been debanked; I’ve lost access to all of my Portuguese-based bank accounts, the funds were frozen, and I’m not allowed to open a new bank account. So I’m very heavily censored in terms of banking. I’ve also been deplatformed, we’ve been illegally detained, we’ve had our events illegally disallowed, and we are persecuted by the Portuguese regime in that way,” he said.
Starting a party under such conditions represents a major challenge, however, founding a party could help formalize Gonçalves’ movement and create a venue where he can more powerfully pursue a remigration agenda. After all, it is generally easier to ban, debank, and censor an individual than an entire political party.
With remigration as his core issue, his party will have a sharp wedge issue to peel off voters from other rival parties. Remix News has conducted interviews with Chega officials in the past, including party leader André Ventura. He signaled he is open to some legal immigration to support certain industries.
“I don’t know how it is in all the countries, but in countries like Portugal, Spain, and even France and Italy, countries that I know best, the economy needs some level of immigration for areas like agriculture or tourism, hotels, and restaurants. With massive tourism activity, we need some immigration, but massive illegal immigration or even massive immigration, both legal and illegal, can both bring problems,” Ventura told Remix News at the time.
However, Gonçalves has long argued that it is this type of legal immigration that is contributing to the greatest demographic upheaval in Portugal. While the polling data shows there is a pool of receptive voters, there are also powerful business and lobbying interests involved in tourism, construction, agriculture, and other industries who will actively oppose remigration.
The poll was conducted by the independent pollster Intercampus and commissioned by Reconquista. As Gonçalves noted, it is the “most famous, the most credible” polling agency in the country, but he says they have a tendency to undervalue right-wing parties, which he says could be a sign that support for his party could be even higher than 5.2 percent.
The post Exclusive: ‘The Portuguese people are tired of feeling like foreigners in their own homeland’ – New poll shows Reconquista could win 5.2% of the national vote appeared first on Remix News.
A partir do dia 15 de setembro, entram em vigor novas restrições de trânsito na Via de Cintura Interna (VCI), no Porto. A medida visa redistribuir os fluxos de tráfego, reforçar a segurança e diminuir a pressão sobre esta artéria fundamental da Área Metropolitana do Porto, segundo o Decreto-Lei n.º 155-A/2026.
As limitações aplicam-se nos dias úteis, entre as 07h00 e as 21h00, a todos os veículos pesados de mercadorias com peso bruto superior a 3.500 kg, que possuam três ou mais eixos e uma altura igual ou superior a 1,1 metros no primeiro eixo.
Principais Pontos da Nova Medida:
* Período de Restrição: Dias úteis, das 07h00 às 21h00.
* Exceções e Autorizações: Veículos que realizem operações de carga ou descarga nos concelhos do Porto ou de Vila Nova de Gaia podem circular, desde que efetuem um registo prévio e obtenham habilitação na plataforma digital dos respetivos municípios, apresentando o devido documento de transporte.
Serviços Online https://share.google/xK4JKPfyY4fjl7y3j
Balcão Virtual https://share.google/JjA11ky9QxuVQgBrk
* Alternativa Gratuita (CREP): Como alternativa de circulação, a Circular Regional Exterior do Porto (A41/IC24) dispõe de isenção total do pagamento de portagens para este tipo de veículos, aplicável 24 horas por dia, sem necessidade de registo prévio.
* Fiscalização e Sanções: A fiscalização estará a cargo da PSP e da GNR, com acesso em tempo real à plataforma de registos. O incumprimento das regras constitui contraordenação punível segundo o Código da Estrada, sob alçada da ANSR.
Tratando-se de um projeto-piloto, a iniciativa será alvo de uma monitorização contínua para avaliar os impactos na mobilidade da região.
Regulamentos e Formulários
Voltar
Regulamentos
Formulários
Ouvir
Regime de circulação na VCI e isenção de pagamento das taxas de portagem na CREP
A VCI é uma das principais artérias rodoviárias da Área Metropolitana do Porto, mas o elevado volume de tráfego coloca desafios crescentes à mobilidade, à segurança e à sustentabilidade da região.
Para responder a este desafio, está em marcha uma nova solução para redistribuir o tráfego, aliviar a pressão sobre a VCI e potenciar a utilização da CREP, promovendo uma circulação mais fluida e eficiente na rede rodoviária da Área Metropolitana do Porto.
A partir de 15 de setembro, entram em vigor novas regras de circulação para os veículos pesados de mercadorias na VCI.
Saiba o que muda, quem é abrangido e quais as alternativas disponíveis.
A Via de Cintura Interna do Porto (VCI), que integra troços das autoestradas A1/IC1, A20/IC23, A28/IC1 e A44/IC23, formando um anel em torno dos núcleos urbanos das cidades do Porto e de Vila Nova de Gaia, é uma das principais infraestruturas rodoviárias da Área Metropolitana do Porto. Todos os dias, milhares de pessoas e veículos utilizam esta via, essencial para a ligação entre o Porto, Vila Nova de Gaia e os principais eixos rodoviários da região e do País.
O elevado volume de tráfego, em particular a circulação de veículos pesados de mercadorias, tem vindo a colocar uma pressão significativa sobre a VCI, com impacto na fluidez da circulação, na segurança rodoviária e na sustentabilidade ambiental.
Uma rede mais equilibrada
A Área Metropolitana do Porto dispõe de outras vias com capacidade disponível que podem contribuir para uma distribuição mais eficiente do tráfego. É o caso da A41/IC24, a Circular Regional Exterior do Porto (CREP), que constitui uma alternativa para a circulação de veículos pesados e permite reforçar a articulação entre os diferentes eixos rodoviários da região.
É neste contexto que o Governo, através do Decreto-Lei n.º 155-A/2026, de 31 de julho, definiu uma solução global para melhorar a gestão dos fluxos de tráfego na Área Metropolitana do Porto.
O objetivo é claro: aliviar a pressão sobre a VCI, promover uma utilização mais equilibrada da rede rodoviária existente e contribuir para uma mobilidade mais segura, eficiente e sustentável.
O que vai mudar?
A partir de 15 de setembro, a circulação de determinados veículos pesados de mercadorias na VCI ficará condicionada nos dias úteis, entre as 07h00 e as 21h00.
A medida aplica-se a veículos de mercadorias com peso bruto superior a 3.500 kg, três ou mais eixos e altura igual ou superior a 1,1 metros, medida na vertical do primeiro eixo.
Existem, contudo, exceções. Os veículos abrangidos que tenham como origem ou destino os municípios do Porto ou de Vila Nova de Gaia, para operações de carga ou descarga nesses municípios, poderão circular na VCI, desde que estejam previamente habilitados através da plataforma digital disponibilizada pelos respetivos municípios.
A CREP como alternativa
Para facilitar a redistribuição do tráfego, está também previsto um regime de isenção do pagamento de portagens na CREP para os veículos abrangidos pela medida.
Esta solução permite reforçar a utilização de uma via com capacidade disponível, criando uma alternativa competitiva para o transporte de mercadorias e contribuindo para uma distribuição mais equilibrada dos fluxos de tráfego na região, em especial para o tráfego que pretenda atravessar o Porto através da VCI.
O regime de isenção de portagens na CREP entrou em vigor a 1 de janeiro de 2026.
Uma solução acompanhada de perto
A implementação destas medidas será acompanhada através de monitorização contínua, permitindo avaliar os seus resultados e, sempre que necessário, ajustar ou complementar as soluções adotadas.
Mais do que uma alteração às regras de circulação, esta é uma medida que procura melhorar o funcionamento de toda a rede rodoviária, aproveitando a capacidade instalada da Rede Rodoviária existente, reforçando a mobilidade, a segurança e a sustentabilidade na Área Metropolitana do Porto.
Consulte abaixo toda a informação sobre as novas regras, os veículos abrangidos, as exceções e as alternativas disponíveis.
Perguntas Frequentes
O que vai mudar na VCI?
A partir de 15 de setembro será proibida a circulação a veículos pesados de mercadorias na VCI (IC1/IC23), entre as 07h00 e as 21h00, nos dias úteis.
Que veículos são abrangidos pelo regime excecional de proibição de circulação na VCI?
Para este efeito, entende-se por “veículos pesados de mercadorias” os veículos com peso bruto superior a 3500 kg, com três ou mais eixos, e com altura, medida na vertical do primeiro eixo, igual ou superior a 1,1 m, que se destinam ao transporte de mercadorias, por conta própria ou de outrem.
A proibição aplica-se 24 horas por dia?
Não. A proibição aplica-se num período definido do dia útil, das 07h00 às 21h00, concentrando-se nas horas de maior intensidade de tráfego.
Está prevista alguma exceção?
Sim, estão excecionados da proibição, i.e. podem circular a qualquer hora do dia na VCI, os veículos pesados de mercadorias que tenham como origem ou destino os municípios do Porto ou de Vila Nova de Gaia, para efeitos de carga ou descarga de mercadorias, desde que previamente habilitados através de um registo na plataforma digital disponibilizada pelos municípios do Porto e de Vila Nova de Gaia.
Como é que é obtida a habilitação de circulação?
Para que os veículos excecionados possam circular na VCI, dentro do horário em que se aplica a interdição, deve ser previamente obtida a habilitação de circulação, para cada movimento de transporte, através de um registo na plataforma digital disponibilizada pelos municípios do Porto e de Vila Nova de Gaia.
O processo de habilitação inclui, para além do preenchimento de um formulário, a submissão de um documento de transporte, tal como definido na alínea b) do n.º 1 do artigo 2.º do anexo ao Decreto-Lei n.º 147/2003, de 11 de julho.
O documento de transporte deve indicar, pelo menos, o local de carga e descarga da mercadoria, a data e hora em que se inicia o transporte e a matrícula do respetivo veículo e o código de identificação atribuído pela Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. Nas situações em que o documento de transporte não tenha código de identificação, em virtude de o mesmo não ser legalmente exigido, a habilitação deve prosseguir sem esse código.
Após submissão do formulário e da documentação referida, é gerado um registo pela plataforma, que serve de comprovativo de habilitação para circulação na VCI, registo esse que deve ser apresentado às autoridades policiais competentes para verificação da regularidade da circulação.
A eventual anulação de um pedido de habilitação efetuado na Plataforma deve, de igual modo, ser registada por essa via.
Em caso de dificuldades com a Plataforma quem devo contactar?
Em caso de dificuldades com a Plataforma, contacte:
Linha Porto. — 220 100 220 (dias úteis, das 9 às 19 horas)
suporte.acessovci@portodigital.pt (endereço destinado exclusivamente ao reporte de anomalias ou problemas técnicos da plataforma)
Que alternativa existe para os veículos pesados de mercadorias?
A alternativa recomendada é a CREP (A41/IC24), Circular Regional Externa da Área Metropolitana do Porto, onde será aplicada a isenção de pagamento de portagens para os veículos abrangidos pela medida.
Como funciona a isenção de portagens na CREP?
Todos os veículos com três ou mais eixos, e altura, medida na vertical do primeiro eixo, igual ou superior a 1,1 m, beneficiam de isenção do pagamento das taxas de portagem na autoestrada A41/IC24.
A isenção aplica-se todos os dias, 24h, não sendo precisa qualquer habilitação.
Como vou saber, na estrada, que existe esta proibição?
Em pleno cumprimento do estabelecido no Regulamento de Sinalização de Trânsito (RST), encontra-se instalada, nas vias de entrada na VCI, sinalização vertical de código (sinal C3d) e painéis adicionais, com a indicação: “Exceto veículos autorizados” e “Dias úteis, das 07h às 21h”. Essa sinalização será complementada com painéis informativos nos principais acessos á VCI e, sempre que se justifique, por marcas rodoviárias no pavimento.
Como será feita a fiscalização?
A fiscalização da circulação na VCI é feita pelas autoridades policiais competentes (PSP e GNR), em articulação com os municípios e demais entidades responsáveis.
Para exercício dos poderes de fiscalização das infrações resultantes do incumprimento das restrições de trânsito estabelecidas, as autoridades policiais têm acesso à Plataforma, em tempo real, para a verificação da regularidade da circulação dos veículos pesados de mercadorias na VCI.
Sem prejuízo, podem os munícios do Porto ou de Vila Nova de Gaia, conforme aplicável, retirar ou invalidar o registo decorrente do processo de habilitação, por identificação de desconformidades entre o preenchimento do formulário e a documentação submetida ou por falsidade ou insuficiência desta última.
A infração ao regime de proibição é punível por Lei?
Sim, a violação do regime de proibição da circulação na VCI constitui uma contraordenação, punível nos termos fixados no n.º 4 do artigo 10.º do Código da Estrada.
A competência para processamento das contraordenações, e respetiva aplicação das coimas e sanções, cabe à ANSR, nos termos previstos no Código da Estrada e, subsidiariamente, no regime geral das contraordenações.
A medida é definitiva?
Trata-se de uma medida que deve ser encarada como um projeto-piloto que será objeto de monitorização contínua, para efeitos de avaliação da sua eficácia e, se necessário, adequação das mesmas através de medidas complementares.
Por: Dino Frazão
13/09/2026
Se gostou do que leu e ainda não é seguidor, siga a nossa página para ver mais conteúdos!
————————————————–
© 2026 Os Monhacas. Todos os direitos reservados.
Este é um projeto independente de criação de conteúdos.
Se gostou do que leu e ainda não é seguidor, siga a nossa página para ver mais conteúdos!
————————————————–
O conteúdo Novas Regras na VCI: Proibição de Pesados de Mercadorias Entra em Vigor a 15 de Setembro aparece primeiro em OS MONHACAS.
Outlets across the spectrum weigh in with perspectives on the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks.
"Look Away": Opinion writer Liz Peek (Lean Right bias) for LizPeek.com (Lean Right) said "there are many in our country who want us to pretend that the greatest attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor never happened." According to Peek, "They want us to look away from the Muslim terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and who drove another plane full of innocents to their deaths in a grassy Pennsylvania field. They want us to forget that on that day in 2001, Americans came under attack for reasons that few understood, from a far away people who loathe our culture, our freedoms and our country." Peek added that "When Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., dismissively says, 'Some people did something,' she is trying to erase the truth. She wants us to forget who it was who purposefully killed 2,977 people." Peek urged that "Americans must not tolerate this rewriting of recent history," saying that "Twenty-five years later, we still mourn the friends we lost, the brave first responders who made the ultimate sacrifice, and thousands of others who died at Ground Zero."
"Bigoted Glass Ceiling": Dr. Jalal Baig, writing opinion for MS Now (Left), said that since the morning of September 11, 2001, "Islam became synonymous with terrorism in much of the American public's collective imagination," adding that "the effects of widespread Islamophobia have touched my life intimately." Even 25 years later, "Islamophobia remains a mainstream feature in American politics" according to Baig, who said "disgusting Islamophobic statements have been routinely uttered at the highest levels of government." She highlighted the "political rise of both Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed," saying they have "challenged a bigoted glass ceiling," and that many of the "attacks against them remind us of the continued chasm between the nation's ideals and its sobering reality."
"Lost Sight": Opinion writer Jay Rogers (Lean Right) for The Hill (Center) worked in the World Trade Center for just over a year. He still thinks about "how ordinary that building felt to me once, and how it became the opening scene of a war most Americans didn't know they were already losing." Rogers said, "Osama bin Laden was a known, growing threat before 2001, and the government had chances to remove him it didn't take." According to Rogers, the cause "was a legally cautious, capture-first policy, shaped by an assassination ban dating back to Gerald Ford," adding that it "was a mindset left over from treating terrorism as a criminal justice and law enforcement question." 25 years later, the same complacency, Rogers said, "shows up closer to home now," explaining that "four years of open borders brought gangsters and traffickers into our neighborhoods. Socialism is on the rise nationwide—gaining ground where it would have been laughed out a generation ago—because too many have lost sight of what makes this country worth defending." Rogers laments, saying "My old office tower is gone. My neighbor is gone. The only tribute worth giving either of them is to keep the country's defenses—physical and cultural—current, not nostalgic."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its "final update" on the Cyclospora outbreak reportedly caused by Taylor Farms de Mexico's shredded iceberg lettuce.
The Details: "This outbreak has ended," the CDC declared on Friday. "The contaminated lettuce linked to this outbreak is no longer available in stores or restaurants… As of September 11, 2026, FDA continues to investigate the cause of the contamination." The lettuce was recalled in mid-July.
RELATED: Are Food Recalls Really on the Rise? | AllSides
The agency also updated its general data hub about the parasite and said that while "cyclosporiasis season" in the US is May through August, it "continues to identify and investigate additional cases beyond this date" due to delayed reporting.
The CDC cited "19,595 laboratory-confirmed cases of cyclosporiasis acquired in the US," along with thousands of others that may have been acquired outside the US or are not laboratory-confirmed. "For comparison," it said, "1,180 cases were reported in the US between May 1 and August 31, 2025" and further noted, "The true number of people sick with cyclosporiasis is likely higher than the number reported."
Questions Remain: Outlets across the political spectrum highlighted several ongoing questions pertaining to the case. Associated Press (Lean Left bias) emphasized, "it still isn't clear how sewage could have contaminated enough food to sicken so many people," and Newsweek (Center) furthered, "scientists never identified a Cyclospora-positive lettuce sample. And although lettuce emerged as the leading suspect based on epidemiological and traceback evidence, the precise point at which contamination occurred may never be known." Newsweek also criticized that "no definitive source was ever identified" in many of the additional cases (though investigations are reportedly ongoing).
New York Post (Right) highlighted conflicting reports from Taylor Farms and the FDA: "Taylor Farms initially challenged the government's findings that its lettuce was contaminated and claimed the FDA 'apologized' to them about conflicting test results for its produce, adding that the agency made a 'mistake.' The FDA insisted that it did not apologize to Taylor Farms, noting that the company recalled 236,192 cases of salad due to potential contamination."
Differences In Framing: While Associated Press emphasized the outbreak as the "largest" in US history, Newsweek more accurately called it the "largest known" in US history. And while New York Post focused its report on a new multistate outbreak of salmonella, Associated Press linked the cyclosporiasis outbreak to "a worsening problem: US regulators are conducting fewer international inspections to catch contaminated produce before it lands on American plates" – a recent narrative consistent on the left.
RELATED: RFK Jr. Urges Healthier Diet, Politico Says Cyclospora Outbreak Hinders Effort | AllSides
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary. Image Credit: CDC
The Ukrainian Navy is claiming one of its uncrewed surface vessels (USV) sank a Russian USV, marking the first time one of these weapons, also known as drone boats, destroyed another. The engagement is the latest iteration in the use of combat drone boats, which Ukraine has employed to devastating effect against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet vessels and facilities, forcing the general evacuation of Russian naval assets from occupied Crimea to bases in Russia proper. The use of weaponized USVs is now proliferating around the globe at an increasing rate.
The incident took place somewhere in the Black Sea, said the Ukrainian Navy, which provided no details about when it happened or exactly where. TWZ cannot independently verify this claim; however, we cannot find any evidence of a drone boat killing another drone boat in the past.
“Units of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) detected the target,” the Ukrainian Navy stated on Telegram. “The Ukrainian Navy’s ‘Sargan 3000’ unmanned boat, equipped with a remotely operated weapon station (RWS) Protector 12.7 mm, successfully destroyed it. This is the first naval battle in history between unmanned boats.”
An 81-second video released by the Ukrainian Navy opens with a view from the Sargan 3000’s onboard camera. It shows the Ukrainian USV acquiring, then engaging the Russian USV with its machine gun. It then cuts to a closer view of the Protector gun system firing at the Russian drone boat. At about the 30-second mark, the view switches to a feed from an aerial platform, though it is unclear if it is piloted or a drone. The video continues with the Sargan 3000 raking the Russian USV with its heavy machine gun until pieces start flying off and it eventually sinks, stern first.
Ukraine's Navy says a Sargan unmanned surface vessel destroyed a Russian unmanned boat with machine-gun fire in the Black Sea, the first-ever battle between unmanned surface vessels. Ukrainian Navy personnel operated in coordination with HUR. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/Avg4ecz8m6
— NOELREPORTS
The Sargan 3000 (the name means needlefish in Ukrainian) was first introduced by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in April as a “multi-purpose platform that has undergone testing and entered service with the Ukrainian Navy. These uncrewed vessels are highly maneuverable and capable of carrying out strike missions.”
Though initially designed as a kamikaze weapon, it evolved into a platform for remote-controlled weapons, according to the Russian AmalNews outlet.
“The maritime drone features a specialized low-profile hull with distinctive hydrodynamic lines and is constructed from materials that reduce its radar signature,” the publication explained. “The Sargan-3000 USV is equipped with a waterjet propulsion system (presumably powered by a diesel or hybrid engine to ensure a long operational range).”
AmalNews states that the Sargan 3000 is 6.9 meters (about 22.6 feet) long, 2.2 meters (about 7.2 feet) wide, with an operational radius of up to 1,600 km (about 994 miles) and can carry a payload of 450 kg (about 992 pounds). It travels at an estimated speed range of 40-55 knots.
During operations, the Sargan 3000 connects to Ukraine’s Delta situational awareness system, “enabling the real-time transmission of target data, video feeds, and telemetry to operators,” AmalNews noted. “It features multi-channel control capabilities, including redundant satellite communication terminals (utilizing secure Western commercial networks and NATO military networks).”
It is also equipped with “an autonomous inertial and optical navigation system to ensure operation in the event of GPS jamming, and it incorporates electronic countermeasures (ECM) modules.”
There are several variants of this USV. They include those equipped with machine guns; rockets; FPV drones; an electronic warfare version and one that lays mines, the publication added.
Ukraine’s Sargan-3000 naval drone was presented in an FPV drone carrier variant, additionally fitted with a remote weapon station. The type first appeared in combat conditions in early June, when one washed ashore and detonated in the waters of Romania’s Constanța port. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/QyKnyJFqUq
— NOELREPORTS
The Sargan 3000’s Protector remote weapon station is made by Kongsberg.
The drone boat’s first publicly known combat engagement took place in July, when one “destroyed the Russian Federation’s FSB border guard ship Izumrud,” the Ukrainian Navy stated at the time.
“Ukrainian naval sailors sank the border guard ship of the 2nd rank with the Sargan-3000 maritime unmanned complex near Novorossiysk,” the Ukrainian Navy claimed on Facebook. “Among the crew of the ship are dead and wounded.”
It is unclear whether the USV acted as a kamikaze vessel or a weapons platform, although the former is most likely.
“It was Izumrud that on November 25, 2018, participated in the attack on the ships of the Ukrainian Navy in the Kerch Strait,” the service added. “Revenge is inevitable.”
Ukraine's Navy has sunk the Russian FSB Border Guard patrol ship Izumrud near Novorossiysk using the Sargan-3000 unmanned maritime system.
— SPRAVDI — Stratcom Centre (@StratcomCentre) July 14, 2026
The vessel, a Rank 2 patrol ship, reportedly sustained catastrophic damage, with casualties and injuries among its crew.
The Izumrud was… pic.twitter.com/7VjKDH2ReD
One sea drone killing another is a notable development given the damage these systems can inflict and the challenge of locating and destroying them on open waters. Being able to operate on the water over long distances and timeframes, they can be used to hunt down other drone boats, as what appears to have taken place in this engagement, or serve as a picket line of sorts to protect harbors, vessels and other targets that have been attacked by USVs in the past.
The Russian drone boat, which is not identified, did not appear to be armed.
The Houthi rebels of Yemen actually pioneered the operational use of kamikaze USVs years ago. We first reported about this capability in January 2017, when an explosive-laden Houthi USV struck a Saudi frigate. Before that, Iran developed various crude kamikaze USVs and those capabilities soon migrated to its Houthi proxies, which put them to use in the Red Sea for the first time.
Ukraine has led the way in advancements of these systems, first employing them as kamikaze weapons, but then adding machine guns and rockets and later missiles, which were used to shoot down Russian helicopters and jets. Ukraine has also used these to launch FPV and bomber drone attacks as well as deliver uncrewed ground vehicles (UGV) into enemy territory.
You can see that delivery in the following video.
No soldiers. Just machines.
— Ivan Khomenko (@KhomenkoIv60065) July 13, 2026
Ukraine has carried out the world's first known combat mission in which a sea drone transported and deployed an armed ground robot behind Russian lines on the occupied Kinburn Spit. pic.twitter.com/zyJdFXWxVb
In the wake of the Ukrainian success with these weapons, Russia developed its own drone boats, and in August 2025, launched its first attack on a Ukrainian vessel.
The U.S. used drone boats as kamikaze weapons for the first time in July, during an attack “on a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran,” U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on X at the time.
Yesterday, using multiple one-way attack surface drones, CENTCOM forces successfully struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran. Three Corsair unmanned surface vessels hit the port at Bandar Abbas Naval Base, marking the first time American forces have employed sea… pic.twitter.com/bOM2kmgRxz
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 13, 2026
Regardless, it looks like history was made with this incident in the Black Sea. But this involved a sea drone hunting down and destroying another that couldn’t fight back. Given the rapid pace of weapons development by both sides in the Ukraine war, it seems inevitable that a duel between two armed drones boats could soon follow.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post First-Ever Kill Of A Drone Boat By Another Drone Boat Claimed By Ukraine appeared first on TWZ.
Illustration of King David weeping over the death of his son Absalom who was killed in battle. Image source unknown – appears to be AI generated.
by Brian Shilhavy
Last week I released the Second Edition of my eBook, The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible.
One of the chapters of this book, which can also be read as a single article here, is titled The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible (The title of the book is from this chapter).
In this chapter I show how the “perfect Christian family” does not exist anywhere in the pages of the Bible, as even all the “heroes of the faith” had very difficult and troubled families which today would probably be called “broken families” because they did not meet the standards of today’s Judeo/Christian values for families in Western Culture.
One of those families in the Old Testament that we have quite a bit of text on is the family of King David.
King David fathered many children from many different wives, and one of his children, his son Absalom, completely betrayed him and almost overthrew David from his throne, temporarily taking over the city of Jerusalem.
In the end the people in David’s household who remained loyal to him prevailed, and defeated Absalom in a very bloody battle.
And yet even with this victory, David very nearly lost the entire kingdom, because he idolized Absalom in his heart as his biological son, by loving him more than he loved God.
Death of Absalom by Corrado Giaquinto, 1762. Source.
The story of Absalom’s betrayal against his father and nearly taking over the Kingdom of Israel, starts with one of King David’s other sons who raped the sister of Absalom, and was never punished for it.
The story is recorded in the Bible in 2 Samuel chapter 13.
In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David.
Amnon became frustrated to the point of illness on account of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her.
Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon,
“Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?”
Amnon said to him,
“I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.”
“Go to bed and pretend to be ill,” Jonadab said.
“When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand.'”
So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill.
When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him,
“I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand.”
David sent word to Tamar at the palace:
“Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him.”
So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.
“Send everyone out of here,” Amnon said.
So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar,
“Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand.”
And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom.
But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said,
“Come to bed with me, my sister.”
“Don’t, my brother!” she said to him.
“Don’t force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace?
And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.”
But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.
Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her.
Amnon said to her,
“Get up and get out!”
“No!” she said to him.
“Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”
But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said,
“Get this woman out of here and bolt the door after her.”
So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing a richly ornamented robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore.
Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornamented robe she was wearing. She put her hand on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went.
Her brother Absalom said to her,
“Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart.”
And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman.
When King David heard all this, he was furious.
Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar. (2 Samuel 13:1-22)
While the text states that King David was “furious” over the rape, no legal action or punishment was apparently ever started as would be required by the Law of Moses for raping a virgin.
David clearly gave preferential treatment to his own biological children that he probably would not have given to non-family members in the Kingdom of Israel.
This allowed the anger and spirit of revenge to foster in Absalom for two years.
Two years later, when Absalom’s sheepshearers were at Baal Hazor near the border of Ephraim, he invited all the king’s sons to come there.
Absalom went to the king and said,
“Your servant has had shearers come. Will the king and his officials please join me?”
“No, my son,” the king replied.
“All of us should not go; we would only be a burden to you.”
Although Absalom urged him, he still refused to go, but gave him his blessing.
Then Absalom said,
“If not, please let my brother Amnon come with us.”
The king asked him, “Why should he go with you?”
But Absalom urged him, so he sent with him Amnon and the rest of the king’s sons.
Absalom ordered his men,
“Listen! When Amnon is in high spirits from drinking wine and I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon down,’ then kill him. Don’t be afraid. Have not I given you this order? Be strong and brave.”
So Absalom’s men did to Amnon what Absalom had ordered.
Then all the king’s sons got up, mounted their mules and fled.
While they were on their way, the report came to David:
“Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left.”
The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his servants stood by with their clothes torn.
But Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said,
“My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s expressed intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar. My lord the king should not be concerned about the report that all the king’s sons are dead. Only Amnon is dead.”
(2 Samuel 13:23-33)
Absalom lived as a refugee for three years after this, staying away from his father and Jerusalem.
When he finally came back to Jerusalem, he began his conspiracy to kill his father and take over his throne, by slandering his father and gathering together his enemies.
In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate.
Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him,
“What town are you from?”
He would answer,
“Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.”
Then Absalom would say to him,
“Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.”
And Absalom would add,
“If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice.”
Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him.
Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.
At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king,
“Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the LORD. While your servant was living at Geshur in Aram, I made this vow: ‘If the LORD takes me back to Jerusalem, I will worship the LORD in Hebron.'”
The king said to him,
“Go in peace.”
So he went to Hebron.
Then Absalom sent secret messengers throughout the tribes of Israel to say,
“As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpets, then say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron.'”
Two hundred men from Jerusalem had accompanied Absalom. They had been invited as guests and went quite innocently, knowing nothing about the matter.
While Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown.
And so the conspiracy gained strength, and Absalom’s following kept on increasing. (2 Samuel 15:1-12)
It is important to note that before all these things happened to King David, God made a Covenant with David, promising him that he would never lack a descendant to sit on his throne and rule Israel. This promise was about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, who was a descendant of David.
This is recorded in 2 Samuel chapter 7.
“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says:
I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you.
Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed.
Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel.
I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.
When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.
Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.'” (2 Samuel 7:8-16)
The person from David’s family line that would be next to take the throne was not Absalom. While it is recorded in 2 Samuel 14:27 that Absalom fathered three sons and a daughter, his sons apparently died, according to 2 Samuel 18:
During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King’s Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, “I have no son to carry on the memory of my name.”
He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom’s Monument to this day. (2 Samuel 18:18)
David’s other son, Solomon, who was born to the woman David originally committed adultery with, Bathsheba, was the one who became the next King after David died. David had also murdered Bathsheba’s first husband, Uriah.
What the Old Testament Scriptures actually teach, therefore, is that God uses imperfect families to accomplish his purpose on earth.
Not only is Bathsheba in the family line of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so is a non-Israelite, the prostitute of Rahab from Jericho:
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife… (Matthew 1:1-6)
David and those loyal to him had to flee Jerusalem before they were all murdered by Absalom, and after regrouping their forces, they met with the forces loyal to Absalom in battle, and Absalom himself was killed along with about 20,000 other Israelites.
David mustered the men who were with him and appointed over them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. David sent the troops out—a third under the command of Joab, a third under Joab’s brother Abishai son of Zeruiah, and a third under Ittai the Gittite.
The king told the troops,
“I myself will surely march out with you.”
But the men said,
“You must not go out; if we are forced to flee, they won’t care about us. Even if half of us die, they won’t care; but you are worth ten thousand of us. It would be better now for you to give us support from the city.”
The king answered,
“I will do whatever seems best to you.”
So the king stood beside the gate while all the men marched out in units of hundreds and of thousands. The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Ittai,
“Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.”
And all the troops heard the king giving orders concerning Absalom to each of the commanders.
The army marched into the field to fight Israel, and the battle took place in the forest of Ephraim. There the army of Israel was defeated by David’s men, and the casualties that day were great—twenty thousand men.
The battle spread out over the whole countryside, and the forest claimed more lives that day than the sword.
Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s head got caught in the tree.
He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going. When one of the men saw this, he told Joab,
“I just saw Absalom hanging in an oak tree.”
Joab said to the man who had told him this,
“What! You saw him? Why didn’t you strike him to the ground right there? Then I would have had to give you ten shekels of silver and a warrior’s belt.”
But the man replied,
“Even if a thousand shekels were weighed out into my hands, I would not lift my hand against the king’s son. In our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai, ‘Protect the young man Absalom for my sake.’ And if I had put my life in jeopardy—and nothing is hidden from the king—you would have kept your distance from me.”
Joab said,
“I’m not going to wait like this for you.”
So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree. And ten of Joab’s armor-bearers surrounded Absalom, struck him and killed him.
Then Joab sounded the trumpet, and the troops stopped pursuing Israel, for Joab halted them. They took Absalom, threw him into a big pit in the forest and piled up a large heap of rocks over him.
Meanwhile, all the Israelites fled to their homes. (2 Samuel 18:1-17)
Image source unknown. Appears to be AI generated.
Joab, the head of David’s military, and the only one who was powerful enough to defy the king’s orders, did what he had to do to protect the Kingdom.
He knew full well what David’s response would be, but he also knew full well what the consequences would be if Absalom was allowed to live, so he acted in the best interests of the Kingdom.
What happened next was an event that if David had made the wrong choice, he would have lost everything.
Joab was told,
“The king is weeping and mourning for Absalom.”
And for the whole army the victory that day was turned into mourning, because on that day the troops heard it said,
“The king is grieving for his son.”
The men stole into the city that day as men steal in who are ashamed when they flee from battle. The king covered his face and cried aloud,
“O my son Absalom! O Absalom, my son, my son!”
Then Joab went into the house to the king and said,
“Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines.
You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you.
I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead.
Now go out and encourage your men.
I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall.
This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come upon you from your youth till now.”
So the king got up and took his seat in the gateway.
When the men were told, “The king is sitting in the gateway,” they all came before him. Meanwhile, the Israelites had fled to their homes. (2 Samuel 19:1-8)
David came within hours of losing everything, simply because he loved his biological son more than he loved God, and the Kingdom of God of which he was appointed King.
Loyalty to family members and bloodlines above all else is Satanic and worldly. Jesus made this very clear during his time on earth, stating to the Jews that their bloodlines back to Abraham were meaningless, unless they actually knew God, and recognized that he came from God and was the Messiah.
Jesus also clearly demanded loyalty to him above our loyalty to family members, and he himself was persecuted by his own family members as I have recently written. See:
As a result of Jesus’s loyalty to his Heavenly Father above his earthly family, the world hated him. And he stated that the world would hate us also if we walked this same path.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.
As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’
If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)
This principle applies not only to our own biological families, but also to the fake believers in the “Household of God”, or those who claim to be part of “God’s family.”
Being part of a group of believers does not give anyone a “free pass” if they do not know God, and are betraying the faith.
Paul made this very clear in his writings:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.
And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience.
Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20)
It is often a very lonely journey as we walk through this life as aliens and pilgrims, knowing that this is not our home, as we reject the ways of the world and then suffer for it, often by being rejected by our own families or so called “believers” and “brothers”.
But it is worth it, knowing where our loyalties lie, just like the true believers who walked that same lonely path before us!
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.
And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.
Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated:
The world was not worthy of them.
(Hebrews 11)
Comment on this article at Created4Health.org.
This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)
See Also:
Having problems receiving our emails? See:
If our website is seized and shut down, find us on Telegram, as well as Bitchute and Odysee for further instructions about where to find us.
If you use the TOR Onion browser, here are the links and corresponding URLs to use in the TOR browser to find us on the Dark Web: Health Impact News, Vaccine Impact, Medical Kidnap, Created4Health, CoconutOil.com.
The post When King David Almost Lost Everything by Loving his Son More than God first appeared on Health Impact News.
Late-night ABC talk show host Jimmy Kimmel will broadcast an interview with Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico on YouTube instead of network television following what he called threats by President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
For Context: Kimmel said the FCC threats were "based on simple traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don't like." In January, the FCC released guidance stating that entertainment talk shows should abide by the same "equal time" rules as broadcast news stations, which stipulates that shows are required to offer equal airtime to all candidates running for political office. Kimmel was also suspended last September for what was called "inflammatory remarks about [Charlie] Kirk's assassination" and faced calls to be fired after saying First Lady Malania Trump looked like "an expectant widow."
RELATED: Protected Speech, or a Bridge Too Far?
"Politically Motivated": Outlets on the left like The New Republic (Left bias) and The Washington Post (Lean Left) were less likely to highlight the FCC "equal time" guidance, instead framing the story around what the New Republic called Trump's attempt "to censor late-night TV." The Washington Post article highlighted Kimmel suggesting "the pressure was politically motivated." Both articles mentioned Kimmel saying, "Thank goodness we have that [YouTube], because in the America that we live in right now, that is the best we can do."
"Did What He Does Best": Outlets on the right like The New York Post (Right) and Fox News (Right), conversely, were more likely to highlight the equal time guidance, with Fox calling Kimmel's remarks towards the FCC "defiant." The Post article mentioned that "Trump and Kimmel have repeatedly traded barbs over the past decade, with the president saying Kimmel has 'zero talent' and poor ratings and is the worst late-night host on television."
Possible Misinformation: The New York Post reported that Jimmy Kimmel Live will no longer be aired after May 2027, marking the last season after 24 years on air. However, according to USA Today (Lean Left) reporting, ABC refuted the report, saying "This information is inaccurate—any reports about the future of the show at this point are purely speculative."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill is facing criticism for her anti-ICE policies after an unauthorized immigrant fled ICE officials and crashed into the wife of East Brunswick's mayor. Outlets split over whether the crash reflected the negative impact of ICE enforcement or sanctuary policies.
The Details: According to local officials, an unauthorized immigrant attempting to flee a targeted ICE stop last week ran a stoplight and drove onto US 130 highway where they caused a crash. The driver was unnamed in news coverage. Dr. Penelope Cohen, wife of East Brunswick mayor Brad Cohen, was injured in the crash and treated for non-life threatening injuries, The New York Times (Lean Left bias) reported. The crash closed Route 130 in both directions for more than an hour.
For Context: Gov. Sherrill signed three immigration-related bills into law in March that limited state and local police cooperation with ICE deportation efforts. Among those was legislation codifying New Jersey's 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive, which generally prevents state and local officials from assisting ICE raids or providing resources to immigration officers. However, it allows for certain exceptions for criminal law enforcement.
From the Right: Fox News (Right) and Just the News (Lean Right) were both critical of Sherill's immigration policies and focused on the ongoing debate over sanctuary policies. They both cited Republican lawmakers who emphasized the crash as evidence that the state's "Trust Directive" creates public-safety risks. Fox News highlighted Republican criticism of Democrats, saying they "are wrongheaded to respond to such incidents by calling for ICE's abolition rather than stronger enforcement." Just the News quoted a Republican lawmaker who said, "This is just the latest in a long line of traffic incidents and vehicular incidents that wouldn't occur if New Jersey didn't have our sanctuary status." It also included criticism from Republican lawmakers that said Democrats have an "inability to accept responsibility for the incidents" and "are doing everything they can to avoid blame."
From the Left: Conversely, The New York Times positioned the crash as a local incident that happened amid a broader surge in ICE enforcement in New Jersey. It didn't ever describe the driver as an unauthorized immigrant compared to Just the News and Fox; it described the event as "federal immigration agents were chasing another driver" and described the immigrant as "the individual" and "the driver of the vehicle that was being pursued." It noted that ICE had detained more than 2,100 people in New Jersey in July – more than twice the roughly 850 to 950 people the agency had been arresting previously. The Times also quoted the North Brunswick mayor who said he supported efforts to apprehend serious offenders, but was concerned about the tactics being used.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday pledged a $5,000 "dividend" payment to every adult citizen in America if Republicans retain majorities in both the House and Senate in November.
"The Best Part": Trump made the pledge in what he called "the best part" of his speech at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. "If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump said, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000." He deemed it the "Trump dividend" and said, "Now all we have to do is win."
For Context: Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) said "I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election…because Republicans (and America) will win!" The estimated cost of the dividend would be $1.23 trillion.
"Policy That Could Pull It Off": Outlets on the right like Blaze Media (Right bias) and Breitbart (Right) highlighted the $5,000 "Trump dividend." Blaze said, "with the midterm elections only 55 days away, Trump and the Republican Party are pulling out all the stops to make history." Blaze also mentioned other portions of the president's speech, saying he "vowed to make all of his tax cuts permanent, putting even more cash back into voters' pockets," adding that "Trump tied the proposed dividend to the 'over $20 trillion in foreign investment' he's recruited from allies, his tariffs, and Vice President JD Vance's war on fraud." According to Blaze, "Trump believes he can defy history and maintain control of Congress in the midterms — and he just announced the policy that could pull it off."
"Counting On Fools": Opinion writer Steve Benen (Left) for MS Now (Left) framed the dividend around a "desperate" Donald Trump who is "well aware of the fact that his party is likely to suffer a new round of election losses" leading him to "float another ridiculous vow." Benen asserted that "There's no reason to be coy about the circumstances: This plan will never come to fruition," adding that "Trump is counting on fools to accept this nonsense at face value, but even his most knee-jerk followers need to realize that this con is literally unbelievable." Benen explained that he knows this because Trump "has tried to pull eerily similar stunts before;" the money to pay for such an idea doesn't exist according to Benen; the idea is "legally dubious" and would require congressional approval "which will not happen;" and "If Trump were serious about this, he wouldn't have to wait."
Crossing Party Lines: One America News Network (Right), while not mentioning the dividend pledge, highlighted a "surprise appearance" at the convention by Senator John Fetterman (D-PA). According to the article, the Senator crossed party lines "to offer praise for Republican candidates and critique anti-American and anti-Israel left-wing policies."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Cari amici e nemici di Stilum Curiae, Matteo Castagna, che ringraziamo di cuore, offre alla vostra attenzione queste riflessioni sulla figura di Emma Bonino. Buona lettura e condivisione.
di Matteo Castagna
“Tutto ciò che è necessario per il trionfo del male è che gli uomini di bene non facciano nulla” – scriveva il tradizionalista Edmund Burke. Spesso mi torna in mente questo aforisma quando noto che troppi cattolici sono diventati dei “cadaveri”. L’ha scritto anche don Ugo Carandino sul suo profilo Facebook, nei confronti di chi non si scandalizza più, neppure davanti alla più vile blasfemia di uno spot televisivo. E non fiata. Non scrive.
Il modello dev’essere diventato “Fantozzi subisce ancora”, con cinquant’anni di ritardo. Ben più grave il silenzio o il sentito cordoglio di alcuni per la morte di Emma Bonino, perché era amica di Bergoglio, che la riteneva una grande donna. Il più giusto ed efficace epitaffio viene da un grande intellettuale, che non è neanche un cattolico conservatore o tradizionalista, Marcello Veneziani:
“Emma Bonino ha rappresentato con coerenza e passione il contrario morale, civile e politico di quanti riconoscono il valore della vita, della famiglia e della nascita, della civiltà e della tradizione. Pietas, nella divergenza più radicale”. Le auguro un atto di contrizione, anche all’ultimo secondo, altrimenti avendo diretto per decenni la Sovversione anticristiana e contro natura temo che la sua anima non avrà un’eternità felice.
In ogni caso, i danni che ha prodotto con Marco Pannella sono spaventosi: dall’aborto, al divorzio, al testamento biologico, alla fecondazione artificiale, al gender, alle unioni civili. E tutto il mondo la “santifica” perché è stata coerente con le sue battaglie. Ma erano tutte sbagliate e satanicamente contrarie alla nostra identità classico-cristiana! Fatalmente i suoi uomini si sono sempre piazzati sia a sinistra che a destra del parlamentarismo italiano, in nome dell’ideologia liberale. La peggiore. La più ingannevole. Quella che trasforma il vero in comodo, il desiderio in diritto, l’errore in scelta legittima. Quella che pretende di poter votare su tutto, anche su ciò che Dio ha stabilito o inscritto nell’animo umano.
L’ideologia liberale porta a considerare la follia una normalità, in nome dell’inclusione. Sicché, poiché in questi giorni ho ricordato nella preghiera la figura di Charlie Kirk, che ha fatto della militanza cristiana e del confronto le sue bandiere fino ad essere ammazzato da un trans per questo, mi è tornato in mente un articolo di Brent Cope che avevo ricevuto nel dicembre del 2018 da Turning Point USA, il gruppo del giovane credente, bianco, etero, sposato e con due figli naturali. Cos’hanno combinato i Radicali con la loro perversa idea liberal? Lo sappiamo, hanno stravolto i rapporti tra persone e creato persino una neo-lingua.
Il “deplatforming”, ad esempio, è il processo attraverso il quale gli attivisti dichiarano che una persona è bigotta/fascista/nazista/
Certo, perché i confini del liberalismo li definiscono loro, mica i cattolici! Male quando i cattolici tacciono o addirittura tollerano i catto-liberali, condannati mirabilmente dalla Chiesa con Leone XIII e San Pio X.
Meghan Murphy è una femminista di Vancouver che fu sospesa da Twitter per aver scritto che “gli uomini non sono donne”. “Che un’azienda multimiliardaria censuri fatti essenziali e metta a tacere le persone che si pongono domande su questo dogma è folle” – scrisse la donna, certamente priva di simpatie tradizionali. Infatti ha conseguito un master in Women’s Studies presso la Simon Fraser University, quindi non si tratta di un troll online.
È istruita, intelligente e discute di argomenti di grande attualità. Il ban permanente è arrivato poco dopo questa discussione. Nessuno di noi dovrebbe sorprendersi: negli ultimi anni i social hanno preso provvedimenti severi contro le idee dissenzienti, soprattutto quelle “conservatrici”. Alex Jones e Milo Yiannopoulos sono stati tra i primi a essere bannati, e in pochi se ne sono dimenticati. Molti, tuttavia, all’epoca commentarono che queste persone erano come canarini nella miniera di carbone e che la china scivolosa della rimozione dei contenuti “offensivi” sarebbe continuata. Siamo arrivati al punto in cui affermare fatti basilari come “uomini e donne non sono uguali” è considerato “odioso”.
Oggi la situazione su X e Facebook è un po’ migliorata, ma non troppo.
“Vorrei sottolineare – scriveva Cope – che le persone trans e genderqueer subiscono discriminazione e intolleranza da parte delle loro famiglie e dei loro coetanei. È una delle principali cause di senzatetto e suicidio in quella particolare fascia della popolazione. Personalmente, quando mi viene chiesto, uso qualsiasi pronome o nome mi venga fornito.
Questa è una conseguenza della mia precedente accettazione dell’orientamento sessuale autoproclamato dagli altri. Se qualcuno mi dice di essere gay, etero o bisessuale, il mio primo istinto è credergli. Potrei lamentarmi quando qualcuno mi dice di essere genderqueer o comunque non binario, perché il mio standard per una cosa del genere è la biologia, non i sentimenti. Se sei “intersessuale” – e queste persone esistono – allora quell’identità è assolutamente disponibile.
Questo è anche il modo in cui affronto i pronomi non binari. Tendo a rispettarli per essere rispettoso verso l’esterno, ma il contesto è importante. Obbligare legalmente le aziende a utilizzarli (legge di New York) è un po’ estremo. È anche una soluzione non testata e non ci sono prove che possa creare condizioni più sicure per la popolazione transgender”.
L’ideologia transgender è relativamente nuova e favorita dall’ideologia liberal dei Radicali di tutto il mondo, coi fondi di speculatori internazionali o di miliardari di dubbia moralità. Molti la sostengono come la nuova causa di sinistra del momento, paragonandola ai diritti degli omosessuali.
“Voglio essere chiaro: tutti meritano l’uguaglianza di fronte alla legge e il diritto di essere trattati umanamente dai loro coetanei. Detto questo, la prima regola della medicina è “non nuocere”. In questo contesto, ciò significa che qualsiasi intervento volto a risolvere il problema deve dimostrare di funzionare e di non peggiorarlo. Temo che stiamo peggiorando di molto la situazione”.
L’ideologia trans ha una forte radicamento nelle democrazie occidentali più orientate a sinistra, ma grazie al trasformismo dei liberali Radicali, pure a destra non si scherza. Il Regno Unito ha una particolare affinità per l’ideologia genderqueer, così come il Canada e New York City. Ma in molti casi, questi “diritti” conquistati sono affrettati e mal concepiti, e solitamente introdotti da “attivisti” che si spacciano per rappresentanti della comunità trans senza alcun titolo. Sarebbe ridicolo se affermassi di parlare a nome di tutti gli uomini gay, non è vero? La stessa logica non si applica ai membri della comunità trans.
Queste idee sono incredibilmente potenti e potenzialmente destabilizzanti. Il loro effetto sulla cultura occidentale non dovrebbe essere sottovalutato.
Ciò che è più preoccupante è l’impatto che questa ideologia sta avendo sui bambini. Non ho dubbi che ci siano bambini che soffrono di disforia di genere, il termine tecnico per la diagnosi che tradizionalmente è un prerequisito per il trattamento ormonale e/o l’intervento chirurgico per il sesso opposto.
Questa è anche una delle differenze interessanti tra il movimento per i diritti dei gay e l’ideologia trans: per decenni gli attivisti gay hanno sostenuto che l’omosessualità non è una malattia mentale e hanno lottato per farla rimuovere dal DSM. Alla fine lo è stato. Oggi, le persone trans chiedono a gran voce che venga diagnosticata la disforia di genere perché è la porta d’accesso alla transizione fisica (terapia ormonale e intervento chirurgico). È il sigillo ufficiale che certifica che la loro identità è reale.
In passato, il ruolo dello psicoterapeuta era quello di identificare la presenza di disforia di genere; ora sembra che tale ruolo sia stato assunto dalle persone trans stesse, con i terapeuti che si limitano a convalidare la decisione. Questo approccio relativamente nuovo è chiamato “affermazione di genere” e deriva dall’ideologia radicale di massa.
Quando gli psicoterapeuti indagano, cercano prove “insistenti, persistenti e coerenti” dell’identità trans. Questo è il requisito standard per gli psicoterapeuti che si occupano di affermazione di genere per diagnosticare la disforia di genere. Ciò significa che il bambino deve dichiarare direttamente il proprio stato transgender, affermarlo costantemente e non deve mai variare a seconda del contesto. Quando questo non avviene, potrebbero entrare in gioco altri fattori ambientali.
Ad esempio, un bambino più grande che nota che la sorellina riceve più attenzioni potrebbe erroneamente pensare che stiano dando attenzione alla nuova nata a causa del suo genere. Potrebbe iniziare a vestirsi da femmina e a comportarsi come tale per ottenere più attenzione dai genitori. Un bambino del genere ovviamente non soffre di disforia di genere, ma anche solo avanzare questa ipotesi è offensivo per molti nella comunità degli attivisti transgender.
L’idea stessa di non affermare immediatamente l’identità transgender di bambini molto piccoli (3-6 anni) è vista come malvagia, traumatizzante e potenzialmente pericolosa per la vita. Non furono forse i radicali con il loro concetto di ipersessualizzazione sociale, a dire che anche la pedofilia potrebbe essere un’inclinazione sessuale?
L’ideologia trans ha una base più solida nel Regno Unito, e il canale britannico Channel 4 ha recentemente trasmesso un documentario intitolato Trans Kids: It’s Time to Talk, dell’autrice e terapeuta Stella O’Malley. L’autrice sottolinea che da giovane era convinta di essere un ragazzo. Oggi è sposata e ha figli. Camille Paglia, femminista, autrice e autoproclamata maschiaccio, si aspetta che anche lei sarebbe stata identificata come trans. Questo suggerisce che molti bambini presumibilmente “trans” oggi vengano erroneamente identificati.
Questo si collega a un altro enorme punto cieco del movimento trans: nessuno vuole discutere di desistenza (quando una persona trans decide di voler essere il suo genere di nascita). Anche solo parlarne è considerato un’eresia. Se circa il 75-85% dei bambini transgender desistono e crescono fino a diventare normali adulti cisgender, cosa succede quando le persone vengono accompagnate durante la transizione e decidono troppo tardi di voler tornare al loro genere originale? La transizione è un’alterazione permanente del corpo e, sebbene possa essere in parte reversibile, non sarà mai come se non fosse mai accaduta.
Indipendentemente dalla tua identità di genere, o da ciò che dichiari di essere, esistono differenze – piuttosto evidenti – tra uomini e donne. Le donne trans non saranno mai donne biologiche, indipendentemente da quanti interventi chirurgici, ormoni o trucco indossino. Gli uomini trans non avranno mai la stessa esperienza di un maschio biologico. Queste sono impossibilità attuali, anche se un giorno potrebbero essere superate.
Infine, come si collega tutto questo alla Ponerologia e di cosa diavolo si tratta? Ponerizzazione è il processo attraverso il quale un gruppo o un movimento viene contagiato da personalità patologiche. “Poneros” deriva dal greco, ed è la parola che indicano il male. Ponerologia, ponerizzazione e ponerogenesi sono lo studio del male sociale, di come gruppi e movimenti sociali ne vengano dirottati e una descrizione scientifica di come inizia.
Get it on Amazon or at Redpillpress.com
Un movimento infetto si distorce nel tempo, e alla fine potrebbe persino arrivare a comportarsi come le persone a cui si opponeva originariamente. Antifa ne è un esempio lampante: antifascisti che si comportano come fascisti: non potrebbe essere più ovvio di così! Esistono persone patologiche, ma non le sentirete reclamare il diritto di torturare, stuprare e uccidere. Quello che fanno è arruolarsi nell’esercito, diventare poliziotti o chiunque altro abbia autorità. Molti di loro diventano criminali e vengono catturati. Molti no. Anche la patologia esiste in uno spettro, a volte il semplice fatto di rendere difficile la vita delle persone può essere per loro una “soddisfazione” sufficiente.
Yusra Khogali, una delle fondatrici di Black Lives Matter Toronto, è nota per la sua retorica incendiaria. “La bianchezza non è sinonimo di umanità, anzi, la pelle bianca è sub-umana”, ha scritto. “Tutti i fenotipi esistono all’interno della famiglia nera e le persone bianche sono un difetto genetico dell’essere nere”. Patologico? A voi la decisione.
Le persone patologiche adorano unirsi ai movimenti sociali fin dal basso, in modo da poter acquisire ruoli di leadership e autorità all’interno del movimento. Qualsiasi gruppo di attivisti sociali organizzati (o altro) che non sia attivamente consapevole di questo fenomeno e non esamini attentamente i propri membri è a rischio. Ci saranno persone patologiche che si identificano come trans come strategia per raggiungere i propri obiettivi. Probabilmente saranno indistinguibili dalle vere persone trans, tranne quando si esaminano il loro comportamento e le loro parole.
I tipi patologici usano la loro identità come scudo, se possibile: ciò fornisce loro contemporaneamente un’ideologia per giustificare il loro comportamento e un gruppo di persone che accorreranno in loro difesa, in quanto appartenenti alla stessa “tribù”. Israele che mette a tacere i suoi legittimi critici con accuse di antisemitismo è un altro ottimo esempio di questa tattica.
Un modo in cui queste persone reclutano altri è atteggiarsi a vittime (ciò non significa che chiunque si dichiari vittima abbia secondi fini, solo che è possibile). Questo ci riporta al motivo per cui esigo definizioni forti per i termini e chiarezza durante le discussioni difficili. Se non stiamo attenti alle nostre parole, il loro significato verrà distorto e questo è il primo passo verso la violenza. Gli attivisti trans spesso citano la sofferenza reale delle persone trans come motivo per attaccare chiunque con cui non siano d’accordo. Questo è un campanello d’allarme. Quando si usa la sofferenza come giustificazione per ulteriore violenza, si sta entrando in territorio patologico. Non nuocere con i tuoi interventi, altrimenti il problema non farà che peggiorare.
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35
Vous recevez cet email car vous suivez la liste “spaghetticon”. Vous ne voulez plus recevoir ces emails ? Rendez-vous sur le lien https://framalistes.org/sympa/sigrequest/spaghetticon ou contactez l’adresse sympa@framalistes.org avec comme sujet “unsubscribe spaghetticon”.
You receive this email since you subscribed to the list “spaghetticon”. To unsubscribe, please go to the link https://framalistes.org/sympa/sigrequest/spaghetticon or send an email to sympa@framalistes.org with the subject “unsubscribe spaghetticon”.
***
Stilum Curiae lo trovate anche qui:
https://www.instagram.com/sanpietrotos/
https://www.facebook.com/marco.tosatti/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063593462822
www.linkedin.com/in/marco-tosatti-77b42a21
***
Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *
L'articolo L”Ideologia di Emma Bonino era, è e sarà la Sconfitta della Civiltà. Matteo Castagna. proviene da Blondet & Friends.
L'Amérique, c'est le monde. En deux propositions d'un enchaînement logique audacieux, le président George W. Bush a en effet expliqué : « Maintenant que la guerre nous a été déclarée, nous conduirons le monde à la victoire. » Le 11 septembre 2001, en tout cas, les Etats-Unis ont essuyé des pertes supérieures à celles causées par toutes leurs opérations militaires menées successivement depuis vingt ans contre la Grenade, la Libye, le Panama, l'Irak, la Somalie, Haïti, l'Afghanistan, le Soudan et la Yougoslavie. Un tel événement — et la destruction d'une aile du Pentagone — méritait peut-être mieux que le traitement médiatique presque exclusivement compassionnel auquel il a d'abord donné lieu.
Œil pour œil… Devant les décombres du World Trade Center, 67 % des Américains ont admis que l'éventualité de « plusieurs milliers de victimes civiles innocentes » causées par une riposte militaire n'apaiserait pas leur soif de revanche (1). Sans doute imaginent-ils que ces victimes-là se trouveront dans le camp de leur adversaire. Ce qui compte moins. Pour eux. Et donc pour nous, puisque « nous sommes tous américains ».
Ce genre de citoyenneté ne va pas sans contraintes. Après avoir réclamé la liberté de conduire une politique étrangère dictée par leurs seuls intérêts, les Etats-Unis exigent en effet, au moment de l'épreuve, une solidarité sans faille, l'alignement de leurs alliés. « La coopération dans l'effort de guerre, prévient le Washington Post, doit être une exigence absolue. Tout refus de coopérer (…) devrait définir un adversaire de l'Amérique et entraîner des conséquences sérieuses, économiques ou militaires (2). »
On coopéra. Le 18 septembre 2001, lors d'une de ces innombrables émissions, « spéciales » à force d'être vides, réalisées en direct de New York par France-Inter, le journaliste de service crut bon d'égrener presque chaque minute l'heure de la côte Est. Elle était vraisemblablement devenue la nôtre. Tous américains, nous vivions à New York et nous parlions tous anglais. « Les attaques, précisa The International Herald Tribune, ont remis en cause l'idée que les autres pays, en particulier en Europe, pouvaient avoir des systèmes de valeur et des niveaux de confort proches de ceux de l'Amérique tout en refusant de s'impliquer dans la confrontation entre les Etats-Unis et les forces terroristes qui narguent l'Occident (3). »
Interrogé par France-Inter, le réalisateur Michael Cimino n'avait rien à dire. Mais il le disait de Los Angeles, et en anglais. La politologue-journaliste Nicole Bacharand, éblouie par son babillage, lui donna la réplique : « Thank you, Michael, and remember this : we are all Americans (4). » Et puis, le 14 septembre, sur France-Musiques : « Bonjour à tous. Aujourd'hui à midi, nous serons tous américains en faisant, trois minutes durant, silence. (…) Huit cents millions d'Européens communieront peu ou prou dans la même attitude à la même heure, rejoignant en cela vos quotidiens qui, le premier choc passé, s'arrêtent un instant ce matin pour se recueillir et réfléchir. » « Réfléchir », le mot fut donc prononcé au moins une fois pendant ces journées-là.
Peut-être inspiré par le grand instant de recueillement européen, Jean d'Ormesson adressa deux jours plus tard, par l'entremise du Figaro, une « Lettre ouverte au président Bush ». Il lui écrivait : « Vous connaissez le cri qui est sur toutes nos lèvres : “Nous sommes tous des Américains.” » Mais, pour Le Journal du dimanche, il était dit qu'on n'en resterait pas là : « Si c'est l'Amérique qui est en deuil, ce sont toutes les démocraties qui sont frappées. Et en danger. En ce sens, oui, nous sommes tous des Américains. »
« Nous » ? « Tous » ? Sans indiquer au nom de quelle autorité ils le faisaient — celle de l'information ? -, nombre de commentateurs dominants se sont ainsi jugés habilités à « nous » prescrire des appartenances collectives, des minutes de silence, des cris sur nos lèvres. Au moment où un journaliste présumé trop impertinent se voyait, lui, imposer « non pas trois minutes, mais une semaine de silence (5) », la démocratie attaquée nous valut même une revue de presse involontairement éclairante : « Lisez Jean-Marie Colombani à la “une” du Monde. Lisez Serge July, de Libération, Michel Schifres dans Le Figaro. Lisez la chronique de Jacques Julliard, l'éditorial de Jean Daniel dans Le Nouvel Observateur. Celui de Claude Imbert dans Le Point ou de Denis Jeambar dans L'Express. Lisez ces dizaines de pages, ces centaines d'articles qui expliquent finalement tous la même chose (6). » Oui, la même chose. Mais alors pourquoi tout lire ?
Et l'Etat opéra son retour. Désormais les marchés le réclamaient. Car, ainsi que l'annonça un de leurs plus loyaux interprètes, « la seule réponse qu'attendent les milieux d'affaires, les milieux économiques, c'est évidemment une réponse politique très forte, parce que c'est le système capitaliste même qui a été touché en son cœur (7) ». Le 17 septembre, peut-être pour rassurer les actionnaires épouvantés et conforter notre patriotisme désormais délocalisé, on annonça, à tort, que la baisse des cours avait été enrayée à Wall Street. Le correspondant de France-Inter précisa aussitôt : « Il s'agit de ne pas offrir une deuxième victoire aux ennemis de l'Amérique (8). »
Puis on s'interrogea : dans quel chaudron intellectuel et politique avait pu bouillonner autant de haine et de détermination ? La réponse ne tarda pas : « Les primates vociférateurs et casseurs de l'antimondialisation, en déshérence de maoïsme, s'en prennent en réalité à l'Amérique, synonyme de capitalisme. Cette obsession aboutit à une véritable déresponsabilisation du monde (9). » Complaisamment cité par un quotidien du matin que ce filon-là allait beaucoup mobiliser, un « décideur » économique trop longtemps bâillonné libéra enfin sa plume : « En s'attaquant à un tel symbole (le World Trade Center), les terroristes rejoignent le discours des antimondialistes, dont la parole est devenue omniprésente (10). » Très présents en effet sur les ondes pendant l'été, les « antimondialistes » se voyaient désormais sommés de rendre gorge : qui sème le vent récolte la tempête, New York permettrait d'effacer Gênes. Un journaliste américain à Paris commit ces quelques lignes : « L'horreur de ces avions détournés qui s'écrasent sur ce symbole du World Trade Center souligne l'absurdité de cette violence déplacée contre la mondialisation et renforce la main des autorités qui doivent y faire face. Diaboliser de manière violente les Etats-Unis et les organisations du commerce mondial s'apparente à présent à une entreprise potentiellement meurtrière (11). » World Trade Center ne signifiait-il pas Centre du commerce mondial… ?
Quand il apparut que, quelques jours avant l'attentat, Oussama Ben Laden avait peut-être spéculé de manière à profiter de la réaction prévisible des marchés à un événement dont il aurait eu connaissance avant les autres, nul n'eut l'idée sacrilège de mettre en cause le système capitaliste, les milliardaires et les délits d'initiés. Les galeux et les pelés avaient déjà été repérés ailleurs. Ainsi, interrogeant un dirigeant d'Attac-France sur les ondes d'Europe 1 (groupe Matra-Hachette-Lagardère), la journaliste-commissaire lui demanda : « Qu'est-ce que vous répondez à ceux qui disent : qui vole un œuf, vole un bœuf ? Je traduis : qui arrache un pied de maïs transgénique est capable un jour — on ne sait pas — de poser une bombe ? » Effectivement, on ne sait jamais…
On sait cependant que la pudeur qui recommandait de ne pas faire son miel de la mort de milliers de civils new-yorkais ne fut pas longtemps de mise. Des industriels profitèrent de l'émotion générale pour annoncer, en catimini, de gigantesques « plans sociaux ». Et, le 17 septembre, M. Franz-Christoph Zeitler, membre du conseil de la Bundesbank, estima que, « dans cette situation difficile psychologiquement et économiquement, la priorité est de maintenir le bon fonctionnement et la liquidité des marchés financiers. La discussion sur une nouvelle taxation des marchés internationaux des capitaux, telle que la taxe Tobin, est extrêmement contre-productive ». Ne serait-elle pas même carrément criminelle ?
(1) Sondage du New York Times, réalisé les 13 et 14 septembre 2001. La question posée était : « Les Etats-Unis doivent-ils prendre des mesures militaires contre les auteurs de l'attaque même si cela signifie que des milliers de civils innocents peuvent être tués ? »
(2) Editorial du Washington Post publié dans l'International Herald Tribune du 14 septembre 2001.
(3) John Vinocur, « The New World Order Is a Clash of Civilizations », International Herald Tribune, Paris, 13 septembre 2001. Hors Occident, et en particulier dans les pays du Sud, l'émotion causée par les événements fut moindre. Au Cameroun, par exemple, le journal Le Messager estima que « cet attentat-surprise a été à la mesure de l'arrogance avec laquelle le pays de George Bush tente aujourd'hui d'affirmer sur le monde une domination de mauvais aloi ».
(4) « Merci Michael, et souvenez-vous bien que nous sommes tous américains. »
(5) Daniel Mermet, comme il en fit lui-même la révélation sur France-Inter, le 17 septembre.
(6) France Info, 13 septembre 2001.
(7) Jean-Marc Sylvestre, TF1, 12 septembre 2001.
(8) Flash de 18 heures. Ce jour-là, Wall Street perdit 7,1 %.
(9) Jean-François Revel (de l'Académie française), « Pourquoi tant de haine ? », Le Point, 14 septembre 2001.
(10) Le Figaro Economie, 13 septembre 2001. Le site de l'Acrimed a réuni nombre de citations de ce type.
(11) John Vinocur, op. cit. Lire aussi « Terrorists Exploit Anti-Globalization », International Herald Tribune, 22-23 septembre 2001.
On n'avait plus vu cela depuis la mobilisation de 2003 contre la guerre d'Irak menée par MM. George W. Bush et Anthony Blair. Le 11 novembre dernier, selon les organisateurs, plus de 800 000 personnes auraient défilé à Londres en solidarité avec Gaza. Les manifestants ciblaient le gouvernement conservateur comme le Parti travailliste, qui lui aussi a pris fait et cause pour Israël.
Depuis le début de l'offensive israélienne contre Gaza, en octobre dernier, un fossé s'est creusé entre la classe politique et l'opinion publique britanniques. Le gouvernement conservateur de M. Rishi Sunak et l'opposition travailliste de M. Keir Starmer ont apporté un soutien sans réserve à la guerre menée par M. Benyamin Netanyahou au nom du droit d'Israël à se défendre.
Pourtant, la population britannique rejette l'idée selon laquelle Israël devrait bombarder l'enclave jusqu'à l'élimination du Hamas. En novembre, 59 % des personnes interrogées par YouGov souhaitaient qu'Israël mette un terme à sa campagne militaire, quand seulement 19 % d'entre elles se déclaraient favorables à sa poursuite. En février, 66 % des sondés soutenaient un cessez-le-feu et seulement 13 % d'entre eux la guerre contre les Palestiniens. Aujourd'hui, l'opinion publique demande l'arrêt des ventes d'armes aux Israéliens à une majorité de 56 %, contre 17 % qui réclament sa poursuite (1).
La présidente conservatrice de la commission des affaires étrangères à Westminster a révélé fin mars l'existence d'une note des services juridiques du gouvernement britannique établissant qu'Israël violait le droit humanitaire international. Comme une telle conclusion emporte que Londres cesse de vendre des armes à Tel-Aviv, l'exécutif a refusé de rendre public le document. Mais, le 1er avril, des frappes de missiles israéliennes ont tué trois salariés britanniques de l'organisation caritative World Central Kitchen avec quatre autres de leurs collègues, alors qu'ils apportaient de l'aide à Gaza. Le surlendemain, plus de six cents juristes et universitaires — dont trois juges retraités de la Cour suprême britannique — dénonçaient l'illégalité des ventes à l'armée israélienne (2).
Depuis plus de six mois, la solidarité avec le peuple palestinien donne lieu à des manifestations qui comptent parmi les plus massives de l'histoire moderne. Semaine après semaine et mois après mois, les rues de Londres et d'autres villes britanniques se remplissent de manifestants appelant au cessez-le-feu. La plus importante à ce jour a réuni plusieurs centaines de milliers de personnes. En réponse, le gouvernement Sunak a condamné les protestataires et cherché des moyens de les criminaliser.
En novembre, la ministre de l'intérieur a demandé à la police métropolitaine de Londres d'interdire la grande manifestation qui se préparait. Comme les officiers de police de la « Met » lui ont répondu qu'elle n'avait aucune raison légale de prendre une telle décision, Mme Suella Braverman a allégué que les manifestants entendaient profaner un mémorial de la Grande Guerre pour inciter des radicaux d'extrême droite à attaquer la marche, ce qui aurait donné un prétexte pour interdire de futurs rassemblements. Mais les militants excités par la ministre s'en sont pris aux forces de l'ordre et ont blessé plusieurs policiers, grièvement dans certains cas.
À la suite de ce fiasco, M. Sunak a dû exiger la démission de Mme Braverman, mais son gouvernement et la presse de droite ont poursuivi leurs attaques contre les manifestations en faveur du cessez-le-feu, qualifiées de « marches de la haine ». Dans leur viseur, toujours, le slogan « Du fleuve à la mer, la Palestine sera libre », qualifié d'antisémite.
Lorsqu'elle était encore ministre de l'intérieur, Mme Braverman avait recommandé aux services de police d'interpréter ce mot d'ordre comme l'« expression d'un violent désir de voir Israël rayé de la carte » et de punir son utilisation au nom du respect de l'ordre public (3). Dans un cas au moins, la police a suivi les instructions de la ministre : à Manchester, une jeune femme d'origine palestinienne a été arrêtée pour injure à caractère raciste parce qu'elle l'avait prononcé (4).
Les soutiens d'Israël prétendent discerner le « vrai » sens du slogan « Du fleuve à la mer, la Palestine sera libre » : ils y voient à coup sûr un appel au massacre ou à l'expulsion dès lors qu'il ne dit pas ce qu'il adviendra de la population juive d'Israël une fois cette aspiration satisfaite. Les Palestiniens et leurs alliés, qui martèlent qu'il s'agit en réalité d'un appel à l'égalité et non au nettoyage ethnique, se voient fréquemment refuser l'accès aux médias britanniques. Du reste, les défenseurs d'Israël invoquent à l'envi son « droit à se défendre » et son « droit à l'existence ». Or la première formule ne précise pas quelles méthodes l'État peut légitimement employer au nom de l'autodéfense, et la seconde ignore la question de l'existence d'un État palestinien, à côté d'Israël. Les Palestiniens les perçoivent certainement comme des menaces et des agressions, du moins telles qu'elles sont employées en règle générale par les principaux défenseurs de la guerre contre Gaza, mais les proférer ne vaudra à personne d'être poursuivi pour injure à caractère raciste.
Début mars, lors d'un discours prononcé devant le 10 Downing Street, M. Sunak a fait franchir un cap supplémentaire à la campagne gouvernementale contre le mouvement de solidarité avec la Palestine. Il a prétendu que les manifestations en faveur d'un cessez-le-feu avaient entraîné « une hausse choquante des perturbations et des actes criminels extrémistes », se traduisant notamment par des « intimidations, des menaces et la préparation d'actions violentes ». En réalité, la contestation, particulièrement pacifique et disciplinée, a donné lieu à moins d'arrestations qu'un festival de musique ou qu'un événement sportif de même ampleur (5). Le discours du premier ministre se fondait essentiellement sur des affirmations de journalistes prétendant sans la moindre preuve, que Londres tendrait à devenir une zone interdite aux Juifs (6).
Deux universitaires britanniques ont obtenu la condamnation pour diffamation de la ministre de la recherche Michelle Donelan, qui les avait qualifiés de soutiens du Hamas (7). Les archevêques de Canterbury et de York ont cru devoir s'inquiéter d'une approche qui « ciblerait de manière disproportionnée les musulmans » après que le gouvernement a confié au ministre aux communautés Michael Gove le soin d'élaborer une nouvelle définition de l'extrémisme : figure de proue de la droite néoconservatrice, M. Gove affirme en effet depuis longtemps que les musulmans britanniques représentent une menace pour la démocratie libérale ; à son initiative, les autorités considéreront désormais comme extrémiste toute velléité de saper les institutions ou les « valeurs » britanniques (8).
Les attaques contre le mouvement de solidarité avec la Palestine se nourrissent aussi des déclarations de personnalités gouvernementales affublées de titres orwelliens, tel M. John Woodcock : le « conseiller indépendant en matière de violences et de perturbations politiques » a récemment proposé que les principaux partis consentent à la « “tolérance zéro” à l'égard des groupes qui menacent la démocratie », par exemple Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) (9). « Si les opinions “extrémistes” sont illégales, s'inquiétait sur X, le 4 mars, la députée tory Miriam Cates, alors celui qui définit l'“extrémisme” a le pouvoir de restreindre la liberté d'expression, la liberté de religion, la liberté de la presse et la liberté d'association. C'est la voie vers l'autoritarisme. »
M. Woodcock est, lui, un ancien député travailliste, rallié à M. Boris Johnson en 2019. Mais nombre de députés de son ancien camp partagent son hostilité envers les manifestations contre la guerre à Gaza, à commencer par le dirigeant du parti, M. Starmer. Au début de l'offensive israélienne, ce dernier s'est dit convaincu qu'Israël avait le droit de couper l'eau et l'électricité aux civils de Gaza — action pourtant constitutive de crime de guerre. Face à l'indignation, M. Starmer a dû retirer ses propos, en alléguant contre l'évidence qu'il avait mal compris la question (10).
Il a par ailleurs suspendu deux parlementaires : M. Andrew McDonald, pour avoir déclaré, lors d'une manifestation à Londres : « Nous ne nous arrêterons pas tant que justice n'aura pas été faite. Tant que l'ensemble de la population, israélienne comme palestinienne, du fleuve à la mer, ne pourra vivre dans la liberté et la paix » ; et Mme Kate Osamor, parce qu'elle avait qualifié la guerre à Gaza de génocide, alors que la Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) avait déjà jugé recevable la plainte déposée par l'Afrique du Sud contre Israël. M. McDonald a réintégré son groupe parlementaire après la défaite essuyée par le Parti travailliste fin février, à l'occasion d'une élection partielle importante à Rochdale, dans l'agglomération de Manchester. Le vainqueur, M. George Galloway, ancien député travailliste devenu un électron libre, avait fait de ce scrutin un référendum contre le soutien de M. Starmer à Israël.
La victoire de M. Galloway est survenue à la suite d'une violente controverse. Quelques jours avant son élection, le Parti national écossais (SNP) avait déposé à la Chambre des communes une motion en faveur d'un cessez-le-feu. Le Labour désirait supprimer les références au « châtiment collectif du peuple palestinien » et au « massacre de civils innocents ». Il souhaitait aussi remplacer l'appel clair et net à un cessez-le-feu par des circonlocutions qui auraient donné à M. Netanyahou une marge de manœuvre suffisante pour poursuivre sa guerre. Selon la formulation proposée par les travaillistes, « les Israéliens ont le droit d'avoir la garantie que les horreurs du 7 octobre 2023 ne se reproduiront pas ». Mais il n'était nullement question du droit des Palestiniens à obtenir la garantie que les horreurs subies depuis le 7 octobre (et bien avant) ne se reproduiraient pas.
Comme M. Starmer ne voulait ni que ses députés votent contre la motion du SNP ni qu'ils s'abstiennent, il a imposé au président de la Chambre Lindsay Hoyle un vote des amendements travaillistes préalable à celui de la motion. Cette violation des règles de procédure parlementaire lui a permis d'empêcher le troisième parti de la Chambre de défendre une position reflétant l'opinion majoritaire dans le pays.
Le refus des travaillistes d'appeler clairement au cessez-le-feu contredit les opinions de ses propres partisans. En février, selon YouGov, 83 % des électeurs ayant voté pour le Labour lors de la précédente élection générale voulaient en effet qu'Israël mette un terme à sa campagne militaire. Seuls 3 % d'entre eux se déclaraient favorables à la poursuite des opérations. L'entêtement de M. Starmer à soutenir la guerre de M. Netanyahou procède de son refus de distinguer lutte contre l'antisémitisme et soutien à Tel-Aviv. Car l'association de la défense des droits des Palestiniens à l'hostilité aux Juifs lui sert à marginaliser la gauche de son parti depuis qu'il en a pris la direction, en 2020. Mais cette arme de lutte interne devient un problème politique majeur dans la perspective de l'élection générale.
Bien qu'une violence ininterrompue, émaillée de crimes de guerre, s'abatte depuis plus de six mois sur les civils palestiniens, les deux principaux partis britanniques restent inébranlables dans leur défense d'Israël. Et bien que des figures politiques aussi importantes que le conservateur Nicholas Soames, membre de la Chambre des lords, et le maire travailliste de Londres, M. Sadiq Khan, appellent désormais à l'arrêt des ventes d'armes, MM. Sunak et Starmer affirment encore à cette heure que le Royaume-Uni doit continuer à soutenir l'effort de guerre israélien. Même si cette position évoluait dans les semaines à venir, l'un et l'autre auront causé des dommages à leur réputation, ainsi qu'au crédit diplomatique de leur pays.
(Traduit de l'anglais par Nicolas Vieillescazes.)
(1) Patrick Wintour, « Majority of voters in UK back banning arms sales to Israel, poll finds », The Guardian, Londres, 3 avril 2024. Cf. aussi Matthew Smith, « Israel-Palestine : Fundamental attitudes to the conflict among Western Europeans », 20 décembre 2023, et « British attitudes to the Israel-Gaza conflict : February 2024 update », 15 février 2024.
(2) Alex Barton, « Former Supreme Court judges say government's arming Israel breaches international law », The Telegraph, Londres, 4 avril 2024.
(3) Rajeev Syal et Aubrey Allegretti, « Waving Palestinian flag may be a criminal offence, Braverman tells police », The Guardian, 10 octobre 2023.
(4) Haroon Siddique, « Police accused of stifling protest after Manchester arrest over Palestine chant », The Guardian, 21 mars 2024.
(5) Nandini Naira Archer, « Arrest rate at “openly criminal” Palestine protests is lower than Glastonbury », 7 février 2024.
(6) Ben Reiff, « A “no-go zone” for Jews ? The making of a moral panic in London », 13 mars 2024.
(7) Poppy Wood, « Donelan asked to explain secret dossier on academics after libel case », 8 mars 2024.
(8) Nadeem Badshah, « Archbishops of Canterbury and York warn against new extremism definition », The Guardian, 12 mars 2024. Cf. aussi Peter Oborne, « UK extremism : Michael Gove is turning British Muslims into an enemy within », 19 mars 2024.
(9) Elizabeth Short, « “Profoundly anti-democratic and repressive” », The Morning Star, Londres, 12 mars 2024.
(10) Alexandra Rogers, « Sir Keir Starmer seeks to clarify Gaza remarks following backlash from Labour councillors », 20 octobre 2023.
This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on Sep. 11, 2026. It is shared here with permission.
This week marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The United States has experienced much political and social upheaval since then, but the subsequent “War on Terror” paved the way for our current moment, and there are booming echoes of the era all around us.
Once again, the United States is waging a disastrous war in the Middle East with no discernible end in sight. Islamophobic rallies targeting NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani conjure up memories of the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy. The government designates activist and advocacy organizations as terrorists. The Guantánamo Bay detention camp remains open. In fact, a legal immigrant was just sent there.
CBS reveals that the Taliban seized roughly $7 billion worth of American-purchased military hardware after the United States officially lost that war 5 years ago.
“Taliban fighters patrol in armored vehicles once supplied to Afghan forces, wearing American tactical gear and carrying American weapons,” reads the report. “CBS News saw one Humvee in the Afghan capital still adorned with a faded Green Bay Packers decal — a remnant from its past operators.”
The small number of Americans who opposed that war were either dismissed or attacked. So too were those who warned that the Bush administration’s overreach would result in disaster.
“The civil libertarians were mostly ignored, and as one new threat followed another — Iraq, ISIS, ‘lone wolves’ — the president’s reach continued to grow. Across the Bush and Obama administrations, the commander in chief was given, or simply took, new powers to prosecute, shut down and seize the assets of alleged terrorist groups and their supporters,” writes Radley Balko in the New York Times. “With the arrival of armed drones, the president assumed the right to remotely assassinate anyone, anywhere outside U.S. borders, at any time, including American citizens.”
“If the ratcheting diminishment of our liberties came slowly and sometimes without much outcry under Presidents Bush, Obama and Joe Biden, the consequences of all those years of expanded presidential power are plainly visible now,” he continues. “Mr. Trump is using every authority we have given the president since Sept. 11, 2001, and some we haven’t, in ways the civil libertarians had tried to warn us about at the start.”
One of the major differences between the current war on Iran and Bush’s war on Iraq is that a sizable chunk of the population fell for the administration’s lies back then. The polling shows that’s not the case this time around, and, despite information from the region being consistently repressed, there seems to be a growing understanding that the United States military is losing quite badly.
They say Americans don’t vote based on foreign policy, but that isn’t exactly true. Many people voted for Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary because he opposed the Iraq War. People voted for Trump because he claimed he wouldn’t launch any new wars. It’s quite obvious that Kamala Harris’s connection to Israel’s genocide hurt her at the polls.
Whether or not this typically translates into policy shifts is a separate debate.
Obama’s election effectively killed the domestic antiwar movement, and he launched the largest assassination campaign in world history. Trump’s rhetoric predictably turned out to be nonsense. The Democratic Party’s establishment certainly didn’t rethink its Israel policy as a result of the Harris loss.
This is all to say that the war in Iran, which the administration now says might last through 2029, could help propel the Democrats back into power during the midterms, but will that actually result in a foreign policy reset?
In recent weeks, Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls have directed their anger toward Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, hoping to quash the party’s left flank before the 2028 nomination process. For them, it’s an existential battle that transcends the question of which party may or may not control Congress at any given time and there’s no broader discussion about reversing our current course beyond removing Trump from office.
Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, was recently attacked for an old 9/11 tweet in which he expressed sympathy for those who died on that day and those who were killed in the wars after.
“Today, I mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith,” it read. “Tomorrow, I’ll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country.”
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, an additional 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, which brings the overall death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.
25 years after 9/11, the American Empire is undoubtedly in decline, but its demise seemingly remains far off, and we’ve yet to collectively reckon with its ongoing crimes.
Roberto Pecchioli
La Compagnia della Buona Morte era una confraternita il cui scopo era garantire a tutti
una degna sepoltura ed assistere spiritualmente e materialmente i morenti. I membri
indossavano sai e cappucci per sottolineare che la morte azzera le differenze tra nobili e
umili, ricchi e poveri. Erano tempi in cui si pensava che la vita appartenesse a Dio e che nel
trapasso di dovesse esprimere il destino trascendente della creatura umana. Brutti tempi:
superstizione , false credenze, illusioni alimentate dalla religione alleata con il potere. Oggi
è molto meglio: la Compagnia della Buona Morte resiste in forme diverse. Si chiama
eutanasia, disprezzo e indifferenza per la vita. Ai suoi massimi banditori come Emma
Bonino sono riconosciuti funerali di Stato. Solidarietà necrofila: aborto non come
possibilità in casi specifici, ma diritto universale; morte di Stato; infanticidio in via di
sdoganamento in alcune legislazioni; tendenza a giustificare l’omicidio dei figli, se
commesso da madri in crisi. Il processo a Lindsay Clancy, l’americana che ha ammazzato i
suoi tre bambini, si è concluso senza un verdetto.
La sepoltura cade in disuso: l’homo sapiens odia talmente se stesso da distruggere il corpo
defunto. Chi opta per disperdere le ceneri, chi preferisce diventare compostaggio, chi
conserva i resti in un’urna sul comò. La morte viene nascosta nel gelido scenario di
ospedali, amministrata igienicamente in camice bianco da personale specializzato,
somministrata come liberazione da vite “non degne di essere vissute “. La pratica
dell’eutanasia – buona morte, dal greco- è vista come atto supremo di civilizzazione
dell’animale sapiente che annulla se stesso. Il consenso è ampiamente maggioritario, come
sull’aborto e sulla disponibilità del corpo morente a diventare un magazzino di pezzi da
asportare. Nell’era del materialismo compiuto che non rispetta alcunché se può servire al
mercato misura di tutte le cose, l’essere umano vale meno del maiale, di cui non si butta via
niente.
Abolito il concetto di anima, su cui tace anche la chiesa, resta l’ingombro del corpo, il
fastidio della malattia, della vecchiaia, del declino mentale. Oplà, la soluzione è pronta,
civilissima, igienica, altruistica. La Compagnia della Buona Morte ci fa morire a richiesta,
previa compilazione di un modulo scaricabile online . Con sprezzo della realtà- grande
assente nel manicomio occidente- la corte costituzionale ha stabilito che non si può
accedere al suicidio assistito ( l’officina della neolingua è sempre attiva) se non si è
considerati dagli “esperti” convocati alla bisogna, la necro burocrazia, capaci di intendere e
volere. Come se la condizione di chi rifiuta la vita fosse uguale a quella di chi è sano e felice.
Il sistema ha avvelenato tutti i pozzi e la grande maggioranza è convinta che aborto e
eutanasia siano avanzamenti di civiltà. I temi sono troppo profondi e delicati, attengono
alle fibre più drammatiche e alle angosce più profonde per essere trattati con negazioni
assolute o applausi scroscianti. E’ proprio la semplificazione, la convinzione che l’esistenza
valga solo a determinate condizioni e addirittura si abbia il diritto a decidere anche sugli
altri – i non nati, i malati gravi, gli invalidi- a sconcertare chi ancora si interroga sui
fondamenti dell’esistenza. Nessuno stupore se avanza la sottocultura della morte
amministrata, scelta, talora perfino pretesa come atto supremo di potere su se stessi. La
Compagnia della Buona Morte ha prima cambiato il senso della vita e le priorità dei sudditi
chiamati cittadini, poi ha sferrato l’attacco. Il sistema dominante possiede le tecnologie, ha
scoperto molte leggi della natura e della fisica. Gran parte dell’umanità è un ingombro,
fastidioso bestiame dotato di cervello, parola, diritti. Non più quelli naturali alla vita e alla
dignità, ma quelli inventati dal sistema.
Dopo aver convinto che avere figli è un fastidio, una responsabilità insopportabile, un peso
per la libertà, la realizzazione individuale, il piacere e il consumo, è stato facile chiamare
diritto sopprimere chi non potrà nascere. Il feto viene smaltito come rifiuto organico
oppure utilizzato in alcune lavorazioni industriali. L’homo oeconomicus non butta via ciò
che può essere venduto all’ homo consumens. Si comincia a giustificare addirittura la
soppressione del figlio, se la madre vive il disagio post parto, molto diffuso nelle società
individualiste in cui non esiste più famiglia o comunità che condivide, allevia, accoglie il
nuovo nato. Diventati adulti, entriamo trionfanti nel girone del consumo e delle
dipendenze. Inevitabilmente, arrivano delusioni, tragedie esistenziali, malattie, sconfitte.
La terapia è il suicidio. Puoi sparire da solo – quattromila suicidi all’anno in Italia- o con la
fattiva collaborazione delle istituzioni e dei suoi agenti, il boia collettivo. Il sistema
prospetta la “buona” morte come soluzione. A una giovane canadese paraplegica è stato
proposto il suicidio come alternativa alla costosa rimozione delle barriere architettoniche.
Tutte le campagne eutanasiche sono state finanziate dal potere economico. Siamo un costo,
un fardello insostenibile: meglio convincere a togliersi definitivamente dai piedi.
Incredibile è chi ci riesca: ben scavato, vecchia talpa. Così esclamò Amleto salutando il
fantasma del padre che aveva rivelato gli inganni della corte; così ripeté Marx descrivendo
il cammino sotterraneo della rivoluzione.
La cultura del consumo, dell’attimo da cogliere a ogni costo ed esaurire nel nonsenso
quando non siamo più giovani, performanti, sani, ha per conseguenza il disprezzo della
vita. Diventati fragili o malati, meglio levare il disturbo. Disturbiamo il bilancio pubblico, il
profitto del sistema assicurativo e sanitario, sconvolgiamo la vita di chi ci circonda, quando
c’è. Dietro le luci abbaglianti del gran teatro si ammassano i detriti di una civiltà che non
vuole saperne di rinunciare allo spettacolo. Chi non può o non vuole partecipare, si
accomodi all’uscita. Nelle società benestanti abbiamo conquistato il diritto di morire; in
quelle povere la preoccupazione è la sopravvivenza. Si chiama progresso. Si aggira in
Occidente lo spettro di un benessere indolore, di una società senza sofferenza, di una vita
senza agonia. Le élite dominanti non saranno sostituite, i proprietari dei mezzi di
produzione non cambieranno, i conflitti non cesseranno, ma il nuovo capitalismo,
autodefinito inclusivo e sostenibile, fornirà i mezzi per evitare disperazione, dolore,
afflizione, a chi è stato persuaso di non valere e non essere nulla, se non massa biologica da
sostenere con sostanze chimiche per vivere senza lamentarsi e per morire senza protestare.
In qualche paese sopprimono anche i bambini: dicono che lo hanno scelto loro, all’età in
cui non si è ancora elaborato bene e male, vita e morte. Se non hai un futuro, se non sei
utile a lungo termine o il dolore è troppo grande, c’è la soluzione che tutto azzera. Se la
chimica che dà la vita non basta più, abbiamo a disposizione la chimica letale. Se nessuno
può garantire una vita dignitosa -la promessa dello Stato sociale- possiamo però avere la
morte amministrata senza rimorso a norma di legge, previo verbale delle operazioni svolte.
Malati e disabili, depressi ed emarginati, giovani senza futuro e anziani decrepiti, poveri e
disoccupati: se lo Stato non si cura di loro e il Mercato li ignora per scarso potere
d'acquisto, basterà una semplice iniezione per smettere di soffrire, piangere e lottare
quando il corpo si deteriora, la mente si affievolisce e non si è utili per lavorare,
consumare, rivendicare “diritti”. La buona morte sarà inclusiva: potremo richiederla per
esercitare il diritto a non disturbare, a non essere un peso, a non soffrire. È a disposizione
qualcosa di più sofisticato del soma, la droga euforizzante del Mondo Nuovo di Aldous
Huxley; dobbiamo approfittarne. Contribuiremo a salvare il pianeta sfoltendo l’umanità
eccedente, sgradite alle élite divenute progressiste. Avere figli è inutile, il tempo delle
rivoluzioni è passato. Senza la coscienza di essere schiavi fungibili, sopportiamo senza
reagire. Ai sopravvissuti continuerà a essere detto che le innumerevoli dipendenze fornite
dal sistema, nonostante gli effetti indesiderati, rappresentano la salvezza dal buio passato e
la promessa di libertà del futuro. Ci hanno convinti che ognuno è dio di se stesso; uccidere
per “compassione” sarà legale, un diritto inalienabile in continua evoluzione. Prima per
coloro che non hanno speranza, poi per i fragili, infine per tutti gli altri. O una vita
funzionale o la morte di Stato. Se il consumismo non permette più di sfuggire ai problemi,
se ti stanchi di usare e buttare via cose e relazioni, se le dipendenze mostrano il loro vero
volto, se nessuno ti sostiene quando il corpo cede e la mente vacilla, una semplice,
economica iniezione ti fornirà la perfetta soluzione.
Il materialismo adempirà la sua profezia: non saremo uguali nella vita, ma nella morte.
Selezione naturale. L'eugenetica, in versione democratica e umanitaria, ha spianato la
strada. Con i diritti civili di nuova generazione il darwinismo sociale raggiungerà livelli
senza precedenti: colpirà malati depressi, bambini depressi, anziani depressi. L’eutanasia è
applicata in modo discreto e rapido: nessuno ascolterà l’ultimo sospiro. Nessuno deve
soffrire, nessuno può dettare le nostre scelte, nessuno deve dirci come lasciare questo
mondo; possono toglierci i mezzi di produzione, ma non quelli di distruzione. La morte
assistita è un tuo diritto e devi esigerlo: un servizio pubblico gratuito erogato senza
indugio. Non ci saranno classi sociali nell'eutanasia. Smetteremo di essere imperfetti in un
mondo che vende la perfezione, disfunzionali in un meccanismo funzionale, sconfiggeremo
il dolore con l’ analgesico definitivo. Che bellezza morire per sfuggire la sofferenza che non
riusciamo a sopportare.
Il cinema, controllato dall’oligarchia dominante che sparge il seme dei nuovi valori,
anticipa i tempi . Nel film I figli degli uomini (2006) si parla di Quietus, la pillola per il
suicidio, commercializzata legalmente, sponsorizzata dallo Stato e pubblicizzata in TV.
Non finiremo all'inferno. Nessun Dio può giudicarci per una scelta sovrana. È la “mia” fine,
nient’altro, di un qualsiasi prodotto con data di scadenza legalmente definita o
obsolescenza programmata. Marx insegnava che l'uomo è l'essere supremo per l'uomo. Lo
hanno preso in parola seguaci e avversari. Non siamo liberi nell’esistenza, però possiamo
decidere quando fare l'iniezione letale, anzi liberatrice. Di fronte al declino della vita,
legalmente saremo eguali: chiunque, sena dolore, potrà essere trasformato in polvere. La
Compagnia della Buona Morte comanda di sparire “con dignità”. Niente cure palliative,
affetto, assistenza spirituale. Nell’obitorio progressista siamo semplici prodotti. Scarti,
falliti, sofferenti, non aspiriamo a vivere meglio dei vostri genitori, ma a morire meglio
L'articolo La Compagnia della Buona Morte proviene da Blondet & Friends.
France is accelerating work on the Rafale F5 standard, bringing forward development of a major new configuration of its combat aircraft at a time when the country’s planned next-generation fighter with Germany has effectively collapsed in its original form. The contracts cover the equipment judged to have the highest technical risk, ahead of the overall development contract for the F5 standard, expected for the end of this year.
The French defense procurement agency, the Direction générale de l’armement (DGA), ordered the first upstream development work for F5 from Dassault Aviation, Thales, MBDA, and Safran. The contracts cover key areas including navigation, datalinks, radar, electronic warfare, and propulsion, laying the groundwork for the next configuration of the Rafale, which is planned to enter service with the French Air and Space Force and the French Navy starting around 2033.
#Commande | Rafale F5
— Direction générale de l'armement
La DGA commande les 1ers travaux en amont du prochain lancement en réalisation du standard F5 du Rafale
Ils concernent notamment :
The most extensive modernization of the Rafale yet, the F5 standard was originally part of a longer transition toward France’s next-generation combat-air capability. But with the Franco-German New Generation Fighter (NGF) effort now effectively dead in its original configuration, the accelerated F5 program is taking on a much larger strategic role.
Rather than simply keeping the Rafale relevant until NGF arrives, France is now developing a version of the aircraft that is set to carry much of the country’s high-end combat-air capability well into the 2030s and potentially beyond.
The increasingly capable F5 could, in turn, reduce the urgency of finding a replacement for the Rafale — while potentially adding to the fighter’s export appeal. After a slow start, Dassault has recorded export sales of 299 new-build Rafales to eight nations.
The DGA’s contracts engage four of France’s principal combat-aircraft industrial players. Dassault Aviation remains responsible for the aircraft and its overall integration; Thales is involved in major sensor, electronic warfare, and communications capabilities; MBDA is responsible for much of the weapons system; and Safran is responsible for propulsion.
Previous Rafale standards have largely consisted of incremental upgrades, focusing on software and other improvements to the existing aircraft configuration. F5 is notably more extensive, addressing many of the critical systems that determine how the aircraft senses the battlespace, communicates with other platforms, conducts electronic warfare, and generates the power needed to operate increasingly demanding equipment.
The DGA has specifically identified the Thales RBE2-XG radar as one of the major technological advances associated with F5.
The RBE2-XG is expected to feature gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductors. Compared with previous technology, GaN generates less heat and has the capacity to operate at higher voltages, meaning that output power can be increased, while component size can be reduced. Overall, using GaN should help to get more power out of the radar without increasing its size.
According to the DGA, “This new radar will benefit from a substantial increase in power, and consequently in detection range, as well as improvements in the identification of targets with an extremely low radar cross-section (RCS). Its computing capabilities will also be enhanced to facilitate the integration of artificial intelligence.”
The RBE2-XG will also be “designed with collaborative combat in mind, featuring sensors capable of working together without the need for pilot intervention.” It is also planned to have enhanced resilience, including against cyber threats.
France is already working on the concept of a combat drone to accompany the Rafale, with the future F5 standard providing the crewed aircraft around which those systems can operate.
The new radar will be combined with more capable electronic warfare equipment, improved communications and datalinks, expanded processing capacity, and a more capable propulsion system.
To be developed by MBDA and Thales, the forthcoming F5 version of the SPECTRA self-protection suite is intended to significantly improve detection and jamming capabilities, the DGA says, “through a fully digital approach, enabling a complete overhaul of the core electronic warfare system to counter the increasing density and broadening of the threat spectrum, as well as the growing complexity of threat waveforms, expected by 2035.”
Thales will also be responsible for the new Inter-Vehicle Data Link (IVDL) system, described as a “stealthy and resilient datalink.” The DGA says the new datalink will expand connectivity “thanks to a new high-speed, discreet, and jamming-resistant waveform. IVDL will allow the Rafale to penetrate hostile areas where jammers are widespread, while maintaining optimal quality of communication and dialogue between aircraft.”
Safran will begin preliminary design work on the M88 T-Rex engine, which is planned to increase the turbofan’s thrust from around 16,500 pounds to nearly 19,850 pounds, an increase of roughly 20 percent.
In terms of armament, the contract announcement mentions the ASN4G missile, set to be introduced to service by 2035, which will allow the Rafale F5 to continue to serve as the airborne nuclear component. The munition remains in the early stages of development, but it will be capable of hypersonic speeds — defined as speeds greater than Mach 5 — with a range in excess of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles).
Other likely new missiles include a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile to succeed the current Meteor. As you can read about here, France’s Comet program, apparently led by the French side of MBDA, is already looking into this requirement, with an apparent plan to introduce the weapon around 2030.
An older video from MBDA showing some of the company’s weapons integrated on earlier versions of the Rafale:
For France, the original logic behind the pan-European FCAS program was that Rafale would eventually give way to the NGF as its principal crewed combat aircraft, operating from land bases and aircraft carriers.
With the collapse of the Franco-German effort, France cannot simply wait for a next-generation fighter program whose industrial and political future is uncertain. Instead, the Rafale has to remain capable against rapidly evolving threats throughout the 2030s and beyond.
With the F5 standard, however, France is looking to incorporate some of the concepts envisaged for NGF. These include distributed architectures in which crewed fighters, uncrewed aircraft, remote carriers, missiles, and offboard sensors cooperate across a battlespace.
A highly upgraded Rafale operating as the crewed controller of uncrewed combat aircraft and remote weapons could perform some of the missions that France originally expected from NGF.
For now, F5 also sidesteps the central problem in the now-defunct Franco-German effort: whether the two countries could agree on the requirements, industrial structure, and workshare behind a new-generation combat aircraft.
Despite its advances, the F5 airframe remains derived from a design dating back to the 1980s, which first entered French service in the early 2000s. In particular, it falls well short of fifth-generation designs — let alone sixth-generation ones — in terms of low observability. This is one area where collaborative drones could potentially help compensate for the Rafale’s inherent limitations.
France has therefore bought itself some time with the F5 program. But it may eventually decide that it needs a future high-end crewed fighter to provide capabilities that an upgraded fourth-generation airframe cannot fully replicate, particularly in terms of survivability against advanced integrated air-defense systems, signature reduction, internal weapons carriage, and operations deep inside heavily contested airspace.
On an industrial level, F5 is also significant because it brings together the same French industrial heavyweights that would have formed the backbone of its FCAS effort. Dassault Aviation, Thales, Safran, and MBDA are now well-positioned to work together on whatever comes after F5, whether that is a crewed combat aircraft, uncrewed CCA-type platforms, or a combination of both. Based on its experience with the nEUROn program, France would be well placed to develop a UCAV that can work cooperatively as well as independently, taking over the deeper-penetrating fighter mission set, and potentially skipping a sixth-generation fighter altogether.
Meanwhile, success with F5 — and, in particular, with the wider combat ecosystem planned around it — could put France in an even stronger position when it comes to any future European fighter project.
For the time being, Britain, Italy, and Japan are pursuing the GCAP/Tempest pathway toward a new combat aircraft. Germany and Spain remain tied to the wider FCAS architecture, even as the original Franco-German NGF arrangement has fractured. Sweden’s position is less clear, with indications that it could collaborate with either France or Germany.
France, for its part, is now investing heavily in an increasingly sophisticated Rafale architecture while maintaining its own sovereign industrial base.
In terms of acqusition, France is expected to pursue a mixed approach, buying new-build Rafales while upgrading suitable aircraft already in service to the F5 standard. The oldest jets are unlikely to receive the full F5 treatment, however.
The irony is that the failure of the NGF effort may ultimately make Rafale F5 more important — and potentially more capable — than it was ever expected to be.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
The post France Accelerates Rafale F5 Upgrade After Collapse Of FCAS Next-Gen Fighter Project appeared first on TWZ.
Israeli paper Haaretz (Lean Left bias) reported on Tuesday that just before Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Hamas was planning a major operation against Israel. Netanyahu has since described the report as "false."
The Report: Haaretz said bin Zayed was surprised that Netanyahu reacted calmly when he told him this, and assured him Israel was prepared for any scenario. The paper also reported speaking to "a close adviser to bin Zayed, a Palestinian who had emigrated years ago from Gaza to Abu Dhabi and maintained strong ties in the Strip." The adviser said bin Zayed "explained that, in his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event" and "hoped that despite his reserved response, Netanyahu would take the message seriously and take action."
2023 Political Context: Haaretz reported speaking to a Palestinian official also trusted by Israeli intelligence who said Israel and Gaza were closer than ever to a deal during the summer of 2023 and that the only main thing to be worked out was prisoner exchanges. Haaretz framed this as happening amid "ongoing internal upheaval in Israel." Haaretz wrote, "Netanyahu repeatedly postponed [finalizing the hostage deal]. Perhaps he did so out of fear of reaching an agreement with Hamas, or perhaps out of fear of the reaction from his extremist partners in his new government."
Netanyahu's Response: Netanyahu's office told Haaretz its investigation is an "absolute lie" and that "Netanyahu didn't speak to the president of the UAE during the period in question and received no warning from him." Netanyahu said on behalf of his Likud party that the report was politically motivated and demanded that a criminal investigation be opened into Haaretz, the reporters, and his political opponent Yair Golan and his Democrats party. His office also said, "This is a sinister libel with clear political timing, as part of the left's election campaign, and there will be more such false libels."
UAE Comment: The UAE's Foreign Ministry said it "does not comment on reports or speculations published in the media regarding conversations between government leaders."
Current Political Context: Israel will hold parliamentary elections on October 27. Netanyahu's "right-wing" Likud party has held a significant lead in polls, though in recent months the "centrist" Yashar party has closed the gap, even leading in some polls. Most recently, Netanyahu has called on right-wing leaders Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich to unite their parties since Smotrich's party is currently polling below the threshold of votes needed to enter parliament.
Biden Admin Misinfo?: Haaretz also claimed that immediately after the October 7 attacks, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani told Israel Hamas was ready to release all the hostages it had taken. Israel reportedly did not want to speak to Hamas, so al-Thani then called Biden administration Secretary of State Antony Blinken to request help in mediating a release deal. Haaretz reported that Blinken said "there's no one to talk to" and that he would "speak with Netanyahu personally" in three days. Of the reporting, Blinken wrote on X, "For the record, this is false. Complete fiction."
RELATED: USAID Report Claims Over 100 UNRWA Employees Participated in October 7 Attacks | AllSides
Past Speculation: Haaretz noted that on October 9, 2023, Israeli outlet Ynet reported that one week before the attack, Egypt's intelligence chief Abbas Kamel warned Netanyahu that "something fierce will happen from Gaza." One year ago, Haaretz reported that the Nova music festival – where, on October 7, 378 Israelis were killed and 44 were taken hostage – was originally slated to end on October 6 but was permitted to extend to October 7 by the IDF. Haaretz said at the time that the IDF had expressed concern that the festival took place too close to Gaza. Notably, in American media, five days after the October 7 attacks, Charlie Kirk (Right) appeared on the Patrick Bet-David Podcast and questioned why Israel took so long to respond to Hamas' attack. He argued that in the nine months leading up to the attack, Israel was "on the brink of civil war" and framed the attack as a "mandate" for Netanyahu's government to "try to ethnically cleanse Gaza."
How The Media Covered It: Haaretz's original report was picked up by several major mainstream US publications. NBC News (Lean Left) described it as a "political bombshell." The New York Post (Right) described it similarly in its headline, though as a "bombshell" that Netanyahu "furiously" disputed. Several major outlets also covered Netanyahu's denial and plans to sue Haaretz. In its coverage of this, The Times of Israel (Center) reported that "an Emirati source familiar with the conversation confirmed the Haaretz newspaper's report to The Times of Israel on Tuesday." Haaretz has stood by its reporting.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
An engineer at Anthropic, the company that owns the artificial intelligence (AI) model Claude, resigned and starkly warned the public about the dangers of AI.
The Details: Jacob Coxon performed pre-training research at Anthropic and OpenAI, the owner of ChatGPT, for the last three years. After his resignation, Coxon said that "neither company is acting responsibly" and posted a thread on X, which read, "Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources… The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." Another researcher at Anthropic, Evan Hubinger, responded that many researchers "really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade." Hubinger continued, "I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to."
For Context: In July, an AI model by OpenAI allegedly hacked the AI company Hugging Face with no human direction. Anthropic and Meta also acknowledged that some of their own AI models had carried out rogue hacks. A bill called the "AI Kill Switch Act" that would give Congress the authority to turn off AI models that threaten the public was introduced to the House of Representatives after the Hugging Face hacking incident, according to CBS News (Lean Left bias).
How the Media Covered It: Fortune (Center) wrote that both Anthropic and OpenAI "seem to be struggling to find the right balance between prioritizing safety research—and public messaging about AI safety—and prioritizing model development." Fortune also noted calls to action from several AI employees, including Coxon, who asked, "If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Should you put your head down because 'it's happening anyway'—or take this moment to call for different conditions?" New York Post (Lean Right) highlighted an X thread from one of Anthropic's safety experts, Samuel Marks, who wrote, "I work on safety research at Anthropic because I hope my work will reduce the chance of these extinction-level bad outcomes." CBS noted that the notion that AI has the potential to threaten humanity "is not new," and "many top executives within both OpenAI and Anthropic have stated as much in the past."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Login.jpg){kind=link}