TapNewsWire.com |  Pete Fairhurst

LewRockwell.com

Donald Jeffries | I Protest |donaldjeffries.substack.com

The 25th anniversary of 9/11 has really brought out the trolls. I don’t know how many of them are paid, but X has been invaded by illogic, as an army of shills attempts lamely to prop up one of their most important lies. It’s the same insidious hivemind mentality that insists we ignore every giant cultural elephant destroying the room.

In September, 1976, as a result of the new Freedom of Information Act, a revealing April 1, 1967 CIA memo was released, titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.” April 1? Was this one of their inside jokes? At any rate, the memo begins by stating “Our concern,” which revolves around the majority of the public disbelieving the ridiculous conclusions of the Warren Commission. Now why would the CIA be “concerned” about people failing to accept the government’s conclusions? A key passage notes: “Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” Bingo, as my wife might say. This is the crux of the biscuit, and why “conspiracy theorists” are continuously demonized. Thought Criminals like me do indeed seek to “cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” They whine about allegations that Oswald worked for the Agency. He did. He had a 201 file.

In the section headlined “Action,” the CIA helpfully advises that the subject of the assassination not be brought up. You know, like a young Don Jeffries was doing at every possible public gathering. In a tip of the hat to Operation Mockingbird, the Agency suggests that Conspiracy Deniers “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation…Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose…” We’d have to update the language here. Circa 2026, this would mean employing propaganda assets on late night talk shows, comedians, and social media “influencers” with lots of followers.

The sentiments there are universal, and apply to everything in the same sphere as the assassination. I’m culturally appropriating “Denier” from them. The majority of our fellow human beings are Conspiracy Deniers. This means essentially that they are capable of denying their own senses. As Winston Smith told us in 1984, “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” That is exactly what these Conspiracy Deniers are doing every day. Rejecting the evidence of their eyes and ears. From denying the racial reality of ghetto culture, and the wildly disproportionate power of the non-Irish, to swallowing every incredibly stupid and impossible theory from single-bullet to trickle-down. From saluting a flag that now stands for foreign misbehavior and a domestic police state, to trudging to the polls, in rain, or sleet, or snow, to vote for the worst people on earth to not represent them. Voting harder. Mistaken at the top of their lungs.

Although the ones we’re saddled with today are especially obtuse and unreasoning, they’ve always comprised most of the public. Orwell again characterized them perfectly with his sheep in Animal Farm. That’s another term we owe Orwell for. The Sheeple. They’re the unwitting, unthinking army of the conspirators. They refused to join the courageous Daniel Shays just after our War for Independence, when he started a rebellion over the mistreatment, and nonpayment of colonial soldiers. They were the ones reporting their neighbors to Lincoln’s goons during the War Between the States, resulting in them being thrown into makeshift prisons, without any due process. They bought all the false flags, from “Remember the Maine” to “Remember Pearl Harbor,” and their voices were always the loudest. They cheered on the Gulf War, in defense of a tiny oligarchy (Kuwait) none of them had even heard of before. They didn’t care that the government killed the Branch Davidians. They were “crazy.”

As you can see by the illustration above, we are still vastly outnumbered. The fact that this source claims only 47 percent of Americans believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy is astounding. It may be just one of their countless lies, but there is at least some truth in it. In the 1970s, polls showed close to 90 percent of people believed in a JFK conspiracy. Only 19 percent believe in chemtrails? Are they refusing to look up at the sky? Only 23 percent think 9/11 was an Inside Job? If these numbers are remotely accurate, then we have an even more monumental task in front of us. With an increasing reliance on the internet, and not the state controlled television networks, for news and information, how can it be possible that so many continue to be Conspiracy Deniers? Just how obvious do the conspiracies have to be? The coverups are purposefully transparent; they want you to know. They enjoy toying with us. And yet, no matter how obvious they make it, the masses absolutely refuse to think.

When DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s little black book of important political persons was revealed, she went on Alex Jones and publicly proclaimed she would never kill herself. And then she was found hanged. The Conspiracy Deniers believed she took her own life. Virginia Giuffre said the same thing. You know, the girl who was ignored by everyone for years, and then suddenly became a martyr for the ones who survived being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. The Conspiracy Deniers don’t think she was murdered, either. They don’t think anyone connected to anything politically significant has ever been murdered. As the authorities always quickly determine, “no evidence of foul play.” John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress underage nymphet Jodie Foster. Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk because he was a transgender in love. Or was it a “Furry” in love? They really don’t even need the “friendly assets” the CIA talked about in 1967. The Conspiracy Deniers handle things perfectly fine on their own.

Most of you have heard me talk about the overriding narrative that rules us; the conspiracy to deny any significance, any spiritual reason for our existence. A conspiracy against the supernatural. A conspiracy against God. They push randomness relentlessly. We are just a mere speck, on a slightly larger speck, in an endless universe. Black Holes. Quasars. Primordial soup. Lots of empty “scientific” mumbo jumbo, which somehow impresses the Conspiracy Deniers. Just don’t mention miracles. Or morality. Or eternal redemption. Or utter the name Jesus Christ, unless it’s in vain and you’re not a believer. Then it’s really, really cool. But worship Einstein all you want. A half illiterate who never learned to tie his shoes. But a non-Irish icon. Ask a real genius, Nikola Tesla, what he thought of him. The Conspiracy Deniers have no problem with the missing Tesla files, confiscated by Donald Trump’s uncle for the government. Sure, many of them have TDS themselves, but that is irrelevant.

Some “conspiracy theories” are absurd. The Black “community” believes in many of them. They have basically nailed the larger truth that our leaders are at war with us, but they think they’re only at war with Black people. They believe that random “White Supremacists” are kidnapping random Blacks off the streets and lynching them. And that the police are involved in covering this up. Now, the police are usually involved in covering up something, most frequently the actions of their out of control officers. But no one is lynching Blacks. No one is even lynching Thought Criminals, as far as I know. They knock some of us off, every so often, just as a reminder. I also confess to being confused by the Mandela Effect thing. Some Millennials contend that Nelson Mandela actually died before he did, and this somehow has resulted in other “truths” being changed. Like the Berenstain Bears books, for example. I don’t pretend to understand. But then again, I don’t think Mandela was any kind of hero, either.

It’s always been easier to just call names. Debate is difficult, especially when you have no facts on your side. This is the dilemma the average Conspiracy Denier must deal with. So they scoff at us “nut jobs.” Or “wackos.” Or their favorite, “retards.” During the COVID psyop, “dangerous” became a popular term of derision. Lots of people called me that. The more conventionally educated ones will fall back upon appeals to authority. They will invariably mention the “someone would have talked” nonsense. “Do you now how many people would have had to be involved” in faking the moon landing, or covering up 9/11? “You can’t keep a secret in Washington, D.C.” is another chestnut. Actually, D.C. is full of secrets, official and otherwise. Every still classified JFK assassination document attests to that. The redactions on every begrudgingly released file attests to that. All the dead whistleblowers, who were obviously “talking,” attest to that. Someone has always talked, but they’ve been murdered or ignored.

Russia! Russia! Russia! China! China! China! Islam did it! The sheep in Animal Farm chanted “Four legs good, two legs better.” They bleated out the naysayers. The critical thinkers. That’s what our Sheeple do. They chant “USA! USA!” to drown out any discouraging words. Maybe they’ll break into an impromptu version of Proud to be an American or Lift Every Voice and Sing, the so-called Black national anthem, depending upon the crowd. They both serve the same purpose. Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise. Trumpenstein is now promising a $5,000 check to every American if the Republicans win the midterm elections. Only his cult believes he will actually do this. There are Conspiracy Deniers on the Left, and an increasing number on the Right as well. These would be the ones cheering on Trumpenstein’s dismissal of the Epstein Files as a “Democrat hoax.” The files that reveal our illustrious leaders are in fact barbaric cannibals. Try trotting that one out at a party in front of Conspiracy Deniers.

To be a Conspiracy Denier, you have to endure political speeches. All political speeches. And consider that the empty rhetoric about “getting the country moving,” or “making it great” is innocent, standard political boiler plate. Which we should accept with a shrug and a smile. Sure, they never keep their promises. Sure, they never do anything which helps those who actually need help. Sure, they serve AIPAC and other shadowy special interests. Sure, you “can’t vote them out.” And besides, every one either party picks to run is the same. Never independent. Never principled. Always pro-Zionist. And always anti-”conspiracy theories.” Where’s the randomness of at least one honest leader every few decades or so? Because there’s no conspiracy to stop them, right? Wouldn’t the law of averages dictate that once in a while, we’d have someone in power who actually wanted to do good things? But we’ve accepted that, on those rare occasions, they simply eliminate the Huey Longs and John F. Kennedys.

Conspiracy Deniers believe that the Air Force “mistakenly” identified a weather balloon as a “Flying Saucer” at Roswell. They believe the Dallas deputies who found a rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 both “mistakenly” misidentified it as a German Mauser. They believe the BATF had to launch a massive raid on the Branch Davidians, when they could have confronted leader David Koresh at any time in a local store. They believe all those witnesses- every one who identified Timothy McVeigh- was “mistaken” about him being in the company of “John Doe #2” in Oklahoma City. They believe that it was a coincidence that dictionaries changed the definition of “vaccine” in the wake of the warp speed vax that didn’t prevent “COVID.” They think millions died from this phantom disease, but no one died from the deadly vaccine. They believe JFK, Jr. and all the other dead Kennedys were “reckless.” They believe the people “won” when Nixon resigned.

I often feel like the little boy in the old fairy tale, who is the only one willing to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. We often forget that, like all whistleblowers and truthtellers, he was overruled by the crowd, who continued to ignore that the emperor was naked. Those of us who are trying to awaken the Conspiracy Deniers have to understand that we’re fighting centuries of “normie” conditioning. Especially for the last 100 years or so, we’re competing with intense propaganda the likes of which the world has never seen. Security cameras, which are everywhere, always malfunctioning whenever something important happens. Or allegedly happens, because an increasing number of doubters believe it’s all fake and scripted. Cell phone cameras, which oddly are never deployed during mass shootings, or supposed “anti-Semitic” behavior. You have your “Holocaust Deniers.” Your “COVID Deniers.” Your “Climate Change Deniers.” Your “Election Deniers.”

Well, I can have my Conspiracy Deniers. I don’t care if someone calls me a “conspiracy theorist.” Sticks and stones, and all that. But I have no “theory.” Building 7 isn’t a “theory.” The massive disparity of wealth isn’t a “theory.” No one in the Deep State being prosecuted isn’t a “theory.” The disclosures from the very limited DOGE program weren’t a “theory.” There is massive waste, fraud and abuse in our government. And those who run the government, the business world, and society at large are massively corrupt criminals. We’ve been vindicated, although they won’t admit it. Our friends owe us an apology. Our family members own us an apology. The world owes us an apology. Most humans can’t apologize, however. They’re too proud. In this case, an apology would mean they were wrong to trust those in charge. Wrong to ridicule and sneer at those who tried to enlighten them. To paraphrase the syrupy sentiment from Love Story: slavery means never having to say you’re sorry.

Source: https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/p/in-the-land-of-the-conspiracy-deniers

Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/no_author/in-the-land-of-the-conspiracy-deniers/

Original Article: https://tapnewswire.com/2026/09/16/in-the-land-of-the-conspiracy-deniers/

Related:

Putin just dropped a 7,000-page bombshell. A classified report so explosive it’s already rocking the Kremlin. It reveals the global elite—Big Tech, the WEF, globalist billionaires, Israel and their allies—are racing to depopulate the planet [...]

The post Putin Releases 7,000 Page Dossier Exposing AI ‘False Flag’ To Depopulate World to 1 Million People appeared first on The People's Voice.

After the US officially admitted it deployed weapons into outer space earlier this week, Russia and China expressed concerns, calling it a threat to international peace and demanding the immediate stoppage of all such activities.

During a regular press conference on Tuesday, September 15, Guo Jiakun, official spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that “China opposes any arms race in outer space or any attempt to weaponize it and turn it into a warzone.”

He further said that “China stands for the peaceful use of outer space and keeping it safe” and urged the US to “stop expanding military build-up in outer space, and uphold global strategic stability with concrete actions.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said that the US weapons deployment is a threat to international security and puts a question mark on the stability in outer space. 

“Russia has for many years been consistently drawing the attention of the global community to the grave consequences for international security that Washington’s destructive course may lead to,” Zakharova said.  

She said her country seeks “urgent practical measures to prevent arms race in outer space” and reiterated Russia’s push for a “multilateral legally binding instrument banning the deployment of weapons in outer space.” 

Though it has long been a subject of speculation, a couple of US military officials, earlier this week, admitted that its military is operating weapons deployed in outer space.  

The admission was made by US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink on Monday during a conference. He said that the US “has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.”

Meink’s statement was substantiated by US Space Force chief Douglas Schiess, who a day later, on Tuesday, said that in the coming years the US is even planning to increase the number of orbital weapons already used by the members of his military unit.

Urgent need of legal prohibitions

Underlining the threat that the deployment of weapons in outer space poses, several countries, including Russia and China, have been calling for an international treaty to prevent any arms race in outer space for decades now.

The existing instrument, the UN Outer Space Treaty (1967) makes clear that “outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

It also prohibits the deployment of “nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space in any other manner,” but it says nothing about the deployment of conventional weapons, despite declaring it should be used for peaceful purposes only.

None of the US military officials spoke about the nature of weapons deployed by the US in outer space.

Though only a handful of countries have the technological capability to explore outer space in any significant way, several countries have used satellites for military and war purposes for decades now.

The US has a dedicated space force which has recently held exercises related to possible military conflicts in space.

The deployment of weapons and claims of exclusivity, apart from increasing possibilities of an arms race between the existing powers in space; the US, Russia, and China, may also make the rest of the world more insecure.

Zakharova said that Russia is planning to submit a proposal for the creation of an international instrument legally prohibiting all weapon deployment in outer space during the upcoming annual UN General Assembly session.

She asked for more countries to join the Russian initiative and co-author the treaty document.

Esta reportagem é parte de uma investigação especial da Agência Pública financiada pelos nossos Aliados, sem nenhum dinheiro de bet. Apoie mais reportagens como essa clicando aqui.

A professora Vânia de Souza Borges, de Uberlândia (MG), passou dois anos batendo em portas que não se abriam. Procurou a Polícia Civil, o Ministério Público de Minas Gerais e a CPI das Bets do Senado. As três tentativas não resultaram em nada. Neste mês, Vânia sentou-se diante do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, em Brasília, e fez um pedido: a proibição das casas de apostas online no país.

“Eu pedi ao Lula o fim das bets; eu disse que apenas regulamentar não basta. Pedi em meu nome e em nome das mães e famílias brasileiras que estão sofrendo com esse problema”, contou Vânia à Agência Pública. O encontro ocorreu no último domingo (12), em uma casa particular onde Lula gravava para sua campanha à reeleição.

Do luto à luta

Rafael Borges Amaral morreu em 23 de março de 2024, aos 26 anos, após oito meses em que a família acompanhou o avanço do vício em apostas. Ele trabalhava num lava-jato perto de casa, vendeu a moto, afastou-se dos parentes. À 1h48 daquela madrugada de março, no dia do aniversário das duas irmãs, transferiu R$ 30 para uma intermediadora de pagamentos usada por bets. Foi a última aposta.

A carta em que Vânia relatava a morte do filho ficou entre os milhares de documentos da CPI das Bets, cujo relatório foi rejeitado – o primeiro em dez anos no Senado –, sem o indiciamento de 16 responsáveis, entre empresas e influenciadores. 

A reportagem da Pública localizou a carta de Vânia entre os documentos da CPI e fez uma reportagem sobre o caso, veiculada em 3 de julho deste ano no especial Jogo Perigoso: O Brasil das Bets, na qual a professora comparou influenciadores a traficantes: “Elas induzem as pessoas, levam a pessoa ao erro, induzem as pessoas até que elas percam tudo”.

Após a repercussão do caso, em 7 e 8 de julho, a deputada federal Dandara Tonantzin (PT-MG) protocolou dois projetos de lei inspirados no caso de Rafael. O PL 3.613/26, batizado de PL Rafael, prevê responsabilização solidária de influenciadores, afiliados e plataformas e proíbe o revshare, modelo em que o divulgador recebe comissão proporcional ao que seus seguidores perdem. A parlamentar também acionou o Ministério da Justiça. 

Em 17 de julho, a Pública revelou que o Ministério Público Federal em Uberlândia havia instaurado um procedimento investigatório criminal contra oito plataformas, entre elas a plataforma divulgada por Virgínia Fonseca e Neymar.

Convite após a reportagem da Pública

Segundo Vânia, o presidente tomou conhecimento da história e, então, veio o convite para uma conversa sobre os danos causados pelas bets. Ela contou ter sido ouvida pelo presidente, junto a outras pessoas que seriam apostadores e desenvolveram dependência – “cada um com um drama diferente, mas todos com relação às bets”, relatou. 

A professora relata que Lula perguntou ao grupo o que precisava ser feito. “Eu respondi que a única solução é cortar o mal pela raiz, proibindo-as definitivamente, e todas as pessoas do grupo concordaram” e que o presidente disse que essa também seria sua intenção. Vânia disse ainda que passou o número do processo da investigação no MPF aberta após a reportagem da Pública e que Lula teria dito que acompanharia o desfecho do caso. O depoimento da professora foi gravado e pode ser usado no horário eleitoral do candidato.

Lula e as bets

Desde o início de setembro, Lula tem intensificado o discurso contra as plataformas de apostas online. Em Brasília, no dia 1º, reuniu artistas, influenciadores, representantes de vários de seus ministérios e vozes expoentes contra as bets, a exemplo da produtora Paula Lavigne, para discutir o impacto do setor na saúde da população. Na ocasião, empresas legalizadas em atuação no país protestaram de não terem sido incluídas no debate, uma vez que atendem aos requisitos solicitados pelo próprio governo federal. 

Em entrevista ao SBT, na quinta-feira (10), o presidente Lula declarou: “Chamei todas as pessoas que se queixam da bet, chamei a sociedade e ouvi. Agora já mapeamos tudo e já sistematizamos. Agora eu vou tomar uma decisão.”

No domingo (13), durante transmissão ao vivo nas redes sociais, o presidente relatou a reunião com Vânia ocorrida no mesmo dia. O presidente se referiu ao caso como o episódio da mãe que perdeu o filho de 26 anos, além de mencionar a história de um homem que fez 1400 transferências via Pix em três meses e uma mulher que chegou ao desespero por uma dívida que não conseguia pagar. 

“Se depender da minha vontade, é fechar as bets”, afirmou Lula. Em seguida, ponderou: “Mas eu vou levar a sério todas as implicações que têm, porque é uma coisa incontrolável.” E resumiu: “Nós estamos passivos diante da sociedade que está se matando de dívida”.

Na segunda (14), no Palácio do Planalto, durante a sanção da lei do Move Brasil, que amplia o acesso a crédito para motoristas de aplicativo, taxistas e outros trabalhadores de transporte, o presidente voltou a abordar publicamente o assunto das bets e afirmou estar lidando com uma enfermidade coletiva que demanda atenção urgente.

Vânia espera que a conversa renda algo além da campanha. “Desejo sinceramente que esse encontro possa resultar em algo efetivo para a solução desse problema”, afirmou, ao voltar para casa, em Uberlândia, onde o quarto de Rafael continua do jeito que ele deixou.

The U.S. military’s top officer on Wednesday talked about how AI is changing the character of warfare and offered two examples to illustrate his points. His comments included new insights into how two U.S. Army AH-64 Apache crew members were rescued after being shot down by an Iranian drone near the coast of Oman in June. The recovery effort involved America’s first known use of an uncrewed surface vessel (USV) executing a personnel recovery action as part of a military search and rescue operation.

“Information moves so fast that leader decision times have compressed from weeks down to days down to seconds,” explained Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during his keynote speech at the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Conference that TWZ is attending. “In the future fight, advantage will go to the side who can see first, who can understand first, decide first, and act first, and along the way, be a learning organization, and no factor is accelerating change as fast as artificial intelligence and advancing cyber capabilities.”

“AI is here now, and it’s already changing the way militaries see, sense, decide, and act across the joint force,” the chairman proclaimed.

The first example Caine used to highlight these changes took place on June 8. After the Apache went down, “U.S. CENTCOM launched a rapid, responsive joint search and rescue effort to recover the crew. That response drew on the totality of the joint force, and ultimately was required to use enabled unmanned vessels to participate in the rescue of downed U.S. service members for the first time ever.”

As we noted in our previous coverage, CENTCOM deployed “a U.S. Navy Corsair unmanned surface vessel,” the command’s spokesman told us at the time.

The ability to pull off that rescue mission “did not appear overnight,” Caine pointed out. “It came from the men and women of Task Force 59, CENTCOM’s forward-leaning unmanned joint maritime unit who spent the last several years testing, integrating, and operationalizing unmanned systems and AI in one of the most demanding and kinetic environments on Earth right now.”

“What helped make this possible was not a bunch of general officers and flag officers,” Caine continued. “What made this possible was a bunch of entrepreneurial sailors and members of the joint force on watch floors, at piers, managing networks of unmanned systems across thousands of miles of water, and using AI to turn massive amounts of data into a crisp, clear, perfect maritime picture that allowed us to go grab those two soldiers in the water.”

The second example Caine shared about the use of AI “points in the other direction, not how quickly we are using these tools, but how quickly these tools are changing the threat.”

In Ukraine, “we see first-person view drones operating in heavily contested EMI [electromagnetic interference] environments. Some now using AI-enabled computer vision to continue to drive towards targets, even when there’s no GPS or the links are cut. That gives small units affordable precision and shows how quickly software and autonomy are changing what is possible at the tactical edge, and the results are stark.”

The use of AI to enable lower-end drone warfare is a topic TWZ has been among the first to point out.

“In certain locations on the front line of troops right now, the life expectancy of a new Russian recruit arriving on the front lines is as little as 20 to 30 minutes,” Caine added. “Think about that. This is what happens when low-cost precision is fielded fast, adapted quickly, and scaled across the battlefield.”

“The price of lethal exchange is decreasing day over day,” the chairman noted. “One wonders what the future of close air support looks like, but I am comforted by the fact that each and every one of you are in this room thinking about that. Taken together, these examples from the Straits of Hormuz to the front lines in Ukraine show how quickly technology is changing the character of war, and this means our joint force needs to do two things at one time.”

“[W]e need to prepare the joint force to win in this kind of conflict,” the general stated. “We have to assume from now on that our formations will be hunted by autonomous systems, jammed across the spectrum, and tracked in real time, and we have to transition the joint force to be prepared to fight and win our future war by generating and delivering lethality at scale with an agile, optimized, high-low mix of combat capabilities to give the young members of the 2.8-million member all volunteer joint force the tools that they need before they need them.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com 

The post Apache Crew Rescue Highlights Need For AI In Combat Says Joint Chiefs Chairman appeared first on TWZ.

Bill Gates is calling for the world to unite under a global framework to confront the supposed existential threat of artificial intelligence — the latest crisis he says demands radical international transformation. To those paying [...]

The post Bill Gates Calls for ‘Global Government’ and New World Order to ‘Save Humanity’ From AI appeared first on The People's Voice.

Senior U.S. Air Force leaders in Europe say NATO allies are increasingly looking to participate in the development and employment of collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), even as several of those same countries pursue their own indigenous fighter and drone programs. American commanders say they are looking forward to CCAs expanding the alliance’s overall capacity, and are already pushing for such systems to work together from the outset.

Speaking yesterday at the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Symposium that TWZ is attending, Lt. Gen. Jason T. Hinds, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, U.S. Air Forces Africa, and NATO’s Allied Air Command, and Chief Master Sgt. Joshua J. Wiener, USAFE-AFAFRICA’s command chief, discussed how the command is preparing for an eventual European role in the U.S. Air Force’s planned fleet of hundreds of CCAs.

The issue is particularly significant for USAFE, which operates a fraction of the fighter force it maintained in Europe during the Cold War, even as many of its NATO allies contend with shrinking fleets of crewed combat aircraft. This comes against a backdrop of deepening tensions with Russia and the emergence of new kinds of threats. Autonomous aircraft that can augment crewed fighters could provide the alliance with additional combat mass without requiring a corresponding increase in the number of crewed aircraft and personnel permanently based in Europe.

“I’m excited about what CCAs have in store for the Air Force,” Hinds said, pointing to recent comments from the Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, including the aim of having at least 500 CCAs in service by 2032.

He added that European interest in these kinds of platforms is already growing.

“I think you’re going to see a lot more interest from other nations inside Europe about what is America doing with CCAs and how they can join this party, if you will,” Hinds said.

Germany is “heavily involved,” he said, while Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands are also showing interest.

In the case of Germany, we have previously explored how that country is looking to procure CCAs by 2029. Sweden, too, recently unveiled a concept for a high-end, stealthy CCA-type drone, while the Dutch are looking to become more closely alligned with U.S. Air Force CCA efforts.

USAFE is currently using two broad operational scenarios to explain to allies how CCAs could fit into NATO’s force structure.

The first is defensive. A CCA could operate as part of an integrated air and missile defense network, potentially engaging one-way attack drones or cruise missiles without the need for expensive crewed fighters.

The second is offensive. In that scenario, autonomous aircraft could help suppress or destroy integrated air defense systems and potentially attack fielded forces during an effort to repel a hostile incursion into NATO territory.

Allies are interested in both missions, Hinds said, and want the ability to incorporate CCAs into their own force designs. Interestingly, only yesterday, Anduril shared photos of its YFQ-44A Fury configured with air-to-ground weapons, underscoring the fact that the CCA could take on an air-to-ground role in the future in addition to its current air-to-air focus.

That kind of interest has already prompted work at the NATO level. Hinds pointed to a study by the Joint Air Power Competence Center, the alliance’s airpower think tank based in Kalkar, Germany, examining how NATO members could employ CCAs in a modular fashion, including issues such as sustainment, training, and exercises.

“It was a pretty long paper, but the nations wanted it,” Hinds said.

Initial experimentation is expected to take place in the United States, but European experimentation could follow, including by Sweden and potentially other NATO members.

At the same time, European countries are not simply waiting for an American CCA to arrive.

The United Kingdom has launched its own Storm Fighter CCA program. Germany is pursuing a separate loyal-wingman effort, while the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan are meanwhile jointly embarked on the Global Combat Air Program, or GCAP, which is intended to produce the Tempest next-generation crewed fighter and associated uncrewed systems.

The proliferation of national programs raises an obvious question: How does NATO prevent a growing fleet of autonomous aircraft from becoming a collection of incompatible national systems?

Hinds said the answer starts with commonality.

“The first and foremost thing is we want to strive for commonality,” he said. “Commonality means we don’t even have to worry about interoperability.”

Where common equipment is not possible, however, USAFE wants interoperability built into national systems from the beginning.

“Interoperability by design” is the preferred approach, Hinds said, with NATO data standards and other requirements incorporated before a system enters service rather than retrofitted later.

The good news for USAFE is that NATO already has extensive experience establishing common standards for interoperability, covering everything from tactics and procedures to communications, datalinks, weapons employment, and other technologies. That existing framework gives the alliance a foundation for integrating increasingly diverse national systems without requiring every member to field identical equipment.

Hinds did warn that some countries have previously acquired equipment that was not compatible with NATO systems, leaving them with the choice of paying to modify their own equipment or forcing the alliance to adapt its systems around it.

That problem becomes particularly important as autonomous aircraft are connected to increasingly complex sensor and weapons networks. Even more important is the requirement for a baseline command-and-control network for CCAs themselves, allowing different platforms to manage them seamlessly.

The ability to share and control CCAs across a complex battlespace is already emerging as both a major opportunity and a significant integration challenge. The U.S. Air Force and Navy, for example, have made clear that their respective CCAs are being developed with the ability to be controlled seamlessly across services, pointing toward a future in which autonomous aircraft need not remain tied to the service or platform that launched them.

Hinds described a potential kill chain in which an F-35 detects a target, passes the information to another node in the network, and a ground-based system operated by another NATO country ultimately launches the weapon.

In such an architecture, the aircraft, sensor, command-and-control network, and weapon do not necessarily have to belong to the same country.

As an example, Dutch F-35s, operating in Europe, have used a data-exchange system to transmit targeting coordinates to Israeli-made PULS (Precise and Universal Launch System) rocket artillery. The system, developed by Lockheed Martin is known as Keystone, and you can read more about it here.

USAFE is making “significant advances” in areas including cross-servicing, cross-loading, and cross-flying allied aircraft, Hinds said, all of which are intended to make multinational operations more seamless.

The same philosophy applies to weapons.

“We want to have all the fires, right? Whether it’s U.S. built or built inside European nations,” Hinds said.

That could prove increasingly important as European countries expand domestic production of missiles, drones, and other weapons alongside their aircraft programs.

The growth of GCAP and other European defense programs comes amid broader debate over how much Europe should depend on U.S. military equipment.

But Hinds rejected the idea that allies developing indigenous aircraft and autonomous systems necessarily signals a move away from American equipment.

“No, I don’t,” he said when asked whether allies were moving away from U.S. systems.

Instead, Hinds characterized the trend as an expansion of the transatlantic defense-industrial base.

Sweden was one example he cited. The country, which recently joined NATO, continues to produce new military equipment, including Gripen fighters, while those aircraft are already being operated by NATO members.

Swedish Gripens are currently leased to Hungary, and other countries are considering the aircraft, Hinds said.

The broader trend toward co-manufacturing and co-production is also something he welcomed.

“I’m seeing a lot of discussions about co-manufacturing and co-production, and I welcome those discussions as well,” Hinds said.

That approach could become increasingly important as NATO tries to expand its available combat power without relying exclusively on additional U.S.-built platforms.

For USAFE, the objective is to ensure that whatever aircraft NATO countries develop or purchase can plug into a common architecture, sharing data, receiving targeting information, drawing on common logistics networks, and contributing weapons effects across national boundaries.

For a U.S. Air Force command that has spent decades trying to cover Europe with far fewer fighters than it once had, hundreds of autonomous wingmen, whether American-built or allied, could provide a significant way to generate additional combat mass.

Senior U.S. Air Force officials are now working to ensure that the networking, weapons integration, logistics, and command-and-control architecture will be in place once those aircraft start to come online.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post How The USAF Is Preparing For European Allies To Join The Collaborative Combat Aircraft Club appeared first on TWZ.

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline hit $4.37 on Wednesday, up more than a dollar from a year ago. In California, drivers are paying $6.04. In San Francisco, $5.93. Diesel—the fuel that moves [...]

The post Netanyahu Tells Americans Hit By Gas Prices To ‘Bike or Walk’, Framing It As ‘Support for Israel’ appeared first on The People's Voice.

On August 27, registered nurses, patients, and community allies rallied and stopped traffic in cities around the US to demand that hospitals and elected officials cut all ties with artificial intelligence giant Palantir. In this episode of Working People, we speak with a panel of registered nurses—Kelli Brennan (Portland, Maine), Lee Barker (Kansas City, Missouri), and Kiera Arbour (Chicago, Illinois)—about National Nurses United’s “Purge Palantir!” campaign, and about the disturbing creep of Big Tech and Big Brother into a US healthcare system that is already in crisis.

Additional links/info:

• National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United website, Facebook page, Twitter/X page, and Instagram
• National Nurses United: “Nurses hold nationwide civil disobedience actions to demand ‘Palantir Out!’”
• Sheera Frenkel & Aaron Krolik, The New York Times, “Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans”
• Aisha Down & Robert Booth, The Guardian, “Palantir manifesto described as ‘ramblings of a supervillain’ amid UK contract fears”

Featured Music:

• Jules Taylor, Working People Theme Song

Credits:

• Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor

– Mosca vota in guerra di Margherita Furlan
– Pechino copre Teheran prima di vedere Trump di Margherita Furlan
– Cina, la nuova rotta di Margherita Furlan
– Riyadh cerca soccorso a Londra di Gionata Chatillard
– Il Cairo, la sponda che resta a bin Salman di Margherita Furlan
– Carburanti, il conto della guerra all’Iran di Jeff Hoffman e Ivan Bodyan
– Ottawa in Europa, l’Europa fuori dall’America di Margherita Furlan
– Il greggio canadese cambia Oceano di Jeff Hoffman
– Russia, carta uranio di Ivan Bodyan
– Cina, inasprimento delle norme d’ingresso e di uscita dal Paese di Ivan Bodyan
– Buon giro intorno al Sole

A cura di Margherita Furlan Con la collaborazione di Gionata Chatillard e Jeff Hoffman Editing di Mario Ferdinandi

CASA DEL SOLE TV — Informazione libera e indipendente Il nostro lavoro è possibile solo grazie al vostro sostegno. Casa del Sole TV non ha editori forti né finanziamenti pubblici: siamo sostenuti da voi, il nostro pubblico. Se credi nel valore di un’informazione che non tace, aiutaci a continuare.

Dona tramite bonifico bancario: IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: LA CASA DEL SOLE EDIZIONI Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV

Dona tramite PayPal: paypal.me/casadelsoletv

Sostegno ricorrente: casadelsole.tv/sostienici

Anche un piccolo contributo fa la differenza.

Grazie di cuore!

L'articolo 🔴PECHINO STA CON TEHERAN | TG 16.9.26 proviene da Casa del Sole TV.

DavidIcke.com | Gareth Icke

John and Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | Rutherford.org

“What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the Founders? What if the government was the reason we don’t have a Constitution anymore? What if freedom’s greatest hour of danger is now?”—Andrew P. Napolitano

What’s the point in celebrating the Constitution one day a year if we permit the government to violate it the other 364?

September 17 marks the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, a document designed not merely to establish a government but to restrain it.

Yet restraint is in increasingly short supply.

Across the political spectrum, Americans continue to tolerate abuses of power so long as those abuses are carried out by the “right” people, against the “wrong” people, or in the name of some emergency deemed too important to question.

That is how constitutional government dies.

Not all at once. Not with the Constitution formally abolished or the Bill of Rights ripped from the National Archives.

It dies by degrees: through executive power that expands while congressional authority withers; emergency powers that never quite disappear; wars waged with little regard for constitutional restraints; surveillance systems capable of tracking whole populations; federal agents empowered to operate with ever less accountability; military forces normalized on American streets; and courts that too often allow questions of standing, immunity and procedure to determine whether unconstitutional conduct will ever be confronted on its merits.

Every such precedent makes the next abuse easier. Every exception becomes a justification. Every temporary power becomes harder to claw back.

And every time Americans excuse an unconstitutional act because they approve of the person wielding the power, they help dismantle another guardrail meant to protect them when someone they distrust eventually takes control.

That is the danger we face.

The Constitution was never intended to depend upon the goodwill of those in power.

Quite the opposite.

Those who drafted the Constitution understood that power corrupts, that governments inevitably seek more authority, and that liberty survives only when power is divided, constrained, challenged and made answerable to the people.

The Constitution creates friction intentionally.

It makes government stop and obtain a warrant. It makes prosecutors prove their case. It makes presidents answer to Congress. It makes the military subordinate to civilian government. It protects unpopular speech precisely when those in power most want it silenced. It recognizes that there are places government simply has no legitimate authority to go.

Yet one by one, those restraints have been weakened, bypassed or treated as antiquated obstacles to efficient government.

Consider how quickly the extraordinary becomes ordinary.

Troops deployed to the nation’s capital in response to a supposed crime emergency remain long after the so-called emergency has passed, with the Pentagon preparing for the National Guard presence to continuethrough the end of President Trump’s term.

Sweeping surveillance technologies enable police to identify and track people based not on individualized suspicion but merely on where their cell phones happened to be at a particular time.

Federal immigration agents have been given unprecedented resources and authority while allegations mount of excessive force, unlawful arrests, surveillance, intimidation and constitutional violations.

Presidents increasingly invoke emergencies, national security and expansive interpretations of executive authority to do what once would have required meaningful congressional participation.

Meanwhile, the constitutional mechanisms intended to restrain government often operate too slowly—or not at all.

By the time the courts decide whether the government overstepped its authority, the deed may already be done, the troops already deployed, the people already detained, the data already collected, the building already demolished, the war already underway.

That is government unchained.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the government did not accomplish this alone.

The power of the police state depends upon a populace willing to tolerate it.

Remember: when it comes to the staggering loss of civil liberties, the Constitution hasn’t changed. Rather, it is the American people who have changed.

Too many Americans have come to view constitutional restraints not as protections against tyranny but as inconveniences that stand in the way of getting what they want.

If a president they support circumvents Congress, they call it leadership. If a president they oppose does the same thing, they call it tyranny.

If government censorship silences their opponents, they cheer. If the machinery turns against them, they suddenly rediscover the First Amendment.

If federal agents abuse people they regard as dangerous, criminal or undesirable, constitutional niceties seem unnecessary. If they become the target, they demand due process.

This is how freedom becomes partisan. It is also how freedom dies.

The Constitution is neutral when it comes to politics.

It does not recognize Republican rights and Democratic rights, conservative freedoms and liberal freedoms, rights for citizens we approve of and lesser protections for those we fear or dislike.

The Fourth Amendment does not ask how you voted before protecting you against unreasonable searches. The First Amendment does not require that your speech be popular. Due process does not exist only for sympathetic defendants. Religious freedom does not belong exclusively to Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other favored faith. And the separation of powers was not written merely to restrain presidents from the opposing political party.

These safeguards exist because power cannot be trusted.

The greatest threat to constitutional government may not be that Americans have stopped believing in rights. It is that too many now believe rights should depend on whose rights are at stake.

That lesson should have been reinforced over the past 25 years.

In the name of national security after 9/11, Americans accepted sweeping surveillance powers, secret watchlists, militarized policing and an expanding government infrastructure capable of tracking and monitoring ordinary people.

What began as extraordinary powers aimed at terrorism became part of the machinery of everyday government.

In fact, technology has made it possible for government to exercise powers of surveillance and control that the architects of the Constitution could never have imagined.

Yet there are also reminders that constitutional resistance still matters.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when they obtain historical cell phone location data through a geofence warrant—a significant check on a form of digital dragnet surveillance capable of turning anyone carrying a smartphone into a government suspect.

A federal appeals court also upheld restrictions on immigration raids at certain houses of worship after religious communities demonstrated that the threat of enforcement was driving worshippers away and disrupting religious practice.

Most recently, a 7-2 Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to restrict mail-in ballots in advance of the 2026 midterm elections.

These victories matter.

They remind us that constitutional government is not entirely lost.

They also remind us of something even more important: rights have meaning only when somebody is willing to assert them. They survive when a homeowner refuses an unlawful search, when a citizen records police misconduct, when a congregation challenges government interference, when a parent questions what information a school is collecting about a child, or when a community forces officials to justify their actions in public.

You have no rights unless you exercise them. And you cannot exercise your rights unless you know what those rights are.

That should concern us because civic ignorance has become a national epidemic.

Too many Americans cannot identify the basic protections contained in the Bill of Rights, explain the separation of powers, or understand why the Founders deliberately made it difficult for any one branch of government to act without checks and balances.

According to the 2026 Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, over a third of U.S. adults (35%) cannot name all three branches of the governmentand under half can name four of the five rights protected by the First Amendment. Of the five First Amendment rights, only freedom of speech is identified by more than half of survey respondents.

That ignorance has consequences.

A people who do not understand why government power must be limited will eventually surrender those limits whenever fear, anger, convenience or political loyalty makes them seem burdensome.

Thomas Jefferson understood the danger: a nation cannot expect to be both ignorant and free.

Those who gave us the Constitution understood something else as well: liberty cannot be preserved by politicians alone.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution begins with three powerful words: “We the People.”

The government exists at the behest of the citizenry, not the other way around.

That means “We the People” have responsibilities that extend far beyond showing up at the polls every few years.

Voting is not enough.

Freedom requires participation. It requires knowing your rights and exercising them. It requires speaking out even when it is unpopular to do so.

It requires demanding warrants, challenging government surveillance, recording police activity where the law allows, serving on juries, attending local government meetings, questioning officials, filing public records requests, supporting constitutional challenges, teaching children their rights, and refusing to let political loyalty override constitutional principle.

It means insisting that Congress act like a separate branch of government rather than a presidential cheering section. It means demanding that courts provide meaningful constitutional remedies while there is still something left to remedy.

It means refusing to allow emergency powers to become ordinary powers. And it means opposing unconstitutional government power even when that power is wielded by politicians we support.

None of this is easy.

Representative government is hard work.

It requires a citizenry willing to stay informed, resist manipulation, question authority, and accept that constitutional limits may sometimes prevent government from easily doing things we might want it to do.

That inconvenience is the point.

The Constitution was designed to make tyranny difficult. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, our job is to make sure it stays that way.

So get outraged. Get informed. Get involved.

Get down to your local city council and school board. Get your objections down on paper. Get your representatives to pay attention. Get your children to know their rights. Get your local police to honor the Constitution. Get your media to act as watchdogs for the people rather than lapdogs for those in power.

Most of all, stop waiting for someone else to save the republic.

The courts cannot do it alone. Congress will not do it for us. No president, political party or election will permanently safeguard freedoms that the people themselves are unwilling to defend.

The Constitution is not self-executing.

Its words have power only when “We the People” breathe life into them.

Know your rights. Exercise your rights. Defend your rights.

If not, you will lose them.

The Constitution can’t protect you if you don’t protect it.

Source: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_constitution_cant_protect_you_if_you_dont_protect_it

Image: Source [Edited using ChatGTP]

Original Article: https://davidicke.com/2026/09/16/the-constitution-cant-protect-you-if-you-dont-protect-it/

Yemen’s Houthi movement, formally known as Ansar Allah, has released imagery that it says shows the downing of a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15 fighter over Marib governorate. The material includes photos of the wreckage of an F-15 on the ground. At this stage, the fate of the two crew members is unclear. The incident comes amid a major escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Iran-aligned Houthi movement.

A video of what Ansar Allah says is the successful shootdown of the F-15 shows the typical ground-based forward-looking infrared (FLIR) systems we have seen in use by air defenses in Yemen previously, and, more recently, in Iran.

After a period of relative calm following the 2022 truce, fighting has intensified in recent weeks, with Houthi forces making significant advances against Saudi-backed Yemeni government positions, including around the strategically important coastal areas of Marib and Taiz. The group has also stepped up missile and drone attacks against southern Saudi Arabia, targeting military and energy infrastructure while strangling the kingdom’s ability to move oil through the Red Sea. The Houthis have further declared the Bab el-Mandeb closed to Saudi oil traffic, directly challenging one of Riyadh’s key energy-export routes.

Prior to the release of imagery, earlier today the Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree claimed that Houthi forces had shot down a Saudi F-15 while it was conducting operations in support of Saudi-backed forces in Marib. Saree said the aircraft was engaged by a locally manufactured surface-to-air missile, although he did not identify the weapon. Reuters likewise reported that the Houthis had claimed the shootdown but that the claim had not been independently verified.

Saree also claimed that Houthi air defenses subsequently engaged formations of Saudi F-15s and Eurofighter Typhoons that entered the area while attempting to locate the downed aircraft. According to the Houthi account, those aircraft were forced to withdraw. That portion of the claim has likewise not been independently verified.

Saudi Arabia has not, at the time of writing, publicly acknowledged the loss of an F-15. Reuters reported that the Saudi-led campaign had intensified considerably in recent days, with Saudi aircraft striking targets across Yemen while the Houthis have launched missiles and drones toward Saudi territory.

The aircraft appears to be an F-15SA, the most advanced variant of the Eagle operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force. Specifically, it appears to be tail number 5539, assigned to the 55th Squadron based at King Khalid Air Base.

The Royal Saudi Air Force received 84 of the new-build F-15SA. Meanwhile, the 68-strong fleet of earlier F-15S aircraft has been upgraded locally to a similar standard, also known as F-15SR (for Saudi Retrofit). Aircraft 5539 is understood to be among the latter.

The reported shootdown highlights the continuing threat posed by Houthi air defenses, which have proven considerably more capable and difficult to suppress than their improvised appearance might suggest.

As TWZ has previously detailed, the Houthi air-defense network includes mobile surface-to-air missile systems, repurposed infrared-guided R-73 and R-27 air-to-air missiles, and Iranian-derived systems such as the Saqr/358.

Of particular concern is the group’s use of passive infrared sensors for detection, tracking, and missile cueing. Unlike conventional fire-control radars, these sensors do not provide an aircraft’s electronic-warfare systems with an early warning that it has been detected or targeted. TWZ has noted that this combination of mobility and passive sensing can create a difficult problem even for highly sophisticated combat aircraft, with the Houthis having previously demonstrated the ability to threaten U.S. crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

That capability does not mean that Houthi air defenses constitute a conventional, integrated air defense network comparable to those operated by major state militaries. However, they can still be effective through a combination of concealment, mobility, passive detection, unconventional employment of missiles, and the difficult operating environment over Yemen.

Previous Saudi aircraft losses attributed to Houthi air defenses during the Yemen war from 2015 to 2022 include several helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and drones. Total Saudi losses to all causes in the conflict amount to around a dozen helicopters, five jets, and as many as 30 drones. A Saudi F-15 crashed in the Red Sea at the start of the war in 2015 and Eagles were also reportedly engaged and damaged by Houthi surface-to-air missiles in 2018, although they returned safely.

Video footage that emerged in 2021 shows Saudi troops on the ground watching an F-15 swoop in a relatively low level to knock down a Houthi Qasef-series suicide drone:

In the past, Houthi forces have come close to engaging U.S. F-35s and have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to bring down MQ-9 Reaper drones. If the Saudi F-15 loss is ultimately confirmed, determining precisely how the aircraft was detected, tracked, engaged, and hit could therefore provide valuable insight into how this unusual air defense architecture is being employed against Saudi and other combat aircraft.

As we discussed at the time, the clear risk posed by Houthi air defenses is likely the main factor behind Saudi employment of a Chinese-made short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) in the current fighting with Yemen.

The timing of the reported shootdown is also notable. It comes amid a sharp escalation in the conflict, with Saudi Arabia conducting air operations against Houthi positions in Yemen and Ansar Allah launching missiles and drones toward targets inside Saudi Arabia. Reuters reported that the Houthis had attacked the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu and a southern airbase at Khamis Mushait, while Riyadh has reported intercepting Houthi drones.

The F-15 incident also follows a separate confrontation over an alleged Houthi drone attack near Mecca. Saudi authorities said their air defenses intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the restricted airspace over the city. The Houthis denied targeting the holy city.

Meanwhile, there are reports that U.S. officials met representatives of the Houthis in Oman over the weekend, with the Houthis apparently telling the U.S. officials that they had no intention of attacking American vessels and that they remained committed to the 2025 ceasefire with ​the United States unless they stepped in on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom reportedly requested exactly this in recent weeks but was denied.

For the moment, the most that can be established from the available imagery is that a Saudi F-15 was destroyed, with Ansar Allah claiming responsibility.

This is a developing story and will be updated as additional imagery, official statements, or other independently verifiable information becomes available.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Houthis Claim Saudi F-15 Kill Over Yemen appeared first on TWZ.

Marco Tosatti

Cari amici e nemici di Stilum Curiae, offriamo alla vostra attenzione un breve post che riguarda l’incidente, tanto esaltato dai media del drone “russo” all’aeroporto di Lipsia. Una balla, ovviamente, una delle tante provocazioni per convincere il popolo bue ad andare in guerra. Non possiamo che toglierci il cappello davanti al giornalista (ucraino!) che ha smascherato con la sua intervista al dipendente dell’aeroporto di Lipsia questa ennesima bufala guerrafondaia. Vediamo adesso se la ServoStampa nostrana per non parlare dei FascioTG daranno il giusto risalto a questa notizia. Si accettano scommmesse. Buona lettura e diffusione.

§§§

Questo di Michael è il primo post:

Per favore, per favore, ascoltate assolutamente questo La dichiarazione di un dipendente dell’aeroporto di Lipsia riguardo alla questione del drone: vuole rimanere anonimo e la sua voce è stata distorta. In sostanza, ciò che dice è che tutto era pianificato e inscenato – da chiunque, ma non dai russi. E descrive anche chiaramente cosa è realmente successo. Posso immaginarlo anch’io, chi c’è dietro. Con tali dannate bugie ci trascineranno prima o poi in una guerra contro la Russia. Non mi viene in mente nessun motivo per cui quest’uomo dovrebbe mentire. Vi chiedo quasi mai di condividere, ripostare, mettere like o qualunque altra cosa, ma qui lo faccio esplicitamente perché è semplicemente così enormemente importante che venga diffuso Un grande ringraziamento a

@anatoliisharii, un giornalista ucraino

***

Questo il video dell’intervista

***

E poi c’è questo post, che fornisce ulteriori elementi, di George:

@Bluefidel47

La bomba è scoppiata! Ora un dipendente dell’aeroporto di Lipsia ha vuotato il sacco sull’incidente del drone! Il drone era un normale drone hobbistico di Media Markt, che NON PUÒ TRASPORTARE PESO. L’esplosivo nelle foto dei giornali è stato piazzato lì in un secondo momento solo per le foto! Subito dopo l’incidente, è arrivata una squadra di disinnescatori INSIEME a rappresentanti della stampa, che evidentemente erano già stati informati prima dell’evento! In breve: tutto inscenato, per scaricare la colpa sulla Russia. Un grande grazie al giornalista

@anatoliisharii, un giornalista ucraino, che ha trascritto la conversazione e l’ha distorta per proteggere l’uomo.

§§§

Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35

L'articolo Smascherata la bufala del drone “Russo” all’Aeroporto di Lipsia. La confessione di un dipendente proviene da Blondet & Friends.

Israel’s Rafael and Lockheed Martin are working to accelerate integration of the 1,000-pound-class SPICE standoff weapon with the Israeli Air Force’s F-35I Adir. The development could potentially open the door for the precision-guided munition to be offered to other Joint Strike Fighter operators.

Rafael Advanced Defense Systems announced the effort September 15 during the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Symposium that TWZ is attending. The work is being conducted as a joint project with Lockheed Martin at the U.S. contractor’s facilities in the United States and is expected to take several months.

Rafael says the effort could eventually make the weapon available to other F-35 operators. “At a later stage, F-35 operators worldwide will be able to field SPICE 1000,” the company said.

The effort was previously referenced in U.S. government documentation before Rafael’s announcement. Published in August, the Pentagon F-35 Modernized Selected Acquisition Report identified the weapon as the “Israel-unique Smart, Precise Impact, Cost-Effective 1000B,” or SPICE 1000B, and said its integration was progressing “with a strategy to accelerate the implementation via a SPICE Lite process.”

The report does not explain what the “SPICE Lite” process entails.

SPICE — which stands for Smart, Precise Impact, and Cost-Effective — is a family of electro-optically guided standoff weapons developed by Rafael. The family includes SPICE 2000, SPICE 1000, and SPICE 250, with the numbers corresponding broadly to the weight class of the underlying warheads.

Based around a 1,000-pound-class bomb, SPICE 1000 uses pop-out wings to achieve a manufacturer-stated range of approximately 125 kilometers, or 78 miles. Rafael gives the weapon a claimed circular error probable of around three meters.

The glide bomb combines inertial and satellite-aided navigation with an electro-optical seeker. During the terminal phase, its seeker can compare the observed target area with stored imagery using scene-matching algorithms, allowing the weapon to continue its attack without relying exclusively on GPS. That feature allows it to engage targets autonomously, offering the launch aircraft a true ‘fire and forget’ capability, and provides resilience in GPS-denied or GPS-degraded environments.

SPICE can also be programmed to approach a target from a particular azimuth and impact angle. This provides flexibility in selecting the terminal attack geometry and can support steep attack profiles against targets where penetration from above is desirable.

SPICE 1000 is not a new Israeli capability. It has been operational with the Israel Air Force since 2017 and is already integrated with Israeli F-16I Sufa, F-16C/D Barak, F-15I Ra’am, and F-15 Baz fighters.

“SPICE 1000 has been sold to several countries and is in operational service with a number of air forces worldwide,” Rafael said. “It has served as a primary munition of the Israeli Air Force for several years, including extensive use in recent long-range operations flown from F-15 and F-16 aircraft.”

The Israeli Air Force has released footage showing SPICE weapons being used during recent operations, including imagery from the weapon’s own perspective during its terminal attack.

Israel’s F-35I is already unusual within the international Joint Strike Fighter fleet. The IDF has developed and demonstrated an external Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) carriage capability, and said in March 2025 that the Israeli Adir was the only F-35 to have conducted operational strikes with an external weapons configuration. You can read more about that here.

However, according to The Jerusalem Post, the SPICE weapon is expected to be carried internally by F-35Is equipped with Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3, hardware, which would maintain its low-observable configuration. Neither Rafael nor Lockheed Martin has publicly detailed the specific carriage configuration, aircraft modifications or software associated with the current integration effort.

The long-delayed TR-3 is a major upgrade to the F-35’s computing architecture and provides the processing infrastructure required for subsequent Block 4 capabilities. Israel received its first three F-35Is equipped with TR-3 hardware in January of this year.

Lockheed Martin describes Block 4 as the F-35 program’s “most significant evolution of F-35 capabilities to date,” encompassing more than 70 major upgrades, including increased weapons capacity, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and improved target recognition.

It remains unclear if the SPICE 1000 integration itself requires the full Block 4 configuration.

The potential significance of the Israeli integration extends beyond the Israel Air Force. If SPICE 1000 ultimately becomes available to other F-35 operators, the completed Israeli integration could provide those countries with another pathway toward fielding a precision standoff weapon rather than requiring them to begin an integration effort entirely from scratch.

Integrating national weapons onto the F-35 can be a lengthy process. It involves not only the weapon itself, but aircraft software, interfaces, weapons-bay compatibility, flight testing, mission-system integration and certification within the U.S.-led F-35 program.

The United Kingdom’s experience with MBDA’s SPEAR 3 provides a good example of the challenges.

In 2022, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said that scheduled delivery dates for SPEAR 3 had been delayed because of “prioritisation in the overall F-35 development programme,” which is managed by the U.S.-led F-35 Joint Program Office.

The program has continued to progress, including F-35B integration work and flight testing. But in June 2026, the U.K. government said that completion of mission-systems integration and jettison trials remained part of a wider weapons-integration program and that SPEAR 3 integration and subsequent release to service would occur in the early 2030s.

The United Kingdom has consequently approved the acquisition of the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II as an interim standoff weapon for the F-35B until SPEAR 3 enters service.

Nevertheless, another F-35 operator would not be able to adopt the Israeli SPICE integration without additional work. National configurations, software baselines, certification requirements, weapons procurement, and export approvals would still have to be addressed.

Already, however, aided by its uniquely configured test jet, Israel has demonstrated an unusual ability to integrate nationally developed capabilities onto its F-35I. This has been aided by privileged access to the Joint Strike Fighter’s closely guarded software codes.

A U.K. parliamentary report noted delays in integrating British weapons onto the F-35B while contrasting that with Israel’s ability to integrate domestic electronic warfare systems, sensors, and communications technology onto its Adir.

Meanwhile, Rafael and Lockheed Martin already have experience working together on the SPICE family.

The companies signed a teaming agreement in 2019 covering the joint development, marketing and manufacture of SPICE guidance kits for the U.S. market. In 2021, they expanded the agreement to include SPICE 250, including development for potential sales to the United States and Poland. With some unque capabilities, SPICE could be of particular interest to the U.S. military, especially as it seeks to leverage multiple sources of precision munitions.

The SPICE family also extends beyond the 1,000-pound-class weapon now being integrated with the F-35.

At the other end of the family is SPICE 250, a much smaller weapon designed around a 250-pound-class payload. It incorporates a man-in-the-loop capability that allows an operator to redirect the weapon during its flight and abort the attack if necessary.

Its smaller dimensions also allow substantially greater weapon carriage. Rafael has marketed configurations in which a fighter can carry as many as 16 SPICE 250 weapons.

SPICE 1000, by comparison, is a substantially heavier weapon intended to provide longer-range precision attack capability with a larger warhead.

The SPICE effort is taking place alongside several other Israeli initiatives aimed at extending the F-35I’s range and weapons capabilities.

The Pentagon’s F-35 documentation has referenced ongoing work on extended-range fuel tanks and electronic warfare pods for the Israeli Air Force, although it did not provide fielding dates.

In May 2026, Israel’s defense ministry awarded an extended-range capability development contract for the F-35I to Elbit Systems subsidiary Cyclone. The capability is intended to increase the aircraft’s radius of action and reduce its reliance on aerial refueling during long-range missions.

Israel has also announced a major expansion of its F-35I fleet, with plans to increase the number of aircraft from 50 to 100. The country is simultaneously expanding its forthcoming F-15IA fleet from 25 to 50 aircraft.

For the F-35I, SPICE 1000 adds a long-range strike option that pairs the aircraft’s low observability with substantial standoff range and a relatively heavy warhead. This offers a survivability advantage in increasingly contested environments, allowing attacks from farther outside capable air defense systems and under heavy electronic warfare conditions. This factor will only become more important as integrated air defense systems become more capable and the F-35 more detectable.

Exactly how the weapon will be integrated remains undisclosed. Rafael and Lockheed Martin have not announced the final carriage configuration, aircraft software requirements, flight-test schedule, or expected date for operational clearance.

At the same time, Rafael is explicitly positioning the effort as a potential pathway for SPICE 1000 to become available to the wider F-35 community. This would conceivably give other operators another option at a time when integrating a new standoff weapon onto the fighter can take years.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Israel Is Bringing SPICE 1000 Standoff Weapon To The F-35 appeared first on TWZ.

The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins says while Trump's son-in-law is a U.S. special envoy negotiating peace, he's also working on private business deals, raising billions in some of the same countries.

No centro do embate no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a figura do ministro André Mendonça “furou a bolha” da militância radical e alcançou uma fatia expressiva do eleitorado evangélico moderado.Com uma narrativa quase bíblica, o ministro teria encarnado o “servo de Deus” que luta contra um sistema corrompido – em uma leitura simplificada de guerra espiritual.

O teólogo Ronilso Pacheco, diretor-executivo do Instituto de Estudos da Religião (Iser), analisa a construção da imagem de Mendonça como um novo “herói do Judiciário”, porém, diferente de outros que já foram apontados para esta categoria, como Sergio Moro e Joaquim Barbosa. Em entrevista à Agência Pública, Pacheco alerta para o avanço global do nacionalismo cristão e defende que o combate à instrumentalização religiosa não passa por calar as comunidades de fé. Para ele, o caminho para proteger a democracia e o Estado laico exige lideranças religiosas corajosas, capazes de inspirar a defesa dos direitos humanos.

O que a figura de Mendonça simboliza hoje, em especial para o eleitorado evangélico?

Mendonça chegou devagar e conquistou o seu espaço. O roteiro é perfeito para a ideia do chamado bíblico. Um pastor presbiteriano, servidor de carreira, que foi alçado ao STF. Um homem de Deus, discreto, que de repente herda um caso que se tornaria um dos mais importantes da República. Hostilizado e zombado pelos que escarneceram de seu momento de oração após o resultado de sua sabatina, ele é agora o “colocado por Deus”, como alguns dizem, no centro do poder, batendo de frente com um dos ministros mais poderosos da corte. Qualquer pastor pega essa história e transforma em uma campanha de oração poderosa por Mendonça. As lideranças evangélicas bolsonaristas tinham pouco a oferecer para motivar as pessoas a engajar na pauta política, e ele criou essa deixa. As pessoas não fazem a menor ideia do que são limites jurídicos, procedimentos, protocolos, qual o papel do plenário. As pessoas em geral, incluindo evangélicas, assimilam mais facilmente que o pastor presbiteriano, irmão em Cristo, expôs a relação indecente de um juiz com um banqueiro corrupto e por isso está sendo perseguido. 

O apelo da figura de Mendonça consegue furar a bolha bolsonarista radical e engajar o eleitor evangélico moderado?

Sim, acho que isso já está acontecendo. Eu estou inserido nesse universo e já vejo em parentes, amigos, e até em pessoas aleatórias, que essa bolha foi furada. Saiu do circuito do bolsonarismo radical e chegou a uma ideia de indignação do campo evangélico. Já se criou uma espécie de capa de proteção para o Mendonça. O que a gente pode esperar ver nos próximos dias é uma saia-justa complicada, porque, a depender da decisão do plenário, se houver uma decisão que atinja o ministro, ela já está prontinha para ser vista como uma perseguição religiosa contra o único membro da corte que é um pastor.

O Brasil costuma ter “heróis do Judiciário” em diferentes momentos, como Joaquim Barbosa, Sergio Moro e Alexandre de Moraes. Mendonça agora pode ocupar esse papel? Qual é a diferença dele para os demais, considerando que é o mais associado a uma religião?

A manifestação de 7 de Setembro na Avenida Paulista, em São Paulo, com o boneco inflável do Mendonça, já mostrou que ele está sendo colocado nesse papel, sobretudo por bolsonaristas que querem inflar, com o perdão do trocadilho, a imagem dele como um contraponto ao Alexandre de Moraes. Ele está gradativamente ocupando esse lugar, mas com diferenciais significativos. Acho que Joaquim Barbosa e Sérgio Moro tiveram outro tipo de adesão, no sentido de ter sido uma movimentação ligada ao combate contra a corrupção. Moro tinha alguma proximidade com o universo evangélico, pela parceria dele com o [ex-procurador da Lava Jato] Deltan Dallagnol, que é evangélico, de uma igreja batista de Curitiba. O Dallagnol arregimentou o campo evangélico para a campanha contra a corrupção que tinha Moro à frente. Ele foi colocado nesse lugar heróico por uma parte da população, mas também por um campo evangélico significativo, que queria fazer parte de um momento de transformação do país. O Dallagnol fazia quase que turnê em igreja, já assisti a ele em pelo menos três para falar sobre corrupção e como a igreja pode se envolver. Agora é diferente, é mais uma disputa política. Uma das forças políticas quer tornar o André Mendonça uma espécie de herói. O Moro era herói de um movimento que queria passar o Brasil a limpo, e isso significava enfrentar a corrupção. O André Mendonça é o herói de uma disputa de forças políticas que querem decidir sobre o país.

Qual pode ser o impacto de naturalizar trâmites jurídicos e disputas políticas como “batalhas do bem contra o mal”, ou de “Deus contra o diabo”?

O pior possível. O Estado laico vai embora. A gente sabe que a laicidade do Estado é muito limitada no Brasil, temos uma cultura religiosa que serve como background da formação da sociedade brasileira. E com as narrativas religiosas, de uma disputa do bem contra o mal, o impacto pode ser o pior possível. Esse não é um movimento isolado, não é uma coisa do Brasil. É algo proposital, sobretudo por forças ultraconservadoras que usam a narrativa religiosa cristã. Isso aparece em praticamente todos os partidos de extrema-direita que ascenderam na Europa nos últimos anos, e mesmo nos governos de direita que têm ascendido na América Latina, principalmente no discurso de segurança pública e de combate ao narcoterrorismo, como diz Donald Trump, com a linguagem religiosa. Não é à toa que o [Nayib] Bukele [presidente de El Salvador] fala de guerra espiritual, o [Abelardo de la] Espriella [da Colômbia] também. O uso dessa linguagem religiosa para descrever política e embates políticos está alinhado com um movimento global onde a religião tem se tornado uma linguagem preferencial para criar vínculos, conexões e mobilizar o engajamento a partir da base popular.

Qual você acredita que deve ser o papel da política dentro das igrejas? É preciso ter um afastamento total ou é possível conciliar de um modo saudável?

É preciso ter uma aproximação equilibrada, saudável e justa. Recentemente o mundo ficou impactado com a votação da AfD (partido de extrema direita alemão) na Saxônia, um partido com ideias que flertam com o neonazismo. Semanas antes das eleições, várias igrejas protestantes da Saxônia se juntaram e fizeram cultos para mobilizar a sua membresia a não votar na AfD. Não conseguiram, a AfD foi eleita, mas essas igrejas tentaram evitar o pior. Precisamos de lideranças religiosas que inspirem suas comunidades de fé a defenderem a democracia, o Estado laico, os direitos humanos, que respeitem as diferenças e defendam um país justo, que saibam entender os sinais dos riscos de um governo autoritário e as armadilhas da instrumentalização da extrema direita. Não acho que as comunidades de fé devem ser caladas politicamente. Acho que é um risco que precisamos aprender a correr. As pessoas não vão para a igreja para ter um curso de ativismo político, nem para a esquerda nem para a direita. Elas vão pelo culto, a devoção, a cultura. Mas também precisamos entender que a igreja não é um lugar solto no mundo. Assim que a pessoa sai da igreja, vai ser impactada pelas decisões políticas, pela política pública, pela crise institucional que se instala no país.

The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.