New research has demolished Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s account of why he survived 9/11, uncovering evidence that the story he told the nation about missing work at the World Trade Center that morning was a [...]

The post 9/11 Truth Investigators Expose Howard Lutnick’s World Trade Center Story as a ‘Bare-Faced Lie’ appeared first on The People's Voice.

A sweeping new bill racing through the California legislature could grant Jewish people special legal protection as a racial and ethnic class—a move that will create a two-tiered justice system, silence free speech, and open [...]

The post New Bill Grants Jews ‘Protected’ Race Status—While Rest of America Faces Hate Speech Crackdowns appeared first on The People's Voice.

As relações de Daniel Vorcaro com jornalistas tiveram papel importante no seu plano de fuga no dia 17 de novembro do ano passado, frustrado pela Polícia Federal (PF) no aeroporto de Guarulhos quando ele se preparava para embarcar em um jato particular para os Emirados Árabes. É o que se percebe ao analisar a cronologia do dia da prisão, à luz de um documento da PF, liberado pelo ministro André Mendonça por determinação do ministro Edson Fachin.

No dia 17 de novembro de 2025, às 7h41, minutos depois de falar com seu então advogado, Walfrido Warde, ele conversou com o jornalista Diego Escosteguy, do site O Bastidor, sobre uma reportagem com informações que ele mesmo teria repassado ao jornalista, segundo os investigadores. Às 11h, recebe de volta o link da matéria publicada e o envia para Warde.

A reportagem de Escosteguy menciona um inquérito policial sigiloso contra o Master que corre na 10ª Vara Federal do Distrito Federal (DF), do qual Vorcaro já tinha conhecimento, inclusive do nome do juiz que o presidia, como revelam anotações anteriores no bloco de notas no celular do banqueiro preso. 

Como as informações foram obtidas de forma ilegal ou de informantes que não poderiam aparecer, Vorcaro não tinha como entrar com pedidos na Justiça. Mas, de posse da reportagem, como se fosse a partir dela que tivesse sido informado sobre o inquérito, o advogado de Vorcaro ajuiza uma petição na 10ª Vara, pedindo o conteúdo da investigação e citando como fonte a reportagem publicada pelo O Bastidor. 

No início da tarde daquele mesmo dia, às 13h35, Vorcaro recebe um link de Belline Santana, então chefe do Departamento de Supervisão do Banco Central, para participar de uma reunião articulada por ele e por seu chefe adjunto, Paulo Sérgio Neves de Souza, com o diretor de Fiscalização do Banco Central, Ailton de Aquino. Desde as 6h34 da manhã, Vorcaro estava em contato com Belline e Paulo Sérgio, que atuaram diversas vezes como seus conselheiros, para driblar os mecanismos de controle e fiscalização.

A reunião termina às 14h10 e depois de rumores que circularam durante a tarde, Vorcaro anunciou às 17h24 que o banco Master teria sido comprado por um consórcio liderado pela Fictor Holding, com um aporte financeiro imediato de R$ 3 bilhões. O consórcio incluiria investidores dos Emirados Árabes e, por isso, ele iria a Dubai para concluir o negócio. Nenhuma comunicação formal da transação havia sido feita ao Banco Central, embora a transação também tivesse sido comunicada por Rafael Góis, um dos sócios da Fictor.

A Fictor não tinha lastro para realizar a operação, tanto é que, três meses depois, entrou com pedido de recuperação judicial, declarando dívidas de R$ 4,3 bilhões, e o próprio Góis é hoje acusado de fraudes bancárias. Mas a notícia, amplamente divulgada, serviria de “cortina de fumaça” para Vorcaro voar para um país sem acordo de extradição judicial com o Brasil e escapar da prisão, se não tivesse sido flagrado no aeroporto pela PF por volta das 22 horas. No dia seguinte, o Banco Central deu início à liquidação do Master. 

O uso da imprensa por Vorcaro se deu principalmente pela dificuldade de checar os acontecimentos na velocidade que o mercado exige — e talvez pela confiança excessiva na fonte; Vorcaro tinha contato com vários jornalistas. No caso de Escosteguy, dono de um pequeno veículo, a PF suspeita que ele tenha participado voluntariamente da trama, já que encontrou uma planilha com o pagamento de R$ 2 milhões em nome do jornalista. A notícia foi publicada pela primeira vez na coluna de Malu Gaspar, em março de 2026, e, desde então, o jornalista nega as acusações. 

Desde 2024, circulavam rumores no mercado sobre a inconsistência dos papéis do Master e, em fevereiro de 2025, o Banco Central já havia barrado a compra do banco pelo Banco de Brasília. Uma situação que exigia cautela, mas que, pelo jeito, foi menor do que o contexto e o personagem exigiam. 

O jornalismo só ganha com o acesso público a informações relevantes para o país; vazamentos e fontes serão quase sempre direcionados ou interessados em divulgar informações. Embora a ação de Fachin, pedindo a Mendonça a retirar do sigilo de parte dos documentos, seja um avanço, para passar a crise do STF a limpo, o ideal seria liberar logo e integralmente tudo o que não prejudicar as investigações sobre os três inquéritos com impacto eleitoral: além do Master, os relacionados aos casos “Lulinha” e Dark Horse. 

Compra de votos, chantagem, criação de dossiê e até a morte. 25 anos depois dos ataques contra os EUA por parte de terroristas, a constatação de observadores internacionais é de que não foram apenas as Torres Gêmeas que desabaram. Naquele dia 11 de setembro de 2001, ainda que ninguém ousasse saber o destino do mundo, inaugurou-se um novo período de ingerência dos EUA na diplomacia internacional.

Atacado em seu próprio território, o governo norte-americano se deu o direito de invadir, destituir, sequestrar e desmontar qualquer instituição que pudesse significar uma ameaça aos seus interesses. 

Gestos que até hoje ecoam pelo mundo e que transformaram para sempre regiões inteiras do planeta e abalaram a soberania de países. 

A década de 1990 havia sido de esperança. A ONU voltava a funcionar e o Conselho de Segurança era convocado a agir, finalmente. Mas o que parecia ser a exuberância do sistema multilateral escondia, na realidade, um fervor por parte dos EUA de manter um mundo à sua imagem e semelhança. E com a Casa Branca como o polo da hegemonia global. 

Mas bastou um teste para que a máscara da cooperação internacional fosse retirada. Os EUA nunca estiveram dispostos a dividir o poder e, machucado em seu orgulho a partir de 2001, iniciaram uma ofensiva para fazer valer sua visão de mundo e suas ambições.

O Iraque passou a entrar no radar e, com ele, o argumento espúrio das armas químicas. Derrubar o ditador Saddam Hussein era uma questão de honra, e de petróleo. Mas o argumento era frágil e logo uma das agências internacionais – a Organização para a Proibição de Armas Químicas (Opaq) – alertou que poderia fazer a vistoria da suposta existência dessas armas.

Washington não gostou nada da ideia. Afinal, se houvesse um caminho diplomático, o principal argumento para a guerra estaria enterrado. George W. Bush decidiu que era hora de calar a Opaq e seu diretor, o brasileiro José Maurício Bustani. 

Lembro-me de desembarcar em Haia em abril de 2002, sede da entidade, e encontrar uma instituição no epicentro de um conflito de enormes proporções. 

Bustani, que estava no comando da Opaq desde 1997 e tinha sido reeleito por unanimidade, insistia que sua instituição tinha informações de que as armas químicas do Iraque haviam sido destruídas após a Guerra do Golfo de 1991. Além disso, a entidade dizia que o Iraque “não tinha capacidade” para repor os estoques graças às sanções sob as quais tinha sido submetido por uma década.

Ele precisaria cair e mensagens chegaram até o brasileiro, sugerindo que ele deixasse o cargo, sem alarde. Seria hipocritamente aplaudido se renunciasse. Ele não aceitou. John Bolton, que comandava parte do esforço diplomático de Bush e que tinha em sua mesa uma granada, orquestrou, assim, uma campanha contra o brasileiro. Seu argumento para derrubá-lo: “má-gestão”. 

Em sua sala em Haia, atrás de um quadro, foi descoberto um sistema de escutas. Bustani sabia que seu destino estaria vinculado com uma guerra muito mais ampla que sua dimensão como diplomata. 

No dia 21 de abril de 2002, a pedido dos EUA, foi realizada uma reunião especial da Opaq para votar seu afastamento. Nas semanas anteriores ao encontro, países que estavam com sua anuidade atrasada na instituição fizeram os pagamentos para poder ter direito ao voto. Alguns chegaram com dinheiro vivo, despertando a desconfiança de que a Casa Branca estaria pagando pelos votos. 

Ao final de um rápido encontro, 48 países se manifestaram a favor de seu afastamento, com sete contra e 43 abstenções. Anos depois, nos tribunais da OIT, Bustani seria recompensado por uma decisão que determinou que seu afastamento havia ocorrido sem justificativa. Mas, para os EUA, isso pouco importava. A estátua de Saddam já estava derrubada e o sequestro de um organismo internacional era realidade. 

EUA agiram para Vieira de Mello ir para Iraque e em investigação contra Kofi Annan

Não demorou para que um segundo abalo transformasse a ONU. Preocupada com o destino do Oriente Médio depois da queda de Bagdá, a entidade aceitou o papel de reconstruir o Iraque. Bush tinha chamado ao Salão Oval o brasileiro Sérgio Vieira de Mello, uma espécie de bombeiro das Nações Unidas para as crises mais impossíveis. 

A Casa Branca o queria no comando do escritório da entidade no Iraque, inclusive para dar legitimidade à nova etapa. Tanto o diplomata brasileiro quanto o secretário-geral Kofi Annan hesitaram em assumir o papel. Mas, sob pressão do maior doador do sistema internacional, cederam. 

O brasileiro seria, então, enviado ao front em 2003, como representante oficial do Secretário-geral das Nações Unidas no Iraque. Mas insistia que não via a ONU como parte das “potências ocupantes”. Numa entrevista concedida a este repórter no dia 17 de agosto daquele ano, Vieira de Mello afirmava que não estava com medo e que a instituição era vista como uma aliada dos iraquianos. Criticou os EUA e admitiu que a população local estava sendo humilhada. “Imagine como nós, brasileiros, nos sentiríamos com tanques estrangeiros em Copacabana”, disse.  

Dois dias depois, em 19 de agosto de 2003, uma bomba colocada num caminhão no muro do escritório da ONU em Bagdá tiraria a vida do brasileiro e de mais 20 pessoas. 

Sob os escombros estava o fim de uma utopia.

O alvo não era mais apenas os EUA, mas todos aqueles que pudessem ser vistos como cúmplices. A ONU vivia o fim de sua era da inocência com uma explosão que ainda reverbera pelos corredores da entidade. 

Ao não conseguir evitar a guerra no Iraque e diante da morte de seus funcionários e de um de seus melhores amigos, Annan declarou em setembro de 2004 que a ofensiva norte-americana era “ilegal”.

O comentário foi considerado como uma afronta em Washington e, imediatamente, a Casa Branca iniciou um processo para também silenciar o chefe das Nações Unidas. Para isso, retirou das gavetas da CIA um dossiê que revelava corrupção em programas da ONU e que envolvia até mesmo o filho de Annan. Paralisado, o secretário-geral apenas teve de assistir o desmonte do direito internacional e a marginalização de sua própria instituição. 

Annan ficou tão abalado pela crise que mergulhou em uma depressão. Ficou sem voz, literalmente. Começou a faltar a reuniões importantes e deu fortes sinais de que pretendia abandonar o cargo de maior liderança da diplomacia mundial. Afônico por motivos emocionais, um dos poucos homens que poderia frear o desmonte das leis internacionais havia sido silenciado. 

A crise de credibilidade que a ONU enfrenta hoje é a mais séria em seus mais de 80 anos. Mas foi, a partir de 11 de setembro de 2001 que começou a ruir o sonho de um organismo internacional capaz de manter a paz no mundo.  

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.

Cuando no responsabilizamos al Mossad por la destrucción de las torres gemelas, se alentó a los judíos satanistas y a los traidores masones a perpetrar la guerra contra Irán, orquestar una pandemia falsa y subvertir al gobierno y al ejército de Estados...

– New Delhi, i BRICS senza il miliardo d’oro di Margherita Furlan
– Ucraina, la soluzione passa da Pechino? di Gionata Chatillard
– Mosca accusa, Londra prende tempo di Jeff Hoffman
– Mosca punta Vilnius, Bruxelles paga Washington di Jeff Hoffman
– Ucraina, Radev e Georgescu mettono in guardia dall’escalation di Ivan Bodyan
– Google trova l’atomo in Finlandia di Jeff Hoffman
– Italia a bordo del “Corridoio Luzon” di Ivan Bodyan
– Due stretti chiusi, il pieno a carico nostro di Jeff Hoffman
– Iran, sanzioni fantasma al Palazzo di Vetro di Jeff Hoffman
– Droni sottomarini nordcoreani per l’Iran di Ivan Bodyan
– Siria, le navi russe tornano a Tartus di Ivan Bodyan
– Lombardia, aria inquinata e capro espiatorio di Jeff Hoffman
– 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 ?PUTIN: VIA IL MILIARDO D’ORO | TG 11.9.26 proviene da Casa del Sole TV.

 

 

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.

Right now, live from Moscow, Vladimir Putin is telling the world: 9/11 was the biggest lie ever told to the people. Not a mistake. Not a failure of intelligence. A lie. The biggest one. Told to [...]

The post Putin Releases Satellite Footage Proving Israel Orchestrated 9/11 appeared first on The People's Voice.

Diana turned heads when she arrived at the Serpentine, one of London’s most celebrated art galleries, on a warm June evening in 1994, dressed in the figure-hugging gown.

Diana turned heads when she arrived at the Serpentine, one of London’s most celebrated art galleries, on a warm June evening in 1994, dressed in the figure-hugging gown.

“Addio a Emma Bonino, che divise sulla vita umana ma seppe anche unire“: ecco il terrificante titolo di un articolo uscito oggi su Avvenire, il giornale della CEI, ovvero dei vescovi italiani, che in fondo celebra l’orrenda leader radicale, mostro di ignoranza, violenta anticlericale (ce la ricordiamo con i manifesti “No vatican, no Taliban”), che ha fatto tutto il male possibile, soprattutto lottando per introdurre il divorzio e l’aborto in Italia.

Come tutti i radicali era una nullità, ma aveva le spalle coperte dai poteri forti dei quali portava avanti fedelmente i piani distruttivi. Filo-americana, filo-israeliana, favorevole all’Unione Europea, è stata uno dei grandi nemici della legge naturale e dell’Italia, paese che ha contribuito a distruggere.

Vergogna eterna a tutti i politici di “destra” e a tutti i cattolici che si stanno affrettando a celebrarla! Lo fanno senza crederlo, da ipocriti, solo come atto dovuto verso i poteri occulti che sostenevano la Bonino e che loro segretamente temono e non vogliono scontentare.

L'articolo Anche i vescovi nel partito radicale di massa proviene da Blondet & Friends.

Le scorte di munizioni militari critiche hanno raggiunto i livelli più bassi della storia degli Stati Uniti, secondo un rapporto pubblicato sul The New York Times. Il rapporto afferma che il vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti J.D. Vance ha parlato personalmente con ufficiali americani in Medio Oriente, Europa e Asia durante la primavera e l’estate per ottenere le loro valutazioni “oneste” su ciò che rimaneva nelle scorte delle truppe e su come le spedizioni di armi in Medio Oriente avrebbero influenzato la loro capacità di deterrere la Cina, la Russia e la Corea del Nord. Gli ufficiali di alto rango sono stati critici nelle loro valutazioni. Erano particolarmente preoccupati per le scorte esaurite dei sistemi missilistici Patriot, che sono il pilastro del sistema di difesa aerea degli Stati Uniti: in un teatro militare, ne rimanevano meno di 100. Inoltre, le scorte di sistemi missilistici tattici per l’esercito sono state esaurite: si trovano al “livello più basso mai visto”. Vance ha incluso queste informazioni nelle sue conversazioni private con Donald Trump, e il presidente degli Stati Uniti, secondo il NYT, inizialmente ha avuto difficoltà a credere che le scorte militari fossero state prosciugate a un livello così grave.

L'articolo Il Pentagono è una tigre di carta proviene da Blondet & Friends.

After five years behind bars and in Colorado’s correctional system, controversial cop watcher Eric Brandt is free.

In his first interview following his release, Brandt joins the Police Accountability Report to talk candidly about prison, the sentence that changed his life, his regrets, the supporters who stood by him and whether he still believes in the movement that made him one of America’s most notorious police accountability activists.

Brandt also reflects on his role in helping establish the right to film police in the 10th Circuit and answers a question his critics have been asking for years: did Eric Brandt go too far?

Love him or hate him, this is a side of Eric Brandt few people have seen…
Please watch this exclusive interview with Police Accountability Report hosts Taya Graham and Stephen Janis.

Credits:

• Pre-production: Taya Graham/Stephen Janis
• Written by: Stephen Janis
• Production: Cameron Granadino
• Post-production: Stephen Janis

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, this is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of the Police Accountability Report. Now, as I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. But today, we will achieve that goal with a little bit of a twist and a surprise, an exclusive interview with a controversial cop watcher who was just released from a halfway house in Colorado after spending five years behind bars. His name is Eric Brandt. He’s a Denver activist and advocate for the homeless, also a prolific YouTuber who built a large following with his antics on the streets and his successes in the court. Now, Eric’s thought copwatching isn’t for everyone. His tactics were flamboyant, to say the least.

Some said they were simply over the top. Law enforcement often deemed them illegal. In 2021, Eric was sentenced to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of telephonic harassment of Denver judges. The charges with results of serious threats that were made over the phone. However, the sentence was also considered extremely harsh at the time, and Eric apologized to those affected. And now, due to good behavior and perseverance, we have the breaking news. Eric was released today, and we’re going to be talking to him for his first interview since his exit from the aforementioned halfway house. But first, I want to check in with my reporting partner and co-host Stephen Janis. Now, Stephen, Eric is not just someone we covered, but he was also the subject of our most recent documentary, I Am But the Mirror of the Story of American Copwatching. Can you tell us a little bit about the documentary and Eric’s role in it?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, it basically was about Eric because when Eric received such a harsh sentence, we though we had to tell his story in depth. So I spent years becoming an Eric Brandt expert. I would say unequivocally, I am the foremost Eric Brandt expert in America at this point. So if anyone

Taya Graham:

Wants to talk – At least on the

Stephen Janis:

East Coast. Yes. But I mean, Eric’s story was a story of great achievement and great tragedy. And he was extremely creative, but also controversial. And I think as you said, he received this very harsh sentence. So it really gave us a prison to look at copwatching in general because copwatching is a very creative sort of organic movement. Eric was a part of it. And looking through the lens of Eric’s experiences, I think made the film really interesting. So I was appreciative of having that access to his life. And now, like I said, I’m ready for my interview on NBC, ABC, anyone wants to talk about Eric Brant, come to me. I’ll talk.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now, before I get to Eric, I just want to say Eric was one of the most colorful cop watchers we have ever seen. He is a Navy veteran who served his country and he’s also a prolific filer of very successful lawsuits. But more important today, he was released from a halfway house. It marks the end of a five year ordeal for him. Eric, welcome back and thank you for joining us.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you, Taya.

Taya Graham:

Now first, Eric, I have to ask, how are you feeling and what was going through your mind when you finally walked out that door for the final time?

Eric Brandt:

Sorry.

Taya Graham:

I can understand it. I’m sorry, Eric. I know it can be tough to talk about. Just take a moment if you need it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, take a moment, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Sorry guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, no.

Taya Graham:

It’s okay. Take a moment.

Stephen Janis:

Of course. Of course.

Taya Graham:

We understand. Absolutely. At five years and finally having this moment, there are a lot of emotions that must be coming to the

Stephen Janis:

Forefront. Do you want us ask another question or?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I guess you saw it now that I just had the release. Yeah. Wow, that kind of hit me. Yeah, you asked me what I was feeling and I was like, oh, I guess I am having a feeling. Yeah. It’s

Taya Graham:

Understandable.

Eric Brandt:

It’s been the last two weeks have been surreal, right? Honestly, I’ve been like blah. I know that the date is there. I don’t have anything else to do. I just work. I know that I’m going to have a computer, so I don’t want to do any of my litigation work on the phone. It’s too hard. So I’ve just been blah, milling around for the last two weeks and that’s crazy. I know. And today I had administrative things that I had to do and I’m sorry that I lost it on your camera.

Taya Graham:

No, it’s okay. It’s completely understandable.

Stephen Janis:

I remember Eric when we were talking maybe a year ago, you thought the parole board was not going to grant you release. What do you think finally convinced them? I know you’ve been on great behavior and you hit every achievement you were supposed to inside the system. What do you think kind of finally pushed you out that door?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t know what eventually convinced them to release me. I’m a little surprised that I wasn’t released earlier. The risk instruments suggested that I should have been. So I really was pessimistic about it. And then when I got the halfway house, I was surprised the halfway house application went by very quickly. Once I was in the halfway house, parole was likely at that point. And I know that you and I talked about things. I didn’t really share a lot of that with the public at the time because there were certainly opportunities for people to try and sabotage that. But

Once I was at the halfway house, I had a pretty high degree of comfort that they would choose to release me. And then I had my hearing and it went status quo. It went what the instruments should have suggested, which is release upon completion of the halfway house program. I think that’s what the public expects, right? If they release you early before you finish the program, they’re like, “What’s the purpose of the halfway house program?” If they were to have delayed that further, then they would almost have to justify that publicly. So I think that that was really the only appropriate answer. And you and I knew about this, of course, some time ago, but again, we kind of kept it under wraps for a while.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Eric, I hate to take you back to the past, but it’s something that a lot of us have difficulty imagining. If you could just talk about what those past five years incarcerated were like, how did you survive them and what did you do to help work towards actually getting out?

Eric Brandt:

Well, for one thing, I’m not criminally minded, right? So I’m in with a bunch of criminals. You get to know these people. A lot of the guys that are in there, they’re in there for a reason. And all of my instruments scored pretty low on things and my requirements and my needs were a lot lower than a lot of people. I have good education, so I wasn’t in a lot of the educational programs. So my situation was a little different. Behaving is actually easy to do. And I know that when people look at my work, what they see is misbehavior and they really have to delve deeper. And then I think that you guys did a pretty good job of that with the documentary, which I recently got to see finally. But there’s a lot that was going on there. So it wasn’t misbehavior because it was misbehavior.

It was misbehavior or civil disobedience, if you will, for a purpose. And so the classic things that I didn’t have the sexual misconduct issues that are prevalent in there. I didn’t have the theft. I didn’t have the violence, the frauds, drugs, all of these things that are really what the majority of the people I was around were involved in, that just wasn’t me. So behaving was always easy for me and my five-year track record shows that. So what did I do? I used my time to help develop programs. I helped develop a veterans program. We did a lot of service. We did a lot of community service, not just in service to the guys in the prison, but we actually extended that and did community service in the local community.

Taya Graham:

Didn’t you help pack up Thanksgiving dinners for families outside of the prison?

Eric Brandt:

Oh yeah, absolutely. We got feedback from that immediately too. We raised money internally from the inmates and we were able to raise enough money to put together. The first year we did it, we made 40 boxes and it was a complete Thanksgiving dinner box for a family. So everything that you would have at Thanksgiving was in this box. And we got immediate feedback. One guy, his wife had just passed and he didn’t know what he was going to do. And then we got a thank you card from a family whose house had just burned down. They were moved into a hotel room with their three kids. They had nothing except for the Thanksgiving dinner box.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Well, Eric, was there ever. I remember talking to you when they brought you down to Louisiana for that other case. Was there ever a time when you kind of gave up hope or you felt like we’re not. Because I remember being really worried about you in that particular part. And just so people know who are watching, we talked to Eric at every point that we could while we were working on the film and just trying to keep in touch with him. Was there ever a point where you’re like, “I’m never getting out of here,” or you ever felt like this wasn’t going to work out for you?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. When I went in, 12 year sentence, I was pretty harsh and I always believed in the back of my mind that there would always be something else. They would drag something up from somewhere. And so then when they grabbed me for Louisiana, I was like, “Yep, this is what I expected.” So I already pretty much knew going into it that that was going to be the rest of my life.

Taya Graham:

Eric, I have a question. There were a lot of people who stood by you during this incarceration and they were ready to stand by you for the full 12 years. What do you want to say to those supporters who stuck by you during your incarceration? What would you want to say to them?

Eric Brandt:

What is wrong with you people?

Taya Graham:

That’s an Eric Brandt answer. Yes.

Eric Brandt:

I can’t even begin to quantify or even understand the tremendous amount of sacrifice that so many people have made. And we have as a group consciously. Again, you and I have had so much communication in the last five years that we haven’t shared with the public and for good reason, but I’m perpetually blown away at how much support there is. I couldn’t have done it without you guys and I couldn’t even begin to list all of the names. I’d almost feel embarrassed if I listed one because I wouldn’t be able to list all 5,000 of them. But I would get things out of the blue from people. Marita Gladson, I’ll tell you about Marita Gladson. She sent me cartoons and jokes on a nearly weekly basis for the entire time. Oh my

Taya Graham:

Gosh. That’s

Eric Brandt:

Amazing.

To the point there where we would come downstairs and check the list to see if we had mail for the day and the officers would be in there and they would see me in the hallway and they’d wave me over because they saw Marita’s envelope and they knew they were going to get their Marita jokes that day. They recognized the Marita envelopes. Lacey R. Abby Irizarry, Melody, Johnna, Aaron, Joe Cool. I mean, some of these people, do you have any idea how angry these people would get if I didn’t call them by a certain time of the day? And you know how I knew they were angry is because the captain would call me to the office and want to know why he was getting phone calls.

Taya Graham:

There you go.

Stephen Janis:

That’s cool.

Taya Graham:

It just shows how much concern these folks have for you.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

I was going to ask you, because I never really got a chance to ask you this, but when you were in that courtroom and they gave you 12 years, because I did a lot of research, I could not find a sentence for threatening speech without some act of violence, which you did not do anywhere across any case I could find. I couldn’t find a case even remotely close. I mean, people threatened congressional members of Congress and got in two or three years. What did you think when the judge handed down that sentence and why was it 12 years?

Eric Brandt:

I’m stunned. To this day, I find it stunning. I turned to my lawyer and I said, “Did he say consecutive?” And she’s like, “I think he did.” We didn’t even comprehend it at the time. And you have to maintain a certain kind of decorum in that circumstance, and it was really my intention to accept my consequences with dignity.

Taya Graham:

I just want to pivot here a little bit because we haven’t really had a chance to speak to you publicly about the film that featured your story. Now you’re not the only cop watcher in the story, but you are a central figure. Now, okay, I’m not saying you have to necessarily give the film a thumbs up, but how did you feel watching your life unfold on screen?

Eric Brandt:

Well, so full disclosure to everybody, when I was in Louisiana, you guys sent some draft work to my lawyer. It hadn’t been through any post-processing. It wasn’t complete, but you sent it to her in case there was anything in there that we could use for mitigation. I thank you. I appreciate that. So I had the opportunity to see it or to see parts of that. I got to see it once through just really briefly. The first thing that I noted to my lawyer was I said, “Thank goodness it’s not all about me.”

Taya Graham:

It was

Eric Brandt:

Such a great story and so much of that story was not me. And that’s the point, right? I’m only on this stage for a brief time and the world is run by those who show up, and it was nice to see that there was momentum and good happening in people’s lives. It was so nice to see so many different positive aspects of all these people that are in union with my circle, but they’re doing their own thing. I was just so thankful that it wasn’t about me. Thank you. I’m

Taya Graham:

So glad. It was such a pleasure to work with you and to, like you said, one of the things that we learned through doing the documentary is that there was this circle of people that you touched that sort of reached out kind of like a constellation all across the country. And it was kind of amazing to see the effect that the copwatching and the copwatching community was having in communities all across the nation. So it was really beautiful.

Stephen Janis:

One thing I was making, I was like, the whole idea of YouTube is the minute you go on YouTube, things just go downhill and you don’t connect. But you guys were the opposite of that. It was like you went from YouTube into real life connections where

Eric Brandt:

You

Stephen Janis:

Were – It’s amazing

Eric Brandt:

How many of those connections are still active.

Stephen Janis:

I know.

Eric Brandt:

It’s impossible for me to respond to everybody in a given day. It’s just so much going on and there’s so many people involved and these are real people with real lives and yet still somehow find time for each other. And that’s what I really got out of your program was that things are really kind of good out there. People are living lives and that’s all we can hope for is that people live a good life.

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, I didn’t want to just fall into the same narrative of the YouTube spiral, which is sort of the mainstream media take on it that, oh, these are people who were like-minded in their pushback against what they felt was a faulty government, and they were able to help connect with each other in ways that were not possible without YouTube. So that’s why I focused on that part of it. I didn’t just do you got sentence. That was the beginning, but really the end was about what came out of those relationships. It’s cool to hear you say that you still have them, right? I mean, you’re still connected to these people.

Eric Brandt:

And what I think is really great is that so many of these people, they’re able to live their lives and then we touch and our gears mesh for a little while and then we live our lives. So we’re not dependent on each other. If you go off and do your thing, you’re not going to ruin my life. You’re not going to ruin my life. You’re going to enrich my life while we’re connected, and I am happy that you’re enjoying your life when we’re not connected. And so a lot of folks, we touch and then we go and we touch and we go. And even a lot of people that maybe there wasn’t a great super mesh, it’s still there. I think that’s how human connections work.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I agree. One thing I wanted to ask you about, I’ve always wanted to ask you this, you have a lot of fans and a lot of critics and some people who say Eric Branch just went too far. I don’t care what he wanted or how he felt about the homeless or police. What do you say to them now? Given the perspective you have of more time, how do you feel about the people who are like, “I think Eric Branch is into the antics. He’s not really fighting for something specific, but just making a show.” How do you answer them now?

Eric Brandt:

Well, I suppose that’s a compound and complicated question.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, sorry.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. Well, first of all, I was never in it for the antics, right? The street theater was the vehicle. Sorry, our rooster is apparently objecting to the interview over here.

Stephen Janis:

He doesn’t like your answer?

Eric Brandt:

No, the rooster of. I have a critic right here. No, I mean, I don’t know how you address critics. I have. I’m sorry, guys.

Stephen Janis:

No, it’s okay.

Eric Brandt:

He’s got to get his girls under control here. I’ve actually spoken with a lot of my critics, and I have a lot of critics who have turned. I would say critics that have turned friend or at least friendly, and that’s important. So the reality is I’ve never been afraid to sit down and talk with somebody intellectually, but sometimes it’s really hard to open the door, and sometimes the contrast is important too. So for example, if you look at my five-year institutional record, they make notes, they put things in the notes, you can read that and you can see the character of the person. And what you see in there is a lot of interactions with would-be foes, right? These are cops. It’s the government, it’s the man. The reality is that you are the government.

I am the government. This is government by the people, and governed by the people only works when the people bother to show up and do it. So when we have put trust, and frankly, a lot of money in the hands of these strangers, then yeah, we need to have good relationships with them. And different kinds of message and different kinds of activism at different stages requires a different kind of hat to be worn, and I’m very good at wearing the hat that’s necessary or that the work tells me it needs to be worn at the time. So what would I say to my critics? I would say, “Come have a conversation with me.” I’m not going to put any of my critics on blast. They might not appreciate that, but those of you that are watching, you know who you are, and we’ve had some good conversations, and I would have those conversations again.

Taya Graham:

It’s interesting you were talking about wearing the different hats, because one of the difficult parts of the film was trying to show how many successes you had at filing lawsuits, and you had a really big win with Liberty Freak, making case law that I believe enshrines in the 10th circuit, the right to film police. I think this came out when you were incarcerated, that’s when that ruling came out. So what are your thoughts about this win, and do you have any other lawsuits that are still cooking?

Eric Brandt:

I don’t have any that are still cooking. We had some pretty good ones going and the defendants died, and that pretty much puts an end to the litigation because you can’t get damages out of a corpse. I think I’ve had now, in my entire career, I’ve had three or four defendants die before trial. That’s terrible for a lot of reasons, and your questions don’t get answered because the litigation becomes moot. When I came to the halfway house, for the last two years, I’ve had no litigation open. I do have an active litigation right now that I can’t really talk a whole lot about.

Taya Graham:

You

Eric Brandt:

Can read what’s been filed on Pacer, that’s as much as I can give you now, but that litigation is earned, and there are some questions that need to be answered there. I lost track of the question. What was the question? Litigation successes.

The point of the work is not to have a litigation success, right? There’s no such thing as a successful litigation. All litigation is injurious, and so I wouldn’t encourage people to do litigation or to go into it for the litigation. The risks are very high. Take the liberty freak when Irizarry versus Yahia, for example. I was the primary author of that initially because we were together, and you may recall that I actually was found guilty for that incident, and so therefore I lost my part of that lawsuit under collateral estoppel. It was barred because I had been found guilty, and I, in fact, got a six-month jail sentence out of that. So this guy tries to run me over, and I ended up with a six-month jail sentence out of that, but Abboty didn’t. Abody didn’t even get charged, so his continued to move forward.

When the judge granted the officer’s qualified immunity, that’s when things really sped up. We learned that a lot of people watch these cases. The attorneys that wanted to take up that appeal crawled out of the woodwork for him. So getting it to the 10th circuit, yeah, that was my work in collaboration and collateral with Abody. Is that a great success? Well, no, there’s no such thing as a litigation success. It would’ve been better if it had been legislated instead of litigated. So I don’t consider litigation to be a success. Good litigation is difficult, it’s expensive, it’s risky, and you really don’t know what the outcome is going to be. As strong as you. You’ve got a slam dunk case. Slam dunk in the real world is like 80%. You’re not going to get better than that. You could get a weird adverse ruling and lose a perfectly good case, or more importantly, you could have a really good question with the wrong judicial environment to bring it in, and you could end up with a bad ruling.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we end up in the Fifth Circuit, which is also where good lawsuits go to die.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I’m pretty sure that the Fifth Circuit placed a moratorium on brains. I read that somewhere.

Stephen Janis:

Which for people that don’t know, Fifth Circuit basically covers Texas.

Eric Brandt:

I know.

Stephen Janis:

I’m just letting people know who don’t know because we’re talking about 10th Circuit would be the Denver area.

Eric Brandt:

Let me tell you one of the great comedies in my life is the Ninth Circuit.

Stephen Janis:

Which is where? Which is, just so people know.

Eric Brandt:

Okay. This is where the comedy comes in. The Ninth Circuit includes Idaho and California.

Taya Graham:

That’s a little

Eric Brandt:

Schizophrenic.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Wow.

Eric Brandt:

And it’s dominated by the San Francisco side, so those poor libertarians up in Idaho have to endure this liberal shit. Can I say shit on TV? I’m sorry.

Stephen Janis:

No, no, no. Speak the truth. No, I

Eric Brandt:

Do find that to be judicially comedic.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Eric Brandt:

Litigation successes though. I mean, the litigation is necessary sometimes, unfortunately, and it’s part of how we push back. There’s virtually never any accountability at the street officer level, and that’s unfortunate. And how much better would the world. Do you have any idea how many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on attorney’s costs in Irizarry versus Yahia?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, you had the electronic frontier, you had the Cato Institute.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, you had amicus briefs that were supporting you from really great

Stephen Janis:

Institutions. From really high powered organizations that probably have very expensive lawyers, I would imagine.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah. I hope that didn’t buzz through on you. I’m rejecting a call. I’m sorry. Yeah. Even in my case with the jury nullification, we had the ACLU come out from New York. Wow. They were given time to speak at the questioning of the Supreme Court here, Colorado Supreme Court. We had an amicus brief again from the Cato Institute, surprisingly. And if you took. Well, let’s take a look at the Westminster case. I was arrested for speaking about police brutality at the public microphone. It took six years to get to trial. Six years.

Taya Graham:

The

Eric Brandt:

Federal jury was impaneled. They found the city guilty or liable. In civil court, it’s liable. They found him liable of violating the First Amendment by dragging me out of the podium and arresting me for trying to talk about police brutality at my public microphone time. And I will tell you that I did tell the mayor it would be in his best interest if he let me finish my speech. That case cost the city of Westminster about $400,000 just in attorney’s fees alone.

Taya Graham:

Incredible.

Eric Brandt:

And the judgment was fairly small. It was $12,000. So you want to talk about litigation successes. There’s not a lot of money in civil rights, right? I wasn’t beaten. I was in jail overnight.What’s the real injury here? The real injury is to the community. It’s to the constitution. So while prosecutors like to say, “Oh, all these crimes, the victim is the community.” Well, that’s also true with civil rights violations, but they don’t pay out. So the fee shifting, the ability to recover attorney’s fees if you win is great. That can help convince cities to settle with you, but unfortunately, that’s money that does not go into officer training.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, good point.

Eric Brandt:

So we have a bunch of officers that we’re going to presumably say that at least a substantial fraction of them go into the business because they want to do something good for the community. And what they end up is they end up in this morass of, “I have to write my report a certain way so that I don’t lose my case.” That takes a few years for them to figure that out. So the reports go from being detailed and honest to being vague and boilerplate and embellished, and they’re not really remembering the incident. They know how to write the charges for the eight big charges that they file on a daily basis, and it’s really not refreshing their memory. It’s just one of the things. So they become jaded, and you have to remember that they’re being trained by a population that believes that they’ve been taxed enough already.

So we’re giving them the absolute most training that we can squeeze out of a population that is taxed enough already. Now, layer that onto the litigation costs. So Westminster, instead of being able to pay $400,000 for officer training, they instead paid lawyers to take that money out of their community. Those property owners were taxed for that.

That cost of litigation passes right onto the bill with no representation. Cost of litigation is the one thing that they tax you on that you don’t have a say because it has

Taya Graham:

To be

Eric Brandt:

Paid. So the community paid for that. Did they really get a half a million dollars worth of training out of that? And I seriously I don’t really question that. So what’s the word there? Again, there is no such thing as successful litigation. All litigation is an injury to the community and to everybody involved.

Stephen Janis:

Well, Eric, let me shift gears a little bit here. What do you think, you remember people called you a copwatcher. I think you were a copwatcher. I don’t know if

Taya Graham:

You’ve

Stephen Janis:

Been able to follow it from prison, but what do you think about the copwatcher movement at this point that you were a big part of? And in some cases it seems like it’s like James Freeman took down his YouTube channel. There’s been a lot of, I think, commotion in the community. Do you think it’s still as viable as it was five years ago or is it kind of waning or what do you think?

Eric Brandt:

Well, let me first be honest that I don’t have enough time to watch all of these channels. Right,

Stephen Janis:

Of course.

Eric Brandt:

So I guess I’ll give you some off the cuff observations that I’ve made in the last few months that I’ve been able to do that. First of all, when you put yourself out there and you put yourself in the public light, not only do you have supporters, but you also have critics.

And worse than critics is you have the silent enemies. You have the people that are watching your channel just to find the grew up. No, I’m talking about when your life is completely on blast all day long, then you have placed a target on your back. The guy in Texas, the head of the police union, Grimaldi or whatever his name is, I remember him saying once, “We are sick and tired of having a target on our back every day.” And I’m thinking to myself, “Well, stop putting it there.” Well, that’s the same thing with a copwatcher. You’re sticking your neck out. You are exposing yourself to liability. You’re exposing yourself to them taking a tiny little jaywalking ticket and turning it into a prison sentence. You have to look at the great risks that are there. If you have a family, if you have kids to pick up from school and you get arrested doing activism, social services is happy to give those kids a ride and you’ll see them in six months maybe.

If you have a mortgage, you can’t. We’ve seen a lot of cop watchers. I’m using the term copwatcher very loosely. I’m not famous.

Stephen Janis:

I’m famously

Eric Brandt:

Despised labels, but I’ve known a lot of activists, we’ll call them activists, that have lost their employment over their activism. So cops do go to these employers and say things to them and try to do that. That’s another reason why I’ve not shared where I’m employed because I don’t want turmoil with my employer. Does that make sense? That totally makes

Stephen Janis:

Sense. Because

Eric Brandt:

There’s risks there. There are mala factors out there. If we say that 99% of the population is good and 1% is genuinely malevolent, then if you have a channel with a hundred thousand people, you still have a thousand malevolents out there working against you and you’re just one person. Yeah. I haven’t thought of that way. There’s a lot of risk there. And so it’s not at all a surprise to me that some of these activists are flash in the pan, if you will. They do their little activism, they get into a little bit of trouble, then they’re done. And that’s as much as we can expect out of a population, that’s a tax. People can only handle so much tax and so much pressure. It requires all kinds. I will say, I don’t think I’m a big fan of the standing on the side of the road with the Zoom lens in the dispensary.

I’m not sure that I’m really advancing the First Amendment. I may be creating animosity with the First Amendment if we’re basically going after private citizens. And I’m not a big fan of the watch these people freak out until the one asshole gets sauced. I’m not a fan of that. I don’t think that that’s advancing the First Amendment very well. I think that that’s trying to make money in clicks and views. I’m not finding a lot of value in that work, but that makes me the critic and they have to make their own decisions. So

They’re there and I think that we have to tolerate it and accept it whether we like it or not. And you may like it, I don’t know. And your viewers may like that stuff. It does seem to get noticed, but that’s not my fan. My attack is against the government. I want government actors to be made aware and I want the public to be aware of the government misconduct because they’re the ones that ultimately make the decisions. They make the pressure. If you’re out there on the street creating the scene, then there are people in the back that are talking about it. If you don’t mind, I’ll talk to you about the power of how these things make it to the dinner table conversation. I had jury selection going on in an incident in Westminster, this is now about a decade ago, and we’re questioning the jurors.

And one of the jurors says, “I don’t know if this is the same guy, but my kids came home from school a while back and they were talking about a guy with this big sign and with this uncomfortable message. And we had to explain to our kids that this was not the language that we espouse, this is not how we like to live in our lives, but they used it as the teachable moment to explain the function of the First Amendment and the Constitution. So who am I to say that a particular incident does not reach the dinner table in a certain way?” And ultimately those are the people that talk in the background and that’s where the real power comes from. So I think that copwatching is still active and alive. I still see it. I do like some of these channels like John Eagle’s channel and Audit the Audit channel where they kind of go in depth on the story and they seem to put a lot of work into that.

And I would certainly, what’s that channel? She’s got the hair. We were talking with her earlier today. Oh, the police accountability report, that one.

Taya Graham:

I’m glad I’m on your list. Of course

Eric Brandt:

You’re on my list. But these are also important, right? So you have this street antagonism and then we have Tea Graham coming into us with the intrepid reporter in the field, Stephen Janice, and they kind of break down an incident or they break down a story. There’s a lot of money that goes into that kind of journalism. And so it’s so complicated and there’s so many moving parts and it’s really important for people to appreciate all of them.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we confronted that, but go ahead Tea, you had the next question.

Taya Graham:

I wanted to ask you something because we’re talking about criticism and I was just wondering, just looking back on your life, on your activism, do you have any self-reflection or criticism for yourself? Because I know, for example, I was there when you were in the courtroom in Colorado and I saw you make a statement apologizing to the folks who were affected by your speech. But looking back now, do you have any criticism for yourself or is there anything you would change?

Eric Brandt:

Oh, that’s a complicated question. Do I have criticism for myself? Absolutely. And a lot of criticisms are internal. Some of them we’ve talked about. Yeah. I mean, nobody gets it right all the time. And that’s kind of the problem when you’re out there with the spotlight on you 24 hours a day is that all of your flaws are out there. And I’ve owned my flaws. I tell people I’m bulletproof. Everybody knows I’m a schlub, right? I mean, pick the negative moniker and I’ve probably done it at least once. So that makes me essentially bulletproof. You can’t attack me. Go ahead. Try to insult me. And you have to, to a certain degree, have that kind of attitude if you’re going to go into this. You have to have a thick skin. You have to be able to handle it. I will confide in you now today that what really pushed me over the edge was them taking Otto’s kids.

Taya Graham:

That

Eric Brandt:

Was existential to me. That was so horrible. And that was too much vicarious trauma for me to endure that broke me.

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry, Eric.

Taya Graham:

I understand that. A lot of people were very deeply affected by that.

Eric Brandt:

Oh, horribly affected. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And just because he was with us, all that, I’ve seen all of that case from both sides. I’ve seen all the body camera footage and none of it made it any easier to swallow. It made it harder. It was even harder if you knew the backside of it. So I’ll tell you that the biggest criticism is that I had too much going on at the same time. I mean, my strength was that they would kick me down and I would get right back up. And I had so many things that were being juggled and then the auto incident was just more than I could bear.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Just so people who are watching, just so they know, Otto, the watchdog, he took his kids camping and they separated him from his kids accusing him of –

Eric Brandt:

For three years.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, for three years. So it

Taya Graham:

Was an ordeal. And that’s for Otto’s First Amendment activism. Otto was primarily, essentially police would approach him for holding signs. He was not putting a camera – Still approach him. He still out there. He’s still out there holding those signs, but putting cameras in people’s faces. He wasn’t approaching police officers. He was merely standing on the side of the road holding signs. And that was the beginning of his persecution.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, Eric, so what’s next for you? I mean, we’re kind of wrapping up and listen, we appreciate your time.

Taya Graham:

Oh, absolutely. Oh,

Stephen Janis:

I appreciate your time. What’s next for you? What’s your future look like? I mean, people want to know, what are you going to do next?

Eric Brandt:

I had intended to get out and go to the ranch and build my ranch. And there’s a lot of work that needs to be done there and that’s my forever home. That’s what I want to build.

Stephen Janis:

With a septic tank, right?

Eric Brandt:

With the septic tank, right? My life’s ambition is a pile of shit and I’m excited about it. Well, I think it’s – Oh, you guys

Taya Graham:

Are

Eric Brandt:

Going to have to bleep out a lot on this video, aren’t you? Yes. I

Taya Graham:

Think it’s absolutely wonderful that you’re creating a life for yourself where you’re going to be able to live off the land and give back to the land, help cultivate your chickens, maybe grow some food. I’m really into pepper stuff myself, ready for the urban apocalypse. So I definitely appreciate being able to live off the grid. Well, if

Stephen Janis:

There is no population left

Taya Graham:

There.

Eric Brandt:

I want to essentially build a biodiverse zone.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Eric Brandt:

My goal is 50 trees a year for 10 years.

Stephen Janis:

Oh,

Taya Graham:

That’s

Stephen Janis:

Great.

Eric Brandt:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Very nice.

Eric Brandt:

I hate to say, I have a certain amount of experience and education and expertise, so you’re not going to see Eric Brandt running down the street with sparkly purple toenails and a giant fuck the cop sign. That’s just not in the cards. So

Stephen Janis:

Those days are over. Those days of crazy YouTube videos are over.

Taya Graham:

No more Pikachu outfits.

Eric Brandt:

Maybe Pikachu.

Taya Graham:

Don’t give

Eric Brandt:

Up Pikachu. My situation is now different, right? I can’t tolerate another prosecution. The most minor thing now, if I lose, would be a very major thing for me.

Stephen Janis:

Eric, well that- That’s great. I kind of had a feeling that you weren’t going to stop working on this type of reforming the criminal justice system. And I commend you and laud you for that. That something you’re doing when you just got out. But we really appreciate you joining us today. Absolutely. It’s been fascinating discussion. We have very much enjoyed covering your career and film. Yute, you want to

Taya Graham:

Take up? And also being one little part of that constellation, of that Eric Brandt constellation. We’re grateful for you helping us be a part of that community. So thank you, Eric.

Eric Brandt:

Thank you so much for being there.

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate you joining us and sharing your thoughts and your feelings during this critical moment in your life. And we really appreciate your candor about copwatching and the criminal justice system and your own personal reflections about what you’ve been through. Now, Steven, for me, there’s not going to be any rant today for me. I mean, I thought this was a really profound conversation. I feel like there’s nothing I have to say here. I mean, love them or hate him. Eric is always insightful and thoughtful and kind of a mad genius, but not just about his own work, but the broader issues that prompted his activism. But Steven, before I walk us out, do you have any thoughts about our discussion?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s just interesting that Eric has projects already kind of percolating to do reform. It’s interesting to see that the activists within him did not die in prison. It came out. And also, well, I think a lot of people don’t understand the trauma of being incarcerated.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And to see Eric’s emotional reaction should be, I think everyone should see that because it’s not a big deal. It’s not a small deal to put someone in a cage and confine them. And Eric showed how that affected him. And I think we should all recognize that. Absolutely. We have to be careful about how we run our criminal justice system for a variety of reasons. But the emotional toll it took on him really moved me. And also the fact that he understood that we tried to connect the dots in his life and others and show it in a way that wasn’t just mercenary or that we use the conflict to create a story, that we showed a story of some positivity and some true emotional connections. So I was really glad that he saw that because I worked very hard to try to bring that out of the film.

So it wasn’t just about crazy cop watchers. As Eric points out, they’re people with lives.

Taya Graham:

Steve, that’s a really good point. I mean, we could have made that documentary incredibly sensationalistic, but instead what we wanted to show was the community that was there. And I’m really glad that Eric was so open with us. Okay. We’re going to keep you up to date on Eric and his work, putting his life back together, and also his upcoming litigation or legislation. We’ll see what happens. And we’re also working on new episodes of the police accountability report, which we hope to debut soon. So please stay tuned. And finally, our camera will be in the courtroom when a judge hands down his decision in the dramatic trespassing trial of Long Island Audit. This was after the popular cop watcher defended himself against charges that he broke the law when he knocked on the door of Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. And as always, please be safe out there.

💾

BERLINO - Sì alla produzione di armi, ma solo se servono per remigrazione di massa e scopi interni. L’uomo di Alternative für Deutschland in Sassonia-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, è ormai vicinissimo...

? IN DIRETTA oggi, venerdì 11 settembre, alle ore 19

? Conduce Margherita Furlan

? Ospiti: Massimo Mazzucco e Roberto Quaglia Venticinque anni dopo l’11 settembre, Levante mette in fila i fatti documentati, le conclusioni ufficiali e le domande ancora aperte sul ruolo di Israele.

? DI COSA PARLIAMO

? Cosa sapeva Israele prima e dopo: che cosa è documentato e che cosa no

? Le parole di Netanyahu sull’11 settembre, nel 1995, nel 2001 e negli anni successivi

? Venticinque anni di versione ufficiale: che cosa ha retto e che cosa no

? Dall’11 settembre alle guerre di oggi: l’eredità di quel giorno

? GLI OSPITI

? Massimo Mazzucco: regista e fondatore di Luogocomune.net, autore dei documentari «Inganno globale» (2006), «11 settembre: la nuova Pearl Harbor» (2013) e «American Moon» (2017)

Roberto Quaglia: scrittore di fantascienza e saggista, tra i primi in Italia a mettere in discussione la versione ufficiale già nel 2003

? LIBRI E FILM DEGLI OSPITI

? Massimo Mazzucco, «11 settembre: la nuova Pearl Harbor» (2013)

? Massimo Mazzucco, «11 settembre – Inganno Globale (2006)

? Roberto Quaglia, «Il mito dell’11 settembre e l’opzione Dottor Stranamore» (2006)

? SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV

? Casa del Sole TV è una televisione indipendente e autofinanziata: esiste solo grazie a chi la guarda

? Bonifico: IBAN IT63P0326822300052392596590

Diventa membro del canale:

? https://www.youtube.com/@CasadelSoleTVChannel

? Analista Multipolare: 5 € al mese

? Inviato della Verità: 15 € al mese

? Architetto del Futuro: 25 € al mese

? IL LIBRO

? «BRICS Scacco Matto» di Margherita Furlan, disponibile in italiano, inglese e russo

? Iscriviti a @CasadelSoleTVChannel e attiva la campanella per non perdere le dirette di Levante

? E tu cosa ne pensi di questi venticinque anni di versione ufficiale? Scrivilo nei commenti

? 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 ?11/9 SPECIALE 25 ANNI | LEVANTE LIVE proviene da Casa del Sole TV.

A Levante questa sera, giovedì 10 settembre 2026, alle 19, Margherita Furlan dialoga con Alberto Bradanini, ex ambasciatore d’Italia a Teheran e a Pechino, Vincenzo Maddaloni, giornalista e fondatore del Centro Studi Berlin89, e Hanieh Tarkian, islamologa e analista italo-iraniana, sul giorno in cui la guerra del Golfo è entrata nelle case italiane. Il gas per le famiglie vulnerabili sale del 6,9% in un mese, l’elettricità supera i 200 euro al megawattora, il Brent torna sopra i 100 dollari. Lo Stretto di Hormuz resta chiuso, Washington affonda le petroliere iraniane, il presidente degli Emirati firma a Berlino quaranta intese con Merz e a Montecitorio il ddl antisemitismo slitta di una settimana. Chi decide il prezzo non siamo noi. Chi paga sì.

Affrontiamo insieme:

Hormuz: il memorandum saltato, la guerra delle petroliere, la zona interdetta iraniana, il corridoio con l’Oman che non parte

? La bolletta delle famiglie italiane: i dati ARERA, le stime di Codacons e Nomisma, le accise scadute, i «60 miliardi» del governo ?? Mohamed bin Zayed alla Cancelleria: capitale del Golfo, gas liquefatto e difesa antidrone per una Germania in crisi

? Volkswagen: quattro stabilimenti chiusi, Osnabrück riconvertito alla difesa con l’israeliana Rafael, AfD primo partito ?? Pechino e i BRICS di Nuova Delhi davanti a uno stretto chiuso ?? Mattei, l’Eni, Amsterdam: come è stata ceduta la sovranità energetica italiana, pezzo per pezzo, e chi ci guadagna

? Ddl antisemitismo: il rinvio in commissione, la piazza del 9 settembre, l’Aula del 2 ottobre

? LIBRI DEGLI OSPITI

? Vincenzo Maddaloni, Incredibile. Bombe, Iran, USA. Tutti i rischi di una guerra nucleare, 2025

? Vincenzo Maddaloni, Voglia di rivoluzione. Storia e storie di un desiderio inappagato, Nexus Edizioni, 2024

? Alberto Bradanini, Cina. Dall’umanesimo di Nenni alle sfide di un mondo multipolare, Anteo Edizioni, 2023

? Alberto Bradanini, Cina. L’irresistibile ascesa, Sandro Teti Editore, 2022

? Hanieh Tarkian, Coraggio e fede. L’esempio del generale Qassem Soleimani, Passaggio al Bosco, 2022 ? SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato.

? Per donazioni: IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV

Membership YouTube:

?    / @casadelsoletvchannel   — Analista Multipolare €5/mese — Inviato della Verità €15/mese — Architetto del Futuro €25/mese

? I LIBRI DI MARGHERITA FURLAN BRICS Scacco Matto (disponibile in italiano, inglese, russo) ? SEGUI CASA DEL SOLE TV

YouTube: @CasadelSoleTVChannel

L'articolo ?LA BOLLETTA DELLA GUERRA | LEVANTE LIVE proviene da Casa del Sole TV.

France's education minister described the incident as one of 'extreme gravity,' and offered his full support to the teacher, her colleagues, students and the their families.

France's education minister described the incident as one of 'extreme gravity,' and offered his full support to the teacher, her colleagues, students and the their families.

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

La DGA commande les 1ers travaux en amont du prochain lancement en réalisation du standard F5 du Rafale

Ils concernent notamment :
la centrale inertielle
le moteur
le radar
la suite d’autoprotection de l’avion
pic.twitter.com/n3uhBYqIvi

— Direction générale de l'armement (@DGA) September 9, 2026

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNsu7g7r94

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.