Grinding The American Middle Class To Dust

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

The housing market, for much of the 20th century, was the bedrock of the American Dream. Home ownership, and the financial stability it represents, was a sure path to middle-class prosperity.

That dream turned to a nightmare for many American families during the epic real estate bubble and subsequent bust in 2008-09. What’s more, in the near two decades that followed, federal monetary policies coupled with restrictive local development standards have huffed and puffed an even more perilous bubble than the last one.

Now the crumbling façade of American real estate and the associated economic squeeze has become too great to ignore. To understand why the real estate market is falling apart, you must look at who’s expected to buy the houses. The arithmetic simply doesn’t work.

We’ve reached the point where discretionary income, the money left over after you’ve paid for basic needs, has effectively vanished for much of the population. When 67 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, saving for a down payment is impossible.

Currently, about 72 percent of Americans are struggling to pay their monthly bills. We aren’t talking about luxury vacations or even unexpected medical expenses. We’re talking about keeping the lights on and the fridge full. When the buffer is gone, the entire economic engine stalls.

The lack of affordable housing has created a generational rift. Young workers find themselves trapped in a permanent renter class. They’re unable to build the equity that once anchored the nation’s middle class.

Right now, more than 75 percent of homes across the country are unaffordable for the typical household. Most Americans are effectively priced out of the housing market. And this number is climbing.

Between higher interest rates, relative to four years ago, and artificially inflated valuations, the entry-level home no longer exists.

The Mortgage Death Trap

The ladder of social mobility has been pulled up. Millions of Americans have been left behind. Shelter is no longer a basic path to financial stability, but an unreachable speculative asset.

What we are seeing is the rent servitude of a generation. If you can’t buy, you rent. If you rent, you can’t save to buy. It’s a closed loop that keeps equity in the hands of the few while the middle class are stuck paying for a roof they will never own.

The modern American household also operates in a fragile state. Most families require two incomes just to keep the mortgage current. This dual-income trap means there is zero margin for an unexpected job loss.

If even one spouse loses their job, which is becoming a looming threat as the labor market adjusts to the realities of AI, the house quickly turns from a burden to a liability. The timeline from missed paycheck to foreclosure notice is shorter than most people realize.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor market is strong. But the reality on the ground tells a different story. We are staring down a year where millions of jobs are projected to vanish.

Automation and AI are displacing white-collar jobs that used to be safe. There have been massive layoffs in technology, finance, and manufacturing. In previous downturns, there were usually sectors that could absorb the displaced. Today, every sector, except low-cost elder care jobs, is contracting simultaneously.

When the jobs go, the houses follow. A bank doesn’t care about your years of loyal service. When the 30-day clock on a missed payment starts ticking that’s all that matters.

Engineered Collapse

Despite what the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics says, there’s mounting evidence that this isn’t just a run of the mill economic cycle. When you look at the speed of the decline and the specific targeting of the middle class, it appears to be something else entirely.

The middle class, specifically the segment that has historically held the most private property, is under attack. By squeezing the life out of the housing market, wealth is being funneled upward. When families lose their homes to foreclosure, they don’t just lose a roof, they lose their primary vehicle for intergenerational wealth.

The result is a civilization of serfs. We’re rapidly transitioning to a rentership society. If you don’t own property, you don’t have a stake in the future. You’re left out in the cold.

In 2008, the crash was about bad paper and subprime loans. Today, the crisis is about affordability and insolvency. House price inflation in the face of stagnating wages has become too much to overcome.

Moreover, as houses are lost en masse to the banks they aren’t being foreclosed on and put back on the market at a lower price. They’re being sold in bulk to hedge funds, who promptly jack up the rents. What this means is your neighborhood could soon be owned by a corporation that doesn’t have a face, let alone a soul.

The real estate market isn’t just cooling off. It’s being hollowed out. Between the loss of discretionary income, the instability of the job market, and the sheer impossibility of the two-income mortgage, the American middle class is standing on a trap door.

Yet the collapse isn’t coming. It has already begun. The question isn’t whether the market will survive, but who will be left owning anything when the dust settles.

Grinding the American Middle Class to Dust

For decades, the home was a forced savings account that allowed a mechanic or a teacher to retire with dignity. Today, that vehicle has been hijacked by institutional capital.

As the supply of affordable homes dwindles, we see the rise of the build-to-rent trend. This is where entire subdivisions are constructed not for families to buy, but for corporations to lease back to them in perpetuity.

This shift marks the transition from a stakeholder society to a subscription society consistent with the WEF diktat of, “you will own nothing and be happy.” Housing, the most basic of human needs, has become a subscription service.

Thus, the ability to accumulate private wealth through long-term home ownership has disappeared. As a renter, you are no longer building equity and wealth, you are funding a hedge fund’s quarterly dividends.

This exploitive model ensures that the fruits of one’s labor are siphoned away from the community and into the coffers of distant shareholders. As a result, the working class are left with nothing but receipts and a sense of perpetual instability. The economic ladder has been replaced by a treadmill to nowhere.

In addition, a society of renters is a society of transients that lack the long-term community ties that homeownership once encouraged. As the trap door swings open, the fall both destroys people’s finances and shatters the very concept of the neighborhood.

Community engagement and local pride disappear when the residents of a street have no permanent stake in its future. Vibrant towns turn into anonymous places for an increasingly displaced workforce. No one makes eye contact. No one cracks jokes. No one helps their elderly neighbor bring in the groceries.

The doors are closing on the era of American middle-class independence. The dream of home ownership is being replaced by the reality of permanent debt, and the bedrock of the American middle class is ground into dust.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 18:40

Trump Hikes Global Tariffs To 15%, Blasts "Ridiculous, Anti-American" SCOTUS Ruling

Hell hath no fury like a Donald scorned...

One day after 'The Supremes' struck down his IEEPA tariffs, President Trump has announced, in a statement issued on Truth Social, that he will raise his new, global tariff to 15% (the maximum allowed under a separate trade law), a day after he took hiked global tariffs to 10% (in response to the SCOTUS ruling).

Trump further slammed the SCOTUS decision as "anti-American"...

"Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court,

Then dropped the hammer...

"...please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been “ripping” the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level."

With the policy taking effect immediately, Trump further signaled that he would press ahead with his trade war despite the major legal setback.

"During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs...

...which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again - GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Ironically, for those cheering yesterday's court ruling, for some countries, President Trump’s new 15% tariff may actually be higher than the rates that previously applied to their exports to the US.

Trump is applying the new baseline tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to impose tariffs for 150 days without congressional approval.

Securing that approval could prove challenging, as Democrats and some Republicans have opposed elements of his trade policy

The Trump administration has indicated that it will use other legal authorities, like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose tariffs on countries individually based on their trade practices.

But those investigations will take time to prepare.

At least temporarily, exports from all countries will now face a 15 percent tariff rate, regardless of their trade practices, or the concessions they have made.

Presumably, at some point soon, the 'left' will sue to halt these tariffs too (even though - as Trump noted - they have been 'tested' in court previously).

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 18:15

Ed. Dept. Scraps "Unconstitutional" Race Preferences In Federal PhD Grant Program

Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

The U.S. Department of Education has agreed to rewrite the exclusionary race-based eligibility rules of a federal student scholarship program, resolving a lawsuit filed against the program.

“That means the McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program–a federal program distributing roughly $60 million annually to help students pursue graduate education–will no longer discriminate based on race,” stated Young America’s Foundation, which had sued the Biden administration in 2024 over the program.

The lawsuit had alleged the program excluded Asians, Arabs, Middle Easterners, non-Hispanic Latinos, some Africans, and whites unless they meet a limited exception for first-generation low-income students.

Instead, it supported primarily black, Native American and Pacific Islander students, according to the complaint.

“The McNair Program’s race-based provisions are unconstitutional, should not and will not be enforced, and are subject to a planned forthcoming regulatory change to rescind the race-based criteria,” according to YAF’s Feb. 17 motion to dismiss, with which the Education Department agreed to by not objecting.

U.S. Department of Education press secretary for higher education Ellen Keast confirmed the changes in a statement to Fox News:

“Consistent with the Department of Justice opinion, the Department of Education has agreed not to implement the racially discriminatory aspects of the McNair program, and we plan to make corresponding changes to our regulations.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of Young America’s Foundation and its members Benjamin Rothove, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student and reporter for The College Fix, and Avery Durfee, a University of North Dakota student.

“For years, the McNair Program operated under federal rules that explicitly favored certain racial groups while excluding others–including students who were white, Asian, Middle Eastern, Jewish, and more–simply because of their skin color,” YAF stated in an X post Thursday.

“This is another victory for equal treatment under the law, and a reminder that Americans don’t have to accept unconstitutional discrimination just because it’s dressed up as ‘equity.’”

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 17:30

"It's Not Going To End Well For Them": Susan Rice Joins Call For Revenge Purge After Democrats Re-Take Power

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

As Democrats plan for the possible takeover in the midterms and 2028 election, they are already openly discussing their push for radical changes in our political system, including packing the Supreme Court to guarantee that those changes are allowed.

Many are also pledging trials, impeachments, and investigations of anyone who supported President Donald Trump in a purging of politics and government.

The latest to join the revenge purge pledge is Susan Rice, Democratic powerbroker and top policy adviser to both President Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

In an interview this week, Rice declared that supporters of Trump can expect the proverbial knocks on their doors:

“A very prominent public figure, who has served at nearly the very highest levels, once told me … ‘Revenge is best served cold,’ and the older I get, the more I see the wisdom of that.”

She added:

When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media … it’s not going to end well for them, for those that decided that they would act in their perceived very narrow self-interest, which I would underscore, is very short-term self-interest, and, you know, take a knee to Trump.

The promise to crackdown political opponents is hardly unexpected in this age of rage.

Indeed, Democrats can point to the purging of the federal ranks, particularly at the Justice Department, as further justification for a tit-for-tat response.

Democratic politicians and pundits have been fueling the anger of their base with ludicrous claims that democracy is about to die since the 2020 election.

They have now used anti-ICE protests to stoke the anger in the hope that it will return them to power in the midterm elections.

Bravo star and liberal podcast host Jennifer Welch praised footage of a “No Kings” protester celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. After playing the clip, Welch laughed with joy and declared, “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”

The pledge for revenge purges is an obvious way to further motivate a mob. In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss how elected officials often try to enlist mobs to advance their political agendas — only to be consumed by the unrest they helped fuel.

This yielding to a “mobocracy” was one of the critical dangers that the Framers sought to deter through protections against majoritarian tyranny.

It is a history that figures like Rice are ignoring in the hope of riding this rage wave back into power.

The fact is that history has shown that “it’s not going to end well” for establishment figures like Rice who believe that they can control a mob.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 16:20

White House Ready To Offer Iran "Token" Nuclear Enrichment Instead Of All-Out War

When it comes to the potential of achieving a lasting US-Iran deal centered on the country's nuclear program, headlines have been changing rapidly, on a daily basis - as the specter of another US-led regime change war in the Middle East looms.

Axios is reporting that the latest big diplomatic option the Trump White House is mulling is a proposal that allows Iran "token" nuclear enrichment - but with no path to a bomb, according to unnamed US officials.

via Iranian state media

But alongside this are the typical 'military options' which have been reported for weeks, with Trump currently said to be considering 'limited' strikes, or even decapitation attacks to take out the Ayatollah and top leadership - though concerns are this would unleash uncontrollable full war, given Tehran's retaliation would likely be all-out.

Axios says of negotiations and the "token" enrichment option - that "This suggests there could be an opening, if only a small one, between the red lines set by the U.S. and Iran for a deal to constrain Iran's nuclear capabilities and prevent war."

The unspoken irony and contradiction in all of this - which the Iranians are fully aware of - is that this is precisely what the original Iran JCPOA nuclear deal under Obama aimed for. Trump, of course, during his first term pulled the US out of the deal, in April 2018, finding it insufficient.

"President Trump will be ready to accept a deal that would be substantive and that he can sell politically at home. If the Iranians want to prevent an attack they should give us an offer we can't refuse. The Iranians keep missing the window. If they play games there won't be a lot of patience," a senior American official told Axios.

All of this has led to premature reports that Washington has already 'accepted' a scheme whereby Iran could keep its nuclear program, for domestic energy purposes. Yet the two sides in reality appear nowhere near the goal line or final agreement.

The same outlet agrees, concluding: "U.S. officials say the bar for Iran's forthcoming nuclear proposal is very high because the plan would have to persuade the many skeptics inside the Trump administration and in the region."

The US is still escalating the immense military pressure by the day, as this past week it became very clear that we are witnessing the biggest American military build-up in the region since the 2003 Iraq war.

An 'alternate' plan is to take out Ayatollah Khamenei and his son, the latest reporting says...

NEW: Trump has been presented with plan to kill Khamenei and his son, among other military options.
-At same time, snr US officials tell @BarakRavid + @MarcACaputo that Trump would consider a nuclear deal that allows Iran some “token” enrichment https://t.co/zO5Uyji1k0

— Dave Lawler (@DavidLawler10) February 21, 2026

A sticking point for the US remains the limitation or elimination of Iran's formidable ballistic missile program. But Tehran naturally sees this as impossible, as it would in essence be disarming itself, assuring its own demise if ever attacked by an enemy like Israel.

Israeli has meanwhile made no secret that it wants to see the collapse of the Islamic Republic, seeing in it a forever enemy of the Jewish people. But Iranians say they are the ones repeatedly attacked in an unprovoked fashion.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 15:45

Syria Asks Germany Not To Deport Its Citizens Back Home, Fearing It Would Make Country 'Unsafe'

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Syria has formally asked Germany for patience over the deportation of Syrian nationals, warning that the return of thousands could lead to insecurity in the country and worsen the country’s fragile humanitarian situation.

As reported by Welt, Mohammed Yaqub al-Omar, director of the consular department at the Syrian Foreign Ministry, urged Germany “to understand the Syrian refugees and give us more time for reconstruction.”

He warned that “the return of thousands of Syrians to Syria at this time could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and mean that many people will have to live in refugee camps.”

According to al-Omar, 1.5 million people are currently living in tent camps in northern Syria alone due to destroyed homes, schools, roads, and a lack of electricity. Large-scale deportations from Germany, he suggested, would place further strain on already overstretched infrastructure.

Politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), argue that legal protection grounds no longer apply, but members of the co-governing left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) were more amenable to Damascus’ request.

“Residence rights are not determined by the wishes of the countries of origin, but by whether a claim to protection exists. This claim, however, ceased to exist after the fall of the Assad regime,” Alexander Throm, domestic policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Focus magazine. He added that returns to safe areas of Syria are possible, asking, “Who, if not Syrians, should rebuild the country after the civil war?”

Marion Gentges, Justice and Migration Minister in Baden-Württemberg from the CDU, warned against delaying deportations because of the current debate. “We have an interest in ensuring that serious criminals and dangerous individuals leave our country. Therefore, such deportations, including those to Syria, must be carried out consistently,” she said.

The topic of Syrian deportations could lead to friction within the federal coalition, however, with SPD lawmakers suggesting that Damascus’ request for more time was reasonable.

“Syria still needs time to create structures that allow for returns,” said Serdar Yüksel, SPD chairman of the German-Turkish Parliamentary Group. In many areas, he reported, there are “no schools, no hospitals, no running water, no sewage system.”

In some places, there is “virtually no reconstruction” taking place, he added, without responding to the suggestion that perhaps Syrians themselves should be leading the reconstruction.

The issue is already partially addressed in the coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD, which provides for the resumption of deportations to Syria, beginning with criminals and individuals considered threats to public safety.

However, a broader deportation policy back to the country has not been agreed upon.

Syrien fordert von Deutschland, kriminelle Syrer nicht zurückzuschicken - und die Bundesregierung gehorcht. Mit der AfD in Regierungsverantwortung würde die Abschiebeoffensive sofort starten - und die Sicherheit der eigenen Bürger in den Vordergrund gerückt!…

— Alice Weidel (@Alice_Weidel) February 20, 2026

Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), slammed the request by the Syrian government, and suggested that a remigration policy for Syrians would already be in full force were her party in office.

She wrote on X, “Syria is demanding that Germany not send back criminal Syrians – and the German government is complying. With the AfD in government, the deportation offensive would begin immediately – and the safety of its own citizens would be prioritized!”

Her party added in a separate post, “Syria refuses to take back Syrians – so the country doesn’t become ‘unsafe.’ Criminal Syrians are supposed to stay in Germany – and the German government is complying. Instead: launch a deportation offensive, send Syrians back to Syria!”

Voluntary deportation programs were launched in some German states last year, but resulted in extremely poor conversion rates. Despite financial incentives being offered at German taxpayers’ expense, just a fraction of those offered assistance to return home took up the offer.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 15:10

These Are The Most Dangerous Fields Of Work

Fatal workplace injuries remain a pressing issue in the United States, with stark disparities across occupational fields.

Statista's Tristan Gaudiaut reports that, according to data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2026, farming, fishing and forestry are still by far the most dangerous fields of work, recording around 22 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers in 2024.

You will find more infographics at Statista

A little further behind are transportation and material moving (12.8) and construction and extraction (12.6), followed by protective services (8.2) and building/ground cleaning and maintenance (6.9).

These figures underscore the persistent risks faced by workers in physically demanding and high-hazard industries, despite ongoing safety regulations and enforcement efforts.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 14:35

Welcome To The Lowest-Common-Denominator Society

Authored by James Hickman via SchiffSovereign.com,

For decades, Germany operated its rail system on an honor model. There were no turnstiles, no barriers. Passengers bought tickets, boarded trains, and conductors performed random spot checks to make sure everyone had paid.

It was a system built on trust— and for a long time, it worked, because Germany was a fundamentally law-abiding society.

That system has been fraying over the last several years as Germany aggressively imported millions of migrants who don’t respect the law.

The most egregious example took place earlier this month, when a train conductor asked a passenger— a 26-year old migrant— for his ticket.

Not only did the passenger not have a ticket, but he beat the conductor so severely that the man died of his injuries the next morning.

The government’s response is extraordinary.

Rather than establish law and order and rain holy hell upon the criminals, Deutsche Bahn— which is owned by the German government— has told conductors to NOT approach passengers who present a “high risk of escalation.”

In short, the new policy is— if someone looks dangerous, don’t bother checking their ticket.

Meanwhile, ordinary passengers— the ones who actually follow the rules— will continue to be checked (and punished) if they’re caught without valid fare.

The same logic already governs retail theft across much of Germany.

Shoplifting hit record levels in 2024— roughly €3 billion in losses— and according to industry data, 98% of retail theft goes unreported to police. Retailers have largely given up because prosecutors rarely pursue the cases.

Moreover, employees who do try to intervene face increasingly aggressive and violent offenders… which is why retail stores have instructed staff to not intervene.

We’ve seen the same type of policy in the US.

Last August in Charlotte, North Carolina, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee named Iryna Zarutska was sitting on a light rail train when a man behind her pulled out a knife and stabbed her to death.

The killer— DeCarlos Brown Jr.— had 14 prior arrests including armed robbery and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. His own mother had tried to have him involuntarily committed. Seven months earlier, a magistrate “judge” named Teresa Stokes released him without bond— on nothing more than a written promise to appear.

I put “judge” in quotes because Ms. Stokes had never graduated from law school, nor passed the bar in any state. She wasn’t qualified to adjudicate a traffic ticket, let alone violent crime.

At least there was outrage in America over Zarutska’s violent slaying.

But in Germany, the response to a train conductor being beaten to death was to tell other train conductors to stop doing their jobs.

And this isn’t some isolated lapse in judgment. It’s a pattern that runs through practically every layer of German governance.

Start with free speech.

The Alternative for Germany party (the AfD) won 20.8% of the vote in last year’s federal election, and current polls put them at 25-27%— neck and neck with the governing party.

The AfD’s surge in popularity is literally BECAUSE of the lawlessness and criminality that’s rampaging across the  country.

But rather than admit their policies have been catastrophic failures… and reverse course… the German establishment’s response was to classify the entire AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor”. They even authorized the domestic intelligence agency to wiretap and spy on AfD members.

Politicians have also filed hundreds of criminal complaints against citizens who criticized them online. Robert Habeck, the former deputy chancellor from the Green Party, personally filed 805 complaints. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock filed 513.

The government frequently conducts early-morning raids on citizens’ homes over social media posts— they literally call them “Action Days Against Hate.” Ironically, one man received a suspended prison sentence for posting a meme that said a politician “hates freedom of speech.” You can’t make this stuff up.

A 2024 study by The Future of Free Speech found that 99.7% of content deleted on Facebook under Germany’s censorship law was perfectly legal speech.

Rather than asking why millions of Germans are angry— the economy in its longest downturn since reunification, 120,000 manufacturing jobs lost in a single year, rising violent crime— the government’s answer is to label them extremists, censor their speech, and try to ban the party they vote for.

Then there’s German energy policy.

Remember, this is the same government that lectured the entire world on climate change while shutting down all 17 of its nuclear power plants— the last three in April 2023, during an energy crisis.

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany imported 55-65% of its natural gas from Russia.

When Russia cut the gas in 2022, Germany frantically restarted more than 20 coal-fired power plants and imported 42 million tonnes of coal, including a 278% surge from southern Africa.

They bulldozed an entire village called Lutzerath (in South Africa) to expand a coal mine, dragging 6,000 protesters away.

The country that wagged its finger at the West over carbon emissions ended up with a dirtier power grid than China’s.

And having shut down its own perfectly clean nuclear plants, Germany became a net electricity importer for the first time, buying power from France’s nuclear grid.

Under German law, if a bartender overserves a customer who then causes a fatal car crash, the bartender can be prosecuted for negligent homicide. Courts have ruled that by serving the alcohol, the bartender becomes legally responsible for the danger they created.

But a government that shuts down its own energy supply, censors its own citizens, and tells law enforcement to look the other way when criminals get aggressive? Apparently no such accountability applies.

And the same goes for the US, where if there was any justice, Teresa Stokes would be in prison for the negligent homicide of Iryna Zarutska.

It’s worth paying close attention, because Germany may be one of the worst offenders, but it isn’t the only Western nation making these choices.

That’s how you build a lowest-common-denominator society— by catering every policy to benefit the worst people in it.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 14:00

'Incubator Babies' Are Back, With Iran In Crosshairs

Tehran is once again pointing the finger at "terrorists" for last month’s bloodshed, rejecting outside estimates and doubling down after President Trump just issued his own high estimate.

Trump told reporters Friday that 32,000 people were killed in the unrest, declaring that "the people of Iran have lived in hell" under the ruling clerical regime of the Ayatollah.

Source: qantara.de

That figure is one of the highest offered so far, even significantly beyond some Iranian opposition claims. But Tehran has rejected this. It's far beyond even what most Washington-friendly mainstream media said in real time as the bloody protests were unfolding.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Saturday that the government has published a list of 3,117 individuals he called "victims of recent terrorist operation."

The official figure notably includes roughly 200 security personnel - suggesting at least some elements of the protests were armed, dangerous, and attacked police and military.

Iranian officials have alleged the protesters had outside covert help from Israel and the United States. Indeed, US mainstream media has lately confirmed the US government covertly shipped in thousands of Starlink terminals to aid the anti-government movement's communications and ability to organize.

"If anyone disputes accuracy of our data, please share any evidence," Araghchi wrote on X. He had previously claimed that at least 690 of the names offered were "terrorists" armed and funded by the US and Israel.

There could be signs of yet more protests emerging, as Fox Chief Correspondent Trey Yingst writes Saturday, "Large protests today in Iran, led by university students. Monitoring."

Meanwhile the New York Post has just issued this conflict's version of the "incubator babies" - with a new report claiming babies are being ripped from mothers' wombs(!). 

NYP claims: "Iranian police officers are gang-raping imprisoned female protesters and then cutting out their uteruses to cover up the horrific torture – before shipping their lifeless bodies home to their families, according to a shocking new report."

The Ron Paul Institute's Daniel McAdams exposes the report for the laughably crude propaganda that it is...

Ladies and gentlemen: You are being treated to the latest round of "Babies ripped from incubators" and "Gaddafi handing out viagra to his troops."
The @nypost is just another outlet of the CIA regime-change operation.
They are an arm of the neocon thugs who run US government.… https://t.co/gNYw9yc2hY

— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) February 21, 2026

Every. Single. Time. 

And people still actually fall for such simplistic, evidence-free claims amid the drum-beat for war. We are always told coming off each and every failed Neocon war: "but this time it's different!"

Americans are some of the most propagandized people on earth, and often this translates to disastrous 'shock and awe' style consequences for nations in Washington's immediate crosshairs.

* * *

For a trip down memory lane...

Three months after Nayirah testified, President George H.W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayirah’s claims weren’t true. No human rights group or news outlet could confirm what she said. It also turned out Nayirah was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasser al-Sabah. She had been coached by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was working for the Kuwaiti government.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 13:25

Was Climate Change The Greatest Financial Scandal In History?

Authored by Stephen Moore via The Epoch Times,

Environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree—as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent—a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse—but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

But it’s much worse than that.

In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries?

Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria?

Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy?

Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?

Many millions of lives could have been saved.

We could have lifted millions more out of poverty.

The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars.

Instead, we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

For this reason, it is important that we identify the green “climate change” derangement syndrome as perhaps the most inhumane political movement in history.

The one sliver of good news is that it appears the climate change neuroses have finally started to subside. We’ve reached peak global warming craziness in the U.S., for sure, and even Europe seems to have turned its back on its economically masochistic net zero fossil fuels obsession.

Donald Trump is wisely and rapidly dismantling the climate change industrial complex.

Of all his pro-growth economic policies, there may be none with a higher longtime payoff than his recent order to repeal the mother of all costly regulations: the anti-fossil fuels “endangerment rule” taxing carbon dioxide emissions. The cost of that regulation had been estimated to exceed $1 trillion over time.

We can’t recapture the $16 trillion wasted on a false crisis. Sunk costs are, alas, sunk.

But we can stop the madness of actually believing that politicians who can’t even pay off the balance on their credit cards can somehow change the world’s temperature.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 12:50

What Have You Learned In The Last 6 Hard Years?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The last six years have been a time of astonishing revelation about many features of public life that had been previously hidden.

I’m not just speaking of the Epstein files though they are part of it.

We’ve all seen and experienced things over these years that (at least to me) would have been nearly inconceivable before. It’s shaken us and forced people to recalibrate their understanding of the world.

If you have changed your mind on some important matters, congratulations? That’s a sign of humility, curiosity, adaptability, and adherence to facts over bias. This is a virtue. People who report no change are either omniscient, which is doubtful, not paying attention, or just too doggedly attached to prior views that nothing can unsettled them.

I have a huge archive of my own writings over decades and I look through sometimes just to test how and to what extent my own outlook has shifted. Indeed it has. There is value in my old books and articles but reading them now, I detect a kind of naivete, a simplicity in theory and understanding. I don’t think it is just maturing here. There is more going on.

Below I list some of the issues on which our times have introduced depth and complexity that defy conventional ideological categories.

I suspect you might have undertaken a similar journey yourself but likely with different starting points and different conclusions. We all process this new transparency in different ways. I can only chronicle my own, which I’ve summarized in ten points.

1. We were introduced to a new conception of what government is in real life.

Perhaps we once thought of government as the people we elect. That’s supposed to be how it works. As it turns out, gradually over a century and a bit more, an unelected bureaucracy has come to take power. It runs circles around the elected representatives of the people. It has deep links throughout society. The administrative state also has the institutional knowledge and holds on for dear life from the turning of one leader to another.

The U.S. Constitution says that the president is head of the executive branch. Trump has attempted to control its 444 agencies but has been stopped by a flurry of lawsuits. As it turns out, the machinery of state is impervious to elected leaders and designed to be exactly that. The same is true of Congress, which has its own staff that migrates and lasts through every political turning. This is not democracy. This is an entrenched and unelected oligarchy. It needs to change, lest the people be disenfranchised forever.

2. We newly understand what industry capture means.

In the past, it’s not been entirely clear how agency government works with industry. Two views have prevailed: agencies existed in an antagonistic relationship to business in ways that harm enterprise, or agencies work to protect the people against the depredations of corporations. Now that we’ve had a closer look, we see a more symbiotic relationship between large and powerful corporations and the agencies that are supposed to control them. We see this in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, education, technology, and munitions. This problem is pervasive.

3. Academia, as it turns out, is not the bee’s knees.

University intellectuals have long been valorized as the best and the brightest, the institutions guarding an independent version of truth that rises above the exigencies of the mutating public mind. But think about the major controversies of our time that academia has in general done little to nothing to resolve and much to promote: transgender issues, woke ideology, lockdowns for infectious disease, censorship, welfare corruption, the integrity of science, the problem of citizenship, and on and on. Academia in general has given off the appearance of aloofness to it all or merely being a participant in sketchy financial dealings. Think of it: when Trump started cutting the funding of elite universities, there was no real outcry at all. This is because academia has lost its once-high status in American life.

4. Big Media mostly is hopelessly partisan.

There was a time when we might have believed that the watchdog media was the essential bulwark to stand between the citizens and political power, holding elected leaders to account. This old view has been proven unsustainable in light of the last decade in which its blatant partnership has been unbearably obvious. The war on Trump that began in 2016 led inexorably to a complete takeover of the newsroom which then diminished trust in media, which is at historic lows. What’s more, we’ve learned that the biggest media players also operate in a cooperative relationship with state priorities, much more so than we knew before.

5. Big business partners with big government.

There was a reason why during the recent respiratory pandemic that your local small businesses were closed whereas the big-box stores were open. There is a reason why when the opening started happening, capacity restrictions hit small coffee shops but large eat-in restaurants thrived. It’s because of their pull in Washington and state houses. The big guys have political pull whereas the small guys do not. The big guys deploy the power of government to hurt the competition. Is this how it works? Maybe I knew this abstractly but seeing it all unfold in real time was remarkable.

6. The science is skewed at best.

Like you, I used to think that peer-reviewed publications in prestigious journals were likely approximating some truth. Then I watched as these same journals and publications ran articles that were obviously manipulated, false, and some just completely made up to fit with a prevailing political agenda. Once we found out that these venues are funded by the very industries they cover, it started to make sense. Now most of us have come to doubt the truth of much if not most of what they publish. This is supposed to be the age of science and yet we cannot presume to trust what appears under the name science.

7. Courage is scarce.

I once believed that when people thought the right things—freedom matters, humans have rights, we should follow laws, censorship is wrong, bureaucrats should not rule outside their realm of competence—that we have won most of the battle. What I did not understand entirely is that the courage to act on convictions is far more rare than convictions themselves. Indeed, without the courage to stand up for truth at some risk to reputation and financial well-being, it’s not clear that one’s convictions matter much. Not only that, such courage is exceedingly rare. Most people can be cowed by fear of the unknown. I did not know this.

8. The left and right are fuzzy concepts.

We all used to think we understood what was right and what was left, as if they are fixed categories. Same with the word libertarian: we thought we could predict views and actions based on those labels. I no longer believe that. I’m now allied with people schooled on the left in ways I never imagined possible, and with others on the right who I once seriously doubted. Nor do these words seem to mean much now that the left seems to push things that make zero sense according to their previous principles, and the right has warmed up to topics that were only of interest to the left. In general I’m glad for this but I’m waiting for all of it to settle in some ways that it is not now.

9. Food matters as much as medicine.

I once believed that concern over chemicals in food and large-scale industrial agriculture was wildly overwrought. But after discovering the problems in the medical world and Big Tech, it seemed obvious to consider the ways in which government intervention in agriculture is also creating cartels and distortions. Put that together with genuine concerns over health and you see the problem that has been highlighted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This issue that I had completely dismissed ten years ago is now front and center in my thinking, along with a passion to see the restoration of small regenerative agriculture.

10. You can make a difference.

Here is what has shocked me most. I’m now connected with a large group of Americans who are deeply concerned for the future of freedom in every sector: education, medical, agriculture, technology, and citizenship rights including voting integrity. I’ve seen this movement blossom from nearly non-existent to becoming enormously powerful and influential, not only in the United States but all over the world. Things are changing today and not because the establishment wants it that way. Things are changing because people are learning, gathering, acting, and insisting on change. This inspires me to no end. We need more of this in every area of life.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 11:40

If 'Cash Is King', Berkshire Hathaway Leads The World

The cash that companies hold is important for paying employees, funding operations, and as a measure of financial health.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Boyan Girginov, shows the 50 companies with the largest cash holdings, using data from TradingView to highlight who is sitting on the largest war chests.

This metric captures a company’s most liquid assets: cash plus short-term securities like T-bills that typically mature within a year.

Which Companies Hold the Most Cash?

Berkshire Hathaway leads the rankings with an impressive $382 billion.

The data table below shows the top 50 companies worldwide with the largest cash and short-term securities holdings:

Source: TradingView | Cash and Short-Term Investments | as of Feb 11, 2026

Following Berkshire are CITIC—a Chinese state-backed financial conglomerate—and Daiwa Securities Group, one of Japan’s biggest financial brokerages.

Big Tech rounds out the top five, with Alphabet holding $127 billion and Amazon holding $126 billion.

Why Buffett Holds So Much Cash

Among the top 50 companies, the Financials sector collectively holds the largest cash reserves at $1.2 trillion—partially driven by strict capital rules requiring banks to maintain large liquid buffers.

Berkshire Hathaway is different: its cash position is strategic, not regulatory.

After 12 straight quarters as a net seller of stocks, Buffett and the team have parked much of the company’s liquidity in short-term U.S. Treasury bills, implying that equity valuations look expensive.

The Oracle’s cash and cash equivalents as a percentage of total assets is at an all-time high—roughly 31% of total assets.

Historically, this has coincided with periods when he waits for a major economic or market dislocation before deploying capital as prices begin to mean-revert—quietly accumulating dry powder in the meantime.

Why Big Tech Holds So Much Cash

The Magnificent Seven: Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia and Tesla collectively hold $597 billion—enough to buy most S&P 500 companies.

Traditionally, Big Tech companies are massive cash machines: high gross margins and scalable cost structures mean incremental revenue converts into cash quickly.

Despite spending heavily to build AI factories, they’ve used little of their cash reserves to finance them—opting instead for debt.

They hold large cash stockpiles both to fund acquisitions and guard against potential economic turmoil, such as threats from tariffs or geopolitical conflicts.

To learn more about the world’s largest companies, check out this graphic on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 11:05

9 Tips To Cut Your 2025 Tax Bill And File Smoothly Under New Rules

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

With tax season underway and the April 15 filing deadline approaching, taxpayers are being encouraged to review new changes introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to help minimize their tax bills and avoid filing delays.

The IRS in Washington. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The law, signed in July 2025, made several permanent revisions to the tax code. It also created a series of temporary deductions and expanded limits—many of which expire after 2028 or 2029 and come with strict income phaseouts.

The IRS has urged taxpayers to review the new provisions carefully and use online tools at IRS.gov to help ensure smooth processing.

Here are nine strategies to consider.

1. Revisit Itemizing Under the Higher SALT Cap

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) temporarily increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for both single filers and married couples filing jointly.

For 2025, the standard deduction is $15,750 for singles, $31,500 for married couples, and $23,625 for heads of household.

Taxpayers whose total itemized deductions—including mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes—exceed those amounts may benefit from itemizing.

However, the expanded SALT cap begins phasing out at $500,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) and returns to $10,000 once MAGI reaches $600,000.

Because many benefits phase out at specific income levels, reviewing your projected MAGI before making major financial moves—such as selling investments or doing a Roth conversion—can help protect valuable deductions.

While most of your 2025 income is already set by filing season, certain contributions made before the April deadline, such as individual retirement account or health savings account funding, can still lower taxable income and help preserve income-sensitive tax breaks.

2. Calculate the Overtime Deduction Carefully

The law introduced a temporary deduction for qualified overtime compensation, capped at $25,000 for married couples and $12,500 for singles.

Only the additional “half-time” portion of time-and-a-half pay qualifies—not the full overtime rate.

The deduction begins phasing out at $300,000 in MAGI for joint filers and disappears entirely at $550,000.

Taxpayers should confirm that their W-2 accurately reflects overtime earnings before claiming the deduction.

3. Make Sure Tip Income Is Properly Reported

The qualified tip income deduction allows up to $25,000 in reported tip income per return.

Only tips formally reported on a W-2 or 1099 qualify. Unreported cash tips cannot be deducted.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that they are responsible for all information reported on their return, even if a preparer completes it. Incorrect or mismatched income reporting may delay processing.

The tip deduction phases out beginning at $150,000 in MAGI for singles and $300,000 for married couples.

4. Confirm Eligibility for Auto Loan Interest Deduction

Taxpayers who purchased a new personal-use vehicle in 2025 may be able to deduct up to $10,000 in interest paid on a qualifying auto loan.

The vehicle must have final assembly in the United States, and leased vehicles do not qualify.

The deduction phases out beginning at $100,000 in MAGI for singles and $200,000 for married couples.

The IRS notes that lenders must provide taxpayers with statements showing the total interest paid during the year—and retaining that documentation is essential when claiming the deduction.

5. Seniors Should Watch Income Limits Closely

Taxpayers age 65 or older may qualify for a temporary senior deduction of up to $12,000 for married couples and $6,000 for singles.

The benefit begins phasing out at $150,000 in MAGI for married couples and $75,000 for singles.

Large Roth conversions, capital gains, or other income spikes could eliminate the deduction. Financial planners often recommend modeling income carefully before executing major transactions to avoid unintended tax consequences.

6. Manage MAGI to Preserve Income-Sensitive Breaks

Many of the OBBBA’s temporary provisions hinge on income thresholds, making modified adjusted gross income a key planning factor.

Taxpayers whose income is close to phaseout levels—such as $300,000 for the overtime and tip deductions or $500,000 for the expanded SALT cap—may benefit from carefully timing income and contributions. Even modest adjustments to income can preserve eligibility for deductions that may be worth thousands of dollars.

The IRS notes that contributing to retirement plans like 401(k)s or traditional IRAs—and making eligible health savings account contributions by the filing deadline—can lower adjusted gross income, which in turn can help taxpayers stay under key income thresholds that affect eligibility for tax breaks.

7. Double-Check Identity and Dependent Information

Errors in personal information remain one of the most common causes of refund delays.

The IRS has advised taxpayers to confirm Social Security numbers, dependent names, and Identity Protection PINs before filing. Taking these steps can help avoid delays in processing and in claiming credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or Additional Child Tax Credit.

8. Use IRS Online Tools to Avoid Delays

The IRS recommends filing electronically and choosing direct deposit to speed refunds, noting that most refunds are issued in less than 21 days.

Refund status can be tracked using the “Where’s My Refund?” tool, available within 24 hours after an electronic filing is received.

The IRS is also phasing out paper refund checks, and mailed refunds may take six weeks or longer.

Taxpayers can use an IRS Individual Online Account to view tax records and transcripts, check refund status, verify adjusted gross income, retrieve an Identity Protection PIN, and view certain W-2 and 1099 forms.

9. The Bottom Line

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act created new tax-saving opportunities for 2025, but many come with strict limits and income phaseouts.

A careful review of deductions, income timing, and documentation—combined with the IRS’s online tools—can help taxpayers avoid losing temporary benefits or experiencing unnecessary delays.

With the filing deadline approaching, preparation and attention to detail may be the most effective ways to reduce stress—and potentially reduce your tax bill.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 10:30

Precrime: Months Before Massacre, OpenAI Worried About Canada's Trans Mass Killer

Months before a Canadian man in a dress went on a Feb 10 rampage, killing his mother and half-brother at home before slaughtering five students and an education assistant at a secondary school where he was formerly a student, employees at OpenAI were deeply troubled by his interactions with the firm's ChatGPT AI chatbot.   

As first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Jesse Van Rootselaar's ChatGPT activity was flagged by the company's automated review system. When employees took a look at what he'd been up to over a several-day period in June 2025, they were alarmed. About a dozen of them debated what they should do.

OpenAI employees were sufficiently alarmed by future mass murderer Jesse Van Rootselaar's interactions with ChatGPT that they urged managers to call the police

Some were convinced Van Rootselaar's descriptions of gun-violence scenarios signaled a substantial risk of real-world bloodshed, and implored their supervisors to notify police, according to the Journal's unnamed sources. They opted against doing so, and a spokeswoman now says they'd concluded Van Rootselaar's posts didn't cross the threshold of posing a credible and imminent risk of serious harm. Instead, the company decided only to ban his account. 

About seven months after his disturbing series of interactions with ChatGPT, police say he killed 8 people and injured 25 more before killing himself in the school he'd attended earlier. Van Rootselaar's social media and YouTube accounts contained transgender symbolism as well as the online name "JessJessUwU" (a meme phrase that people may recognize from the bullet casings tied to the gay suspect charged in the assassination of Charlie Kirk). 

Van Rootselaar at a gun range: He captioned this social media post "I blew up their desert eagle!" 

Only after the bloody horror unfolded did OpenAI contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The situation highlights the difficult position social media and AI platforms are in, as they struggle with balancing conflicting goals: protecting their users' privacy and avoiding unnecessary interactions with police, versus preventing crimes up to and including mass murder. The Journal didn't report specifics about Van Rootselaar's ChatGPT interactions.  

ChatGPT wasn't the only online resource where he evidenced a potential for violence: He'd also used Roblox to build a game centered on carrying out a mass shooting at a shopping mall. Online activity aside, Van Rootselaar was already on the radar of local police, who made multiple visits to his home in response to mental health episodes, and even temporarily removing firearms from the property. An RCMP official said that, on multiple occasions, he was "apprehended for assessment and follow-up."  

Six days after Van Rootselaar's (left) mass murder-suicide, another man-in-a-dress, Robert Dorgan, killed his ex-wife, his own child and himself at a Rhode Island hockey rink 

Police say Van Rootselaar gender-transitioned about six years ago. Given he was 18 when he exploded into violence, that translates into the very young age of about 12. There's no indication that the "transition" went beyond "identity" and clothing, and into the realm of hormones and other body-transforming measures. Online, he bemoaned the fact that his six-foot frame would render impossible his aspiration to be a "petite" woman.  

On Reddit, Van Rootselaar often posted about his use of prescription and other drugs, and curiosity about 5-MeO-DMT, a hallucinogen nicknamed "toad venom." He said he'd been diagnosed with ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, major depressive disorder and autism spectrum disorder, and was taking "Setraline 380mg (SSRI). I on rare occasion take 2mg of Risperidone for sleep purposes (anti-psychotic.)" Setraline is the generic version of Zoloft. He dropped out of school about four years ago. 

Elsewhere on Reddit, in a post about his "right to be myself" and his "right to Hormone Replacement Therapy," Van Rootselaar noted that at least other people support his "bare minimum...right to bear arms," adding, "I'm a 15 year old trans person, transitioning from Male to Female. I 'own' 7 firearms, it's cool." 

What's definitely not cool: nudging 12-year-olds down the gender-transitioning path. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 09:55

No Laughing Matter: John Cleese Declares "I'm Afraid They Are Going To Have To Arrest Me"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In the classic movie comedy, A Fish Called Wanda, John Cleese lamented, “do you have any idea what it’s like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing.”

Now 86, Cleese has a more pressing concern about being English: whether his exercise of free speech will make him a criminal in his own country.

In a recent interview, Cleese observed that the government’s new speech standards would classify many citizens, including himself, as presumptive criminals for criticizing certain policies.

He observed that: ”As I am an Islamosceptic, I’m now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist…”

The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has continued its headlong plunge into the criminalization of speech. The guidelines include a section on cultural nationalism, stating that such views are now the subject of government crackdowns. To even argue that Western culture is under threat from mass migration or a lack of integration by certain groups is being treated as a dangerous ideology.

Cleese responded by saying, “I’m clearly a terrorist, so I’m afraid they are going to have to arrest me.”

The tragedy is that this is no wicked Monty Python joke. Cleese has every reason to be concerned.

As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, the United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech in the name of social cohesion and order.

For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.

A man was convicted of sending a tweet while drunk, referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.”

A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room.

Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:

“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.

After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”

“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law.

It covers the possession of material deemed hateful.

The law is a free speech nightmare.

The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.”

The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”

The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. Two years ago, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.

Now the UK’s most famous writers and comedians believe that they can be arrested under the country’s draconian speech laws from JK Rowling to John Cleese.

That leaves free speech much like Cleese’s famous parrot.

The British government and its supporters can claim evidence of life or just “resting,” but it is in fact "bleedin’ demised…passed on! … no more! … ceased to be! … expired and gone to meet it's maker!”

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 09:20

California Dominates America's AI/Data-Center Jobs

The AI boom isn’t just about chatbots and software. It’s also creating thousands of jobs tied to the physical infrastructure that powers large-scale computing.

As companies race to build data centers and expand AI capacity, employment tied to AI infrastructure has climbed to 482,716 jobs nationwide, according to 2025 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins, ranks all 50 states by AI and data center employment, highlighting where this fast-growing segment of the tech economy has taken root—and which states have built the deepest talent bases.

The AI and Data Center Boom: Jobs by State

California leads the nation with 81,577 AI and data center jobs, accounting for about 17% of the U.S. total.

While California dominates in total jobs, Washington ranks first on a per capita basis, with 289.8 roles per 100,000 residents. This is partially thanks to being home base to companies like Microsoft and Amazon.

More populous states like Texas (48,029), Florida (28,682), and New York (27,849) are all at the top of the leaderboard in absolute terms. That said, the latter two (Florida and New York) are actually below average in per capita terms.

Silicon Slopes and the Data Center Capital of the World

When sorting the list in per capita terms, the states Utah, Missouri, and Virginia stand out—all making the top five.

Virginia has the world’s largest concentration of data centers (Northern Virginia’s “Data Center Alley”), driven by hyperscalers, federal demand, and dense fiber connectivity.

Utah is known in the tech industry as “Silicon Slopes”, with a budding startup ecosystem, strong SaaS presence, and tax-friendly policies for data center investment.

Finally, Missouri is an emerging Midwest tech hub with growing cloud, geospatial intelligence, and defense-tech activity, supported by low-cost power and central U.S. connectivity.

Learn more about data center electricity demand by region in this visualization on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 08:45

Deporting Censorship: US Targets UK Government Ally Over Free Speech

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via RealClearInvestigations,

As ICE sweeps in Minneapolis have drawn wide attention, a little-noticed immigration case playing out in a New York federal court has significant implications for America’s relationship with Britain and the ongoing debate over global censorship.  

In late December, the State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans. The most consequential member of this group is Imran Ahmed, a British Labour Party political operative now living in the U.S., who is the CEO of an influential nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

In documents released Feb. 6 in federal court, the State Department claims Ahmed and the Center have been key players in efforts to censor Americans. A memo written by State Department Undersecretary Sarah Rogers asserts that “Ahmed was a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens and pressure U.S. companies into censoring, and his group advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies.” 

In a follow-up memo, Secretary Marco Rubio wrote that Ahmed had led efforts to censor Americans and harm U.S. media outlets, including ZeroHedge and The Federalist. “I have determined that Ahmed’s activities and presence in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and comprise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Rubio asserted. While the Center casts itself as a disinterested nonprofit trying to stop online hate, Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.” 

Ahmed has a small army of lawyers working to halt his deportation proceedings, which are now being litigated. Ahmed’s lead attorney is Roberta Kaplan - a former advisor to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo - who sued President Trump on behalf of his niece, Mary Trump. Ahmed is also represented by Norm Eisen, a Democratic Party fundraiser and former advisor to Obama. Last Thursday, they filed an updated court complaint against the U.S. government to keep Ahmed in the United States.

International Implications

The effort to deport Ahmed has broader political implications because of the close ties he and his associates have to the highest reaches of the British government. Morgan McSweeney, who co-founded the Center with Ahmed, is widely seen as the architect of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party victory in 2024. McSweeney served as Starmer’s chief of staff until earlier this month, when he resigned because of a separate scandal connected to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Imran Ahmed

U.K. government documents reviewed by RCI show that the organization’s influence extends throughout Starmer’s government. The Trump administration’s pushback on Ahmed’s weaponization of speech against U.S. citizens and companies suggests a deep concern about foreign intervention and censorship stemming from one of America’s closest allies.

In a recent interview with Undersecretary Rogers, RCI noted that the State Department appeared to be “knocking on the door of the Prime Minister’s office.” Rogers demurred, declining to detail her discussion with Starmer officials. “We have a very special relationship with the British government,” she responded. “The issue has been communicated.”

Senior Labour Minister Chi Onwurah accused the Trump administration of attacking free speech after Rubio announced shortly before Christmas that the administration was seeking Ahmed’s deportation. “Banning people because you disagree with what they say undermines the free speech the administration claims to seek,” Onwurah said, adding that Ahmed was an articulate advocate for greater regulation of online speech.

However, internal British government documents show that Onwurah is one of Starmer’s many advisors who have been working with Ahmed on activities many consider censorship. Ahmed and Onwurah did respond to requests for comment.

Weaponizing Censorship

The Center for Countering Digital Hate grew out of the efforts of Labour Together, a think tank founded in 2015 to undermine Jeremy Corbyn, a far-left member of Parliament who led the Labour Party at the time. McSweeney, a leading figure in the organization, founded the Center around 2018 with Ahmed as a potent weapon to attack political enemies and advance narratives in the British media.

In a tactic also deployed by progressives in the U.S., the Center worked to silence voices it opposed by creating advertising blacklists to deprive disfavored media outlets of revenue. One successful campaign involved constant claims of “misinformation” and antisemitism lodged against the influential leftist news site Canary to drive away advertisers and tank their funding. “Bye birdie! Hyper-partisan fake news website The Canary is on its last legs!” tweeted British TV host and Center campaigner, Rachel Riley, celebrating a 2019 crash in The Canary’s advertising.

In 2021, Ahmed opened an office in Washington, D.C., and began working with American journalists to censor dissent and enforce political narratives friendly to Democrats and the Biden administration. The Center’s chairman is Simon Clark, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank founded by John Podesta, who ran Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

In 2021, the Center for Countering Digital Hate released a report targeting a “disinformation dozen” of critics complaining about the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine policies. This report, released by an organization founded only months earlier in the United States, received a warm reception at the White House.

At a July 2021 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki quoted from the report while claiming that Facebook was undermining federal vaccine policies. “There’s about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms,” Psaki stated. Facebook criticized the Center’s report for being free of evidence and failing to explain how they arrived at their numbers and conclusions.

One of the people included in the “disinformation dozen” was Robert Kennedy Jr., who was considering a run against President Biden in the Democrats’ 2024 primaries. The Center’s “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report specifically called for deplatforming Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and others,” wrote Secretary Rubio in his memo calling for Ahmed’s deportation.

Targeting Musk’s X

In the summer of 2023, the Center hosted a private conference in Washington for liberal groups allied with the Biden administration for the purpose of neutralizing the influence of X owner Elon Musk, who was helping to fund Trump’s presidential campaign. The list of attendees included Biden White House and State Department officials, Democratic Party congressional staffers, union leaders, the heads of several progressive foundations, and employees of the hyper-partisan website Media Matters for America. While no Republicans or conservatives appear on the roster, at least one member of the British foreign service is listed as an invited guest. Annabel Graham is a diplomat and national security professional based at the British Embassy in Washington. She previously handled the Home Office’s engagement with the U.S. and Five Eyes partners.

Working in parallel with Media Matters, the Center took aim at X’s advertisers, just as it had the British Canary. After the Center and Media Matters released reports claiming that Musk’s social media site was promoting “hate,” companies such as Disney announced they were pulling their advertising from X, triggering a crash in Musk’s profits. Disney’s CEO at the time, Bob Iger, was also a major donor to the Biden administration.

Ahmed has also worked in Brussels to influence EU censorship laws. When European regulators first began targeting X for alleged disinformation in late 2023, Ahmed celebrated on social media, implying that his organization was behind the move. “The @CCDHate has been briefing EU officials since October 7,” he wrote, “using our research on the tidal wave of hate and disinformation coming from social media.”

“X has surged to become the leading news app in every EU country, serving tens of millions of Europeans who use the platform daily to access uncensored information,” the State Department noted in its filings to deport Ahmed.  

Friends in High Places

The Center’s involvement in U.S. politics is especially fraught because of its close connections with Britain’s leaders. 

Ahmed began working hard to lobby the Labour government even before its landslide victory in July 2024. Weeks before the election, Ahmed emailed his staffers, looping them in with Josh Simons on his private Gmail to set up a meeting. “Josh is head of Labour Together and is a key person in policy for the next Labour government,” Ahmed wrote. Simons soon left the think tank to become a member of Parliament, where he is a close ally of Starmer.

The Guardian recently reported that before his election to Parliament, Simons “commissioned and reviewed a report in 2023 on journalists investigating the thinktank [Labour Together] that would help propel Keir Starmer to power.”

The Center even has its own members now operating in Parliament. One of the newly elected MPs, Kirsty McNeill, sat on the organization’s board from late 2019 until her 2024 election to Parliament. McNeill was listed in the Center’s staff handbook as a lead trustee, and the group’s mental well-being plan provided McNeill’s personal cell phone for their Mental Welfare Hotline. “Please feel free to contact Kirsty if you have any concerns about your Mental Wellbeing that is not being addressed by CCDH and/or your Line Manager.”  

Ahmed has also been working quite closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is responsible for regulating speech in the U.K., including implementing the Online Safety Act. Passed in 2023, the Act put a “range of new duties on social media companies and search services, giving them legal duties to protect their users from illegal content and content harmful to children.” The Starmer government has taken pains to hide Ahmed’s work with the department. When a British reporter asked the department to detail their relationship and work with Ahmed and the Center, it told him to file a freedom of information request.

Newly uncovered documents show that weeks after Labour won the 2024 election, Ahmed wrote to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, whom Starmer appointed as a leading Minister of the department. Ahmed introduced Jones to his work to “outline the policy areas CCDH believes are critical to delivering your forthcoming agenda.”

Ahmed highlighted that the Center had “championed the Online Safety Act since its inception,” and bragged that he was the “first witness before the draft bill committee” that had reviewed the Act. He also promised that the Center would “continue to be a critical partner to OFCOM,” the U.K. regulator charged with enforcing the censorship act.

“We welcome the opportunity to work with your office as the UK leads the charge in online safety,” Ahmed wrote.

Ahmed stepped up his lobbying in August 2024, writing once again to Jones that, “Social media platforms cannot be a haven for those looking to sow division in our communities. … Please contact for further information or to arrange a briefing with CCDH.”

Closed-Door Meeting

Heavily redacted documents show that Ahmed met personally with senior department officials in early November 2024. This meeting led to a previously unreported closed-door roundtable with Baroness Jones and other prominent politicians. Documents show that Baroness Jones personally addressed the roundtable in her role as Minister for Online Safety. Jones emailed CCDH organizers and recommended that the meeting “focus on how best we can collectively monitor the impact the [Online Safety Act] is having and identify areas – based on evidence – of where further targeted interventions are needed.” 

Last July, the department published a report which argued that the Act “does not go far enough to address the spread of harmful misinformation.”

Baroness Jones left the department to join the House of Lords in September, and the department did not respond to RCI’s request for comment.

Senior directors at OFCOM, which is assessing and enforcing the Online Safety Act, were slated to attend this meeting, as was Simons and four other Labour MPs. Simons was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the department last month. He did not return request for comment sent to his government and private email.

Another guest expected to attend the private roundtable was Chi Onwurah, the MP who defended Ahmed when Secretary Rubio announced deportation proceedings. Onwurah chairs the Science and Technology Select Committee, which has oversight of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Onwurah seems determined to obfuscate and mislead the media about her work with the Center. During a December BBC interview, she giggled when asked if the Center was a Labour Party front group that pushed through the Online Safety Act.

“The Online Safety Act was brought forward under the Conservatives and by the Conservative Party,” Onwurah told the BBC. Onwurah’s claim is a poor attempt to recast recent history.

Ahmed had, in fact, recruited at least one member of the Conservative Party. Damian Collins joined the Center in July 2020, and the British government later published a decision allowing his membership with Ahmed’s organization.

A Conservative Party MP, Collins is the original sponsor of the Online Safety Act. And the first person Collins had testify in favor of the act was Imran Ahmed, his colleague at the Center. 

After Parliament passed the Online Safety Act, which Collins and Ahmed campaigned for, Collins celebrated on X. Collins later left Parliament to join Geradin Partners in London to run the public policy practice at one of the leading law firms for digital regulation in Europe. Collins is also a director at Orbis, a firm co-founded by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Steele’s now-debunked dossier, alleging ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, helped spark years of investigation that plagued Trump's first term. 

The Trump White House has complained several times to the Starmer government about the Online Safety Act. Vice President JD Vance has said the law infringes on individual rights. When Vance accompanied an American delegationto London last August, he said the Online Safety Act is taking the Starmer government down a “very dark path” of online censorship. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 08:10

Here's What People Value Most In The US, UK, & Germany

If you had to choose just three things that matter most in life, what would they be?

Across the U.S., UK, and Germany, family and health dominate. But after that, national differences emerge. Germans lean toward security and stability. Americans stand out for money, growth, and faith. In the UK, work-life balance comes into the fold as a top priority.

The data for this visualization comes from Statista Consumer Insights. Over 1,000 adults per country were surveyed in January 2026 and asked to select up to three personal values that matter most in their lives.

Family Comes First

Family life ranks as the most important value in all three countries.

In the UK, 51% of respondents selected family as a top priority, the highest share among the three nations. Germany follows at 43%, while 42% of Americans say family matters most.

Because respondents could choose multiple answers, percentages do not sum to 100%.

Health and Security Stand Out in Germany

Germans place a particularly strong emphasis on health, with 49% identifying it as a top value.

Safety and security (30%) and freedom/independence (27%) also rank highly in Germany. Friendships, at 26%, further suggest a focus on stability and social cohesion.

Money, Growth, and Faith in the U.S.

In the United States, making money ranks relatively high at 26%, slightly above the UK (25%).

Americans are also more likely to prioritize personal growth (24%) and faith or spirituality (21%), categories that did not rank among the top responses in the UK or Germany.

Work-life balance, cited by 24% in the UK, stands out as a distinctly British priority in this comparison.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which Countries Are Diligent About Medical Check-Ups? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 07:35

Macron's India Trip Exposes EU Tech Overreach And Policy Failures

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

At times, it seems almost absurdly comical when senior European Union officials make conspicuous efforts to court local business on foreign trips. Didactic in tone, nearly arrogant in their demands toward potential trade partners, and buoyed by a taste for moral superiority, the EU takes the global stage.

It still attempts to force large parts of the world into Brussels’ doctrinal playbook—as if economic cooperation could be achieved through normative decrees.

Meanwhile, its own economic weakness is either overlooked or deliberately ignored.

Economic strength would at least provide some justification for such demands.

Yet the ongoing relocation of European industry to Asia and the United States undermines any carefully staged display of supposed superiority.

From February 17 to 19, France’s President Emmanuel Macron visited India—the newly discovered object of European diplomatic desire.

In Brussels, high hopes are pinned on Prime Minister Narendra Modi: unspoken is the goal of trade-policy support in the battle against Donald Trump’s America.

For Macron, this India trip could have been an easy diplomatic exercise—without missteps, without verbal blunders, simply by observing routine protocol.

He could have used the opportunity to study how a booming AI hub is being built. Instead, he presented his bewildered hosts with Europe’s “third way”—a performance that at best left them perplexed, likely met with a shrug.

Macron advocated for “transparent” AI focused on open-source models, strict privacy standards, and societal benefits in health, education, and especially climate protection. Initiatives like “Current AI,” an EU-funded €2.5 billion project to finance nonprofit activities, confirm what is already obvious: Brussels still believes technological innovation can be decreed by the state.

But new technologies do not emerge administratively or via bureaucratically managed grants. Innovation thrives where free markets operate, entrepreneurship takes risks, and open capital markets enable customer-oriented value creation.

For Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, and Ursula von der Leyen, this insight may seem like a dangerously heretical lesson. Yet it describes nothing more than the only viable civilizational path: an open self-discovery process that allows mistakes, does not stigmatize risk, and provides bold pioneers real opportunities—essentially turning EU policy upside down.

European policy has little interest in fostering genuine open-source dynamics—even if desirable for a flourishing market economy. Rather, the impression solidifies that state control mechanisms are being secured: through regulatory backdoors, software tools, and laws like the Digital Services Act—with the aim of steering markets and, above all, controlling public discourse.

Macron delivered perhaps his most revealing remarks before students in New Delhi at the AI Impact Summit. He lamented the lack of control over platforms like Elon Musk’s X and spoke of missing transparency. A “jungle” had arisen in which no one knew who was saying what, algorithms were beyond state reach. In this context, he called appeals to freedom of speech “bullshit”—a striking moment of candor that accurately reflects the stance of much of the EU’s political elite.

They are engaged in an open struggle with citizens—at least with the portion who see themselves as the true sovereign and view politics as representation within a democratic state, not an educational disciplinary apparatus. Macron, however, seems convinced he can use aggressive opinion control to postpone both the collapse of his minority government and the looming state insolvency—at least until his own political exit is secured.

Back in wintry Germany, his counterpart Friedrich Merz struck a similar note. At a CDU Ash Wednesday event in Trier, the chancellor outlined his vision for future communication platforms: real-name requirements and digital identities for youth. Translated, this means nothing less than the gradual end of online anonymity—a space that has so far been essential for opposition voices and political coordination.

The pressure to act grows: month after month, the European economy loses substance—regardless of, or precisely because of, the intensity of state intervention in the shrinking remnants of the continent’s once-proud social market economy.

The gap between aspiration and reality in Europe was recently on display at the Munich Security Conference. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas presented Brussels’ demands toward Russia as a basis for potential peace talks. Moscow must make substantial compromises—limiting forces, cutting the military budget, and recognizing Ukraine’s pre-2022 borders. Territorial concessions or legitimizing occupied areas are out of the question. Sanctions and future use of frozen Russian assets, particularly via Euroclear, remain leverage.

A reminder: Russia’s de facto dominance in the Ukraine conflict is measured not least by its effects on Europe—ongoing energy crises across much of the continent and the visible erosion of the European economy. That Europeans weren’t even at the table in recent pre-negotiations for a peace deal is a diplomatic humiliation. Yet even this does not seem enough to fundamentally question their strategy or objectively assess reality.

Instead, growing elite resentment is increasingly directed inward. Citizens expressing dissatisfaction and supporting nationally sovereign political forces fall under scrutiny. This reflects a fear of competition that might effectively challenge what is perceived as coercive EU policy.

Upcoming state elections will reveal just how resilient the firewall really is—one that delivers more mass migration, digital censorship, and the construction of a green-military socialism.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/21/2026 - 07:00

Is It Time To Reopen The Franklin Child Prostitution Case After Epstein Revelations?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

The seriousness of a conspiracy can often be quantified by the amount of energy the establishment expends trying to bury it. Consider for a moment the fact that Jeffery Epstein’s monstrous club of elites faced near zero mainstream exposure for over 20 years, despite his arrest for human trafficking in 2006.

Think about the level of political and media interference, the highly organized propaganda, the targeted attacks against conspiracy researchers – Think about the amount of money and time that was expended just to shut us up and convince the public the Epstein situation was “overblown”.

The revelations of the “Lolita Express” and the flights to Little Saint James Island are nothing compared to what we now find in the millions of documents released in the past month. Hints of rape, torture, possible murder, and even cannibalism are present in the coded (and not so coded) language of Epstein’s emails. And, if the revelations of “Pizzagate” and the John Podesta emails are correct, then many of the horrors committed on Epstein’s Island involved young children.

As I noted in my last article, Epstein’s private emails contain coded references to “pizza” (an FBI confirmed code used by pedophiles to describe young boys) over 900 times. They mention “jerky” over 380 times, including mentions of “freezing jerky”, “walking” jerky from one location to another, and getting jerky tested in a lab for “safety”.

The establishment machine is going into panic mode, once again trying to obcure the darker aspects of the Epstein files as “conspiracy theory” and “moral panic”. There is a clear attempt being made to mitigate and run damage control.

In other words, the elites are willing to give up the fight on the issue of underage sex trafficking. They know that the abuse of teens will not trigger enough outrage to get them killed by mobs of angry citizens. However, they are DESPERATE to silence any discussion on the abuse of very young children including babies. They will do anything to prevent the investigation from escalating to issues of cannibalism and occultism.

As long as the public thinks it was all about rich and powerful perverts getting their jollies with 16 and 17-year-old girls, the elites think they can weather the storm. After all, in most states the age of consent is 16. They might even be able to convince a large percentage of the populace that those girls did those things “of their own free will.”

I can already see them generating the spin in the event that any of the perpetrators actually go to trial. By the time it’s over, people will be questioning if anything criminal happened at all? That’s how the system works. It demands that the public ignore the obvious and wait for official confirmation of guilt, which rarely ever comes when oligarchs are involved.

I would continue to warn people NOT to put too much hope in the notion that any of the Epstein suspects will face legitimate legal consequences. Just look at how many corrupt judges we have encountered in the US when it comes to the immigration issue. Now imagine the army of left wing judges that will slither out of the woodwork to protect Epstein’s clients.

The Epstein case does not represent a silver bullet for eliminating the elites and their cabal, but it does represent a moment of mass awakening that cannot be stopped. Never before have conspiracy analysts been so close to exposing the reality of the “New World Order” to the normies. It creates a pathway to other opportunities, including reopening conspiracy events that were buried by the establishment a long time ago.

One such conspiracy of evil from the past stands out to me as directly related to the Epstein case, and I think it should be reexamined in light of the release of the Epstein files.

The Franklin Child Prostitution Case

In Omaha, Nebraska in the 1980s, a child sex abuse scandal was uncovered which involved high profile politicians and business moguls. The central figure, Lawrence King Jr, was a GOP favorite and the manager of the Franklin Federal Credit Union, an institution which would eventually be caught up in an embezzlement investigation.

He was accused of hosting lavish parties where minors were sexually abused and ritual occultism was practiced.

Victims, often from foster care or a regional Boys Town orphanage, alleged they were tricked into recruitment, then flown to locations like Washington, D.C. for exploitation by high-ranking individuals, including politicians, businessmen, and law enforcement. Key accusers included Alisha Owen, Paul Bonacci, and Troy Boner. They claimed the existence of an elitist network engaged in ritualistic practices, drug use, and coercion.

The accusers faced extreme pressure to recant. Alisha Owen was imprisoned for “perjury” by a grand jury – She never recanted her story. Troy Boner recanted due to threats of legal ramifications, then returned to assert that everything he originally said was true after the untimely death of investigator Gary Candori. Boner died mysteriously at the age of 36 in Texas in 2003 with no public information on the cause.

Paul Bonacci would go on to win a civil case against Lawrence King and received a $1 million default judgment for child abuse. King failed to defend the case and the judge found Bonacci’s claims to be credible.

Gary Caradori, a private investigator hired in August 1989 by the Nebraska Legislature’s special “Franklin Committee” to look into evidence of child exploitation, conducted extensive interviews. He gathered over 21 hours of videotaped testimony from alleged victims like Alisha Owen, Paul Bonacci, and others. He uncovered what he described as breakthrough evidence, including photographs and leads implicating prominent individuals.

In 1990, Candori died along with his 8-year-old son while flying his single engine plane over Illinois. The plane reportedly “disintegrated in mid-air” and the wreckage was found strewn across a field near Ashton in Lee County. The FAA ultimately ruled that the incident was “accidental.”

The Buried Documentary

In 1993 a 60 minute documentary called “Conspiracy Of Silence” was produced by a UK company called Yorkshire Television for the Discovery Channel. The production focused on the investigations of John Decamp, a US Army Captain, lawyer and former aide to CIA Director William Colby (who also mysteriously died by “drowning” in the Wicomico river near his home in 1996).

Decamp was a Republican legislator in Nebraska at the time the Franklin case broke. He asserted that the claims of abuse were true, and that the politicians involved had ties to the Iran/Contra drug running scandal.

He also named five prominent local officials and businessmen, including:

• Harold Andersen: Publisher of the Omaha World-Herald newspaper (frequently cited as central to the alleged cover-up; DeCamp accused the paper of bias and suppression).

• Alan Baer: A wealthy Omaha businessman (indicted on pandering charges in 1990 related to the scandal, though not directly for child abuse; he pleaded to lesser charges).

• Robert Wadman: Former Omaha Police Chief (accused in victim testimonies of involvement; he denied it and sued over the claims).

• Peter Citron: A former World-Herald columnist (convicted in 1990 on separate child sexual assault charges; linked in allegations to the network).

• Lawrence E. “Larry” King Jr.: The Franklin Credit Union manager (central figure; convicted on financial embezzlement but never on abuse charges).

These figures were named for alleged involvement in procuring child victims for political elites in Washington DC, or for covering up the crimes.

The Discovery documentary focused on this thread as well as interviews with the victims, then outlined the government and media suppression campaign that was used to threaten them. It was set to air in May of 1994, but it was abruptly pulled weeks before broadcast, apparently due to pressure from political officials in the US. All master copies were ordered destroyed.

The only reason we know about its existence is because some anonymous hero released a rough edit to a lawyer involved in the case.  The full documentary can be VIEWED HERE.

The suppression of this documentary is clear evidence of a conspiracy. At the time, the majority of accusations surrounding the Franklin case were dismissed by the media as “Satanic Panic.” This is a narrative that has also been used to dismiss the darker crimes behind the Epstein case and others. It is time to crush this lie and expose these people for what they truly are.

Furthermore, it’s time to acknowledge the fact that ritual child abuse has been happening in the shadows, in dark and grotesque places, for many decades and long before Epstein. His island is only one of many elitist retreats where such evils are practiced. Esptein was merely a middle-man in a much larger network of pedophiles and luciferians that have operated with impunity for generations.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 23:25